web analytics
April 28, 2015 / 9 Iyar, 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Cutting Down Fruit Trees

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

This column is dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

The Rambam is of the opinion that a safek is permitted min haTorah. The rabbanan forbade one to take a chance and do something that is a safek issur. Many Rishonim disagree with this ruling and say that a safek is forbidden min haTorah. The Rishonim ask on the Rambam’s opinion from many places in Shas. The Acharonim are bothered because there is a pasuk in this week’s parshah, which they feel is a question on the Rambam and also that the Rishonim do not ask from it. Regarding the prohibition against cutting down a fruit tree, the pasuk in Devarim 20:20 says, “Only a tree that you are certain is not a fruit tree may you cut down.” Why does one have to know with certainty that a tree is not fruit bearing? Even if he is in doubt, it should be permitted according to the Rambam’s opinion that a safek is permitted min haTorah.

Some Acharonim suggest that this question can be avoided by looking at how the Rambam himself learns this pasuk. In Hilchos Melachim 6:9, the Rambam says that a non-fruit bearing tree may be cut down even if one does not need it. Similarly, a tree that used to bear a lot of fruit and now only bears a few fruit – not enough to make it worthwhile to pick – may be cut down as well. The Kesef Mishneh there explains that the source for the halacha of the Rambam is a braisa in Baba Kama that derives from the extra words in the pasuk in this week’s parshah, “that you are certain that it is not a fruit bearing tree,” that the tree used to bear many fruit and now does not bear enough. Based on this they suggest that we can answer the question on the Rambam. Because once a tree was established as a fruit-bearing tree, it has a chazakah that it will remain as such. The only way that one will be able to cut down such a tree is if he knows with certainty that it is not bearing fruit, or enough fruit, any longer.

The Chasam Sofer, in Baba Kama, suggests another answer. He says that since there are many fruit trees in the world, one cannot rely on the general rule that a safek is permitted min haTorah. This is because although there are far more non-fruit bearing trees in the world, the fruit-bearing trees are kavuah (set in their place). Therefore one may not cut down a tree unless he is certain that it is not fruit bearing.

This is similar to a scenario whereby there are two stores, one that sells kosher meat and the other that sells non-kosher meat. If meat was brought from one of them and we are unsure from which one, even the Rambam agrees that one may not eat the meat – even min haTorah. This is because it is ikvah issurah (the issur is established). The Rambam only says that one may rely on a safek min haTorah when the issur is not definitely there. If one of the possibilities is definitely an issur, one may not rely on the safek.

The Chasam Sofer then asks this question on the pasuk’s necessity: Why would we think that one could cut down a tree if he is unsure whether it is fruit bearing? Since it is both ikvah issurah and kavuah, it should be obvious that it is forbidden. He answers that perhaps we need the pasuk because if one assumes that a tree is not fruit bearing it is not an act of destruction, and thus should be permitted. Therefore the Torah tells us that it is nonetheless forbidden.

I would suggest that the question doesn’t begin here; on the contrary the question is on the other Rishonim. The Torah is allowed to decree that in certain areas we should make an exception to the general rule and not allow one to rely on a safek. Regarding the prohibition of cutting down fruit trees, the Torah says that we should not rely on the general rule of safek de’oraisa lekulah; rather, one must know with certainty that it is not fruit bearing before cutting it down. If one is unsure, he may not cut down the tree. According to the Rishonim who opine that a safek mi’de’oraisa is always forbidden, why does the Torah need to write a pasuk that says that one may not cut down a tree when he is unsure whether it is a fruit-bearing tree? Shouldn’t we already know this by applying the general rule of safek de’oraisa lechumrah (every safek must be ruled as forbidden)?

As to the question on the other Rishonim we can extend the answer of the Chasam Sofer, namely that since when one is cutting the tree he is under the impression that it is not a fruit-bearing tree, it is therefore not an act of hashchasah (destruction) and so one might have thought that in this scenario one could say safek de’oraisa likulah. Therefore the Torah had to write that one may not cut down a tree unless he is certain that it is not fruit bearing.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Cutting Down Fruit Trees”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
UNRWA Rocket Logo
UNRWA Chutzpa
Latest Judaism Stories
“Thou shall not reap all the way to the edges of thy field.”

Putting parents before oneself is a step toward putting the more abstract concept of God before self

Torat-Hakehillah-logo-NEW

In her diary, Anne Frank wrote words that provided hope for a humanity faced with suffering.

Leff-042415

The Arizal taught this same approach, making the point that the Torah would never mention wicked people and their sins if there was not great depth involved from which we are to learn from.

Staum-042415

Humility is not achieved when all is well and life is peachy but rather when times are trying and challenging.

In order to be free of the negative consequences of violating a shvu’ah or a neder, the shvu’ah or neder themselves must be annulled.

“I accept the ruling,” said Mr. Broyer, “but would like to understand the reasoning.”

He feared the people would have a change of heart and support Rechavam.

Ramifications Of A Printers Error
‘The Note Holder’s Burden of Proof’
(Kesubos 83b)

Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.

M. Goldman
(Via E-mail)

In this case one could reason that by applying halach achar harov we could permit the forbidden bird as well.

“What a way to spend a Sunday afternoon,” my husband remarked. “Well, baruch Hashem we are safe, there was no accident, and I’m sure there is a good reason for everything that happened to us,” I mused.

The answer to this question is based on one of the greatest shortcomings of man – self-limiting beliefs.

Myth that niddah=dirty stopped many women from accepting laws of family purity and must be shattered

In every generation is the challenge to purge the culture of our exile from our minds and our hearts

Rabbi Fohrman connects the metzora purification process with the korban pesach.

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

In this case one could reason that by applying halach achar harov we could permit the forbidden bird as well.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

Why would it not be sufficient to simply state lehoros from which we derive that in such a state one may not issue any psak?

The Netziv answered that there is a difference between a piece of bread that was cut already in front of you, and one that was cut from beforehand.

Why is it necessary to invite people to eat from the korban Pesach?

The Ran asks why the Gemara concludes that since we are unsure which two of the four we must recline for, that we must recline for all four.

The Chasam Sofer answers that one of only prohibited from wearing a garment that contains shatnez if he does so while wearing the garment for pleasure purposes.

The Aruch Laner asks: How can Rashi say that the third Beis Hamikdash will descend as fire from heaven when every Jew prays several times a day for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash?

The Ohr Hachayim rules that one may not manipulate the system; rather he must state his opinion as he see the ruling in the case; not as he would like the outcome of the verdict to become.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/cutting-down-fruit-trees/2013/08/07/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: