web analytics
January 31, 2015 / 11 Shevat, 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.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Jeremy Bird, working for Israeli campaign outfit V15, shown at Ted Talk, May 20, 2014.
V15 US Political Operative Marinated in Hate-Israel Activism
Latest Judaism Stories
Staum-013015

People often think that all they are missing is “just a little more” and then they can be truly happy.

Torah-Hakehillah-121914

The Midrash is teaching a fundamental message of what it means to be a religious person.

Rabbi Sacks

Torah opposes slavery; G-d desires the free worship of free human beings, yet slavery’s permitted-?!

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis

France allowed Islamists to flourish despite their loyalty to Islamic sharia law not French values

Approximately 18 years ago, my uncle called me into his office saying he had an urgent matter to discuss. I didn’t know what he had in mind.

“Where is God?” asked the Kotzker Rebbe “God is not everywhere but only where you let Him enter”

An Explosion In The Trench
‘With A Glowing Hot Knife’
(Yevamos 120b)

Her first tactic was tefillah; she immediately began to recite one perek after another of Tehillim.

When a miracle occurs that transcends nature, Hashem has broken the laws of nature to create the miracle.

“How could you have expected my glasses to be there?” argued Mr. Weiss. “You shouldn’t have to pay.”

Rather than submit to this fate and suffer torture and humiliation, Shaul decided to fall on his sword.

How can the Da’as Zekeinim say this was Hashem’s plan to allow them to become the Torah Nation? We know it was actually a punishment.

A strange midrash of fruit trees surrounding the Nation of Israel as they walked to freedom

Leading by example must be visible, regarding where, when and how-like Nachshon entering the Red Sea

Rabbi Yaakov Nagen, a Ram at Yeshivat Otniel, notes that the verse is suggesting that retelling the story of the Exodus is so important that Hashem is performing ever-greater miracles specifically so that parents can tell their stories to future generations.

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

Rather than submit to this fate and suffer torture and humiliation, Shaul decided to fall on his sword.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

And if a person can take steps to perform the mitzvah, he should do so (even if he won’t be held accountable for not performing it due to circumstances beyond his control).

The Brisker Rav suggests that the barad, in fact, only fell on people, animals, and vegetation.

Why is it necessary to perform an aveirah punishable by lashes in order to be deemed a legal rashah and be pasul l’eidus m’d’Oraisa?

Why was Yaakov not afraid that granting Yosef’s sons the status of shevatim would cause jealousy among his children?

Rav Akiva Eiger is assuming that the logic of the halacha that both the son and his mother are obligated to honor his father and therefore he must honor his fathers wishes first, is a mathematical equation.

It is clear that Tosafos maintains that only someone who lives in a house must light Chanukah candles.

But how could there have been any validity to Yosef’s allegations?

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

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: