Snow in Halacha

By Rabbi Joshua Flug

For technical information regarding use of .this document, press ctrl and click here

I. II.

Introduction- This shiur outline will highlight some issues in halacha relating to snow. There is room to expand on each of the issues. What is the halachic status of snow? a. Normally, solid food items are categorized as and liquid foods are categorized are categorized as .Snow and other frozen items are unique in that they will turn to liquid (when one is eating indoors) and will be ingested as a liquid. b. The Beraisa states that snow is not considered an or .However, if one designates it as a drink, it is . This is not true if one designates it as a food. {} c. There are two reasons why designation as drink is effective and designation as food is not: i. Rashi (1040-1105) writes that the properties of snow are more similar to drinks than to foods. {} ii. The Tosefta has similar discussions about other items that can be classified as food or drinks such as congealed blood and honey, and implies that the issue is one of what it considered normal. One can apply the same logic to snow and suggest that it is normal to consider it a drink, but not normal to consider it a food. {} d. This discussion becomes relevant to whether ice cream or ices are considered a food or drink. i. There are a number of practical differences between the two categories: 1. The shiur for beracha acharona on foods is . The shiur for drinks is . If these items are foods, one would normally recite a beracha acharona and if not, one would not. 2. One only recites berachos on desserts at the end of bread meals on foods, not drinks. e. There is a machlokes between R. Moshe Stern (1914-1997) and his brother R. Betzalel Stern (d. 1989): i. R. Moshe Stern focuses on the idea in the Tosefta that it depends on what is considered normal. He suggests that since people consider ice cream to be more of a liquid than a solid, and that people ingest it the way people ingest drinks, it is considered a drink. {} ii. R. Betzalel Stern focuses on Rashi's idea and therefore distinguishes between ice cream and ices. Ices are primarily water and therefore, are considered a drink. Ice cream has other ingredients and is not just frozen milk. Therefore, it might be considered a food. {}

iii. R. Hershel Schachter writes that the consistency is not necessarily a factor. It is only considered a drink if it is beverage, i.e., people ingest it because they are thirsty. If it is eaten as food, even if it is liquid, it is considered food. {} III. Use of Snow for a Mikveh: a. The Mishna quotes a machlokes as to whether snow can be used to fill a mikveh. We follow the opinion that it may be used. {} i. Rabbeinu Asher (c. 1250-1327) writes that the chiddush of the Mishna is that one can even used snow that was collected in a bucket to fill the mikveh. If this were water, it would be considered and the mikveh would be pasul. {} 1. Rabbeinu Asher notes that one must include enough snow so that when the snow melts, the mikveh will still contain the requisite 40 se'ah. ii. Ra'avad (c. 1125-1198) is not as lenient regarding making a mikveh out of snow. He writes that majority of the mikveh must be filled with actual water. Even after the snow melts, it doesn't count towards this majority. {} b. Mordechai (1250-1298) quotes a machlokes regarding tevilah in the snow: {} i. Rabbeinu Simcha rules based on the Mishna that one can tovel in the snow. ii. R. Eliezer rules that the Mishna does not permit tevilah in the snow and the Mishna is only dealing with the kashrus of the mikveh after the snow melts. One cannot tovel in the snow because there is no way to immerse in snow. iii. Note that the case that Mordechai is dealing with is one where a husband forced his wife to tovel in the snow. Ostensibly, she didn't want to go to the mikveh and he took matters into his own hands. Although Mordechai doesn't address the pastoral component of this question and that rabbi who was asked this question should have reprimanded the husband for doing such a thing, there is no reason to assume that the rabbi didn't deal with that aspect. This section of the Mordechai deals with halachos relating to snow and not with spousal abuse. For the record, Mordechai, Kesuvos no 186, does come down hard on spousal abuse and Beis Yosef, Even HaEzer no 154, quotes Rabbeinu Simcha as saying: ) :( ) : " " ( . " . " c. Shulchan Aruch follows Rabbeinu Asher over the opinion of Ra'avad and one may make a mikveh entirely out of snow as long as there is enough snow that when it melts, there will still be forty se'ah. {}

i. Rama (1520-1572) quotes the machlokes that Mordechai presents regarding tevilah in snow and follows the lenient opinion, , however, writes that one should be stringent. ii. R. Shabsai Kohen (Shach 1621-1662) writes that one should be concerned for the opinion of Ra'avad and prohibit making a mikveh totally out of snow. {} iii. Mishna Berurah writes that if one is in a pressing situation, it is permissible to tovel one's hands in the snow for tevilas (netilas) yadayim as long as the snow covers one's hands. {} IV. Dealing with snow on Shabbos [Note: R. Dovid Sukenik is currently writing an article on snow removal on Shabbos. If you would like to see a draft, you can contact him at drsukenik@gmail.com.] a. Is snow muktzeh? i. Tosafos suggest that water from rain on Shabbos is the most stringent form of nolad because it is a completely new entity and is therefore muktzeh. {} 1. R. Yosef Teomim (P'ri Megadim, 1727-1792) codifies this as a matter of halacha. {} ii. The Beraisa states that it is prohibited to crush snow on Shabbos but one may place it in a cup to melt. The Beraisa doesn't state anything about muktzeh, implying that it is even permissible to place snow that fell on Shabbos into a cup. {} 1. Mishna Berurah rules explicitly that if rain falls on Shabbos, the water is not muktzeh. The same would apply to snow. {} [This does not necessarily mean that one may make snowballs or snow characters, which is beyond the scope of this shiur outline.] b. Is it permissible to cause snow to melt? i. We just quoted the Beraisa that one may not crush snow with one's hand, but one may place it in a cup of liquid to melt. 1. Rabbeinu Nissim (1320-1376) writes that many Rishonim are of the opinion that the issue is a form of sechitah and that is why it is only prohibited if one does so with one's hands. {} 2. Mordechai writes that the issue is nolad/molid and therefore, it is prohibited to place something that will melt near a heat source. The permissibility to place ice in a cup is based on the fact that the snow melts into another liquid and therefore, there is no issue of nolad/molid. {} ii. R. Ya'akov ben Asher (1269-1343) quotes the opinion of Maharam that it is permissible to urinate in the snow because it is similar to walking in the snow.

He then quotes Rabbeinu Asher who prohibited urinating in the snow because the urine will certainly melt the snow. {} 1. The machlokes seems to be about whether melting snow is only an issue if one does so directly. iii. R. Moshe Stern discusses placing salt on the snow to melt it. He writes that it is permissible. It is not similar to urinating in the snow because when one urinates, the melted snow is clearly visible, but when one melts it with salt, the water and snow are still mixed together. In that sense, it is similar to placing snow into a cup of water. {} V. The Obligation to Remove Snow a. Rambam (1138-1204) writes that the mitzvah of ma'akeh includes removing all potentially lethal obstacles from one's property. {} i. Sefer HaChinuch adds that even if they are not potentially lethal, but can cause someone to get hurt, one must remove them. {} b. The Gemara states that a "chasid" is someone who is very meticulous to make sure that nobody gets hurt because of them. {} c. The Torah states that there is a category of nezek called "bor" and if one fails to cover a pit, one must pay for the resulting damage. {} Here is a summary of relevant halachos: i. Rambam writes that a hazard that can cause damage is a of bor and one is similarly responsible for those hazards. {} ii. Rambam writes that water can be a form of bor, even if it is absorbed into the ground. {} iii. Rambam writes that one is responsible for a bor on one's property even if he didn't dig it. If it is the result of something natural or an animal caused it, one is still responsible. {} iv. If one puts these ideas together, one can be held liable for not shoveling the snow on one's property.

5. :

1. .

2. " .

3. :

6. '

4. " :

7. :

" :

21.

8. " ' '

9. , : 31.

' .

41. , 01.

, : 51. ' ' ' " " " . : 61. ' "

11.

" :

12.

71.

" :

81.

" ' :

22.

'

91.

'

32. ' 02.

42.

 :-

52.

" ' :

62.

" ' :

72.

" ' :

82.