Ask the Rabbi: Depriving a Tree of Water | Rabbi Daniel Mann | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions

קטגוריה משנית

Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Question: We have quite old grapevines, with low-quality, often infested grapes, which fall and make a mess; it is not worth our while to keep them. May we stop watering them so they will die and we can get rid of them?

Answer: According to our research, your idea is unlikely to bring the results you expect. Namely, mature grapevines generally survive without irrigation (Hashem gave trees great survival "skills"), although lack of water is among conditions that will decrease yield. Possibly, if you learn how to improve your care for the vines, you can still enjoy the grapes and want to keep them. However, we are not experts, and in any case, "to each his own." We will investigate your question, first according to your assumptions, and then deal with practical halachic advice.
While it is forbidden to be destructive with anything of value (bal tashchit), destroying a fruit tree (including a grapevine) is more severe and forbidden more broadly than other objects (see Bava Kama 91b; Rambam, Melachim 6:8). The Rambam (ibid., based on Sifrei, Devarim 203) rules that it is forbidden not only to cut down a fruit tree but even to divert water flowing to it in order to dry it up. There are different opinions as to how severe a sin it is to divert the water (see Etz Hasadeh 1:4).
What you are asking about is more lenient than the Rambam’s case, as the Rambam discusses a case where the damager performs an action, albeit one which brings on the damages indirectly. You ask about refraining from doing something that is critical for the tree’s survival. On the other hand, you are refraining from something basic and with intention to kill the tree.
Contemporary poskim cite on the withholding of water with the intention to dry up a tree from a compilation of the Chazon Ish on the Rambam. He writes (on Rambam ibid.) that it is permitted to withhold water. Since the Torah forbids destruction, lack of action, by not providing, cannot be included. The Chazon Ish claims that this is compelling because the Torah forbids destruction equally if done by the owner or someone else, and it is inconceivable that someone other than the owner would be required to provide water. Shevet Halevi (VI:112) claims that it is common practice for those who want to cut down a tree to first kill it by withholding water. We note, though, that the Chazon Ish says that it is still objectionable (not bal tashchit), to withhold water if there is no need for it.

Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions (626)

Rabbi Daniel Mann

637 - Ask the Rabbi: Having a Non-Jew Build a Sukka and Assemble Arba’a Minim

638 - Ask the Rabbi: Depriving a Tree of Water

639 - Ask the Rabbi: Mincha after Sunset

Let us consider, though, the likelihood that withholding the water will not quickly or reliably kill the tree but will reduce the yield further. The gemara (Bava Kama 91b) gives minimum yields of dates and olives, under which it is likely permitted to cut down the trees. Grapes are not listed, and there are different opinions about whether there is a minimum amount and what it is, and whether it is fully permitted in such a case (see Rosh, Bava Kama 8:15; Etz Hasadeh 3:(11)). In general, when it is unclear whether a tree counts as a viable fruit tree, we are stringent (Shut Chatam Sofer, Yoreh Deah 102). More fundamentally, if a tree has the potential to be viable and is not presently because of neglect or mistakes, it likely cannot be cut down due to its potential (see Etz Hasadeh 3:5). Therefore, for your system to work, the tree would have to clearly reach the point of no return, possibly when it is dead.
We have discussed elsewhere (Living the Halachic Process I, H-10; ibid. VI, G-13) when need (for space, damage from tree) permits cutting down a tree. You do not sound close to that, although it might be enough for the Chazon Ish’s leniency for killing it by not watering. Additionally, since lack of watering does not generally kill a mature vine, how could it be forbidden for you to withhold the water, especially if watering requires you to spend time and money on vines from which you do not get benefit?
In summary, you are not required to water the vines but due to botanical and halachic reasons, it is unlikely that this will enable you to uproot them anytime soon.

Bemare Habazak - Rabbis Questions