04 When Uprooting Serves a Greater Need

The Torah frames the prohibition around the act of destruction: “You shall not destroy its tree” (Devarim 20:19). This teaches that when uprooting is not done for the sake of destruction, but for a constructive purpose whose value is far greater than the tree itself, there is no prohibition, since this is not considered destruction (Bava Kama 91b). Therefore, one may uproot fruit trees in order to build a home in their place, or in order to expand a synagogue or mikveh.

Some permit it only for a genuine, essential need, such as when a growing family has made the home too cramped. But for comfort or luxury – such as expanding a balcony when there is no real need or redesigning a garden – they maintain that one may not uproot fruit trees. Others permit it for any significant purpose that would be considered a need among the wealthy, even redesigning a garden or expanding the open space in the garden for strolling.

In practice, it appears that one who wishes to be lenient and uproot a tree for beauty or luxury has authorities on whom to rely, provided that he weighs the matter carefully and waits before deciding, so that he can be certain that this is a genuine desire and not a passing one. It is proper to have the uprooting done by a non-Jew.[5]

At times, orchard owners wish to uproot their fruit trees in order to plant other trees or vegetables in their place. Since the orchard was planted for livelihood, the financial calculation is central. If the orchard has reached a point where it is no longer worthwhile to maintain it, such as when the cost of upkeep exceeds the value of the fruit, then even though each tree produces far more than a kav per year, it is clear that one may uproot the orchard’s trees and plant in their place trees that can reasonably be expected to generate profit. However, if the orchard is still profitable, but the owner believes that he would earn far more by uprooting the trees and planting others in their place, the matter must be weighed carefully. He should consult knowledgeable people and ask a halakhic authority. Only if it becomes clear that there is indeed a high likelihood that uprooting will lead to significant profit may the authority rule that the trees may be uprooted.

When saplings were initially planted densely, with the intention that they would be spread out over the area once they developed, there is no prohibition against moving them elsewhere, since the transfer is for the sake of the trees. One may also thin out some of the saplings so that the neighboring saplings can develop properly. When one tree harms another, it is permitted to uproot the less beneficial tree, as will be explained in the next section.


[5]. Rosh (Bava Kama 8:15) writes that when the space occupied by the tree is needed, it may be uprooted. Rambam and Rabbenu Yeroḥam write similarly. On this basis, Taz 116:6 permits uprooting a fruit tree in order to expand a dwelling. Some maintain that this leniency is limited to an essential need. Thus, Ḥavot Ya’ir 195 writes that it applies specifically to residential needs, but not to expanding one’s yard or creating space for strolling. This is also the view of She’elat Ya’avetz 1:76, Zivḥei Tzedek, and Arukh ha-Shulḥan 116:13. Others maintain that the leniency extends to any need commonly recognized by people. This is the view of Mahari Basan 101, Ḥida in Ḥayim Sha’al 1:22, She’elat Shalom, and others. In any event, when the act is done by a non-Jew, the prohibition is rabbinic, and some maintain that it is even permitted; see Peninei Halakha: Shemita Ve-yovel 5, note 9. When there is no place to build a sukka unless one uproots a fruit tree, one may uproot the tree for the sake of the mitzva. In addition, the value of the place needed for the sukka is greater than the value of the fruit tree; see Har Tzvi, OḤ 2:102.
Peninei Halakha We use cookies to ensure the website functions properly and improve user experience. You can choose which types of cookies to enable.
Cookie Selection