As we have learned, halakha permits uprooting fruit trees that seriously harm people, whether by attracting gnats or by damaging sewage pipes. It is also permitted to uproot fruit trees in order to build a home in their place or expand one. Still, the matter is not simple. There is a tradition that anyone who uproots a fruit tree brings danger upon himself, as R. Ḥanina said: “My son did not die before his time except because he cut down a fig tree before its time” (Bava Kama 91b). According to most poskim, this danger applies only when one uproots a tree contrary to halakha; when halakha permits the uprooting, there is no danger.
Some poskim, however, understood that even in cases where halakha permits uprooting a fruit tree, one who does so brings danger upon himself. The most direct basis for this view is the ethical will of R. Yehuda He-ḥasid, one of the great early Ashkenazic kabbalists, who warned against uprooting fruit trees. Some were very concerned about all his warnings and maintained that anyone who violates them brings danger upon himself (She’elat Ya’avetz 1:76; Ḥayim Be-yad 24). For this reason, some rabbis were cautious and hesitated to permit uprooting a fruit tree even when it was permitted by halakha. Many recommended, as an added precaution, that the uprooting be done by a non-Jew, who is not prohibited from uprooting a fruit tree, thereby protecting the Jew from danger. [7]
[7]. The position of most poskim is clear: the danger applies only when one uproots a tree contrary to halakha. Therefore, the Rishonim addressed the halakhic question and did not discuss danger. This is also the position of Taz YD 116:6; Ḥida in Ḥayim Sha’al 1:23; Binyan Tziyon 1:61; SA Harav; Ḥikrei Lev; Arukh ha-Shulḥan 116:13; and many others. Those who are concerned about danger even when the matter is permitted by halakha include Tzava’at R. Yehuda He-ḥasid 45; She’elat Ya’avetz 1:76; and Ḥayim Be-yad 24. Some maintain that the concern for danger is relevant only when the owner of the tree has genuine reasons to uproot it, such as personal suffering, but those reasons do not appear justified to the public (Divrei Ḥayim II, YD 127; Maharshag 1:24).
Regarding uprooting by a non-Jew: According to one view, the Sages prohibited asking a non-Jew to act on behalf of a Jew only when the act is prohibited by Torah law and punishable by death (Ra’avad). Most poskim, however, maintain that the Sages prohibited asking a non-Jew to perform any Torah prohibition on behalf of a Jew. Accordingly, a Jew may not ask a non-Jew to uproot a fruit tree that may not be uprooted according to halakha. But when there is doubt whether the tree may be uprooted, the prohibition against asking a non-Jew is rabbinic (shevut), and in such a doubtful case one may be lenient (as explained in Peninei Halakha: Shevi’it 5:9, note 9). Similarly, when the fruit tree may be uprooted according to the letter of the law, there is no concern for danger if a non-Jew is asked to do it. For this reason, many poskim recommended that even where one may uproot the tree, it is preferable to have it done by a non-Jew.
