Paddle Boarding on Yom Tov

This activity seems to fall under the category of shevut, viz., activities though not specifically prohibited by Scripture or Tradition, the Rabbis prohibited nonetheless, deeming them inconsistent with the sacred ambiance of Shabbat and Yom Tov. (For the special status of these decrees, see Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 21.1 re  Exod. 23:12 and Maggid Mishnehvthereon re Ramban on Exod. 23:12). These activities are prohibited in order to protect thisvsacred ambiance (see Avot 1.2; Yevamot 21a re Eccl. 12:9 and Lev. 18:30).

One of these prohibited activities is “floating (shatin) on the surface of water” (Mishnah Betsah 5.2) Now the reason given for this prohibition (Bavli Betsah 36b) is “lest (shema) one make a rafting device (havit shel sheitin).” Thus the prohibition is qualified, i.e., “floating” per se is not prohibited, but rather the prohibition is because of the likelihood of making or repairing (Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat, 23.5: “shema yetakken”) of a flotation device (especially an inflatable one) that this activity might very likely require (Rashi: “havit;” Tosafot: “shema”). A further qualification of this prohibition is that it is limited to floating in an open pool (breikhah) whose water might be splashed (i.e., transferred) from one domain (reshut) to another. However, if this is not a concern on Shabbat because the pool is “like an enclosed container” (Shabbat 40b-41a and Rashi: “afilu” and “de-leit;” Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 339.2; also, Arokh ha-Shulhan: Orah Hayyim, 339.9). All the more so it is certainly not a concern on Yom Tov since transference from one domain to another is permitted then (Betsah 12a). As paddle boarding doesn’t involve either reason for the prohibition of floating, one could say that it is permitted or, at least, not prohibited. Although paddle boarding might very well not be in the spirit of Yom Tov, one can only halakhicly prohibit those activities which the Rabbis specifically prohibited, and paddle boarding is not included in those specified in the Mishnah quoted above. The most one can do (if so inclined to be stringent with oneself; see Mishnah Betsah 2.6) is to “suggest” (etsah tovah; see, e.g., Yevamot 44a re Deut. 25:8; Baba Batra 120a re Num. 36:6) that this activity ought not be done, while avoiding any specific halakhic condemnation of it, nor vilifying those who legitimately (however ill advisedly) engage in it as being “transgressors” (avaryanim). Those who engage in paddle boarding do have some halakhic basis for at least not being so condemned.

Nevertheless another text (Yerushalmi Betsah 5.2/63a) interprets the prohibition of “floating” to apply to floating anything on the surface of water. Since this ruling seems to be at odds with the qualification of the Bavli above (which would normally exclude its becoming halakhah le-ma`aseh or “practically operative;” see R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes, Darkhei ha-Horaah, sec.2, p. 251), it is surprising that it is quoted as authoritative by Mordecai: Betsah, chap. 2, no. 695). Yet this undoubtedly led to the unqualified prohibition of floating anything (Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 339.6. Interestingly enough, it is questioned (Bach, Tur: Orah Hayyim) why Shulhan Arukh simply prohibits floating (be-stam l’isur) and doesn’t qualify it as it is qualified in Bavli.

Now some have seen the prohibition of shatin being a prohibition of swimming (sehiyah) on both Shabbat and Yom Tov (e.g., R. Yehoshua Neubirt, Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata, 13.10 and 15.27). This is pertinent to our discussion of paddle boarding since paddle boarding does involve swimming, i.e., when mounting and dismounting the paddle board. (Obviously, a non-swimmer should not engage in this sport.) Nevertheless, to my knowledge, in only one text could the verb shut actually mean “swim,” viz., the opinion that a father is obligated to teach his son le-hashito, which Rashi interprets to be because “the son might be on a sinking boat and be in mortal danger drown if he doesn’t know le-shut (Kiddushin 29a: “af le-hashito”), which seems to mean if he doesn’t know how to swim. Nevertheless, this could also mean that the son who didn’t know how to make a raft to float on might be in mortal danger if his boat sinks. (Even more so, the same could be said of the use of the verb shut on Yerushalmi Shekalim 7.2 re Ezek. 47:5.)

The fact is, when the Rabbis speak of what we call “swimming,” they call it “bathing” (rehitsah). Until recently, this is what “bathing” meant in English. Conversely, what we now call “bathing” is washing the entire body with soap in either a bathtub or a shower. It is done in privacy for the sake of cleanliness alone. (To be sure, bathing in ancient times also involved cleaning oneself, but that was not its sole purpose; rather it was part of the overall care for one’s person, and done in a public bathhouse. See Vayikra Rabbah 34.3 re Prov. 11:16.) Now this kind of bathing or showering on Shabbat or Yom Tov involves a number of problems, such as heating water, shampooing and drying one’s hair, etc. (see Shabbat 50b; Mordecai: Shabbat, chap. 5, no. 338; Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 326.9-10; Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata, 13.11-13). In its earlier sense, though, bathing at beach or a swimming pool, does not involve the Shabbat and Yom Tov problems that bathing (i.e., washing oneself) in a bathtub or shower today does involve.

The institution of the public bathhouse, usually called beit ha-merhats), and sometimes called embati (see Mishnah Mikvaot 6.10; Mishnah Nedarim 4.4 and Rambam thereon) was brought to Palestine by the Roman conquerors (see Shabbat 33b). They were places for enjoyable recreation (see Shabbat 25b re Lam. 3:17). They were even decorated with pagan statues. In fact, when one Rabbi was asked why he frequented a bathhouse that had a statue of Aphrodite in it (thus seeming to be violating the prohibition in Deut. 13:18), he justified his presence there by the fact that clearly the gentiles who frequented this bathhouse did not treat this statue with any reverence at all (Mishnah Avodah Zarah 3.4; see, also, Hullin 13b). The chief feature of this kind of bathhouse was its hot water bath (called caldarium) or steam room (what in Yiddish is called a shvitzbod).

Bathing in a Jewishly operated bathhouse (merhats) on Shabbat or Yom Tov was originally permitted if the water there had been heated before the onset of the holyday. However, this came to be prohibited because the Jewish bathhouse attendants (balanim) were heating the water on the holyday itself and were deceiving the bathers, telling them that the bath water had been already heated before the onset of the holyday. Later, the Rabbis prohibited sweating (ze`ah) altogether because people were lying about coming into bathhouse, knowing full well they were in violation of the law, but claiming they only came into them to sweat, not to bathe (Shabbat 40a; Alfasi, Shabbat, ed. Vilna, 62b and Ran thereon; Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat, 22.2 and Maggid Mishneh thereon; Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 326.12).

On the other hand, bathing in natural bodies of water like rivers and lakes involves none of the problems of bathing in a bathhouse. As such, it is permitted on Shabbat or Yom Tov (Shabbat 109a and Tosafot: “rohtsin;” Mordecai: Shabbat, chap. 3, no. 303). Bathing is also permitted in an enclosed pool (even a mikveh) where persons might go to “cool off” (Betsah 18a), which is quite different from going to places where one goes to sweat. In fact, R. Israel Isserlein (d. 1460) honestly admits that in the Talmud there is no objection (kepeda) to swimming on Shabbat and Yom Tov nor is there an explicit prohibition (isur meforash) thereof, citing Betsah 18a, plus citing the permission stated by Mordecai (above). Nevertheless, he emphasizes that “today in our time” everybody is careful (zehirei) not to swim at all on Shabbat (or Yom Tov) (Terumat ha-Deshen, no. 255). Later authorities regard refraining from any swimming anywhere as having by now become established minhag, condemning those who ignore its prohibition (see Arokh ha-Shulhan: Orah Hayyim, 326.9), even if only to cool off, whether in a natural body of water like a river or in an enclosed pool.

A problem with bathing on Shabbat or Yom Tov is the modern practice of bathing in public in a garment, i.e., a “bathing suit” or “swim suit.” Some modern poskim regard the inevitable wetting of this garment by wearing it while swimming to be “soaking” (sheri’ah) it. That is prohibited because it is “laundering” (kevisah) the garment (based on Betsah 18a, Tosafot: “me`aremet” re Mishnah Shabbat 7.2/Shabbat 73a and Rashi: “ha-malbeno;” Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat, 22.15). However, this Tosafot clearly concludes by stipulating that this wetting of the garment is not done for the sake of laundering it, but for some other purpose (as when one wipes his or her wet hands on a hand towel to dry them and inevitably wets the towel in the process), hence it is then permitted. That is because the wetting of the garment was unintended (see Shabbat 41b), and even though this is inevitable (pesik reishei), it was not something from which the wearer of the garment benefitted (see Shabbat 75a and Rashi and Tosafot: “mit`asek” and “tfei niha leih”). Also the slight squeezing (sehitah) of the bathing suit when removing it, plus the inevitable wetting and squeezing of a towel when drying oneself can be permitted for the same reason (see Tur: Orah Hayyim, 320 and, especially, Rema, Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 320.18; Mishnah Berurah, Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 302.9, n. 39.) ayyimHayyimHayyiH Indeed, from Mishnah Shabbat 22.5/Shabbat 147a we learn that the concern with bathing on Shabbat (or Yom Tov) is only that the bather not carry towels home where one might vigorously squeeze or wring water out of them (Shabbat 147b).

A problem with paddle boarding is that it is rigorous exercise (le-hit`amel), which itself is prohibited on Shabbat or Yom Tov (Mishnah Shabbat 22.6 and Rambam thereon; Tosefta Shabbat 17.22; Shabbat 147b). However, this prohibition is qualified to only apply to exercise for distinctly medical purposes (Rabbenu Hananel: “aval” on Shabbat 147b; Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat, 21.28). It seems that the prohibition of any medical procedure on Shabbat or Yom Tov is just assumed (see Mishnah Shabbat 14.3), of course with the exception of any lifesaving procedure (Yoma 85b re Lev. 18:5; Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 2.1, 3). However, post-talmudic halakhists invoked the opinion of Ulla that medical procedures are prohibited because they will probably lead to the grinding of drugs into medicines, grinding (tohen) being biblically prohibited (Shabbat 53b and Rashi: “gezerah;” Shabbat 49b and Rashi: “hem”). (This is so improbable today, because our medicines are already made into capsules, that it is best to simply regard the prohibition as a matter of long accepted practice.) Now the example of  prohibited ”rigorous exercise” given (Shabbat 113a-b re Isa. 58:13; Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat 24.4) is walking or running or jumping with “giant steps” (pesi`ah gasah). Yet this too is permitted if done for the sake of fulfilling a mitzvah, such as running to the synagogue (Berakhot 6b re Hos. 6:3 and 11:10; Rambam, Hilkhot Shabbat, 24.5).

Quite surprisingly, R. Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (d. 1280) approves of the practice of young men who enjoy (mit`angim) engaging in rigorous exercise (literally, “running and jumping”) on Shabbat (Sefer ha-Mitzvot Katan/SMAK, no. 280). This is mentioned, without demurral (Tur: Orah Hayyim 301) by R. Jacob ben Asher (d. 1343). R. Israel Isserlein (d. 1460), also not demurring, brings R. Isaac’s reason for this permission: it is because for these young men this athletic activity is an integral part of their enjoyment of Shabbat, and it is thus for them a religious duty (dvar mitzvah) akin to running to the synagogue. The only qualification is that it not done for profit (le-harvi’ah) (Terumat ha-Deshen, pt. 2, no. 150).  One profits in an athletic context by winning, hence one’s exertion is for the sake of winning, not enjoyment of the activity per se. That is especially so when betting on the outcome of the contest is involved (see Mahatsit ha-Shekel, n. 1 on Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 301.2).  (If R. Isaac or R. Israel didn’t approve of this practice, he could have invoked the talmudic principle that one shouldn’t admonish otherwise law abiding people in violation of a specific law if this would certainly not succeed in getting them to stop doing so. See Baba Batra 60b and Tosafot: “mutav;” also, Yevamot 65b re  Prov. 9:7).

Nevertheless, R. Joseph Karo (d. 1575) says this permission is dependent on custom (talui be-minhag). He notes that the custom in some places is not to do so, and authorities there shouldn’t be lenient. He then goes further, qualifying this permission, saying it is only given after the fact (di`avad or post factum). However, if one came before the fact (le-khathilah or ab initio) to ask whether this may be done or not, he should be told “no.” This is very much like not advocating a practice that itself cannot be said to be forbidden (see Betsah 28b). He concludes by warning that even though these young men claim not to be engaged in an athletic contest, it is doubtful whether this is true. For that reason, permission for it ought not be given initially (Bet Yosef, Tur: Orah Hayyim, 301). Moreover, this is an example of employing the principle “exemption from punishment for an act prohibited nonetheless” (patur aval asur; see Shabbat 3a).

Although agreeing with R. Joseph Karo, R. Joel Sirkis (d. 1640) notes thereon that if we were to prevent them from doing this (mohin bahen), we would destroy what they consider to be a legitimate pleasurable activity on Shabbat (or Yom Tov). The implication here is that their resentment at what had heretofore been their accepted Shabbat (or Yom Tov) practice would lead to resentment at Halakhah itself. (As any rabbi knows, changing accepted custom in a community should be done prudently and with considerable caution, and should be avoided if it might lead to foreseeable consequences more bad than good. See Mishnah Avot 2.9 and Rambam thereon.) To add to his reasoning on this matter, attempting to be more strict than had been the case until then, might well be an example of “stricture resulting in undue leniency” (humra d’atei li-ydei kula); see Pesahim 48b; also, 91b and Rashi: “yedakdek;” Sukkah 36b-37a).

On the other hand, though, R. Yechiel Michal Epstein (d. 1908) argues that such activities should be banned because they are usually done for health reasons, and also because they involve pain. Hence, they are not like leisurely strolling (le-tayyel) which is initially permitted (German Jews called this Spazierengang or “promenading”) (Arokh ha-Shulhan: Orah Hayyim, 301.44 re Rema, Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayyim, 328.42 re Tosefta Shabbat 17.22 as brought in Bet Yosef, Tur: Orah Hayyim, 301).   

Finally, even though one modern posek found reasons to permit bicycling on Shabbat or Yom Tov (Rav Pealim I: Orah Hayyim, no. 25), R. Eliezer Waldenberg (d. 2006) rules that it is “secular activity” (uvdin de-hol) that consequently cheapens the dignity of the holy days  Tzitz Eliezer 7, no. 30, sec. 1). It would seem that paddle boarding would have the same bad consequences. Nevertheless, when done under conditions that clearly indicate that this is being done differently on Shabbat and Yom Tov than they are normally done on weekdays, I see a way to permit both swimming and other athletic activities on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Even if one regards these activities to be inappropriate on Shabbat or Yom Tov and does not engage in them oneself, one should be more lenient with others than with oneself (Mishnah Betsah 2.6), especially when those others are otherwise consistently observant Jews.

 

Rabbi David Novak
25 Nisan 5780
19 April 2020