Oops! My Hat Blew on To the Roof of a Car, and It Is Shabbos, What Should I Do?
What’s the halachah if one is walking down the street on Shabbos, and a gust of wind catches his hat and blows it onto the roof of car, or worse, underneath the car?
Generally speaking, a car is 4 x 4 tefochim, and 10 tefochim high, and has the status of a reshus hayochid [private domain, where one is allowed to carry], whereas the street one is standing in is either a karmalis or a reshus harabbim [domains, where it is forbidden to carry]. It is clear from the Mishnah Berurah (345:16) that if the hollow of an item has the status of a reshus hayochid, then the roof of the item also has the status of a reshus hayochid. Consequently, in a place without an eruv it would be forbidden to carry the hat off the roof of car which is a reshus hayochid, into the street which is either a karmalis or a reshus harabbim. What can be done to retrieve the hat?
Would It Help If One Tilts His Head Over the Roof of the Car and Puts His Hat On Whilst Bent Over the Car?
Seemingly, there is a very simple solution, which is for one to tilt his head over the roof of the car which is considered a reshus hayochid, and to put his hat back on his head whilst bent over the roof of the car. However, we will see that this is not so simple.
The Shulchan Aruch (350:1) writes: One may stand in a private domain and stretch out his hand into a public domain, and move around items that are in the public domain from this place to that place as long as one doesn’t move them more than four amos, and that there is no need for them in the place he is standing. Since there is no need for them in the place he is standing, we are not worried he will come to carry them towards himself.
According to the above, in our case, since there is certainly reason to be worried that one will carry the hat from the roof of the car (private domain) to the street he is standing in (public domain), it would be forbidden to move the hat, even whilst in the private domain.
However, perhaps there is still room for leniency. As perhaps, the above gezeirah (of not moving things in the public domain, as we are worried one may carry them into the private domain) was only made if there is a need for the item to be in the hands of the one moving it, however, in our case one could put the hat on his head whilst bent over the car, and there is no need to keep it in his hands, therefore, perhaps there is no gezeirah (Nesivos LeShabbos, Perek 6, he’orah 16).
Additionally, it’s obvious that if one would tilt his head and most of his body onto the top of the car it would be ok. Like we find in Shulchan Aruch (350:1), that although it is prohibited for one to stand in a private domain and to place his head into the public domain and to take a drink, if one places his head and most of his body into the area he is drinking from it’s ok.
However, R’ Shlomah Zalman Auerbach is mechadesh, that even if one is only able to tilt his head above the car he can still put his hat on, and it’s not comparable to the case of drinking whilst standing in the public domain, whilst bending over into the private domain. In the case of drinking, we are worried that one will carry the cup from the private domain to the public domain as one is going to be taking numerous sips from the cup. In the case of the hat, however, there is no need to carry it from the private domain to the public domain, and there is only one act that needs to be carried out, therefore, once the hat has been placed back on the head, there is nothing more to worry about.
We can add, that some say that the head of a person is considered a makom patur when one is standing still, and the halachah is that as long as one doesn’t transport something more than four amos one is allowed to transport it from a reshus hayochid, private domain, to a makom patur. Therefore, it would be ok to carry the hat from the roof of the car which is a private domain, to the head of the wearer which is a makom patur (see Nesivos LeShabbos, Perek 3, He’orah 28)
What Happens If the Hat Blows Under a Car?
Sometimes the car is too high, and one is unable to tilt his head over it, what can be done in such a case? Additionally, what happens if the hat blows under a car, when generally speaking it is not possible for one to bend his head underneath? What can be done in these cases?
Regarding the area underneath the car: If it is above three tefochim from the ground, it would be considered a karmalis since it is covered, and if there would be less than three tefochim it would be considered a reshus hayochid, due to the din of lovud [a rule which dictates that anything which is within three tefochim of the ground, is considered to be on the ground] (see Magen Avraham 345:1, and Nesivos LeShabbos Perek 2, He’orah 16).
The Shu”t Mishneh Halachos (8:170) writes: If there is less than three tefochim under the car, then the area under the car is considered a reshus hayochid, and it would make a difference as to where the person who lost his hat his standing. If he is standing in a karmalis, then carrying from under the car to the karmalis would be an issur derabonon [rabbinic prohibition], if, however, he is standing in a reshus harabbim, public domain, than carrying from under the car to the reshus harabbim would be de’O’raisa [prohibited on a Torah level].
If the prohibition involved is only derabonon, then if there is kavod habriyos [human dignity] involved, then there would be room to be lenient, especially if one carries out the hat from under the car in an abnormal manner (shinuy).
However, the Mishneh Halachos writes: The truth is, even if one is in a reshus harabbim, if he takes the hat out from under the car in a manner of where he only violates issuray derabonon, there is also room to be lenient if kavod habriyos is at stake. Therefore, he writes, the best thing to do would be to drag out the hat from under the car in abnormal manner (i.e. with his foot) until it is out from under the car and then he could put it on. (The Mishnah Halachah writes, that one should put the hat on his head in an abnormal manner as well, however, this is difficult, as one is allowed to pick up anything which is within his four amos.)
Is There a Problem of “Lo Yilbash” by Raincoats and Umbrellas
If one needs to go out, and the only raincoat that is available is a women’s raincoat, is it ok for a man to wear it? If one finds himself stuck in the rain and the only umbrella he can get hold of is a women’s umbrella (I will let you use your imagination to determine what is considered a man’s umbrella and what is considered a women’s umbrella) is a man allowed to use it?
These questions can be asked the other way round as well, i.e. may a woman wear a man’s raincoat, or use a man’s umbrella?
Lo Yilbash
Generally speaking, there is a prohibition known as lo yilbash, which forbids a man to wear women’s cloth, and a woman to wear man’s clothes. The basic guidelines for this prohibition are that the Torah (Devorim 22:5) prohibits women from wearing a man’s garment and men from wearing a woman’s garment; the Torah refers to this as an abomination. Two reasons are given for this prohibition: One is to maintain the sanctity of the Jewish people and prevent any conduct that may lead to immoral behavior (see Sefer HaChinuch 542-543). Another reason is offered by Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (3:37), who writes that cross-gender dressing was the practice of some idol worshippers, and the Torah requires us to distance ourselves from such activities. Based on the above it would seem that it would be forbidden to allow a man to wear a women’s raincoat or to use a women’s umbrella (and vice versa).
However....
The Bach (Yoreh Deah 182) has a famous chiddush in the sugya of lo yilbash, and he holds that cross-gender dressing is only an abomination if one is doing so in order to look like the opposite gender. However, if one has a different motive in mind, i.e. to protect himself from the sun, or the cold, then it would be allowed. Based on this, it would seem that it would be permissible for a man to wear a women’s raincoat or to use a women’s umbrella, if it is being done to protect himself from the rain.
The Shach (Yoreh Deah 182, s.k. 7) writes that the Bach is not so simple. The Chochmas Adam (Klal 90) brings that the chiddush of the Bach is a dispute in the rishonim, and he concludes, that if it is derech malbush [a normal manner of wearing clothing] it is prohibited, and if it is not derech malbush then it would be permissible if not done for bad intentions. According to the Chochmas Adam it would come out that a raincoat is prohibited, and to use an umbrella with the intention of protecting oneself from the rain would be permissible.
What Do the Poskim Say About Umbrella’s?
The Shu”t Shevet HaLevi (2:61), Shu”t Rivevos Ephraim (7:248) and Shu”t Kinyan Torah (1:68) all says it’s permissible for a man to use a women’s umbrella.
The Shu”t Vayishma Moshe (pg. 262) which is a sefer with Teshuvos from R’ Elyashiv brings that he asked R’ Elyashiv about a man using a women’s umbrella, and he said, “the man should buy himself a new umbrella.” However, he then brings that one time when R’ Elyashiv was asked about it, he was lenient, and another time who was hesitant to give a clear answer. The Shu”t Vayishma Moshe concludes: “It seems he had some hiddur to be to be concerned about a man using a woman’s umbrella.”
The sefer Rishumei Aharon (Vol. 1 pg.42) brings from R’ Moshe Feinstein that nowadays, a man is allowed to use a women’s umbrella, as it is not a garment and is not made for beauty.
The sefer Ve’alahu Loi Yibol (Vol 2, pg. 72) brings that he asked R’ Shlomah Zalman Auerbach and he answered, “It’s permissible for a man to use a women’s umbrella to protect himself from rain.” He then asked if he was lenient because of the Bach, and R’ Shlomah Zalman said, that here we can be lenient even without the Bach.
Finally, the sefer LeBinyomim Omar (pg. 65) brings that he asked R’ Chaim Kanievsky about it, and he said, that if the color of the umbrella is suitable for a woman, then some say it is forbidden.
Proof to the Opinion of the Bach
Seemingly we can cite proof for the opinion of the Bach from a Gemara in Kiddushin (36b). The Gemara proves that women are disqualified from carrying out avodah [service] in the Beis HaMikdosh as it says in the pasuk: בני אהרן – “The sons of Aharon”, and it doesn’t mention the daughters. Tosfos asks, why we need a special drosha, we should learn they are disqualified from the fact that they are lacking the bigdei kehunah [priestly garments]? Tosfos answers: We are talking about a case when they wear bigdei kehunah. The question is, surely if they are wearing bigdei kehunah they are performing a mitzvah through doing an aveirah, as by wearing men’s clothes they are violating lo yilbash, and a mitzvah haboh b’aveirah, a mitzvah which comes through doing an aveirah is no good?
According to the Bach, however, that cross-gender dressing is only an abomination if one is doing so in order to look like the opposite gender, then in our case when it is being done to carry out the avodah, then it would be permissible. So, seemingly we have proof for the opinion of the Bach.
However, we can refute the above proof, as perhaps there is only a problem of mitzvah haboh b’aveirah when the act of the mitzvah is directly coming from the aveirah, however, in our case, there is no aveirah in the avodah. The korban is perfectly kosher, there is just a side condition that a kohen/koheness should be wearing bigdei kehunah, but in the avodah itself there is no aveirah, therefore, we have no proof.
The above distinction can be found in the Yerushalmi in Shabbos. The Yerushalmi says, if one tears his garment for a dead person on Shabbos he violates the prohibition of tearing on Shabbos, however, he fulfils the mitzvah of tearing for the dead person. The Yerushalmi asks: Why is this different to eating stolen matzah where we say that one who eats it doesn’t fulfill any mitzvah due to the fact that the mitzvah was carried out via a violation of an aveirah? And the Yerushalmi answers: By the matzah case, the matzah itself is an aveirah, the matzah is stolen. In the tearing case, however, the person did an aveirah, but the tear itself is not an aveirah.
Conclusion
The sefer Yad HaKetanah and Darchei Teshuvah (182:9) cite many poskim who disagree with the Bach, and yet other poskim who concur with his opinion. The consensus among the poskim is to rely on the Bach only in a shas hedchak [a pressing situation]. We also saw the Chochmas Adam who differentiated between derech malbush and not derech malbush. Therefore, certainly by an umbrella if there is a great need there is room to be lenient, and even by a raincoat it would seem there is what to rely on.
The same thing would be in a case where a woman wanted to wear a man’s sweater. If the only sweater in the house is a man’s sweater and she is very cold, she would be allowed to wear it.
Is There a Problem of Kosheh LeShikcha to Wear Shoes and Galoshes (Rubbers) At the Same Time?
The Mishnah Berurah (2:2) writes, that one should be careful not to put on two items of clothing at the same time, as it is kosheh leshikcha, it can cause one to forget his learning. Is one allowed to put on shoes and galoshes at the same time, or would this be an issue of kosheh leshikcha?
The Aruch HaShulchan (2:6) writes: By shoes there is no kosheh leshikcha, however, he offers no explanation.
The sefer Matas Yad (from one of the mekubolim) writes, that only by garments is there a problem of kosheh leshikcha, by items made from skin, rubber etc. there is no issue. Therefore, it would be ok to put on shoes and galoshes at the same time.
Based on the above, it would also be ok to put on a hat with a nylon cover at the same time.
Is One Allowed to Walk Around With Wet Socks on Shabbos?
If one’s socks got wet on Shabbos, is it ok to walk around with them, or is there a problem of sechita, squeezing out liquid from an item on Shabbos?
Seemingly, although the act of sechita that is happening, is pesik reisha, definitely going to happen, one doesn’t really care about it, and it is a lack of kavod habriyos to walk around without socks, therefore, it would seem to be allowed.
The Minchas Shabbos writes, that in a reshus harabbim one can continue to wear them, and when he gets home, he should take them off.
[The sefer Toldos Adam brings a story with R’ Zalman of Volozhin: One wintery Shabbos a woman entered into his house, and he was extremely worried about the issur of yichud and ran out of the house. Outside there was heavy snow and his socks got wet, and he was very worried about doing sechita on Shabbos, so he took off his socks and walked around barefoot in the snow.
There is another well-known story with the Steipler. That one year on Yom Kippur one of his socks got wet, and he made sure to stand with one foot up in the air for many hours, to make sure he didn’t chas vesholam come to do sechita by putting down the wet sock on the floor.]
