For reasons that I hope are apparent, my thoughts this week were drawn to
issues surrounding galoshes in halakhah. First, galoshes come up as a side issue in a
debate about whether it is permissible to wear a rain covering on a hat— one of those
plastic (nylon is the material to which the teshuvot refer) coverings that can be put onto
a hat— on Shabbat in a place where there is no eruv. On Shabbat without an eruv,
let’s remember, we are only allowed to wear either clothing, or decorative items that
enhance our appearance (and that we would not ordinarily take off inpublic, although
that’s a separate issue. An interesting example of a takhshit is a cane or crutches
for someone who is unable to walk extensively without them. The Tsits Eliezer, R.
Waldenburg, for many years the poseq for Bikur Cholim hospital in Jerusalem, rules that as
long as a person cannot walk reasonable distances without that support, or even if they
only need it to stabilize themselves as they walk, that it would be permissible to use
such a cane or crutches in a reshut harabim de-oraita, in a domain considered public by
Torah law. Men’s wristwatches are in item where it is questionable as to whether they
qualify as a takhshit, so some have the custom not to wear watches on Shabbat in a place
with no eruv.
The question with hat coverings is whether they serve any personal purpose, or are only
to protect the hat itself. To wear an actual rain hat, in other words, does not raise a
question, since it is there to protect the person from getting wet, and is inherently a
garment with a use for the person. But the nylon covering largely serves the purposes of
the hat, not the person. For that reason, R. Moshe Feinstein ztllh"h prohibited
wearing such a covering on Shabbat (without an eruv). He specifically contrasted it to the
case of galoshes (which are clearly permissible), which, in his view, also serve to keep
the person’s feet warm (and dry). Others, I should note, believe the covering is
permissible, since it also serves to keep the hat from getting soaked through, and
therefore the person from getting wet.
In a more directly galoshes related issues, Maharsham (R. Shalom Mordekhai Shvadron, a
19th century poseq— one of the pleasures of a CD-Rom is that it gives access to
gedolim from the past whom I otherwise would not encounter) was asked whether one could
wear galoshes (alone) on Yom Kippur. While we all know that leather footwear is
impermissible on Yom Kippur, the gemara actually refers to all footwear that protects the
foot from the hardness of the ground. Maharsham notes that we are generally stringent only
about leather, but also adds several other reasons to be lenient about galoshes—
among them, that people believed that galoshes were unhealthy to wear directly on
one’s feet and that the galoshes are generally too big for the foot (since they are
made to fit over a shoe), so that they do not provide the kind of support that would be a
problem. He rules, then, that they are permissible, although he also sees a value for
someone wants to be mahmir not to wear even that kind of protection on Yom Kippur.
The last galoshes issue that I thought would be worth sharing (there are others, such
as whether rubber can be considered to absorb yayin nesekh, whether it can be used to seal
a hole in a mikveh) is what happens if galoshes get switched by accident. R. Moshe
Feinstein, ztllh"h, was asked whether a person whose coat was switched could use the
coat that was left behind. R. Moshe’s basic answer was that that would constitute
using someone else’s lost property, which is prohibited. R. Moshe, however, notes an
interesting Arukh haShulhan (which he does not think we follow as a practical matter), who
reports that in his town, people would leave their galoshes in the outer vestibule of the
shul , and occasionally the galoshes got mixed up as people were leaving. Nevertheless,
the Arukh haShulkhan says, everyone takes the galoshes that are left and does not worry
about the issues we’ve raised. In that view, galoshes were not an item that people
would mind switching (presumably if they fit), so that one person could use the
other’s, at least until a return switch could be executed. This Arukh haShulhan, of
course, assumes that there are circumstances when we can use someone else’s lost
property, at least until it can be rturned, but that is a discussion for another time.
Along the way, I came across an interesting point about shoes, which are not actually
galoshes, but I thought it worth mentioning. Based on a Mishnah that refers separately to
clothing and shoeing an idol (as prohibited, but not death-penalty-liable, forms of idol
worship), many posqim assume that shoes are not considered an item of clothing, a
principle that has several halakhic ramifications, among them the question of whether one
has to make the berakhah of shehehiyanu upon buying new shoes. Clothing has a general rule
that we do, but since shoes are not an item of clothing, it would depend on how
significant a purchase those shoes were— how happy the purchase made us— before
we make a shehehiyanu A related example is purchasing seforim, where some authorities
think that a shehehiyanu is unnecessary (and therefore prohibited). Hayye Adam, however,
says that since we can feel joy in the purchase of seforim akin to the joy we derive from
purchasing some prized new possession, in those cases a shehehiyanu is required. Shabbat
Shalom.
