To purchase this Sefer, click here

2. Pesik Resihei by dyeing-Wiping stained hands on a cloth:[1]

As explained in Halacha 1, dyeing clothing contains a Biblical prohibition when done with a permanent dye and a Rabbinical prohibition when done with a temporary dye. The following law will discuss if one may wipe his colored hands on a cloth in order to clean them, having no intent at all to dye the cloth in doing so.

First Opinion:[2] One who eats strawberries or other fruits which have a dyeing pigment needs to be careful to not touch with his stained hands his clothing or a [non designated] cloth due to the prohibition of dyeing.

The reason: Now, although when doing so one [has no intention to dye, but] is actually ruining the cloth, and whenever one does an action on Shabbos in a way of damage, he has not Biblically transgressed, nevertheless it is forbidden to be done Rabbinically.[3] [This is because a cloth is common to be dyed, and if one would clean his hands on the cloth for dyeing purposes, he would transgress Biblically. Thus, although now he is doing it in order to clean his hands in a destructive manner, nevertheless, since it is similar to the actual Melacha, therefore it is Rabbinically forbidden.[4] The above Poskim follow the ruling that it is forbidden to perform a Pesik Resihei on Shabbos even if it is not Nicha Lei.[5]]

Other Opinions:[6] [However] there are those[7] who are lenient [to allow this to be done] being that [wiping one’s dirty hands on the cloth] is only a form of dirtying it [rather than dyeing it], and thus it is not [even] considered to be [Rabbinical] dyeing at all.

The Final Ruling:[8] One is to be stringent [even when wiping one’s hands on a white cloth] and certainly when one wipes on a red cloth, of which [dirtying it with the fruit pigment] is not considered to be damaging the cloth at all.[9] [See summary and Q&A below for the ruling regarding other colors, such as wine.]

Clothes that are designated specifically for wiping on:[10] Clothes that are designated for wiping may be used to clean one’s colored hands. Doing so is not prohibited due to the dyeing prohibition, as the dyeing prohibition only applies when one is intentionally doing so for the purpose of dyeing, or when done to a non-designated cloth which is common to dye.[11]

_________________________________________________

[1] 320:27

[2] First opinion in Admur ibid; “Yeish Mi Sheomer” in Michaber 320:20; Shibulei Haleket 86; Yireim 274; Rokeiach 70; Kol Bo 31; Maharam Rikanti 123

[3] Admur ibid; M”A 328:52; Yireim ibid; Rikanti ibid; M”B 320:57

[4] Kuntrus Achron 302:1

[5] M”B 320:57

[6] 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; brought in M”A 320:24; M”B 320:59

[7] Igor 484; Darkei Moshe 2; Radbaz 131; Chacham Tzevi

[8] Admur ibid; M”A 320:24-25; Michaber 328:48; To note that in Admur 328:54 [brought in Halacha 3 below] Admur plainly rules like the stringent opinion regarding wiping blood on a cloth and does not even make mention of the lenient opinion mentioned here.

Other Poskim: Some Poskim rule one may be lenient in a time of need. [Elya Raba; Machatzis Hashekel; Chayeh Adam; M”B 320:59 and 328:146 ]

[9] Admur ibid; 328:53; M”A 320:25; 328:52; M”B 320:57

^[10] Kuntrus Achron 302:1; See 319:13; 320:21; M”A 319:11; Ketzos Hashulchan 136 footnote 11; SSH”K 14:19; Piskeiy Teshuvos 320:11 based on Admur Kuntrus Achron 302; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 3 20:20 [p. 295]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it does not suffice to designate a garment for this purpose, and only by an item which people do not care to dye does the allowance apply. [Avnei Nezer 175, brought in Ketzos Hashulchan 136 footnote 11]

[11] The reason: Seemingly, the reason why a designated cloth helps is because it is evident to all that one is not doing an act of dyeing [or laundering] when using it to clean his hands [or strain liquid through] and it is hence not similar to the Melacha at all. If, however, the cloth is not designated for this purpose, then it appears as if one is doing an act of dyeing, or laundering, and is hence at least Rabbinically forbidden. Alternatively, the reason is because once the cloth has been designated for this purpose it is no longer common to dye it at all, and hence there is no need to decree against dyeing if one has no intent to do so. If, however, one intends to dye it or launder it, then certainly it is forbidden to do on Shabbos even if one designated the cloth for this purpose. It is only that when it is done Derech Lichluch, and no intent to dye, and is not common to dye that we permit it. The practical ramification would be regarding a urine test sticks, and baby diapers that change color, as explained in Q&A at end of chapter!

^[12] This is based on what is explained in the Q&A below.

[13] Piskeiy Teshuvos 320:26 based on Admur in Kuntrus Achron ibid

[14] Based on the above that one is to be stringent when wiping off stains, seemingly the same applies regarding red wine, that one should not wipe it on a cloth and should rather wash it off.

However, from other rulings of Admur it appears that by wine this is allowed, and thus it remains to be understood why it does not fall under the same ruling as above, that one is to be stringent not to wipe his hands. The following are the cases that Admur allows it to be done:

In 319:13 Admur allows one to use a random cloth for filtering red wine and beer and does not mention any problem of that it dyes the cloth and is therefore forbidden. [although Lechatchila it is proper [“tov”] for one to suspect for the stringent opinion that it is a problem of Borer, although according to all there is no problem of dyeing.] Similarly, in 301:59 Admur rules that one may even Lechatchilah place a cloth into red wine and beer, such as when he is doing it to filter the liquid. Similarly, in 320:21 Admur rules the same as above.

Answers that were given for the above question:

The Tehila Ledavid 319:16: In 319 and 301 Admur is referring to cloths which are not normally dyed and thus by them there is no suspicion for dyeing, and it is allowed, while by here 320 Admur is referring to cloths that are common to be dyed and by them one should be stringent.

The Ketzos Hashulchan [146 Badei Hashulchan 14 number 13] explains that perhaps by very red wine it has the same problem as by strawberries, although by light red wine it does not, and thus those areas where Admur stated that it is allowed is because he is referring to light red wine.  He then concludes that one who wants to do according to all opinions, should use a designated cloth for filtering the wine, as explained above from the Kuntrus Achron.

Rabbi Farkash [Shabbos Kihalacha Vol. 2 page 352 and 384]: Argues on the above two answers and rather explains: According to Admur, he learns like those Rishonim that learn that by wine [and other fruit juices] its color is never considered able to dye a cloth but  rather its color dirties a cloth, and thus it is never applicable to the Issur of dyeing, as opposed to strawberries and the like which can be used for dyeing, and thus even when used to dirty a cloth, like to wipe ones hands, we still prohibit it Rabbinically.

[15] Tehila Ledavid 319:16

[16] Ketzos Hashulchan 146 Badei Hashulchan 16 number 13

[17] Shabbos Kihalacha Vol. 2 page 352 and 384

[18] SSH”K 14:19; Piskeiy Teshuvos 320:11 based on Admur Kuntrus Achron 302; Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 3 20:20 [p. 295]

This is unlike the ruling of Rav Farkash in Tahara Kehalacha 10:28 which rules that tissues should not be used as they are not specifically designated for this purpose. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol from where he understood that they must be designated for a specific form of wiping, as opposed to general wiping. In Shabbos Kehalacha ibid he clearly contradicts himself.

[19] As they are designated for wiping, and thus do not contain a dyeing prohibition.

[20] As it is no different than one using tissues after the bathroom.