3. Doing an action with a cloth which may cause liquid to squeeze out:

A. Inserting a wet cloth into the opening of a bottle:[1]

It is forbidden to insert [wet[2]] Mochin [i.e. any soft material] into the opening of a bottle which contains liquid.[3] [This applies even if the cloth is wet due to colored liquids, and even if the cloth is designated for this purpose.[4]]

The reason for this is because:[5] one may come to squeeze [the material], as through inserting it one will squeeze the liquid that is absorbed in the material into the bottle. Now, although one has no intention to do so, nevertheless [since] it is an inevitable occurrence when one inserts it tightly [therefore it is forbidden].

Inserting it lightly:[6] Therefore the [Sages even] prohibited inserting it lightly due to that one may come to insert it strongly.

B. Plugging up the hole of a leaking pipe:[7]

One may plug up a [leaking] pipe with cloths and any other moveable materials in order so that the water [from the pipe] not flood one’s food and vessels. [Seemingly this refers to a dry cloth.]

The reason for this allowance is: as one does not care if a little bit of water trickles out from the hole [in the pipe] and therefore he will not come to insert it strongly and will not come to inevitably squeeze [water out from the cloth].  

Q&A May one stuff a cloth into the side of a leaking faucet or pipe in order to prevent any leakage? No, as in such a case one will come to insert the cloth strongly in order to completely prevent any leakage, and will come to squeeze out liquid. May one wrap a cloth on a faucet and stuff it into a hole to prevent any leakage? This follows the same reasons for the accustomed allowance mentioned in D, and is hence permitted to be done if there is no Tikkun Keli prohibition being transgressed through inserting the pipe.

C. Using a sponge to clean:[8]

With a handle: A [dish] sponge which has a handle of leather [or other non-absorbent material] which one uses to hold on to it, may be used to clean with [as through using the handle one is able to clean without anything squeezing out from the bottom of the sponge[9]].

Without a handle: If it does not have [a handle] then it may not be used to clean with as when one holds it in his hands it squeezes in between his fingers[10], and although this is done unintentionally [nevertheless it is forbidden because] it is an inevitable occurrence.[11]

Other Opinions in why with a handle is allowed: [However] there is an opinion[12] which says that even if [the sponge] has a handle it is impossible to clean with the sponge without squeezing it and nevertheless it is permitted as since the squeezing is being done through the [pressing of] the handle it is [therefore] not [Halachically] considered squeezing and is rather like emptying water from a flask which does not contain [the] “detaching” [prohibition]. However, when it does not have a handle in which case it gets squeezed in the area that he holds it with his hand, then it is forbidden. 

Cleaning a spill of liquid with intent of having the liquid drip back into its vessel:[13] It is forbidden to clean a spill of liquid with any cloth or sponge if one plans to drip the absorbed liquid from the cloth back into its vessel.[14] This prohibition applies even if one only desires to clean and save only part of the spill for use on Shabbos.

Practically, may one use a sponge with a handle if it will inevitably cause liquid to come out? No. One may only use it gently in a way that it will not squeeze out liquid from its bottom.[15]

 

Which forms of sponges may be used to wash the dishes? Regular sponge: It is forbidden to use a sponge on Shabbos due to the squeezing prohibition.[16] This applies even if the sponge has a handle. Synthetic sponges and steel wool:[17] Some Poskim[18] rule all forms of synthetic or steel wool sponges are forbidden to be used due to it being a mundane act, and due to the squeezing prohibition. Others[19] however permit using synthetic [or metal[20]] sponges which have their threads visibly spread apart from each other, as in such a case using them does not involve the squeezing prohibition.  However they forbid using steel wool[21], and any sponge which has its threads close to each other. Others[22] question that perhaps it is permitted to use all types of synthetic or metal sponges[23]. Practically they rule one is not to be lenient by closely knitted sponges. Others[24] rule that even those sponges which are permitted to be used, may only be used it if the sponge is designated specifically for Shabbos.

D. Plugging the hole of a barrel with a pipe and wet cloth on Shabbos:[25]

A drain pipe which one inserts into a hole in the wall of a barrel from which the wine is removed from, and [before doing so] one wraps around the drain pipe a piece of cloth or thin residue of flax[26] with which he [uses to fully] plug up the hole in the barrel[27], it is forbidden to plug [the hole of the barrel with this pipe] on Shabbos even if the barrel contains red wine or other [colored] liquids which do not whiten as through plugging it one squeezes out the liquid absorbed in the cloth, and this is an inevitable occurrence. Now although the squeezed liquid is going to waste nevertheless it is Rabbinically forbidden as explained above [in Halacha A].[28]

Other Opinions: [However] there are opinions[29] who say that so long as the liquid is going to waste then there is only a Rabbinical prohibition involved if one has intention to squeeze it, however so long as he does not intend to [squeeze] it, even if this is an inevitable occurrence, it is permitted. [If however the liquid does not go to waste, such as one places a vessel under it, then it is Biblically forbidden even according to this opinion.[30]]

Their reasoning is: because the squeezing [of this cloth] gives one no satisfaction being that one has no benefit from it, and it was only made forbidden to insert Mochin into the opening of the bottle even though he has no intent to squeeze it because the liquid that is being squeezed out from the Mochin enters into the bottle and one benefits from this squeezing. However, the liquids that are squeezed from the cloth that surrounds the pipe go to waste if there is no vessel under them, and there is thus nothing to benefit from it for him.

The Main Halachic Opinion:[31] The main Halachic opinion is like the former opinion, as [we ruled above in Halacha B that] a sponge that does not have a handle may not be used to clean with even though he has no intention to squeeze [liquid out] and the liquid which is squeezed from the sponge goes to waste.

The Custom:[32] Nevertheless, [despite the above reasoning] the world is accustomed to allowing plugging up with [a pipe that has] cloth [surrounding it] on Shabbos.

The justification of the custom:[33] There are those opinions which have learned justification for [this custom] as since the pipe has a long extension past the cloth and no hand touches the cloth [in the process of inserting and removing the pipe] then even though there is liquid being squeezed out of the cloth it is [nevertheless] permitted [to insert/remove] the pipe just like is the ruling by a sponge which has a handle according to the opinion [there] which says that even if liquid is squeezed out from it, it is allowed [to be used] as it is similar to emptying a flask of its water. According to this reasoning even if there is a vessel under the pipe which intakes the liquid squeezed from the cloth it is permitted [to be inserted/removed].

The Final Ruling:[34] Due to there being many opinions which argue on the above justification therefore one should accustom [those which allow inserting and removing the pipe] that there should not be a vessel under the pipe. [This should be done] in order so the squeezed liquid go to waste, and thus [have one] rely upon the [leniency mentioned by] the second opinion that was explained [above]. Now although this opinion is not the main Halachic opinion, [nevertheless it is allowed to rely on them] as there are opinions[35] which entirely permit to even intentionally squeeze [liquid out from a cloth] so long as the liquid goes to waste. As well [they should be careful that] the pipe extend out from the cloth in order to also join this leniency [mentioned in the justification].

The above may be done even by a barrel of white wine:[36] (There is no need to worry of the prohibition of whitening [in inserting/removing the pipe with the] flax residue and pieces of cloth which surrounds the pipe even if it is white wine which whitens, because [these cloths] are meant to get wet [and dirty] and one does not care to whiten it at all as was written in chapter 319 [Halacha 13] regarding a strainer).  

E. Using towel to dry the inside of cup:[37]

It is forbidden to dry a wet cup with a cloth [or tissue or napkin[38]] on Shabbos.[39] This applies whether the cup is wet due to water, wine or other beverages.[40] This prohibition applies even against using a cloth which one is not particular against getting wet [such as a towel which is designated for drying]. [This prohibition applies by all cups, whether wide or narrow; whether a Kiddush cup, coffee cup or shot glass.[41] It also applies irrelevant of how wet the cup is.[42] However some Poskim[43] learn it only applies to narrow cups, such as a shot glass. Likewise, some Poskim[44] rule one may be lenient to dry the cup if one shakes the water out of the cup beforehand and it hence only contains a few drops. Some Poskim[45] even allow drying with a cloth that is not designated for drying. Practically, those that are lenient to dry wide cups [such as a Kiddush cup and the like] should shake the water out beforehand.[46]]

May one dry his Kiddush cup after rinsing it prior to Kiddush? Based on the above, one is not to dry his Kiddush cup after rinsing it. Nevertheless, those which are lenient to shake out the water from Kiddush cup and then dry it have upon whom to rely, as stated above.[47]   Drying dishes: One may dry dishes on Shabbos as normal using a dish towel [as opposed to a non-designated garment, as explained in next Q&A].[48] If the towel has become wet to the point of Tofeiach Al Menas Lehatfiach then it may no longer be used to dry.[49] Drying eyeglasses, China, and cutlery on a shirt on Shabbos Question: [Thursday, 27th Tishreiy 5781] If I wet my eyeglasses to clean then, and I don’t have a towel readily available to dry them, may I wipe it dry using my shirt on Shabbos? I have the same question regarding a plate and cutlery, if I may dry them using the edge of my shirt? Answer: No. According to Admur [and other Poskim], it is implied that one may only dry them using a designated cloth, such as a hand or dish towel, and may not use his shirt and the like, even though it is only a small amount of water. However, some Poskim are lenient to allow drying a slightly wet surface even using one’s shirt. Explanation: In general, it is forbidden to wet clothing on Shabbos, and cause them to get wet, due to both the laundering and squeezing prohibition, as the mere wetting of an item is considered laundering according to many Poskim, and as well we suspect one may come to squeeze the water out of the clothing and transgress the squeezing/Mifareik prohibition. Nonetheless, it is permitted to wet a garment that is designated for getting wet when one has no intent to clean the garment, such as place a rag on a spill, being that one has no care to squeeze it or whiten it as it is designated for this purpose. Furthermore, it is permitted to dry ones wet hands and body even on a non-designated garment, being that the act of drying is not considered an act of cleaning but rather an act of dirtying, and being that the sages never decreed against drying oneself on Shabbos even on clothing that one in general is particular against getting wet, being that this is a decree that the congregation cannot uphold, as it would in essence prohibit bathing on Shabbos. However, this only applies to drying the body, however, to dry a wet item with a non-designated cloth is forbidden, as even if one were to argue that this too is considered the way of dirtying and does not contain a whitening prohibition [Vetzaruch Iyun, being that from the Poskim it is implied that we only apply this reasoning when drying the body, and not when drying an item], nonetheless, we suspect that one may come to squeeze it being that it is not designated to get wet and one is particular that it not get wet, and this worry was only way in the case of drying one’s body, due to the reasons explained above. Nonetheless, some Poskim rule that if the item is only wet with a small amount of water, then it may be dried with even a non-designated garment, and hence in their opinion, it would be permitted to use a shirt to dry ones eye glasses, and/or plate and cutlery. However, from Setimas Admur in a number of Halachos it is implied that we always suspect for squeezing by a non-designated cloth, irrelevant of how much water is placed on it, although Tzaruch Iyun from the fact that elsewhere Admur rules that by a small amount we don’t suspect for squeezing. Whatever the case, Admur already ruled even regarding drying the body that is best to use a designated garment such as a towel and that it is initially proper for one to shake the water off from his hands and body in order to diminish as must as possible the wetting of the garment. Thus, we concluded above that based on Admur one should not [and perhaps may not, due to Milabein, and squeezing] dry these items using an undesignated cloth. Sources: Admur 302:23 “It is permitted to dry a bench and the like with a garment that one is not particular to squeeze after it gets wet even during the week [i.e. designated for getting wet]”; Admur 319:13; 320:21; M”A 302:22 “With a matter that one is particular against it getting wet, it is forbidden, as he may come to squeeze it; Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid that not particular to squeeze refers to a designated garment; Poskim who are lenient: P”M 302 A”A 22, brought in M”B 302:51, that by a small amount of water there is no Chashash of squeezing even by a non-designated garment; Implication of M”B 302:51 that by drying a small amount of water from a surface, there is no worry of Milabein either; Piskeiy Teshuvos 302 footnote 265; See regarding the prohibition to wet a non-designated cloth versus a designated cloth due to Milabein and Mifarek: Admur 302:20-21; 319:13; 320:21; Kuntrus Achron 302:1 See regarding if only a small amount of the garment gets wet: Admur 302:21 [dispute if we apply Issur Milabein, and that one should be stringent]; 319:23 that we don’t apply Chashash of Sechita if only a minute amount gets wet; 302:23 in which no differentiation is made in amounts and implies that even a small amount of water is forbidden; 319:13 in which a cloth may not be used to filter due to worry of squeezing; P”M ibid and all Poskim ibid in lenient opinion; See regarding if we apply the sevara of Derech Lichluch to drying an item: M”A 302:27 in name of Beis Yosef, Maharam, Tashbeitz, from which it is implied that the sevara of derech Lichluch only applies when drying the body, and not when drying a cup; See Machatzis Hashekel ibid; However, see M”B 302:51 who implied that one may clean a spill of water on a table with a non-designated cloth if it is a small amount of liquid, thus implying we apply the Sevara of Derech Lichluch even when drying an item, and so ruled Piskeiy Teshuvos 302 footnote 265; Vetzaruch Iyun as to the opinion of Admur]; See regarding wiping ones hands on clothing on Shabbos: Admur 301:60 from where it is implied that one may dry his hands on even clothing that are not designated for this purpose, such as a shirt, although he concludes that it is best to use a designated garment such as a towel; 302:21 that it is permitted to dry ones hands on a towel or on clothing that has urine on it being that this is considered a way of dirtying and the not a way of cleaning, although it is best to shake the water off the hands prior to drying. Likewise, he states there that this allowance only applies if through the act of drying ones hands one does not clean away a larger dirt such a feces; 302:23 that one may dry his hands even on a garment that one is particular to not get wet, as the sages never decreed against it; See Tehila Ledavid 301:45 and 302:11 The following Poskim are all lenient as rules Admur: Elya Raba 302:26 and 33; Ran Shabbos 62b; Sefer Hateruma 244; P”M 302 A”A 22; Tosefes Shabbos 302:32; M”B 302:51; Kaf Hachaim 302:77; Piskeiy Teshuvos 302:24; The following Poskim are stringent: M”A 302:22, brought in M”B and Kaf Hachaim ibid [unlike M”A 301:58 regarding a towel after bathing that it is only proper to be stringent]

F. Using a wet towel on Shabbos and Yom Kippur:[50]

From the letter of the law, it is permitted to soak a cloth in water on Erev Yom Kippur and remove it from the water before Yom Kippur, and let it dry out until it no longer contains [enough water] to get another item wet enough to get something else wet, and he may then wipe his face, hands, and legs with it in order to cool off. Even though he is not doing so in order to remove dirt but rather to receive pleasure, nevertheless it is permitted from the letter of the law [to do so], being that [the towel] is dry from the water, as is explained in chapter 554 regarding Tishe Beav. Nevertheless, on Yom Kippur one is to be stringent being that if one were to clean himself with a cloth that was not dried from its water, it would contain a Biblical prohibition due to squeezing. Therefore, one is to be stringent even by a [cloth which was] dry from the water which was on it from before Yom Kippur, due to a decree that perhaps it will not dry well and one will clean with it and come to squeeze.   

May one use a towel on Shabbos if it was wet before Shabbos? Yes, as one would never transgress a Biblical prohibition even if he came to squeeze it.

 

Summary: A. Doing an action which will inevitably cause liquid to squeeze out, if one has no intent to do so:[51] Is forbidden to be done even if the liquid is going to waste. However, the world is accustomed to be lenient to allow this to be done if a) the liquid is going to waste, and b) the pressing of the liquid is being done through a handle and not through the direct pressing of the cloth. B. Using a sponge to clean a liquid: Without a handle:[52] Is forbidden for any liquid because one will come to inevitably squeeze. With a handle: Is permitted because a) the liquid will not definitely be squeezed out, or will definitely be squeezed[53] but b) the liquid is going to waste and is being squeezed through the handle[54]. [Thus regarding cleaning a spill, if one has a sponge or cloth[55] that is attached to a handle then one may hold it by the handle and gently[56] clean the spill.[57] If however even when using the handle one sees that it causes inevitable squeezing from the cloth then one is not to use it.[58]] C. Inserting a wet cloth into the opening of a bottle:[59] Is forbidden to be inserted even lightly no matter what kind of cloth it is or from what it is wet from, being that if one were to insert it strongly it would inevitably squeeze liquid into the bottle. Q&A Does the squeezing prohibition apply to a napkin or tissue? Yes.[60] However some Poskim[61] rule it does not apply.[62]   May one clean a spill using napkins or tissues?[63] It is permitted to place the tissue or napkin onto the spill.[64] However one may not rub the napkin or tissue around the spill. However, some Poskim[65] allow doing so.[66] Practically one is not to be lenient.[67]   May one clean a dry table/counter using a wet cloth?[68] No, as one will inevitably cause water to squeeze out. This applies even if the cloth is only slightly wet. May one clean a wet counter or table [that does not contain an absorbent tablecloth] using a dry cloth?[69] No. Only synthetic material may be used as using an absorbent material to press against the counter/table will inevitably cause liquid to squeeze out which is forbidden. May one soak up a spill on Shabbos by placing on it a cloth napkin/tissue/rag/shirt?[70] Any cloth [even if dirty] which is designated for cleaning spills [such as a paper napkin, tissue, or rag] may be placed over a spill of any liquid including water, and have it absorb the liquid on its own. However, one may not rub the cloth around the spill in a way that will apply pressure to the cloth and cause it to squeeze out some of its absorbed liquid. It may only be moved around the spill in a gentle manner. A cloth which is not designated for cleaning spills [such as a cloth napkin, or undershirt and the like] may only be used to clean spills of colored liquids [which do not contain a dyeing prohibition]. However, to cover spills of clear or white liquids, such as water, is forbidden.[71] This applies even if it a only a small amount.[72] In all the above scenarios one must beware to avoid squeezing liquid from the cloth in the process of cleaning the spill, and certainly may not squeeze it afterwards. As well it is forbidden to clean the spill for a purpose of using the absorbed liquid after Shabbos.   May one move a wet rag or napkin that was used to clean a spill? If there is a dry area left on the cloth it is permitted to be lifted and moved from that area.[73] If, however, the entire cloth is soaking wet, it is forbidden to move it as doing so will inevitably cause liquid to squeeze out.[74] Seemingly, in such a case it is permitted to move the cloth through placing a knife under it and lifting it up as it is not certain that this will cause squeezing. According to some Poskim[75] one may always move a wet tissue or napkin and there is no need to suspect for the squeezing prohibition. May one tie his shoes if the laces are wet, as occurs often in a Mikveh?[76] If the top of the lace is covered with plastic, or the top area is not wet, then it is permitted to be tied from that area.   May one walk with wet shoes and socks if doing so will cause water to squeeze out?[77] Yes.[78] One may even initially walk in them even though water gets squeezed in the process. Nevertheless, some Tzaddikim[79] were stringent in this matter, as a Midas Chassidus.   May one step on a wet rag, or other wet item, if stepping on it will make it squeeze out water?[80] It is best to avoid stepping on it, if it is possible to circumvent the wet rag. However, from the letter of the law, one may be lenient to step on it while walking even if water gets squeezed out in the process.[81] One may certainly do so if it is not possible to walkaround it. One may never step on it specifically for the sake of squeezing.   May one wipe the liquid off a wet tablecloth using a knife and the like?[82] One may only do so lightly, without pressing against the cloth so as not to cause liquid to squeeze out of it.   May one use baby wipes on Shabbos? Some Poskim[83] prohibit them from being used due to a suspicion of squeezing. However other Poskim[84] permit using baby wipes. Practically, according to Admur if the baby wipes are usually wet to the point of Tofeiach Al Menas Lehatfiach, they may not be used even if dry. If however they are usually less wet than Tofeiach Al Menas Lehatfiach then they may be used even if they are not completely dry.[85] Baby wipe was left out or left open and dried: Scented baby wipes: Some Poskim[86] rule that good scents may be used to remove bad smells, even according to those [such as Admur] that hold of a prohibition on placing a scent on one’s skin.

_________________________________________________________________

[1] Admur 320:22; Michaber 320:16; Rava in Shabbos 141a

^[2] Mishneh Berurah 320:44, and so is evident from the Alter Rebbe in reason here.

^[3] The Mishneh Berurah 320:44 and Biur Halacha “Lihadek” rules that this is not to be taken literally, as it is forbidden even if the bottle does not contain liquid, and liquid was only mentioned for the reader to deduce that the material had previously become wet from it.

^[4] Mishneh Berurah 320:44

[5] Admur ibid; Mordechai; M”B 320:44

[6] Admur ibid; See Kuntrus Achron 277:1; Gemara ibid; Shaar Hatziyon 320:49 in name of Tosefes Shabbos

[7] Admur 320:25; M”A 320:23; Rambam; Tosefta Eiruvin 8:5

[8] Admur 320:23; Michaber 320:17; Mishneh Shabbos 143a

[9] Rashi and Rambam 22:15, brought in M”B 320:46

[10] Admur ibid; Rashi ibid; Rambam 22:15; M”B 320:47

[11] Admur ibid; Rashi ibid; Rambam 22:15; M”A 320: ; Biur Hagr”a; M”B 320:47-48

[12] Raavad ibid, brought in M”A 320:19; M”B 320:46

[13] Admur 335:1

[14] This applies even if the sponge contains a handle and thus it is not inevitable that one will squeeze liquid upon holding the cloth. The reason for this prohibition is because it is considered a mundane act and a desecration of Shabbos. Furthermore, there is suspicion that if one were allowed to clean the spill and drip out the absorbed liquid as he does during the week he may come to intentionally squeeze out the liquid. [ibid]

[15] The dispute behind the reason that it is allowed to use a sponge with a handle: The reason this is allowed is because when using a handle to clean with nothing squeezes out from the sponge in the process. [However] there is an opinion which says that even if [the sponge] has a handle it is impossible to clean with the sponge without squeezing it and nevertheless it is permitted as since the squeezing is being done through the [pressing of] the handle it is [therefore] not [Halachically] considered squeezing and is rather like emptying water from a flask which does not contain [the] “detaching” [prohibition]. However, when it does not have a handle in which case it gets squeezed in the area that he holds it with his hand, then it is forbidden.  [ibid]

The practical ramification between these two reasons is in a case that liquid will certainly be squeezed from the sponge. Thus, whether one may apply strength when using a sponge with a handle to clean the liquid, and inevitably cause the liquid to spill, is subject to the above dispute.

Practically: It is implied that Admur rules mainly like the first opinion mentioned there that using a handle is only allowed due to it not being an inevitable occurrence. If however one sees the squeezing is inevitable, then it once again becomes prohibited. [So is evident from 320:24 that we do not hold of the 2^nd opinion above as the final Halacha, as Admur does not simply allow inserting a barrel pipe with a cloth due to this reason, but adds that one must also make sure the liquid goes to waste. In the words of Admur 320:24: “As many argue on their words”. Vetzaruch Iyun if these words are going on the opinion of Raavad that even if it squeezes out it is allowed, or if it’s going on opinion of the Melamdim Zechus. Furthermore, Tzaruch Iyun on if one can truly derive anything from the Barza case to a regular sponge case, as seemingly Admur learns that a Barza does not have the same status as a handle of the sponge and that’s why the Heter is not so clear, however by an actual handle of a sponge perhaps Admur would be lenient even if the liquid does not go to waste, and certainly if it does. Vetzaruch Iyun. I later however found in Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 3 p. 211-212 a similar conclusion that it is evident from Admur that one may only use a sponge with a handle if it does not inevitably cause squeezing. He deduces this also from Ketzos Hashulchan [133-end] that a toothbrush, despite it having a handle, is forbidden to be used due to it causing inevitable squeezing.

[16] 320:23

[17] There are three possible issues discussed in Poskim regarding these forms of sponges: Squeezing and Uvdin Dechol may apply by all sponges and in addition Mimacheik may also apply by steel wool.

[18] Ketzos Hashulchan 146 footnote 33; Minchas Yitzchak 3:49; Beir Moshe 1:34

The Ketzos Hashulchan ibid prohibits it due to both reasons. The Minchas Yitzchak states that steel wool is forbidden being that it contains a Rabbinical squeezing prohibition similar to hair. Beir Moshe 1:34 states that although doing so does not involve a squeezing prohibition [certainly not by the thick stranded steel wool] it is perhaps forbidden due to Uvdin Dechol. Nevertheless he does not rule this way conclusively and hence leaves room for it being allowed.

[19] SSH”K 12:10; Cheishev Haeifod 2:149 [however see below that he rules the sponge must be designated.]

Beir Moshe ibid in previous footnote rules that possibly no prohibition of squeezing is involved even by closely netted sponges of synthetic or metal materials, although it may be forbidden by all sponges due to Uvdin Dechol. Practically he concludes that by closely knitted sponges it is forbidden, while by others it is unclear due to Uvdin Dechol. SSH”K argues that there is no precedence to claim that there is an issue of Uvdin Dechol involved.

[20]  According to this opinion if the metal sponge visibly has its strands distanced from each other then it is permitted to be used. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 323:4]

[21] Due to the Mimacheik prohibition, as ruled similarly regarding silver in 323:11 [SSH”K ibid] However it is clear from Beir Moshe:Ketzos Hashulchan ibid that he does not hold of this. Nevertheless, the Beir Moshe concludes not to use the steel wool on plates which one will have to scrub them for a while.

[22] Beir Moshe ibid

[23] Even with steel wool [so long as one does not rub very thoroughly], and even if the strands are close together. [ibid]

[24] Cheishev Haeifod 2:149; Minchas Yitzchak 3:50 regarding a sponge with a handle.

[25] Admur 320:24; Michaber 320:18; Rav in Shabbos 111a

^[26]  When flax is pressed there are small pieces of residue which fall from it.

^[27] Meaning in order so no liquid leak out from the hole where the pipe has been inserted one wraps cloth around the area of the pipe being inserted thus closing up any possibility of leakage.

[28] Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid; Riy; Mordechai; Tosafus 103a; Rosh 12:1

[29] Aruch Erech Sever, brought in Tosafus 103a; 1^st opinion in Michaber

[30] M”B 320:52

[31] Admur ibid; implication of Michaber ibid

Opinion of Michaber by Pesik Resihei of Derabana: From this Halacha we see the Michaber rules there is a prohibition of Pesik Resihei by a Rabbinical prohibition even if Lo Nicha Lei. Vetzrauch Iyun as in 314:1 the Michaber rules by a Rabbinical case that one may do a Pesik Resihei. Veztaruch Iyun Gadol!

[32] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

[33] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Kol Bo 31

[34] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

[35] Rashba brought in Maggid Mishneh; Rivash in opinion of Rabbeinu Tam

[36] Admur ibid parentheses in original

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the entire case here is referring to a barrel of red wine, as by water or white wine there is a prohibition of Milabein and all Poskim would agree that there is a Biblical prohibition even if the liquid is going to waste and one uses a handle to squeeze it. [M”B 320:55; Biur Halacha 320:18 “Yeish Mi Shematir”]

Is there a prohibition of Milabein involved in causing a Shemtah to squeeze its water while using it for cleaning? According to Admur it seems there is no prohibition while according to the M”B ibid it seems there is a prohibition.

[37] Admur 302:12; Michaber 302:12; Tashbatz 28; Mahram 511; Rabbeinu Yerucham 12:13

[38] See Az Nidbaru 7:9; However according to the Igros Moshe 2:70 this would be allowed

[39] The reason: As since the cup is narrow, it is not possible to avoid the cloth from squeezing out some of the water which it absorbed while drying it, and it is thus Rabbinically forbidden [due to the squeezing/Mifarek prohibition] even by liquids that do not contain a laundering prohibition. [Admur ibid; M”A 302:27 in his second answer; M”B 302:60]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the reason for this prohibition is due to the laundering prohibition, and hence it is only prohibited by water or white wine, and only when using a cloth that is not designated for drying. [1^st answer in M”A ibid; M”B 320:58] Some Poskim rule the custom is to be lenient to allow drying cups. [Ridbaz 1:213, brought in Birkeiy Yosef 302:89; M”B 302:59; See Biur Halacha “Mishum” that this applies even by narrow cups]

[40] Meaning that the prohibition applies even if the cup has a liquid to which the laundering prohibition is unapplicable. [ibid]

[41] Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber and M”A ibid which do not differentiate between the size of the cup; See Minchas Shabbos 80:129 and Misgeres Hashulchan 80:74 that negate limiting the prohibition to cups with narrow tops being the Poskim above did not differentiate in this; See Az Nidbaru 3:20 that tea and coffee cups should also be considered narrow cups although the custom is to be lenient; See Toras Hamelachos 13 Melaben

The reason: Seemingly the reason for this is because all cups are considered narrow enough to cause squeezing when drying its ends at the bottom. However, a bowl or pot is wide enough to be dried without causing any squeezing.

[42] Implication of Admur ibid and Michaber ibid which do not differentiate between the wetness of the cup; Biur Halacha “Mishum” only allows to be lenient in a time of need if one shakes out the water

[43] SSH”K 12:22 footnote 61 [new]; See Kitzur SHU”A 80:34 “or other vessels that have a narrow opening”

[44] Or Letziyon 2:24-7; Az Nidbaru ibid that those that are lenient to dry coffee cups and the like should first shake out the water; Biur Halacha ibid is lenient to allow drying even a narrow cup in a time of need if one first shakes out the water.

[45] See M”A 302:27; M”B 302:59 which implies according to the Radbaz one may use even a non-designated cloth as there will not be inevitable squeezing, and the laundering prohibition does not apply when drying an item. Admur records a dispute in this matter in 302:21 and 319:23 and concludes that a G-d fearing Jew is to be stringent.

[46] Az Nidbaru ibid

[47] The Rebbe’s custom: Rabbi Groner related to me that the Rebbe dried his Kiddush cup by the weekly farbrengen only after the cup had been rinsed and already dried. The reason the Rebbe preceded to dry the already dried cup is based on that the Rebbe desired to personally clean his cup, and one can use a napkin in place of water. [See Kaf Hachaim 183:5] 

[48] See Admur 302:23 regarding drying a bench and the like that one may do so with a designated cloth; M”B 302:59

[49] See Admur 613:16

[50] Admur 613:16; Rama 613:9

^[51] Admur 320:24

^[52] Admur 320:23

^[53] Admur 320:23

^[54] Admur 320:24

[55] This refers to a cloth that does not involve a laundering prohibition in wetting it as explained above.

[56] This is based on that which is explained in the next footnote

[57] Admur 320:23; SSH”K 12 footnote 37

The dispute behind the reason that it is allowed to use a sponge with a handle: The reason this is allowed is because when using a handle to clean with nothing squeezes out from the sponge in the process. [However] there is an opinion which says that even if [the sponge] has a handle it is impossible to clean with the sponge without squeezing it and nevertheless it is permitted as since the squeezing is being done through the [pressing of] the handle it is [therefore] not [Halachically] considered squeezing and is rather like emptying water from a flask which does not contain [the] “detaching” [prohibition]. However, when it does not have a handle in which case it gets squeezed in the area that he holds it with his hand, then it is forbidden.  [ibid]

The practical ramification between these two reasons is in a case that liquid will certainly be squeezed from the sponge. Thus, whether one may apply strength when using a sponge with a handle to clean the liquid, and inevitably cause the liquid to spill, is subject to the above dispute.

Practically: It is implied that Admur rules mainly like the first opinion mentioned there that using a handle is only allowed due to it not being an inevitable occurrence. If, however, one sees the squeezing is inevitable, then it once again becomes prohibited. [So is evident from 320:24 that we do not hold of the 2^nd opinion above as the final Halacha, as Admur does not simply allow inserting a barrel pipe with a cloth due to this reason, but adds that one must also make sure the liquid goes to waste. In the words of Admur 320:24: “As many argue on their words”. Vetzaruch Iyun if these words are going on the opinion of Raavad that even if it squeezes out it is allowed, or if it’s going on opinion of the Melamdim Zechus.  Furthermore, Tzaruch Iyun on if one can truly derive anything from the Barza case to a regular sponge case, as seemingly Admur learns that a Barza does not have the same status as a handle of the sponge and that’s why the Heter is not so clear, however by an actual handle of a sponge perhaps Admur would be lenient even if the liquid does not go to waste, and certainly if it does. Vetzaruch Iyun. I later however found in Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 3 p. 211-212 a similar conclusion that it is evident from Admur that one may only use a sponge with a handle if it does not inevitably cause squeezing. He deduces this also from Ketzos Hashulchan [133-end] that a toothbrush, despite it having a handle, is forbidden to be used due to it causing inevitable squeezing.

[58] Shabbos Kehalacha ibid; Based on what was explained in the previous footnote: If the liquid will not be going to waste then certainly one may not do so. [“As many argue on the lenient opinion”-320:24] If the liquid is going to waste, then it seems from Michaber/Admur that initially even so one should not do so although those which are lenient have upon what to rely. [As Admur/Michaber rule by the Barza case that it should not be done and it is only that we are Melameid Zechus on those that do. However, Tzaruch Iyun on if one can truly derive anything from the Barza case to a regular sponge case, as seemingly Admur learns that a Barza does not have the same status as a handle of the sponge and that’s why the Heter is not so clear, however by an actual handle of a sponge perhaps Admur would be lenient even if the liquid does not go to waste, and certainly if it does. Vetzaruch Iyun.] See M”B 320:55; SSH”K 12 footnote 37; Minchas Yitzchak 3:50

^[59] Admur 320:22

[60] See Az Nidbaru 7:9 which argues on many points of the leniency of the Igros Moshe.

[61] Igros Moshe 2:70

[62] As he claims there is no concept of Sechita [squeezing] by tissue and paper, as it is not truly an absorbent material.

[63] Piskeiy Teshuvos 302:10

[64] As they are designated for this purpose

[65] Igros Moshe 2:70

[66] As he claims there is no concept of Sechita [squeezing] by tissue and paper, as it is not truly an absorbent material.

[67] See Az Nidbaru 7:9 which argues on many points of the leniency of the Igros Moshe.

[68] SSH”K 12:40

[69] SSH”K 12:40

[70] Admur 319:13; 320:21; SSH”K 12:38

[71] Admur 302:20; 319:13; 320:21; Admur 302:23 “It is permitted to dry a bench and the like with a garment that one is not particular to squeeze after it gets wet even during the week [i.e. designated for getting wet]”; Admur 319:13; 320:21; M”A 302:22 “With a matter that one is particular against it getting wet, it is forbidden, as he may come to squeeze it; Machatzis Hashekel on M”A ibid that not particular to squeeze refers to a designated garment

The reason: If the cloth is not designated for this purpose of cleaning spills it is forbidden to soak it in clear liquids due to the laundering prohibition. As if one intends to soak it in the liquid in order to whiten the cloth he would be liable for laundering. Likewise, if one would proceed to squeeze the liquid out from the cloth he would be liable for laundering. Hence it is forbidden to use such cloths to clean clear liquid spills. However, if the cloth is designated for this purpose then there is no reason to suspect one may place it on the spill for laundering purposes or come to squeeze the liquid out, as this is the entire purpose of the cloth. [319:13; 320:21]

[72] Explanation: In general, it is forbidden to wet clothing on Shabbos, and cause them to get wet, due to both the laundering and squeezing prohibition, as the mere wetting of an item is considered laundering according to many Poskim, and as well we suspect one may come to squeeze the water out of the clothing and transgress the squeezing/Mifareik prohibition. Nonetheless, it is permitted to wet a garment that is designated for getting wet when one has no intent to clean the garment, such as place a rag on a spill, being that one has no care to squeeze it or whiten it as it is designated for this purpose. Furthermore, it is permitted to dry ones wet hands and body even on a non-designated garment, being that the act of drying is not considered an act of cleaning but rather an act of dirtying, and being that the sages never decreed against drying oneself on Shabbos even on clothing that one in general is particular against getting wet, being that this is a decree that the congregation cannot uphold, as it would in essence prohibit bathing on Shabbos. However, this only applies to drying the body, however, to dry a wet item with a non-designated cloth is forbidden, as even if one were to argue that this too is considered the way of dirtying and does not contain a whitening prohibition [Vetzaruch Iyun, being that from the Poskim it is implied that we only apply this reasoning when drying the body, and not when drying an item], nonetheless, we suspect that one may come to squeeze it being that it is not designated to get wet and one is particular that it not get wet, and this worry was only way in the case of drying one’s body, due to the reasons explained above. Nonetheless, some Poskim rule that if the item is only wet with a small amount of water, then it may be dried with even a non-designated garment [P”M 302 A”A 22, brought in M”B 302:51, that by a small amount of water there is no Chashash of squeezing even by a non-designated garment; Implication of M”B 302:51 that by drying a small amount of water from a surface, there is no worry of Milabein either; Piskeiy Teshuvos 302 footnote 265], and hence in their opinion, it would be permitted to use a shirt to dry ones eye glasses, and/or plate and cutlery. However, from Setimas Admur in a number of Halachos it is implied that we always suspect for squeezing by a non-designated cloth, irrelevant of how much water is placed on it, although Tzaruch Iyun from the fact that elsewhere Admur rules that by a small amount we don’t suspect for squeezing. [See Admur 302:21 dispute if we apply Issur Milabein, and that one should be stringent; 319:23 that we don’t apply Chashash of Sechita if only a minute amount gets wet; 302:23 in which no differentiation is made in amounts and implies that even a small amount of water is forbidden; 319:13 in which a cloth may not be used to filter due to worry of squeezing] Whatever the case, Admur already ruled even regarding drying the body that is best to use a designated garment such as a towel and that it is initially proper for one to shake the water off from his hands and body in order to diminish as must as possible the wetting of the garment. [See Admur 301:60; 302:21] Thus, we concluded above that based on Admur one should not [and perhaps may not, due to Milabein, and squeezing] dry these items using an undesignated cloth.

[73] As if there is an area that is not wet it is similar to a sponge with a handle which is allowed to be used being that no water will squeeze out from the area he is holding on to. [320:23] So is also proven from Admur 301:59 [Rama 301:46; M”B 301:172] that it is permitted to lift wet clothing if there is no suspicion one will come to squeeze it. In our case there is no suspicion one will come to squeeze the rag or tissue being they are designated for this purpose of cleaning. [see 301:59]

[74] This is similar to a sponge that does not have a handle which is forbidden to even lift due to inevitably causing squeezing. [320:22] One must thus establish the case in Admur 301:59 to be discussing even if there is a dry area of the cloth. However, if the entire cloth is soaked without any area, then it is forbidden to be lifted with one’s fingers due to the squeezing prohibition.

[75] Igros Moshe 2:70

[76] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 302 footnote 218; Orchos Shabbos 1 13:15; Maor Hashabbos 4 in end in letter of Rav Fisher

[77] Ashel Avraham Butchach 614:4; Minchas Shabbos 80:131; and Kuntrus Achron 7; Piskeiy Teshuvos 301:56 footnote 391; So is proven from Setimas HaPoskim who allow entering a river on Yom Kippur to visit one’s Rebbe. See???

[78] The reason: As a) The custom is to be lenient to allow squeezing with an item [i.e. one’s shoes] when one does not intend to squeeze. B) Even according to the stringent opinion, this is considered an irregular way of squeezing and is hence more lenient. [Poskim ibid]

[79] See Tiferes Beis David p. 35 in name of Shinover Rav; Orchos Rabbeinu 1:133

[80] Lehoros Nasan 1:16; Divrei Shalom 4:226; Rivivos Efraim 3:236; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 301 footnote 391

[81] The reason: As a) The custom is to be lenient to allow squeezing with an item [i.e. one’s shoes] when one does not intend to squeeze. B) Even according to the stringent opinion, this is considered an irregular way of squeezing and is hence more lenient. [See Poskim ibid regarding wet socks]

[82] M”B 320:55; Biur Halacha 320:18 “Yeish Lehanhigam”; SSH”K 12:37; See Taz 320:12 that allows using a knife by other liquids to squeeze out the liquid from the cloth. Admur completely omits this case.

[83] Minchas Yitzchak 10:25, in name of also other Rabbanim.

[84] SSH”K 14:33 in name of Rav SZ”A, Rav Wozner allows it for baBeis only. The Piskeiy Teshuvos [327:1] and SSH”K learns that the foundation for the allowance is from the M”B/Magen Avraham in 613:9 which allow one to dry his legs/hands :feet from before Shabbos and then use it on Shabbos to clean his eyes. However, Tzaruch Iyun on this as baby wipes may have a lot more water absorbed in them than the above-mentioned towel used to dry only ones hands/feet and face.

[85] Based on Rama 613:9 and Admur 613:16 which rule one may not place a clothe that was wet before Shabbos on one’s body even if it is now dry, due to worry of squeezing. Admur ibid adds that a) From the letter of the law if the cloth is not wet to the point of Tofeiach Al Menas Lehtafiach then it does not have a Sechita prohibition and b) The worry is only in a case that the squeezed liquid is not going to waste, and hence it is a Biblical Sechita prohibition. To note that Admur here omits the ruling of the Magen Avraham [brought in previous footnote, which serves as the source for the ruling of the lenient opinions] that if one wiped his hands/legs/face with a towel before Shabbos one may use them for his eyes on Shabbos. Seemingly Admur omitted this ruling being it is already included in his mentioned rule that if it contains enough water before Shabbos to be “Tofeaich Al Minas Lehatfiach” then it may not be used, and if it does not then it may. From all the above we learn: a) When you clean yourself with a damp cloth it automatically causes squeezing. b) One may not use a cloth that was wet before Shabbos even if it is now dry, if one’s purpose is to benefit from the squeezed liquid. C) One may clean himself with an item that is damp, but not Tofeiach Al Menas Lehatfiach, if one has no benefit from the squeezed liquid, or it was never this wet before Shabbos. From all this we can deduce that by baby wipes the main issue is the amount of normal wetness that it contains. If it is normally wet Tofeiach Al Menas Lehatfiach, then it may not be used even when dry, just as is the law here in 613:16 and if it is not normally this wet then it may be used.

[86] Beir Moshe 1:34 [based on Sheilas Yaavetz] rules that good smells may always be applied in order to remove bad odors, and so rules Piskeiy Teshuvah [327:1, 328:26]. SSH”K [ibid] also rules leniently in this, although to note that they hold [unlike Admur] there is never a prohibition to place good smells on one’s skin.

Bookmark