asd – D'var Halacha

We are continuing in siman 11. We left off discussing synthetic materials and whether the melacha of melabein will apply to them. The halacha is that if the garment is woven of synthetic material, one must be concerned for melabein. Thus, for example, one cannot pour water on a stain on a tablecloth made of synthetic material. The weave allows it to be considered akin to regular material in that it holds dirt, so even soaking the stain will be assur. If the tablecloth is clean, and water spilled on it, even trying to remove the water by pushing or siphoning it off will be assur, because of the concept of sheriyuso zehu kibuso. One could place a towel or the like on top of the water to absorb it, but cannot move it around. If the liquid is dirty, it would be muttar to move around the liquid, because it dirties the tablecloth rather than cleans it. In regards to wine, it is a machlokes whether wine makes a garment dirty or clean, so one should try to avoid the issue. If one has a plastic tablecloth on top of their regular tablecloth, the concept of sheriyuso zehu kibuso does not apply. Plastic is minimally comparable to leather, where we do not apply the concept of sheriyuso zehu kibuso. Therefore, one could pour some water on top of the dirt in order to help clean it. On the other hand, we learned that kiskus, rubbing vigorously, does apply to leather, and it is a discussion in the poskim whether this issur would apply to leather as well. Some poskim hold that plastic is better than leather, because it does not absorb at all, while leather does eventually absorb. Therefore, there is no issue rubbing plastic, because it is merely removing an item from the surface, akin to washing dishes. Others hold that since the plastic is pliable, kiskus will apply. Rav Moshe holds that one should be machmir that it is a problem. Shaking out a wet tablecloth is assur, as it is a form of kibus. If there is liquid only on the surface, it is not a problem. If it is dry, one can shake it out if the dirt is on the surface, but if it is embedded in the tablecloth such that it needs to be shaken vigorously, it is assur. Summary

The melacha of melabein is applied to synthetic materials in the same way it is applied to other garments.
The concept of sheriyuso zehu kibuso is not applied to plastic. However, we are machmir that kiskus does apply to plastic

We are at the end of siman 11, where the Chayei Adam says that sechita for hair is not assur mideoraysa, but is assur miderabanan. In siman 309:9, the Biur Halacha raises a question. The Gemara in Zevachim discusses washing out the blood of a korban which got absorbed into bigdei kehuna. The blood has the status of nosar, and has to be removed from the garment and burned with the rest of the leftover korban. The Gemara discusses kibus, washing out the blood, from a garment made of sackcloth (not to be confused with modern day sackcloth). This garment was made from more coarse and wiry fibers, such as from animal hair. It is clear from the Gemara that the concept of kibus applies to such a garment. However, if we hold that there is no sechita in regards to hair, we should apply it to the case in Zevachim as well and there should be no question of kibus? To answer the question, we have to understand the logic behind the concept that sechita does not apply to hair. Rashi in Shabbos, 128a, says that hair is hard so it does not absorb. Thus, even though there may be liquid which gets trapped between hairs, it does not absorb into the hair itself, so it is not considered sechita to remove it. In truth, there are two reasons why sechita is assur. There is sechita where it is assur to use the item, and there is sechita which is assur even though the liquid will be discarded. In the latter case, the issue is not sechita inasmuch as the cleansing process which takes place as the liquid leaves the garment. Here, where we are discussing sechita in hair, the goal is not to use the liquid but to remove it from the hair. There is no issue of mefareik, because mefareik applies when the liquid is used. There is also no issue of melabein, since the liquid is not absorbed by the hairs, and only trapped in between them. If so, we return to the question that if hair does not absorb, how is it that it applies to the garment in Zevachim? Due to this question, the Biur Halacha differentiates between hair on the body and within a garment. We will clarify this point and discuss some practical applications in the upcoming shiur, be’ezras Hashem. Summary

Mideoraysa, there is no concern for sechita in hair, but there is an issur miderabanan.
However, there is no issur of simply soaking hair.
There is an issue squeezing and soaking a garment made of hair. We will discuss the details of this issur in the upcoming shiur, be’ezras Hashem.

We are at the end of siman 11, where the Chayei Adam writes that sechita and melabein do not apply to leather nor to hair. Thus, the same way it is muttar to soak leather, it is muttar to soak hair, and the same way we are not concerned about the issur of sechita by leather, we are not concerned for it by hair. We did learn that the issur of rubbing a garment against itself applies to leather, so it should apply to hair as well.

The Chayei Adam’s language is that there is no concern mideoraysa of sechita on hair, which would imply that there is a concern for sechita miderabanan. (The Rambam’s wording is also that one is not chayav for sechita on hair, which implies that there is an issur miderabanan.)

The Chayei Adam’s order of presentation seems to be the opposite of the Rambam. The Rambam writes that there is no concern of sechita on hair, and similarly there is no concern of sechita on leather.The Magid Mishneh explains that the Rambam begins in the opposite direction because there is a Gemara which indicates that there is no issur of sechita in hair, but as we will see, no clear gemara which talks about sechita on leather. The Gemara is discussing a woman who is giving birth, which is considered sakanas nefashos. If there is an immediate emergency, one must do anything they can to save her life and disregard any melacha concerns. However, if there is sakana but no acute danger, one should try to minimize melacha. The Gemara gives the example of a woman in labor, where most of the labor process is not an acute sakanas nefashos. The Gemara says that if one needs to transport items for the woman through a reshus harabbim, such as oil, it is muttar to transport them, but assuming it is not acute, one should try to find a way to minimize the melacha involved. The Gemara says that regarding the oil, a friend should soak the oil into her hair, travel through the reshus harabbim, and squeeze it out of her hair for the woman giving birth. The Gemara asks why there is no issue of sechita, and the Gemara answers that there is no issur of sechita on hair. The implication is that in this case, it is muttar because of the sakana; without the sakana element, it would be assur miderabanan. Thus, the Rambam begins by discussing hair, because there is a source in the Gemara for it.

The Magid Mishneh does not give a source for how we know there is no issur of sechita by leather, and the Biur Halacha and Chochmas Adam grapple with finding a source for it. We will discuss this point further in the upcoming shiur, be’ezras Hashem.

Summary

Mideoraysa, there is no concern for sechita in hair, but there is an issur miderabanan.
However, there is no issur of simply soaking hair.
Similarly, it is muttar to soak leather.

Harav Eliyahu Reingold / All Rights Reserved © 2021.