Sechitah on Shabbos: Cleaning Rags, Towels, Paper Towels, and Baby Wipes

Topics

• Sechitah on Shabbos: Cleaning Rags, Towels, Paper Towels, and Baby Wipes
• Four Parts of the Sugya of Sechitas Begadim
• When Does Shema Yavo Lidei Sechitah Apply?
• Reusing a Rag: The Object and the Situation
• Towels Today and the Two Reasons to Squeeze
• Squeezing During the Act of Wiping
• Drying Hands and Drying a Cup
• A Diyuk in the Mishnah Berurah
• The Biur Halachah and the Meaning of a Narrow Cup
• Finding Beauty in the Sugya—and Returning to Towels
• Paper Towels: Libun or Dash?
• Is Water Used for Cleaning Considered Holech Le’ibud?
• The Unfinished Discussion of Baby Wipes

Transcript

# Sechitah on Shabbos: Cleaning Rags, Towels, Paper Towels, and Baby Wipes

## Four Parts of the Sugya of Sechitas Begadim

Rabosai, in siman 320, se’ifim 15, 16, 17, and 18 all deal with one inyan: sechitas begadim, squeezing cloths. The beginning of the siman dealt with sechitas peiros. Then we learned about sheleg u’varad, snow and hail. Now we come to materials that absorb liquid.

“Begadim” is lav davka. It need not be an actual garment or have a shem beged. A sponge is not a garment, but it absorbs liquid and belongs in this discussion. Cotton balls are another example.

You are asking about napkins already? That is a controversial question! You are jumping the gun. Let us first go slowly and understand the se’ifim.

Each se’if teaches a different prat. Se’if 15 deals with shema yavo lidei sechitah. Even without squeezing anything now, one may not put a cloth into a situation where it will absorb water if we are concerned that he will subsequently squeeze it. That is the gezeirah. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 320:15, says, “אבל בגד העשוי לפרוס עליו מותר שאינו חושש עליו לסחטו”—a cloth made to be spread there is permitted, because he is not concerned to squeeze it.

You ask why this is not borer. There is an Acharon who discusses that question. If I remember correctly, it is the Tehillah LeDavid. I recall a distinction involving the relationship between the cloth and the water, but I do not want to settle that question from memory. It is not the point we are learning now.

Se’if 16 deals with sechitah itself: “אסור להדק מוכין”—one may not press soft absorbent material tightly into place when that causes liquid to be squeezed out. Muchin can mean soft material such as cotton; again, this is not limited to garments. That is Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 320:16.

Se’if 17 introduces a special heter: beis achizah, a handle. “ספוג אין מקנחין בו אלא אם כן יש בו בית אחיזה”—one may not wipe with a sponge unless it has a handle. Does a handle solve the problem for our sponges and brushes? We will discuss that. There is a machlokes in the Rishonim, involving the Rambam and the Raavad, and it deserves its own sugya, perhaps tomorrow. The Shulchan Aruch permits the sponge with a beis achizah; we still have to understand the explanation of that heter. The two explanations are brought in Mishnah Berurah 320:47–48.

Se’if 18 is long and complicated. What is the underlying melachah of squeezing a cloth? Is it dash, extracting liquid, or libun, laundering? If the concern is dash, whether the liquid goes to waste is important: when it is holech le’ibud, the act is not the ordinary form of dash. For libun, that does not solve the problem; squeezing water out of the material may itself be part of laundering it.

The Shulchan Aruch discusses a plug in a barrel and a case where squeezing is unavoidable, but no vessel is placed underneath to collect the liquid. It brings the position that this is a psik reisha de’lo nicha lei, because he does not benefit from that squeezing, and then the opposing position. We will learn that sugya separately, or take the parts that are nogeia lemaaseh for us. It is one of the longest se’ifim here. Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 320:18, specifies “והוא שלא יהא תחתיו כלי”—provided that no vessel is beneath it.

So keep the four points distinct: the concern that one will later squeeze; actual squeezing through pressure; the heter of a handle; and the complicated issue of inevitable squeezing when the liquid is unwanted.

## When Does Shema Yavo Lidei Sechitah Apply?

Let us begin with the first point. When does shema yavo lidei sechitah apply, and how does it apply to us lemaaseh?

The Shulchan Aruch forbids spreading a sudar over the opening of a barrel and placing the vessel used to draw liquid upon it. The cloth will get wet, and we are afraid that one may squeeze it. But then comes the qualification: if this is a cloth made for that purpose, it is permitted, because he is not concerned to squeeze it out.

Why should he care that it is wet? That is what it is there for! The Mishnah Berurah, se’if katan 43, explains: “שהרי לכך עשוי ואינו מקפיד עליו אם הוא שרוי במים”—it is made for that use, and he is not particular about its remaining wet. That is Mishnah Berurah 320:43.

Now, if you want to be a daykan, you can ask a nice Mishnah Berurah question. What if the cloth is not made for this purpose, but this particular person does not care whether it gets wet? Is the decisive point what the cloth is designated for, or whether the person is makpid?

I would not call that an overwhelming diyuk. But it is a worthwhile question. It makes the mind work.

Take a shmata, a cleaning rag. Ordinarily you do not mind its becoming wet and dirty. What difference does it make? Lechoirah, it is a good example of eino makpid, so we should not automatically fear that you will squeeze it out.

You say it might become moldy. But even after squeezing it, it will still be wet. Do you really care about the exact amount of water? Today people put these things into the washing machine. We will discuss that contemporary point, because you cannot simply read washing machines into the Mishnah Berurah. I have a chiddush about it. It may put me among those who say things that others question, but I believe there is something to think about here.

First let us establish the ordinary example. A cleaning rag and a towel are not necessarily the same. The poskim discuss a shmata as something about which one is generally not makpid.

But there is another side. Suppose the rag has absorbed a great deal of water, and you want to use it again. You are cleaning a very wet floor. At some point the rag cannot absorb more. Will you now want to squeeze it so that you can continue?

Eino chanami, perhaps the amount of water and the particular situation matter. We need not look only at the cheftza, the rag. We can look at the scenario.

Remember the question I raised from the Mishnah Berurah. We can turn it both ways. You might have a beautiful towel that is not meant for this, but you are wealthy and personally do not care. Or you might have a shmata designated for cleaning, but you need to keep using this very same rag and therefore do care about its being saturated.

You see how one learns Mishnah Berurah? Gevaldik! Does he require both conditions—that it is designated for the purpose and that you are not makpid—or is one the essential point?

I want to show you another Mishnah Berurah, in siman 302, se’if katan 59. There he discusses the concern that you may want to squeeze a cloth in order to use it again. Let us look inside rather than deciding this only from our own examples.

## Reusing a Rag: The Object and the Situation

Look at Mishnah Berurah 302:59. He says that a samartut designated for this purpose, about which one is not particular to squeeze it, is permitted according to all opinions.

You see that he gives a cleaning rag as the example. He does not make your calculation about whether it will become moldy. You may suggest a difference in the thickness of the cloth, but then we have to examine the metzius. There is no fixed measure stated here that answers every possible rag.

Then the Mishnah Berurah adds that even wiping many vessels can be permitted. Why? If one side of the rag becomes wet through wiping, he can wipe with its other side. Mishnah Berurah 302:59 says, “דאם יהיה הסמרטוט לח מצד אחד ע״י הניגוב ינגב בה מצד אחר”—if the rag becomes wet on one side through wiping, he can wipe with the other side.

That is an interesting cheshbon. I might have said simply that he does not care whether a shmata is wet. But the Mishnah Berurah gives a practical reason why he can keep wiping without squeezing it: there is another side available.

Suppose, however, that your child spills an entire bottle of liquid on the floor. You absorb so much that the whole rag becomes wet. Now you want to use it again. Can I apply this Mishnah Berurah in exactly the same way?

This is what it means to learn Mishnah Berurah. When you wipe a pot, the cloth may get wet in one place and still have another dry part. When you absorb a large spill, that practical calculation may be different.

Give me a minute; I cannot listen to two voices at once. There is the inyan of trei kali. Only the Eibishter can speak in the manner described by Chazal, beyond what a human mouth can say and a human ear can hear. I cannot! Rosh Hashanah 27a says, “זכור ושמור בדיבור אחד נאמרו”—zachor and shamor were said in one utterance.

We will go through the practical questions. We will even get to the questions of niddah, washing, and cleaning. I missed yesterday, so I have an achrayus to make up the material today—if the oilam lets me! If you do not let me, that is your fault.

Now look at Shaar HaTziyun, se’if katan 73. The passage we are discussing brings a stricter concern associated with the Radbaz: even where the cloth is designated for this use, one may squeeze it between vessels so that it will be fit to wipe more. The distinction being discussed is a small cloth.

That supports the question I am raising. It may depend on whether this person has enough dry cloth available. I keep stressing that he has only one rag. If he has more, let him take another one. But if he has just one and knows that he must absorb a great deal of liquid, the concern that he will squeeze it may be real.

Do not rush to make this a universal asur or mutar. Ask: What is the case? What is in front of him? Will he squeeze it or will he not?

What I am trying to bring out is that the gezeirah is not merely a label placed on the shmata. It concerns the matzav, the situation in which that shmata is being used. Usually we do not let every individual’s account redefine a gezeirah. But here the discussion itself examines the practical circumstances. If another rag is available, perhaps he will use that instead of squeezing this one.

## Towels Today and the Two Reasons to Squeeze

Exactly. If he has another cloth, perhaps the concern does not apply in the same way. Instead of squeezing this one, he can take the second one. On the other hand, perhaps he wants to avoid doing more laundry and will try to keep using the first. Every case has to be examined.

I am showing you how technical the discussion becomes: a small cloth, a large cloth, wiping with one side or the other. We are looking at the metzius, rather than treating the name “rag” as a complete answer.

If he has only one towel and it will absorb a large amount of water, perhaps he must be concerned about shema yavo lidei sechitah. If there are several available, that concern may be different.

You are asking whether people wring their towels out or leave them to dry. That brings us to the point I really want to consider. What we have done until now is the groundwork.

Today, when a towel gets wet, many people simply put it into the laundry. Do people necessarily squeeze it because they cannot tolerate its being wet?

You point out that a cleaning woman may squeeze a rag over a bucket while mopping. You are right; that does happen. But that is the case of wanting to reuse the rag. I am trying to distinguish another nekudah.

The original halachah is about being makpid that the cloth should not remain wet. The Shaar HaTziyun discussion of wanting to reuse it raises a different reason to squeeze.

Listen to the original Shulchan Aruch: a cloth designated for this purpose is permitted because he is not concerned to squeeze it. The question is whether he minds its being wet. I want to suggest that modern laundry habits may affect that concern, even for an ordinary towel. A person may put it into the laundry room and be finished with it.

If that is so, the practical emphasis may even be reversed. Originally an ordinary towel, about which one is makpid, is the more obvious concern, and a shmata is permitted because one is not makpid. Today the question may particularly arise with the shmata that one wants to keep using.

I am presenting this as a chiddush to examine, not ignoring the examples you are bringing from actual cleaning.

You ask about wiping one’s hands on one’s shirt. First, that has a separate concern of shikchah; it is mentioned as a practice that can cause forgetfulness. Second, how much water are you actually putting into the shirt, and why would you squeeze it? We will learn the halachah of drying hands. There is generally not so much water there, and the Shulchan Aruch discusses that case explicitly.

Now let us move from squeezing afterwards to squeezing during the act. Suppose you wipe a wet surface, pressing down with your weight as you wipe. Until now we have asked whether you will later want to wring the cloth out. What about the liquid that might be expressed while you are actually using it? That is a separate question.

## Squeezing During the Act of Wiping

Should we be concerned about sechitah while wiping? This brings us to se’if 16: “אסור להדק מוכין בפי פך שיש בו משקין משום סחיטה”—one may not press soft absorbent material into the mouth of a jug containing liquid, because of squeezing.

Mishnah Berurah, se’if katan 44, explains that the muchin are already wet from the liquid in the vessel. Even if they are made for this purpose, pressing them tightly into the mouth of the jug causes sechitah. Mishnah Berurah 320:44 says, “ואף שאינו מתכוין לזה מ״מ פסיק רישא הוא”—although he does not intend it, it is an inevitable consequence.

You see the difference. A shmata may present no concern that you will later squeeze it, because you do not mind its being wet. But while using it, you may actually squeeze it. Eino makpid does not by itself answer that second question.

So there are two sugyos: shema yavo lidei sechitah afterwards, which may prevent the original use, and actual sechitah while using the cloth.

I believe there is a strong diyuk here about the second problem. Does it require a vadai—something that will certainly happen—or is it enough that squeezing might occur?

Look carefully at the Mishnah Berurah’s language. He does not merely say “shema yavo.” He says that pressing the muchin brings one to sechitah. Further on, he says that even according to those who do not regard squeezing other liquids as libun, it is prohibited because the absorbed liquid comes out and falls into the jug, which is dash, like squeezing olives or grapes. Although he does not intend that result, it is a psik reisha.

That sounds like a definite consequence.

You are showing me the word “karov” in the Shaar HaTziyun? Where is it? I skipped that! Give me a minute to work through it. Now you have challenged my vort.

The Shaar HaTziyun discusses two ways to understand the concern. One is that it is close to a psik reisha. Another is that he might press very tightly, in a manner that will be a psik reisha. The discussion cites the Magen Avraham, siman 302, se’if katan 27, and the Gemara in Shabbos 141.

Those are two different possibilities. Must the present act itself inevitably squeeze the material, or do we prohibit it because he may press harder and bring about inevitable squeezing? And is “almost a psik reisha” enough?

That is a very large nafka mina. The practical sefarim often write that one may not use a cloth in a way that raises a chashash of squeezing. But the language we are reading in the Mishnah Berurah seems to emphasize a result that will happen.

I am not saying that I have settled it. I am asking whether the Mishnah Berurah is saying something different from the Shaar HaTziyun, or whether the Shaar HaTziyun is explaining what the Mishnah Berurah means.

Let me show you another place where I saw this distinction. Look at siman 302, se’if 10. The question I want to clarify is: How far must the concern go? What degree of likelihood is required?

## Drying Hands and Drying a Cup

There are two ways to understand the “maybe.” Perhaps squeezing is already nearly inevitable. Or perhaps we are afraid that he may do something further that will make it inevitable. The Mishnah Berurah’s wording sounds to me like actual psik reisha.

This matters when one writes the halachah lemaaseh. May you wipe a hard surface with a cloth? If you answer, “It might lead to squeezing,” how much of a possibility do you mean? A slight possibility? A very likely result? Something certain?

We have to state the different readings. I do not know who decides how to be machria here. Perhaps that is why practical sefarim present the matter lechumrah and say to avoid an act that may bring one to squeezing. But I want to show you what I am seeing in the text.

In siman 302, se’if 10, the Shulchan Aruch says that after washing one’s hands it is good to rub them vigorously against each other and remove as much water as possible before drying them on a cloth. The wording of Shulchan Aruch 302:10 is “הרוחץ ידיו טוב לנגבם בכח זו בזו”—after washing his hands, it is good to rub them vigorously against one another.

Now turn to se’if 12: a cup containing water or wine may not be dried with a cloth, because of the concern of coming to sechitah.

Mishnah Berurah, se’if katan 59, explains that this applies even according to the opinions that do not regard this wiping as laundering. The cloth was clean beforehand, and this is derech lichluch, a use that soils the cloth, rather than derech kibus. Nevertheless, there can still be a concern that one will come to squeeze it.

So here we have shema yavo lidei sechitah.

Then se’if katan 60 discusses a narrow cup. The Acharonim say that one may not dry it even with a samartut designated for wiping, because it is impossible to avoid coming to sechitah. Mishnah Berurah 302:60 says, “דבכוס שהוא צר אין לנגבו אפילו בסמרטוט המיוחד לכך דא״א שלא לבוא לידי סחיטה”—a narrow cup may not be dried even with a rag designated for the purpose, because squeezing cannot be avoided.

That is what I am trying to understand. The same general discussion of shema yavo contains the language of something unavoidable.

You are asking: If se’if 15 is about a later concern and se’if 16 is about squeezing itself, why should any possibility of squeezing while wiping not already create the gezeirah? I hear the question. We have to see which case the words refer to.

Take drying one’s hands. Clearly we are permitted to wash our hands and dry them with a towel on Shabbos, subject to the halachos we are learning. Otherwise, how would that ordinary act be possible?

Now take a cup after washing dishes. What sechitah are we worried about? Is it that afterwards you will wring the cloth out because you want it dry? Or that the act of pressing the cloth inside the cup will itself squeeze it?

Do you hear the difference? Here we are trying to isolate the concern during the wiping itself.

## A Diyuk in the Mishnah Berurah

Exactly: this is the problem of squeezing while you wipe, not necessarily a case where the cloth later contains so much water that you want to wring it out.

The Mishnah Berurah says that a narrow cup should not be dried because squeezing is unavoidable. According to the reading of the Shaar HaTziyun that you showed me, perhaps certainty is not required. Why, then, does the Mishnah Berurah specify something definite?

That is my diyuk. I want to read the Mishnah Berurah there in light of the Mishnah Berurah here: ba lidei sechitah, psik reisha. I think this is a very valuable distinction.

Look at the language: with a narrow cup, even a designated cleaning rag does not solve the problem, because it is impossible to avoid squeezing.

The earlier Mishnah Berurah, se’if katan 59, discusses a person who may want to dry the cloth between vessels in order to continue using it. There, “karov hadavar” is relevant: it is likely that he will do another act of squeezing.

But when I am asking whether my present act of wiping itself squeezes the cloth, that is a question of an unintended consequence. Without a psik reisha, perhaps it is eino miskaven. That would explain the emphasis on certainty.

What counts as a narrow cup? We will come to what Rav Shlomo Zalman discusses about that. For now, notice the language.

You answer that perhaps the Mishnah Berurah uses “unavoidable” merely because that happens to be the metzius of the case. Even if a less certain result were prohibited, this case is certain, so he describes it that way.

Efshar. You are finding a way out of a beautiful diyuk! But I hear the answer.

Still, why would certainty matter? Because where the result is unintended, the issur can depend on psik reisha. That is the line I am trying to establish.

There are two nekudos. With a cloth that he is particular about, perhaps he will later squeeze it. With a samartut that he is not particular about, that later concern may disappear. Yet inside a narrow cup, even that samartut is prohibited because the act itself will squeeze it.

You are bothered by the word “shema.” But we are not saying that the act is already called squeezing in every case. The concern is that one will come to squeezing. The question is how much of a chashash the text requires: merely a possibility, something close to certainty, or an inevitable result.

If you say that the word “unavoidable” is only a description of this particular case, that remains an answer we have to consider.

Let us leave the diyuk as a lechoirah for now. I am not claiming that this discussion has produced a final hachra’ah.

## The Biur Halachah and the Meaning of a Narrow Cup

We have not fully clarified how much of a chashash is required: vadai, karov levadai, or psik reisha. These Mishnah Berurah passages need careful comparison. If a posek writes that even a possible concern is enough, perhaps he is taking the stricter approach because the matter is uncertain.

Now let us see the Biur Halachah. Its concluding line says that in a shaas hadechak, one should not protest against someone who is lenient about drying a narrow cup. Biur Halachah 302:12, s.v. משום, says, “דבשעת הדחק אין למחות ביד המיקל לנגב בכוס צר”—in a pressing circumstance, one should not protest against someone who is lenient about drying a narrow cup.

What is happening here? If we have just treated squeezing in that case as unavoidable, how do we put the two discussions together?

It does not say simply “mutar.” It says ein limchos. That distinction also matters.

The Biur Halachah discusses the different ways of understanding the Magen Avraham. According to one reading, even a narrow cup may be permitted with a cloth about which one is not makpid. According to the other, the narrow cup is a case of psik reisha.

Perhaps the apparently stricter description means something close to a psik reisha, rather than a literal inevitability. Or perhaps the Biur Halachah ultimately relies on the view that a genuine psik reisha is required. I am not sure how to fit the discussions together.

This is what I want you to examine yourself. We cannot finish the whole analysis now. Learn the Biur Halachah inside.

What is the shaas hadechak here? If a cup is a little wet, you cannot use it? Is the need that it should look presentable for an oreiach? Reb Yoel suggests that if you need it for a guest and it does not look nice while wet, perhaps that is the pressing circumstance. Lechoirah, that may be the kind of situation meant. But again, the wording is “one should not protest,” rather than an unrestricted permission.

The Biur Halachah’s concluding conditions are that the cloth be one about which he is not particular to squeeze after wiping, and that the water first be poured from the vessel.

We also need to define kos tzar. Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah, chelek 1, perek 12, note 59, is cited here as describing a soda bottle, a bakbuk with a narrow opening. An ordinary cup of the sort we use is not necessarily the “narrow cup” intended in this discussion.

On that reading, the problem is an opening that constrains the cloth, such as a narrow bottle neck. Perhaps a narrow spout would raise the same question—for example, trying to push a cloth into a water urn’s spout to dry it. That is the practical distinction I am proposing.

An ordinary cup, then, need not present this particular narrow-opening concern. We still have to distinguish dish towels from cleaning rags and ask whether one is makpid and whether he will want to reuse them.

You missed the shiur today? I had you in mind, you should know! Yesterday you said something useful for me. Why should I give you my tape?

## Finding Beauty in the Sugya—and Returning to Towels

It is worthwhile to listen to this discussion. We have gone through the sugya, examining its details.

Let me ask you honestly: If you went into a museum, would you look at each object and say, “Look at this! Look at that!”? Some people become excited over every detail. That is how I look at each vort here. Look how beautiful it is!

You say that you would not become so excited over a museum. Perhaps not, but there are plenty of people who do. They see a mummy and are amazed. Let us not start a whole discussion about museums now.

I want to return to my chiddush about towels today. If a person does not care that the towel is wet because it will go into the laundry, perhaps the original concern that he will later squeeze it needs to be reconsidered. I know that the Acharonim’s practical presentation does not simply say what I am suggesting. Nevertheless, this is the question I want to explore.

You object that a person does not want to use a towel to clean dirty things. But that may be a concern about the manner in which he uses a nice towel, rather than about the water absorbed in it. If it will be washed anyway, especially where the dirt will come out, how does squeezing the water solve that concern?

You say it may stain. Once it is stained, squeezing alone will not remove the stain. So we must identify the particular reason that he would squeeze it.

Now you ask whether lifting a towel from a puddle can itself involve sechitah. That is the next question. Do we require a definite result, as I have tried to be medayek, or is a chashash enough, as the practical sefarim often write? I have shown you the language that prompts my question. We have not resolved every aspect of it.

## Paper Towels: Libun or Dash?

Now we come to paper towels. There is a teshuvah of Rav Moshe, cited here as Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, chelek 2, siman 70. He is discussing paper used for wiping. The point brought in the shiur is that paper towels are not a material that one launders in the usual way: they are used and thrown away.

This can lead to a substantial chiddush with ramifications for other halachos, including questions of niddah on Shabbos. Give me a few minutes to explain the issue.

The Biur Halachah in siman 320, se’if 18, beginning “Yesh mi shematir,” sets out the famous distinction of Rabbeinu Tam: there are two aspects of sechitah. Squeezing water can be prohibited because of libun, whereas squeezing other liquids can involve dash when one wants the extracted liquid. The wording in Biur Halachah 320:18, s.v. יש מי שמתיר, is “סחיטה ממים איסורו משום ליבון ולא משום דש כי המים הולכים לאיבוד”—squeezing water is prohibited as laundering, rather than threshing, because the water goes to waste.

Why is water, in the case under discussion, not treated as dash? Because it goes to waste and is not comparable to ordinary threshing. With other liquids, the question is whether one needs the liquid that is squeezed out.

That is a yesod in sechitas begadim. The distinction between libun and dash is essential to understanding the entire sugya. But we must examine exactly which case of water going to waste the Rishonim are discussing, and how it applies to the use of a wet paper towel.

## Is Water Used for Cleaning Considered Holech Le’ibud?

If the concern is libun, I understand how one can develop a shtikel Torah about paper. But what do we do about dash? Does the heter rely only on the absence of libun, or is there a separate reason that the extraction of the liquid is not dash?

Perhaps the water is regarded as holech le’ibud. But I want to understand that designation.

The case attributed here to Rav Moshe is taking paper, wetting it, and using it to wash the table. We are not merely discussing a dry paper towel that absorbs an existing spill. Here you deliberately want water in the paper so that the water will help clean the table.

When you wipe, the water comes out onto the table. You want that water for cleaning. How can it be called unwanted or going to waste?

Perhaps the answer is that although I want it to clean the table, I know that through this use I am spoiling the water. I am not extracting it to retain it as a usable liquid. Is a cleaning use itself considered holech le’ibud?

That is the she’eilah. On one side, you do want the water to come out. On the other, you want it only to clean; you do not want the water as water afterwards.

I said this sevara years ago, and people laughed at it. You have no idea how much discussion I received over this! Today I found a similar sevara attributed to Rav Shlomo Zalman in Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah. Let me show you the place.

I am looking in the volume of additions and corrections, perek 14, note 94.

I remember discussing the vort in a Shabbos chaburah. The oilam challenged it strongly. They said, “What do you mean, you do not need the water? You are bringing it out because you want it! It goes onto the table. Why should that be different from water that goes into a kli?”

That is a fair objection. I am playing out both sides.

The water does go onto the table, but it is not being retained there for use as a liquid. It is being used to clean and then is gone. Does that mean the cleaning act is a use of the water that counts as needing the extracted liquid, or a use that destroys it and is therefore holech le’ibud?

Look at the note. I am sure I saw the sevara there, but we have to find the exact passage.

Now you ask about baby wipes. We will get to that. The issue may involve the same sevara: you are cleaning something dirty, and the liquid is being used in that process. But we cannot simply say that everything is permitted.

There is another complication. The discussion in that source appears to end with a qualification or change in approach. I want to understand why. It cannot be enough merely to notice a sevara at the beginning and ignore what he says at the end.

We also still have the question of paper as a material. If the heter attributed to Rav Moshe rests on paper not being subject to libun, then what precisely is a baby wipe made of? We have to consider that, rather than assuming that the name “wipe” answers the question.

## The Unfinished Discussion of Baby Wipes

The distinction we have been discussing is libun. With water, that is the concern in the analysis we are learning. I am treating the liquid being discussed here as water, rather than simply placing it in the category of other mashkin.

You ask whether it is alcohol. I do not think we should describe it that way without clarifying what the product contains. In the exchange, the objection is raised that alcohol would irritate the baby’s skin.

We can discuss that, but let us first return to the argument. You are pointing out that the author qualifies his earlier suggestion. Even after presenting the sevara, he may not want to rely on it. We have to understand the reason.

The practical use of baby wipes is widespread, but that fact alone does not settle the sugya. I wanted to tell you what another posek says about it.

Let us go back to Rav Moshe’s point. If paper is not subject to libun, what is the remaining concern? Is this material paper, or is it a towel? A paper towel is paper; that is the distinction under discussion.

But we still have to explain the other side of the sugya and identify the particular material. We cannot substitute a name for the halachic analysis.

There is then a brief personal exchange about what happened the previous night. I ask you to keep in mind what happened and what the person must be feeling. Any normal person would feel it. Hashem should give him koach to strengthen himself.

Thank you.