Hilchos Shabbos: Safog, Beis Achizah, and Sechitah — The Rambam, Raavad, and Modern Sponges

Topics

• Hilchos Shabbos: Safog, Beis Achizah, and Sechitah — Learning the Sugya Inside
• Returning to the Sugya of a Sponge with a Handle
• Two Explanations in Mishnah Berurah 320:47
• What If He Wipes Hard?
• A Closer Reading of the Mishnah Berurah
• Is the Handle a Prevention of Sechitah, or a New Definition of the Action?
• Two Ways to Read the Words "Efshar Lekaneach B'li Sechitah"
• Rashi and Rambam May Focus on Different Moments
• "Shema Yischot" or "Mishum Sechitah"?
• What About a Dry Sponge?
• Are We Talking Only About a Light Wipe?
• Which Explanation Do We Follow?
• Does He Have to Hold the Handle?
• Is Beis Achizah a Shinui, or Does It Make the Sponge a Kli?
• What About Holding the Sponge with a Towel?
• How Do People Actually Use a Sponge Today?
• A Sponge for Absorbing and Transferring Water
• Can Modern Design Change the Halachah in Opposite Ways?
• Why Does the Mishnah Berurah Explain What a Sponge Is?
• Was the Original Safog a Common Household Kli?
• A Modern Two-Layer Sponge: What Counts as a Beis Achizah?
• Even Leather Can Have a Sechitah Question
• Revisiting the Modern-Sponge Chiddush
• What About a Toothbrush or a Brush for Baby Bottles?
• The Danger of Reasoning from One Heter to Another
• The Final Question: A Mop with a Handle
• What About Wetting the Mop Beforehand?

Transcript

# Hilchos Shabbos: Safog, Beis Achizah, and Sechitah — Learning the Sugya Inside

## Returning to the Sugya of a Sponge with a Handle

Rabosai, yesterday we began the sugya of **safog sheyesh lo beis achizah**, a sponge with a place to hold it. I think the olam found it a little difficult to take in all at once. So today we'll go through it again, more slowly, and I want to share some chidushim that occurred to me. I think there are some beautiful sevaros here, but they must be tested against the lashon of the Rishonim and the Acharonim.

Let's start with **Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 320:17**:

**"ספוג אין מקנחין בו אלא אם כן יש בו בית אחיזה, גזירה שמא יסחוט."**

A sponge may not be used for wiping unless it has a place to hold it, because of the concern for *sechitah*.

The source is **Mishnah Shabbos 21:3**, discussed in **Shabbos 143a**:

**"ספוג, אם יש לו עור בית אחיזה, מקנחין בו; ואם לאו, אין מקנחין בו."**

Now there are three expressions I want us to understand: **safog**, **mekanchin**, and **beis achizah**.

We generally translate *safog* as **sponge**. All right. For the moment, we'll work with that. But later I want to show you why the object described in the Mishnah may not be identical to every sponge we buy today.

Then the Mishnah says **mekanchin**. What does *kinuach* mean? Those who learn Hilchos Niddah know how important the distinction is between a *kinuach*, a wipe, and other forms of examination. Here, too, perhaps the choice of the word tells us that the action is a **wiping motion**, not forcibly twisting or crushing the object.

And what exactly is **beis achizah**? If I tell you a sponge has a handle, what do you picture? A hard plastic handle, a metal stick, something rigid.

But the Mishnah and the Mishnah Berurah speak of **"עור בית אחיזה"**—a piece of **leather or skin** used for gripping. What is the point of that detail? Why would the old form of the handle be leather rather than a rigid instrument? We'll come back to it.

Finally: **"שמא יסחוט"**. Is the prohibition simply a *gezeirah* lest the person come to squeeze? Or is there a genuine **pesik reisha**, an inevitable act of squeezing when he holds the sponge? The Gra makes an important point on precisely that language.

## Two Explanations in Mishnah Berurah 320:47

Look inside **Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan 47**. He brings two fundamentally different ways to understand why a *beis achizah* helps.

He writes:

**"רש"י והרמב"ם פירשו דכשיש לו עור בית אחיזה שיאחזנו בו אפשר לקנח בלי סחיטה."**

Rashi and the Rambam explain that when the sponge has a piece of leather by which to hold it, it is **possible to wipe without squeezing**.

Think about that. The presence of the gripping piece may keep the fingers from compressing the sponge itself. Maybe the person can use the sponge without squeezing water out of it.

But **the Raavad** disagrees. The Mishnah Berurah continues:

**"אבל הראב"ד כתב דאעפ"כ אי אפשר לו לקנח בלי סחיטה אלא דמ"מ שרי דכיון שיש לו בית אחיזה הו"ל כצלוחית מלאה מים שמריק ממנה מים."**

The Raavad says: even with a handle, wiping with a sponge may inevitably squeeze water out. Nevertheless, he considers it permissible in the specified case, because with its handle it resembles **a vessel full of water from which one pours out the water**.

Now there's a very important difference.

According to Rashi and the Rambam, the *beis achizah* helps because **we can avoid sechitah**. According to the Raavad, we may still get liquid out, but the action can be considered something other than the prohibited squeezing of an absorbent material—more like emptying a vessel.

And then we have to ask: **what would happen if you press much harder?** If the very thing the handle was supposed to prevent actually happens, does the heter disappear? According to the Raavad's description, perhaps the question is different entirely.

That's where I want to begin.

Before we go further, the Rambam's own language appears in **Hilchos Shabbos 22:15**:

**"ואין מקנחין בספוג אא"כ יש לו בית אחיזה שלא יסחוט."**

We need to learn whether that means **squeezing cannot happen**, or that in the normal act it **need not happen**. This little distinction is the beginning of a very large sugya.

## What If He Wipes Hard?

So we have two mahalchim. Let's think through the nafka minah.

A fellow has a sponge with a *beis achizah* and gently wipes a table. Perhaps he can do that without squeezing the sponge. But what if he begins to **press the sponge very hard**, applying such force that the liquid is certainly being squeezed out?

If the heter of Rashi and the Rambam is that there is **no necessary sechitah**, then once the person does something that certainly squeezes, what happens to the heter? L'choirah, that was the very thing we were trying to avoid.

Whereas according to the Raavad, the principle may not depend on the absence of every drop coming out. His explanation is that the sponge with a handle takes on the character of a **water-holding vessel**, and emptying a vessel does not have the same din as squeezing a cloth.

That is a major difference in the *taam haheter*.

But now let's be more medayek. The Mishnah says **"מקנחין"**—wiping. It does not say one may crush or wring the sponge.

In Hilchos Niddah, the word *kinuach* ordinarily suggests a quick wiping motion, not an intense act of pressure. Maybe the Mishnah only permits **kinuach b'alma**, an ordinary light wipe, while pressing hard remains a different case.

And this is not merely my invention. Look at the **Taz on Orach Chaim 320:18**, and the related words of the Mishnah Berurah discussing the **long stopper attached to a barrel**. The Taz asks why a gripping arrangement for the sponge is treated differently from a cloth or flax used to seal a barrel.

His answer is striking: **"דשאני בית אחיזה של ספוג ... דאין שם אלא קינוח בעלמא"**—a sponge with a grip involves only ordinary wiping. But there, a person presses the stopper forcefully into the opening, and definite *sechitah* may result.

Do you see? The Taz himself brings out this distinction between **ordinary kinuach** and **hard pressure**.

Now, according to Rashi and the Rambam, that may be a straightforward explanation. When you wipe gently, the handle can help you avoid squeezing. But when you apply strong pressure, perhaps we are no longer talking about the case the Mishnah permitted.

According to the Raavad, does hard wiping necessarily remain permitted? You might say yes, because even if liquid comes out, it is like pouring from a vessel. But perhaps even his comparison has limits. We're not at a practical psak yet.

One of the bachurim asks, "If the whole action resembles emptying a vessel, why would the force matter?"

It's a good kashya. If it has the halachic identity of a vessel, perhaps emptying it quickly or slowly should not change the din. But we must define **why** it is considered a vessel in the first place.

The difference will depend on whether the handle is just an instrument for gripping, or whether it changes the **status of the safog itself**.

## A Closer Reading of the Mishnah Berurah

Let's read his exact expression again:

**"אפשר לקנח בלי סחיטה"**—it is possible to wipe without squeezing.

What is he telling us? That **this particular wipe** is necessarily free of sechitah? Or that the presence of a handle makes it **possible to perform this type of activity without an inevitable squeeze**?

I want to distinguish two things. Perhaps the words describe **the practical permissible method**: wipe only so gently that you do not squeeze. Or perhaps they explain **the underlying reason** why the category of *kinuach* with a *beis achizah* is treated differently from ordinary squeezing.

And you may say, "What's the nafka minah? Either way, if you squeeze, you're squeezing!"

Fine. But this is precisely what we have to clarify about *pesik reisha*. Suppose in some situations wiping with a handled sponge doesn't squeeze at all, whereas in others a little liquid comes out. Does it matter that the action is **not inherently** one of squeezing?

A student suggests that perhaps this is a kind of **shinui** in the way the action is performed. I hear the suggestion. But don't assign it as a settled heter just because the action has a different appearance.

We are trying to **read** the Mishnah Berurah, not to manufacture a psak. He has two explanations, and I want to know what each one truly permits.

For now, the first nekudah is clear: **the word kinuach may restrict the case to ordinary light wiping, and the two explanations of beis achizah may lead to different results when additional force is applied**.

## Is the Handle a Prevention of Sechitah, or a New Definition of the Action?

Rabosai, let me make the two opinions very clear, because the whole discussion depends on knowing **what the handle accomplishes**.

According to the explanation of **Rashi and the Rambam**, the handle makes it possible to wipe without squeezing. In that case, our question is how to define the permissible wiping: is it restricted to a light motion, or does the overall nature of the action matter even in cases where some moisture escapes?

According to the **Raavad**, the question is different. He says you can't really wipe with a sponge without some liquid coming out. And nevertheless, when the sponge has a *beis achizah*, he compares its water to liquid being **poured from a bottle**.

Now imagine the person presses harder. According to the first explanation, if that directly produces unavoidable squeezing, it seems we may be outside the permitted case. According to the second, we need to ask whether the action retains the status of **emptying a vessel**, or whether forceful squeezing takes it outside that definition.

But I don't want to rush to decide the Raavad either. The Raavad's analogy itself requires understanding, and the poskim may distinguish the exact case.

### Two Ways to Read the Words "Efshar Lekaneach B'li Sechitah"

The Mishnah Berurah quotes Rashi and the Rambam with the words **"אפשר לקנח בלי סחיטה."**

I want to be medayek. He does not say explicitly, "One must wipe with a certain amount of pressure and no more." He says it is **possible** to wipe without squeezing.

Maybe that means simply: with the *beis achizah*, you have a method that does not inevitably result in squeezing, so the act of wiping does not necessarily constitute a *pesik reisha*.

But what if **this particular wipe** is much harder and is certainly going to squeeze? We have to examine whether a general possibility of wiping without squeezing helps when the particular action is inevitable.

One of you asks about **shinui**. Perhaps holding an absorbent material by an attached grip is a changed manner of using it and not the ordinary *ma'aseh sechitah*. There is room to explore that as a sevara, but I am not asserting it as the Rambam's formal explanation.

The language of the Mishnah Berurah at the other halachah, **the long barrel stopper in Orach Chaim 320:18**, may provide a powerful proof.

The Taz says there that a sponge is different, because the case is only **kinuach b'alma**. The flax stopper is pressed tightly into the hole in the barrel. When you push it into the hole, the pressure itself may definitely squeeze liquid.

Therefore the Taz proposes a combination of lenient considerations in the barrel-stopper case, but cautions that it is not identical to the standard handled-sponge case.

That sounds like a very strong indication that **the degree of pressure is relevant**.

On the other hand, somebody says perhaps the Taz's reasoning concerns **one case** without deciding every possible detail of the Rambam's explanation. I hear that. You can't prove too much from a comparison unless the two situations are truly the same.

### Rashi and Rambam May Focus on Different Moments

Now I want to make another possible diyuk.

**Rashi** may emphasize the problem of **squeezing when you grasp the sponge in your fingers**. Without a handle, merely taking hold of a wet sponge presses it and releases liquid.

The **Rambam** may be emphasizing what happens **during the act of wiping**. Even if the person holds the sponge properly, the wiping motion itself could compress it.

That distinction isn't made explicit in the brief Mishnah Berurah; I'm raising it from the language of the Rishonim as we examined it.

If the main concern is **holding** the sponge, it is easier to see why a separate place to grasp it helps. If the main concern is the **pressure of wiping**, a handle alone may not prevent everything.

Now we have many variables: where the fingers are, how wet the sponge is, how hard the person wipes, what the material is, and whether a *beis achizah* changes the kind of action being performed.

That's why I don't want a yes-or-no ruling yet. We need to identify exactly what the sources are talking about.

What we have established is a framework, not a finished practical psak. The main point is to see why **Rashi, the Rambam, and the Raavad** can discuss the same Mishnah and give fundamentally different explanations.

## "Shema Yischot" or "Mishum Sechitah"?

Now I want to show you another important diyuk in the language of the halachah.

The **Shulchan Aruch** says **"גזירה שמא יסחוט"**—a decree lest he come to squeeze.

But the **Biur HaGra**, as cited in **Mishnah Berurah 320:48**, says the correct text should be **"משום סחיטה"**, because of squeezing itself. The Gemara explains that without a grip, squeezing is a **pesik reisha**: when you hold a wet sponge directly between your fingers and use it, water will inevitably be pressed out.

So what does that do to our entire sugya?

If the issur were only **shema yischot**, a concern that he might later come to squeeze, perhaps merely having a handle would make us less worried that he would do so. The reasoning could be relatively simple.

But if the problem is **sechitah itself** occurring automatically, then the analysis becomes much sharper. We must explain why the handle makes the activity permissible **despite the concern of a definite prohibited effect**.

For **Rashi and the Rambam**, perhaps the answer is that the handle prevents the inevitable squeeze. For the **Raavad**, it may be because the liquid is treated as though it is being emptied from a vessel.

Now, don't forget the Mishnah's word **"mekanchin"**. If *kinuach* is a light wiping motion, then perhaps the ordinary handled-sponge case is not the kind of pressure that inevitably squeezes. That could reconcile the words.

But the Mishnah Berurah doesn't write an entire engineering analysis. He says only that with the leather gripping piece **"אפשר לקנח בלי סחיטה."** It is possible to wipe without squeezing.

I am trying to understand whether the word **"efshar"** describes the result in each specific case, or the general nature of the permitted method.

I know that some of you want to jump ahead to practical questions about brushes and sponges. We'll get there. First I want the **yesod** clear.

### What About a Dry Sponge?

And here's another question. What if the sponge is **entirely dry**?

If there's no liquid inside it to squeeze out, why should there be a problem of *sechitah*?

Look at the **Biur Halachah**, *safog*. He brings opinions that would still be stringent even with a dry sponge because of **lo plug**, not making distinctions within a decree. But he also notes an indication from Rashi that may point the other way, and concludes that the matter requires further examination.

So we cannot say without qualification that the Mishnah has one simple rule applying to every material under every circumstance.

The state of the sponge—wet, dry, slightly damp—may matter. And the poskim can nevertheless be stringent due to concerns beyond the particular liquid present at the moment.

That is why I want you to see the **Biur Halachah inside** before applying the source to a modern sponge.

## Are We Talking Only About a Light Wipe?

Let's take one more chazarah.

The Mishnah says **"ספוג אין מקנחין בו אלא אם כן יש בו בית אחיזה."**

If we understand **mekanchin** as a specific, gentle wipe, perhaps the heter of a handle extends only to that act. A strong pressing or wringing would be a different action.

But perhaps someone can argue that the word is merely the normal term for wiping a table, and the principle goes beyond gentle wiping. To decide, we must examine the Taz, the Mishnah Berurah and the different approaches to the Raavad.

Don't make any practical conclusion yet. We haven't even decided whether the *safog* of the Mishnah was the same object as the modern sponges we are discussing.

And that's where I want to go next. I have a real sponge here with me, and I want to understand **what the halachah means when it says a gripping piece**.

## Which Explanation Do We Follow?

Now, rabosai, I brought some actual cleaning materials to the shiur. I want you to look at them, not just imagine an ancient sponge. One of these seems a little wet straight out of the package—perhaps it has scent or cleaning solution in it. The precise product matters.

We know the Mishnah permits a sponge with a **beis achizah**. But according to **which explanation**?

The Mishnah Berurah brings **Rashi and the Rambam** on one side and the **Raavad** on the other. Is the halachah always following the first explanation, and therefore requiring the action to avoid squeezing? Or may the Raavad's understanding sometimes be relied upon as an additional *tzad lehakel*?

I want to show you an important discussion in **Orach Chaim 320:18**, where the Shulchan Aruch addresses a **barrel stopper made of flax**, which may release liquid when it is pulled or pressed.

The **Taz** explains why the long stopper may provide one lenient consideration: the hand does not directly press the absorbent flax, which gives something like the *beis achizah* arrangement.

But he points out that it is not the same as a **light wipe with a sponge**, because the flax stopper is pressed forcefully, causing definite *sechitah*. He therefore discusses another factor: **where the expressed liquid goes to waste** rather than being collected.

In other words, the case may have **tartei letivusa**, two favorable considerations, rather than one straightforward proof from the sponge.

Now someone asks whether we can use the Raavad's view whenever those favorable factors are present. The Raavad treats a handled sponge as like a vessel from which water is poured. Could that make a difference where the liquid is lost rather than gathered?

We have to see how the later poskim actually use his shittah. I'm not claiming that the combination automatically permits every act. We have a question about **sechitah as a form of melaben**, as well as a question concerning **extracting a liquid from its carrier**. These categories are not interchangeable.

The Taz's words are vital because they remind us that *sechitah* is not one uniform case.

### Does He Have to Hold the Handle?

Now I want to bring out a nafka minah that I think is meduyak in the Mishnah Berurah's language.

He says:

**"דכשיש לו עור בית אחיזה שיאחזנו בו..."**

When it has a leather gripping piece **by which he grasps it**, he can wipe without squeezing.

Pay attention to **"שיאחזנו בו"**—that he grasps it **there**.

Suppose I have a sponge with a handle attached, but I ignore the handle. I hold the **wet sponge itself** in my hand while wiping. Does the mere existence of the handle help?

According to Rashi and the Rambam, l'choirah **no**. If the explanation is that holding the *beis achizah* prevents the fingers from squeezing the sponge, then holding the sponge itself may reintroduce the exact problem.

But now read the Raavad's explanation again. The Mishnah Berurah quotes him as saying **"כיון שיש לו בית אחיזה"**—because it **has** a gripping piece, it is like a vessel.

He does not say in that very phrase that the person must necessarily hold it by that piece.

Is that significant? Perhaps! If the *beis achizah* changes the **identity of the object**, turning it into a vessel, merely possessing the handle might matter.

But maybe the Raavad, too, assumes it will actually be held in the normal manner. We cannot decide solely by the absence of one word.

This is a very nice nafka minah to examine: **does the handle work through the physical manner of holding, or by defining the whole sponge as a vessel?**

We're going to need the **Chazon Ish** and the **Aruch HaShulchan** to clarify this. Each gives us a way of understanding what the Raavad is saying.

## Is Beis Achizah a Shinui, or Does It Make the Sponge a Kli?

I want the olam to listen closely because now we're getting to the heart of my chidush.

The **Aruch HaShulchan**, as we have been learning him, may approach the Raavad's heter in terms of the **unusual character of the action**. With a special gripping piece, the movement does not look exactly like the normal way a person squeezes an absorbent object directly in his hand. We have to understand precisely what kind of *shinui* he means.

But the **Chazon Ish**, in **Orach Chaim 56:5**, develops a remarkable explanation of the Raavad. The sponge with its *beis achizah* is treated **like a kli**, a receptacle from which water is emptied.

The Chazon Ish discusses the sponge as a means of **collecting water in one place and transferring it to another**, rather than as a garment that is being wrung out for the sake of laundering it. The focus becomes the character of the object and the status of the liquid it holds.

Now according to that approach, what is the purpose of the **beis achizah**?

Maybe the gripping piece gives the sponge the status of a **designated implement for handling and transferring liquid**. Without the piece, it is simply an absorbent object. With it, it has the form and use of a *kli*.

That would be a very different reason from saying you must **hold it at a particular spot to prevent physical compression**.

So imagine a sponge with a handle. If the issue is that the grip makes the action an unusual manner of squeezing, it may matter very much **where the person places his hand**. But if the issue is that the grip establishes the object as a **water-holding vessel**, perhaps its designated function is more central.

Again, this is our analysis of the sources. I don't want anyone announcing that the Chazon Ish permits squeezing ordinary sponges. We are studying **why the Raavad's analogy might work**.

### What About Holding the Sponge with a Towel?

Now let me offer an interesting possibility. Suppose someone wraps a **towel around the sponge**, and holds the sponge through the towel instead of directly with his fingers.

What do you say? Is that like having a *beis achizah*?

If the entire issue is an **unusual manner of holding**, maybe one could argue that gripping through a separate material has changed the way the sponge is manipulated.

But if the Chazon Ish requires a **designated implement**—a sponge made into a certain kind of *kli*—then a loose towel held around an ordinary sponge may not qualify at all.

A talmid says, "But it's the same practical result. You don't squeeze with your fingers!"

That's precisely my point. Depending on **the reason for the heter**, the same physical arrangement might or might not satisfy it.

You see why learning the *taam* of a halachah is so important. If you only memorize "sponge with a handle, mutar," you'll never understand which modern objects might resemble it.

We have another problem as well. If a handled sponge is a very common, professionally designed tool, then perhaps using it is **not an unusual action at all**. So if the heter depends on *shinui*, the improvement in modern technology may actually make that particular argument **weaker**.

Whereas if it depends on the object being a **recognized tool or vessel**, the fact that sponges today are manufactured expressly for absorbing and moving liquid may strengthen that side of the analysis.

It's almost the opposite conclusion!

According to one understanding, a modern sponge might be more difficult. According to another, perhaps it is closer to a designated *kli*.

That's why I want you to understand **what a sponge is** and **what it is made to do**.

Someone asks whether squeezing an orange is the same sort of example. No, no. We have to distinguish **expressing juice from fruit**, which has its own serious melachah issues, from moving water absorbed in a manufactured cleaning instrument. Do not carry a proposed heter from one sugya into the other.

And don't forget the two questions we began with: whether it is **certain to squeeze** and whether the **resulting expression of liquid is considered the forbidden kind of sechitah**.

Now let's put this to the test with the everyday sponge used in a home or a yeshivah.

## How Do People Actually Use a Sponge Today?

Now look at the sponge you use in a house. Suppose you spill water on the floor. What do you do? You pick up a sponge or a mop, let it absorb the water, and then you may squeeze the water into a sink or bucket.

What is the purpose of the sponge? Is it **cleaning by wiping**, or is it **transferring water from here to there**?

That may be the entire *chakirah*!

If the *safog* of the Raavad and the Chazon Ish is a kind of **receptacle**, then the object is not simply a rag. It is a means of drawing up water in one place and releasing it in another.

A *beis achizah* gives that water-collecting object the status and usability of an implement.

But I want to suggest something new. Today, don't we have sponges **manufactured specifically for that purpose**? The sponge itself is made to soak up liquid. Everyone knows what it is for.

Perhaps, according to that line of thinking, its function as a water-moving implement is obvious even without a rigid separate handle.

A talmid says, "What about a towel? Doesn't a towel also soak up water?"

A very good question. But a **towel** is ordinarily a textile used to dry or wipe, while a **sponge** is a different kind of absorbent material. The exact distinctions in *melaben* and *sechitah* matter.

And different modern sponges have different uses. Some are made for **washing dishes**, some for cleaning a **table**, some for **bathing**, and some for absorbing spilled liquid. Are all these the same category? Maybe not.

My point is not to declare a blanket heter. It is that the **intended use** and the way the object is manufactured may tell us something about whether it resembles the *safog* of the Mishnah.

### A Sponge for Absorbing and Transferring Water

I want you to read the Chazon Ish inside. He discusses the significance of water held by a sponge and of using the sponge as a device to collect and move it.

If its purpose is to collect water from one place and empty that water into another, then perhaps that liquid is not treated the same as water absorbed into a garment which is subsequently being wrung out.

The *beis achizah* may show that it is meant to be handled as an **implement** rather than squeezed as an absorbent rag. But I am wondering whether a modern sponge specifically made for collecting liquid could, in some circumstances, have that function by its very design.

Some of you are telling me nobody uses such a sponge anymore! Perhaps I'm living a hundred and fifty years in the past. I remember the big sponges people used to use for wiping tables and cleaning up spills. They were not necessarily the little scouring pads used to clean pots.

Another fellow says there are sponges like that in a yeshivah. When milk spills on a table, someone brings a large sponge and gathers the liquid.

Exactly! That's the kind of thing I am trying to understand.

But don't forget that even if an object is a *kli*, the laws of **muktzeh, melaben, sechitah**, and the specifics of the act remain separate questions. I am examining one possible explanation of *beis achizah*, not deciding them all.

### Can Modern Design Change the Halachah in Opposite Ways?

Now this is something worth thinking about.

If the *Raavad* is understood to allow the water to be emptied because the sponge has become a **vessel**, then manufacturing an object explicitly as a sponge for moving water could conceivably strengthen the analogy.

But if another explanation requires an **unusual manner of squeezing**, an ordinary professional sponge used in the ordinary way would no longer be an unusual act.

The very same technological development could appear to help one reasoning and harm the other.

So the practical question can't be answered by saying, "Our sponges are better than theirs," or "Our sponges are worse than theirs." We must first decide **which din we are following**.

We are not yet at that point. I want to understand what **safog** meant to the Rishonim and why they bothered explaining its origin.

And that brings me to one of the strangest lines in this entire sugya: the **story about a giant fish and a sponge over its eyes**.

## Why Does the Mishnah Berurah Explain What a Sponge Is?

Now I want to ask a peculiar question.

Open the **Mishnah Berurah 320:45**. He begins by explaining **what a safog is**. He says it is a wool-like material that forms by the seashore, or something similar to the explanation of the **Aruch**, and it naturally absorbs liquids.

Now, why are we getting this description? You and I know what a sponge is. A sponge is a sponge! What is the need to describe where it grows and how it is formed?

And when you look at **Shulchan Aruch 320:18**, the Rema or Mechaber's quoted explanation from the **Aruch** discusses a sea creature with a sponge-like covering over its eyes. When it raises its head and looks out, the covering moves, and the passage connects that with the danger to boats.

The source says:

**"פירש הערוך ספוג הוא על ראש דג אחד גדול שבים ... יורד אותו הספוג על עיניו ואינו רואה כלום."**

The Aruch explains that the sponge is associated with the head of a great fish of the sea, and it covers the creature's eyes.

What a ma'aseh! A giant fish, a sponge over its eyes, and ships that might otherwise be endangered!

Now, I am not trying to prove anything about marine biology from that legend. I want to understand **the lexicographical and historical description**. Why did the Rishonim need such a long explanation for what seems to us an everyday cleaning object?

If the Gemara simply says a sponge, why don't they simply say **sponge**?

Imagine someone explains a table to you by telling you where trees grow, how lumber is made, and what kinds of glue might be used between the pieces. You would say, "I know what a table is! Why do I need all this?"

So why this special treatment of a *safog*?

Perhaps the **natural sponge** of the sea was a less familiar material in some communities, not the ubiquitous synthetic kitchen pad sold in stores today.

In those days, maybe you couldn't simply walk into **Home Depot** and buy a sponge! You would have had to obtain the natural material from the sea or from merchants dealing in that material.

One of you says that there are natural sponges even today. Exactly. Some sponges come from marine animals, while many common modern sponges are **synthetic foam**. The halachic analogy still needs to be considered carefully; we cannot assume the materials behave identically.

But that gives me a new approach to the sugya.

### Was the Original Safog a Common Household Kli?

Maybe the original *safog* was not the standard, universally familiar household instrument that a sponge is now. Perhaps it was a special absorbent material whose use, purpose, and method of gripping needed explanation.

If so, attaching a **leather beis achizah** might have made it recognizable as an implement prepared for a specific function.

Today, however, a synthetic sponge may come manufactured as a **finished cleaning product**, with a particular shape, density, scouring layer and ordinary way of use.

Does that change whether it is a **kli**? Does it change what counts as the normal *derech sechitah*?

It may.

And here is the fascinating part. **The change could work in opposite directions** depending on whether you follow a theory of *shinui* or a theory of a designated water-handling vessel.

If a handled natural sponge was something unusual, maybe a modern sponge used in the ordinary way lacks that element of shinui. On the other hand, if the main thing was to make the sponge into a designated *kli*, perhaps a manufactured sponge already has more of that characteristic.

But these are proposed sevaros—**not a psak that a modern sponge without a handle may be used to clean on Shabbos**.

I want to read the Chazon Ish more closely, because it's possible that I'm inferring too much from the words.

Let's first look at an actual modern sponge and compare its construction with the **"עור בית אחיזה"** described by the Mishnah.

## A Modern Two-Layer Sponge: What Counts as a Beis Achizah?

Now I brought a modern **scouring sponge** into the beis midrash. Let's look at it.

One side is soft and absorbent. Another side is a rougher cleaning layer. There may be adhesive joining them together. And I want to ask, could one of these layers be compared to the **leather gripping piece** mentioned by the Mishnah?

Someone is already turning the sponge over and examining it.

Does that rough layer actually absorb liquid? Is it stiff enough to hold? Is there something between the layers that prevents water from passing through? I want you to examine the construction, because a material that feels like a handle may nevertheless compress and absorb water.

The Mishnah doesn't say **"ידית פלסטיק"**, a modern plastic handle. It says **"עור בית אחיזה"**, a leather gripping surface.

Why leather? Leather itself can sometimes hold moisture, and the poskim discuss whether **squeezing leather** has its own prohibition. So the point cannot simply be that the handle is made of a substance which never interacts with liquid.

Perhaps the important thing is the ability to **hold the sponge without pressing on the body of the sponge**. Or perhaps, according to the Raavad's analysis, the gripping piece defines the sponge as a **particular kind of vessel**.

I always pictured a handle as something rigid: plastic or metal. Now we have to see what the actual source says.

A talmid says the upper layer of a common scouring sponge might act like a grip. Fine, but what does it actually do? Are we holding the absorbent layer indirectly or compressing the whole thing as we scrub?

And is it a separate *beis achizah* in the sense of the Mishnah, or merely an **additional cleaning surface**? That's another question entirely.

I am not saying every sponge with two layers has a beis achizah. That requires a careful definition, and we haven't established one.

### Even Leather Can Have a Sechitah Question

Now let me complicate it further. Suppose you say the leather itself does **absorb water**. Why would holding it make everything mutar?

The laws of squeezing materials depend on the type of substance and on the melachah involved. **Leather** is not simply identical to cloth, but neither can one assert that water may always be squeezed from leather without concern.

So the real definition of a *beis achizah* may be its **function**, not merely a material which cannot absorb.

A person can hold a sponge by a narrow strip of leather. Does that mean he's actually compressing the sponge? Maybe not. The strip's function is to **separate the grip from the absorbent body**.

But if he has a two-layer cleaning pad with no distinct gripping area, perhaps pressing the top layer still compresses the whole absorbent structure.

This shows why the old expression **"עור בית אחיזה"** is so important. We cannot replace it carelessly with "any other layer attached to the sponge."

## Revisiting the Modern-Sponge Chiddush

Remember the sevara I suggested: that a sponge today is a **common finished tool**, whereas the *safog* of Chazal may have been a special natural material.

Depending on how you understand the Raavad, that could either help or hurt the attempt to compare them.

If what we need is a **specific vessel designation**, perhaps the factory-manufactured sponge's purpose matters.

But if the heter relies on **a change in the normal way of squeezing**, then a modern sponge designed to be compressed and released might not be a changed action at all.

You can see the tremendous difference between these approaches.

This is not a small technicality. It might change the entire application of this Mishnah to today's kitchen sponges, scrubbers and cleaning brushes.

And there's another difficulty: perhaps an ordinary modern sponge **does not fit either explanation** because its use involves forceful scrubbing rather than the *kinuach b'alma* described in the sources.

The point is that we must define **the action**, **the grip**, and **the purpose** before attempting to apply the halachah.

And now I want to turn to the modern **toothbrush** and **baby-bottle brush**, because those cases sharpen the question tremendously.

## What About a Toothbrush or a Brush for Baby Bottles?

Now I want to raise another practical question, and I admit that it bothers me greatly.

A **toothbrush** has a handle, correct? You hold the handle rather than squeezing the bristles in your fingers.

So why doesn't someone immediately say: **"Safog yesh lo beis achizah—there is a handle, and therefore no problem!"**

Wait. Of course it's not so simple.

**Rav Moshe Feinstein** discusses the use of a toothbrush on Shabbos in **Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim, volume II, siman 70**. The exact conditions and practical conclusion must be read carefully; this is not a general declaration that brushing teeth is permissible or prohibited in every case.

A student says Rav Moshe permits it. Another argues that he is stringent, and I respond that you can't quote half a teshuvah. Some of Rav Moshe's reasoning concerns whether the bristles can themselves be involved in **sechitah**, and the way toothbrushes were used.

We must distinguish different kinds of brushes, whether they are wet or dry, the use of water and paste, the stiffness of bristles, and other potential Shabbos concerns. I am not trying to pasken the whole toothbrush sugya tonight.

What is our question? If the sponge Mishnah permits something **with a beis achizah**, why doesn't that settle the brush case?

Perhaps because **scrubbing with a brush** is not the same as a gentle **kinuach**, and squeezing water from the bristles may have its own character. Or perhaps other prohibitions are involved.

But then let's take the example of a **baby-bottle brush**. It has a long, rigid handle and bristles at the end. It is expressly made to scrub inside a bottle.

A talmid says everybody considers that a problem on Shabbos. I want to know **why**.

Doesn't the brush have a handle? When the water is used to clean a bottle and then goes down the drain, doesn't the water go **l'ibud**, to waste?

If we combine a *beis achizah* with the fact that the water isn't being collected, can that resemble **tartei letivusa**, the pair of lenient factors the Taz discusses with the long stopper?

That's my kashya. Don't jump ahead and tell people they're allowed to scrub baby bottles with a wet brush on Shabbos. I'm asking whether our understanding of the Mishnah accounts for the common stringency.

Someone answers: "The brush is doing more than a light wipe. You're scrubbing hard."

Fine. That may be a very strong distinction **according to the approach of Rashi and the Rambam**, where avoiding inevitable squeezing matters.

But according to the **Raavad**, where water is compared with liquid poured from a vessel, we must explain why forceful use changes the result. Perhaps it does; perhaps the brush is not a vessel in that sense at all.

And, of course, if the liquid isn't simply being moved but is also being used to **wash a material**, the issues of *melaben* may be relevant. The fact that water eventually goes down a drain does not automatically eliminate every prohibition.

I am trying to see whether we have understood the *taam haheter* well enough to deal with a **new object**.

### The Danger of Reasoning from One Heter to Another

This is exactly where a person has to be careful. He learns one beautiful Raavad, one beautiful Taz, and says, "So why not here? And why not there?"

Sometimes the analogy is sound. Sometimes it fails because the material, the kind of pressure, the ordinary use, or the relevant melachah is different.

Even the term **beis achizah** might not apply to a toothbrush or bottle brush in exactly the same sense as a natural sponge with a leather gripping piece.

A brush may have a handle but work primarily by **friction and scrubbing**, not by absorbing and moving water.

And that was precisely one of my earlier questions: is the Mishnah about **the grip**, about **the absorbed liquid**, or about **the purpose of the whole implement**?

I still want to examine all these possibilities. I am not satisfied with an answer that merely says, "Everyone forbids it." I want to know **what is the halachic reason**.

But we must also avoid presenting my unanswered *kashya* as a new practical heter.

Now let's take one last object that everybody knows: **a mop**. It has a long handle. It absorbs water. Sometimes the expressed water goes directly into a drain. Does the same question apply?

## The Final Question: A Mop with a Handle

Rabosai, I want to finish with a mop. A **mop** has a handle, and it is used to collect water and clean a floor. Very often the water goes to waste rather than being collected to use.

So could a person come and say the *safog* of the Mishnah has a **beis achizah**, and a mop certainly has a beis achizah?

And if we want to bring in the **Raavad**, who explains that emptying a handled sponge is like pouring water from a vessel, doesn't that give us another *tzad lehakel*?

You see how far the sevara could go. We might be tempted to say, "Everything with a handle is allowed!"

But I want you to recognize the difficulty with that reasoning.

First, **what sort of mop is it**? A cloth mop, a sponge mop, a brush or a floor-cleaning machine may involve different materials and different actions.

Second, **what does the person do with it**? Is he merely wiping lightly, or is he pressing hard and squeezing liquid through the fibers or foam?

Third, **what happens to the water**? Is he collecting it, discarding it, or deliberately wetting the surface as part of the cleaning? Those facts may affect several distinct halachic concerns.

Fourth, are we dealing with **sechitah** as part of **melaben**, with removal of absorbed liquid, with actual washing, or with other restrictions on floor cleaning on Shabbos?

The fact that an object has a handle does not answer those questions.

A talmid presses me: "But the Raavad says it's like pouring from a vessel. Doesn't that apply here?"

My answer is that the **scope of the Raavad's analogy** is precisely what we are trying to understand. You can't simply transplant it to every implement that carries water.

And the **Taz's tartei letivusa** is also not a free-standing permission to press or squeeze any absorbent material, just because its water eventually goes to waste.

Still, I want you to see the strength of the question: if we treat the *beis achizah* as making the sponge into a water-handling *kli*, then we have to explain carefully why modern handled implements differ.

And maybe they do differ in important ways. Perhaps a mop works by **forceful scrubbing**, or perhaps its wet cloth is subject to a separate prohibition. We must bring those sources and examine them.

### What About Wetting the Mop Beforehand?

Another student suggests that perhaps the case is different if a person intentionally **makes the mop wet at the beginning** in order to wash the floor.

That could be a significant factor. The act of **wetting** and then cleaning is not necessarily the same as taking up already spilled liquid. But again, the halachos of washing and *melaben* need their own analysis.

I don't want to compress all those issues into one sentence.

Now I can see the time, and we have not finished the entire sugya. Do we have a minyan yet? I had hoped to bring another two or three points, but it looks like we'll have to **continue tomorrow**.

Someone brings up a question about **Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach**. He says that in one place Rav Shlomo Zalman answered strictly and elsewhere was quoted as permitting something. We have to distinguish the actual **circumstances**, and the speaker asks whether a reported leniency was the kind of ruling that may be appropriate in one setting but difficult to announce publicly in another.

I cannot reconstruct the complete details of that exchange from these last words, and I will not present it as a new psak in Rav Shlomo Zalman's name.

And someone is asking whether we should stop the recording. "Did you press it?"

[The source ends here, with the promise to continue the discussion in another shiur and a fragmented closing exchange about the recording. The final practical ruling about modern sponges, toothbrushes, baby-bottle brushes and mops is **not established in this transcription**. These are open questions developed for further learning—not permissions to perform these actions on Shabbos.]