Wiping Dirty Hands on Clothes and Napkins on Shabbos
Q. Is one allowed to use fabric napkins on Shabbos for people to wipe their hands? Is this an issue of dyeing if their hands are dirty?
The Shulchan Aruch[1] quotes a Halachic opinion[2], that someone who has eaten berries or other fruits that leaves stains, should not touch their clothing or other cloth on Shabbos. To do so would be considered an act of Tzovea - dyeing.
Dyeing is one of the 39 Melachos of Shabbos. In the construction of the Mishkan, the wool and ram skins that were used for the coverings of the Mishkan, were dyed with different colours.
The Biblical prohibition applies when a permanent dye or colour is applied to a surface or type of material that is usually dyed[3]. If the dye is not permanent, the Biblical prohibition does not apply. However, it is still Rabbinically forbidden[4].
According to the Rambam[5], just the making of a dye itself is a Biblical violation of this Melacha.
This Melacha has many practical household applications, including the use of make-up, toilet cleaners which colour the water and of course the issue at hand - wiping stains onto cloth or clothing.
When a person eats berries, the juice of the berries stains their hands. This itself is not problematic because hands are not usually dyed and are not subject to the Melacha[6]. In contrast, using make-up is forbidden because it is the usual way for women to ‘colour’ their faces with cosmetics.
The issue arises when one wipes their hands and the stain is transferred to a cloth. This is because fabrics are usually dyed. The issue is not limited to fruit stains. In a later section, the Shulchan Aruch[7] writes that one should not wipe or wrap a bleeding wound in a cloth on Shabbos. This is also due to the concern of Tzovea. Wiping up any coloured spill such as sauce, chocolate or coloured drinks will also present a similar concern.
Destructive Activities
A general rule in the laws of Shabbos, is that to be liable as a Biblical Melacha, the Melacha must be performed in a constructive manner. If the result of the Melacha is destructive or ruins something, the Melacha has not been violated. This principle is known as Mekalkel (ruining)[8].
Nonetheless, a Melacha activity which is Mekalkel remains Rabbinically forbidden. According to most Poskim, this still applies even if the result of the Melacha was unintended and undesired[9].
So, even though the dyeing that happens by smearing streaks on a cloth or wiping up a spill is unintended, further it actually ruins the cloth rather than enhance it, it remains Rabbinically forbidden. Even though the entire cloth is not being dyed, the partial dyeing in the place which is stained is still considered Tzovea[10].
All of the above follows the opinion of the Yereim and is introduced in the Shulchan Aruch with the words “there is an authority that says” (יש מי שאומר). This suggests that there are other authorities who disagree.
Indeed, there are others who disagree with this ruling[11] and allow wiping one’s soiled hands on a cloth. The basis for their leniency is that whilst normally Mekalkel remains forbidden, here the stain is made in a manner of soiling (Derech Lichluch) and therefore can never be considered as dyeing. This is similar to drying one’s hands on a towel which is not considered laundering for the same reason.
The view of the lenient opinion is not brought in the Shulchan Aruch. Nonetheless, since the Shulchan Aruch brings the stricter opinion in the format “there is someone who says”, the Acharonim make room for leniency.
The Alter Rebbe[12] records both opinions. He rules that one should act stringently, especially with a red cloth where one is wiping a red stain such as blood or berry juice. The difference between a red and white cloth is explained by the Magen Avraham[13]. On a red cloth, a red stain does not ruin the fabric and may in fact enhance the colour[14]. As such it cannot be considered Mekalkel. The same would apply with a dark stain on a dark cloth.
The Mishna Berura[15] writes that one may rely on the lenient opinion in situations which are difficult to avoid. Some Poskim[16] rely on the lenient ruling in cases where Kovod Habriyos (personal dignity) would be impacted. An example may be where one is in public and has an embarrassing stain or a bleeding nose and the only thing available to wipe it off with is a cloth.
According to the stringent opinion, a person who has stained hands or a bleeding wound should wash off the stain or blood and only then wipe or wrap it with a towel or cloth[17].
Disposable Napkins?
According to almost all opinions[18], one may wipe their stained hands or wounds with disposable tissues or paper towels. Likewise, one may put a Bandaid on a bleeding wound. The reason for this is because they are disposable and not usually dyed and so Tzovea is not applicable. Further, as will be discussed below, they are made for this purpose.
What about Cloth Napkins?
Unlike disposable napkins, cloth napkins may be more stringent because they are made of fabric, which is subject to dyeing.
There is still room for leniency based on a ruling of the Alter Rebbe[19]. The Alter Rebbe writes that a cloth which has been designated for a use where it is intended to become dirtied is not subject to Tzovea. He cites the example of a sanitary cloth, which in those times were pieces of fabric that were not disposable. We don’t find any prohibition on their use on Shabbos on account of Tzovea.
The same logic would apply to cloth bandages which are made for and designated for dressing wounds. The Shulchan Aruch’s stringent ruling on bandages refers to using regular household cloths to wrap over the wound[20].
Based on this, there is strong basis to permit the use of cloth nakins on Shabbos. Even though they are not disposable, cloth napkins are made for and designated to be used in a manner of staining, as they are used to wipe one’s hands at a meal.
____________________________
[1] Orach Chaim 320:20, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:27
[2] Yereim 274
[3] Yereim 274, Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 320:25, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:27
[4] Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 9:13, Magen Avraham 320:25, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:28
[5] Hilchos Shabbos 9:14
[6] Yereim 274, Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 320:25, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:27, Mishna Berura 320:58
[7] See Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 328:48
[8] Shabbos 105b
[9] This is referred to פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה and it applies also to a Rabbinic prohibition. Mishna Berura 320:57
[10] See Kuntres Acharon 302:1 that חצי שיעור is forbidden Rabbinically even in a situation of Mekalkel.
[11] Radvaz Vol. 4 Siman 131, The Agur Siman 484 and the Chacham Tzvi.
[12] Orach Chaim 320:27
[13] Orach Chaim 320:25 and 328:52. This is also the ruling of the Ben Ish Chai and Mishna Berura. Elya Rabbah however writes the opposite and is more lenient on a red cloth. Tehillah Ledovid suggests that it is a typing mistake. However, see Yalkut Yosef for others who concur. See Nishmas Shabbos for a suggested explanation.
[14] Adding to and strengthening an existing colour is also considered Tzovea
[15] 320:59
[16] Minchas Shabbos Siman 91
[17] Even though the wound will subsequently bleed onto the cloth, Ketzos Hashulchan 136:11 writes that this is only a גרמא.
[18] See Ketzos Hashulchan writing about hygienic bandages. Minchas Shabbos however is strict even with paper.
[19] Orach Chaim Siman 302, Kuntres Acharon 1
[20] Avnei Nezer argues on the ruling of the Alter Rebbe saying that we follow the use of the majority of people, not the individual’s designation. However even he would agree in cases where the accepted use is in a manner of soiling.
The Shulchan Aruch[1] quotes a Halachic opinion[2], that someone who has eaten berries or other fruits that leaves stains, should not touch their clothing or other cloth on Shabbos. To do so would be considered an act of Tzovea - dyeing.
Dyeing is one of the 39 Melachos of Shabbos. In the construction of the Mishkan, the wool and ram skins that were used for the coverings of the Mishkan, were dyed with different colours.
The Biblical prohibition applies when a permanent dye or colour is applied to a surface or type of material that is usually dyed[3]. If the dye is not permanent, the Biblical prohibition does not apply. However, it is still Rabbinically forbidden[4].
According to the Rambam[5], just the making of a dye itself is a Biblical violation of this Melacha.
This Melacha has many practical household applications, including the use of make-up, toilet cleaners which colour the water and of course the issue at hand - wiping stains onto cloth or clothing.
When a person eats berries, the juice of the berries stains their hands. This itself is not problematic because hands are not usually dyed and are not subject to the Melacha[6]. In contrast, using make-up is forbidden because it is the usual way for women to ‘colour’ their faces with cosmetics.
The issue arises when one wipes their hands and the stain is transferred to a cloth. This is because fabrics are usually dyed. The issue is not limited to fruit stains. In a later section, the Shulchan Aruch[7] writes that one should not wipe or wrap a bleeding wound in a cloth on Shabbos. This is also due to the concern of Tzovea. Wiping up any coloured spill such as sauce, chocolate or coloured drinks will also present a similar concern.
Destructive Activities
A general rule in the laws of Shabbos, is that to be liable as a Biblical Melacha, the Melacha must be performed in a constructive manner. If the result of the Melacha is destructive or ruins something, the Melacha has not been violated. This principle is known as Mekalkel (ruining)[8].
Nonetheless, a Melacha activity which is Mekalkel remains Rabbinically forbidden. According to most Poskim, this still applies even if the result of the Melacha was unintended and undesired[9].
So, even though the dyeing that happens by smearing streaks on a cloth or wiping up a spill is unintended, further it actually ruins the cloth rather than enhance it, it remains Rabbinically forbidden. Even though the entire cloth is not being dyed, the partial dyeing in the place which is stained is still considered Tzovea[10].
All of the above follows the opinion of the Yereim and is introduced in the Shulchan Aruch with the words “there is an authority that says” (יש מי שאומר). This suggests that there are other authorities who disagree.
Indeed, there are others who disagree with this ruling[11] and allow wiping one’s soiled hands on a cloth. The basis for their leniency is that whilst normally Mekalkel remains forbidden, here the stain is made in a manner of soiling (Derech Lichluch) and therefore can never be considered as dyeing. This is similar to drying one’s hands on a towel which is not considered laundering for the same reason.
The view of the lenient opinion is not brought in the Shulchan Aruch. Nonetheless, since the Shulchan Aruch brings the stricter opinion in the format “there is someone who says”, the Acharonim make room for leniency.
The Alter Rebbe[12] records both opinions. He rules that one should act stringently, especially with a red cloth where one is wiping a red stain such as blood or berry juice. The difference between a red and white cloth is explained by the Magen Avraham[13]. On a red cloth, a red stain does not ruin the fabric and may in fact enhance the colour[14]. As such it cannot be considered Mekalkel. The same would apply with a dark stain on a dark cloth.
The Mishna Berura[15] writes that one may rely on the lenient opinion in situations which are difficult to avoid. Some Poskim[16] rely on the lenient ruling in cases where Kovod Habriyos (personal dignity) would be impacted. An example may be where one is in public and has an embarrassing stain or a bleeding nose and the only thing available to wipe it off with is a cloth.
According to the stringent opinion, a person who has stained hands or a bleeding wound should wash off the stain or blood and only then wipe or wrap it with a towel or cloth[17].
Disposable Napkins?
According to almost all opinions[18], one may wipe their stained hands or wounds with disposable tissues or paper towels. Likewise, one may put a Bandaid on a bleeding wound. The reason for this is because they are disposable and not usually dyed and so Tzovea is not applicable. Further, as will be discussed below, they are made for this purpose.
What about Cloth Napkins?
Unlike disposable napkins, cloth napkins may be more stringent because they are made of fabric, which is subject to dyeing.
There is still room for leniency based on a ruling of the Alter Rebbe[19]. The Alter Rebbe writes that a cloth which has been designated for a use where it is intended to become dirtied is not subject to Tzovea. He cites the example of a sanitary cloth, which in those times were pieces of fabric that were not disposable. We don’t find any prohibition on their use on Shabbos on account of Tzovea.
The same logic would apply to cloth bandages which are made for and designated for dressing wounds. The Shulchan Aruch’s stringent ruling on bandages refers to using regular household cloths to wrap over the wound[20].
Based on this, there is strong basis to permit the use of cloth nakins on Shabbos. Even though they are not disposable, cloth napkins are made for and designated to be used in a manner of staining, as they are used to wipe one’s hands at a meal.
____________________________
[1] Orach Chaim 320:20, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:27
[2] Yereim 274
[3] Yereim 274, Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 320:25, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:27
[4] Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 9:13, Magen Avraham 320:25, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:28
[5] Hilchos Shabbos 9:14
[6] Yereim 274, Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 320:25, Shulchan Aruch Harav 320:27, Mishna Berura 320:58
[7] See Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 328:48
[8] Shabbos 105b
[9] This is referred to פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה and it applies also to a Rabbinic prohibition. Mishna Berura 320:57
[10] See Kuntres Acharon 302:1 that חצי שיעור is forbidden Rabbinically even in a situation of Mekalkel.
[11] Radvaz Vol. 4 Siman 131, The Agur Siman 484 and the Chacham Tzvi.
[12] Orach Chaim 320:27
[13] Orach Chaim 320:25 and 328:52. This is also the ruling of the Ben Ish Chai and Mishna Berura. Elya Rabbah however writes the opposite and is more lenient on a red cloth. Tehillah Ledovid suggests that it is a typing mistake. However, see Yalkut Yosef for others who concur. See Nishmas Shabbos for a suggested explanation.
[14] Adding to and strengthening an existing colour is also considered Tzovea
[15] 320:59
[16] Minchas Shabbos Siman 91
[17] Even though the wound will subsequently bleed onto the cloth, Ketzos Hashulchan 136:11 writes that this is only a גרמא.
[18] See Ketzos Hashulchan writing about hygienic bandages. Minchas Shabbos however is strict even with paper.
[19] Orach Chaim Siman 302, Kuntres Acharon 1
[20] Avnei Nezer argues on the ruling of the Alter Rebbe saying that we follow the use of the majority of people, not the individual’s designation. However even he would agree in cases where the accepted use is in a manner of soiling.