Shaking water on Shabbat
Have a good week Rabbi,
The Yosef notebook wrote under the sign of Sheku: According to the main principle of halacha, it is permissible to bathe on Shabbat in a river or sea or in a pool when one is not swimming (when swimming, the Sages ruled, "lest he make a barrel of devils"), provided that one is careful not to shake the water on him in the Carmelite. Therefore, one should wipe his body immediately when he gets up. It is better to wait until the water on him drips, and also to wipe himself calmly so that he does not fall into the prohibition of squeezing. And in any case, all of Israel used to avoid bathing in the sea and river on Shabbat, for fear of these obstacles.
I asked, why is there even a prohibition on shaking the water on Shabbat? After all, if it rains on me, there are also drops on me, and no one says that one must freeze in place when it rains on me until the rain stops.
Excellent question. There is a difference (beyond the amount of water, which is also different) that in the water I bring the water up on me and in the rain it happens to me from outside. But I really don't see a reason for the difference.
Arukh Shulchan Orach Chaim, Section 8
The one who bathes in the river must dry his body thoroughly when he comes out of the river, so that no water will remain on him, and he will be shaken four cubits in the Carmelite basin, since when he comes out of the bath, there is a lot of water on his body. But the one who walks in public and the rain washes over his head and clothes did not take care that they are few, and even if they are many, what can he do if he is forced to? And this is according to the Risha ruling, it is not acceptable for him. However, the one who bathes in the river for his own pleasure and pleasure, any light work done in this 7th century, as he pleases, is not permissible.
These are exactly two explanations that I have given. And yet, there is no difference in explanation. If he is in the Rabbinical Council that the prohibition is from the Lord, will we also permit him there because there is no choice? Let him stand his ground, there is no advice and no wisdom against God. And taking water from the river or the river is also not acceptable. These explanations are extremely weak.
With regard to the explanation that they are few, it is explained in the Mishnab (11:11) that they do not have a spending limit.
With regard to the explanation that 'he is a human being', it is simply an additional level on top of an additional permission. That is, after we have determined that this is not a prohibition from the Torah (not according to the method of deduction - 143), we say that it is also a prohibition according to the rabbis, because 'there is no choice', and its source is from 16th century B.C.
The origin of the prohibition is on the first Sabbath. There is extensive discussion as to whether there is anything here that is not intended, whether it is permissible or not, and more.
In any case, I was surprised by the response, because the question of wiping after washing is a settled issue on Shabbat there, and the comparison between it and the law of walking outside during rain is brought out in the Shulchan Aruch in detail ("He who bathes in a river must wipe his body thoroughly when he comes out of the river, so that the water will not remain on him and he will be shaken off four cubits in Carmel, since when he comes out of the bath there is a lot of water on his body; but he who walks in public and the rain washes over his head and clothing, they did not observe him"), and its source is from Torah and Rosh. Thus, regarding the questioner's question, a stream of water is a great deal.
I didn't understand why there is no Shiur? When it rains, there is certainly a Shiur. It is no less than the water that remains on one's body when one rises from the sea. And so the 16th chapter of the Sakabit there (and the Gra brought him evidence from the Tos). And hence, all the discussion of the latter who omitted it from the law of half a Shiur is also unnecessary.
The source of the comparison to rain is indeed the Rosh there, and from it the Shul. But the quantitative explanation does not appear in Rosh nor does it mean in the language of Rosh, but in the Hebrew Bible. And I find the explanation difficult for me.
And in law it is not intended, and I have not seen a discussion there. Although the Rabbi in Be'er Yitzhak, O'C. 15, branch 5, here the difficulty is in the Terumad, which the Rabbi permitted in the prohibition of the rabbis and in the name of the Mishach to settle.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer