Q&A: Regarding the law of pulling out hair with a comb on the Sabbath
Regarding the law of pulling out hair with a comb on the Sabbath
Question
The Mishnah Berurah wrote in Sha’ar HaTziyun 303:86: “Even if he does not intend to pull out the hair, it is nevertheless forbidden, because it is an inevitable result (pesik reisha). And in the Talmud it says that anyone who combs in order to remove dangling hairs [that is, hairs that have been partially detached but not yet fully uprooted] intends to separate his hairs well.”
And he explained there in Sha’ar HaTziyun as follows: “And even according to the one who says that an inevitable result that is not beneficial to him is permitted, as written at the end of section 320, nevertheless, since he wants the hairs to be separated and that is impossible without removing the hairs, it is considered an inevitable result that is beneficial to him [Rivash].”
A. This is puzzling, because we could say the same in every case of an inevitable result that is not beneficial to him—for example, a barrel that he plugs with a flax stopper: since he wants to plug it, and that is impossible without squeezing.
B. Why is it that regarding a fingernail that has mostly come off they said it is permitted, whereas regarding dangling hairs we prohibit it?
In the Talmud, Sabbath 94b: It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says, “A fingernail that has mostly come off, and hangnails (like thin strips that peel from the skin of the finger around the nail, Rashi) that have mostly come off—by hand, it is permitted; with a utensil, he is liable for a sin-offering.”
Answer
A. He probably means a line of reasoning similar to what several later authorities wrote: in a place where you do A and B necessarily happens, but in principle it would have been possible to do A without B, that is not considered an inevitable result. Along those lines, he writes that if it is impossible to do A without B, then it is not relevant to exempt it on the grounds that it is not beneficial to him. In other words, as I understand it, he is speaking about a situation where in general it is impossible to separate the hairs without removing the loose strands, and not merely that here it happens as an inevitable result.
B. I did not understand the question. It says that with a utensil he is liable for a sin-offering.
Discussion on Answer
A. Maybe that is indeed what he means.
B. Maybe it really is permitted? And even if not, there is no problem with there being a difference between nails and hair regarding a utensil or the hand. It depends on the normal way of doing it and the nature of the action.
A. Maybe you meant the Rivash, and this is his language: “For combing is nothing other than separating the dangling hairs and those tangled one with another. And we are not dealing with fools who comb for no reason when there are no dangling and tangled hairs on their head. And it is possible that this too is included in Rava’s statement—that he also intends to remove them, since a person does not comb unless there are dangling hairs, and it is impossible to separate them because of their entanglement except by removing them. If so, he necessarily intends to remove them, for combing is only to separate the hairs by removing them, meaning that some of them will be cut from the point of entanglement and downward, or uprooted from their root… Even if we accept the words of the author of the Arukh, here it is forbidden because he benefits from the removal of the hair, since he wants the separation of the dangling and tangled hairs, which cannot be separated without removing them. So he benefits from the removal, and combing is nothing other than removing the hair, as I wrote above in explaining that passage in Nazir, that anyone who combs, etc. And it is not similar to tightening the stopper, where the tightening does not depend on the squeezing, but rather the squeezing happens on its own because of the tightening; and although he benefits from the tightening, since he does not benefit from the squeezing and does not intend it, it is permitted even though it is an inevitable result. And likewise in the case of splitting the snail, where the release of the blood does not depend on taking the life; since he does not benefit from that, it is permitted according to the rabbi’s reasoning and explanation, even though he benefits from the release of the blood. But if the release of the blood had depended on taking the life, then he would also be liable for taking life, even though that was not his intention, for he benefits from it since he benefits from the release of the blood and it is impossible to release the blood without it. And so too is the matter with combing, for he benefits from the removal.”
B. But by hand it is permitted, so is the same true for dangling hairs?