Q&A: Carrying Water on the Sabbath
Carrying Water on the Sabbath
Question
Have a good week, Rabbi,
Yalkut Yosef writes in section 326: According to the basic halakhic ruling, it is permitted to bathe on the Sabbath in a river, the sea, or a pool, as long as one does not swim (because when one swims, the Sages decreed against it lest he make a flotation barrel). However, one must be careful not to carry the water that is on him in a karmelit. Therefore he must dry his body immediately when he comes out. It is also best to wait until the water on him drips off, and to dry himself gently so as not to come to the prohibition of wringing. In any case, all Jews have already adopted the practice of refraining from bathing in the sea or a river on the Sabbath, out of concern for these stumbling blocks.
My question is: why is there any prohibition at all against carrying the water on the Sabbath? After all, if rain falls on me, then I also have drops on me, and nobody says I have to freeze in place when rain is falling on me until the rain stops.
Answer
Excellent question. There is a difference (beyond the amount of water, which is also different): in the sea I bring the water up onto myself, whereas with rain it comes onto me from outside. But in truth I do not see a logical basis for making that distinction.
Discussion on Answer
Those are exactly the two reasons I mentioned. And still, logically I see no distinction. If he were in the public domain, where the prohibition is by Torah law, would we permit it there too because he has no choice? Let him stand in place—there is no counsel and no wisdom against God. And taking the water out of the river or sea today is also something he does not want. These reasons are extremely weak.
As for the reasoning that it is only a small amount, it is explained in the Mishnah Berurah (subsection 11 in the name of Pri Megadim) that it does not contain the minimum measure for carrying.
As for the reasoning that "he is compelled," simply speaking this is an additional layer on top of another leniency. That is, after we determine that there is no Torah prohibition here (because it is not the normal manner of carrying—Pri Megadim), we then say that there is no rabbinic prohibition either, because "there is no choice," and its source is the Taz there.
The source of the prohibition is at the beginning of tractate Shabbat. There is extensive discussion whether this is an unintentional act, whether he wants it or not, and more.
In any event, I was surprised by the answer, because the question of drying off after bathing is a fully developed topic there in Shabbat, and the comparison to the law of someone walking outside in the rain is brought explicitly in the Shulchan Arukh ("One who bathes in a river must dry his body well when he comes up from the river, so that water should not remain on him and he carry it four cubits in a karmelit, because one coming up from bathing has a large amount of water on his body; but one who walks in the public domain while rain pours over his head and clothing—they were not strict about him"), and its source is from the Tur and the Rosh. So as for the questioner's question, go study it—the matter is well known.
I did not understand why there is no minimum measure? When rain falls there is certainly such a measure. It is no less than the water that remains on his body when he comes up from the sea. The Taz also noted this there in subsection 2 (and the Vilna Gaon brought him proof from Tosafot). And that also makes unnecessary the whole discussion among the later authorities who connected it to the law of a half-measure.
The source of the comparison to rain is indeed the Rosh there, and from him to the Shulchan Arukh. But the quantitative explanation does not appear in the Rosh, nor does it sound that way from the Rosh's wording, but rather in the Beit Yosef. And still, the logic is difficult for me.
And regarding the law of an unintentional act and an inevitable result, I did not see discussion of that there. However, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan in Be'er Yitzchak, Orach Chayim, section 15, branch 5, raised a difficulty from here against Terumat HaDeshen, who permitted an inevitable result in a rabbinic prohibition, and see there what he wrote to resolve it.
Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chayim, section 326, paragraph 8
One who bathes in a river must dry his body very well when coming up from the river, so that water should not remain on him and he not carry it four cubits in a karmelit. This is because one coming up from bathing has a large amount of water on his body. But one who walks in the public domain while rain pours over his head and clothing—they were not strict about that, because it is only a small amount; and even if it is a large amount, what can he do? He is compelled. Also, this is like an inevitable result that he does not want, unlike one who bathes in a river, who does so willingly and for pleasure, so any slight labor done in that context is considered as if it were done willingly.