Q&A: Suction on the Sabbath
Suction on the Sabbath
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask a question that, in my opinion, is fundamental in halakhic ruling, and I’ll illustrate it through oral suction after circumcision on the Sabbath.
The straightforward understanding in the Talmud, and likewise in most halakhic literature, is that the reason for suction after the circumcision is only danger to the infant. (True, in the controversy that arose over the tube, there were those who maintained that there is an intrinsic element here, as was held in She’av Meshiv Nefesh, but it seems that there is no real basis for this, and it was mainly a response to the Reform movement. Professor Elimelech Westreich dealt with this extensively.)
.
On the Sabbath, the suction is forbidden and was permitted because of the danger. If so, nowadays would the suction be forbidden?
There are additional topics that essentially deal with questions in which the Sages spoke according to the reality of their times, and one can discuss whether we should adopt that factual understanding only stringently; but here the conservative approach scores an own goal.
Even if one can argue about the specific example I gave, I would be happy for a principled response to questions of this sort (for example, absorption and release in today’s utensils, leavening through fruit juice depending on the level of fermentation, and so on).
Thank you
Answer
It is likely that one should not perform suction today on the Sabbath. True, if this is a rabbinic prohibition, then perhaps “the same mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted,” but straightforwardly it would seem to be forbidden. A factual error is not binding, neither leniently nor stringently. So too, killing a louse on the Sabbath is certainly forbidden.
Discussion on Answer
Dvir, you’re not entirely precise.
From the Talmud it appears that the reason is not only danger but also another reason; however, it also appears that were it not for the reason of danger, it would not have been permitted to do the suction on the Sabbath just because of that other reason: “You might have said that this blood is merely stored up” — and therefore suction would be permitted on the Sabbath even if there is no danger, meaning it is done for an independent reason and the reason it is permitted even on the Sabbath is that it is not considered a labor. “It therefore teaches us that it is connected” — and therefore there is labor here, and one needs the reason of danger in order to permit it on the Sabbath, and the other reason alone is not enough.
(But bottom line, your question is in place.)
See also what was expanded on here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA/
I don’t accept the approach of hidden reasons. If the Sages gave a reason, that is apparently the reason.
Hello Rabbi,
I recently heard that there are some kinds of lice for which science does in fact say that some of them do not reproduce by male and female. And as the Sages themselves wrote in Gittin: “Bring a louse that is male and female.”
Does the Rabbi know about this?
I haven’t heard. Interesting.
There are insects that reproduce (also) by parthenogenesis, such as some species of mites and aphids. (Indeed, every male individual among bees and ants has a mother — the queen bee/queen ant — and no father.) But as far as I know, in human lice parthenogenesis has not been documented, and no haploid individuals have been found — possessing only one set of chromosomes, originating solely from the mother. (Though perhaps I missed something.)
In any case, lice certainly are not generated from sweat, and parthenogenesis in itself gives no grounds for leniency, because parthenogenesis too is reproduction. After all, from the Talmudic passage it emerges that if the louse had eggs, it would be considered to reproduce — and in parthenogenesis there are eggs.
Thank you for the answer,
When the Sages write a reason for a prohibition or for an application of a prohibition, when and whether is that reason the only one from the halakhic standpoint, and when, if ever, do we say that there are additional considerations? (Which would undermine the possibility of being lenient based on today’s factual understanding, but would in many cases allow stringency.)