4

There are those that use baby wipes on Shabbos, and those that do not. And then there are those that use only the thinner ones and not the thick ones. What is considered thin and what is considered thick?

  • I was going to breach this topic a while back Here is an extensive treatment on it bknw.org/uploads/5/9/9/5/5995719/… – SimchasTorah Oct 8 '10 at 5:15
  • Interesting. I would have thought the biggest leniency could be in the case of a brand of wipes that aren't so saturated with liquid that it comes out, but that in cases where the wipes are very saturated with liquid it would be more problematic. It seems from this article that (according to R' Moshe) the easiest way to be lenient is when dealing with a case where the wipes are SO saturated that the liquid is just dripping off already and you're not really squeezing it out. – Seth J Jun 28 '11 at 16:27
  • @Seth J, R' Moshe's leniency with saturation is not based on lack of action (not squeezing), as you most definitely are. R' Moshe based it on 2 factors: a) lack of intent to perform the melacha since you have plenty of liquid on the outside, you don't need to squeeze (aino miskaven); and b) that the liquid that will be squeezed out is not going to be used (holech l'ibud). R' Moshe used these 2 negating factors (tarti l'greiusa) to permit a rabbinic melacha. The reason it's rabbinic is that a prerequisite to sechita is that the liquid is hidden (tamun). This applies by sponges and the like. – YDK Jun 28 '11 at 18:38
  • I get it, I just never would have thought of it that way. – Seth J Jun 28 '11 at 19:01
3

Just two nights ago we brought a few brands of baby wipes to Rav Moshe Heinemann to answer the question. In order to test them, he took each wipe one at a time and tightly squeezed it in his palm. If liquid dripped onto the table, Rav Heinemann felt it would be assur on shabbos. (Pampers brand) If no liquid dripped out, then he said it was mutar for shabbos use. (Amazon brand?) It doesn't appear to be a question of thick vs. thin, rather sechita/squeezing the liquid out of the wipe.

For a more thorough discussion, see here as well as the conclusion that Rav Asher Weiss' heter in understanding "the liquid is primarily on the surface of the wipe rather than absorbed within it, and the wipe is actually made of special non-absorbsive material. Therefore, if used gently, one cannot say with any certainty that liquid will be squeezed from the wipe, and it remains a davar she’eino miskaven, which is permitted."

  • -1 for plagiarizing – Double AA Jan 31 '17 at 4:09
  • Which part of this is plagiarized? The personal account or the quote link under "here"? – NJM Jan 31 '17 at 4:11
  • 1
    The summary of yours which is actually their own words. If you quote someone without quotation marks, well that's what plagiarism is. It's lying. – Double AA Jan 31 '17 at 4:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .