Brushing Teeth on Shabbat: Difference between revisions

Brushing one's teeth may be a problem of [[Dosh|sechita]] (lit: squeezing), since in the process of brushing, one squeezes absorbed water out of the bristles.<ref>The Gemara ([[Shabbat]] 128b) says that there's no problem of sechita in hair - אין סחיטה בשער, presumably since it doesn’t absorb. Rambam ([[Shabbat]] 9:11) paskens this gemara. However, the [[Maggid]] Mishnah ibid says that it is still asur derabbanan. It is unclear where exactly the Maggid Mishnah knew this from. Presumably, the rationale is that there is a rabbinic decree not to squeeze hair, even though it doesn't absorb, lest you come to squeeze something else which does absorb. Kesef Mishnah on Rambam 2:11 seems to concur with this ruling of the Maggid Mishnah. See also Mishnah Brurah siman 330 s.k. 7. Since l'halacha we hold that one is prohibited from squeezing out hair, despite it's being relatively non-absorbant, there is thus reason to suspect that this gezeira drabanan would apply by a tooshbrush as well.</ref>  

 

# Rav Moshe thinks that one should not wet the brush with water before use.<ref>Igros Moshe (OC 1:112). He is concerned that if the brush is wet, then during use you will squeeze out some of the water and thereby violate the isur drabanan of שחיטה בשיער. See above section on memareach, where we cite Rav Moshe's position that using toothpaste is also forbidden. </ref>

## Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss agrees.<ref>Minchat Yitzchak 3:48. See 39 Melachos (V2, Pg 372), who explains that because the bristles are fine and tightly packed, they are thus similar to hair, and so the isur derabanan should apply to them as well. </ref>

# The Sridei Esh culls together a few reasons for why we need not be concerned with sechita here.<ref>Sridei Esh 1:30 (in 1999 Jerusalem version, and 1:28 in the older version) gives a few reasons for leniency.  

 

(1) Your goal here is not to squeeze the water out of the brush, so this is a psik reisha (an automatic consequence that isn't one's intention) on an isur dirabanan. The source to be mekil for a psik reisha on an isur drabanan is the Shu”t terumat hadeshen siman 64, which the Magen Avraham (OC 253:41) relies upon regarding the prohibition of amira l'akum (telling a non-Jew to do melacha for you on shabbos). [However, this is a very weak basis for leniency, because the Magen Avraham elsewhere (OC 314:1) explicitly rejects the terumat hadeshen, and paskens that we are strict regarding psik reisha on a drabanan. Clearly then, the Magen Avraham was only willing to be lenient in a case of amira l'akum, but not for other isurei drabanan, as the Machatzis Hashekel to 253:41 explains.] 

 

(2) In general sechita (squeezing) can be a toldah of either dosh (threshing) or milabein (whitening). For example, one who squeezes juice out of a fruit violates dosh, whereas one who squeeses a garment from the liquid it was just laundered in violates milabein. One violates milabein even if they have no need for the liquid being squeezed out, since it is still cleaning the garment. However, to violate dosh, one has to need the liquid being squeezed out, just like when one threshes they are extracting the kernel from the husk. Here, the water being squeezed out of the bristles is הולך לאיבוד, meaning that it goes to waste, and you have no interest in it. Thus there is no concern of sechita as a toldah of dosh. In terms of sechita as a toldah of milabein, the Seridei Eish claims that since the toothbrush is meant to get wet, there is no problem of sechita as a toldah of milabein either. He bases this on the Magen Avraham Seif Katan 19 on shulchan aruch 320:15, who says that if a garment is meant to get wet then there is no concern that one will come to launder it. [This too is a bad proof, because all the Magen Avraham is saying there is that we aren't concerned ''lest'' you come to squeeze the garment, since it is meant to get wet so you don't care if it's wet. He is not saying that you are ''allowed'' to squeeze it. Squeezing it would certainly violate milabein, it's just that we are not concerned you will come to squeeze it, and so you are allowed to get it wet in the first place.]

 

(3) The Rambam 22:15 paskens (codifying the Mishnah Shabbat 143a) that one is allowed to use a sponge if it has a handle, but if it doesn't have a handle then it's prohibited because of sechita, since one will inevitably squeeze water out of the sponge. The Ra'avad ibid is bothered with a question - if the sponge has a handle, you will still squeeze water out of the sponge, so why should having a handle permit it!? He answers that if the sponge has a handle, we view the sponge as if it's just a cup full of water and you are pouring out the water, which is certainly permitted. The handle allows us to view the sponge in this way, as opposed to viewing it as squeezing out absorbed water. Presumably, this answer of the Ra'avad can work here too, since the toothbrush has a handle.

 

(4) You can use a towel to dry off ([[Shabbat]] 147b), even though we should have been concerned that you might come to squeeze it out (like we are concerned in other cases), because chazal were lenient that if we prohibit drying with a towel then people won't even wash (since they won't want to wash if they know they won't be able to towel-dry), and it's very difficult for people to not wash (אי אפשר לעמוד בלא רחיצה). In a similar vein, it is difficult for people to not brush their teeth and so perhaps we can apply similar reasoning to permit it. However, the Seridei Eish acknowledges that אין מדמין שבות לשבות (you can't really compare one isur drabanan to another), and so this last reason is not in-and-of-itself a solid basis for leniency.</ref>

## Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach rejects numerous of the Sridei Esh's leniencies.<ref>Rav Shlomo Zalman's opinion is written in a letter in response to the sridei esh that's quoted in Siman 34 of the Sridei Esh.

 

He rejects the first leniency (פסיק רישא דלא ניחא ליה), since  people are happy with the squeezing of the water out of the brush,as this helps facilitate cleaning their teeth. He rejects the second leniency (הולך לאיבוד) because the liquid doesn't go to waste until after it fulfills its purpose of helping to clean your teeth. However, he is still lenient due to the third reason (the toothbrush has a handle and so is similar to the case of ספוג שיש לו בית אחיזה). </ref>