Parshas Noach – 5787 – Intriguing Questions & Answers
Ask The Rav
Common Shabbos Questions When Preparing a Bar Mitzvah Kiddush
Folding Napkins into Decorative Shapes
Q: Is it permissible to prepare napkins in decorative shapes on Shabbos, and if so, in what manner?
A: Regarding the general halachos of folding on Shabbos, see the Mishnah in Maseches Shabbos (113a) and Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 302:3). It emerges that one should refrain from folding paper napkins on Shabbos into specific decorative shapes, such as a flower and the like, when the folds are made firmly. However, simple folds made merely for decorative purposes, without forming any particular recognizable shape, such as accordion-style folds, are permitted. Even in a case where one should refrain from making such shapes on Shabbos, if they were prepared before Shabbos, they may be opened on Shabbos, and there is no concern of soser. In the sefer Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah (Chapter 11:41), he writes that making such shapes resembles boneh, even though they are intended to be taken apart that same day. See also there (Chapter 16, footnote 61), where he distinguishes this from Lego pieces. With Lego, the construction has no significance as a true act of building since it is made as a children’s toy, whereas these types of constructions are also made by adults.
Regarding what we wrote that there is no prohibition against making ordinary decorative folds, see Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 18), who explains that since such a fold is not intended to last, it is not included in the prohibition of mesaken and is permitted, this seems to be the psak halacha one can rely on and doesn’t need to be stringent like the opposing opinions. See also Shu”t Be’er Moshe, Vol. VIII (siman 134), and Shu”t Shevet HaLevi, Vol. V (siman 35).
Regarding paper napkins that were folded in a simple manner before Shabbos and were subsequently opened, it is permissible to refold them on Shabbos in their original manner, since folding paper does not involve tikkun mana. Even with cloth napkins, there is no prohibition of folding garments in this case, since the folding is not being done to improve the garment but merely for temporary use. The reasoning is that when folding clothing, the fold itself serves to improve the garment. Here, however, the folding is merely for a one-time use, after which the napkin will be washed and the entire fold will disappear. Therefore, no significant improvement is being made through the folding. This differs from the ruling of Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasah (Chapter 11:41), who writes that a cloth napkin that was opened should not be refolded.
Attaching the Bases to Plastic Cups
Q: Is it permissible on Shabbos to attach the base or stem to a plastic cup, or is there a concern of boneh?
A: It appears to me that lechatchilah, plastic cups of the type used for cut fruit and similar foods, in which the upper cup is attached to a long stem or base, should be assembled before Shabbos. If, however, one forgot to prepare them before Shabbos, one who is lenient and assembles them on Shabbos has whom to rely upon.
The basis for permitting this bedieved can be found in the words of the Beis Yosef (siman 317), that when a utensil consists of two parts, they may be attached without a concern of tikkun mana when they are regularly intended to be taken apart. Additionally, some maintain that when an item is intended only for one-time use, there is no concern of tikkun mana. Accordingly, these disposable cups, in which the upper portion is attached to the stem that serves as its base, may be assembled on Shabbos. Some question this reasoning based upon the Gemara in Maseches Beitzah (33b), which states that one who cuts a piece of wood to use as a toothpick is liable, even though he will use it only once and then discard it. If the fact that an object will be thrown away after one use is sufficient grounds for leniency, why is making such a toothpick prohibited because of tikkun mana? In truth, however, the case of the toothpick is different. There, one is physically modifying the toothpick itself and thereby creating a new utensil. Since a toothpick is by nature made for a single use, preparing it for that use constitutes the complete creation of the utensil. Attaching two parts of an already existing utensil, however, neither repairs nor alters the actual body of the utensil. The utensil is created merely through joining its two components. Therefore, when the attachment is loose, the assembly is not considered the creation of a utensil unless the parts are being attached permanently. Those who are lenient therefore rely upon the fact that the connection is not intended to endure, and consequently it is not considered the final act in creating the utensil. Even if the assembled cup is thrown directly into the garbage after use without actually separating its two components, there is room for leniency, since the person has no interest or need whatsoever for the two parts to remain attached.
Nevertheless, lechatchilah these cups should certainly be assembled before Shabbos. This is particularly so in light of Shu”t Machazeh Eliyahu, Vol. II (siman 13), who discusses this issue at length and concludes that the above reasoning is insufficient grounds to permit assembling these cups. In his opinion, attaching the two parts of the utensil is prohibited and may even involve an issur d’Oraisa. This is because, in practice, the person intends to assemble the utensil permanently, as he has no intention of ever separating its two parts. He further writes that even if one decides that he will separate the two components after finishing his use of the cup, it should nevertheless be prohibited at least mid’Rabbanan, out of concern that he may forget and leave the utensil assembled. However, a person whose regular practice is always to separate the parts after finishing his use may assemble the cup with the intention of subsequently taking it apart.
Cutting a Roll of Plastic Tablecloths Through a Non-Jew
Q: If one forgot to prepare plastic tablecloths to cover the tables for the Shabbos seudah, is it permissible to cut the plastic tablecloth from the roll on Shabbos?
A: It is prohibited to tear the roll on Shabbos because of the melachah of kore’a. Regarding having a non-Jew cut it, there is room for discussion, and one should consult a Rav before doing so. The Mishnah Berurah (O.C. 340, se’if katan 41) writes that one who tears paper into pieces in order to use them for wiping is liable because of kore’a, and this constitutes an issur d’Oraisa. Therefore, even if we assume that there is a significant need to tear the plastic, one generally cannot be lenient regarding having a non-Jew perform an issur d’Oraisa.
The Biur Halachah there (se’if 13, s.v. ein) writes, according to the Rambam, that kore’a is prohibited min haTorah only when there is a constructive benefit to both pieces that result from the tearing. Nevertheless, in our case there is a constructive benefit to both portions. The roll itself is intended to be cut into individual pieces, and cutting off the present piece also improves the remaining roll, since the next piece will now need to be torn only from its other side.
The sefer Shoshanas Yisrael — Hilchos Nisuin (p. 56) cites Rav Shlomo Miller shlit”a, who noted that bedieved there is room to rely upon the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, cited in the Biur Halachah, that the melachah of kore’a does not apply to leather, since it is a single solid material. According to this approach, the same would apply to cutting plastic from a roll, and it would not constitute an issur d’Oraisa. He further adds that if the non-Jew was responsible for preparing the plastic before Shabbos, then by cutting it on Shabbos he is acting for his own benefit — to rectify what he himself neglected to do beforehand. It would therefore be permissible to benefit from his action. See Biur Halachah (O.C. 276, s.v. letzorko).
Practical Corner:
By Rabbi Nesanel Odzer from the Rabbanim of Beis Horaah KLY
Is There an Obligation to Donate a Kidney?
Q: I was informed that my kidney is a match for a seriously ill person who occasionally attends my shul. Although he has some connection to the shul, he is not observant. As the Rav of the shul, am I obligated to donate my kidney, or is it simply a great mitzvah? Would the halacha differ regarding bone-marrow donation?
A: Two questions arise: Is kidney or bone-marrow donation obligatory, and does the recipient’s lack of observance affect the halacha?
The Radbaz rules that even if removing a limb poses no danger, one need not surrender part of his body to save another, although doing so may be an extraordinary act of piety (Radbaz III:627, also numbered 1052). Contemporary poskim apply this principle to kidney donation. Although losing a kidney differs from losing a hand or eye, since a healthy donor can generally function normally with one kidney, the donor nevertheless permanently loses an organ. Rav Moshe Sternbuch therefore rules that there is no obligation to donate, although doing so is an extraordinary act of piety (Teshuvos Vehanhagos II:733; III:360; V:388). Rav Chaim Kanievsky likewise rules that although one is not obligated, donating is a great mitzvah (Derech Sicha, Bereishis, p. 19). The Nishmas Avraham also cites Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Tzitz Eliezer, and Rav Ovadia Yosef, who conclude that kidney donation is not obligatory, but is a tremendous mitzvah when medically appropriate (Nishmas Avraham, YD 349:3 (a), p. 554). Thus, although modern medicine has greatly reduced the danger of kidney donation, the donor still permanently surrenders an organ and has no obligation to donate. Nevertheless, doing so is an exceedingly great mitzvah and an extraordinary act of chesed.
Bone-marrow donation is somewhat different, since the marrow or stem cells regenerate and the donor does not permanently lose an organ. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach rules that a suitable donor should be strongly encouraged to donate, but may not be pressured if he is scared of the slight danger involved. However, he explicitly states that if the only concern were pain or discomfort, one could be obligated to endure it to save another when nobody else can do so (Nishmas Avraham IV, EH 80:1). Rav Sternbuch likewise rules that because danger cannot be entirely excluded, donation cannot be required, although it is a tremendous mitzvah (Assia 91–92, pp. 5–10). Regarding ordinary blood donation, the Shevet HaLevi rules that where there is no real element of danger, temporary weakness or illness does not necessarily exempt one from the obligation to save another (V:219). However, this is not exactly the same as bone-marrow donation, which Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Sternbuch specifically address without imposing an obligation.
The recipient’s lack of observance does not change the conclusion, since even if he were completely observant, donation would not be obligatory. As for the mitzvah itself, although the poskim discuss whether nonobservant Jews have the status of a tinok shenishbah, even if we adopt the position that they are not considered a tinok shenishbah, there is still an important consideration. Experience shows that being saved through such an extraordinary act of kindness, especially by the Rav of a shul one attends, often brings a person closer to Torah observance. Rav Sternbuch makes a similar point regarding saving a “chiloni” Jew on Shabbos. He explains that even according to those who do not consider such a person a tinok shenishbah, experience shows that many eventually return to Torah observance, and this possibility is itself a significant consideration (Teshuvos Vehanhagos VI:90).
In summary: Kidney donation is not obligatory, although it is an exceptionally great mitzvah. The same applies to bone-marrow donation when the donor is concerned about the slight danger involved. This great mitzvah would seemingly apply even when the recipient is not observant, particularly where there is a strong possibility that an extraordinary act of chesed by his Rav will inspire him to become observant.