Harav Hagaon Rav Yaakov Aharon Skoczylas Shlit”a, the Rosh Kollel of Kollel Lihoraah Yerushalayim is a distinguished scholar who originally hails from Queens. Having cultivated a profound connection with renowned Gedolim over the years, the Rosh Kollel has emerged as a prominent figure in the world of Halacha and overall Torah knowledge. He has authored many seforim, most notably the Ohel Yaakov series. Rav Skoczylas is also considered one of the most authoritative sources for the Psakim of Harav Avigdor Nebentzahl, shlita.
Cleaning a Table with Hashem’s Name: Halachic Rulings and Guidelines
Question: I was asked by someone who took a paper bentcher to recite Birkas Hamazon at the table. Water spilled on the table, causing the bentcher to get wet, and some of the Sheimos Hashem (Names of Hashem) from the bentcher stuck to the table. The questioner now wonders: Is it permissible to erase the Sheimos Hashem, and if not, whether it would be allowed to clean the table, or if it would need to be left that way permanently. He argued that erasing indirectly (grama) is prohibited according to many Acharonim, and therefore questioned whether he must leave it until it naturally fades away through normal table use.
Answer: It would appear that in such a case, it is permissible to erase it, since the writing occurred by itself. The reason for this leniency is as follows. The Rambam writes (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 6:1) that it is forbidden to erase even one letter of any of the seven Sheimos Hashem that are not to be erased, and this prohibition is from the Torah, as it states (Devarim 12:4): “You shall not do so to Hashem your God.”
We must therefore consider whether this issur d’oraisa applies specifically to Sheimos written for the sake of Kedushas HaShem, or even if written without such intent or for another purpose. The Shach (Yoreh De’ah 276:12) writes that it is permitted to erase the Sheim Hashem as long as it was not written for the sake of kedushah, if it is needed for a repair. This is also the opinion of Beur HaGra (6). The Pischei Teshuvah (9) and Mikdash Me’at (15-16) also rule that if someone unknowingly writes the Name of Hashem, it is permitted to erase it if necessary. However, if one knows he is writing the Sheim but without intent for kedushah, it is forbidden to erase.
Shevet HaLevi (7:4) concludes that although the majority of Poskim permit erasing a Sheim not written for the sake of kedushah, one should be stringent for the Poskim who disagree and prohibit this. See also Beur Halacha (Siman 32, s.v. kemocheik).
In practice, I consulted with Mori V’Rabi, Rav Avigdor Nebenzahl, shlit”a, who ruled that in this case, it is certainly permitted to erase the residue of the bentcher even if it erases the Sheim Hashem, because it is not considered writing at all, as it occurred entirely on its own. This is even more lenient than the case discussed by Shach and other Poskim, where erasing was permitted for writing not done for kedushah. Here, there was no intent or action involved, so there is no concern in erasing the Sheimos.
He added a further chiddush in response to a bystander, who pointed out that some people mistakenly erase the Sheim Hashem when they photograph someone in a Beis Haknesses with a visible sign or pillar displaying “Shivisi Hashem L’negdi Tamid,” which includes the Name of Hashem. The questioner argued that it should be forbidden to discard such a photograph in the trash due to the concern of erasing the Sheim Hashem, and therefore wondered why this situation with the paper stuck to the table would be any different.
R’ Nebenzahl explained that in the case of the photograph, the person intentionally captured the image, so it cannot be said that the writing was unintentional. However, in our case, there was no intent to transfer the writing from the paper to the table—it all happened by itself. This is even better than the Shach’s discussion of writing not intended for kedushah, as explained above. Therefore, in our case, it is permitted to erase, unlike other cases where one must be stringent and genizah is required.
Pouring Hot Water into a “Magic Cup”
Question: A “Magic Cup” is a popular product that reveals various shapes, letters, or even images when filled with hot water. Is it permissible to use such a cup on Shabbos, given the potential issues of koseiv (writing), mocheik (erasing), or tzovea (coloring)?
Answer: It appears that there is no concern, and it is permitted to use the cup on Shabbos. However, one who wishes to be stringent and refrain from using it—tavo alav brachah. To clarify the reasoning behind this leniency, we first need to understand when there might be a concern of writing, erasing, or coloring.
The Magic Cup works by revealing an image that is already present but concealed by a black or similar-colored material. The question is whether uncovering this pre-existing image is considered writing. This might be comparable to a ruling cited in Mishnah Berurah (340:10) from the Bach, which states that removing wax from letters to reveal them on Shabbos constitutes a Torah-level prohibition of writing. The Beur Halacha (ibid. ד"ה על הקלף) concurs with this view.
One might argue, then, that pouring hot water into the cup could similarly be forbidden. However, the two cases differ significantly: In the wax case, he is doing an action with his hands to uncover the letters. In contrast, with the Magic Cup, the primary action is pouring water, not revealing an image. Since the uncovering is incidental and not the intent, it does not fall under the category of koseiv.
Now that we have established that there is no concern of koseiv, let us now consider whether there would be an issue of tzovea in this case. Seemingly, we can compare this to photochromic glasses that change color when exposed to sunlight. There, too, one might ask if it constitutes tzovea when the lenses change shade outdoors.
Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, in Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim 3:45), ruled that there is no prohibition of tzovea because because the lenses’ original state repeatedly returns, demonstrating that no permanent coloring occurs. Additionally, since the glasses are designed to change shade in sunlight, this transformation does not qualify as coloring.
This principle is echoed by other Poskim, such as in Chut HaShani (Perek 20, p. 157), Orchos Shabbos (15:66), and Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa (18:70). They conclude that a color change that is temporary and constantly reversible is not considered tzovea (see Mishnah Berurah, 340:17).
The concept that a reversible change is not a melachah also applies to books with writing on the edges of their pages, where opening and closing the book “writes” and “erases” the words. Mishnah Berurah (340:16) rules that opening and closing such books is permitted, as this is their intended and natural use, although he advises being stringent if possible. Similarly, since the Magic Cup’s images appear and disappear naturally when hot water is added, it is permitted to use it. Nevertheless, if a different cup is available, it is preferable to use that instead.
Conclusion: It is permitted to use a cup whose images or colors change due to hot water, as the principles that allow the use of photochromic glasses on Shabbos apply here as well. The chemical reaction within the cup alters its appearance temporarily, not constituting the melachah of coloring, as stated by leading Poskim, including the Tzitz Eliezer (14:31).
Subscribe to our weekly Halacha Q&A on our website WWW.KOLLELLIHORAAH.ORG
Virtual Bais Horaah – Weekly Q&A – Seforim publications – Yisachar Zevulun opportunities – More
