Baby Wipes Part #3 - The leniencies of Libun

One must predicate an explanation of these tshuvos with a description of the melachos that squeezing could possibly involve. Primarily these are: "Libun" [Cleaning. As the water comes out it cleans the cloth], and "Mifarek" [removing something usable from its husk. Similar to squeezing juice from a grape]. It can also cause "ripping" of the cloth (or package), separating cloths from each other, and applying oils or medicines, but these are less common and will not be dealt with in this essay.

The most obvious difference between these two melachos is that libun deals with the cloth that you are cleaning [the liquid is unimportant], and mifarek deals with the liquid that is being extracted [the cloth is inconsequential].
In practice, the two categories have completely different guidelines, and each one has their own unique leniences and stringencies.

First, some leniencies that only apply to libun:

1. "Mifarek" can be with any liquid. "Cleaning" can only be with water or similar lightly-colored liquids (eg. white wine - T"z). Squeezing wine from a cloth is not libun, even Rabinically. [One might imagine that removing the wine is also a cleaning of sorts. However, if one truly wants the cloth clean, he will wait till he has water handy. Wringing out the cloth without immediately washing it just causes the cloth to stain and smell, making it even harder to clean.] There is an opinion (Ramban) that says there is cleaning even when squeezing other liquids, but it is rejected.
2. Libun is not an issue where the cloth becomes dirtier as it is squeezed. (A wipe is "dirtied" during use, not "cleaned".) Based on R' Moshe.
   
   It is important to note that this is not the same as "derech lichluch".
   There is a rule that wetting a cloth on Shabbos is prohibitted because "Shriyuso ze kibuso - soaking is cleansing". That rule has two caveats:
   a) "derech lichluch" is permitted. Which means that a person may dry their hands on a towel [where he has no intention to clean it - M"B], since the use is not one of cleaning - it is one that normally dirties. For example, one may be permitted to dry their hands in a towel even if that makes the towel smell better.
   b) According to many authorities a clean cloth does not have the rule of "Shriyuso ze kibuso" unless a lot of water is used.
   These two heterim do not apply when the cloth is squeezed, they are heterim only to wet it.
3. Mifarek may not even be done where the extracted liquid or the cloth is being saved temporarily. (Scraping the liquid off the top of the cloth into a sink. T"z, M"B. Elyah Rabbah allows.) Libun does not apply if the cloth will be thrown out immediately after. [Based on above Igros Moshe.]
4. Rabbinical decrees as a whole can be classified into three types.
   a. "Usi Lachlufei" - actions that look like [and can be confused with] the forbidden action. For example, it is forbidden to make salt water on Shabbos as it is similar to "Ibud" - salting and preserving skins.
   b. Unintentional actions - where the action of issur is done, but with a mitigating intention. This includes where the action is being done incidentally (such as creating a furrow while dragging a bench, known as a "melachah she'ayno tzricha l'gufa"). It also includes where the action is being done directly, but for other reasons (milking a cow in order to save the animal from discomfort, known as "dovor sh'ayno miskaven" ).
   In either case, if the person wants the melachah to be done, he transgresses the issur.
   
   Where he does not want the melacha done, but would benefit if it was ["nicha lei", eg. he needs a furrow made, but is trying to avoid making it while dragging a bench]: If it will inevitably happen it is forbidden Biblically, if not it is forbidden Rabbinically. [eg. One may not clean his shoes for fear he might straighten the ground, even though it is not an inevitable outcome.]
   
   Where the outcome would not benefit him in any way but will inevitably happen, there is likewise a Rabbinic prohibition. (The Aruch allows such a "dovor sh'ayno miskaven". His view is rejected in OH 320:17. Other Rishinom allow such a "melachah she'ayno tzricha l'gufa", and are similarly dismissed.)
   
   Where he does not want to do the forbidden, is not sure it will happen, and won't benefit if it does, the action is permitted.
   c. Actions that can lead to the issur. A person may not eat meat alongside his friend that is eating milk unless there is a heker.
   
   There are no decree of types "a" or "b" on the libun of squeezing, [ie. I know of no instance where we prohibit squeezing due to it being similar to, or an unintentional act of, libun.] We do have such decrees regarding the mifarek of squeezing; One may not squeeze a synthetic cloth since it looks like mifarek, and even where the liquid goes to waste wringing a cloth is forbidden as mifarek she'ayno miskaven.
   This may be a practical issue - squeezing grape juice onto the ground does not clean the cloth at all [so its entirely not related to libun], but is an action of mifarek. There are probably other cases of unintentional libun that are forbidden that I haven't come across.
   Preventative decrees for libun are common - one may not touch a wet towel or even walk where he will likely fall into water for fear of squeezing out and cleaning the cloth.
   
   There are decrees of all types related to mifarek. Nonetheless, the Rema implies that there are no decrees to prevent mifarek when he says "A wet cloth may be moved if he does not care that it is wet...", and we will explain these in due course. [See the M"B in 319, and the Shu"a in 335,1 which forbids saving the liquid of a broken barrel in a cloth.]