Baby Wipes Part #4 - The Leniencies of Mifarek

And some leniencies of mifarek:

1. "Cleaning" applies even where the water is being wasted. "Mifarek" means to take the usable from the husk, not to waste the usable. When the water goes to waste there is dispute whether or not there is a rabinic prohibition.
2. "Mifarek" may only apply to things which grow from the ground.
   However, the actual halacha here is far from clear. Some poskim(Rashi as quoted by Tosfos, R"i, R' Tam) rule that Dush applies to all materials. Some (R' Avrohom Ben Harambom, may be Rash"i's opinion as well, I think Baal Hamaor) say this qualification applies to "Dush", but not to Mifarek. Some (Pri Migadim ibid., Eglei Tal) accept this qualification, but note that wool is considered "grown from the ground". [Mushrooms are also considered "ground grown", and silk is not resolved. I would venture that plastics and oils that are extracted from plants are also considered ground grown.] Others accept the qualification in its entirety.
   Even accepting this limitation, there is a dispute which part has to be "ground gown", the cloth (Pri Migadim ibid), the liquid, or both(Eglei Tal, who says this is dependent ).
3. Mifarek would only apply when extracting a liquid. If the matter being extracted is halachacly a 'food' instead of a 'drink', there would be no mifarek (even rabbinically). There could still be a prohibition of cleaning. The logic is that one is viewed as cutting food in half instead of extracting food of one type from its husk. [For instance, on may squeeze a lemon onto fish, as the lemon juice is considered a 'food' unless it can settle as an independant liquid. Also, R' Aurbach reasons that the reason a mother may nurse on Shabbos is because the milk is considered 'food' for the baby, not a drink. (This deserves its own thread.)]
4. The Gemara states that there is a Biblical prohibition against squeezing grapes, a Rabbinical prohibition against squeezing pomagranites, and no prohibition to squeeze "uzradin".
   
   According to the Ran, "Mifarek" only applies to the seven "important" liquids [water, milk, wine/vinegar, olive oil, honey, blood, dew]. He argues that all other liquids are considered 'food' until after they have been extracted. Since during extraction they are not yet considered liquid, there is no Biblical prohibition in drawing them out. (See last note.)
   If it is a type of liquid that is normally extracted, it would still be forbidden Rabinically. Liquids that are not commonly squeezed may[Ta"z] or may not [Shu"a] even be forbidden M'drabonan.
   This view (the Ra"n), is qouted but argued on by most glosses to the Shu"a.
5. According to Rashi, mifarek applies whenever squeezing of such type is expected (such as wine from grapes). When such squeezing is common but not expected (such as pomegranites) the prohibition is Rabbinic. When it is uncommon, it may or may not be forbidden, as in last note. [According to Rashi, squeezing an orange nowadays would incur the death penalty, while according to the Ran it would be Rabinic prohibition.]
6. The Pri Migadim (Hakdomah) explains that according to Rashi mifarek only applies where the liquid is "gathered" [mifkad pakid] within its parent. He quotes a gemara that grapes and olives are considered gathered, and points out that Rashi uses the same term regarding the milk in an animals udder. He concludes with the word "ve'haven" - understand this!
   
   This seems difficult: How can this be explaining Rashi; Rashi said a grape is unique in that its usually squeezed, not in that its juice is gathered! Practically, as well, is the juice of a grape stored any differently than that of an orange?!
   R' Tzvi Hyman suggested that according to the Pri Megadim the concept of "Mifkad Pakid" is not a literal claim that the liquid is physically gathered. It is a concept; Do we consider the juice important in its own right, as if it is a cup of juice sitting inside a shell? Or do we consider the parent as having a value that it can be extruded into a drink.
   Wine and oil are important liquids that are regularly squeezed. They are therefore considered "gathered", ie. as juice inside a container, even while inside the fruit. The milk of an animal is also gathered, in that we consider it to be milk inside a cow, not just a part of the cow that can be drawn and drank.
   Accordingly, Rashi, who says that pomegranates are not Biblical since they are not regularly squeezed, has logic very similar to the Ran's and based on #3 above: at the time of squeezing, he is separating food and not juice. Only grapes, which are regularly squeezed and therefore considered pakid and independent of their parent even before squeezing, are included in the biblical prohibition of mifarek. (Though nowadays oranges would have the same category.)
   (If the liquid is physically gathered, it would certainly be called "pakid" as well. The gemara calls the dye of a chilazon and the blood of a virgin to be pakid, and that may be literal or figuratatively.)
7. Mifarek may only apply when the food is not considered attached to its parent. [Pri Migadim (introduction to O"H 310) is unsure. I do not understand the logic so cannot expound, but see the last point, as this may be a continuation of the same thought.]
8. "Mifarek" may only apply to liquids that are naturally part of the food. Other liquids that have been absorbed, such as liquid into a cloth, would be forbidden rabinically.
   This is the opinion of Rash"i and the M"A, but is argued on by Tosfos and others, who say that any time the liquid is commonly squeezed out, it is forbidden Biblically.
   
9. There is an opinion that Mifarek does not apply when it is done for immediate use. (Similar to Borer.) However this opinion is completely ignored by the Acharonim, and cannot be relied upon for Halachah.
10. Lgufon - for the sake of the fruit