From the Rabbi's Study
Internet Chaburah Prologue: The Rabbis argue as to how it happened. Some note that the Ananei Kavod sat on top of Har Sinai from before Kabbalat Hatorah while others assume that it took place for 6 days after Matan Torah (See Rashi 24:16). Rashi concludes that one must prepare to be in the presence of God. The sense of reverence that one finds in the presence of the Almighty cannot be entered into simply. There must be preparation time and preparatory stages. Rav Nisson Alpert ztl. explained the reason for this preparation period is to serve to help one distinguish between one's preconceived notions of Hashkafa and the actual presence of Shechina. Thus, rather than assimilate the experience into his previous notions, he must accommodate his notions to understand that which the experience of Shechina presents.
Similarly, we find the Rambam (Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 2:2) notes that the way to arrive at Ahavat Hashem is to take the time to recognize the greatness of Hashem's handiwork and his involvement in daily affairs. However, cautions the Rambam, stumbling onto the reality of Maasei Hashem will make man tremble at his personal insignificance. Rav Nisson adds that for this reason we had a six day preparation period, to allow our leader Moshe to ascend Har Sinai and bring Shechina to the people through the transmission of the Torah.
The separation of six and seven days is essential in understanding the difference between Shabbos and Chol. The difference is black and white but is seen in full color. This week's Chaburah examines the difference. It is entitled:
*********Tzoveia: Handkerchiefs and bloody noses*********
The Michaber (328) notes that one is not allowed to use a tourniquet or handkerchief on Shabbat to stop bleeding if it will cause the garment to become discolored. The Mogen Avraham (also cited by Mishna Berurah 328:28) notes that if one uses a red garment to stop the bleeding then he is certainly in violation. This idea seems perplexing. What is the possible violation here? And why the Mogen Avraham's Chumra?
It seems that the concern here is for the violation of the Melacha of Tzoveia (dyeing). Even if the biblical violation is not achieved (because it is not Darko), there is still a Rabbinic violation for dyeing if the garment becomes discolored. But is a bloody nose considered violating the prohibition of dyeing? The Yeraim (120) felt it was. He notes that eating strawberries and wiping one's mouth on a napkin is different because Ein Teviah B'ochlin (320:20) <Chacham Tzvi Hosafos siman 1 page 71a argued against eating berries with a fork on Shabbos for this reason>. However, he seems to feel that there is Tzeviah (a violation of dyeing on Shabbos) with blood and thus felt it necessary to avoid wiping one's blood on clothes. Mahari Weil (Cited in Sefer Zikaron L'Rav Chaim Shmuellevitz) agreed.
However, others noted the difference between Tzeviah and wiping a bloody nose. Rashi (cited in Shitta Mekubetezes to Kesubos 5b) noted that Tzeviah is a Maaseh Uman (artisan's work). The cleaning of blood is not. Radvaz (Shut Radvaz IV:131) notes that thus it is considered Mikakel (ruining), for the bloody handkerchief needs to be washed and thus, the blood's staining does not create Tzoveia. However, he adds that HaMachmir Tavo alav Beracha. Shut Besamim Rosh (258) adds that Chazal never made a Takana in the place of Tzaar and the gushing of blood is a Makom Tzaar. Thus, this is not Deoraisa and is not part of a Takana so it is Mutar.
Yosef Ometz (652) notes that he was always concerned about the potential for violating the law of dyeing. Thus, since he was little, he was always careful to only use a red hankie on Shabbos. Of course this position is in direct opposition to the opinion of the Mogen Avraham. Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia 328) explained that the Mogen Avraham was specifically concerned about improving the red color through the blood. Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Leviat Chen) notes that this is a difficult position and justification because one is never in violation for Tzoveia when he puts the same color on top of an existing color. The Agur adds that it is Mikalkel anyway and is Derech Lichluch, not for improvement (See also Avnei Nezer O.C. 175 and Ketzos HaShulchan (138 in the Badim)).
L'Halacha, the Chayeii Adam is Machmir but Rav Ovadiah seems adequately convinced that there is significant grounds with which to be Meikil.Shabbat Shalom