Kitāb al-Anwār wa'l-Marāqib: Discourse V · Ch. 34: The thirty-fourth chapter regarding washing on the sabbath to cool down

وفيما ذكرناه ايضا في الباب الذي قبل هذا من إطلاق والالتذاذ باستعمال الحلواء والفاكهة والشراب ما يبطل قول هؤلاء ويدل على إطلاق والالتذاذ بالغسل بالماء البارد في الحر فان قالوا إنا انما أجزنا أكل الحلواء وشرب الشراب لان النص قد أطلق الأكل بقوله (שמות טז:כה) אכלוהו היום قلنا وكذلك أجيزوا غسل سائر البدن قياسا على غسل الوجه وعلى غسل ما جاوز اليدين والرجلين والزيادة في ذلك اذ كان تحريم ذلك لا دليل عليه ولم يقل به أحد من الناقلة ويلزمهم ايضا ان يحرموا استعمال ماء الورد وسائر الأطياب وكذلك شم الرياحين في السبت فاما من حرم منهم غسل الوجه في السبت وكذلك اليد لغير حاجة فليس بنا حاجة الى مكالمته وقد بينا ذلك في أول الكلام على السبت وذلك في الباب السادس عشر.

With regards to what we mentioned additionally in the previous chapter regarding permitting using sweets and fruits for pleasure and juice, this nullifies their argument, and proves the permission of washing with cold water for pleasure in the heat. And if they say “we permit eating sweets and drinking juice only because the Text already permitted eating with His words (Exodus 16:25) ‘And Moses said: 'Eat that to-day; for to-day is a sabbath unto the LORD; to-day ye shall not find it in the field.’” We say “and similarly permit washing the rest of the body as an analogy to washing the face and washing what is beyond the hands and feet and the increase in this, since the prohibition for this has no proof and none of ‘owners of the tradition’ said anything in this regard.” And additionally they are obligated to prohibit rose water and other perfumes and similarly smelling scents on the Sabbath. As for he who forbids amongst them washing the face on the Sabbath, and similarly the hand, for no reason, we have no reason to debate him and we already clarified this in the beginning of our discourse on the Sabbath which is the sixteenth chapter.

وأعجب ممن لا يجيز الغسل في السبت للتبرد من لا يجيز ذلك للتطهر ايضا لا من المذي ولا مما هو نظير له وقد احتج من قال بذلك بأن قال انه لو جاز غسل الجسم للتطهر لجاز غسل الثوب لمثل ذلك فقيل له فهل يجوز الاستنجاء من البول والعذرة مع غسل اليدين والرجلين فقال نعم قيل له ولم أجزت ذلك قال لان الله تعبدنا بالصلاة في السبت كما تعبد الכהן بتقريب القربان فلما كان الכהן لا يجوز له ان يقرب القربان وهو فليذ من العذرة والبول وجب من ذلك ان الاستنجاء وغسل اليدين والرجلين جائز بل واجب واذا كان ذلك جائزا للכהן بل واجبا ليقرب بين يدي الله جل وعز كان ذلك واجبا علي أنا ايضا لأصلي وأقيم الفرض.

And the most wondrous regarding one who does not permit washing on the Sabbath to cool off is he who does not permit this additionally to purify, neither from a seminal emission nor what is parallel to this. And he who said this argued that by saying that if washing the body for purification was permitted, it would be permitted to wash a garment for the same reason. Say to him “is it permitted to clean up after urinating or defecating by washing one’s hands and legs?” And when he agrees, say to him “and why did you permit this?” He says “because Allah commanded us with prayers on the Sabbath, like the Priest is commanded to offer a sacrifice, and since the Priest is not permitted to offer a sacrifice while he is dirty from excrement or urine, it must be from this that cleaning up and washing the hands and legs is permitted and even required. If this is permitted to the Priest, nay required, in order to bring an offering before God, it is obligated on us also to pray and fulfill the commandment.”

قيل له فما تقول في رجل لحقه أمر تهيأ عليه فيه أن نال جميع جسمه بول او عذرة هل يجوز له ان يغسل جميع جسمه ليصلي فقال لا قيل له ولم ذلك والعلة التي أجازت ذلك وأوجبته في بعض الجسم هي بعينها موجودة في كل الجسم قال انما أجزت ذلك في بعض الجسم ولم أجزت في كله لانه لو جاز غسل الجسم لجاز غسل الثوب على ما تقدم من القول قيل له فقد نقضت ما اعتللت به ثم قيل له ما تقول في ثوب أصابه في طرفه بول او عذرة هل يجوز غسل الموضع الذي فيه أصابته الفلاذة إن كان ليس لصاحبه ما يصلي فيه غيره كما يغسل بعض الجسم بالاستنجاء قال لا فناقض ايضا مناقضة ثانية اذ كان جعل العلة التي من أجلها جاز غسل بعض الجسم هي الصلاة وهي بينها موجودة في الثوب بلا فرق.

Say to him, “what do you say concerning a person presented with a situation in which his entire body is covered in urine or excrement--- is it permitted for him to wash his entire body in order to pray?” And he says “no,” and then say to him “Why not? Behold, the reason you permitted this and obligated it with some of the body is itself present in the whole body.” He says “I permitted this only for part of the body and did not permit it for the whole body because if washing the body is permitted, it would also be permitted to wash clothes according to what I argued previously.” Say to him “you contradicted what you attempted to prove.” Moreover, say to him “what you say regarding clothes that are stained with urine or excrement on the edge, is it permitted to wash the place that the filth has stained, if the owner has nothing else to pray in, as he washes part of his body after using the bathroom?” He says “no” and thus contradicts himself a second time since he makes prayer the reason that he permits washing part of the body, and this itself is present with clothing with no distinction.

ثم سئل عن غسل الכהן في يوم الכיפור فقال ليس ما جاز للכהן يجوز لغيره قيل ولم ذلك اذ كان لا فرق بين الإمام وغيره في المتعبدات والجملية الا ما خص به هو مما هو معروف مشهور مثل القرابين وما شابهها على ان قوله هذا ناقض لما أعطاه أولا وهو أن ما استدل به لوجوب الغسل من البول والعذرة في يوم السبت لانه أمر بالصلاة كما أمر الכהן بتقريب القرابين وانه كما جاز للכהן ان يغتسل من ذلك ويغسل بدنه ويديه ورجله كذلك جاز لنا نحن ذلك فقوله هاهنا أن ليس كل ما جاز للכהן فانه يجوز لغيره مناقض لذلك القول الأول.

Next, ask him regarding the washing of the Priest on Yom Kippur and he says “what is permitted for the Priest is not permitted to others.” Say “and why is this, since there is no difference between the Priest and non-Priest in worship generally, except what is specified for him which is known and famous such as the offerings and what is similar?” So too this argument of his contradicts what he highlighted firstly, which is what he argued as proof for the obligation of washing off urine and excrement on the Sabbath because of prayer, like the priest is commanded with offering sacrifices. And it is the case that as the Priest is permitted to wash from this and wash his body and hands and feet, similarly it is permitted for us like this. And his argument here that not everything permitted to the Priest is permitted to the non-Priest contradicts his first argument.

ويسأل عن (ויקרא טז:כא) איש עתי وهو الذي يرسل الשעיר في يوم الכיפור وليس هو כהן وانما هو من سائر الناس وقد أمر بأن يغتسل ويغسل ثيابه في يوم الכיפור اللهم إلا أن يدعى انه כהן فيطالب بالبرهان على ذلك ولن يجده يطالب في إيجابه لغسل بعض الجسم وتحريمه لغسل جملته أن يجد البعض الذي يجب ذلك فيه فذلك بأن يقال له أليس إن أصاب رجله بول يجوز له غسلها فاذا قال نعم زيد على ذلك الساق ثم الفخذ ثم عضو عضو حتى لا تبقى من جميع البدن الا شيء يسير فإن وقف في موضع من ذلك عوض بالنقصان والزيادة أبدا فانه لا يجد فصلا البتة فيلزم ان سبيل الجزء من الجسم سبيل الكل بلا فرق ثم يلزمه ايضا في قوله ان الاستنجاء وغسل اليدين والرجلين انما جاز في يوم السبت لعلة الصلاة أن من بال او تغوط في يوم السبت بعد نصف النهار انه لا يجوز له الاستنجاء اذ كانت الصلوات قد نفدت وجازت ولم يبق للسبت صلاة البتة.

And ask him regarding (Leviticus 16:21) “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness” and he is the one who sends the goat on Yom Kippur and is not a Priest but rather merely amongst the rest of the people, and he is commanded to wash and washes his clothes on Yom Kippur even while he is not called a Priest. He must find a proof for this and will not find one. Next he is required with his answer for washing part of the body and prohibiting washing the entire body to delineate the part which must be washed. And for this, say to him “is it not if one’s foot is struck with urine, he is permitted to wash it?” And if he agrees, add to this the leg and thigh then each body part until nothing is left of the entire body except a small amount. And if he stops at one point, challenge him with addition and subtraction forever, for he cannot find a distinction at all. And he is obligated that the ruling one part of the body is the same ruling for the whole body with no difference. Moreover, he is obligated as well with his argument that washing the hands and feet after using the bathroom is permitted on the Sabbath only for the sake of prayers, that one who urinates or defecates after the midpoint of the afternoon, that he is not permitted to clean himself since the prayers have already occured and there are no prayers left for the Sabbath at all.