- This topic has 25 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
just wondering if its permitted. how about the hydrogen peroxide lens cleaner?
just wondering if its permitted
What would be your reasoning for saying that it’s not?
The Wolf
Perhaps because some people define their religiosity by how much they can deny themselves as a chumrah
Or perhaps there’s a concern for melaben on the lenses which are permeable.
Then he should be asking their rav. Lenses in all shapes sizes and form have been around for over 50 years and if this was not simply a chassid shoteh question, the concern would have surfaced years ago and debated by poskim. When I wore lenses, the only method my rav said couldn’t be used as a method of that utilized electrical sterilization.
There’s a long discussion about soft lenses in ????? ??? ??? ?”?, ???? ?”? and ‘?, and in the ‘?????? ????, ??? ?.
Not only is it not a chassid shoteh question, he quotes R’ Elyashiv, R’ Vosner, and yl”t R’ Karelitz as all assering using cleaning solution.
Plain sterile water or saline solution, with no added cleaning agent, is okay if the lenses were clean before Shabbos.
??”? ??? ?”? ?’ ?”? allows soaking soft lenses to prevent them from getting ruined, and doesn’t mention cleaning solution.
I am an expert in this field. With all due respect, the poskim seem to have been given inaccurate information. Cleaning contact lenses (hydrogel, silicone hydrogel, rigid gas permeable, etc..) is no different than cleaning a dish with dishwashing liquid. If that is permitted, cleaning a contact lens with a multipurpose solution is also permitted. Hydrogen peroxide is no different in this aspect. However, neutralizing hydrogen peroxide is a separate question which raises some interesting halachic issues (nolad, for example).
Aren’t soft contact lenses softer than dishes?
Yes, but softness is irrelevant here. For example, thick plastic is what you may call “hard”, but thin plastic as in Saran Wrap is quite soft. Chemically, they are virtually identical. Softness as opposed to hardness (what we prefer to call “modulus”) is a physical property of the polymer, but so are tensile strength, softening point, oxygen flux and a bunch of other properties that exist but are irrelevant to the halachic discussion.
The point here is simple. Dirt, protein, lipids, junk, what have you, adhere to the surface of the lens, but do not penetrate it. This adherence is no different than chulent sticking to a plate. If I can clean the plate with a cleaning liquid, I can clean the contact lens.
I am willing to venture that the poskim did not differentiate between ionic and non-ionic surfaces, or what technique was used to put on a hydrophilic coating, etc..These issues would make the discussion more interesting, but would not change the conclusion.
Also contact lens solution is more liquid than dish soap.
Old man, are you aware that contact lenses absorb large amounts of water?
Old man,
I am absolutely sure that you are far less an expert in this field than these gedolei poskim are in hilchos Shabbos.
I would safely venture that your Tzu shtell to dishes holds even less water than the most non porous of lenses.
DY, contact lenses do not absorb large amounts of water. Put a contact lens in tap water and the water content will not change. The water in contact lenses is added in the manufacturing process and varies from about 24% to about 70%. (if it matters here, and it probably doesn’t, the addition of methacrylic acid will allow for huge amounts of water to be absorbed) Different lenses can have different water contents and still have the same “softness”. Natural evaporation will dehydrate a lens exposed to air, and therefore the lens must be in a water environment at all times. If constant slight water absorption to counter slight constant evaporation is a halachic problem, then we have a serious one. The lens in vivo retains its original water content by taking water from the tears, and so, putting the lens on an eye causes this process to occur and wearing lenses on shabbos would then be assur. Second, putting the lens in any solution, even saline or noncleaning solution would be assur. But all this is irrelevant.
Water is a very small molecule and will pass through the hydrogel lens. As the water passes through, it does not clean the lens, wash the lens, or remove dirt from the lens, it just keeps it at its original water content.
The halachic issue here is kibus, laundering. What needs to be removed from the lens are particles that adhere to the lens on its outer surface and not inside the matrix of the lens. There is nothing to remove from inside the lens, as protein and lipid and anything else excepting water and some ions are too large to enter the matrix of the lens.90% of these particles are removed by manual rubbing, just like rubbing dishes with water or with your fingers. The rest is removed by a cleaning agent, but again, only from the outside. This is exactly what dishwashing liquid does to a dirty dish, whether the dish is hard or soft (rubbery).
If the issur we are discussing is not kibus, then most likely “soft” contact lenses would be forbidden to wear on shabbos. I have not heard a posek say this, but if one did, I can justify the issur. Tikun kli comes to mind, but I’ll leave that alone.
Nishtdayngesheft, you have shown that you cannot contribute to this discussion on any level, halachic or scientific. Please take your Mr. Potato Head and play nicely in the corner until the adults have finished.
So basically no one knows what issur they are discussing here, and the questioner doesn’t know why it should be asssur, yet you are going to figure it out. Figure what out? Is this a Sholem Aleichem short story?
dnetsk, it’s a discussion with facts, thoughts and some conjecture. But the alleged issur here is kibus/melaben, and my conclusion is that it is permitted.
Old man, take a look at the Orchos Shabbos. The poskim seemed to very aware of the facts, but the absorbency of the lenses makes them comparable to leather (at least) and although we don’t say shriyaso zehu kibuso on leather, cleaning agents are still assur.
The lenses were never in need of repair, only maintenance, so there is no tikun mana.
Dnetsk, So basically no one knows what issur they are discussing here
Melabain/Kibus
” my conclusion is that it is permitted. “
As I mentioned before, you are wholly incompetent, to make such a statement.
This comment does show the typical arrogance of those whom it says daas baal habayis is hefech daas torah.
Ii think that are truly deserving of a time out now. And I never took the Mr. Potato Head that you apparently consult with to support your psak.
Your arrogance is appropriate of bloggers. Those who plopple about what they know not.
nishtayngesheft, are you at least aware that porous lenses hold water well?
Rebb Yidd,
Yes. That is why I mentioned NON Porous when talking about holding no water.
Rebb Yidd,
Yes. That is why I mentioned NON Porous when talking about holding no water.
Arent their some Shittas that say not to wear contact lenses at all (Maybe just for men not to use them)
Who holds that way and why?
I heard something like contacts are either Chukas HaGoyim or Begged Aisha or something along those lines. I only heard it indirectly
I have not heard of either.
It was Viznitz Chassidim who banned it
DY, I don’t have access now to Orchos Shabbos, so I will reserve judgment until I see it, don’t know when that will be.
I did read five or six tshuvos on line, some were mattir, some were osser, some encouraged being machmir without an issur attached. The machmirim and osrim all quoted the Orchos Shabbos and Rav Elyashiv.
As I suspected, some of the more technical tshuvos were written by poskim who were given inaccurate information. One confused cleaning agent absorption with water content of lenses. Another suggested that on shabbos the lenses be soaked in distilled water. I assume no one does this, it makes the lens unusable. One suggested putting it into tap water, which is a medical no-no. No surprises in these errors, just chaval.
The most important unrecognized fact was that nothing inside the lens requires cleaning, and when minute amounts of the cleaner do absorb into the lens:
1. there is no cleaning action
2. It is liable to be detrimental to the eye, and is therefore undesirable. Manufacturers make great efforts to minimize the concentration of the cleaning agent and its absorption into a lens. As I described above, all cleaning necessary and all cleaning action is outside the lens. This makes it fundamentally different than leather, and no comparison to leather should be made.
Therefore, absorption here is irrelevant, and certainly not a reason to be osser, as no cleaning action takes place inside the lens. If dishwashing liquid is spilled onto the pages of a book, one would hardly say that I am over an issur of book laundering, even though the cleaner is absorbed into the pages. The pages need no cleaning, and the cleaner doesn’t help, it harms. Issur koves? I don’t buy it.
The upshot, and again I will reserve final judgment until I see the Orchos Shabbos, is that contact lens solution like Renu, Biotrue and others cannot be forbidden. Rav Shlomo Zalman zt”l as quoted in one tshuva is mattir without restrictions. For our purposes there is no difference in solutions from his days to ours.
Interestingly, one posek quoted Reb Shlomo Zalman that if a lens dries out to the point that it is unusable, and to rejuvenate it one must put it back in solution , this is probably forbidden on shabbos, as it may be metaken kli. I agree fully, so my thoughts on metaken kli were somewhat relevant to the discussion.
One posek said that rubbing the lens between fingers wet with water- only in order to clean it is forbidden. This cannot be correct, as it is no different than our proverbial dirty dish or a rigid lens.
Kol tuv.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.