Muktzeh Machmat Gufo

From Halachipedia
Rocks.jpg
40px-Edit-clear.svg.png
This article is okay. It can still be significantly improved, either by adding content, adding a picture, restructuring the page, or updating its content.

An object that has no use on Shabbat, such as a rock, stick, or money is considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. Any object in this category may not be moved on Shabbat even for a permitted use or the use of its place. [1] [2]

Muktzeh Machmat Gufo

Rules

  1. Muktzeh Machmat Gufo may not be moved even if one needs the object or it’s place is needed. [3]
  2. It’s permitted to move a severe Muktzeh item for any of the follow reasons:
    1. item is foul-smelling or disgusting
    2. item is a safety hazard
    3. item is at risk of being stolen
    4. for human dignity

Examples

Plants

  1. Plants attached to the ground are muktzeh.[39] This is only relevant to plants that aren't included in the prohibition of benefiting from trees, see Plants on Shabbat.
  2. A hadas or plant that is designated to be smelled on Shabbat is permitted to move.[40]

Foods

  1. Any food that’s edible for animals isn’t Muktzeh as long as there are such animals around, however, if it’s only eaten by a specific animal which isn't common, the food is Muktzeh unless one owns such an animal. [41]
  2. Soft bones, peels, or crumbs are not Muktzeh because they are edible for animals. [42]
  3. However, egg shells, nut shells, or hard bones (from which all the meat was removed) which aren’t edible for animals may not be moved directly. If there’s a permissible item also on the plate, one may move the entire plate (but not touch the actual shells). If there’s a need for the place of the plate one may move the entire plate [43] If the above doesn’t apply then one should
    1. shake it off the plate
    2. use a utensil to knock it off
    3. or if the above options are difficult place a permissible item on the plate and then move the entire plate. [44]
  4. Some say that raw meat is not Muktzeh[45] while others food it is muktzeh.[46]
  5. While salted or smoked fish that’s edible isn’t Muktzeh, while raw fish is Muktzeh[47] even if it’s edible for animals.[48]
  6. Raw eggs aren't muktzeh.[49]

Animals

Regarding other laws of animals on Shabbat and pets see Animals on Shabbat.

  1. Animals are Muktzeh and one shouldn’t grab them directly even if there’s a loss involved (such as if the animals are going to break something). [50]
  2. If the animal needs to be walked one may do so without grabbing the animal directly except for chickens which usually flap their wings when held. [51]
  3. If there’s a need one may push animal from behind. [52]
  4. Animals trapped on Shabbat by a non-Jew are muktzeh.[53]

Forbidden objects

  1. Shatnez clothing are Muktzah Machmat Gufo. [54] However Shatnez clothes of a non-Jew aren’t Muktzeh unless the non-Jew gives a Jew a collateral of Shatnez clothes. [55]
  2. A door that became detached from a house, building, etc. is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. [56] However, if it became detached prior to the onset of Shabbat and was designated for permissible use, then it is not Muktzeh.

Designation of an Object for a Purpose

  1. Items which are not normally used for a permissible purpose such as a rock[57] one needs to make a permanent designation or a physical action to fix it for that permissible use (like organizing rocks in order to sit on). [58]
  2. However, something which sometimes is used for a permissible purpose only needs a mental designation [59], which should be a permanent designation, but in cases of need it’s sufficient to have a designation for that Shabbat alone.[60] Using that object for a permissible purpose before Shabbat is the equivalent of a designation and it wouldn’t be Muktzeh. [61]
  3. A rock that is designated to be sat upon (with an action of being arranged) can be sat upon and moved for that purpose but not another purpose.[62] Some allow moving it completely.[63]
  4. Designating a coin to be used on Shabbat for one Shabbat isn't sufficient. Designating it forever according to some poskim is sufficient.[64]

Covers

  1. A cover of a utensil aren't muktzeh as long as an action was done to form the cover.[65]
  2. A cover of a barrel that is buried in the ground is only permitted to use if it has a handle.[66]
  3. A pit that is partially above the ground which has a cover is permitted if it has a handle. If it doesn’t have a handle it is muktzeh.[67]

Electric Appliances

  1. Florescent and incandescent bulbs or flashlights are muktzeh.[68]

Child Holding Muktzeh

  1. It is forbidden to hold a child holding muktzeh unless the child is crying to the point that he can't be comforted by either putting him down or having him drop the muktzeh.[69]
  2. It is forbidden to hold a child or even hold the hand of a child holding a coin since you might come to pick it up.[70]

Sources

  1. ↑ The Gemara (Shabbat 124a) explains that wood chips may not be moved on Shabbat even for a permitted use or for the use of its place because it lacks the designation of a Kli (vessel). Rambam (Shabbat 25:6) rules that anything which doesn’t have the status of a vessel such as a rock, stick, or money is considered Muktzeh. The Beit Yosef (Introduction to 308) and Mishna Brurah (308:34). agree. The Beit Yosef 308:7 infers from the Rambam and Tur that one may not move Muktzeh Machmat Gufo even for a permitted use or the use of its place. Mishna Brurah 308:34 agrees.
    • Rav Hershel Schachter (“Hilchot Muktze,” min 7-9) explains that in general the laws of Muktzeh apply to anything that isn’t included in the four main categories of things that are susceptible to Tumah and Tahara, which are people, vessels, food, and drinks. He qualifies that the precise definition of a vessel in terms of Muktzeh is not the same as it is for Tumah. Although Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen in Muktzeh: A Practical Guide (p. 26-8) doesn’t come to any conclusion about the definition of a vessel for Muktzeh, he implies that in general it means an item that people consider usable.
  2. ↑ Why are rocks muktzeh?
    • The Chayei Adam 66:1 implies that rocks are muktzeh because you need to prepare everything to be used for Shabbat use (Beitzah 2b) and rocks aren’t prepared. If so, why can’t you prepare it with designation for one Shabbat? Perhaps it isn’t a good preparation if it is an abnormal preparation. Mishna Brurah 310:16 might agree.
    • The Kehilat Yakov Beitzah siman 4 explains that rocks aren’t muktzeh because they aren’t a useful item, they aren’t a food or a kli. Even if they were prepared they are muktzeh unless they are converted into something useful. His proof is that rocks aren’t permitted with a designation for one Shabbat for abnormal uses. Shaar Hatziyun 310:10 implies the same.
    • What are differences between these approaches?
      • Can you can designate a rock in the middle of Shabbat to be useful? Mishna Brurah 259:5 writes that the designation to use something is only effective before Shabbat. However, Rav Nevinsal in Byitzchak Yikareh 259:5 argues that in terms of muktzeh it is permitted, however, he considers it makeh bpatish. He cites that Rabbi Akiva Eiger Shabbat 24:180 is a proof for him unlike Chazon Ish 44:14. According to the Chayei Adam you might conclude like the Mishna Brurah since there’s migo d’ikasay. According to the Kehilat Yakov you might conclude like Rav Nevinsal since it is now usable.
      • Does designation for one Shabbat work for everything? Most rishonim and achronim assume it is ineffective for things that abnormal to use or for abnormal uses. However, the Rama 308:21 cites the Mordechai who says that even for abnormal uses designation for one Shabbat is effective. According to the Chayei Adam this leniency is reasonable. According to the Kehilat Yakov you would reject this leniency.
  3. ↑ Rama 308:7
  4. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:39
  5. ↑ *Rabbi Doniel Neustadt, Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:22(15), and Rav Elyashiv in Shalmei Yehuda (pg 158) all consider a bar of soap to be Muktzeh Machmat Gufo being that it is an item without any permitted use on Shabbat. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Sh"t Yechave Daat 2:50 allows permits its use.
    • Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 20:16 holds that it is only a kli shemelachto li'isur. Nevertheless, he recommends to be strict and consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. In the footnote (n. 44) he cites Rav Shlomo Zalman who seems to lean in favor of considering bar soap to be Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. His logic is as follows: There's a dispute Magen Avraham and Eliyah Rabba about an unlit wax candle. Magen Avraham says it is a Kli Shemelachto Leissur since it is usable item six days a week and its use on Shabbat is forbidden. However, the Eliyah Rabba says that it isn't a kli at all since its entire use on Shabbat is asur and isn't considered a functional kli. Mishna Brurah 308:34 is lenient. Shemirat Shabbat says he thinks it is comparable to that case - if so, the din would be that soap is kli shemelachto leissur. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman said its not the same because you can benefit from candles, so perhaps it is somewhat like a functional kli on shabbat, whereas bar soap is totally useless on shabbat. He then seems to compare it to shofar which he also considers to be completely muktzeh nowadays that people don't think from it and is completely useless on shabbat as it is forbidden to blow into it (see Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (28 n. 82)).
  6. ↑ Shalmei Yehuda (pg 61) quoting Rav Elyashiv says that batteries are considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo and in extenuating circumstances can be considered Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur
  7. ↑ Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 24) in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein
  8. ↑ Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34 writes that many people aren’t aware of this prohibition to use a board to lock the door or another purpose unless it was designated permanently or made some action to fix it before Shabbat.
  9. ↑ Gemara Shabbat 124b and Beitzah 31b establishes that construction bricks are muktzeh but leftover bricks aren’t muktzeh because you can sit on them. This is codified by Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:17. Magen Avraham 308:35 explains that it is a kli when it is leftover because you can sit on it. In 308:36 he writes that when it is designated for construction it isn’t a kli and is like a rock. Mishna Brurah 308:73-74 elaborates on this. This could be the opinion of Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel 124b. However, see Ritva 124b s.v. hani who writes that the construction bricks are muktzeh since the owner doesn’t want them to be moved and break (muktzeh machmat chisaron kis). Rav Nevinsal in Byitzchak Yikareh 308:17 isn’t sure if this rule that bricks can be sat upon is applicable today.
  10. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  11. ↑ Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  12. ↑ Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  13. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  14. ↑ Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  15. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  16. ↑ Is soeh of a person muktzeh? Gemara Shabbat 121b explicates that human feces aren’t muktzeh since it is edible to dogs. However, the Rif 45b, Rosh 16:11, and Rambam don’t cite this leniency. Therefore, the Ran, Ritva, and Rashba conclude that it is muktzeh since they don’t cite this part of the gemara. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:34 is strict. Magen Avraham 308:59 notes that these rishonim don’t cite our version of the gemara. Why would the Rif and Rosh hold it isn’t muktzeh? Rashba 121b s.v. hachi explains that it is muktzeh as nolad. Ritva Meyuchas Lran 121b s.v. soeh explains that since it isn’t certain that a person is going to go to the bathroom on Shabbat it is nolad. Ritva 121b s.v. girsat explains that even if it is certain it is still completely nolad. Levush cited by the Pri Megadim E”A 308:59 explains that it is completely miyus and wouldn’t give it to the dogs either way.
  17. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  18. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  19. ↑ Shalmei Yehuda (pg 164), Menuchat Shabbat 88:7, Brit Olam (Muktzeh Machmat Gufo#33), Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 30)
  20. ↑ Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34
  21. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  22. ↑ *Or Zaruah 2:33 writes that moving something attached to a house is considered tiltul min hasad. Rama 265:3 cites this. Biur Halacha explains that this is a leniency in hilchot muktzeh unlike the Magen Avraham who explains that it is a bosis for muktzeh and non-muktzeh. Tosefet Shabbat 265:6 agrees to be lenient. Rav Ovadia explains that there's no muktzeh bmechubar since it is only a gezerah of hotzah and you can't do hotzah on something mechubar. Lev Yehuda 16, Piskei Teshuva 303, Bet Yehuda 1:11, Nahar Shalom 336:2 are lenient for all muktzeh that is attached to the ground. Shulchan Aruch Harav 336 is strict. Kriyat Chana Dovid 2:56 machmir unless eino mitchaven
    • Tzitz Eliezer 9:23, Levushei Mordechai 3:25, Chelkat Yakov 1:58, Minchat Yitzchak 1:58, 2:110, 3:138, Shaalei Tzion 1:23, Yerushat Pelta 17, Kochvei Yitzchak 1:18:6, Betzel Chachma 2:32:9, Minchat Shlomo 1:10 p. 78 fnt., Az Nidbaru 1:76, 3:38, and Ish Matzliach 1:32 are strict because of muktzeh. Chelkat Yakov says tzorech gufo doesn't help since a switch doesn't have torat kli. Minchat Yitzchak explains that it is muktzeh machmat isur since moving it would be asur during ben hashemashot.
    • Teshurat Shay 2:179, Mayim Chaim 94, 96, Tevuot Shemesh 57, Orach Mishpat 67, Mekor Chaim v. 3 p. 308 citing Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Tefilah LMoshe 2:20 are lenient.
    • Yalkut Yosef 216 fnt. 5 writes that Rav Ovadia Yosef held that moving a button switch isn't muktzeh since it is attached to the ground. Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Korach 5779) explained that switches aren’t muktzeh because they’re attached to the ground and it is only tiltul bmiksat. Yalkut Yosef Shabbat 2 308:3 Haarot n. 33 cites the letter of Rav Ovadia to this effect.
  23. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:25
  24. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  25. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  26. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  27. ↑ Shalmei Yehuda (pg 98) rules that since a roll of plastic tablecloth roll is unusable and it’s forbidden to rip it on Shabbat the roll is totally Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  28. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  29. ↑ Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  30. ↑ Shalmei Yehuda pg 98, 171 writes that it’s Muktzeh because Muktzeh Machmat Issuro
  31. ↑ Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  32. ↑ Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  33. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:47
  34. ↑ Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 30)
  35. ↑ Shalmei Yehuda (pg 98) rules that since a roll of tin-foil is unusable and it’s forbidden to rip it on Shabbat the roll is totally Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  36. ↑ Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:100)
  37. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  38. ↑ The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  39. ↑ Magen Avraham 308:39 writes that plants attached to the ground are muktzeh. The same is found in Magen Avraham 312:6 and Taz 336:1. However, Eliyah Rabba and Tosefet Shabbat (cited by Machasit Hashekel 312:6). Mishna Brurah 312 agrees with the Eliyah Rabba and Tosefet Shabbat. Minchat Shlomo 1:10 in fnt. 2 explains that the Eliya Rabba and others are lenient because they assume that grass is normally used to clean one's hands upon. Therefore, Orchot Shabbat 19:138 v. 2 p. 64 writes that nowadays since we don't use grass to clean oneself it is muktzeh. He quotes this from Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Elyashiv, and Minchat Yitzchak 2:138.
    • The Gemara Shabbat 125b which implies that the attached vine is muktzeh even though it is attached to the ground. However, the Shitah Lran s.v. mechuberet baviya and Ritva in his first explanation answer that the vine is only mutkzeh since you have intention not to use it because doing so would kill the vine and prevent it from producing fruit. See Ritva's second answer.
  40. ↑ Mishna Brurah 312:19, (see Mishna Brurah 336:48 and 336:15 as well), Orchot Shabbat 19:139 v. 2 p. 64
  41. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:29
  42. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27
  43. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27, Mishna Brurah 308:113, 114
  44. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27, Mishna Brurah 308:115, 116
  45. ↑ Gemara Shabbat 128a establishes that raw meat isn't muktzeh. Why? Rashba 123a s.v. hachi garis, Rambam Shabbat 26:16, and Ran (on Rif 51a s.v. basar) explain that raw meat isn't muktzeh since it is edible for humans to chew and eat. This is also implied by Rashi 128a. However, Tosfot 128a s.v. dag explains that it isn't muktzeh according to Rabbi Shimon since you could give raw meat to dogs. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:30 accepts the opinion of the Rashba, Ran, and Rambam. Therefore, if it is edible to chew it isn't muktzeh. Magen Avraham 308:56 based on the Yereyim significantly limits this to poultry which is soft and can be chewed and swallowed. Furthermore, we don't accept the leniency of Tosfot. However, Taz disagrees and holds that we follow the leniency of Rashba and Tosfot and raw meat is edible. Gra also implies like Taz that raw meat is edible. Mishna Brurah 308:125 concludes that one should be strict except in an extenuating circumstance when you could rely on Shulchan Aruch, Taz, and Gra. Yalkut Yosef Shabbat 2:308:6:6 writes that raw meat isn't muktzeh even today since it is still edible and someone who doesn't have any food would eat it. Also we could add the possibility of feeding it to a dog according to Tosfot.
  46. ↑ Aruch Hashulchan 308:58 holds that raw meat today is muktzeh since no one eats it today. Ben Ish Chai Shana Sheniya Pekudei 9, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Tiltulei Shabbat p. 5), and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata p. 103) agree.
  47. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:32 writes that salted fish isn’t Muktzeh while raw fish is. Mishna Brurah 308:126 writes that herring or other fish could be eaten (with difficulty) if salted or smoked aren’t Muktzeh.
  48. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:126 explains that a food which is meant to be eaten by people but is inedible is Muktzeh even if it’s edible to animals.
  49. ↑ Aruch Hashulchan 308:58
  50. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:39, Mishna Brurah 308:146
  51. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:40, Mishna Brurah 308:151 explains that because of Tzaar Baalei Chaim (pain of a living creature) it’s permissible to move a Muktzeh item partially.
  52. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:152
  53. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 325:5 based on Beitzah 24a rules that animals that a non-Jew trapped for you on Shabbat are forbidden. Mishna Brurah 325:21 explains that it is because of muktzeh. Why are untrapped animals muktzeh on Shabbat?
    1. Bet Yosef 310:2 explains based on the Baal Hameor that you didn’t expect to trap the animal so it is muktzeh.
    2. Taz 325:4 in fact says that the reason that trapped animals are forbidden are because we’re afraid you’ll trap yourself. This is similar to Bet Yosef 318:2.
    3. Shulchan Aruch Harav 310:3 explains that the trapped animals at the beginning of Shabbat we’re not in any person’s property at the beginning of Shabbat.
    4. Pri Megadim M”Z 325:4 implies that it is a case where you didn’t expect to trap the animal and you did something to reject its use on Shabbat.
  54. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 307:47 quotes two opinions and sides with those who are lenient, however, Mishna Brurah 308:161 holds like the strict opinion.
  55. ↑ Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 20:37 based on Shulchan Aruch O.C. HaRav writes that Shatnez of a non-Jew isn’t muktzah. However, Mishna Brurah 308:161 (quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata’s footnote there) writes that a non-Jew who gives a Jew a collateral of Shatnez clothes is Muktzeh. Muktzah: A Practial Guide (by Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen; pg 107) rules that Shaatnez clothes are Muktzah Machmat Gufo.
  56. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:35.
  57. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 writes that there’s a distinction whether the object is normally used for a permissible purpose or not. This is also evident in Mishna Brurah 308:87 and 92.
  58. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:21 writes that rocks which are Muktzeh Machmat Gufo a designation doesn’t work to make it non-Muktzeh rather an action is needed such as organizing the rocks. Rama 308:21 writes that rocks only need a designation. Mishna Brurah 308:90 writes the consensus of the achronim is to hold like Shulchan Aruch. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 adds that it is possible to designate something for an abnormal use with permanent designation.
  59. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:85 and 93 write that a mental designation is sufficient and verbal one isn’t necessary
  60. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 quotes three opinions regarding an object that’s normally used for permissible purposes; some say a designation for that Shabbat alone is a designation, some say a permanent designation, and some say an action is necessary. Shulchan Aruch quotes the first opinion as the main (anonymous) opinion. Mishna Brurah 307:97 writes that in conclusion if there’s a need a designation for one Shabbat is sufficient. See Mishna Brurha (Shaar Hatziyun 312:7) and Mishna Brurah 303:73 is lenient and doesn't mention the qualification of a case of need. Mishna Brurah 308:86 writes that unlike Shulchan Aruch the Eliyah Rabba holds that a designation just for the weekday isn’t a designation rather a designation for that Shabbat is needed.
  61. ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 writes that sitting on the sticks on wood or tying them together is a sufficient designation. Mishna Brurah 308:83 and 85 explain that an action expresses one’s intent to use it for a permissible purpose.
  62. ↑ Tehilah LDovid 308:29 discusses whether a yichud to matir muktzeh like a rock to sit upon does that turn it into a kli to move it for its own protection. Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:52 writes that a maaseh to organize pieces of wood gives it a torat kli but still you can only use it to sit on but not for another use. This is explicit in Ramban in Milchamot Shabbat 48b s.v. tenan and Ritva Shabbat 126b s.v. vakati. This also seems to be the Rambam Shabbat 25:21's opinion. Megilat Sefer Shabbat p. 366 discusses this topic. Proofs for this partial muktzeh is Rava in Beitzah 8b that designated dirt can only be used for certain purposes. Magen Avraham 498:33 quotes this. See also Beitzah 33a with Rashba and Ramban in Milchamot that pieces of wood on Yom Tov aren’t fully a kli and as such can be used only for certain purposes and not others. See Rabbi Akiva Eiger 498:6’s question and Rashba’s answer. Mishna Brurah 502:21 cites a dispute about this point.
  63. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:73 writes that anything with a purpose is considered a kli and can be moved even for its protection. Also, Mishna Brurah 308:91 writes that if one designates a piece of wood to be used to sit on it would have a torat kli. Again in Mishna Brurah 308:89 writes that a rock that is designated properly can be moved around and not just moved for sitting.
  64. ↑ Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 114. Shulchan Aruch 303:22 writes that a coin needs designation forever. Mishna Brurah 308:93 writes that if you use it regularly use it for that use it is sufficient. Chazon Ish 42:13 cites by Orchot Shabbat argues that coins can't be designated forever since it isn't realistic for coins since you'll put it back with your other coins after you use it.
  65. ↑ Gemara Shabbat 126b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:10
  66. ↑ Gemara Shabbat 126b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:10
  67. ↑ Gemara Shabbat 126b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:10. Biur Halacha 308:10 s.v. ein writes that the covers of a pit that is visible partially above ground are muktzeh unless they have a handle. The reason is that since they are meant to function something that is attached to the ground they aren’t considered a kli that is meant to move. It is similar to doors according to Rambam Shabbat 25:6.
  68. ↑ Shvut Yitzchak 14:4 p. 174 quotes Rav ELyashiv as holding that an incandescent bulb is muktzeh since it might be similar to the reason that a candle is muktzeh. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Tiltulei Shabbat Teshuvot n. 11) held that it is muktzeh because it could be confused with a candle. Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 88 follows Rav Elyashiv. Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe 4:91 seems to hold that a flashlight is only a kli shemelachto l'isur.
  69. ↑ Mishna Shabbat 141b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 309:1. Why isn’t it tiltul min hasad tzorech dvar muter since you want the child?
    1. Tosfot 142a s.v. vnishdinhu answers it is muter if there’s a real need but not if there’s not a real need.
    2. Pri Megadim E”A 309:1 says that picking up the kid with a muktzeh item is like holding the muktzeh itself and not tiltul min hasad.
    Why isn’t this tiltul min hasad at all? Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shulchan Shlomo 308:1 and Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 22 fnt. 99) Dirshu 309:3 explains it is normal way to hold something and doesn’t qualify as tiltul min hasad.
    1. Chazon Ish 47:2 explains that it is a tzorech dvar asur, since the kid wants it and I want him to have it so I want the muktzeh. Piskei Rid 141b is a support for this approach.
  70. ↑ Gemara Shabbat 142a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 309:1
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Muktzeh_Machmat_Gufo&oldid=31225"