Kli SheKol Melachto LeIssur

From Halachipedia

Kli Isser or Muktzeh

  1. Some poskim say that an unused wax candle is considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur, since it is a useable item during the week, while others say that it is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo, as it has no permitted use on Shabbat. [1]
  2. The following items are considered by some to be Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur and by others to be Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
    1. candles [2]
    2. copy paper [3]
    3. lipstick [4]
    4. nails [5]
    5. screws [6]
    6. shofar [7]
    7. Tefillin [8]
    8. unused candles [9]
    9. unused candlesticks [10]
    10. unused matches [11]
  3. One may be lenient for this category if there’s an extenuating circumstance. [12]

Discussion in Rishonim

  1. Tosfot 36a - muktzeh unless there’s some real useful use
    1. Tosfot 36a s.v. R’ Yehuda - there’s a small use of the chatzotzrot
    2. Mor UKesiah (on M"A 308:18)
  2. Tosfot 44b, 45a, Ramban 44a - not muktzeh as long as there’s some far fetched use
    1. Ramban 44a - mitah shyichda lmaot, kinah shetarnegol, ner yashan are all muter for R’ Shimon even though for R’ Yehuda they’re batel from a kli since they have no use (but there’s still an uncommon use). Ramban milchamot beitzah 18b - same idea.
    2. Ramban 64b - tachshitin aren’t muktzeh since you can use them to cover kelim.
    3. Ramban 154b s.v. bkarnei- R’ Wiederblank - there’s no uncommon use so it isn’t a kli even for R’ Shimon. Ner you can use since you can use it to cover kelim. Ran 154b s.v. bkarnei is like Ramban.
    4. Tosfot 44b s.v. umah - even though you have no use of ner yashan for R’ Shimon that isn’t asur
    5. Tosfot 46a s.v. dnefta - ner yashan can’t be used to cover kelim and still R’ Shimon it isn’t muktzeh
  3. Rashba 154b - not muktzeh even if there’s no far fetched use.
    1. Rashba 154b s.v. vreyiti argues that a kli even if there’s no heter tzorech gufo at all.
    2. Rashba 36a chatzotzrot aren’t usable at all and still aren’t muktzeh according to R’ Shimon
    3. Rashba 44a mitah shyichda lmaot even though there’s no heter use isn’t muktzeh according to R’ Shimon.

Discussion in Achronim

Are matches muktzeh? This depends on the dispute in the rishonim if something is a kli and has almost no permitted use on Shabbat if it is considered muktzeh. The Rashba 154b holds it isn’t muktzeh even if there’s no use at all. The Ramban 154b holds that it isn’t muktzeh even there’s an uncommon use such as using it to cover a pot. Tosfot 36a implies that it is muktzeh unless there is some use.

Magen Avraham 308:18 writes that a wax candle is a kli shemelachto lisur. Mor Ukesiah argues that it is completely muktzeh since it has no purpose. He compares it to muktzeh machmat chisaron kis which has no purpose.

Shemirat Shabbat Khilchata 20:16 is lenient on matches. Chazon Ovadia v. 3 p. 76 is lenient. Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 9 is strict unless it is an extenuating circumstance. He quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach who was strict and Rav Moshe who was lenient. Shalmei Yehuda 3:11 quotes Rav Elyashiv as strict about matches since today we don’t use it to clean our ears or teeth.

Sources

  1. ↑ The Magen Avraham 308:18 writes that an unused wax candle is considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur and not Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. The Mor U’Ketziah (to Magen Avraham 308:18), however, maintains that a candle should be considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo, since it doesn’t have any permitted use on Shabbat at all. Mishna Brurah (308:34 and Shaar HaTziyun 279:4) rules like the Magen Avraham, although he mentions the opinion of the Mor U’Ketziah.
    • Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen (Muktzeh: A Practical Guide p. 15 n 14) writes that a candle is an item that has the status of a Kli because it is useable during the week. He therefore explains that this dispute really is a fundamental argument about whether a Kil SheMelachto LeIssur that has no other purpose other than one that is forbidden on Shabbat is considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo or not. See Shalmei Yehuda (p. 14), who questions this explanation. He instead suggests that perhaps a candle was used for permitted purposes other than kindling in the days of the Magen Avraham; alternatively, the Mor U’Ketziah does not consider burning to be a use even during the week. See also Orchot Shabbat (v. 3, p. 305) who writes that this issue is dependent on a dispute in the Rishonim.
  2. ↑ Magen Avraham 308:18 rejects the (then) common notion that unused candles aren’t Muktzeh and holds that they are considered Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur, while the Mor UKesiah (308, pg 67c, mechon yerushalyim pg 344) argues that really candles are Muktzeh Machmat Gufo and the Magen Avraham really only meant to say that even according to their mistaken logic the candles are Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. The Mishna Brurah 308:34 quotes this as a dispute and decides in favor of the Magen Avraham (as is evident from Shaar HaTziyun 279:4). This is also the opinion of the Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat vol 2, pg 404) and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (21:6, vol 1 pg 279). However, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Dibrot Moshe (Shabbat 36a, vol 1 pg 533-4 note 101) quotes the Maharshal and Shlah who hold like the Mor Ukesiah and concludes that had the Magen Avraham seen these authorities he would have retracted. Therefore, Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 82) in the name of Rav Moshe rules stringently.
  3. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  4. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  5. ↑ Rav Elyashiv in Shalmei Yehuda(pg 180) considers nails and screw in dependent on the dispute quoted in Mishna Brurah 308:34, while Zachor VeShamor considers nails and screws as severe Muktzeh.
  6. ↑ same as nails
  7. ↑ Rama 308:4 writes that a Shofar is a Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur and can be moved for tzorech mekomo and gufo. Mishna Brurah 658:4 explains that it’s only because it’s sometimes used to fill up water to drink. Based on this Mishna Brurah, the Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 28:20 writes in the name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman, that nowadays when people won’t drink out of a shofar, it has no purpose and is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. However, the Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 56), Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat vol 2 pg 406) rules like the Rama. [It seems from the Tiltulei Shabbat and Yalkut Yosef that the reason to be lenient is because even though there’s no permitted use, it’s still considered a kli.]
  8. ↑ There is a wide dispute regarding the status of Tefillin on Shabbat, ranging from a Kli SheMelachto LeHetter to Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. The Beit Yosef 308:4 quotes the Sefer Mikdash, who suggests that Tefillin should be considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur. The Beit Yosef, however, sides with Rabbi Levi Ben Chaviv, who argues that Tefillin are Kli SheMelachto LeHetter, since it is permissible to wear them on Shabbat. Thus, the Trumat HaDeshen 70 and Rama 308:4 rule that Tefillin may be moved for any need on Shabbat.
    • The Taz 308:3 and Magen Avraham 308:11 ask how the Beit Yosef and Rama could say that Tefillin is considered Kli SheMelachto LeHetter given that S”A 31:1 follows the Zohar that it is forbidden to wear Tefillin on Shabbat. Mishna Brurah 308:24 writes that unless there is a great need, one should follow the strict view of the Taz and Magen Avraham. See Aruch HaShulchan 308:17 who is lenient since Tefillin are similar to religious books.
    • Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (quoted by Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 20 n 33) maintains that even if Tefillin are considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur, they are not Muktzeh Machmat Chisaron Kis since they can be used to learn halacha from or can be worn without intent to fulfill the mitzvah. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 113) disagrees because practically speaking, people don’t wear Tefillin without intent to fulfill the mitzvah and thus they should be considered Muktzeh Machmat Chisaron Kis. Brit Olam (p. 113) agrees.
    • Rav Soloveitchik (Nefesh HaRav p. 170) similarly forbids moving Tefillin on Shabbat but bases this on considering Tefillin to be Mutzeh Machmat Gufo, since they are like a Kli SheMelachto LeIssur for which there’s no permitted purpose on Shabbat (see note #2). Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen (Muktzeh: A Practical Guide p. 73, n 3) also entertains this possibility.
  9. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  10. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  11. ↑ Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 82) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein and Shalmei Yehuda (pg 74) quotes Rav Elyashiv who consider matches to be Muktzeh machmat gufo, while Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 20:13, Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 82) in name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and Rabbi Binyamin Zilber (quoted by Shalmei Yehuda pg 74) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 308:101) brings both opinions and doesn’t give a final ruling. [Rav Moshe (Tiltulei Shabbat pg 82) is strict since a match doesn’t have a permitted function nor is it a kli (since it’s only used one time), while Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Tiltulei Shabbat pg 82) is lenient since he holds there’s a permitted use i.e. picking one’s ear.]
  12. ↑ Shalmei Yehuda (pg 19) in name of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 2:32, Sh”t Az Nidbaru 8:67, Zachor VeShamor 41:4
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Kli_SheKol_Melachto_LeIssur&oldid=23282"