Anonymous

Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia

Broken Utensils (view source)

Revision as of 22:28, 15 January 2014

5 bytes removed ,  15 January 2014
m
Text replace - " D(.*)H " to " s.v. "
No edit summary
m (Text replace - " D(.*)H " to " s.v. ")
Line 19: Line 19:
# [If this is connected to whether raw meat is [[Muktzah]] nowadays (considering that no one would eat it raw) then the Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata is strict. However, the Mishna Brurah 308:125 is lenient but it just depends on how hard the meat is. Tiltulei [[Shabbat]] (Rav Bodner pg 100) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who is strict by raw meat. Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg (Shalmei Yehuda pg 262) is lenient also regarding raw meat.]
# [If this is connected to whether raw meat is [[Muktzah]] nowadays (considering that no one would eat it raw) then the Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata is strict. However, the Mishna Brurah 308:125 is lenient but it just depends on how hard the meat is. Tiltulei [[Shabbat]] (Rav Bodner pg 100) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who is strict by raw meat. Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg (Shalmei Yehuda pg 262) is lenient also regarding raw meat.]
==Further Background on the topic==
==Further Background on the topic==
# Tosfot [[Shabbat]] 49b D”H Lo Amru says that there’s a contradiction between the Gemara 49b and 123a whether the definitions of a vessel by tumah are the same as the definitions of kelim by [[Shabbat]]. On 49b the gemara says whether leather hides are worked or not still it’s not [[Muktzeh]] because there’s no difference between worked hides and unworked hides except by Tumah. Rashi explains that by tumah before it’s worked it’s not tameh and after it’s worked it is tameh. Tosfot challenges this from Zevachim 93b which says that a hide that’s skinned prior to being worked is tameh. Therefore, Tosfot say that really in zevachim it’s tameh even though it wasn’t worked since one designated it for sitting, and in [[Shabbat]] it’s not tameh since it wasn’t worked and one didn’t designate it for sitting. Anyway, it turns out that it’s not [[Muktzeh]] if it’s not worked (even though it’s not designated) – even though it wouldn’t be a kli regarding tumah. However, Gemara 123a states that if something isn’t a kli regarding tumah (a broken needle) it’s also not a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]].  
# Tosfot [[Shabbat]] 49b s.v. Lo Amru says that there’s a contradiction between the Gemara 49b and 123a whether the definitions of a vessel by tumah are the same as the definitions of kelim by [[Shabbat]]. On 49b the gemara says whether leather hides are worked or not still it’s not [[Muktzeh]] because there’s no difference between worked hides and unworked hides except by Tumah. Rashi explains that by tumah before it’s worked it’s not tameh and after it’s worked it is tameh. Tosfot challenges this from Zevachim 93b which says that a hide that’s skinned prior to being worked is tameh. Therefore, Tosfot say that really in zevachim it’s tameh even though it wasn’t worked since one designated it for sitting, and in [[Shabbat]] it’s not tameh since it wasn’t worked and one didn’t designate it for sitting. Anyway, it turns out that it’s not [[Muktzeh]] if it’s not worked (even though it’s not designated) – even though it wouldn’t be a kli regarding tumah. However, Gemara 123a states that if something isn’t a kli regarding tumah (a broken needle) it’s also not a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]].  
# Therefore Tosfot answers the contradiction by saying that if it’s not a kli regarding tumah even if it was designated for a purpose then it’s not a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]]. However, if it’s not a kli regarding tumah had it been designated then it’s a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]] even if it’s not designated.  
# Therefore Tosfot answers the contradiction by saying that if it’s not a kli regarding tumah even if it was designated for a purpose then it’s not a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]]. However, if it’s not a kli regarding tumah had it been designated then it’s a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]] even if it’s not designated.  
# Bottom line: a broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] because it’s not a kli regarding tumah even if one did designation (if would actually need a shinui or tikkun).  
# Bottom line: a broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] because it’s not a kli regarding tumah even if one did designation (if would actually need a shinui or tikkun).  
# Magan Avraham 308:24 uses this idea to explain why the broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] and a broken kli isn’t- because a broken needle would need a tikkun to be a kli regarding tumah and a broken kli would only need a designation to be a kli regarding tumah.  
# Magan Avraham 308:24 uses this idea to explain why the broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] and a broken kli isn’t- because a broken needle would need a tikkun to be a kli regarding tumah and a broken kli would only need a designation to be a kli regarding tumah.  
# Tosfot Zevachim 93b D”H Menayin (end of Tosfot which is continued on 94a) explains that the Gemara zevachim implies that a wet hide (just skinned) is mekabel tumah however, רבינו תם says that a wet hide is [[Muktzeh]] based on [[Shabbat]] 116b which says that the [[Pesach]] hide is only non-[[Muktzeh]] if there’s meat attached, this is assuming that if something is a kli by tumah it’s also a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]] (based on [[Shabbat]] 123a).  
# Tosfot Zevachim 93b s.v. Menayin (end of Tosfot which is continued on 94a) explains that the Gemara zevachim implies that a wet hide (just skinned) is mekabel tumah however, רבינו תם says that a wet hide is [[Muktzeh]] based on [[Shabbat]] 116b which says that the [[Pesach]] hide is only non-[[Muktzeh]] if there’s meat attached, this is assuming that if something is a kli by tumah it’s also a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]] (based on [[Shabbat]] 123a).  
## The Pri Megadim A”A 308:24 says that the Tosfot Zevachim (and Magan Avraham) was only forced into saying this because of רבינו תם which we hold like, however, according to Rashi 49 there’s no question.
## The Pri Megadim A”A 308:24 says that the Tosfot Zevachim (and Magan Avraham) was only forced into saying this because of רבינו תם which we hold like, however, according to Rashi 49 there’s no question.
# Tosfot explains that a wet hide is mekabel tumah and still it’s [[Muktzeh]] as long as it’s wet. This is similar to a broken needle which is [[Muktzeh]] even if though it could be mekabel tumah if one does a tikkun.  
# Tosfot explains that a wet hide is mekabel tumah and still it’s [[Muktzeh]] as long as it’s wet. This is similar to a broken needle which is [[Muktzeh]] even if though it could be mekabel tumah if one does a tikkun.  
# Magan Avraham explains that Tosfot means that a wet hide is [[Muktzeh]] even if it could be mekabel tumah since most people throw it out (or don’t use it at all ) similar to a broken needle which is thrown out ([[Shabbat]] 123a). [See Shitah Mekubeset who says that the girsa of Tosfot Zevachim was actually that since it’s uncommon to designate it for sitting it’s still [[Muktzeh]].]
# Magan Avraham explains that Tosfot means that a wet hide is [[Muktzeh]] even if it could be mekabel tumah since most people throw it out (or don’t use it at all ) similar to a broken needle which is thrown out ([[Shabbat]] 123a). [See Shitah Mekubeset who says that the girsa of Tosfot Zevachim was actually that since it’s uncommon to designate it for sitting it’s still [[Muktzeh]].]
# Bottom line: If a broken kli is thrown out by most people it’s [[Muktzeh]].  
# Bottom line: If a broken kli is thrown out by most people it’s [[Muktzeh]].  
# Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger 308:24 quotes the Rashba 125 D”H Ha Amar Shmuel who says that really a broken needle is only [[Muktzeh]] if it was broken from before [[Shabbat]], otherwise it’s not [[Muktzeh]] since it entered [[Shabbat]] as a kli. However, Rabbi Akiva Eiger argues that since if a broken needle was thrown out on [[Shabbat]] it’s [[Muktzeh]] and a broken kli that’s thrown out on [[Shabbat]] isn’t [[Muktzeh]] it seems that a broken needle is fundamentally worse and even if was broken on [[Shabbat]] it’s [[Muktzeh]]. [The Rashba holds that even by broken kelim that are thrown out on [[Shabbat]] are [[Muktzeh]] just like a broken needle that’s thrown out on [[Shabbat]].]  
# Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger 308:24 quotes the Rashba 125 s.v. Ha Amar Shmuel who says that really a broken needle is only [[Muktzeh]] if it was broken from before [[Shabbat]], otherwise it’s not [[Muktzeh]] since it entered [[Shabbat]] as a kli. However, Rabbi Akiva Eiger argues that since if a broken needle was thrown out on [[Shabbat]] it’s [[Muktzeh]] and a broken kli that’s thrown out on [[Shabbat]] isn’t [[Muktzeh]] it seems that a broken needle is fundamentally worse and even if was broken on [[Shabbat]] it’s [[Muktzeh]]. [The Rashba holds that even by broken kelim that are thrown out on [[Shabbat]] are [[Muktzeh]] just like a broken needle that’s thrown out on [[Shabbat]].]  
## Note that the Magan Avraham asked about the difference between seif 11 and seif 7 and not seif 6 which is the beginning of the topic of broken kelim.
## Note that the Magan Avraham asked about the difference between seif 11 and seif 7 and not seif 6 which is the beginning of the topic of broken kelim.
# Orah VeSimcha 25:8 D”H Aval, Tehila LeDavid 308:17, Badei HaShulchan 109:12 hold like Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger.  
# Orah VeSimcha 25:8 s.v. Aval, Tehila LeDavid 308:17, Badei HaShulchan 109:12 hold like Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger.  
## Megilat Sefer (pg 268) D”H Min HaAmur writes that if one rips a plastic bag bag open in a destructive way it’s [[Muktzeh]] since it’s usual to throw out. However, Adnei Shlomo (pg 265, 308:204) argues based on the Rashba. the Chut HaSheni (Rav Nassim Karlitz; vol 3, chapter 51, pg 106) also argues that if it was not thrown out before [[Shabbat]] it’s not [[Muktzeh]]. [Matnat Yehuda (pg 317) quotes Rav Nassim Karlitz and praises it. ]
## Megilat Sefer (pg 268) s.v. Min HaAmur writes that if one rips a plastic bag bag open in a destructive way it’s [[Muktzeh]] since it’s usual to throw out. However, Adnei Shlomo (pg 265, 308:204) argues based on the Rashba. the Chut HaSheni (Rav Nassim Karlitz; vol 3, chapter 51, pg 106) also argues that if it was not thrown out before [[Shabbat]] it’s not [[Muktzeh]]. [Matnat Yehuda (pg 317) quotes Rav Nassim Karlitz and praises it. ]


==Sources==
==Sources==
<references/>
<references/>
[[Category:Shabbat]]
[[Category:Shabbat]]
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/13048"