Anonymous

Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia

Broken Utensils (view source)

Revision as of 20:12, 30 March 2015

No change in size ,  30 March 2015
m
Text replacement - "Magan" to "Magen"
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "Magan" to "Magen")
Line 13: Line 13:
==Broken vessels nowadays==
==Broken vessels nowadays==
# Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata 20:41 writes based on Mishna Brurah 308:48 (which is based on Magen Avraham 308:24) that if the kli is usually thrown out it’s [[Muktzeh]]. Menuchat Ahava Ahava vol 1 chapter 13:37 writes that it also applies if it breaks on [[Shabbat]] and his source was the S”A 308:11 like the Mishna Brurah.  
# Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata 20:41 writes based on Mishna Brurah 308:48 (which is based on Magen Avraham 308:24) that if the kli is usually thrown out it’s [[Muktzeh]]. Menuchat Ahava Ahava vol 1 chapter 13:37 writes that it also applies if it breaks on [[Shabbat]] and his source was the S”A 308:11 like the Mishna Brurah.  
# Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger comments on the Magan Avraham that the Rashba learns it’s only if it breaks from before [[Shabbat]] and he disagrees.  
# Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger comments on the Magen Avraham that the Rashba learns it’s only if it breaks from before [[Shabbat]] and he disagrees.  
# S”A HaRav 308:29 writes this chumra clearly and applies it to whether it breaks before or on [[Shabbat]]. Yalkut Yosef (vol 2 pg 369) quotes the S”A haRav as a yesh mi she’Omer and then says that one should be concerned for this opinion. He concludes that this isn’t the place to discuss it at length. Shalmei Yehuda chapter 3 note 24 quotes Rav Binyamin Zilber who holds like the S”A HaRav as well,  
# S”A HaRav 308:29 writes this chumra clearly and applies it to whether it breaks before or on [[Shabbat]]. Yalkut Yosef (vol 2 pg 369) quotes the S”A haRav as a yesh mi she’Omer and then says that one should be concerned for this opinion. He concludes that this isn’t the place to discuss it at length. Shalmei Yehuda chapter 3 note 24 quotes Rav Binyamin Zilber who holds like the S”A HaRav as well,  
# However, Shalmei Yehuda on pg 261-2 writes that Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg argues on the S”A HaRav and is lenient (his argument is that since there’s still a use nowadays it’s just that people are spoiled and use only perfect kelim but if there was a serious need he’d still use the kelim that are broken. Since by definition there is a use it’s considered a kli and is not [[Muktzeh]]. See there where he asks rhetorically that from the time of Mishna Brurah the times haven’t changed that much and people all of a sudden stopped using the broken kelim to cover stuff.) Similarly, the Chut HaSheni (Rav Nassim Karlitz; vol 3, chapter 51, pg 106) agrees with Rav Scheinberg (however see there where he says that it must be a broken kli that would actually fit as a cover normally and that use isn’t just an excuse to make it non-[[Muktzeh]]).  
# However, Shalmei Yehuda on pg 261-2 writes that Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg argues on the S”A HaRav and is lenient (his argument is that since there’s still a use nowadays it’s just that people are spoiled and use only perfect kelim but if there was a serious need he’d still use the kelim that are broken. Since by definition there is a use it’s considered a kli and is not [[Muktzeh]]. See there where he asks rhetorically that from the time of Mishna Brurah the times haven’t changed that much and people all of a sudden stopped using the broken kelim to cover stuff.) Similarly, the Chut HaSheni (Rav Nassim Karlitz; vol 3, chapter 51, pg 106) agrees with Rav Scheinberg (however see there where he says that it must be a broken kli that would actually fit as a cover normally and that use isn’t just an excuse to make it non-[[Muktzeh]]).  
Line 22: Line 22:
# 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.  
# Magen 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 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).  
# 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 Magen 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]].]
# Magen 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 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]].]  
# 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 Magen 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 s.v. 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) 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. ]
## 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. ]
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/16745"