3,438
edits
Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== | ==Broken vessels== | ||
# A broken vessel, whether it broke before Shabbat or on Shabbat, it’s not considered Muktzeh if it still has the some purpose such as to cover a vessel. <Ref>S”A 308:6 writes that a vessel which broke on Shabbat on Shabbat is not considered Muktzeh if it still has the some purpose such as to cover a vessel. Mishna Brurah 308:27 and 32 clarifies that the same is true whether it broke before or on Shabbat. </ref> | |||
# If a broken vessel is in a place where it could cause danger such as if glass broke on the table or in an area that people walk, it’s permissible to move the pieces to prevent danger. <Ref>Rama 308:6 </ref> | |||
## A needle that was in a place that could injure someone is permissible to be moved. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:47 </ref> | |||
# If a vessel broke before Shabbat and one threw it in the garbage before Shabbat, it’s considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. <Ref>S”A 308:7 </ref>However if one threw out a vessel on Shabbat it doesn’t become Muktzeh. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:32 </ref> | |||
# If one threw out a perfectly good vessel it’s not considered Muktzeh. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:51 </ref> | |||
# The door of a vessel which broke off the vessel isn’t Muktzeh, <Ref>S”A 308:8 </ref> however, the door of a house that broke off is Muktzeh Machmat Chisaron Kis, whether it broke off before Shabbat or on Shabbat. <ref>Mishna Brurah 308:35 </ref> | |||
# A broken needle that lost it’s point (or it’s hole) is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo <ref> S”A 308:11 </ref> | |||
# Clothing that ripped isn’t Muktzeh if the pieces are larger than 3 tefachim by 3 tefachim. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:52 </ref> | |||
# Some say that nowadays since most people throw out a broken vessel once it breaks it’s considered Muktzeh unless it’s a vessel which wouldn’t be thrown out by people, while others are of the opinion that if it has a function to cover a vessel normally (or another permissible purpose) then even if one practically one use it for that purpose it’s considered a vessel and non-Muktzeh. <Ref>See [[Broken Kelim Nowadays]] </ref> | |||
==Broken vessels nowadays== | |||
# Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 20:41 writes that if the kli is usually thrown out it’s Muktzeh. He quotes the Mishna Brurah 308:48 who is explaining S”A 308:11. The Mishna Brurah 308:11 is based on Magan Avraham 308:24. 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 Mishna Brurah. | # Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 20:41 writes that if the kli is usually thrown out it’s Muktzeh. He quotes the Mishna Brurah 308:48 who is explaining S”A 308:11. The Mishna Brurah 308:11 is based on Magan Avraham 308:24. 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 Mishna Brurah. | ||
# Hagot Rabbi Akiva Eiger comments on the Magan Avraham that the Rashba learns it’s only if it breaks from before Shabbat and he disagrees. | # Hagot Rabbi Akiva Eiger comments on the Magan Avraham that the Rashba learns it’s only if it breaks from before Shabbat and he disagrees. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 16: | ||
# However, Shalmei Yehuda on pg 261-2 Rav Pinchas Sheinburg argues on the S”A HaRav and is lenient (his argument is that since there’s still a use nowadays it’s just that sippl 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 definitont here’s 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 Sheinburg (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 Rav Pinchas Sheinburg argues on the S”A HaRav and is lenient (his argument is that since there’s still a use nowadays it’s just that sippl 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 definitont here’s 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 Sheinburg (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). | ||
# The Halacha Arucha Hilchot Shabbat (pg 60, 64) writes that Rav Shlomo Zalman regarding one time use utensils who is strict because people throw it out would also be strict here, however, the Halacha Arucha concludes that Rav Sheinburg would disagree here and that’s the minhag. | # The Halacha Arucha Hilchot Shabbat (pg 60, 64) writes that Rav Shlomo Zalman regarding one time use utensils who is strict because people throw it out would also be strict here, however, the Halacha Arucha concludes that Rav Sheinburg would disagree here and that’s the minhag. | ||
# [If this is connected to raw meat nowadays then the Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata is strict, however, the Mishna Brurah 308:125 is lenient but it just depends on hard the meat is. Tiltulei Shabbat (Rav Bodner pg 100) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who is strict by raw meat. Rav Pinchas Sheinburg (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 hard the meat is. Tiltulei Shabbat (Rav Bodner pg 100) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who is strict by raw meat. Rav Pinchas Sheinburg (Shalmei Yehuda pg 262) is lenient also regarding raw meat.] | ||
== | ==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 geamara says whether leather hides are worked or not still it’s not Muktzeh because there’s no difference between worked hids and not worked 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 says 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 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 geamara says whether leather hides are worked or not still it’s not Muktzeh because there’s no difference between worked hids and not worked 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 says 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. | ||
