16,374
edits
Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Broken vessels nowadays
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
# 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 Magen Avraham 308:24 that the Rashba 125a s.v. ha damar Shmuel learns it’s only if it breaks from before [[Shabbat]] and he disagrees. | # Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger comments on the Magen Avraham 308:24 that the Rashba 125a s.v. ha damar Shmuel 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]]). Rav Elyashiv (Halachot Shabbat BShabbat 2:20 fnt. 71, cited by Dirshu 308:45) held that even if the disposable utensil was dirtied before Shabbat but wasn't thrown out yet, it wasn't muktzeh because it was possible to be used. | # 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]]). Rav Elyashiv (Halachot Shabbat BShabbat 2:20 fnt. 71, cited by Dirshu 308:45) held that even if the disposable utensil was dirtied before Shabbat but wasn't thrown out yet, it wasn't muktzeh because it was possible to be used. | ||
# The Halacha Arucha Hilchot [[Shabbat]] (pg 60, 64) writes that Rav Shlomo Zalman, who was strict regarding one time use utensils because people throw it out, would also be strict here. However, the Halacha Arucha concludes that Rav Scheinberg would disagree here and that the minhag is like Rav Scheinberg to be lenient. | # The Halacha Arucha Hilchot [[Shabbat]] (pg 60, 64) writes that Rav Shlomo Zalman, who was strict regarding one time use utensils because people throw it out, would also be strict here. However, the Halacha Arucha concludes that Rav Scheinberg would disagree here and that the minhag is like Rav Scheinberg to be lenient. See Rav Ovadia Yosef in Chazon Ovadia v. 3 p. 129. | ||
# [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.]</ref> | # [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.]</ref> | ||
===Background on the Topic=== | ===Background on the Topic=== | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
# 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. ] | ||
==Button that Fell Off== | ==Button that Fell Off== | ||
# If a button fell off of a shirt on Shabbat, according to some poskim, if one plans on using it to sew back onto the shirt it isn't muktzeh, but not if it is a standard button that one doesn't care to save because there are many like it available.<ref> Mishna Brurah 308:35 writes that the lid of a kli that fell off on Shabbat isn't muktzeh since it can be reattached. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41315&st=&pgnum=123 Tehillah LDovid 308:11] explains that even though it is forbidden to reattach it on Shabbat since it could be used to reattach after Shabbat it is still called a kli. He discusses whether this applies to all kelim that break or only those which are easily reattached like a door. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 15:72) held that a button that fell off a shirt on Shabbat is the same as a door that fell off a container. Since it could be returned after Shabbat it is essentially a kli. Nonetheless, this only applies if it is a unique button to a unique shirt but if it is the standard one then a person doesn't usually care about saving it and so it isn't a kli. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata concludes that it is proper to be strict. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49531&st=&pgnum=203 Minchat Shabbat 88:2] and [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=880&pgnum=247 Az Nidberu 7:46] agree. He added that if there's a type of item which required a professional to reattach it then it would be muktzeh. Shalmei Yehuda (p. 80) quotes Rav Elyashiv who questioned the proofs to be lenient.</ref> Other poskim hold that it is totally muktzeh since it isn't useful right now.<ref>Why are doors of kelim that break off not muktzeh? Tosfot Shabbat 122b s.v. adaraba explains that it useful to be reused when reattached. Ran 122b s.v. adaraba agrees. Mishna Brurah 308:35 codifies this. However, Shitah Lner 122b s.v. vaf and Meiri 122b s.v. amar imply otherwise; it isn’t muktzeh since it is currently useful for its original purpose of covering utensils. | # If a button fell off of a shirt on Shabbat, according to some poskim, if one plans on using it to sew back onto the shirt it isn't muktzeh, but not if it is a standard button that one doesn't care to save because there are many like it available.<ref> Mishna Brurah 308:35 writes that the lid of a kli that fell off on Shabbat isn't muktzeh since it can be reattached. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41315&st=&pgnum=123 Tehillah LDovid 308:11] explains that even though it is forbidden to reattach it on Shabbat since it could be used to reattach after Shabbat it is still called a kli. He discusses whether this applies to all kelim that break or only those which are easily reattached like a door. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 15:72) held that a button that fell off a shirt on Shabbat is the same as a door that fell off a container. Since it could be returned after Shabbat it is essentially a kli. Nonetheless, this only applies if it is a unique button to a unique shirt but if it is the standard one then a person doesn't usually care about saving it and so it isn't a kli. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata concludes that it is proper to be strict. [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=49531&st=&pgnum=203 Minchat Shabbat 88:2] and [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=880&pgnum=247 Az Nidberu 7:46] agree. He added that if there's a type of item which required a professional to reattach it then it would be muktzeh. Shalmei Yehuda (p. 80) quotes Rav Elyashiv who questioned the proofs to be lenient.</ref> Other poskim hold that it is totally muktzeh since it isn't useful right now.<ref>Why are doors of kelim that break off not muktzeh? Tosfot Shabbat 122b s.v. adaraba explains that it useful to be reused when reattached. Ran 122b s.v. adaraba agrees. Mishna Brurah 308:35 codifies this. However, Shitah Lner 122b s.v. vaf and Meiri 122b s.v. amar imply otherwise; it isn’t muktzeh since it is currently useful for its original purpose of covering utensils. | ||
