Anonymous

Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia

Broken Utensils (view source)

Revision as of 20:22, 21 July 2019

60 bytes removed ,  21 July 2019
no edit summary
m (YitzchakSultan moved page Shivrei Kelim to Broken Utensils)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Good}}
{{Good}}


==Broken Vessels==
==General Broken Utensils==
# 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>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 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>
# 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>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 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 It Presents Danger===
==Nowadays==
# 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>
# 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>Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:29 implies the stringent approach but Rav Sheinberg (Shalmei Yehuda p. 261) argues that all that is necessary is that theoretically it is usable.  
## A needle that was in a place that could injure someone is permissible to be moved. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:47 </ref>
===Broken Doors===
# The door of a vessel which broke off the vessel isn’t [[Muktzeh]] whether it broke before Shabbat or on Shabbat<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:8 </ref> even if it isn't useful for anything.<ref>Mishna Brurah 308:35.
* Why are doors of kelim that break off not muktzeh? Tosfot 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. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 15 fnt. 235 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that we should be strict for the Meiri, Ri Mlunil and Ran.</ref>
# Doors of a house or something else attached to the ground that fell off on Shabbat are muktzeh<Ref>Mishna Shabbat 122b, Mishna Brurah 308:35</ref> even if they are fashioned to be a nice utensil since they were designated to be used as a door while attached.<ref>
* Are doors of houses considered kelim? Rashi Shabbat 122b s.v. vaf explained that it isn’t a kli. Meiri 122b s.v. amar and Ritva 122b s.v. veynam agree. Rambam Shabbat 25:6 writes that it is a kli but still muktzeh since it isn’t prepared to be moved. Mishna Brurah 308:42 echoes the Rambam.
* Biur Halacha 308:10 s.v. ein explains that according to the Rambam a door is a kli but it is muktzeh since it isn't meant to be used. However, Rashi who explains that it isn't a kli if this door was fashioned to be a kli in advance then if it fell off it wouldn't be muktzeh. Chazon Ish 46:4 argues that there’s no difference between Rashi and Rambam, both hold it isn’t a kli since it isn't designated to be moved. They would both be strict on a door that fell off even if it was fashioned. See Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Magen Avraham 308:19 who also seems to understand the Rambam that it isn’t really a kli.</ref>
===Needle===
# A broken needle that lost it’s point (or it’s hole) is [[Muktzeh Machmat Gufo]].<ref> Shulchan Aruch 308:11 </ref>
===Clothing===
# Clothing that ripped isn’t [[Muktzeh]] if the pieces are larger than 3 [[Tefachim]] by 3 [[Tefachim]].<Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:52 </ref>
# A poor person who has a piece of ripped clothing that is larger than 3 [[Etzbaot]] by 3 [[Etzbaot]] it isn't muktzeh.<ref>The Raavad (cited by Ritva 125a s.v. vha damar) holds that any small piece of cloth can be used to clean your hands from dirt and as such isn't muktzeh. However, the Rashba disagrees. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 318:13 sides with the Rashba.</ref>
===Nowadays===
# 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]]. Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:29 implies the stringent approach but Rav Sheinberg (Shalmei Yehuda p. 261) argues that all that is necessary is that theoretically it is usable. </ref>
===Mat===
# A broken mat isn't muktzeh since it can be used to cover dirt unless you threw it out before Shabbat.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 125a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:12</ref>
===Throwing It in the Garbage===
# If a vessel broke before [[Shabbat]] and one threw it in the garbage before [[Shabbat]], it’s considered [[Muktzeh Machmat Gufo]].<Ref>Gemara Shabbat 125a, Shulchan Aruch 308:7. Rashi explains that by throwing it in the garbage makes it not a kli. </ref> However if one threw out a vessel on [[Shabbat]] it doesn’t become [[Muktzeh]].<Ref>Gemara Shabbat 124b, Mishna Brurah 308:32. The Shitah LRan Shabbat 124b s.v. im explains that once it is a kli before Shabbat it retains that status throughout Shabbat even if thrown out. That is also seen in the Ritva Shabbat 124b s.v. matkif. </ref>
# If one threw out a perfectly good vessel even before Shabbat it is not considered [[Muktzeh]].<Ref>Tosfot 125a s.v. im, Ritva 124b s.v. matkif, Mishna Brurah 308:51. Biur Halacha 308:7 s.v. vim zarka explains that it is because his designation is nullified by most people (''batel dato etzel kol adam''). </ref>
 
==Broken vessels nowadays==
# A disposable utensil that was used and ready to be thrown out according to some poskim is muktzeh. Others hold it isn't muktzeh even if you throw it out.<ref>
# 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.
# 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.
# 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. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Chazon Ovadia v. 3 p. 129 writes that plastic or disposable containers aren't muktzeh until they are thrown out and implies that he agrees with Rav Elyashiv that they aren't muktzeh even after being thrown out.
# [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===
# 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]].  
# 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.  
Line 46: Line 17:
## 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.
## 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. ]</ref>
 
==Disposable Utensils==
# A disposable utensil that was used and ready to be thrown out according to some poskim is muktzeh. Others hold it isn't muktzeh even if you throw it out.<ref>
# 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 Shulchan Aruch 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.
# 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.
# 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. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Chazon Ovadia v. 3 p. 129 writes that plastic or disposable containers aren't muktzeh until they are thrown out and implies that he agrees with Rav Elyashiv that they aren't muktzeh even after being thrown out.
# [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 It Presents Danger==
# 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>
==Throwing It in the Garbage==
# If a vessel broke before [[Shabbat]] and one threw it in the garbage before [[Shabbat]], it’s considered [[Muktzeh Machmat Gufo]].<Ref>Gemara Shabbat 125a, Shulchan Aruch 308:7. Rashi explains that by throwing it in the garbage makes it not a kli. </ref> However if one threw out a vessel on [[Shabbat]] it doesn’t become [[Muktzeh]].<Ref>Gemara Shabbat 124b, Mishna Brurah 308:32. The Shitah LRan Shabbat 124b s.v. im explains that once it is a kli before Shabbat it retains that status throughout Shabbat even if thrown out. That is also seen in the Ritva Shabbat 124b s.v. matkif. </ref>
# If one threw out a perfectly good vessel even before Shabbat it is not considered [[Muktzeh]].<Ref>Tosfot 125a s.v. im, Ritva 124b s.v. matkif, Mishna Brurah 308:51. Biur Halacha 308:7 s.v. vim zarka explains that it is because his designation is nullified by most people (''batel dato etzel kol adam''). </ref>
 
==Broken Doors==
# The door of a vessel which broke off the vessel isn’t [[Muktzeh]] whether it broke before Shabbat or on Shabbat<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:8 </ref> even if it isn't useful for anything.<ref>Mishna Brurah 308:35.
* Why are doors of kelim that break off not muktzeh? Tosfot 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. Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 15 fnt. 235 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that we should be strict for the Meiri, Ri Mlunil and Ran.</ref>
# Doors of a house or something else attached to the ground that fell off on Shabbat are muktzeh<Ref>Mishna Shabbat 122b, Mishna Brurah 308:35</ref> even if they are fashioned to be a nice utensil since they were designated to be used as a door while attached.<ref>
* Are doors of houses considered kelim? Rashi Shabbat 122b s.v. vaf explained that it isn’t a kli. Meiri 122b s.v. amar and Ritva 122b s.v. veynam agree. Rambam Shabbat 25:6 writes that it is a kli but still muktzeh since it isn’t prepared to be moved. Mishna Brurah 308:42 echoes the Rambam.
* Biur Halacha 308:10 s.v. ein explains that according to the Rambam a door is a kli but it is muktzeh since it isn't meant to be used. However, Rashi who explains that it isn't a kli if this door was fashioned to be a kli in advance then if it fell off it wouldn't be muktzeh. Chazon Ish 46:4 argues that there’s no difference between Rashi and Rambam, both hold it isn’t a kli since it isn't designated to be moved. They would both be strict on a door that fell off even if it was fashioned. See Rabbi Akiva Eiger on Magen Avraham 308:19 who also seems to understand the Rambam that it isn’t really a kli.</ref>
==Needle==
# A broken needle that lost it’s point (or it’s hole) is [[Muktzeh Machmat Gufo]].<ref> Shulchan Aruch 308:11 </ref>
==Clothing==
# Clothing that ripped isn’t [[Muktzeh]] if the pieces are larger than 3 [[Tefachim]] by 3 [[Tefachim]].<Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:52 </ref>
# A poor person who has a piece of ripped clothing that is larger than 3 [[Etzbaot]] by 3 [[Etzbaot]] it isn't muktzeh.<ref>The Raavad (cited by Ritva 125a s.v. vha damar) holds that any small piece of cloth can be used to clean your hands from dirt and as such isn't muktzeh. However, the Rashba disagrees. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 318:13 sides with the Rashba.</ref>
==Mat==
# A broken mat isn't muktzeh since it can be used to cover dirt unless you threw it out before Shabbat.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 125a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:12</ref>


==Button that Fell Off==
==Button that Fell Off==
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/23666"