16,374
edits
Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Nowadays
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Nowadays== | ==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>Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:29 implies the stringent approach | # 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 since it needs to be a significant use that would encourage you to save the utensil for that purpose. The same can be found in the Shitah Lran 124b. Chazon Ish 43:16 implies similarly. Rav Sheinberg (Shalmei Yehuda p. 261) argues that all that is necessary is that it is theoretically usable. | ||
# 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 19: | Line 19: | ||
## 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. ]</ref> | ## 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== | ==Disposable Utensils== | ||
