16,374
edits
Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Button that Fell Off
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==General Broken Utensils== | ==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> | ||
# A broken vessel that has no use but | # A broken vessel that has no use but can be fixed after Shabbat according to some is muktzeh unless it has a permitted use on Shabbat.<ref> Shalmei Yehuda 3:3 p. 63 quotes Rav Elyashiv that the leniency of a door that broke off a utensil isn't muktzeh because it could be reattached doesn't apply to a utensil that completely breaks and is going to be fixed. Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 592 argues that according to Rashi on 112a and 138b even if the main part of the utensil breaks it isn't muktzeh since it can be fixed after Shabbat. Rav Nevinsal (Byitzchak Yikareh on m"b 308:35) quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman that it is muktzeh if melacha is necessary to fix it.</ref> Furthermore, some hold that if a professional is needed to fix it it is muktzeh.<ref>Shalmei Yehuda 3:3 p. 64 quotes Az Nidbaru 7:46 and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that if it takes a professional to fix it is muktzeh.</ref> | ||
==Nowadays== | ==Nowadays== | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
# 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. 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. | # 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. | ||
# See Meor Hashabbat v. 2 letter 24 sec. 7 where Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach extends his idea that a disposable item that is meant to be thrown out is muktzeh to other examples. He includes empty milk bags, candy wrappers, empty yogurt containers, keys to a handle that broke, plastic silverware, plastic tablecloth, used tissues, floss that was used, and plastic water bottles that are disposable. In the footnote Rav Yaakov Yisrael Fisher argues that disposables that are ready to be thrown out retain the status of a kli throughout Shabbat if they started Shabbat as such. Also, a disposable utensil is reusable but it is merely a convenience that we choose not to do so. | |||
# [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> | ||
==If It Presents Danger== | ==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> | # 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> | ||
| Line 37: | Line 39: | ||
## If one isn't sure if an item was thrown out before Shabbat and is mutkzeh or not one should be strict.<ref>Rabbi Akiva Eiger 308:8 writes that if a person isn't sure whether an item was thrown out before Shabbat and is muktzeh or not perhaps one can say that there is a chazaka to be lenient for muktzeh, which is a [[dvar sheyesh lo matirin]]. He ends the issue unresolved. Biur Halacha 308:7 s.v. mbod is lenient only if it is found in a place that it might be that it wasn't really thrown in the garbage.</ref> | ## If one isn't sure if an item was thrown out before Shabbat and is mutkzeh or not one should be strict.<ref>Rabbi Akiva Eiger 308:8 writes that if a person isn't sure whether an item was thrown out before Shabbat and is muktzeh or not perhaps one can say that there is a chazaka to be lenient for muktzeh, which is a [[dvar sheyesh lo matirin]]. He ends the issue unresolved. Biur Halacha 308:7 s.v. mbod is lenient only if it is found in a place that it might be that it wasn't really thrown in the garbage.</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> | # 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> | ||
#If you threw out food before Shabbat it is muktzeh.<ref>Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 20 fnt. 91 citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach considered food that was in the garbage. Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 68 agrees.</ref> | |||
==Broken Doors== | ==Broken Doors== | ||
| Line 44: | Line 47: | ||
* 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. | * 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> | * 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> | ||
==Furniture== | |||
# Furniture that one of the legs broke shouldn’t be used as it is or by propping it up on something since there is a concern that you will fix it.<ref>Trumat Hadeshen 71 based on Shabbat 138b, Rama 308:16. Is a chair that one leg broke considered a kli shemelachto lisur or muktzeh? Shalmei Yehuda p. 86 with respect to eyeglasses that broke says it is only a kli shemelachto lisur. Shulchan Shlomo 308:46:2 writes that he later retracted and said it was muktzeh. Chut Shani Shabbat v. 3 p. 119 writes that it is only a kli shemelachto lisur but it is still forbidden to move it to prop it up to sit upon since doing so will cause you to come to fix it. Yet, the Tehilah Ldovid 308:22, Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:47, Tiltulei Shabbat p. 147, and Orchot Shabbat v. p. 82 conclude that it is completely muktzeh machmat gufo.</ref> | |||
#An oven that one of the legs broke is muktzeh<ref>Chut Shani Shabbat v. 3 p. 119 writes that it is only a kli shemelachto lisur but it is still forbidden to move it to prop it up to sit upon since doing so will cause you to come to fix it. Yet, the Tehilah Ldovid 308:22, Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:47, Tiltulei Shabbat p. 147, and Orchot Shabbat v. p. 82 conclude that it is completely muktzeh machmat gufo.</ref> because you might come to fix it on Shabbat.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 138b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:16</ref> | |||
==Eyeglasses== | |||
# Glasses which broke and are usable to wear some poskim hold that it is muktzeh since you might be tempted to fix it on Shabbat<ref>Shalmei Yehuda p. 86 citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Chut Shani Shabbat v. 3 p. 119</ref>, other poskim are lenient since it is perfectly wearable and you wouldn’t come to fix it.<ref>Tiltulei Shabbat pp. 147-8 quoting Rav Moshe Feinstein. See Imrei Yosher 2:202 who is lenient since it is wearable and unlikely you'll fix and one wouldn't fix it tightly because of a concern of breaking it. Rav Ovadia Yosef in Kol Sinai p. 313 agrees.</ref> If you used while it is broken once before Shabbat certainly it is permitted to wear on Shabbat.<ref>Rama 308:16, Mishna Brurah 308:71</ref> | |||
# If the eyeglasses broke and it is still usable but needs a professional repair it is permitted to use and there’s no concern you’ll fix it since it needs a professional repair.<ref>Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 82 based on Mishna Brurah 308:69</ref> | |||
==Needle== | ==Needle== | ||
# A | #A needle with its point or eye broke off is muktzeh machmat gufo.<ref> Gemara Shabbat 123a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:11</ref> However, a needle that wasn’t completed and the eye wasn’t punctured isn’t muktzeh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 308:11. Biur Halacha 308:11 s.v. vchadasha isn’t sure if an unfinished needle is muktzeh even though it isn’t usable for removing thorns because it can be made into something usable. Zeh Masati v. 1 123a cites Rabbenu Chananel 52b, 123a, and Ran 52b who are lenient.</ref> | ||
==Clothing== | ==Clothing== | ||
# Clothing that ripped isn’t [[Muktzeh]] if the pieces are larger than 3 [[Tefachim]] by 3 [[Tefachim]].<Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:52 </ref> | # Clothing that ripped isn’t [[Muktzeh]] if the pieces are larger than 3 [[Tefachim]] by 3 [[Tefachim]].<Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:52 </ref> | ||
| Line 54: | Line 65: | ||
==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. Similarly, [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. Menuchat Ahava v. 1 p. 285 says it isn't muktzeh only if you plan to reattach it. Chazon Ovadia 3:7 and Yabia Omer 7:37:4 is lenient about a button that fell off. 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. Similarly, [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. Menuchat Ahava v. 1 p. 285 says it isn't muktzeh only if you plan to reattach it. [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=261 R' Mansour] agrees. Chazon Ovadia 3:7 and Yabia Omer 7:37:4 is lenient about a button that fell off. [https://forum.moreshet-maran.com/index.php?threads/%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%9C-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA.26/ moreshet-maran.com] discusses the distinction of the language of Rav Ovadia whether it is proper to be strict or unnecessary. 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. | ||
* Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 15 fnt. 235 points out that Mishna Brurah 308:35 permits anything that can be reattached even if it can't be used for anything else. However, we should be strict for the Meiri. Also, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe 5:22:20 held that a button that fell off is really muktzeh since it isn't useful for anything.</ref> | * Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 15 fnt. 235 points out that Mishna Brurah 308:35 permits anything that can be reattached even if it can't be used for anything else. However, we should be strict for the Meiri. Also, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe 5:22:20 held that a button that fell off is really muktzeh since it isn't useful for anything.</ref> | ||
