Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,193
edits
Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
# 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. | # 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 | # 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 a kli regarding tumah had it been designated then it’s a kli regarding [[Muktzeh]] even if it’s not designated. | ||
# Bottom line: a broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] because it’s not a kli regarding tumah even if one did designation (if would actually need a shinui or tikkun). | # Bottom line: a broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] because it’s not a kli regarding tumah even if one did designation (if would actually need a shinui or tikkun). | ||
# Magen Avraham 308:24 uses this idea to explain why the broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] and a broken kli isn’t- because a broken needle would need a tikkun to be a kli regarding tumah and a broken kli would only need a designation to be a kli regarding tumah. | # Magen Avraham 308:24 uses this idea to explain why the broken needle is [[Muktzeh]] and a broken kli isn’t- because a broken needle would need a tikkun to be a kli regarding tumah and a broken kli would only need a designation to be a kli regarding tumah. | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
==Disposable Utensils== | ==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> | # 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 | # 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. | # 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. | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
# 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. | # 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 | # [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== | ||
| Line 65: | 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. [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. 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> | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
[[Category:Shabbat]] | [[Category:Shabbat]] | ||
[[Category:Muktzeh]] | [[Category:Muktzeh]] | ||
{{Shabbat Table}} | |||
