16,374
edits
Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replace - "Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata " to "Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata "
m (Text replace - "Shabbat" to "Shabbat") |
m (Text replace - "Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata " to "Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata ") |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Broken vessels nowadays== | ==Broken vessels nowadays== | ||
# Shemirat | # Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 20:41 writes that if the kli is usually thrown out it’s Muktzeh. He quotes the Mishna Brurah 308:48 who is explaining S”A 308:11. The Mishna Brurah 308:11 is based on Magan Avraham 308:24. 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 Mishna Brurah. | ||
# Hagot Rabbi Akiva Eiger comments on the Magan Avraham that the Rashba learns it’s only if it breaks from before [[Shabbat]] and he disagrees. | # Hagot Rabbi Akiva Eiger comments on the Magan Avraham that the Rashba 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 but 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, | # 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 but 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, | ||
# However, Shalmei Yehuda on pg 261-2 Rav Pinchas Sheinburg argues on the S”A HaRav and is lenient (his argument is that since there’s still a use nowadays it’s just that sippl 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 definitont here’s 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 Sheinburg (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). | # However, Shalmei Yehuda on pg 261-2 Rav Pinchas Sheinburg argues on the S”A HaRav and is lenient (his argument is that since there’s still a use nowadays it’s just that sippl 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 definitont here’s 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 Sheinburg (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). | ||
# The Halacha Arucha Hilchot [[Shabbat]] (pg 60, 64) writes that Rav Shlomo Zalman regarding one time use utensils who is strict because people throw it out would also be strict here, however, the Halacha Arucha concludes that Rav Sheinburg would disagree here and that’s the minhag. | # The Halacha Arucha Hilchot [[Shabbat]] (pg 60, 64) writes that Rav Shlomo Zalman regarding one time use utensils who is strict because people throw it out would also be strict here, however, the Halacha Arucha concludes that Rav Sheinburg would disagree here and that’s the minhag. | ||
# [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 hard the meat is. Tiltulei [[Shabbat]] (Rav Bodner pg 100) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein who is strict by raw meat. Rav Pinchas Sheinburg (Shalmei Yehuda pg 262) is lenient also regarding raw meat.] | ||
==Further Background on the topic== | ==Further Background on the topic== | ||
# Tosfot [[Shabbat]] 49b D”H 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 geamara says whether leather hides are worked or not still it’s not Muktzeh because there’s no difference between worked hids and not worked 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 says 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 D”H 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 geamara says whether leather hides are worked or not still it’s not Muktzeh because there’s no difference between worked hids and not worked 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 says 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. | ||
