16,374
edits
Broken Utensils: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Lacking}} | {{Lacking}} | ||
==Broken Vessels== | ==Broken Vessels== | ||
# 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> | # 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 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> | ||
## A needle that was in a place that could injure someone is permissible to be moved. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:47 </ref> | ## A needle that was in a place that could injure someone is permissible to be moved. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:47 </ref> | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
# 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. | # 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. | ||
# [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> | ||
===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. | ||
