This is the approved revision of this page, as well as being the most recent.Jump to navigation Jump to search
|This article is good.|
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. 
- 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. Furthermore, some hold that if a professional is needed to fix it it is muktzeh.
- 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. 
- 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.
If It Presents Danger
Throwing It in the Garbage
- If a vessel broke before Shabbat and one threw it in the garbage before Shabbat, it’s considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. However if one threw out a vessel on Shabbat it doesn’t become Muktzeh.
- If one threw out a perfectly good vessel even before Shabbat it is not considered Muktzeh.
- If you threw out food before Shabbat it is muktzeh.
- The door of a vessel which broke off the vessel isn’t Muktzeh whether it broke before Shabbat or on Shabbat even if it isn't useful for anything.
- Doors of a house or something else attached to the ground that fell off on Shabbat are muktzeh even if they are fashioned to be a nice utensil since they were designated to be used as a door while attached.
- 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, other poskim are lenient since it is perfectly wearable and you wouldn’t come to fix it. If you used while it is broken once before Shabbat certainly it is permitted to wear on Shabbat.
- 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.
- A broken mat isn't muktzeh since it can be used to cover dirt unless you threw it out before Shabbat.
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. Other poskim hold that it is totally muktzeh since it isn't useful right now.
Mezuzah that Fell
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- Tosfot Zevachim 93b s.v. Menayin (end of Tosfot which is continued on 94a) explains that the Gemara zevachim implies that a wet hide (just skinned) is mekabel tumah however, רבינו תם says that a wet hide is Muktzeh based on Shabbat 116b which says that the Pesach hide is only non-Muktzeh if there’s meat attached, this is assuming that if something is a kli by tumah it’s also a kli regarding Muktzeh (based on Shabbat 123a).
- The Pri Megadim A”A 308:24 says that the Tosfot Zevachim (and Magen Avraham) was only forced into saying this because of רבינו תם which we hold like, however, according to Rashi 49 there’s no question.
- Tosfot explains that a wet hide is mekabel tumah and still it’s Muktzeh as long as it’s wet. This is similar to a broken needle which is Muktzeh even if though it could be mekabel tumah if one does a tikkun.
- Magen Avraham explains that Tosfot means that a wet hide is Muktzeh even if it could be mekabel tumah since most people throw it out (or don’t use it at all ) similar to a broken needle which is thrown out (Shabbat 123a). [See Shitah Mekubeset who says that the girsa of Tosfot Zevachim was actually that since it’s uncommon to designate it for sitting it’s still Muktzeh.]
- Bottom line: If a broken kli is thrown out by most people it’s Muktzeh.
- Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger 308:24 quotes the Rashba 125 s.v. Ha Amar Shmuel who says that really a broken needle is only Muktzeh if it was broken from before Shabbat, otherwise it’s not Muktzeh since it entered Shabbat as a kli. However, Rabbi Akiva Eiger argues that since if a broken needle was thrown out on Shabbat it’s Muktzeh and a broken kli that’s thrown out on Shabbat isn’t Muktzeh it seems that a broken needle is fundamentally worse and even if was broken on Shabbat it’s Muktzeh. [The Rashba holds that even by broken kelim that are thrown out on Shabbat are Muktzeh just like a broken needle that’s thrown out on Shabbat.]
- 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.
- 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.]
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.]
- ↑ Rama 308:6
- ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:47
- ↑ Gemara Shabbat 125a, Shulchan Aruch 308:7. Rashi explains that by throwing it in the garbage makes it not a kli.
- ↑ Gemara Shabbat 124b, Mishna Brurah 308:32. The Shitah LRan Shabbat 124b s.v. im explains that once it is a kli before Shabbat it retains that status throughout Shabbat even if thrown out. That is also seen in the Ritva Shabbat 124b s.v. matkif.
- ↑ Chut Shani ch. 59
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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).
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:8
- ↑ Taz 308:8, Mishna Brurah 308:35, and Shalmei Yehuda 3:1 p. 62.
- Why are doors of kelim that break off not muktzeh? Tosfot 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 quotes Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that we should be strict for the Meiri, Ri Mlunil and Ran.
- ↑ Mishna Shabbat 122b, Mishna Brurah 308:35
- 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Gemara Shabbat 138b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:16
- ↑ Shalmei Yehuda p. 86 citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Chut Shani Shabbat v. 3 p. 119
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Rama 308:16, Mishna Brurah 308:71
- ↑ Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 82 based on Mishna Brurah 308:69
- ↑ Gemara Shabbat 123a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:11
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:52
- ↑ The Raavad (cited by Ritva 125a s.v. vha damar) holds that any small piece of cloth can be used to clean your hands from dirt and as such isn't muktzeh. However, the Rashba disagrees. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 318:13 sides with the Rashba.
- ↑ Gemara Shabbat 125a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:12
- ↑ 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, 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. Minchat Shabbat 88:2 and 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. R' Mansour agrees. Chazon Ovadia 3:7 and Yabia Omer 7:37:4 is lenient about a button that fell off. 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Minchat Shabbat 88:38:7 held that the mezuzah which fell on Shabbat is muktzeh since it was attached to the house that isn't a kli just like a door of a house which broke off on Shabbat is muktzeh (Mishna Shabbat 122b, Shulchan Aurch 308:8). However, Rav Elyashiv (Shalmei Yehuda 1:2, p. 28) is lenient because the mezuzah isn't considered a part of the house unlike a door. Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut Shani Shabbat v. 3 50:1:2) agrees if the mezuzah scroll could be opened and be used.
- ↑ Az Nidbaru 8:38 discusses whether the mezuzah is muktzeh machmat chisaron kis and if it fell if it should be muktzeh. He concludes that either way if it fell and is in a disgraceful position it is certainly permitted to be moved.