Disputed items

From Halachipedia
This article is good. It can still be slightly improved, either by adding content, restructuring the page, or updating its content.

These are items which some consider it to be a strict muktzeh, while others consider them to be a more lenient category of muktzeh.

Kli Heter or Isser

  1. The following items are considered by some to be Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter while others consider by others to be Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur.
    1. pictures on the wall [1]
    2. clocks on the wall [2]
    3. buttons that fell off clothes [3]
    4. empty cooking pots that are sometimes used for serving food, fruit, or water [4]
    5. fresh snow [5]
    6. Jigsaw puzzles [6]
    7. lego (toy) [7]

Kli Isser or Muktzeh

  1. Some poskim say that an unused wax candle is considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur, since it is a useable item during the week, while others say that it is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo, as it has no permitted use on Shabbat. [8]
  2. There is a wide dispute regarding the status of Tefillin on Shabbat, ranging from a Kli SheMelachto LeHetter to Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. [9]
  3. The following items are considered by some to be Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur and by others to be Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
    1. candles [10]
    2. copy paper [11]
    3. lipstick [12]
    4. nails [13]
    5. screws [14]
    6. shofar [15]
    7. unused candles [16]
    8. unused candlesticks [17]
    9. unused matches [18]
  4. One may be lenient for this category if there’s an extenuating circumstance. [19]

Sources

  1. ↑ Chazon Ish 43:17 considers it severe Muktzeh, while Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:21(13), 22(12) considers it non-Muktzeh). If it is expensive, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 20:22 writes that it is muktzeh machmat chisaron kis.
  2. ↑ Chazon Ish 43:17 considers it severe Muktzeh, while Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:21(13), 22(12) considers it non-Muktzeh)
  3. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:35 seems to hold that buttons are non-Muktzeh, while Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:22(20) holds it’s severe Muktzeh. Rav Shlomo Zalman and Rav Elyashiv in Shalmei Yehuda (pg 80) hold it’s non-Muktzeh but say it’s proper to be strict in this case.
  4. ↑ The Rosh (in his teshuvot#22, quoted by Bet Yosef 308:4) writes that a grinder may be moved if you place any permissible item (like bread) on the grinder and the same is true of a pot. However, the Rashba (Shabbat 123a) argues that the grinder may only be moved if there’s some of the food that’s normally put in the grinder such as garlic and so too cooked food in a pot. S”A 308:4 seems to rule like the Rosh, however, many achronim (Mishna Brurah 308:26) argue that one should be strict like the Rashba. From both of the above opinions, many achronim argue that an empty pot is Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur even if the pot is sometimes used to serve the food but primarily is used to cook. [The Gedolot Elisha (308:19) rejects this proof by explaining that really the grinder is Muktzeh as it’s only purpose is a prohibited activity and so it’s only permitted if it has a piece of the food that’s normally in it such as garlic. However, a pot has both a prohibited (cooking) and permitted (serving) purpose. The comparison of the above Rishonim from the grinder to the pot was only to explain what’s normally associated with each vessel.] These achronim (who are strict regarding an empty pot) include: Pri Megadim (M”Z beginning of 308), Ashel Avraham 308:9, 279:2, Mishna Brurah 308:20, 26, Chazon Ish 47:11, Derech HaChaim (Muktzeh#13; Rabbi Yacov MeLisa, author of the Netivot), Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 46), Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 20:15, Rabbi Binyamin Zilber (Sh”t Az Nidabru 9:20, pg 58), Rav Wosner in Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 1:127(3) and Shalmei Yehuda (pg 98).

    On the other hand, some authorities are lenient including the Chaye Adam 66:3 and Kitzur S”A 88:8. Gedolot Elisha (308:19) agrees that many are strict in this regard and consider it a Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur but concludes that the minhag of Baghdad is to be lenient to treat a empty pot as a Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter and there is what to rely on. So writes Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 308:105).
  5. ↑ Rav Elyashiv in Shalmei Yehuda (pg 203) and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata consider snow to be non-Muktzeh, while Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:22(37) and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 13) consider it severe Muktzeh.
  6. ↑ Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 25 note 24) considers puzzles to be Keli SheMelachto LeIssur as it’s forbidden to put together a puzzle on Shabbat. So writes Shalmei Yehuda (pg 90) quoting Rav Elyashiv. [It’s clear to me, that the above poskim hold like those who forbid building puzzles [including Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 16:23]. However, according to those who are lenient regarding building puzzles [Sh”t Or Letzion 2:45:6, Sh”t Beer Moshe 6:26, Rav Pinchas Scheinberg (“Children in Halacha” pg 140), and Menuchat Ahava (vol 3, 22:16) under certain conditions (see there)], the jigsaw puzzle should only be Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter.]
  7. ↑ Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 24) in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein writes that since they are designated for children’s use (if the child takes it himself) these are Kli Sh’Melachto LeHeter, and Shalmei Yehuda (pg 90) quotes Rav Elyashiv saying that since primarily the toys are used for building which is forbidden but still it could be given to a child to play with (without putting them together) it’s considered Keli SheMelachato LeIssur.
  8. ↑ The Magen Avraham 308:18 writes that an unused wax candle is considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur and not Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. The Mor U’Ketziah (to Magen Avraham 308:18), however, maintains that a candle should be considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo, since it doesn’t have any permitted use on Shabbat at all. Mishna Brurah (308:34 and Shaar HaTziyun 279:4) rules like the Magen Avraham, although he mentions the opinion of the Mor U’Ketziah.
    • Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen (Muktzeh: A Practical Guide p. 15 n 14) writes that a candle is an item that has the status of a Kli because it is useable during the week. He therefore explains that this dispute really is a fundamental argument about whether a Kil SheMelachto LeIssur that has no other purpose other than one that is forbidden on Shabbat is considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo or not. See Shalmei Yehuda (p. 14), who questions this explanation. He instead suggests that perhaps a candle was used for permitted purposes other than kindling in the days of the Magen Avraham; alternatively, the Mor U’Ketziah does not consider burning to be a use even during the week. See also Orchot Shabbat (v. 3, p. 305) who writes that this issue is dependant on a dispute in the Rishonim.
  9. ↑ The Beit Yosef 308:4 quotes the Sefer Mikdash, who suggests that Tefillin should be considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur. The Beit Yosef, however, sides with Rabbi Levi Ben Chaviv, who argues that Tefillin are Kli SheMelachto LeHetter, since it is permissible to wear them on Shabbat. Thus, the Trumat HaDeshen 70 and Rama 308:4 rule that Tefillin may be moved for any need on Shabbat.
    • The Taz 308:3 and Magen Avraham 308:11 ask how the Beit Yosef and Rama could say that Tefillin is considered Kli SheMelachto LeHetter given that S”A 31:1 follows the Zohar that it is forbidden to wear Tefillin on Shabbat. Mishna Brurah 308:24 writes that unless there is a great need, one should follow the strict view of the Taz and Magen Avraham. See Aruch HaShulchan 308:17 who is lenient since Tefillin are similar to religious books.
    • Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (quoted by Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata 20 n 33) maintains that even if Tefillin are considered Kli SheMelachto LeIssur, they are not Muktzeh Machmat Chisaron Kis since they can be used to learn halacha from or can be worn without intent to fulfill the mitzvah. Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai p. 113) disagrees because practically speaking, people don’t wear Tefillin without intent to fulfill the mitzvah and thus they should be considered Muktzeh Machmat Chisaron Kis. Brit Olam (p. 113) agrees.
    • Rav Soloveitchik (Nefesh HaRav p. 170) similarly forbids moving Tefillin on Shabbat but bases this on considering Tefillin to be Mutzeh Machmat Gufo, since they are like a Kli SheMelachto LeIssur for which there’s no permitted purpose on Shabbat (see note #2). Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen (Muktzeh: A Practical Guide p. 73, n 3) also entertains this possibility.
  10. ↑ Magan Avraham 308:18 rejects the (then) common notion that unused candles aren’t Muktzeh and holds that they are considered Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur, while the Mor UKesiah (308, pg 67c, mechon yerushalyim pg 344) argues that really candles are Muktzeh Machmat Gufo and the Magan Avraham really only meant to say that even according to their mistaken logic the candles are Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. The Mishna Brurah 308:34 quotes this as a dispute and decides in favor of the Magan Avraham (as is evident from Shaar HaTziyun 279:4). This is also the opinion of the Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat vol 2, pg 404) and Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (21:6, vol 1 pg 279). However, Rav Moshe Feinstein in Dibrot Moshe (Shabbat 36a, vol 1 pg 533-4 note 101) quotes the Maharshal and Shlah who hold like the Mor Ukesiah and concludes that had the Magan Avraham seen these authorities he would have retracted. Therefore, Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 82) in the name of Rav Moshe rules stringently.
  11. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magan Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  12. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magan Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  13. ↑ Rav Elyashiv in Shalmei Yehuda(pg 180) considers nails and screw in dependent on the dispute quoted in Mishna Brurah 308:34, while Zachor VeShamor considers nails and screws as severe Muktzeh.
  14. ↑ same as nails
  15. ↑ Rama 308:4 writes that a Shofar is a Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur and can be moved for tzorech mekomo and gufo. Mishna Brurah 658:4 explains that it’s only because it’s sometimes used to fill up water to drink. Based on this Mishna Brurah, the Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 28:20 writes in the name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman, that nowadays when people won’t drink out of a shofar, it has no purpose and is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. However, the Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 56), Yalkut Yosef (Shabbat vol 2 pg 406) rules like the Rama. [It seems from the Tiltulei Shabbat and Yalkut Yosef that the reason to be lenient is because even though there’s no permitted use, it’s still considered a kli.]
  16. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magan Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  17. ↑ Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magan Avraham 308:18), Sh”t Igrot Moshe O”C 5:22(28,32), quoted in Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 36 note 2) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. While Mishna Brurah 308:34 in name of the Yaavetz, Chazon Ish 44:13, Aruch HaShulchan 279:1, 308:23, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach quoted in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (chapter 28 note 80) consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  18. ↑ Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 82) quotes Rav Moshe Feinstein and Shalmei Yehuda (pg 74) quotes Rav Elyashiv who consider matches to be Muktzeh machmat gufo, while Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata 20:13, Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 82) in name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and Rabbi Binyamin Zilber (quoted by Shalmei Yehuda pg 74) consider it Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur. Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S”A 308:101) brings both opinions and doesn’t give a final ruling. [Rav Moshe (Tiltulei Shabbat pg 82) is strict since a match doesn’t have a permitted function nor is it a kli (since it’s only used one time), while Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Tiltulei Shabbat pg 82) is lenient since he holds there’s a permitted use i.e. picking one’s ear.]
  19. ↑ Shalmei Yehuda (pg 19) in name of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Sh”t Shevet HaLevi 2:32, Sh”t Az Nidbaru 8:67, Zachor VeShamor 41:4
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Disputed_items&oldid=14445"