Kli SheKol Melachto LeIssur: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
No edit summary |
m (Text replacement - "Magan" to "Magen") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* 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 dependent on a dispute in the Rishonim.</ref> | * 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 dependent on a dispute in the Rishonim.</ref> | ||
# The following items are considered by some to be [[Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur]] and by others to be [[Muktzeh Machmat Gufo]]. | # The following items are considered by some to be [[Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur]] and by others to be [[Muktzeh Machmat Gufo]]. | ||
## candles <ref> | ## candles <ref> Magen 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 Magen 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 Magen 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 Magen Avraham seen these authorities he would have retracted. Therefore, Sefer Tiltulei [[Shabbat]] (pg 82) in the name of Rav Moshe rules stringently. </ref> | ||
## copy paper <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on | ## copy paper <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen 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]]. </ref> | ||
## lipstick <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on | ## lipstick <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen 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]]. </ref> | ||
## nails <ref>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]]. </ref> | ## nails <ref>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]]. </ref> | ||
## screws <ref> same as nails </ref> | ## screws <ref> same as nails </ref> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* 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 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. </ref> | * 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. </ref> | ||
## unused candles <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on | ## unused candles <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen 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]]. </ref> | ||
## unused candlesticks <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on | ## unused candlesticks <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:34 (as the anonymous first opinion based on Magen 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]]. </ref> | ||
## unused matches <ref> 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.] </ref> | ## unused matches <ref> 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.] </ref> | ||
# One may be lenient for this category if there’s an extenuating circumstance. <ref>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 </ref> | # One may be lenient for this category if there’s an extenuating circumstance. <ref>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 </ref> | ||
