16,374
edits
Muktzeh Machmat Gufo: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Animals
| (11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
* Rav Hershel Schachter (“Hilchot Muktze,” min 7-9) explains that in general the laws of [[Muktzeh]] apply to anything that isn’t included in the four main categories of things that are susceptible to Tumah and Tahara, which are people, vessels, food, and drinks. He qualifies that the precise definition of a vessel in terms of [[Muktzeh]] is not the same as it is for Tumah. Although Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen in [[Muktzeh]]: A Practical Guide (p. 26-8) doesn’t come to any conclusion about the definition of a vessel for [[Muktzeh]], he implies that in general it means an item that people consider usable.</ref> <ref>Why are rocks muktzeh? | * Rav Hershel Schachter (“Hilchot Muktze,” min 7-9) explains that in general the laws of [[Muktzeh]] apply to anything that isn’t included in the four main categories of things that are susceptible to Tumah and Tahara, which are people, vessels, food, and drinks. He qualifies that the precise definition of a vessel in terms of [[Muktzeh]] is not the same as it is for Tumah. Although Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen in [[Muktzeh]]: A Practical Guide (p. 26-8) doesn’t come to any conclusion about the definition of a vessel for [[Muktzeh]], he implies that in general it means an item that people consider usable.</ref> <ref>Why are rocks muktzeh? | ||
* The Chayei Adam 66:1 implies that rocks are muktzeh because you need to prepare everything to be used for Shabbat use (Beitzah 2b) and rocks aren’t prepared. If so, why can’t you prepare it with designation for one Shabbat? Perhaps it isn’t a good preparation if it is an abnormal preparation. Mishna Brurah 310:16 might agree. | * The Chayei Adam 66:1 implies that rocks are muktzeh because you need to prepare everything to be used for Shabbat use (Beitzah 2b) and rocks aren’t prepared. If so, why can’t you prepare it with designation for one Shabbat? Perhaps it isn’t a good preparation if it is an abnormal preparation. Mishna Brurah 310:16 might agree. | ||
* The Kehilat Yakov Beitzah siman 4 explains that rocks aren’t muktzeh because they aren’t a useful item, they aren’t a food or a kli. Even if they were prepared they are muktzeh unless they are converted into something useful. His proof is that rocks aren’t permitted with a designation for one Shabbat for abnormal uses. | * The Kehilat Yakov Beitzah siman 4 explains that rocks aren’t muktzeh because they aren’t a useful item, they aren’t a food or a kli. Even if they were prepared they are muktzeh unless they are converted into something useful. His proof is that rocks aren’t permitted with a designation for one Shabbat for abnormal uses. Shaar Hatziyun 310:10 implies the same. | ||
* What are differences between these approaches? | * What are differences between these approaches? | ||
**Can you can designate a rock in the middle of Shabbat to be useful? Mishna Brurah 259:5 writes that the designation to use something is only effective before Shabbat. However, Rav Nevinsal in Byitzchak Yikareh 259:5 argues that in terms of muktzeh it is permitted, however, he considers it makeh bpatish. He cites that Rabbi Akiva Eiger Shabbat 24:180 is a proof for him unlike Chazon Ish 44:14. According to the Chayei Adam you might conclude like the Mishna Brurah since there’s migo d’ikasay. According to the Kehilat Yakov you might conclude like Rav Nevinsal since it is now usable. | **Can you can designate a rock in the middle of Shabbat to be useful? Mishna Brurah 259:5 writes that the designation to use something is only effective before Shabbat. However, Rav Nevinsal in Byitzchak Yikareh 259:5 argues that in terms of muktzeh it is permitted, however, he considers it makeh bpatish. He cites that Rabbi Akiva Eiger Shabbat 24:180 is a proof for him unlike Chazon Ish 44:14. According to the Chayei Adam you might conclude like the Mishna Brurah since there’s migo d’ikasay. According to the Kehilat Yakov you might conclude like Rav Nevinsal since it is now usable. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
# Muktzeh Machmat Gufo may not be moved even if one needs the object or it’s place is needed. <Ref>Rama 308:7 </ref> | # Muktzeh Machmat Gufo may not be moved even if one needs the object or it’s place is needed. <Ref>Rama 308:7 </ref> | ||
# It’s permitted to move a severe [[Muktzeh]] item for any of the follow reasons: | # It’s permitted to move a severe [[Muktzeh]] item for any of the follow reasons: | ||
## item is foul-smelling or disgusting | |||
## item is a safety hazard | |||
## item is at risk of being stolen | |||
## for human dignity | |||
===Examples=== | ===Examples=== | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
* dirt <ref>Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308) </ref> | * dirt <ref>Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308) </ref> | ||
* eye-shadow <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | * eye-shadow <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | ||
* feces<ref>Is soeh of a person muktzeh? Gemara Shabbat 121b explicates that human feces aren’t muktzeh since it is edible to dogs. However, the Rif 45b, Rosh 16:11, and Rambam don’t cite this leniency. Therefore, the Ran, Ritva, and Rashba conclude that it is muktzeh since they don’t cite this part of the gemara. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:34 is strict. Magen Avraham 308:59 notes that these rishonim don’t cite our version of the gemara. Why would the Rif and Rosh hold it isn’t muktzeh? Rashba 121b s.v. hachi explains that it is muktzeh as nolad. Ritva Meyuchas Lran 121b s.v. soeh explains that since it isn’t certain that a person is going to go to the bathroom on Shabbat it is nolad. Ritva 121b s.v. girsat explains that even if it is certain it is still completely nolad. Levush cited by the Pri Megadim E”A 308:59 explains that it is completely miyus and wouldn’t give it to the dogs either way.</ref> | |||
* flour <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | * flour <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | ||
* glue <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | * glue <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | ||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
* Vaseline <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | * Vaseline <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | ||
* toothpaste <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | * toothpaste <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref> | ||
==Plants== | |||
# Plants attached to the ground are muktzeh.<ref>Magen Avraham 308:39 writes that plants attached to the ground are muktzeh. The same is found in Magen Avraham 312:6 and Taz 336:1. However, Eliyah Rabba and Tosefet Shabbat (cited by Machasit Hashekel 312:6). Mishna Brurah 312 agrees with the Eliyah Rabba and Tosefet Shabbat. Minchat Shlomo 1:10 in fnt. 2 explains that the Eliya Rabba and others are lenient because they assume that grass is normally used to clean one's hands upon. Therefore, Orchot Shabbat 19:138 v. 2 p. 64 writes that nowadays since we don't use grass to clean oneself it is muktzeh. He quotes this from Rav Shlomo Zalman, Rav Elyashiv, and Minchat Yitzchak 2:138. | |||
* The Gemara Shabbat 125b which implies that the attached vine is muktzeh even though it is attached to the ground. However, the Shitah Lran s.v. mechuberet baviya and Ritva in his first explanation answer that the vine is only mutkzeh since you have intention not to use it because doing so would kill the vine and prevent it from producing fruit. See Ritva's second answer.</ref> This is only relevant to plants that aren't included in the prohibition of benefiting from trees, see [[Plants on Shabbat]]. | |||
# A [[hadas]] or plant that is designated to be smelled on Shabbat is permitted to move.<ref>Mishna Brurah 312:19, (see Mishna Brurah 336:48 and 336:15 as well), Orchot Shabbat 19:139 v. 2 p. 64</ref> | |||
==Foods== | ==Foods== | ||
| Line 65: | Line 71: | ||
# Soft bones, peels, or crumbs are not [[Muktzeh]] because they are edible for animals. <ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27 </ref> | # Soft bones, peels, or crumbs are not [[Muktzeh]] because they are edible for animals. <ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27 </ref> | ||
# However, egg shells, nut shells, or hard bones (from which all the meat was removed) which aren’t edible for animals may not be moved directly. If there’s a permissible item also on the plate, one may move the entire plate (but not touch the actual shells). If there’s a need for the place of the plate one may move the entire plate <ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27, Mishna Brurah 308:113, 114 </ref> If the above doesn’t apply then one should | # However, egg shells, nut shells, or hard bones (from which all the meat was removed) which aren’t edible for animals may not be moved directly. If there’s a permissible item also on the plate, one may move the entire plate (but not touch the actual shells). If there’s a need for the place of the plate one may move the entire plate <ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27, Mishna Brurah 308:113, 114 </ref> If the above doesn’t apply then one should | ||
## shake it off the plate | |||
## use a utensil to knock it off | |||
## or if the above options are difficult place a permissible item on the plate and then move the entire plate. <Ref> Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27, Mishna Brurah 308:115, 116 </ref> | |||
# Some say that raw meat is | # Some say that raw meat is not [[Muktzeh]]<ref>Gemara Shabbat 128a establishes that raw meat isn't muktzeh. Why? Rashba 123a s.v. hachi garis, Rambam Shabbat 26:16, and Ran (on Rif 51a s.v. basar) explain that raw meat isn't muktzeh since it is edible for humans to chew and eat. This is also implied by Rashi 128a. However, Tosfot 128a s.v. dag explains that it isn't muktzeh according to Rabbi Shimon since you could give raw meat to dogs. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:30 accepts the opinion of the Rashba, Ran, and Rambam. Therefore, if it is edible to chew it isn't muktzeh. Magen Avraham 308:56 based on the Yereyim significantly limits this to poultry which is soft and can be chewed and swallowed. Furthermore, we don't accept the leniency of Tosfot. However, Taz disagrees and holds that we follow the leniency of Rashba and Tosfot and raw meat is edible. Gra also implies like Taz that raw meat is edible. Mishna Brurah 308:125 concludes that one should be strict except in an extenuating circumstance when you could rely on Shulchan Aruch, Taz, and Gra. Yalkut Yosef Shabbat 2:308:6:6 writes that raw meat isn't muktzeh even today since it is still edible and someone who doesn't have any food would eat it. Also we could add the possibility of feeding it to a dog according to Tosfot.</ref> while others food it is muktzeh.<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 308:58 holds that raw meat today is muktzeh since no one eats it today. Ben Ish Chai Shana Sheniya Pekudei 9, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Tiltulei Shabbat p. 5), and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata p. 103) agree.</ref> | ||
# While salted or smoked fish that’s edible isn’t [[Muktzeh]], while raw fish is [[Muktzeh]] <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:32 writes that salted fish isn’t [[Muktzeh]] while raw fish is. Mishna Brurah 308:126 writes that herring or other fish could be eaten (with difficulty) if salted or smoked aren’t [[Muktzeh]]. </ref> even if it’s edible for animals. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:126 explains that a food which is meant to be eaten by people but is inedible is [[Muktzeh]] even if it’s edible to animals. </ref> | # While salted or smoked fish that’s edible isn’t [[Muktzeh]], while raw fish is [[Muktzeh]]<Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:32 writes that salted fish isn’t [[Muktzeh]] while raw fish is. Mishna Brurah 308:126 writes that herring or other fish could be eaten (with difficulty) if salted or smoked aren’t [[Muktzeh]]. </ref> even if it’s edible for animals.<Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:126 explains that a food which is meant to be eaten by people but is inedible is [[Muktzeh]] even if it’s edible to animals. </ref> | ||
# Raw eggs aren't muktzeh.<ref>Aruch Hashulchan 308:58</ref> | |||
==Animals== | ==Animals== | ||
Regarding other laws of animals on Shabbat and pets see [[Animals on Shabbat]]. | |||
# Animals are [[Muktzeh]] and one shouldn’t grab them directly even if there’s a loss involved (such as if the animals are going to break something). <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:39, Mishna Brurah 308:146 </ref> | # Animals are [[Muktzeh]] and one shouldn’t grab them directly even if there’s a loss involved (such as if the animals are going to break something). <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:39, Mishna Brurah 308:146 </ref> | ||
# If the animal needs to be walked one may do so without grabbing the animal directly except for chickens which usually flap their wings when held. <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:40, Mishna Brurah 308:151 explains that because of Tzaar Baalei Chaim (pain of a living creature) it’s permissible to move a [[Muktzeh]] item partially. </ref> | # If the animal needs to be walked one may do so without grabbing the animal directly except for chickens which usually flap their wings when held. <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:40, Mishna Brurah 308:151 explains that because of Tzaar Baalei Chaim (pain of a living creature) it’s permissible to move a [[Muktzeh]] item partially. </ref> | ||
# If there’s a need one may push animal from behind. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:152 </ref> | # If there’s a need one may push animal from behind. <Ref>Mishna Brurah 308:152 </ref> | ||
#Animals trapped on Shabbat by a non-Jew are muktzeh.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 325:5 based on Beitzah 24a rules that animals that a non-Jew trapped for you on Shabbat are forbidden. Mishna Brurah 325:21 explains that it is because of muktzeh. Why are untrapped animals muktzeh on Shabbat? | |||
#Bet Yosef 310:2 explains based on the Baal Hameor that you didn’t expect to trap the animal so it is muktzeh. | |||
#Taz 325:4 in fact says that the reason that trapped animals are forbidden are because we’re afraid you’ll trap yourself. This is similar to Bet Yosef 318:2. | |||
#Shulchan Aruch Harav 310:3 explains that the trapped animals at the beginning of Shabbat we’re not in any person’s property at the beginning of Shabbat. | |||
#Pri Megadim M”Z 325:4 implies that it is a case where you didn’t expect to trap the animal and you did something to reject its use on Shabbat.</ref> | |||
==Forbidden objects== | ==Forbidden objects== | ||
# Shatnez clothing are [[Muktzah]] Machmat Gufo. <Ref> Shulchan Aruch O.C. 307:47 quotes two opinions and sides with those who are lenient, however, Mishna Brurah 308:161 holds like the strict opinion. </ref> However Shatnez clothes of a non-Jew aren’t [[Muktzeh]] unless the non-Jew gives a Jew a collateral of Shatnez clothes. <Ref>Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata 20:37 based on Shulchan Aruch O.C. HaRav writes that Shatnez of a non-Jew isn’t [[muktzah]]. However, Mishna Brurah 308:161 (quoted in Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata’s footnote there) writes that a non-Jew who gives a Jew a collateral of Shatnez clothes is [[Muktzeh]]. [[Muktzah]]: A Practial Guide (by Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen; pg 107) rules that Shaatnez clothes are [[Muktzah]] Machmat Gufo. </ref> | # Shatnez clothing are [[Muktzah]] Machmat Gufo. <Ref> Shulchan Aruch O.C. 307:47 quotes two opinions and sides with those who are lenient, however, Mishna Brurah 308:161 holds like the strict opinion. </ref> However Shatnez clothes of a non-Jew aren’t [[Muktzeh]] unless the non-Jew gives a Jew a collateral of Shatnez clothes. <Ref>Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata 20:37 based on Shulchan Aruch O.C. HaRav writes that Shatnez of a non-Jew isn’t [[muktzah]]. However, Mishna Brurah 308:161 (quoted in Shemirat [[Shabbat]] KeHilchata’s footnote there) writes that a non-Jew who gives a Jew a collateral of Shatnez clothes is [[Muktzeh]]. [[Muktzah]]: A Practial Guide (by Rabbi Simcha Bunim Cohen; pg 107) rules that Shaatnez clothes are [[Muktzah]] Machmat Gufo. </ref> | ||
# A door that became detached from a house, building, etc. is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. <Ref> Mishna Brurah 308:35. </ref> However, if it became detached prior to the onset of [[Shabbat]] and was designated for permissible use, then it is not [[Muktzeh]]. | # A door that became detached from a house, building, etc. is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. <Ref> Mishna Brurah 308:35. </ref> However, if it became detached prior to the onset of [[Shabbat]] and was designated for permissible use, then it is not [[Muktzeh]]. | ||
==Designation of an | ==Designation of an Object for a Purpose== | ||
# Items which are not normally used for a permissible purpose such as a rock<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 writes that there’s a distinction whether the object is normally used for a permissible purpose or not. This is also evident in Mishna Brurah 308:87 and 92. </ref> one needs to make a permanent designation or a physical action to fix it for that permissible use (like organizing rocks in order to sit on). <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:21 writes that rocks which are Muktzeh Machmat Gufo a designation doesn’t work to make it non-[[Muktzeh]] rather an action is needed such as organizing the rocks. Rama 308:21 writes that rocks only need a designation. Mishna Brurah 308:90 writes the consensus of the achronim is to hold like Shulchan Aruch. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 adds that it is possible to designate something for an abnormal use with permanent designation.</ref> | # Items which are not normally used for a permissible purpose such as a rock<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 writes that there’s a distinction whether the object is normally used for a permissible purpose or not. This is also evident in Mishna Brurah 308:87 and 92. </ref> one needs to make a permanent designation or a physical action to fix it for that permissible use (like organizing rocks in order to sit on). <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:21 writes that rocks which are Muktzeh Machmat Gufo a designation doesn’t work to make it non-[[Muktzeh]] rather an action is needed such as organizing the rocks. Rama 308:21 writes that rocks only need a designation. Mishna Brurah 308:90 writes the consensus of the achronim is to hold like Shulchan Aruch. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 adds that it is possible to designate something for an abnormal use with permanent designation.</ref> | ||
# However, something which sometimes is used for a permissible purpose only needs a mental designation <ref>Mishna Brurah 308:85 and 93 write that a mental designation is sufficient and verbal one isn’t necessary </ref>, which should be a permanent designation, but in cases of need it’s sufficient to have a designation for that [[Shabbat]] alone.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 quotes three opinions regarding an object that’s normally used for permissible purposes; some say a designation for that [[Shabbat]] alone is a designation, some say a permanent designation, and some say an action is necessary. Shulchan Aruch quotes the first opinion as the main (anonymous) opinion. Mishna Brurah 307:97 writes that in conclusion if there’s a need a designation for one [[Shabbat]] is sufficient. See Mishna Brurha (Shaar Hatziyun 312:7) and Mishna Brurah 303:73 is lenient and doesn't mention the qualification of a case of need. Mishna Brurah 308:86 writes that unlike Shulchan Aruch the Eliyah Rabba holds that a designation just for the weekday isn’t a designation rather a designation for that [[Shabbat]] is needed.</ref> Using that object for a permissible purpose before [[Shabbat]] is the equivalent of a designation and it wouldn’t be [[Muktzeh]]. <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 writes that sitting on the sticks on wood or [[tying]] them together is a sufficient designation. Mishna Brurah 308:83 and 85 explain that an action expresses one’s intent to use it for a permissible purpose. </ref> | # However, something which sometimes is used for a permissible purpose only needs a mental designation <ref>Mishna Brurah 308:85 and 93 write that a mental designation is sufficient and verbal one isn’t necessary </ref>, which should be a permanent designation, but in cases of need it’s sufficient to have a designation for that [[Shabbat]] alone.<ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 quotes three opinions regarding an object that’s normally used for permissible purposes; some say a designation for that [[Shabbat]] alone is a designation, some say a permanent designation, and some say an action is necessary. Shulchan Aruch quotes the first opinion as the main (anonymous) opinion. Mishna Brurah 307:97 writes that in conclusion if there’s a need a designation for one [[Shabbat]] is sufficient. See Mishna Brurha (Shaar Hatziyun 312:7) and Mishna Brurah 303:73 is lenient and doesn't mention the qualification of a case of need. Mishna Brurah 308:86 writes that unlike Shulchan Aruch the Eliyah Rabba holds that a designation just for the weekday isn’t a designation rather a designation for that [[Shabbat]] is needed.</ref> Using that object for a permissible purpose before [[Shabbat]] is the equivalent of a designation and it wouldn’t be [[Muktzeh]]. <Ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:22 writes that sitting on the sticks on wood or [[tying]] them together is a sufficient designation. Mishna Brurah 308:83 and 85 explain that an action expresses one’s intent to use it for a permissible purpose. </ref> | ||
# A rock that is designated to be sat upon (with an action of being arranged) can be sat upon and moved for that purpose but not another purpose.<ref>Tehilah LDovid 308:29 discusses whether a yichud to matir muktzeh like a rock to sit upon does that turn it into a kli to move it for its own protection. Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:52 writes that a maaseh to organize pieces of wood gives it a torat kli but still you can only use it to sit on but not for another use. This is explicit in Ramban in Milchamot Shabbat 48b s.v. tenan and Ritva Shabbat 126b s.v. vakati. This also seems to be the Rambam Shabbat 25:21's opinion. Megilat Sefer Shabbat p. | # A rock that is designated to be sat upon (with an action of being arranged) can be sat upon and moved for that purpose but not another purpose.<ref>Tehilah LDovid 308:29 discusses whether a yichud to matir muktzeh like a rock to sit upon does that turn it into a kli to move it for its own protection. Shulchan Aruch Harav 308:52 writes that a maaseh to organize pieces of wood gives it a torat kli but still you can only use it to sit on but not for another use. This is explicit in Ramban in Milchamot Shabbat 48b s.v. tenan and Ritva Shabbat 126b s.v. vakati. This also seems to be the Rambam Shabbat 25:21's opinion. Megilat Sefer Shabbat p. 366 discusses this topic. Proofs for this partial muktzeh is Rava in Beitzah 8b that designated dirt can only be used for certain purposes. Magen Avraham 498:33 quotes this. See also Beitzah 33a with Rashba and Ramban in Milchamot that pieces of wood on Yom Tov aren’t fully a kli and as such can be used only for certain purposes and not others. See Rabbi Akiva Eiger 498:6’s question and Rashba’s answer. Mishna Brurah 502:21 cites a dispute about this point.</ref> Some allow moving it completely.<ref>Mishna Brurah 308:73 writes that anything with a purpose is considered a kli and can be moved even for its protection. Also, Mishna Brurah 308:91 writes that if one designates a piece of wood to be used to sit on it would have a torat kli. Again in Mishna Brurah 308:89 writes that a rock that is designated properly can be moved around and not just moved for sitting.</ref> | ||
#Designating a coin to be used on Shabbat for one Shabbat isn't sufficient. Designating it forever according to some poskim is sufficient.<ref>Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 114. Shulchan Aruch 303:22 writes that a coin needs designation forever. Mishna Brurah 308:93 writes that if you use it regularly use it for that use it is sufficient. Chazon Ish 42:13 cites by Orchot Shabbat argues that coins can't be designated forever since it isn't realistic for coins since you'll put it back with your other coins after you use it.</ref> | #Designating a coin to be used on Shabbat for one Shabbat isn't sufficient. Designating it forever according to some poskim is sufficient.<ref>Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 114. Shulchan Aruch 303:22 writes that a coin needs designation forever. Mishna Brurah 308:93 writes that if you use it regularly use it for that use it is sufficient. Chazon Ish 42:13 cites by Orchot Shabbat argues that coins can't be designated forever since it isn't realistic for coins since you'll put it back with your other coins after you use it.</ref> | ||
==Covers== | |||
# A cover of a utensil aren't muktzeh as long as an action was done to form the cover.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 126b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:10</ref> | |||
# A cover of a barrel that is buried in the ground is only permitted to use if it has a handle.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 126b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:10</ref> | |||
# A pit that is partially above the ground which has a cover is permitted if it has a handle. If it doesn’t have a handle it is muktzeh.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 126b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:10. Biur Halacha 308:10 s.v. ein writes that the covers of a pit that is visible partially above ground are muktzeh unless they have a handle. The reason is that since they are meant to function something that is attached to the ground they aren’t considered a kli that is meant to move. It is similar to doors according to Rambam Shabbat 25:6.</ref> | |||
==Electric Appliances== | ==Electric Appliances== | ||
# Florescent and incandescent bulbs or flashlights are muktzeh.<ref>Shvut Yitzchak 14:4 p. 174 quotes Rav ELyashiv as holding that an incandescent bulb is muktzeh since it might be similar to the reason that a candle is muktzeh. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Tiltulei Shabbat Teshuvot n. 11) held that it is muktzeh because it could be confused with a candle. Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 88 follows Rav Elyashiv.</ref> | # Florescent and incandescent bulbs or flashlights are muktzeh.<ref>Shvut Yitzchak 14:4 p. 174 quotes Rav ELyashiv as holding that an incandescent bulb is muktzeh since it might be similar to the reason that a candle is muktzeh. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Tiltulei Shabbat Teshuvot n. 11) held that it is muktzeh because it could be confused with a candle. Orchot Shabbat v. 2 p. 88 follows Rav Elyashiv.</ref> | ||
==Child Holding Muktzeh== | |||
#It is forbidden to hold a child holding muktzeh unless the child is crying to the point that he can't be comforted by either putting him down or having him drop the muktzeh.<ref>Mishna Shabbat 141b, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 309:1. Why isn’t it tiltul min hasad tzorech dvar muter since you want the child? | |||
#Tosfot 142a s.v. vnishdinhu answers it is muter if there’s a real need but not if there’s not a real need. | |||
#Pri Megadim E”A 309:1 says that picking up the kid with a muktzeh item is like holding the muktzeh itself and not tiltul min hasad. | |||
Why isn’t this tiltul min hasad at all? Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shulchan Shlomo 308:1 and Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchata ch. 22 fnt. 99) Dirshu 309:3 explains it is normal way to hold something and doesn’t qualify as tiltul min hasad. | |||
#Chazon Ish 47:2 explains that it is a tzorech dvar asur, since the kid wants it and I want him to have it so I want the muktzeh. Piskei Rid 141b is a support for this approach.</ref> | |||
# It is forbidden to hold a child or even hold the hand of a child holding a coin since you might come to pick it up.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 142a, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 309:1</ref> | |||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
