16,374
edits
Muktzeh Machmat Gufo: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Animals
(→Foods) |
|||
| (4 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 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 74: | Line 75: | ||
## 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> | ## 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 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> | # 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> | ||
| Line 96: | Line 105: | ||
==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== | ||
