16,374
edits
Muktzeh Machmat Gufo: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Designation of an object for a purpose
(→Rules) |
|||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
# 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> | ||
