Muktzeh Machmat Gufo - Revision history

YitzchakSultan1: /* Examples */

2024-10-21T03:54:14Z

Examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:54, 21 October 2024
Line 48:		Line 48:
	*Teshurat Shay 2:179, Mayim Chaim 94, 96, Tevuot Shemesh 57, Orach Mishpat 67, Mekor Chaim v. 3 p. 308 citing Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Tefilah LMoshe 2:20 are lenient.		*Teshurat Shay 2:179, Mayim Chaim 94, 96, Tevuot Shemesh 57, Orach Mishpat 67, Mekor Chaim v. 3 p. 308 citing Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank, and Tefilah LMoshe 2:20 are lenient.
	*Yalkut Yosef 216 fnt. 5 writes that Rav Ovadia Yosef held that moving a button switch isn't muktzeh since it is attached to the ground. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=86025 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Korach 5779)] explained that switches aren’t muktzeh because they’re attached to the ground and it is only tiltul bmiksat. Yalkut Yosef Shabbat 2 308:3 Haarot n. 33 cites the letter of Rav Ovadia to this effect.</ref>		*Yalkut Yosef 216 fnt. 5 writes that Rav Ovadia Yosef held that moving a button switch isn't muktzeh since it is attached to the ground. [https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=86025 Rav Yitzchak Yosef (Motzei Shabbat Korach 5779)] explained that switches aren’t muktzeh because they’re attached to the ground and it is only tiltul bmiksat. Yalkut Yosef Shabbat 2 308:3 Haarot n. 33 cites the letter of Rav Ovadia to this effect.</ref>
	*[[lulav]] <ref>Mishna Brurah 308:25 </ref>		*[[lulav]] <ref>Mishna Brurah 308:25, 658:4 </ref>
	*mascara <ref>The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>		*mascara <ref>The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
	*money <ref>The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>		*money <ref>The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>

Checht05: /* Sources */

2023-10-18T18:45:31Z

Sources

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:45, 18 October 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:

	*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. Shaar Hatziyun 310:10 implies the same.		*The Kehilat Yakov Beitzah siman 4 explains that rocks are 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 132:		Line 132:

	==Sources==		==Sources==
	<references />		<references responsive="0" />
	[[Category:Shabbat]]		[[Category:Shabbat]]
	[[Category:Muktzeh]]		[[Category:Muktzeh]]
	{{Shabbat Table}}		{{Shabbat Table}}

YitzchakSultan1 at 17:36, 13 July 2023

2023-07-13T17:36:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 13 July 2023
Line 135:		Line 135:
	[[Category:Shabbat]]		[[Category:Shabbat]]
	[[Category:Muktzeh]]		[[Category:Muktzeh]]
			{{Shabbat Table}}

Unknown user: /* Examples */

2023-02-14T18:55:17Z

Examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 14 February 2023
Line 54:		Line 54:
	*plastic tablecloth rolls <ref>Shalmei Yehuda (pg 98) rules that since a roll of plastic tablecloth roll is unusable and it’s forbidden to rip it on [[Shabbat]] the roll is totally Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. </ref>		*plastic tablecloth rolls <ref>Shalmei Yehuda (pg 98) rules that since a roll of plastic tablecloth roll is unusable and it’s forbidden to rip it on [[Shabbat]] the roll is totally Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. </ref>
	*raw barley <ref>The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>		*raw barley <ref>The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
			*radiator<ref>Orchot Shabbos ch 19 fnt 246, Avnei Yishfeh 6:51:1, and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Shulchan Shlomo 308:13 fnt 34) hold that radiators are muktzeh machmat gufo since they contain wires that get red hot and are like a candle which is completely muktzeh since it is a bosis to the flame. 39 Melachos v. 1 p. 51, however, based on Igrot Moshe 3:49 and 4:51:5 is lenient to consider a radiator a kli shemelachto lisur. See Shalmei Yehuda 2:19 who seems to hold it is a muktzeh machmat chesron kis.</ref>
	*rock <ref>Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308) </ref>		*rock <ref>Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308) </ref>
	*rolls of silver foil or toilet paper <ref>Shalmei Yehuda pg 98, 171 writes that it’s [[Muktzeh]] because [[Muktzeh]] Machmat Issuro</ref>		*rolls of silver foil or toilet paper <ref>Shalmei Yehuda pg 98, 171 writes that it’s [[Muktzeh]] because [[Muktzeh]] Machmat Issuro</ref>

Unknown user: /* Electric Appliances */

2023-02-05T22:27:36Z

Electric Appliances

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 5 February 2023
Line 117:		Line 117:
	==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. Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igrot Moshe 4:91 seems to hold that a flashlight is only a kli shemelachto l'isur.</ref>

	==Child Holding Muktzeh==		==Child Holding Muktzeh==

Unknown user: /* Foods */ fixed the halacha which was written wrongly

2022-06-09T13:18:01Z

Foods: fixed the halacha which was written wrongly

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:18, 9 June 2022
Line 74:		Line 74:
	==Foods==		==Foods==

	#Any food that’s edible for animals isn’t [[Muktzeh]] as long as there are such animals around, however, if it’s ~~not~~ eaten by a ~~certain~~ animal which ~~aren’t~~ common ~~it’s~~ [[Muktzeh]] unless one owns such an animal. <ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:29 </ref>		#Any food that’s edible for animals isn’t [[Muktzeh]] as long as there are such animals around, however, if it’s only eaten by a specific animal which isn't common, the food is [[Muktzeh]] unless one owns such an animal. <ref>Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:29 </ref>
	#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

Unknown user: Text replacement - "Shemirat Shabbat" to "Shemirat Shabbat"

2020-07-08T15:55:01Z

Text replacement - "Shemirat Shabbat" to "Shemirat Shabbat"

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 8 July 2020
Line 99:		Line 99:
	==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]].

Davidyisraelaziz: I added a source

2020-04-12T17:31:51Z

I added a source

Show changes

YitzchakSultan: /* Animals */

2019-08-08T20:10:17Z

Animals

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 8 August 2019
Line 79:		Line 79:

	==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>

YitzchakSultan at 19:33, 8 August 2019

2019-08-08T19:33:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:33, 8 August 2019
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.