Difference between revisions of "Muktzeh Machmat Gufo"

From Halachipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Examples)
(Designation of an object for a purpose)
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
* bicycles <ref> Sefer Tiltulei [[Shabbat]] (pg 24) in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein </ref>
 
* bicycles <ref> Sefer Tiltulei [[Shabbat]] (pg 24) in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein </ref>
 
* board of wood <ref>Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34 writes that many people aren’t aware of this prohibition to use a board to lock the door or another purpose unless it was designated permanently or made some action to fix it before [[Shabbat]]. </ref>
 
* board of wood <ref>Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34 writes that many people aren’t aware of this prohibition to use a board to lock the door or another purpose unless it was designated permanently or made some action to fix it before [[Shabbat]]. </ref>
* bricks for construction.<ref>Gemara Shabbat 124b and Beitzah 31b establishes that construction bricks are muktzeh but leftover bricks aren’t muktzeh because you can sit on them. This is codified by Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:17. Magen Avraham 308:35 explains that it is a kli when it is leftover because you can sit on it. In 308:36 he writes that when it is designated for construction it isn’t a kli and is like a rock. Mishna Brurah 308:73-74 elaborates on this. This could be the opinion of Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel 124b. However, see Ritva 124b s.v. hani who writes that the construction bricks are muktzeh since the owner doesn’t want them to be moved and break ([[muktzeh machmat chisaron kis]]). Rav Nevinsal in Byitzchak Yikareh 308:17 isn’t sure if this rule that bricks can be sat upon is applicable today.</ref>
 
 
* cameras <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
 
* cameras <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
 
* coins <ref>Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308) </ref>
 
* coins <ref>Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308) </ref>
Line 34: Line 33:
 
* lantern (metal) <ref>Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34 </ref>  
 
* lantern (metal) <ref>Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34 </ref>  
 
* light bulbs <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
 
* light bulbs <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
* light switch <ref>
 
* Or Zaruah 2:33 writes that moving something attached to a house is considered tiltul min hasad. Rama 265:3 cites this. Biur Halacha explains that this is a leniency in hilchot muktzeh unlike the Magen Avraham who explains that it is a bosis for muktzeh and non-muktzeh. Tosefet Shabbat 265:6 agrees to be lenient. Rav Ovadia explains that there's no muktzeh bmechubar since it is only a gezerah of hotzah and you can't do hotzah on something mechubar. Lev Yehuda 16, Piskei Teshuva 303, Bet Yehuda 1:11, Nahar Shalom 336:2 are lenient for all muktzeh that is attached to the ground. Shulchan Aruch Harav 336 is strict. Kriyat Chana Dovid 2:56 machmir unless eino mitchaven
 
* Tzitz Eliezer 9:23, Levushei Mordechai 3:25, Chelkat Yakov 1:58, Minchat Yitzchak 1:58, 2:110, 3:138, Shaalei Tzion 1:23, Yerushat Pelta 17, Kochvei Yitzchak 1:18:6, Betzel Chachma 2:32:9, Minchat Shlomo 1:10 p. 78 fnt., Az Nidbaru 1:76, 3:38, and Ish Matzliach 1:32 are strict because of muktzeh. Chelkat Yakov says tzorech gufo doesn't help since a switch doesn't have torat kli. Minchat Yitzchak explains that it is muktzeh machmat isur since moving it would be asur during ben hashemashot.
 
* 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>
 
 
* [[lulav]] <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:25 </ref>
 
* [[lulav]] <ref> Mishna Brurah 308:25 </ref>
 
* mascara <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
 
* mascara <ref> The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337) </ref>
Line 75: Line 69:
  
 
==Designation of an object for a purpose==
 
==Designation of an object for a purpose==
# Items which are not normally used for a permissible purpose such as 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 O.C. </ref>
+
# Items which are not normally used for a permissible purpose such as 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 O.C.. </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 O.C. 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. Mishna Brurah 308:86 writes that unlike Shulchan Aruch O.C. 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 O.C. 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. Mishna Brurah 308:86 writes that unlike Shulchan Aruch O.C. 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. 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. 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. Megilat Sefer Shabbat p. 363 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>
 
 
 
==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>

Revision as of 11:32, 11 July 2019

Rocks.jpg

An object that has no use on Shabbat, such as a rock, stick, or money is considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. Any object in this category may not be moved on Shabbat even for a permitted use or the use of its place. [1]

Muktzeh Machmat Gufo

Rules

  1. Muktzeh Machmat Gufo may not be moved even if one needs the object or it’s place is needed. [2]
  2. 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

Foods

  1. 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. [35]
  2. Soft bones, peels, or crumbs are not Muktzeh because they are edible for animals. [36]
  3. 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 [37] 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. [38]
  1. Some say that raw meat is Muktzeh and some say it’s not Muktzeh.[39]
  2. While salted or smoked fish that’s edible isn’t Muktzeh, while raw fish is Muktzeh [40] even if it’s edible for animals. [41]

Animals

  1. 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). [42]
  2. 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. [43]
  3. If there’s a need one may push animal from behind. [44]

Forbidden objects

  1. Shatnez clothing are Muktzah Machmat Gufo. [45] However Shatnez clothes of a non-Jew aren’t Muktzeh unless the non-Jew gives a Jew a collateral of Shatnez clothes. [46]
  2. A door that became detached from a house, building, etc. is Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. [47] 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 object for a purpose

  1. Items which are not normally used for a permissible purpose such as rock [48] 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). [49]
  2. However, something which sometimes is used for a permissible purpose only needs a mental designation [50], which should be a permanent designation, but in cases of need it’s sufficient to have a designation for that Shabbat alone. [51]Using that object for a permissible purpose before Shabbat is the equivalent of a designation and it wouldn’t be Muktzeh. [52]

Electric Appliances

  1. Florescent and incandescent bulbs or flashlights are muktzeh.[53]

Sources

  1. The Gemara (Shabbat 124a) explains that wood chips may not be moved on Shabbat even for a permitted use or for the use of its place because it lacks the designation of a Kli (vessel). Rambam (Shabbat 25:6) rules that anything which doesn’t have the status of a vessel such as a rock, stick, or money is considered Muktzeh. The Beit Yosef (Introduction to 308) and Mishna Brurah (308:34). agree. The Beit Yosef 308:7 infers from the Rambam and Tur that one may not move Muktzeh Machmat Gufo even for a permitted use or the use of its place. Mishna Brurah 308:34 agrees.
    • 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.
  2. Rama 308:7
  3. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:39
    • Rabbi Doniel Neustadt, Sh”t Igrot Moshe 5:22(15), and Rav Elyashiv in Shalmei Yehuda (pg 158) all consider a bar of soap to be Muktzeh Machmat Gufo being that it is an item without any permitted use on Shabbat.
    • Shemirat Shabbat Kihilchita 20:16 holds that it is only a kli shemelachto li'isur. Nevertheless, he recommends to be strict and consider it Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. In the footnote (n. 44) he cites Rav Shlomo Zalman who seems to lean in favor of considering bar soap to be Muktzeh Machmat Gufo. His logic is as follows: There's a dispute Magen Avraham and Eliyah Rabba about an unlit wax candle. Magen Avraham says it is a Kli Shemelachto Leissur since it is usable item six days a week and its use on Shabbat is forbidden. However, the Eliyah Rabba says that it isn't a kli at all since its entire use on Shabbat is asur and isn't considered a functional kli. Mishna Brurah 308:34 is lenient. Shemirat Shabbat says he thinks it is comparable to that case - if so, the din would be that soap is kli shemelachto leissur. However, Rav Shlomo Zalman said its not the same because you can benefit from candles, so perhaps it is somewhat like a functional kli on shabbat, whereas bar soap is totally useless on shabbat. He then seems to compare it to shofar which he also considers to be completely muktzeh nowadays that people don't think from it and is completely useless on shabbat as it is forbidden to blow into it (see Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchata (28 n. 82)).
  4. Shalmei Yehuda (pg 61) quoting Rav Elyashiv says that batteries are considered Muktzeh Machmat Gufo and in extenuating circumstances can be considered Kli Sh’Melachto LeIssur
  5. Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 24) in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein
  6. Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34 writes that many people aren’t aware of this prohibition to use a board to lock the door or another purpose unless it was designated permanently or made some action to fix it before Shabbat.
  7. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  8. Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  9. Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  10. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  11. Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  12. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  13. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  14. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  15. Shalmei Yehuda (pg 164), Menuchat Shabbat 88:7, Brit Olam (Muktzeh Machmat Gufo#33), Sefer Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 30)
  16. Magen Avraham 308:18, Mishna Brurah 308:34
  17. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  18. Mishna Brurah 308:25
  19. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  20. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  21. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  22. 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.
  23. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  24. Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  25. Shalmei Yehuda pg 98, 171 writes that it’s Muktzeh because Muktzeh Machmat Issuro
  26. Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  27. Mishna Brurah (Intro to 308)
  28. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:47
  29. Tiltulei Shabbat (pg 30)
  30. Shalmei Yehuda (pg 98) rules that since a roll of tin-foil is unusable and it’s forbidden to rip it on Shabbat the roll is totally Muktzeh Machmat Gufo.
  31. Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:100)
  32. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  33. The Weekly Halacha Discussion (vol 2 pg 337)
  34. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:29
  35. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27
  36. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27, Mishna Brurah 308:113, 114
  37. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:27, Mishna Brurah 308:115, 116
  38. Shulchan Aruch OC 308:31 writes that raw meat isn't muktzeh based on Gemara Shabbat 128a.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. Shulchan Aruch O.C. 308:39, Mishna Brurah 308:146
  42. 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.
  43. Mishna Brurah 308:152
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. Mishna Brurah 308:35.
  47. 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.
  48. 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 O.C..
  49. Mishna Brurah 308:85 and 93 write that a mental designation is sufficient and verbal one isn’t necessary
  50. 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 O.C. 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. Mishna Brurah 308:86 writes that unlike Shulchan Aruch O.C. the Eliyah Rabba holds that a designation just for the weekday isn’t a designation rather a designation for that Shabbat is needed.
  51. 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.
  52. 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.