SEIF 4 (CONTINUED)

LULUV

The Rama in Simon 648 says a Luluv on Shabbos is like a stone and my not be moved. The Taz there says that it's permitted like all other forbidden utensils and may be moved if you need to use it or you need it's place.

The Tosfos Shabbos forbids it. He says that since someone doesn't want to move it since it might get ruined, it has the status of a utensil that one doesn't want to move lest it gets ruined,like a Mila knife, and is forbidden to move at all. The Mishna Brurah brings many Achronim that argue with the whole notion that a Luluv is a utensil. It's essentially a stick (which the Torah happens to command us to pick up.) Therefore on Shabbos where we don't pick it up, it remains a regular
stick that has no intended use for Shabbos that is completely Muktza and can't be moved at all.

SEIF 5

A NON-MUKTZA ITEM ON TOP OF A FORBIDDEN UTENSIL

The Gemara in Shabbos 124a says that it is prohibited to move a mortar (a bowl for grinding) unless it contains garlic. What is the nature of this Heter? The Rosh explains that it's the same as using a loaf of bread or a child in order to move a dead body on Shabbos.

Though a dead body is Muktza, in order to move it to a place where it won't decompose quickly, the Rabanan allowed moving it by putting a loaf of bread or a child on top of it. In this way, it looks as if one is carrying the food or child and the body is just going along with it.

Even though in 142b the Gemara says that we do not allow this Heter of putting on a loaf of bread or a child only for a dead body and not for any other Muktza. Since we're dealing with a utensil that is not completely Muktza, we'll permit it while putting some Heter in it to move it to a safe place, though we don't allow it by itself.

The Rashba disagrees and says that you may not put a loaf of bread or a child on a forbidden utensil in order to move it to a safe place. The Heter of moving the mortar with the garlic is because the mortar was made to hold garlic. It's like a pot with a stew in it. The Mishna Brurah explains it that what it's made to hold becomes the main object and the mortar and pot becomes secondary to them, so you can move the utensil while you're moving the food. The Rashba says that by putting the food in, at that point the utensil is mainly to hold the food, so it becomes a utensil whose use is mainly for Heter.

The Gra brings a proof to the Rashba. If the Gemara meant to permit moving it by putting any Heter object on it, why did it
single out a food that it's designed to be put in it. Why doesn't it single out something which has nothing to do with the utensil, like putting bread in the mortar. So the implication is that only objects that the utensil is designed to hold have this Heter.

SEIF 5 (CONTINUED)

QUESTION ON THE ROSH

The Taz asks on the Rosh: How can we say you can put a piece of Heter on a forbidden utensil in order to move it? Don't we Paskin in 279:3 that you cannot put bread on top of a Menorah on Shabbos in order to move it?

The Gra answers that a Menorah that was lit on Shabbos is more than a forbidden utensil. It's completely Muktza because it becomes Bussis (a base) for the flame (which is completely Muktza.) The Rosh's Heter is only to put on forbidden utensils that can be moved to use or for it's place.

The Nesiv Chaim says that a Menorah is designed to hold a flame, much more so than holding bread. Thus, even with the bread on it at the same time, the Menorah is always considered as the base for the flame and is thus completely Muktza and the bread doesn't help it in the slightest.

SEIF 6

BROKEN UTENSILS

The Mishna (Shabbos 124b) brings an argument about moving broken utensils on Shabbos. The Tana Kama allows it, as long as it can be used for some purpose, even if it is not related to its original use. R' Yehuda says that you can move it only if it has the same use as it had before, just in a smaller capacity. The Rishonim Paskin like the Tana Kama.

The Magen Avraham says that the argument hinges on if Nolad is prohibited or not. (Nolad is the coming to being of a new entity on Shabbos. So here, if the utensil changes uses, it becomes a new entity. The Tana Kama holds that Nolad is not Muktza on Shabbos, so allows such a utensil to be moved. R' Yehuda, who is usually stricter in Muktza, holds Nolad is
Muktza, thus prohibits moving it.) thus, the Magen Avraham ends off, those Shitos in Simon 495 that Nolad is prohibited on
Shabbos (we don't Paskin like them, but we Paskin that Nolad is prohibited on Yom Tov) if the broken piece cannot be used in the original way, it's prohibited to be moved.

The Taz asks that the Rambam seems to contradict himself. Over here he Paskins like the Tana Kama and allows the broken utensil to be moved though you can't use it for it's original use. Yet, on Yom Tov, he says that you cannot use broken utensils for fuel (since it's Nolad.) The Taz then concludes that the Rambam doesn't learn the argument between the Tana
Kama and R' Yehuda whether Nolad is permitted. Rather everyone holds that Nolad is prohibited. they argue if the status of a utensil changing it's use if it's Halachically Nolad or not. The Tana Kama holds, as long as it remains a utensil it's not a new entity and thus not Nolad. Therefore even for those who prohibit Nolad would permit a broken utensil that has
some use to it.

The Elya Raba says there is no contradiction in the Rambam to begin with. The Rambam is consistent in his view that we hold of a more stringent Muktza on Yom Tov more than on Shabbos. (Since Yom Tov is lees strict in general than Shabbos, so the Rabanan felt that they needed to be more strict in Muktza, less they won't take Yom Tov prohibitions too seriously, (see Beitza 2a). Thus by Shabbos he permits a broken utensil but on Yom Tov he does not.

What if it's a broken glass, and the shards are a danger to children? Can you move it/clean up?

quote:

What if it's a broken glass, and the shards are a danger to children? Can you move it/clean up?

we'll get to it real soon (don't want to give the whole Shiur away )

Sorry, it's a bad habit I have! I tend to jump ahead and not stick to the topic immediately in front of me. Drives my rabbis and chavrusah CRAZY!

Feel free to remind me if I do it again.

Quote "Sorry, it's a bad habit I have"

Not at all. I welcome questions. If I'm not going to deal with it in the Shiurim, I would answer you. If I will deal with it in a future Shiur, I will just let you know that we'll deal with it. I won't be able to write the answer now, since that would give away the later Shiur which I'll deal with the subject in depth. But for now I'm letting you know, that though I can't write about it now, that you'll soon get the answer.

I appreciate your participation in this program.

SEIF 6 (CONTINUED)

BROKEN UTENSIL (CONTINUED)

The Tosfos Shabbos brings a proof that the Tana Kama who allows moving broken utensils for any use prohibits Nolad but holds that this is not Nolad. Why are they arguing in the case of broken utensils that has some use. If to say that the Tana Kama doesn't hold of the prohibition of Nolad, then they should have argued in something that is more Nolad, like if it's broken enough that it can't be used for anything, could you use it for fuel on Yom Tov. (This is making it more a new
entity, since it's no longer can be used in the capacity of a utensil.)

If to tell us that R' Yehuda prohibits Nolad, they should have argued in a less Nolad case. Like if a oven broke and cannot be used as a conventional oven. It could only be used as to make pancakes on the surface. This R' Yehuda prohibits, though it does somewhat of the original use (it bakes,) but since there are major differences (that by an oven the heat source is in the inside and can bake bread. This broken oven needs to be heated underneath and only bakes pancakes.) it's considered Nolad. (R' Meir in a Braisa argues with R' Yehuda in this point, and holds that those who prohibit Nolad would agree that this is considered to do it's original use.)

So why does the Mishna argue with this middle case of that it's still a utensil yet it has a totally different use? Obviously they're not arguing if Nolad is permitted. Everyone forbids it, the argument is in this light case of change is it Halachacilly Nolad or not.

SEIF 6 (CONTINUED)

BROKEN GLASS

The Gemara in Shabbos 42a says, that if a thorn is found on Shabbos in the middle of the street (where someone could get hurt) you can carry it out of the way less than 4 Amos at a time. In a Karmalus, you can carry it away at one time. When someone could get hurt, they let you do a Drabanan prohibition in order to prevent the injuries.

Thus, by a broken glass, though it can't be used anymore for anything and is now completely Muktza, they allow you to move it on Shabbos to make sure nobody steps on it.

BROKEN SHARDS

The Magen Avraham says, but by broken shards, which is not going to damage someone, doesn't have this Heter, so it can't be removed. Even though one may step on it and break it further and may make it into a piece that is fit to use, thus making a utensil on Shabbos and presumably transgress the Shabbos. This is not a problem. Since your intentions was not to make a
utensil, even in a case that it will definitely take on the shape of a utensil (thus becoming a "P'sik Raisha" and usually prohibited, as it will be explained in the next paragraph) but making a utensil is different since we only go after the intention and doesn't become prohibited by a P'Sik Raisha.

(Background and explanation of the above: The Torah permits an action to be done on Shabbos that one doesn't intend to do a Melacha, though a Melacha may come out. Example: you may drag a chair on a dirt floor though you may make a furrow by doing so. But if you will definitely end up doing the action, though that wasn't your intent, since you know it will happen, then it's as if you had the intention to do the Melacha. For example, (and the literal meaning of P'Sik Raisha): if you say you
want to cut off the chicken's head, since you need a chicken's head, but let it not die (so we wouldn't transgress the Malacha of killing on Shabbos.) Since the chicken would definitely die, it's as if you intended to kill the chicken and is prohibited.

Utensils are not always easily defined. What's the difference between a small piece of wood and a toothpick? Nothing but what you intended it for. Thus, even if you made something that can be used as a utensil, unless you decided to make it into a utensil, all it is essentially is a shard. Therefore the concept of P'Sik Raisha is not applied to making a utensil, because it only becomes a utensil after you have intent for it to be one.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rav Chaim,

SEIF 6 (CONTINUED)

BROKEN SHARDS (CONTINUED)

The Magen Avraham has a question on what he said. (That one may break a shard by stepping on it, though it might be fit to use and be a utensil.)

In Simon 337:2 it says that you shouldn't sweep with a brush whose bristles are easily cracked. This would infer that it's prohibited to break a utensil even unintentially if it's a P'Sik Raisha that it would happen. (Rav Chaim's 2 cents: I don't understand the question. Over there, where the broom already has a status of a utensil, by breaking it you're definitely destroying the utensil, even without intent the former utensil is broken. By the case of stepping on shards, they are not utensils and by stepping on them they're still not utensils unless they're designated to be one.)

So he concludes that the Heter only applies here where one is not intending to do anything with the shards, but only inadvertently steps and breaks them while he's walking. But if you had intentions to handle it, though your intentions are not to break it or make it into a utensil, it's forbidden.

SEIF 7

BROKEN UTENSILS (CONTINUED)

The Tur says that if an earthenware utensil has a piece broken off in *the weekdays* it may be moved on Shabbos. Even if it's found in the street, though the major use of the broken utensil is to be a cover for other utensils, and utensils in general are not found in middle of the street. Still, in a courtyard it has a status of a utensil, since there are other utensils there to cover, it retains a status of a utensil no matter where it is. But if it was thrown in the garbage before Shabbos, then it loses its status of a utensil and is Muktza.

Why does the Tur say that it was broken in the weekdays? In the last Seif we said that even if it breaks on Shabbos it is permitted to move.

The Bais Yosef answers that when the utensil completely breaks and now takes on completely a new task, that's when we allow it to be moved even if it broke on Shabbos. But, if the utensil is completely in form and is usable as before, a piece breaks off, and that piece does not have the same use as the main utensil, that is forbidden. Since the utensil as a whole retains it's original use and this piece separates itself from it and makes it as if it becomes this new entity on Shabbos.
Therefore it's only permitted if it became a new entity before Shabbos.

The Taz differentiates between the location of where it broke. Over here, where it broke in the street where it can't be used, but only because it could be used in a courtyard it is still regarded as a utensil. This is why it's considered more Nolad than breaking it in a courtyard where it's ready for use, so that's why it needs to be broken before Shabbos.

The Darkei Moshe and the Magen Avraham and the Mishna Brura say that when the Tur said weekday, he didn't mean that the Heter for moving it is only when it broke before Shabbos. Rather, the Heter is even if it broke on Shabbos. The Tur only talked about breaking before Shabbos because of the last part of his Halacha, that in order to annul the status of the utensil, it needs to be thrown in the garbage before Shabbos.

SEIF 7 (CONTINUED)

BROKEN UTENSILS THAT WERE THROWN OUT

We already said that if a utensil broke and was thrown out before Shabbos, then it's Muktza. Since coming into Shabbos, when the status of an object is given concerning Muktza, it was no longer set aside for being a utensil, it's considered a piece of garbage and is Muktza. If coming into Shabbos it was not thrown out, so it remains the status of being a utensil for the whole Shabbos, even if thrown out in middle of Shabbos.

(Background: The Torah says we need to prepare for Shabbos. Thus the Rabanan use this as a hint to Muktza that all objects must be prepared for Shabbos. That's why the status of subjective Muktzas (like if a broken utensil has a status of a utensil) depends on what it is in the beginning of Shabbos. (But an objective Muktza, like a broken utensil that definitely has no use on Shabbos, is prohibited to be moved on Shabbos even though it was permitted coming into Shabbos, because it's completely Muktza.)

SEIF 7 (CONTINUED)

A UTENSIL THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS THROWN OUT

Rav Akiva Eiger had the following Sufeik. If you find a broken utensil on Shabbos in the garbage and you don't know if it was thrown there on Shabbos and is not Muktza or before Shabbos and it is Muktza. Do we say that we can rely on a Chazaka (that we say something remains on it's original status unless we known that it changed.) Since until now it was a utensil, so we can assume that it had still a status of a utensil and wasn't thrown out only right before we discovered it.

Or do we say that since it's a Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin. (Something that eventually will become definitely permitted. We then say, even for Sufieks that we would regularly permit, why permit it while it's a Sufaeik when we can wait a while and it would be permitted completely.) Since it will be permitted to be moved after Shabbos so we wouldn't move it. Even if there is a Rov (the majority of cases are permitted) which we would regularly permit, we still say wait until it's definitly permitted. So maybe, even if there is a Chazaka we must wait until it's definitely permitted.

Also, even if we permit in the above case, if it was found in the garbage in a Karmilus where a Jew cannot carry on Shabbos, it's also posssible to assume that it was thrown out before Shabbos, since someone wouldn't be able to throw it out on Shabbos.

SEIF 7 (CONTINUED)

THROWING IN OTHER PLACES BESIDES THE GARBAGE

The Gemara in Shabbos 29a brings a Machlokes about scraps from cloth. These were less than the regular size where people keep cloth, which is three fingers square. But sometimes people keep them to plug drains and to wipe out pots. So the status of them being utensils (and thus are able to accept Tumah) depends on what you do with them. If you throw them in
the garbage, everyone agrees that it loses its status as a utensil. If it's put away in a box, all agree it retains its status of a utensil.

If it was hung up on a peg or thrown behind the door, R' Eliezer says it's still a utensil, since you didn't throw it in the garbage. R' Yehoshua says it's not a utensil, since you didn't put it away in a box. We Paskin like R' Yehoshua.

The Biur Halacha wants to compare this Halacha to Muktzah. That even if you didn't throw a broken utensil in the garbage, but just threw it behind a door, it's Muktzah, because leaving it there is tantamount of throwing it away. But the Biur Halacha says that this may not be an exact proof. Rashi there comments on the scraps of cloth are exceedingly light in people's eyes, which may not be the case to all broken utensils.

SEIF 7 (CONTINUED)

ROCKS

Though, technically, rocks have the same potential use as broken utensils, they also can be used as a cover for a vessel, they're Muktza. Only broken utensils, that came from a complete utensil, they retain the status of a utensil since they have some use. Rocks, never was a utensil, so it's considered as plain rocks though you can find use for them.

WICKS

Unused wicks, or used wicks that are still usable, still have the status of a utensil that's main use is forbidden, and could be moved only if you have a use for it or you need it's place. Of course, to save it is prohibited. (Of course, this is only if it wasn't lit on Shabbos, because if it was, then it would be a Bosis (a base) for the flame. Even after it goes out, the wick will still remain Muktza, since it was Muktza by the beginning of Shabbos.) If it's unusable, then it's junk and therefore Muktza.

quote:

Only broken utensils, that came from a complete utensil, they retain the status of a utensil since they have some use. Rocks, never was a utensil, so it's considered as plain rocks though you can

How about if a particular rock has been regularly used on weekdays for a particular function, such as a door stop? Can it retain its status on Shabbos as a rock that has in fact become a utensil?

Other rocks have been used for purposes that may require sharpenning, such as an arrow tip, or in the case of Tzipora in our parsha, for cutting.

Quote "How about if a particular rock has been regularly used on weekdays for a particular function, such as a door stop?"

We'll write about it B'Ezras Hashem, in Seif 22. (we're almost there. Sort of )

SEIF 7 (CONTINUED)

A WAX CANDLE

The son of the Tashbatz brings a Minhag that a child, on his first day going to Shul, he brings a candle, even if it's Shabbos. Though the candle is Muktza, he's allowed to bring it, since before Shabbos you designated the candle for such a use. The Bais Yosef writes that this doesn't seem correct. Since there is no practical use for bringing it, so it's moving something for no reason. The Magen Avraham answers that the reason why there is no problem of Muktza is because the child is bringing it himself, so we're not responsible if he carries Muktza.

The Magen Avraham gives two problems with that answer. Later on in Simon 309, The Shulchon Aruch brings the opinion of Rashi, that one may not walk holding the hand of a child that's holding a coin. Because of the worth, if the child drops the coin the father may pick it up for him (the Ramban argues). So here too, we should be afraid that the child may drop the candle and the father will retrieve it for him.

Also, that in Simon 343 it states, though we're not responsible for a child to do an Aveira (see there that it depends on age and who's watching him do the sin) yet we're not allowed to give it to him directly to do the Aveira. Thus how do we allow to direct him to take the candle.

SEIF 7 (CONTINUED)

THE NATURE OF THE MUKTZA OF WAX CANDLES

The Magen Avraham writes that candles are a utensil whose main use is forbidden on Shabbos. Therefore it may be moved to use it or if you need the place it's on.

The Mor V'Ketzia (R' Yaakov Emdon) argues. A candle doesn't have any use (besides lighting, which can't be done on Shabbos. It should be similar to raw meat, that though it's technically in the category of food, since it cannot be prepared to be eaten on Shabbos is Muktza, since there is no use for it on Shabbos.

Another problem he sees, that it should be prohibited to move it like all Muktzas that we're afraid that they might get ruined. You shouldn't think that it only applies to very expensive items, but on even inexpensive items, those that have no real use on Shabbos and you wouldn't regularly move it for any reason lest they get ruined. The proof to that, since the Rishonim prohibit to move even blank paper, though it's inexpensive. Since there is no real use to be found for it on Shabbos, and regularly you wouldn't move it for any reason because it will get ruined, so that's enough to make it a complete Muktza.