THIS SHIUR IS DEDICATED LEZECHER NISHMAS R' AVRAHAM B. SHMUEL SHAUL

SEIF 8

DOORS OF UTENSILS THAT FELL OFF

Shabbos 122b - All doors that fell off of utensils, even if it fell off before Shabbos, it's permitted to move. Tosfos brings the Gemara on 124b that by broken utensils that it's permitted to move even though it broke on Shabbos. This would seem to contradict each other. Is it a reason to permit it more if it broke before Shabbos or after Shabbos?

Tosfos answers that by the doors, since they are ready to do their regular job, that it's ready to be reattached to the utensil, it's a greater reason to permit it if it broke on Shabbos, since it was already permitted to move it at the beginning of Shabbos while it was still attached.

Broken utensils, on the other hand, which is completely alienated from it's original use, is better if it broke before Shabbos, since coming into Shabbos, it's now ready to be used for the new use. But if it broke on Shabbos, then there is a bigger problem, that now it might be Nolad. So there it needs to tell us it's permitted even if it broke on Shabbos.

The Mishna Brurah says from the implication of Tosfos, that the doors that broke off are considered a utensil because "they are ready to do their regular job, that it's ready to be reattached to the utensil." That is the reason to permit it. Even if it cannot be used in any capacity on Shabbos it's permitted to use, since you will reattach it to the utensil, it's still considered part of that utensil.

SEIF 8 (CONTINUED)

BROKEN HOUSE DOORS

The Magen Avraham brings a Rambam that says that house doors that fall off are Muktza even if they fell off on Shabbos. (I might have thought that since we moved them in the beginning of Shabbos while they're attached to the house to open and close it, then I might extend that for the other part of Shabbos when it's detached. If it fell off before Shabbos and was never permitted on Shabbos, of course it's forbidden to move on Shabbos.)

The Magen Avraham learns from here that if something is Muktza from the beginning of Shabbos and becomes not Muktza on Shabbos (like something that was Muktza because people don't move it regularly because it might get ruined like a Mila knife, and broke on Shabbos to the point that you'll use it for anything, since it's no longer fit for Milah.) it still remains Muktza.

Rav Akiva Eiger dismisses this proof. House doors can be different, since they're always set aside to reattach to the house. That's why in the middle of Shabbos it doesn't get a new identity as a regular utensil. But a Milah knife that broke, which will no longer be able to return to it's original use, maybe it will become permitted.

Though he argues on that proof, Rav Akiva Eiger still agrees to the Halacha that it doesn't become permitted in the middle of Shabbos. This has to do with the general rule that anything that was Muktza in the beginning of Shabbos remains Muktza for the whole Shabbos.

SEIF 9

ATTACHING AND TAKING DOWN DOORS

Shabbos 122b says you may take down a door of a box or closet but you may not reattach them, but a chicken coup, you may neither take down or reattach.

The Gemara asks, I can understand by a chicken coup, that since they attach it to the ground, it has the status of things built in the ground, and Binyon (the Malacha of building) is applicable to it. So attaching the door is building, taking it down is demolishing. But the box or closet, why is it not consistent? If there is building by a utensil, there should also be demolishing. If there is no demolishing then putting up the door shouldn't be building.

The Gemara answers that there is no building by utensils. They decreed that you can't reattach the door back on it's hinge since you may attach it with nails to reinforce it. Rashi learns that this would be the Malacha of Maake B'Patesh (finishing off a utensil.) Rambam and Ran says that it would be building. Though regularly there is no building on utensils, but if your action makes the utensil, or even a part of the utensil, but required skill labor to attach it, this would be a sort of building.

DOOR OF THE CHICKEN COUP

The Tur says like our Gemara that the reason why it's prohibited to attach or dismantle a chicken coup's door is because it's building. The Rambam says it's a decree maybe you'll come to knock nails in to it. Everyone asks that it's not like our Gemara? We must say that he learns that the reason of calling it attached to the ground and it's building was only in the beginning of the Gemara before we could figure out any other reason, so we were forced to say it was building. At the end of the Gemara when we came up with the reason maybe you'll drive in nails, we can say that's also the reason for a chicken coup, and we're no longer forced to say that it's truly considered as a building.

THIS SHIUR IS DEDICATED - LEZECER NISHMAS YENTA B. R' SHIMON

SEIF 10

COVERS OF UTENSILS THAT ARE STUCK IN THE GROUND

Shabbos 126b states that covers of pits that are actual parts of the ground, everyone agrees that their covers need handles on it. These handles are to show that they're independent utensils and are not part of the ground (so it doesn't look like you're demolishing something that's part of the ground when you take it off and doesn't look like you're adding to the ground (building) when you take it off.)

If they are utensils, everyone agrees that their covers don't need a handle. If they're utensils attached to the ground, the Tana Kama requires it's cover to have a handle because it's similar to the case of the pit, and R' Yosi doesn't require it. (Or they're arguing about the cover of a stove.) The Rif Paskins like the Tana Kama and requires a handle.

In 125a says that R' Elazer b. Yaakov holds that a cover for a stove does not need a handle. The Gemara says that nowadays we move all stove covers we are doing like R' Elazer b. Yaakov. Tosfos points out that the Gemara could have said like R' Yosi we brought before, but brings R' Elazer b. Yaakov, since though he hardly said any statements, but those that he said were very clear (so we Paskin like him.) The Rif Paskinslike R' Elazer b. Yaakov.

The Rosh asks that the Rif seems to contradict himself. He Paskins like the Tana Kama that the cover needs a handle and like R' Elazer b. Yaakov that it doesn't need a handle. So he says that there was a mistake in the printing of the Rif and he really Paskins like R' Yosi that you don't need a handle.

The Ran answers, that R' Elazer b. Yaakov is talking about a stove where the whole utensil is above the ground, there the Rif Paskins that you don't need a handle even though it's attached to the ground. The argument between the Tana Kama and R' Yosi is by a barrel that was buried in a hole in the ground. This is where the Rif Paskins like the Tana Kama that you need a handle for the cover.

SEIF 10 (CONTINUED)

A COVER WITHOUT A HANDLE

If the pit cover or the buried barrel cover doesn't have a handle then it's prohibited to cover and uncover. The Magen Avraham says, even if it's off the pit it can't be moved (not like the Pri Megadem that allows it. This seems to fit into the Gemara that says "nowadays we MOVE a stove cover is like R' Elazer b. Yaakov." Notice it doesn't say cover or uncover, rather to move. This would seem to connote when it cannot be covered or uncovered it's prohibited to be moved also.

The Biur Halacha says the reason behind this is the following Rambam. The Rambam says that a house door that fell off cannot be moved since its whole purpose is to be reattached to the house. So it's not considered as a utensil by itself. The same would apply here. The whole purpose of the cover is to re-cover the pit, so that's all it is and not a utensil of itself.

However, the Magid Mishna says that Rashi learns the reason for the Muktza of broken house doors differently than the Rambam. He learns, since a house door was never essentially a utensil or part of a utensil, it doesn't get the status of a utensil after it gets broken. The Biur Halacha says, according to Rashi, the pit cover which is essentially a utensil in it's own right should be permitted to move.

To answer, according to Rashi, why does the Gemara talk about moving the cover (if the problem is only covering and not moving) the Biur Halacha says it is referring to "moving" it off the pit (and not moving it around.) Alternatively, if the cover was on the pit when Shabbos started, then at that point it would have been forbidden to move it, since it would be uncovering it. Even if it comes off by itself in the middle of Shabbos we would say once the cover was Muktza from the beginning of Shabbos, so too it's Muktza throughout the day. (Thus it would only be permitted to move only if it wasn't on the pit at the start of Shabbos.)

SEIF 10 (CONTINUED)

ANOTHER CONDITION TO ALLOW COVERING

The Gemara on 126b gives another condition. The cover needs to have a status of a utensil. Rashi explains that it needs to be able to do some other job besides covering. (This would make it look so much like an independent utensil so it wouldn't look like it's part of what's attached to the ground.)

Tosfos argues and doesn't see the reason why it needs to do some other job when it's a utensil in itself for doing the job of covering. He compares this to the case of palm leaves and stones that was set aside for sitting, that it doesn't need to do any other job besides being something to sit on to be a utensil and allow moving it on Shabbos. Rather, all it needs to be done is to fix the object to something that would resemble a cover and it has the status of a utensil and is permitted.

The Shulchon Orech Paskins here like Tosfos. In Simon 313:1 he brings down the argument. The Mishna Berura there says you may rely on Tosfos in a time of need, since over here the Shulchon Orech Paskins like Tosfos.

The Ran says, even if you don't fix it up to resemble a cover, if you had it in use as a cover before Shabbos, it's good enough. He also compares this to the case of palm trees. Though one of the ways that we make them not Muktza is to prepare them before Shabbos to be ready for sitting, but if he actually sits on them before Shabbos, nothing else is needed. So the same should apply to a cover that using it before Shabbos is as good as preparing it for use on Shabbos.

The Gra brings a proof to this Ran. The Rif Paskins here by a cover and by a reed that will be used to lock a door that it needs to be prepared and fixed to be used as such a utensil before Shabbos. Yet he Paskins, regarding putting a loose shutter over a window that you don't need to make any preparation at all. Why the discrepancy?

The Gra answers, that the shutter we assume must have been used before Shabbos, or else how did you know that it would fit? So anything that needs preparation before Shabbos, if used before Shabbos doesn't need to be prepared anymore.

SEIF 10 (CONTINUED)

FIXING THE COVER TO BE MADE INTO A UTENSIL

We already explained the Machlokes Rashi and Tosfos to what level do you need to fix up the pit covers so that they would be considered a utensil. The Gra says that you only need to fix them up to be a utensil if they don't need a handle. If they have a handle, then they are no less made for covering then fixing them up to be a cover (like Tosfos that it doesn't need to be able to do anything besides covering).

The Elya Raba asks that the Gemara in 126b seems to say the condition of fixing it up to be a utensil on the part of the Mishna that requires a handle. So even when it has a handle, it still needs to be fixed up.

The Biur Halacha answers that it should have read "etc." after it quotes the part of the Mishna that says you need a handle. In other words, that it really is quoting the end of the Mishna that says the case when you don't need a handle, and on that it says it needs to be made into a utensil.

He gives an alternative, forced, answer, that we can be going on a cover that has a handle, but only when the material came naturally with a handle, i.e. that the piece of wood had a protrusion that can be used as a handle. With such a handle, that was not put here with the intent to be a handle, even the Gra would admit that it still needs to be fixed more that it should resemble a utensil. Only when the handle was intentionally made do we say there is no need to fix it more.

BACKGROUND FOR THE NEXT SEIF

NOT INTENDING TO DO OR NOT NEEDING A MALACHA

The Malachos that are done on Shabbos, which are learnt from the Mishkon, needs to be Malachos Machseves (what they are intended for.) Thus we Paskin, that Davar Shein Mischaven (if you had not intended to do the Malacha) is not prohibited on Shabbos. For example, if you're dragging a chair outside on dirt. Your intentions are only to move the chair from place to place, but inadvertently, you could be making a furrow, which is the Malacha of plowing.

So too if you intended to do the Malacha, but you don't need the Malacha for it's own sake (Melacha Shein Tzricha L'Goofo,) but only for some other purpose. Like capturing a snake so it shouldn't bite you. You don't want the snake (to make snakeskin) but rather you want to keep it away from you.

The latter, though is permitted from the Torah, the Rabanan prohibit it. The former case depends on how it was done. If it's only a possibility that the Malacha will come out (that maybe the chair won't dig into the ground to make a furrow) it is permitted to do. There is not even a rabbinical prohibition.

If it's inevitable to happen, like "I'll chop off the head of a chicken but let it not die", then it's like you intended to do it, since in the back of your mind you'll know that it will happen. Then it would depend on your attitude of the Malacha was done. If you would enjoy the benefit, like you wanted to plant in your yard and now you have your furrow, then it is a Torah prohibition. If you couldn't care that it happened, and of course if you didn't want it to happen (it went right through your rose garden) then it's not a Torah prohibition. There is a Machlokes if it's rabbinically prohibited. (We Paskin, for the most part, that it's rabbinically forbidden.)

SEIF 11

TAKING A SPLINTER OUT WITH A NEEDLE

A needle is a utensil which main use is forbidden (sewing.) Thus it's permitted to move to use for a permitted use, like removing a splinter. The Magen Avraham, in Simon 328:32, says one must be careful to make sure that he doesn't bleed while you take out the splinter.

The Elya Rabbah asks that in Sanhedrin 84b says that it's permitted, even if it's possible that it will bleed. Though it's prohibited to take out a parent's splinter, since it might lead to accidentally making them bleed, and accidentally transgress an Aveira that has a Chiyuv Misa if done on purpose, yet on Shabbos it's permitted. Since the blood letting is destructive, it's not prohibited from the Torah. The Torah only prohibits constructive acts on Shabbos. Even R' Shimon that holds that to make bleed (and to make a fire) is an exception to the rule and is prohibited from the Torah though it may be destructive, yet he needs the Malacha to be needed for itself (Malacha Shetzricha L'Gufa.) Since here you only want to remove the splinter, and not to make bleed, it's permitted.

The Biur Halacha answers that the Magen Avraham never meant that it cannot cause bleeding, rather it could only be done in a way that it wouldn't definitely bleed (A P'sik Reisha.) Since you didn't have intention to make it bleed, and it's not necessary that it would happen, it's permitted on Shabbos.

The Chemed Moshe argues and permits even if you would definitely cause bleeding. Though regularly we don't permit if the Malacha will definitely happen, since there is pain involved here, we allow you to transgress this rabbinical prohibition (since you didn't intend to do the Malacha, it's only prohibited MiDirabanan) just like we allow to pop a blister for that reason.

SEIF 11 (CONTINUED)

A BROKEN NEEDLE

A needle that broke, either by the point or by the eye, is completely Muktza and cannot be moved for any purpose. Since it's usually thrown in the metal scrap heap (to recycle it) it's no longer a utensil.

The Magen Avraham brings down conflicting Tosfos if one could set it aside for use and make it a utensil. The Tosfos in Shabbos says even setting it aside for use doesn't make it a utensil to move on Shabbos, just like it's not a utensil that it could become Tumei. The only way to make it a utensil is to fix it in some way that would make it more fit to do work.

The Tosfos in Zevachim says that it's not automatically a utensil, since it's usually not used again, but rather thrown in the scrap heap. But just like fresh hides that are not used yet for sitting and cannot be moved, if you set it aside for sitting, it becomes a utensil and you can move it on Shabbos. A broken needle that's set aside as a utensil (for using as a peg to stretch cloth) then it can be moved without fixing it at all.

The Magen Avraham says that the latter Tosfos seems to fit into the Mishna in Keilim better and also seems to be the way the Rambam Paskins.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger points out, that even when it breaks on Shabbos it's forbidden to move. Even though a broken utensil that was thrown in the garbage in middle of Shabbos is still permitted to move, since it can't loose it's status of being a utensil in middle of Shabbos. It can only loose it coming into Shabbos. That's because they're still naturally a utensil because people still keep it around. So throwing it out is trying to change it's status of being a utensil. But here, since people throw it in the scrap heap and is naturally not a utensil. Thus, when it breaks on Shabbos, it turns into a piece of garbage and is Muktza.

SEIF 11 (CONTINUED)

THE FORM OF A NEEDLE

A new sewing needle that does not have an eye pierced through may be moved on Shabbos. Since one may decide to use it as a straight pin, it would be a complete utensil, so it's not Muktza. the Mishna Berura explains that it is new, not ready to be thrown in the scrap heap, it doesn't have the same problem as a broken needle.

SEIF 12

A WORN OUT MAT

A worn out mat, even with remnants less than 3 fingers square, is permitted to be moved. The Gemara in 125a says that it has the same use as a regular mat, to cover dirt or other disgusting things, just that the worn out mat does it at a smaller scale. Tosfos points out that the Gemara doesn't need to say that it has the same use as the mat, since we Paskin that broken utensils doesn't need to be able to do the original use of the complete utensil.

The Shar Hatzion points out, that even according to the Magen Avraham that says that those who prohibit moving Nolad (a new entity) on Shabbos (or even to us that only prohibit it on Yom Tov) that they need broken utensils to be able to do it's original use in order that it wouldn't be Nolad would permit here by a worn out mat since the Gemara says that it still does it's original use.

SEIF 13

WORN OUT CLOTHING.

The Gemara on 125a says that a worn out cloth is Muktza if it's not 3 fingers square, since it's no longer usable not only for the rich, but also for the poor. The Rambam Paskins likes this and doesn't differentiate between types of clothes, so it would seem to him this applies to all clothing. Rashi, Ravad and Ran say that this only applies to a worn out Talis. Since out of reverence, they would only use it's remnants to patch up a whole, and less than three, it's not used for a patch. but regular clothes, since you don't care what you use it for, even less than three can be used as a Shmata to wipe up something disgusting, similar to the worn out mats of the last Seif.

WORN OUT CLOTH THAT'S THREE FINGERS SQUARE.

Worn out clothes that are 3 fingers square are fit only for the poor, since the rich don't keep such swatches unless they're 3 T'fachim square. The Shar Hatzion points out that this is only the rule when no indication is done to show that the rich person would want it. But if he shows from before Shabbos that he wants it, like if he puts it away in a box, it's permitted. This is gleaned from the Gemara in 29a (which we already brought down before) that on scraps of cloth, even less than 3 fingers, if it's put aside in a box, everyone holds that it has a status of a utensil and could receive Tuma and can be moved on Shabbos.

SEIF 13 (CONTINUED)

CLOTH THAT ARE THREE T'FACHIM SQUARE

We already said, that if a cloth is 3 T'fachim square, it's fit for everyone to use, even the rich. The Shaar Hatzion brings up the Shaila if someone throws such a cloth in the garbage before Shabbos, does it become Muktza. We Paskin if one throws clothing in the garbage before Shabbos that it doesn't become Muktza. Since most people still would consider it clothes, so it's essentially still clothes. So we cancel his idea of making it garbage since it's going against what most people consider clothes.

Now the three T'fachim cloth, if it was thrown in the garbage, do we say that it's like throwing out a whole garment. Since Tosfos on 26b says that concerning to be considered clothes in order to receive Tuma, that a whole garment and a 3 T'Fachim cloth are considered as the same level as being clothes. Three T'Fachim of cloth is like a hundred feet of cloth. Or do we say that you cannot compare the laws of receiving Tuma to the laws of Muktza. (He doesn't explain what's the difference. I would like to suggest that since it's not too outrageous to throw out a three T'Fachim cloth, so it wouldn't go against the conception of most people what garbage could be.

THIS SHIUR IS DEDICATED LZECHER NISHMAS R' AVRAHAM YAAKOV B. R' MEIR

SEIF 14

A NEW SHOE ON IT'S MOLD

If a new shoe that is still on the mold (in which it's shaped) we Paskin like the Rabanan (on 141b) that it's considered it's own entity and is a completed shoe and may be removed on Shabbos. (Not like R' Eliezer that views the shoe and mold as one entity. The shoe is not finished until it's removed from the shoe. Therefore, removing the shoe from the mold is tantamount to making it on Shabbos.) Even though the mold's use is a forbidden one, still it can be removed since you need it's place, which is the inside of the shoe.

The Bach and Taz say that the first time on the mold it's tight and would need to handle the mold and the shoe to pull them apart. But afterwards, if returned to the mold, it's loose, that you can pull either one to get it off, it's permitted to pull even the mold from the shoe. The Bach brings a proof from the Gemara (and we'll see it in Seif 16) that if a shirt is being hung on a utensil, you may take the utensil from the shirt, even though it's possible to take the shirt from the utensil.

The Elya Rabbah says that it's not so simple to move a forbidden utensil if it's possible to get away with it. The case with the shirt may not be a proof, since it may be talking that it was hung by a permitted utensil, that's why you have the choice.

The Tosfos Shabbos also knocks off the proof of the Bach. by a shirt, the regular way to take the shirt off is to remove the utensil from the shirt, that's why the Rabanan didn't bother you to change from your normal routine. Our case by the shoe, normal procedure is to remove the shoe from the mold, so the Rabanan could have prohibited to move the forbidden utensil.

A NEW WOMAN'S SHOE

A new woman's shoe, that in Simon 303:13 we Paskin that she may not wear it on Shabbos. Since it might not fit (since she didn't try it on yet) and feels funny wearing them in the street, she might remove them and carry. there are those that forbid her to wear them at all, even in the house (since she might walk out with them.) The Biur Halacha says, in that case, they're a utensil who's use is forbidden and can only be moved if you need to use it for something or you need it's place.

SEIF 15

A SANDAL WITH A BROKEN STRAP

A sandal used to have two straps on either side that you tie the lace through. If the inner one broke, then it's still a utensil, since you can fix it. Since the stitching would be in between ones feet it wouldn't be noticeable. But if the outer strap broke, so the stitching would be where everyone could see it, it's not a utensil anymore, so it can't be moved. This is if it broke in a courtyard, since it's safe there.

If it broke in a Karmules, then there is a way to wear it back to your house, by tying a fresh straw on it to fasten it. (The straw is not Muktza because it's animal fodder. If it would be dried out and not fit for an animal, then it would be Muktza and wouldn't be able to be used.) The Magen Avraham says that you can't tie a regular string on, since you might end up leaving it there and become a permanent knot. Making a slipknot is permitted in all cases.

The Magen Avraham says this only applies to sandals, where it's useless without the straps. A shoe, since one can still put it on, it's still a utensil and may be moved. The Shar Hatzion says it could apply to shoes if the whole heal falls off.

The Magen Avraham says, that which in a courtyard you can't move it, if there are many people around and the person is embarrassed to walk barefoot, he's permitted to wear it. When it comes to human dignity, we allow transgressing a rabbinical law. Just like in Simon 13 we allow someone to wear on Shabbos a Talis that became Pasul in Shul if he's embarrassed to sit there without one. (A TAlis that doesn't have Tzitzis on them is only rabbinically prohibited to wear. Since you can't make them on Shabbos, the torah only commanded to put Tzitzus on them when your able to.) The Shaar Hatzion points out that this Heter applies to our shoes also in the case the whole heal falls off.

L'ZECHER NISHMAS R' REUVEIN BEN R' SHABSI

SEIF 15 (CONTINUED)

BROKEN SANDAL (CONTINUED)

The Rambam doesn't prohibit the broken sandal in the courtyard. The Magid Mishna says that he holds that it's like a broken utensil that has a use, it too can cover a jar. The Gemara that forbids moving it is like those that maintain that broken utensils much keep their original use. Since we hold that it doesn't need to keep it's original use, it's permitted.

The Rif and Rosh say that the sandal cannot be moved in the courtyard. The Bais Yosef says that they hold that the sandal is not fit to cover jars, they are too dirty. the Magen Avraham asks that the Gemara says a nailed sandal (which may not be worn) may be moved on Shabbos to cover a jar. We see that sandals are not dirty enough that people will refrain from putting them on their jars. The Tosfos Shabbos wants to push off this question by saying the Gemara is referring to a new sandal that was never worn, that's why it's clean to be able to put it on top of a jar, but the Machtzes Hashekel says that it's not probable that the Gemara is referring only to a never used one. If it did, it would say it explicitly.

The Magen Avraham further asks, that even if it's too dirty to put it on a jar, still there are other uses you can find for it? So the Magen Avraham answers that it has the same status as the broken needle that become Muktza. Since nobody uses it after it's broken, then it looses it's status of a utensil. the Tosfos Shabbos adds that normally one would throw such a thing in the garbage, it looses it's status as a utensil.

SEIF 16

A SHIRT HANGING ON A REED

If a shirt is hanging on a reed, you must remove the shirt from the reed and not the reed from the shirt. Since the reed is a piece of wood it's Muktza and cannot be moved. The Ran explains why the reed doesn't become a utensil by being used as a hanger. Since it's not the normal way to use reeds, it doesn't automatically become a utensil unless it's designated forever for that purpose, as we'll explain in Seif 22. The Magen Avraham says, in his days reeds where used as hangers, therefore just using it this time makes it a utensil for Shabbos.

WET CLOTHING

If the shirt was left on the reed to dry, then it needs to be dry enough at the onset of Shabbos that it won't make an object wet enough to wet a third object. It's forbidden to move wet clothes since you may come to squeeze it. If it's wet on the onset of Shabbos, then it's Muktza and everything that was Muktza on the onset of Shabbos retains that status for the whole Shabbos.

SEIF 16 (CONTINUED)

AN OVEN THAT HAD A LEG FALL OUT

It says in Shabbos 138b it's forbidden to move a oven that leg fell out. We're afraid that if we allow you to move it, you'll fasten the leg into place, which is doing the Melacha of fixing a utensil. The Darkai Moshe in the name of the Trumas Hadeshen says that the same applies to a bench that leg fell out. The Taz points out that the Trumas Hadeshen wasn't certain that it's forbidden. Since the bench could be supported by resting it on another bench, you're not so pressed to fix it. Still, theTrumas Hadeshen says it's best to be stringent. The Taz says that this only applies when the leg fell out and is ready to be fastened in. If the leg broke or is lost, and is not readily returned to it's place, you may move the bench as is.

If you sat on the bench before Shabbos, then the bench may be moved on Shabbos. The Darkai Moshe compares it to palm branches. That though you hadn't prepared them to sit on for Shabbos, if you sit on them before Shabbos, they are allowed to be moved on Shabbos. The Magen Avraham asks on that, there by palm branches, our only concern is that they are Muktza, so sitting on them before Shabbos shows that they're now designated to be a chair. This is no comparison to a bench, where the concern is that you'll fix it. Rather, since you have used it once, so your used to the idea of sitting on it broken, you're not too pressed to fix it. The Elya Rabbah adds, this is especially true, since the Trumas Hadeshen didn't feel strongly that sitting on the bench was prohibited in the first place since you can support it by leaning it on another bench.

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

SEIF 16 (CONTINUED)

A BENCH WITH A LEG THAT FELL OUT CONTINUED

The Elya Rabbah points out, that though it's prohibited to move, but just sitting on it without moving it is permitted. The Biur Halacha says that if the broken bench is in a place where it may hurt someone, it can be moved, just like the broken glass in Seif 6. We wave the Issur Muktza so that nobody gets damaged. Once it's moved it may be put anyplace, even to rest it on another bench in order that it will be able to sit on. After that, it resumes it's original status and may not be moved further.

PUTTING BACK A LEG INTO PLACE

Someone cannot put the leg into place, even if to fit it loosely (which wouldn't be a Malacha unless it's fastened.) Since it's not usual that it will be left loose, you'll come to fasten it as usual. The Magen Avraham says that if someone generally keeps his legs loose, then he may put the leg back. Since that's the way he usually leaves it, he won't come to fasten it in. The Biur Halacha takes issue with this. Maybe the Rabanan only allowed to put back loosely something that universally is left loose. If something is generally tightened it's universally prohibited, even for individuals that may leave them loose.

My dining room chairs have caster wheels which slip into holes in the wood at the corners. They are prone to falling out.

Since there is no fastener (such as a pin or screw) and it slips out, is that considered being usually left loose, such that sliding it back in is not a problem on Shabbos?