Quote "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?"

I would say, even to the Biur Halacha that says that you need it to be universally left loose, since in how your table is set up, that there is no fastener and nobody would fasten such a table, it would seem that it would be permitted.

limudtorah.jewishweb.org

http://globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums?a=frm&f=9291076782

SEIF 17

LEFTOVER BRICKS

Leftover bricks from a construction site is permitted to move, since they're now designated for sitting. The Elya Rabbah says that the implications are that they are automatically designated for sitting, even if someone doesn't formally designate them. This is also the implication of the Gemara that doesn't say it needs to be actively designated for sitting. This is not like the T'shuvas HaRosh that says it needs to be designated, which can be done with your thoughts. The Tosfos Shabbos Paskins like the Rosh. He explains the Rosh's reasoning, since until now it's designated for building, it doesn't leave that status until you actively designate it for something else.

PILING UP THE BRICKS

If you pile up the bricks, getting them ready for the next construction job, they become Muktza. Now they're no longer designated for sitting but for construction. The Elya Rabbah points out that you cannot move it even through designating specifically for something else. He proves this from the Gemara in Beitza 31a. If you have bricks piled up like a house that has no openings. There are fruit in the middle of them. You're allowed to take them apart on Yom Tov in order to get the fruit in the middle. The Gemara asked, but you're not allowed to move piled up bricks? Now, the Gemara could have answered that he designated the bricks for sitting (instead of answering that it's a special Heter for Simchas Yom Tov.) This proves that even designating them doesn't allow you to move them.

SEIF 18

A THORN IN THE R'SHUS HARABIM

The Gemara Shabbos 42a says that a thorn in a R'Shus HaRabim may be moved on Shabbos less than four Amos at a time. Though it's usually forbidden, since it might damage someone, the Rabanan waved their prohibition. The Gemara compares this to extremely hot items left in the street. If it's metal, you're allowed to extinguish it. If it's a wooden ember, according to those that hold that a Malacha Shein Tzricha L'Gufo (it's not needed for it's own use) is forbidden from the Torah then you can't extinguish it. According to the one that held it's permitted from the Torah, and here you don't need an extinguish ember for charcoal, rather you wanted to remove the danger, then you may extinguish it.

Rashi says the difference between metal and wood is that extinguishing metal is not a Torah prohibition, so we allow doing rabbinical prohibitions to remove a danger. The Bahag says that extinguishing hot metal is a Torah prohibition, since it strengthens the metal (Tziruf,) it's fixing up the utensil. Yet the metal is not always discernable if it's hot, so one may accidently step on it. A wooden ember is red when it's hot, so someone would be able to protect themselves.

quote:

The Bahag says that extinguishing hot metal is a Torah prohibition, since it strengthens the metal (Tziruf,) it's fixing up the utensil.

If the metal was already hardened by a rapid cooling process from a much higher heat, do we still say that it is improving it?

I would think that it may be like cooking an already cooked food, or breaking an already broken vessel.

I think that by metal it doesn't make a difference. See the Gemara in Yoma 34b that it seems that there is no way that it would be permitted. If it's true that once it's heated up that it doesn't apply, then it should have said that they heat it up once before Yom Kippur.

I think we must compare it to a liquid, that when it cools down it returns to it's original state and recooking it is ussur.


http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org

http://globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums?a=frm&f=9291076782

quote:

If it's true that once it's heated up that it doesn't apply, then it should have said that they heat it up once before Yom Kippur.

I think we must compare it to a liquid, that when it cools down it returns to it's original state and recooking it is ussur.

What is heated up more than once before Yom Kippur?

This concept of improving metal also came up in a halacha shiur I was in recently, but I don't think the same section dealing with mukzeh.

The reason I was concerned by the question is that by the laws of kashering metal, such as a pareve frying pan that inadvertently was used with butter, I understand that we only need to heat it above the highest heat level at which it was used for cooking in order to neutralize it from contaminated as dairy back to pareve?

That similarly, once metal is hardened with thousands of degrees of heat, I figure what difference does it make if it is rapidly cooled from two hundred degrees of boiling water with room temperature water? Can it really have an effect of improving the hardness of steel?



As far as a liquid, I also recall my rabbi once saying that water which was heated to boiling point and then cooled retained its ability to make tea better than water which was never boiled.

I found that to be a surprising statement at the time since chemically even distilled water should be the same temperature, however I can imagine that for tap water with minerals and salts of whatever amount that if it were distilled it would be different by being purer, and by boiling out some water, the residual water would have a stronger concentration of impurities, and water with higher salt concentration boils at a higher temperature.

Quote "What is heated up more than once before Yom Kippur?

This concept of improving metal also came up in a Halacha shiur I was in recently, but I don't think the same section dealing with muktzeh."

The Gemara was wondering, when they through the heated metal into the Kohain Gadol's Mikva in order to make it warm, why wasn't it a problem of Tziruf? The fact that the Gemara didn't answer that it was already heated before Yom Kippur and cooled down would give me reason to believe that it wouldn't make a difference

Maybe your Shuir was in Bishul which talks about pouring cold water into an empty hot pot.

Quote "The reason I was concerned by the question is that by the laws of kashering metal, such as a pareve frying pan that inadvertently was used with butter, I understand that we only need to heat it above the highest heat level at which it was used for cooking in order to neutralize it from contaminated as dairy back to pareve?"

That's only to remove the bliyos from the pot. It's not referring to how the actual metal is being improved.

Quote "That similarly, once metal is hardened with thousands of degrees of heat, I figure what difference does it make if it is rapidly cooled from two hundred degrees of boiling water with room temperature water? Can it really have an effect of improving the hardness of steel?"

I don't know, I don't have the foggiest idea how it works.

Quote "As far as a liquid, I also recall my rabbi once saying that water which was heated to boiling point and then cooled retained its ability to make tea better than water which was never boiled. "

This was to explain those Shitos that even by liquids there is no Bishul after Bishul.

SEIF 18 (CONTINUED)

A LARGE THORN

The Rivash says that we only allow a small thorn to be moved form the street, but not a large thorn. Since it's large enough that people can see it, there is no need to move it. He supports his view from the Bahag that says that you cannot extinguish a wooden ember since people can see that it's hot and will avoid it.

The Magen Avraham asks on him, that we see from the case of a spit (Simon 518:3) that was left in the middle of the kitchen may be moved so no one would hurt themselves. So even a large object, like the spit, may be moved so no one gets hurt. Secondly, he asks, that we Paskin that you're allowed to extinguish a wooden coal (since we hold that a Malacha that's not needed for it's own use is only rabbinically forbidden.) So we see, even if it's noticeable we Paskin that you may remove the danger.

The Tosfos Shabbos answers, that we only permit a rabinical prohibition if it's somewhat unnoticible. Though the red hot ember is noticeable enough not to permit extinguishing it through a Torah forbidden act, but still it's not so noticeable. Sometimes their is enough black ash on it that covers up most of teh red, so you may step on it accidentily. But a large thorn, since it's always noticable, they didn't allow you to do even something rabbinically forbidden to remove it.

He answers the case of the spit that since it's left in the house where young children run around, you must remove it before he hurts himself on it. But in the streets, where young children don't go unsupervised, then we have no reason to allow moving it. The Biur Halacha answers, since it has a small tip on the end, it's like a small thorn and that's why you're allowed to move it.

SEIF 18 (CONTINUED)

A BIG THORN (CONTINUED)

The Tosfos Shabbos heard that they ask on the Rivash's Halacha (that a big thorn may not be removed from the street since passersby can see it) from the Gemara in the beginning of the third Perek of Bava Kama. If someone puts out barrels in the street and someone trips overs it and breaks it, he's exempt from paying damages, but the barrel's owner is responsible for all damages that he has.

The Gemara's last reason (which we Paskin like) since people don't look around while they walk, they're not expected to see the barrel. So if we expect him to walk into barrels he'll step on larger thorns also, so why can't you remove them?

He answers that damaging is different. The Torah is a lot more stringent to obligate someone that damages than we are regularly worried for other things. This we see from the way the Torah obligates to pay damages that occur even if it's almost unavoidable (Onness.) So we're not worried that someone would step on a large thorn, but your still not allowed to place a barrel in the street since there is a remote possibility that someone might get damaged.

SEIF 18 (CONTINUED)

THORNS THAT WERE IN THE STREET FROM FRIDAY

The Magen Avraham say that the thorn cannot be there Erev Shabbos. He reasons: if you can remove objects that may hurt people from the street even though it was there from before Shabbos, then we may clear the whole street from the many rocks that are naturally found on them (which is not logical that they would permit it.) So obviously this is only an exception for those objects that nothing could have been done about them from before Shabbos.

The Elya Rabbah argues and says the simple reading of the Gemara infers that anyway the thorn is there, even if it was there before Shabbos. The same is the inference of Rashi. The Biur Halacha differentiate between rocks and thorns. The reason why we can't clean out the street from rocks since they don't pose that much of a threat to people as thorns do. Even though we see that if someone puts a rock in the street, it's considered a Bor, and must pay the damage for those who trip on it, but damaging is different. We see that even broken shards are considered a Bor if someone slips on them, but nobody allows moving them from the street.

SEIF 18 (CONTINUED)

MOVING DANGEROUS OBJECTS THAT ARE NOT HARMING THE PUBLIC

The Heter to move the thorn from the street is because it's a public hazard. This implies that we won't permit to transgress an Issur D'rabanan if it's only a hazard in someone's house. How does this fit into what we allow in Seif 6 to move broken glass, which is Muktza, in one's home? The Pri Migadim answers that moving Muktza is a lower class D'rabanan, so we allow it even if it's only a personal hazard. Moving something in a Karmalos or less than four Amos in a R'Shus Harabim, which are very stringent D'rabanan, you may only transgress them if it is a public hazard. The same applies in Simon 334 that we allow to extinguish a coal is only in a public through way.

How, then, do we allow bursting a blister on Shabbos, which involves a high level D'rabanan, for a private person? The Pri Migadim answers since there is pain to the person, we compare him to a sick person who's life is not in danger, where we permit D'rabanan (at least with a Shinoy.)

SEIF 19

LADDERS

The Gemara in Beitza prohibits moving ladders on Yom Tov. People would suspect that you're going to work on your roof. Even if you carry it on your own property, away from prying eyes, it's still prohibited. Whatever they decreed you can't do because people may suspect you of some wrong doing, they prohibited it completely, even behind close doors.

The Gemara in Eiruvin infers that you may move a ladder on Shabbos. In order to make an Eiruv between two courtyards their needs to be a way between them. This could be a doorway, a window or having ladders on both sides of the wall. There you can climb up on one side and go down on the other. If the ladder is too small that people may move it on Shabbos, it doesn't count for a way. Since it may be removed in middle of Shabbos, it's not a permanent way between them. If it's a bigger ladder that people usually don't move because of it's weight, even though Halachically it could be moved, since people don't generally move it, we can assume that it would be there the whole Shabbos. So we see that ladders could be moved?

Rabeinu Tam answers, on Yom Tov that one could carry in the streets, then we must outlaw moving a ladder because people will see him. Once they needed to prohibit this for the streets, they decreed it in all places. But on Shabbos, where they can't carry in the streets, only in their private domains, therefore there was no need to decree a prohibition at all, since practically the public won't see them carrying a ladder.

But Rabeinu Ephrayim answers that the forbidden ladder was referring to a large ladder that people used to climb on the roof to do work. In Eiruvin, the Gemara is referring to a smaller ladder that was used around the house so nobody would suspect that you'll use it for the roof. The Taz explains the difference between a permitted or prohibited ladder is not it's size. Rather what type of ladder it's designed to be. If it's noticeably a house ladder, then it's permitted, even if it's large.

Is a house (in the house) ladder perhaps a type with 4 legs that doesn't need to lean against the wall of a house in order to climb up?

What would be the din of a foldable ladder which can go into several different configurations, some of which straight leaning or straight as a platform with 2 legs?

My chavrusa and I were just learning about the difference between an Egyptian ladder and a Tyrean ladder toward the very end of chapter 3 in Bava Basra.

The gemara there also discusses someone pulling over a bench to stand on underneath a tall window. Perhaps a bench is a type of ladder too? or something we might call a step stool?

I don't think any of them have a problem on Shabbos if they are designed for home use. The Egyptian and Tyre ladders are the ones that are mentioned in Eiruvin 77b there .

http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org

http://globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums?a=frm&f=9291076782

SEIF 19 (CONTINUED)

LADDERS (CONTINUED)

The Mage Avraham quotes the Rambam that says the reason the Gemara in Eiruvin differentiates between a larger ladder that cannot be moved and smaller ladders that may be moved, is that the larger ladder is not a utensil but the smaller ladders are. The Shar HaTzion explains it by comparing it to the Shita of R' Chananel and Raavad (brought in the Rashba and Ritva) that says since those ladders are generally not moved any time and its main use is forbidden on Shabbos, it loses its status of a utensil.

The Magid Mishna asks but in Mesechta Beitza we would allow to move a big ladder if not for the Gezaira someone might suspect you of fixing your roof, but it should anyway be forbiden to move since it's not a utensil? He answers that without the Gezaira the Rabanan would give special permission to move the Muktza ladder to get food in order that you can have Simchas Yom Tov.

The Gra agrees with the Rashba that answers that there is no prohibition for moving ladders, as we see in Eiruvin. The Gemara in Beitza only forbids moving the ladder from place to place, or to tip it from one dove coup to another dove coup. But around it's own place, one can move it as much as he wants.

SEIF 20

PALM LEAVES

There is a Machlokes in Shabbos 50a about palm leaves that where cut to use as fuel, which are Muktza, (the Magen Avraham infers from this that without any specific intentions, the leaves are considered designated for sitting.) If one wants to change it's status and designate it for sitting, which would make it a utensil and not Muktza, the Rabanan say you must tie it. Rashi explains that to do something to show it's designated for sitting. Raban Shimon b. Gamliel says that even just intending it to be sat on would make it not Muktza. The Rishonim Paskin like R' Shimon b. Gamliel.

Rav Asi adds that even by sitting on it also takes it out of it's Muktza status, even without tying or intent. The Ran infers from here that R' Asi is being lenient that sitting helps and of course if you intend to sit makes it not Muktza (not like the Ramban.)

The Rosh says intent helps even if you only had intent to sit on it during a weak day. The Gra says this fits into the words of R. Shimon b. Gamliel, since he doesn't differentiate between when you intended to sit. The Elya Rabbah brings many Rishonim that agree with Tosfos that he must intend to sit on it on Shabbos.

SEIF 20 (CONTINUED)

TYING A PITCHER TO A VINE BRANCH

The Mishna says you need to tie a pitcher on to a vine branch before Shabbos (in order to use it to draw water from a well.) The Gemara in 125b that says that it can go even according to R' Shimon b. Gamliel that holds it's enough to have intent. R' Sheshes says we're referring to a case where the vine is still attached to the ground, therefore it needs extra preparation to make it not Muktza. Even though regularly we may not move things attached to the ground, but here it's referring to a case that it's within three Tefachim from the ground. The Rabanan only decreed on the parts above three Tefachim.

R' Ashi answers that it's referring to a case where it's detached. Since the vine is soft, if we don't attach it before Shabbos, then when you try it out on Shabbos, it might be too long and you'll snap some of it off. This would be tantamount to fixing a utensil. So the Rabanan decreed that it must be attached before Shabbos that you'll see the length then and fix it before Shabbos.

The Rambam brings down the case of R' Ashi and the Magen Avraham says that the case of R' Sheshes is also L'Halacha.

SEIF 21

A PILE OF STONES

The Gemara in Shabbos 125b says of a pile of stones that you want to sit on them on Shabbos, R' Ami says they must be set up before Shabbos. Rashi explains so it doesn't need to move them on Shabbos. R' Asi says that you need to rub off the mud and that would prepare them to be a utensil. Rambam Paskins like R' Ami. The Rif skips the whole Sugya. The Magid Mishna explains that since the Rif Paskins like R' Shimon b. Gamliel that all you need is intent to make palm leaves a sitting utensil, so the same Halacha would apply by stones. The Rambam would differentiate between palm leaves, which are regularly designated to sit on, and stones, which are not.

The Bais Yosef says the opposite explanation. He says that the Rif relies on what he Paskins like R' Ami that a stone that was left upon a barrel on purpose is Muktza and makes the barrel Bosis. We don't say that leaving it there makes it a covering for the barrel and thus a utensil. The Gemara says that the two Shitos of R Ami are because of the same reason. Once we Paskin like R' Ami by the stone on the barrel, it would be superfluous to Paskin like him by stones too. (See Seif 22)

SEIF 21 (CONTINUED)

PILE OF STONES (CONTINUED)

The Rama brings a Mordechai that hold that the case of the stones and palm leaves are the same, that one may sit on them on Shabbos. Not only that but that the stones are better, since they don't move when you sit on them. The Magen Avraham argues with the whole premise. He says sitting on it was never a problem. You may sit on Muktza even if you move it. There is no problem moving Muktza with your body as long as you don't use your hands. This we see from the case that it's permitted to lay on a bed with Muktza straw, even though he moves the straw. Thus, our Sugya must be referring to making it not Muktza so you'll be able to move it with your hands.

TYPES OF STONES

The Biur Halacha says in the name of Pri Migadim: the Ran holds we're referring even by a case where they were left over from building. It's not comparable to bricks that are automatically permitted to move when they're leftover from building, since the bricks are naturally more fit to sit on than stones. Rashi says it's only referring to a case where they're set up to build, but if they're leftovers, then you may move them regularly just like bricks

The Biur Halacha says if the stones are smoothed out, then they're as fit to sit on like bricks and the Ran would admit that you don't need any preparation to move them.

SEIF 22

STONE ON TOP OF A BARREL

The Mishna in Shabbos 142b: a stone put on top of a barrel, you need to tip it over to throw off the stone before you move the barrel. The Gemara says that's only if you forgot the stone on top, but if you left it there on purpose, the barrel is forbidden to be moved because it becomes a Bosis (base) for Muktza.

Why don't we say that the stone becomes a cover to the barrel since it's designated to be one? The Rashba says designation only helps if it's designated forever for that use. Just for one Shabbos doesn't help. This is learned from the mound of dirt that is brought in to cover spit. Since it's designated forever for covering spit it's allowed to be moved. The Gra says that even according to the Rashba, palm leaves don't need to be designated forever, since they are mostly designated for sitting. But other things that are not usually designated to be a utensil, though they're sometimes used for that, needs to be designated forever for it.

The Mordichai is more strict and says that not only does it need to be designated forever for the use, you need to do something to it to improve it. The mound of dirt, though, since you can't do anything to it to improve its usage, so then it's permitted by just designating it forever.

However, the Ran differentiates between objects that people do use for those usage (though it may not be what they are mainly used for, like the Rasbha's requirement) and objects that are never used for that use. Since nobody would regularly use a stone for a barrel cover, so in order to make it a barrel cover, you need to designate it forever. But things that sometimes people use it for this use, then even designating it for one Shabbos is good enough.