SEIF 23

BREAKING A BRANCH FOR A FLY SWATTER

Someone that broke a branch before Shabbos to use as a fly swatter, he may use it to shoo the flies away. The Darkai Moshe points out that you must be careful not to kill the flies while you shoo them away.

The Taz prohibits asking a Goy to break off a branch from the bristles of a broom on Shabbos. Either it's not a utensil and it's anyhow prohibited. Or it's a utensil that was made by a Goy on Shabbos, which you cannot have any benefit from it on Shabbos like any other Malacha a Goy does for a Jew on Shabbos. The Tosfos Shabbos asks why does the Taz need the last reason? It would be forbidden to move anyhow because it was Muktza, like any utensil that was made on Shabbos. The Pri Migadim answers that if it would be a utensil it wouldn't be Muktza. Since it was originally part of a utensil, so like all broken utensils that have some use on Shabbos it is not Muktza. Therefore the Taz needed the reason that it's a Malacha that a Goy did for a Jew on Shabbos to forbid it.

SEIF 24

WRAPPING FLAX AROUND A WOUND

Combed flax (which is raw material and Muktza) in order to be able to wrap around a wound on Shabbos so you may go out with it, you must prepare it before Shabbos. You either smear oil on it or attach a string to tie it or, without any preparation, you went out with it before Shabbos. Tosfos says that the Gemara wasn't being exact when it says "going out wearing it." Even if you wear it in the house before Shabbos you may go out with it on Shabbos. But if you don't wear it before Shabbos, then it's forbidden to put it on even in your house, since it's Muktza. Rashi points out that wearing it on Shabbos won't be prohibited on account that it's healing the wound (which is generally forbidden, lest you'll come to grinding up herbs to make medicine.) Since it doesn't heal the wound, it just protects it from getting scratched.

SEIF 24 (CONTINUED)

WRAPPING FLAX AROUND A WOUND (CONTINUED)

Why do we need to prepare the flax before Shabbos? Why not just have intention to use it in Shabbos, just like that's enough for palm leaves? The Ran in the name of R' Yona answers: without preparing it before Shabbos it doesn't look like that you're using it for the wound. It just seems that you're wrapping around you're hand to carry it out on Shabbos.

The Gra says this would also answer what we said was bothering Tosfos. Why does it say that if it was not prepared before Shabbos you can't go out with it on Shabbos? you cannot even wear it in the house on Shabbos? But according to R' Yona, it fits in well. The only problem is because it looks like carrying which only involves going outside.

The Rosh says that you don't need to prepare it before Shabbos and you may just have in mind to wrap it around your wound on Shabbos. Since the Gemara says it's enough if you go out with it wrapped around your wound before Shabbos, so of course the intention to wear it on Shabbos, which is better, helps.

The Shulchon Orech, when quoting R' Yona's view, says that if you only had intention to use it on Shabbos, it's completely Muktza. The Magen Avrahom asks why should it be Muktza? Since the only problem is if he walks out with it, so why should it be Muktza in the house? The Tosfos Shabbos answers that the Shulchon Orech is going with the Rashba's Shita that anything that cannot be worn outside on Shabbos may not be worn even in the house since you may walk outside with it.

SEIF 25

ANIMAL HIDES

The Gemara in Shabbos 49 says that animal hides, even those that belong to a craftsman, are not Muktza. It's not so fragile so he's not particular that it shouldn't be used for sitting on. The Magen Avraham adds that if he already put it away in storage to sell, then it's Muktza until you designate it for use (as we see in Simon 259 )

The Gemara in Beitza 11a infers that hides are Muktza. How do we reconcile the two Gemaras? Rashi differentiates between hides from small animals, which are Ussur, since they are too thin to be fit to sit on, and thick hides from bigger animals which are fit to sit on. Tosfos asks on him, we see from Daf 120a that you may spread a goat hide over a box that's on fire so that it shouldn't spread. How can he move the hide? They come from a small animal which is Muktza? Rashi must answer that the case was that the owner specifically designated that hide for some use. However, regularly without specific designation, we would only allow thick hides from bigger animal to be moved.

Rabeinu Tam differentiate between fresh hides, that still has moisture and therefore not fit to sit on. But dried hides, even from small animals, may be moved.

Bach says we must be Machmer like both views (since we cannot say that either Rashi or R' Tam is more authoritative) and only move dry hides from bigger animals. However, Elya Rabba says the Halacha is like R' Tam, since most Rishonim hold like him. The Tosfos Shabbos also Paskins like R' Tam, since we always Paskin like the later Posik. The exception of that rule is when the earlier one is more understandable to us, then we say that the Ma'ala of being a later Posik is canceled out by the Ma'alah of being better understood, and we need to be Machmer like both Shitos.

SEIF 25 (CONTINUED)

ANIMAL HIDES (CONTINUED)

According to R' Tam (that fresh, moist hides are Muktza) could you designate the fresh hides for use so they wouldn't be Muktza? The Nachlas Tzvi permits it while the Olos Tamid forbids it. He holds that it would be too unusual and unheard of that we don't consider it as a true designation (M'vatel Daato Etzel Kol Adam.)

The Elya Rabba wants to prove this Shaila from a Ran. Though the Ran holds like R' Tam, he explains the goat hide that was spread over the burning box was fresh and moist. We must say that it was designated before Shabbos, so we prove that designation works. But he rejects this proof. Since it's possible that the Ran learns like Tosfos in Zvachim that they gave special Heterim to move the hides when there is a fire (for protection.) We wouldn't permit this regularly.

Yet, the Elya Rabbah concludes that it's permitted from the Gemara in Beitza that said that there is a bigger reason for a Heter to move fresh hides on Yom Tov since it's fit to sit on. Since we see the Gemara says that it's fit to sit on, it's not logical to say that it's ultra unusual for someone to designate it for sitting.

SEIF 26

BOARDS

Though hides of craftsman are not Muktza, but their boards are. They're more particular about boards that people shouldn't handle them, since they may get warped.

SEIF 27

BONES AND PEELS

If someone is eating and leaves over bones or peels: If they're fit to feed to (common) animals then they're not Muktza and may be moved. The Magen Avraham points out that it's permitted, even though it's Nolad (originally being part of human food and now turned into animal fodder.) We Paskin that Nolad is permitted on Shabbos.

If the food is not fit for animal consumption, then it's Muktza like stones. Therefore, in order to remove it from in front of you, you'll need to shake the table/place mat to get it off. Why doesn't the table/place mat becomes a Bosis by having the Muktza on it? Magen Avraham brings down Tosfos with three answers. 1) Since you have in mind to knock it off. Bosis, in Tosfos' opinion, is only if you want it to stay on for the rest of Shabbos. 2) That there was some other Heter object on the table. The table is now a Bosis to both Heter and Issur, so it's permitted to move. 3) When it was being discarded while eating the person didn't purposely have it land on the table, it unintentionally happened to land there.

The Magen Avraham says that Tosfos' opinion that you may have a Bosis from the middle of Shabbos. He personally holds like the Baal M'or that you cannot create a Bosis in the middle of Shabbos, only if it was a Bosis at the beginning of Shabbos does it become forbidden to move. But Tosfos would admit, that if the Muktza that's on the object that became Bosis in the middle of Shabbos falls off, then it's permitted to move it afterwards. Only when something was Bosis in the beginning of Shabbos do we say that it remains Bosis the whole Shabbos even after the Muktza is removed.

SEIF 27 (CONTINUED)

BONES AND PEELS (CONTINUED)

That which we allow you to shake off the Muktza bones and peels, the Biur Halacha brings a Machlokes if you may move it to the place where you want to shake them off at or you can only shake them off at their immediate place. The Ramban says you may carry them to the oven (where you'll use them as fuel) to shake them off. The Smag and Shulchon Orech say that it should be shook off immediately.

The Biur Halacha wants to make it dependant on the two answers of the Rashba why we allow shaking it off. If the Heter is because you need it's place (to use the table/place mat) then you'll need to shake it off right away. Since you don't need to move them to any particular place, then you're not allowed to move it and must shake it off right away. But if the Heter is because the mixture of bones and peels are disgusting to you, and the Rabanan allow moving Muktza to remove disgusting things from where you're sitting, therefore just shaking it off near your seat wouldn't help. You would then be allowed to move it completely away from your place.

SEIF 27 (CONTINUED)

MOVING BONES AND PEELS WITH BREAD

In the case of bones and peels that are one the table, if there is bread also on it, you may move the table. Why don't you need to shake off the peels, even though usually you need, if possible, to shake the Muktza off before moving the Heter item? The Magen Avraham brings a Teshuvas HaRosh that says because the peels are Batul (null) to the bread, it's like it's not there, so you may move it like it doesn't exist. With this reasoning, you may even bring a bread to the table in order to move it with the peels.

The Rosh in P'sakim seems to argue on what he wrote in Teshuvos. He says that you cannot put bread on the table in order to move this. We only allow bringing bread in order to move Muktza by a corpse that's lying in an unfitting place. What you must do is spit the peels in the bread basket (where you're bringing the peels to the bread and not the bread to the peels) and carry it out with the whole basket.

But the Ramban and Ran say that there is no problem of bringing bread to carry Muktza with only if you're holding the Muktza and the bread's on top of it. In the instance that you're carrying the non-Muktza item with the Muktza on top of it, then it's permitted. It's not Bosis since you're only having it on top to throw out the Muktza. The Tosfos Shabbos asks on them that when you're carrying Muktza with non-Muktza, you should always shake off the Muktza if possible (like we'll say in Simon 309.) According to the Ramban, why are you allowed to carry the Muktza, you should always shake it off?

The Machatzis Hashekel answers: you only need to shake it off if the Muktza was put on it on purpose and you forgot to take it off before Shabbos. Since it was originally put on in order to be used as a base for the Muktza, you need to shake it off. But here, you never wanted it for a base, you just wanted the Muktza to be thrown out. In hat case you don't need to shake it off at all.

SEIF 27 (CONTINUED)

MOVING PEELS WITH A KNIFE

The Taz says that you may take a knife and scrape off the peels from a table. Since moving Muktza with a Heter item (Tiltul Min Hatzad) for the sake of a Heter item (to have a clear table) is permitted.

SEIF 28

BUNDLE OF WOOD

If you have a bundle of soft wood (that's fit to feed to your animal) you need to designate it for fodder before Shabbos. Without any designation we assume it's meant for fuel and is Muktza. the Magen Avraham says that straw in his day was mainly used for sleeping on or for fodder and is permitted to move. The Tosfos Shabbos says that these rules all depend on the regular use for the people of that area.

If you designate the bundle of wood for fodder, it's permitted to be moved even if it's very big. We Paskin not like R' Shimon that says if it's too big we wouldn't allow moving it, since it would be too strenuous to do on Shabbos.

SEIF 29

ANIMAL FODDER

The Tana Kama (of R' Shimon b. Gamliel) of our Mishna prohibited moving mustard seed on Shabbos, since it's food for doves. But the Tana Kama (of R' Shimon b. Gamliel) of the Braisa permits it. It would seem that they argue, therefore the Rashba Paskins like the Tana Kama of our Mishna. The Rambam and Rif Paskins like the Tana Kama of the Braisa (which is strange, since the Mishna is usually the main Shita.) The Ran explains that the two Tana Kamas don't argue with each other. There are no set rules whether dove food is permitted or not, it all depends on one's location. The people of the Tana Kama of our Mishna's city didn't raise doves, so their food was Muktza. But the people of the Braisa's Tana Kama's city (and also in Rif's and Rambam's city) did raise doves, therefore their food are not Muktza.

(They both argue on R' Shimon b. Gamliel that holds that all Jews are princes (from the house of Avraham) and are fit to raise exotic animals. So even though the populace at large do not raise them (only the wealthy do) still their food are not Muktza.)

SEIF 29 (CONTINUED)

BONES LEFTOVER FROM SUPPER

The Ran allows bones that are leftover from supper (that are now dog food) to be moved on Shabbos, but only if it was removed from the food on Shabbos. The Bais Yosef is bewildered by this statement. If we allow moving the bones that is leftover from the Shabbos meal, (though coming into Shabbos it's part of a human food and now it's dog food and is thus Nolad, we Paskin like R' Shimon that permit Nolad,) then we should definitely allow if the food was removed on Friday and was already dog food coming into Shabbos?

The Darkai Moshe answers that the Ran is referring to someone who doesn't have dogs. The Magen Avraham adds that there are plenty of dogs in that area, just that he personally doesn't have one. Therefore we only permit to move it when it's permitted to move them at the beginning of Shabbos due to the food that on them.

The Dagal Mervava answers that we only allow it in order to clear the table after eating on Shabbos, which wouldn't apply if it was eaten Friday, since you were able to clear it then too.

But we don't Paskin like the Ran anyhow. The Rama says that you can move the bones even if they were separated from the food on Friday as held by the Bais Yosef and not like the Ran.

SEIF 30

DATE PITS

Many Amareim only moved date pits by carrying it with a loaf of bread. The Rishonim give the reason, though it was animal food, since many areas didn't feed them for their animals. Therefore they were stringent to only move them in this manner where it looks like you're just carrying the bread and the pits where inconsequential part of the carrying.

The Levush gives the reason since it's not regular animal fodder, but only used when necessary like when you don't have anything else, that's why they were so stringent.

quote:

(though coming into Shabbos it's part of a human food and now it's dog food and is thus Nolad, we Paskin like R' Shimon that permit Nolad,)

Since it existed before the start of Shabbos, and kal v'chomer if a person could eat it, then a dog could eat it, how can we say it is nolad dog food?

...

I understand a little bit that by Yom Tov we have a problem with bones that were not acessible at the start of Yom Tov, that they are mukzeh for Yom Tov, but would not be mukzeh for Shabbos. I hope that this subtle difference can be clarified.

Quote "Since it existed before the start of Shabbos, and kal v'chomer if a person could eat it, then a dog could eat it, how can we say it is nolad dog food?"

It had change entities. In the beginning of Shabbos it was a "pulka" (drumstick.) After eating it, the drumstick is no longer in existence. What you have left is another entity in its place, a dog bone, that didn't exist beforehand in this capacity, so we view it as a separate entity.

Quote "they are mukzeh for Yom Tov, but would not be mukzeh for Shabbos. I hope that this subtle difference can be clarified."

Since YT is much more lenient than Shabbos, the Chachumim felt people won't take it as seriously, so they made this stringency to YT to forbid Nolad.

SEIF 31

RAW MEAT

The Gemara in Shabbos 128a says Rav Huna permits moving raw meat and Rav Chisda prohibits it. Rav Chisda admits that raw fowl is permitted since one can eat it raw. Rashi explains Rav Huna that the reason why raw meat is permitted, because it's edible raw. The Tur says because it's able to be fed to dogs.

SEIF 32

RAW FISH

Salty fish is permitted to move, because it's edible but raw fish is prohibited. Rashi explains, though it's edible to dogs, since you don't intend to give it to the dogs. Since for what it's intended for, which is human consumption, it's not fit, so it's Muktza. The Tur (and Tosfos in his first explanation) explain that the fish are not edible even to dogs. (Rashi holds in order that it shouldn't be Muktza it must be fit for it's intended use while the Tur holds as long as it's fit for some use it's not Muktza.)

Rav Akiva Eiger points out, that even like Rashi, if you decide to give the meat to a dog on Shabbos, then it's not Muktza anymore. We don't say that since it's Muktza on the beginning of Shabbos (during twilight) it's Muktza the whole Shabbos, since he didn't purposely make it unusable. (We only prohibit it by the case of lighting a candle, that the lighting made it unusable. Or by the case of half dried raisins and figs that you made them inedible by spreading them in the sun.)

SEIF 31 AND 32 (CONTINUED)

RAW MEAT (CONTINUED)

The Magen Avraham says in the name of the Baal Ma'or and Yeraim that only raw fowl may be moved, since they're soft and able to be eaten (just like Rav Chisda's Shita-Pri Migadim.)

The Taz argues. Raw meat is permitted even if it's not edible for humans, since it's fit for dogs. Even Rashi would agree to this. When Rashi writes that it needs to be fit for human consumption was to explain Rav Chisda who held like R' Yehuda that's strict by Muktza. R' Yehuda holds that you need the food to be fit for what it's intended for. R' Shimon (who we Paskin like) would hold that all you need is the food to be fit, it wouldn't matter for what.

The Elya Rabbah agrees and brings a proof from the Gemara that allows moving mustard seeds because they're edible for doves though they're only intended for humans when they're made into mustard.

The Gra says that the Gemara in many places writes that raw meat are fit for human consumption. There is no prohibition because of the blood that's inside it. Blood that are naturally inside a piece of meat is permitted to eat. the Torah only prohibits the blood that comes out. Therefore he prefers the Rif's and Rambam's Girsa that Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue on meat that spoiled on Shabbos and is no longer for people to eat. This depends on the Machlokes if Nolad is permitted. Rav Chisda admits that fowl that is somewhat spoiled is permitted to move, since it's soft, it's still edible.

The Biur Halacha says that you may rely on the Gra that raw meat are edible and may be moved. But things that are not now edible for people, like cold fats, though they're edible for dogs, since they're intended for human consumption, you shouldn't move it.

The Magen Avraham says that a Goy that kills his animal on Shabbos, the meat is permitted to give to your dogs. This is no worse than an animal that dies on Shabbos. Also, there is no Muktza on a Goy's property. As long as the object at this point is fit for use, even if it wasn't at the beginning of Shabbos, it's not Muktza.

SEIF 33

AN AMULET

The Rambam writes that an amulet that was not proven to work may be moved on Shabbos (though it can't be worn outside.) The Magen Avraham says that permitting to move it implies that wearing it is prohibited even within a Karmulas. The reason is because it's carrying. This is gleaned from Rashi. He says the reason why proven amulets are permitted is because they're like jewelry. This implies unproven ones are not like jewelry, but rather a burden. This that someone is not Chayiv a Chatos for going out with an unproven amulet, though if it doesn't work it's a burden. Still, since it might work, it could be like jewelry, and you can't bring a Chatos because of a Safeik. This is not like the Mahrshal that holds that its like jewelry. The Magen Avraham further asks on him, that if it's definitely not a burden, then why can't animals go out with them. there is no Issur D'rabanans that apply to animals, only by acts done by humans.

The Elya Rabba agrees with the Mahrshal. The Mahrshal learns this from a simple implication that the Mishna that says he's not Chayiv a Chatos. This implies that there is no Chiyuv whatsoever, even a Safeik. If it would exempt someone from bringing a Chatos because of a Safeik, it should have read "he's exempt from a Chatos." Also, the implication from the Rambam is that it's like wearing clothing.

(The reason why it would be prohibited MiDarabanan to go out with it is like the Sfas Emes says. Either like the Meiri, that you may take it off in the R'Shus Harabim.. But if it's proven, then someone wouldn't take it off, since he wants to make sure it would heal him. Or the reason they were Gozer. that it looks like a burden. But if it's proven to work the Rabanan weren't Gozer. they made a special exemption because you need it to heal.)

The Tosfos Shabbos argues with the Magen Avraham's implication. The Rambam doesn't mean to imply that moving is permitted but wearing it outside, even in a Karmulas, is forbidden. Rather, it's saying, you may move it even when you're not wearing it. Since it's a utensil like all other utensils, there is no Muktza on it. Even though the Mishna forbids an animal to wear it, the Mishna could be like those who say that the Rabanan were Gozer Dirabanans even by animals.

SEIF 34

HUMAN WASTE

Our text in Shabbos 121b reads: human waste may be moved on Shabbos, since they're fit to be eaten by dogs. Chicken waste are Muktza, but in a courtyard it's permitted to move. (This Heter is known as Geraf Shel Rei (chamber pot.) Any disgusting item that is around where people dwell can be moved so that they don't have to have something disgusting being around them.) If it's found in the garbage heap in the courtyard (where people don't dwell) it's forbidden to move.

But the text of the Rif and the Rambam says that both human and chicken waste are Muktza and can only be moved with the Heter of "Geraf." Why then does it mention human waste in accord to being in the courtyard and can be moved and the chicken's waste in the garbage heap (since both Halachos applies to both of them equally?) Answers the Ran, since usually humans are found in the courtyard and chickens have other places designated for them. So the Gemara is giving a common example.

The Shulchon Orech Paskins like the Girsa of Rif and Rambam. The Magen Avraham says, that if you really need to, you may rely on our Girsa that human waste is not Muktza. The Gra holds the Rif's Girsa doesn't fit so well, since they should have combined the cases (of human and chicken waste) since their Halachos are the same. The Ran's answer is lacking. It's not enough of a reason to split the case. But the Mishna Brurah doesn't bring any of this, and leaves the Halacha like the Shulchon Orech.

SEIF 34 (CONTINUED)

GERAF SHEL REI

Where we allow someone to remove something disgusting, not only in the case of the chamber pot where you're carrying the disgusting item with a utensil, but even when you handle the item directly. This is learned from Rav Ashi allowing to remove a dead mouse by it's tail.

The Magen Avraham says if a chamber pot becomes full and there's no place to facilitate, it may be emptied. They allow this because of Kavod Habriyos (human dignity.)

The Magen Avraham says that the location of the Geraf that can be moved is not only in a place where people dwell, but even in a place where people walk.

Even if it's in a place where you don't dwell and you can't move it, you can cover it with a utensil so children won't get soiled when they go there. The Tosfos Shabbos says that the Chidush is that we're not worried if we allow you to cover it, he'll come to move it directly. The Mishna Brura says the Chidush is that you may move utensil even for the need of something that is Muktza.

SEIF 35

RETURNING A GERAF SHEL REI

Even though we allow removing the Geraf, we prohibit bringing it back. Even though it's a utensil, since it's so disgusting it's not fit for any use, like covering another utensil with it. The Mishna Brurah adds that this is only the case for earthenware chamber pots, but metal ones do not absorb the smell, and could be used for other jobs. (This is compared to the Halacha of not making a Beracha in front of an empty and clean earthenware chamber pot , but you're allowed to in front of a metal one.)

In order to bring it back, you need to fill it with water, and therefore it may be moved because of the water inside of it. The Rashba points out that it must be fit for an animal to drink or the water becomes useless and no better than the chamber pot itself. Rashba and R' Yeruchem say that this Heter is only when you need the return of the chamber pot to use again. (The Magen Avraham says that use would be to relieve himself on it. The Nesiv Chaim asks that it would be permitted anyhow, like the Magen Avraham writes (and brought down last Shiur) because of human dignity. Rather the use here would be to remove more waste that was piling up someplace.) But without that, we don't allow regularly Muktza to be moved by placing non Muktza on it except for a dead body.

Rosh doesn't make any distinction why you're returning it. The Mahrai answers (why the Rosh allows moving the chamber pot with a non Muktza) that they also made an exception by the chamber pot. If you will have to leave it in a place where it might get broken or stolen, you'll refrain from removing it. The Elya Rabbah deduces from this that if it's a safe place, then the Rosh wouldn't allow returning it.

The Magen Avraham doesn't like the Mahrai's answer. He offers his own answer that a chamber pot is different since it's a utensil. the Rosh's Shita (which was brought in Seif 5) that we may move utensils that a non Muktza was put on it. The Elya Rabbah and Tosfos Shabbos asks on this: but the chamber pot is totally Muktza and everyone the above Heter doesn't apply to it. This could be compared to a candlestick that had a candle lit on Shabbos that cannot be moved at all, even with a non Muktza object. We only allow moving a utensil which main purpose is for Issur with Heter to a safe place, since it can be moved by itself to use or to use it's place. The Machtzes Hashekel answers, that since they allowed the chamber pot to be moved in order to clear it, it's not totally Muktza like rocks and money, which are always Muktza.

The Magen Avraham says, if the chamber pot is still in his hand, he may return it without putting water in it. This is based on his Shita that all Muktza, once moved, may be moved to wherever you want as long as it's still in your hand. The Elya Rabbah asks, if so, why do they need to make a Heter of putting water in it to bring it back? All you need is to keep it in your hand and you can bring it back. The Pri Megadim that we're afraid that he'll forget and put it down for a moment and wouldn't be able to bring it back afterwards.

SEIF 36

MAKING A GERAF

One is forbidden to make something disgusting on Shabbos since it will cause the Heter of "Geraf." We don't want to permit it only if it happened to be there and not to create the situation by ourselves. The Magen Avraham points out that even if his intent was not to make the Geraf, but for some other reason, it's still prohibited. This is learnt from the prohibition to invite a goy on Shabbos to eat. Since the leftovers of his cup is Muktza (they're Yayin Nesech) but they would be allowed to move it since it would be disgusting to just leave it there. Even though you're intentions to invite him is because you want his company, still, since it would create a Geraf, it's prohibited. The Biur Halacha says that if the situation won't definitely make a Geraf, it's permitted, even if it's possible that a Geraf will come out.

The Rambam says that if B'Dieved you made a Geraf, it's permissible to move it. This is deduced from the prohibition to make a Geraf on Shabbos. If B'Dieved you wouldn't be able to move it anyway, what's the problem of creating one?