SEIF 37

MAKING A GERAF IF IT WOULD CAUSE A LOSS

The Gemara in Beitza 36b says that Abeye's mill had water dripping on it and turning it to clay. Rabbah allowed Abaye to move his bed there. Since he was now dwelling next to the dissolving mill that was becoming disgusting, he was allowed to move it because it was a Geraf. Even though we usually prohibit creating a situation of a Geraf in order to move Muktza, Tosfos says we're lenient where it would cause a financial loss. The Rosh answers that you're not creating a Geraf, rather the Geraf was already formed by the drip on the mill. Since there was already a Geraf, there is no problem to settle yourself there to move it. The Gra says we must act stringent like both answers. The Biur Halacha says, therefore we cannot create a Geraf, even if there is a loss.

The Rosh says that you don't have to put specifically your bed there. You can put your table there too. It just has to be comparable to a bed, that there is an established place to dwell and not temporarily sitting there by it. The Bais Yosef and Magen Avraham point out that this Heter is when there is no dwelling there. Obviously, if it's a place where people dwell, you don't need to do anything and it may be removed immediately.

quote:

Rabbah allowed Abaye to move his bed there. Since he was now dwelling next to the dissolving mill that was becoming disgusting, he was allowed to move it because it was a Geraf.

What is it exactly he was now allowed to move, since he had been allowed to move his bed there, that we was not allowed to move otherwise?

quote:

What is it exactly he was now allowed to move, since he had been allowed to move his bed there, that we was not allowed to move otherwise?

The mill. It's a Kli Shemalachto L'Issur and cannot be moved to save it. Therfore moving your bed there creates a Geraf, that the desolving mill is disgusting to you to stay there, so you're allowed to move the mill to remove the disgust, but at the same time, saving it from being completely ruined by the leak.

Could I please have a more vivid description of what is a mill exactly?

I believe mill stones are described in a few places.

I would envision a mill in modern times as a non-movable factory-like building.

In the time of the gemara perhaps it was an outdoor device powered by oxen walking around in a circle with 2 grinding stones? What parts of it would be at risk of ruin from rain? And furthermore what about its desolving is disgusting?

I'm not sure. It seems from the Sugya that something there is made out of clay, but more than that I don't know much about their mills. I just have to take their word for it

SEIF 38

DIRT

Someone can bring in a basket of dirt on Erev Shabbos in order to cover spit or other disgusting objects on the floor. By designating it for this use makes it no longer Muktza. The Magen Avraham brings the Gemara that even those that hold (as brought in Seif 21) that to desigante an object to be a utensil you must do something to it to make it more usable, would admit to this Halacha. This applies only to objects that there is something that you can do to it. Dirt, since there is nothing to do to it in order to make it more usable, you can move it just by designating it.

The Tosfos Shabbos points out that this Svara is needed even according to the Ran that says that you don't need to do anything to an object as long as you designate them forever. By dirt, since they're used for one time (after you sprinkle it, it cannot be used again) it has the Halacha of an object that was only designated for one Shabbos, and if it was possible to do something to it you would be required to.

When it was brought into the house, wasn't it put into a special container for that purpose? Isn't this "doing something" to it?

Its certainly different than taking a shovel and digging outside as soon as it was needed.

These days would it be preferable to purchase a special bag of kitty litter or garage absorb-all which are clay pellets designed to absorb spills and odors?

quote:

When it was brought into the house, wasn't it put into a special container for that purpose? Isn't this "doing something" to it?

You're not doing anything to the actual dirt to improve it anyway.

quote:

These days would it be preferable to purchase a special bag of kitty litter or garage absorb-all which are clay pellets designed to absorb spills and odors?

I don't think so. This is Halachically OK (and not just Shas Hadchak) so why shouldn't he be able to do it L'Chatchila

SEIF 38 (CONTINUED)

DIRT (CONTINUED)

The basket of dirt must be dumped in a corner. Rashi explains, that if it was dumped in the middle of the floor, it would loose it's own entity and become part of the floor and may not be moved. R' Akiva Eiger says in the name of the Neziras Shimshon that if it's not a dirt floor, but wood or stone floors, you may put it in the middle. The dirt will never become part of the floor, since it's a different material and is noticeably a different entity.

The Biur Halacha argues. He says that Rashi stresses that the dirt will loose it's entity by trampling, which applies by all floors. Also, we see in 498:7 that it says that the fact that the dirt is not strewn on the floor shows that that it's designated for use. So if it's in middle of the floor and is trampled doesn't show this. Even the Tur that writes that in the middle the dirt looses it's entity to the dirt floor, maybe it's not specifically a dirt floor but it means to include all floors.

The Tosfos Shabbos says that the dirt needs to be loose (that when taken some of it, the rest will fall into the hole) or that you take the dirt evenly without making a hole. But if a hole is formed it's prohibited. Creating a hole in a mound of dirt looks like you're building.

SEIF 39

TURNING OVER A BASKET FOR CHICKS TO GO ON

Even though all living things are Muktza, you're allowed to place an upside down basket in front of the chicken coup to allow chicks to get down the big step via the basket . Rashi says the Chidush is that you may move a utensil for the sake of a Muktza object. When the chick is on it, it's Bosis (a base to Muktza) and can't be moved. If it's on it the whole twilight going into Shabbos, it remains Muktza the whole Shabbos even after the chick is no longer on the basket.

Tosfos Shabbos quotes Tosfos that we don't consider letting the chicks go on the basket as Mivatel Kli MeiHachonoy (making it Muktza in middle of Shabbos. This looks like you're breaking the utensil, since you can't use it any more.) This is because you can always shoo them off at any moment, therefore it's always ready for use.

The Taz says, even where moving the animal doesn't involve the Melacha of capturing, it's still prohibited because it's Muktza. Rabbi Akiva Eiger says in the name of Tosfos, that even chicks are Muktza, though they can be used to calm down a crying child. The Mishna Brurah says you can't move it even if it will lead to a financial loss. As the Magen Avraham in Simon 334 says that they didn't permit moving Muktza to avoid a loss.

quote:

This is because you can always shoo them off at any moment,

Is there no prohibition, or risk, of shooing them away?

What if they belong to someone else and walk the wrong direction, say toward a fox, rather than toward their coup?

Would the person then become obligated to return the lost animals, similar to the case in Bava Metzia?

Quote "What if they belong to someone else and walk the wrong direction, say toward a fox, rather than toward their coup?

Would the person then become obligated to return the lost animals, similar to the case in Bava Metzia?"

We're talking in the case that this is in a private farm and enclosed, all you're doing is using this as a step to the coup. I don't think shooing it off the basket would in anyway jeopardize the animal.

http://limudtorah.jewishweb.org

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

SEIF 40

GUIDING ANIMALS

You're allowed to hold an animal or fowl (except chickens) by it's neck in a courtyard and lead them back to their place. Chickens may be pushed back but not held by their necks. Rashi says the problem is that chickens jump up and you'll be carrying the whole chicken that is Muktza. Other fowl, like geese, would just walk along. Rambam says the problem is that the chicken will slip away, leaving feathers in your hand, which would be plucking feathers on Shabbos.

The Magen Avraham brings the Raavad that disagrees with the Rambam. The Magen Avraham says the reason for the Raavad's disagreement because there was no intent to pluck. This is the reason in Simon 498 we permit to pull the hairs by an animal's neck on Yom Tov in order to make a place to Shecht and we're not worried you' pull out some hairs. This is also the reason why we allow a Nazir to scrub his hair when he washes it and we're not afraid he'll pull out his hair.

The Elya Rabbah says that the Rambam must have learnt that it would be inevitable to be plucked, thus it's prohibited even without intent. The Tosfos Shabbos says that it's almost inevitable, which is also prohibited even without intent. This we see from not opening a door adjacent to a flame, maybe the wind will blow it out. The Mahrsha says that it cannot be completely inevitable, since there wouldn't be anyone that argues (but this is a Machlokes Tanayim.) So it must be almost inevitable. The Machlokes is whether or not that has the same Halacha as being completely inevitable and we Paskin that it's forbidden. This is not comparable to the case of pulling hairs to make space for Shechita. Over there it's done gently and is very likely no hair would be pulled out. But here, where the chicken is slipping away from you abruptly, then it's almost inevitable that feathers won't be pulled out.

The Tosfos Shabbos continues and says the reason Rambam didn't want to learn like Rashi, since it's only a chance that you might move Muktza, which is a Dirabanan, we shouldn't be so strict.

The Nafka Mina between Rashi and Rambam, that according to Rashi, if you can't push it, they'll allow you to lead it. Since we see that they gave Heterim for Muktza in this case (for the reason we'll mention later), they would allow him to move the chicken if there is no other choice. But according to the Rambam, we never see that the Rabanan allowed any chance of plucking for any reason, therefore we wouldn't allow leading it even if it's impossible to do pushing.

SEIF 40 (CONTINUED)

LEADING ANIMALS (CONTINUED)

We said that one is allowed to lead most animals by their necks on Shabbos back to their proper place, as long as you don't pick them up. Even though we're not allowed to move even part of something that is Muktza (like we see you can't move a single limb of a dead body) still they allowed moving the animal, though you're making the neck move. The Ran explains that they made an exception because of Tzar Baalei Chaim.

The Bach and Elyah Rabba says that pushing from behind is permitted even to avoid financial loss, but may not be done for no reason.

SEIF 40 (CONTINUED)

LEADING IN A KARMILOS

The Tur writes that only in a courtyard did the Rambanan allow leading an animal, not in a Karmalus. There we are worried maybe you'll be carrying it if it jumps off the ground. The Bais Yosef asks why should we prohibit it? We have a rule that we don't make a Gezairah for a Gezairah (we don't make a decree to help keep another decree.) Since the whole problem of leading an animal is because you'll come to carry it and a Karmalus is only a Dirabanan. Therefore we shouldn't prohibit leading in a Karmalus. But in a R'shus Harabaim, of course it would be prohibited. The Magen Avraham points out that we Paskin that someone is Chayiv for carrying animals and we don't say your exempt because they carry themselves (that they're live weight.)

The Tosfos Shabbos answers that there are many things that the Rabanan we're Goizer on a Gezairah. We say the reason why we do that is that we consider it as one long Gezairah. Similarly in Simon 303 that there is a Shita that forbids going out with jewelery (which is only a Gezairah Dirabanan) in a courtyard that doesn't have an Eiruv. The Tur takes the implication of the Gemara that allows leading them in a courtyard to mean but a Karmalus not.

SEIF 40 (CONTINUED)

WHICH ANIMALS MAY NOT BE LEAD IN R'SHUS HARABIM

The Rambam and Tur doesn't differentiate between animals and Paskin that all animals are prohibited to lead in a R'Shus Harabim. The Ran permits with larger animals, like calves and young donkeys, to lead them back. This is compared to the Heter of helping your young son to walk in R'Shus Harabim (as we'll explain in next Seif.) The only prohibition to lead are smaller animals that it's hard for them to walk and you'll come to lift them.

The Elya Rabbah says that the Poskim quote the Shita of the Rambam, so it would seem that it's the Halacha that all animals are prohibited. The Mishna Brurah wants to permit leading a calf or young donkey in a Karmalus. He wants to combine the Shitas Beis Yosef that a Karmalus is permitted, since it's a Gezarah to a Gezarah, plus the Ran's Shita that larger animals are permitted even in the R'Shus Harabim.

SEIF 41

WALKING WITH A YOUNG CHILD

A woman is allowed to hold the hand of her child to help him walk in a R'Shus Harabim. As long as the child puts down one foot and lifts the other foot. It's prohibited to drag him with both feet down. The Ran says that a child that too young to walk, you're Chayiv if you drag him. We don't say that a human carries himself (live weight) by such a child. Rabeinu Yeruchim holds it's only a rabbinical Issur. The Magen Avraham says the Nafka Mina between them if it's permitted to drag him in a Karmilos. According to the Ran, since it's regular carrying, it's only one Gezaira of carrying in a Karmulos. According to Rabeinu Yeruchem, since the carrying is a Dirabanan and the place is a Dirabanan, it's a Gezaira for a Gezaira and it is permitted. The Magen Avraham Paskins like the Ran and prohibits in a Karmalos.

The Biur Halacha says that even Rabeinu Yeruchum would prohibit it in a Karmalos. Since this is carrying, it's under the general prohibition of carrying in a Karmalos, even though it's only a rabbinic carrying. A Gezaira for a Gezaira is only prohibited when the action has nothing to do with carrying, rather that it may come to carrying. Since it's only a Gezaira you'll come to carry in a Karmalos that's only a Gezaira that you'll come to carry in a R'Shus Harabim, the Rabanan weren't Goizer.

SEIF 41 (CONTINUED)

WALKING A CHILD IN R'SHUS HARABIM (CONTINUED)

The Elya Rabbah writes that the Machlokes between the Ran and R' Yeruchum (whether carrying a child too young to walk is Chayiv) is also a contradiction between Tosfosim. In Shabbos 94a Tosfos brings from 141b says carrying a child is Chayiv, while here by leading a child it implies even if you carry it you're exempt. Tosfos answers that you're only Chayiv if the child is too young (to walk themselves.) Yet, in 130b Tosfos says a child eight days old there is no Chiyuv for carrying him.

The Tosfos Shabbos, with the Girsa of the Mahrshal on 94a, says there is no contradiction between Tosfos. In 94, Tosfos is referring to a one day old child. Only a one day old do we say that your Chayiv for carrying. Since it just came out of the mother with a lot of contractions, we consider it as sickly, since it could have smashed some of his limbs on the way out. For this reason we don't allow Shechting on Yom Tov a one day old (even if we know that it lasted the whole gestation period and is not a Nefel) since it might have made it a Treifa through smashing its limbs. All agree by sick people (or those that are tied up) that carrying them are Chayiv, since it's hard for them to move themselves. The Mishna Brurah, however, concludes that most Shitos hold that you're Chayiv by carrying out a child that can't walk himself.

CARRYING A LIVE PERSON

The Magen Avraham says that the Halacha that the living carry themselves, that's only for themselves (Tosfos Shabbos says also for their clothing they're exempt, since they're Batul (secondary) to the person.) But if he has a pocketbook draped on him, he's Chayiv for the pocketbook, since it's not Batul to the person.

If someone carries out a dead person, he's exempt for everything. For the dead body you're exempt, since it's Malacha She'ein Tzricha L'Gufo. (You don't need the dead body, but rather you want to remove it from yourself.) For the pocketbook you're also exempt, since at the time of sorrow it has no value to you and you Mivatel it to the dead body.

SEIF 42 AND 43

TOUCHING MUKTZA

Mordichai says in the name of the Maharam that it's permitted to touch Muktza. The Ran says but you may not move even part of an object that is Muktza. This we learn from the Halacha of not moving any limbs of a dead body.

Mahrit allows blowing Muktza. This is akin to moving Muktza with some other part of your body besides your hands.

SEIF 44

BRAKING OFF A PIECE OF A BROKEN VESSEL

Rambam prohibits breaking off a shard off a broken vessel to use it to cover another vessel. Tosfos Shabbos explains that this is the Malacha of making a utensil, since you now formed a bottle cover.

SEIF 45

BALLS

The Shevulei HaLeket prohibits moving balls, since they're not usable to cover utensils. The Bais Yosef explains that it becomes too dirty from the dirt and mud that it rolls around in. The Tosfos Shabbos explains that if it wouldn't be too dirty, then people would have a dual purpose for it, playing ball and using it to cover utensils and to play ball. Since it's dirty and not designated to cover utensils, its only use is to play ball.

The Magen Avraham explains this Shita that we do not consider playing as a real use and therefore cannot be classified as a utensil so it's Muktza. It's like stones that we say in Seif 21 that it doesn't help to designate it for use for one Shabbos. The Elya Rabbah says that the implication of the Shevulei HaLeket is, that a ball is a utensil. He just holds that moving it for play is considered frivolous enough to consider it as moving for no reason, which is prohibited even for a Kli Shemalachto LeHeter (a utensil which its main use is permitted on Shabbos.)