To purchase this Sefer, click here
11. The laws of vessels which have broken on Shabbos:
A. What is the status of the pieces of a non-Muktzah vessel that shattered on Shabbos?
- If the pieces are fit to cover a vessel:[1]
All vessels which are permitted to be moved [i.e. are not Muktzah] that broke on Shabbos, and the broken pieces are no longer fit to be used for a purpose similar to their original purpose, but rather [are now only fit] for a completely different purpose, such as for example the broken pieces of a kneading bowl [that are now only fit to use] to cover the opening of a barrel, and the broken pieces of glass [that are now only fit to be used] to cover the opening of a jar, and so too all cases of the like, then this is considered Nolad, as a new vessel was created on Shabbos and is permitted [to be moved] on Shabbos.[2]
The law on Yom Tov:[3] However on Yom Tov [it is forbidden to move] unless [the vessel] broke before Yom Tov in which case it was already prepared for another use from before Yom Tov and is not considered to have been created anew [on Yom Tov].
If the vessel broke in a public area:[4] A piece of earthenware which broke off a vessel, whether it [broke] during the week or on Shabbos and it is fit to [use to] cover a vessel, then it is permitted to be moved even in an area where there are no available vessels to be covered by it, such as for example if the pieces are found it in a public domain, [then nevertheless] it is permitted to move them within a four cubit radius [of the piece[5]], since these pieces have the status of a vessel when in a courtyard that has vessels [which can be covered].
How large of a piece do the broken pieces have to be to be considered still fit for a use:[6] This same law applies [also] with pieces of other broken vessels [that if they are fit to cover a vessel, then they are not Muktzah, even if they are in a public domain]. However by other vessels there are those of them which their broken pieces are forbidden to be moved unless they are a large enough size[7], such as for example the broken pieces of a kneading bowl [need to be large enough] to be fit to cover the opening of a barrel, however if they are not [large enough to be] fit cover the opening of a barrel, then even if they are [large enough to be] fit to cover the opening of a vessel that is smaller than a barrel, [nevertheless] they do not have the status of a vessel at all.
The reason for this is:[8] because the small broken pieces of a kneading bowl are usually thrown away into the trash, [as][9] it is not usual at all to designate them as covers for the opening of a vessel smaller than a barrel. However, a piece of earthenware, even if it is small, is sometimes common to designate it as a cover for the opening of a small vessel, [and] therefore it retains the status of a vessel even if one did not yet designate it [to be a cover].
May one move items that do not have the status of a vessel if they are fit to be used as a covering[10]? Not on every item was [the above ruling] said, that if fit to cover a vessel then it has the status of a vessel, rather [it was] only [said] regarding broken pieces of vessels, as since they already had the status of a complete vessel when they were whole, therefore we do not retract that status from them even when they brake as long as they are still fit to be used as a cover. However, anything which does not have any relation to being a complete vessel, such as for example pebbles or stones and the like, [then] even if they are fit to be used as a cover for vessels, [nevertheless] they do not receive the status of a vessel just because of this, and it is thus forbidden to move them even in order to use them or in order to use their space, as explained. For this reason, it is necessary to warn the public which transgress[11] and take a piece of wood which is not a vessel to place on it a board to lie on, and [do] other matters of the like.
- If the broken pieces are still fit for their original purpose:[12]
If the broken pieces are [still] fit to be used for a purpose similar to their original purpose, such as for example the broken pieces of a kneading bowl [which is still fit] to pour in it thick soup which is similar to dough which is mixed with water for which is the purpose of the kneading bowl, or [for example] broken pieces of glass [which are still fit] to pour oil in to, then this is not considered Nolad and is permitted to be moved even if they broke on Yom Tov.
- If the broken pieces are no longer fit for any use:[13]
[However] if the broken pieces are not fit for any purpose, then they are completely Muktzah being that they no longer have the status of a vessel on them at all, and it is thus forbidden to move them on Shabbos, whether [the vessel] broke on Shabbos or whether it broke on a weekday.
On Yom Tov[14]: However Yom Tov, if it broke from before Yom Tov then it is permitted to move them in order to fuel a fire if the [material of the broken pieces] are fit for this, just like that it is permitted to move on Yom Tov other woods which are set aside for fuel even though that [these woods] do not have the status of a vessel.
B. What is the status of the pieces of a Muktzah vessel that shattered on Shabbos?[15]
All the above is referring to a vessel that is permitted to be moved [i.e. is not Muktzah] which has broken. However a vessel which is Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis which broke, then even though the broken pieces are not Muktzah Machamas Chisaron Kis[16], [nevertheless] if it broke on Shabbos or Yom Tov then it is forbidden to move them that day.
The reason for this is because: once [the vessel] has been set aside from one’s mind[17] by Bein Hashmashos [of Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov] being that the Muktzah vessel was still whole, it is considered set aside [from one mind] for the entire day [of Shabbos or Yom Tov], as is explained in Halacha 3.
C. If the pieces of the broken vessel were thrown out:[18]
Before Shabbos:[19] If a [piece] was broken off a vessel, [any vessel,] during the week and one threw it away before Shabbos, then it is forbidden to move [that piece] on Shabbos, since one has set aside [his intention] to [never use it to] cover vessels with, and has thus nullified it from having the status of a vessel anymore.
Are the thrown out pieces Muktzah even for paupers?[20] [Furthermore] even if [the piece] is fit for paupers to use as a cover for vessels, and its only that the owner is rich and threw it out [regardless], nevertheless it is forbidden to be moved by all the paupers in the world, being that the [status of a vessel] always goes in accordance to [the status that it has for] its owner, as explained [in 308 Halacha 41 and 89].
If the pieces of the broken vessel were thrown out on Shabbos:[21] However if one threw [the piece] into the trash on Shabbos, then it is [still] permitted to be moved, being that it had the status of a vessel by Bein Hashmashos [of Erev Shabbos], which is the beginning of the entrance of Shabbos [and as explained the status of a vessel is determined by what its status was by Bein Hashmashos of Shabbos].[22]
|
Summary-Broken pieces that were thrown in the trash: If a vessel broke before Shabbos and had its pieces thrown in the garbage before Shabbos, then those pieces are Muktzah whether or not they are commonly used for another purpose. This applies whether or not the owner which discarded the pieces is wealthy or a pauper.[23] If, however, the pieces were only thrown out on Shabbos, then if they are at times commonly used for a purpose they are not Muktzah.[24]
Q&A on thrown in garbage If the broken pieces are still fit for their original use, do they become Mukztah if thrown in the garbage before Shabbos?[25] Yes.
If one threw out a perfectly working vessel, such as a pot, is it Muktzah?[26] No. Even if one threw out before Shabbos, it is not Muktzah as it has an intended use for all, and therefore we apply the rule of “Batul Daato” to the owner who discarded it.[27]
Is used disposable cutlery Muktzah?[28] All disposable cutllery which has been used has the same status as the broken pieces of a vessel that is still fit for some use[29], and thus they are not Muktzah on Shabbos whether they were used on Shabbos or before Shabbos. If one threw it into the garbage on or before Shabbos?[30] If a used disposable vessel was thrown in the garbage before Shabbos, then it is considered Muktzah.[31] If, however, they were thrown out on Shabbos then some Poskim[32] rule they are not Muktzah. However other Poskim[33] rule that they are now Mukztah.
Are vessels thrown into recycling Muktzah? Seemingly it is Muktzah as being that recyclables are reprocessed it is perhaps similar to throwing them in the garbage.
Is a used tissue Muktzah? Seemingly it is Muktzah. This matter requires further analysis.
May one move a wet tissue or napkin? Tzaruch Iyun as if the entire napkin is soaked it may not be touched due to squeezing, and hence perhaps is Muktzah. Furthermore, even if the napkin is not fully wet and can be held from a dry spot, perhaps it is Muktzah due to that now it serves no more use.
Is Sheimos which is in a bin Muktzah?[34] If they were placed there from before Shabbos, then they are Muktzah. However a full Sefer which is in good enough condition that most people would still keep is not considered Muktzah even if placed in genizah from before Shabbos. |
D. May one move Muktzah items if they are a safety hazard?[35]
All broken pieces which are forbidden to move, even those which are not fit for any purpose [at all], [nevertheless] if they are found in an area that is able to cause damage, such as for example a glass vessel which broke on a table or in a place where people walk, then it is permitted to move the broken pieces in order clear it from the area, and thus prevent a safety hazard to the public. See above Halacha 3[I] for the full details of this law!!!
The reason for this is: because in a circumstance [that not moving an object will cause] a safety hazard to the public, the [Sages] did not make the decree of the Muktzah prohibition, [they did] not even [apply the decree against] carrying in a Karmalis [in such a situation], as is explained [in Halacha 49].
Broken earthenware vessels do not cause a safety hazard: However broken pieces of an earthenware vessel which [has broken in a way that it no longer is fit for any use and thus] is forbidden to remove [from ones table or area that people walk, as earthenware pieces are not hazardous].
[Now] even though that [if they are not removed] people will walk on them and break them [even more, and thus we should remove them in order so they not transgress the prohibition of breaking things on Shabbos, nevertheless it may not be removed as in truth] there is no problem in further breaking it, as the prohibition of breaking earthenware only applies when one intentionally breaks it so that it be fit for [another type of] use, in which case it is prohibited because by doing so he is creating[36] a vessel, as is explained in chapter 310[37] .
E. Vessels which have disassembled on Shabbos:
- Moving the detached part [as opposed to the item itself]:[38]
May one move the doors of vessels which have become detached?[39] All the vessels which have permanent doors on them, whether the doors are on the side [of the vessel] or whether they are a lid on top of the vessel, and the doors became detached from them, then whether they were detached on Shabbos, [or] whether they were detached from before Shabbos, it is permitted to move these doors [on Shabbos for any purpose, even to save from damage[40]].
The reason for this is:[41] because when these doors were attached to the vessel, these doors also received the status of a vessel due to the vessel that they were attached to[42], and due to this even if they afterwards become detached from the vessel, the vessel status which they had already received does not leave them, because they [still] remain fit to be returned and be reattached to the vessels. [See Summary and footnote for other opinions]
May the door of a house that has come off the hinges be moved?[43] However the doors of one’s house which have come off [from the hinges] of the house, whether they came off on Shabbos or came off before Shabbos, it is forbidden to move them, as these doors never had the status of a vessel upon them. Now, even though that now when they have come off they are fit to be used just like other boards [and thus should be considered a vessel], nevertheless they are [still] not permitted to be moved because they are fit to be returned to the [hinges of the] house and [furthermore] this is what they are designated to have done with them, and are not [meant] to be used like other boards.
May one detach or attach doors to vessels on Shabbos?[44] Regarding the doors of a drawer, box or a portable tower, if it is allowed to detach them or replace them [on Shabbos], this will be explained in chapters 313 [Halacha 14] and 314 [Halacha 17].
Question: [Sunday, 4th Marcheshvan, 5782]
We have a side door of our home of which the door came out of its hinges on Friday night. What am I supposed to do? Can I replace it back onto its hinges, or at the very least, may I reinsert the door into the door frame? We use this door regularly to enter and exit our home.
Answer:
The door may not be replaced onto its hinge on Shabbos, although if the door is used for constant exiting and entering then you may enter it into the doorframe with an irregularity [i.e. without using the palm of your hands or fingers] without entering it into its hinges.
Explanation: The replacement of a door back into its area touches upon two prohibitions, one being that of building, and the second being that of Muktzah. Now, regarding the laws of building, it is a clear prohibition to ever insert a door into its hinges on Shabbos, so this option is certainly not available. The only other option that remains is to enter the door into the frame of the doorpost without placing it into the hinges. Now, this too is under restriction due to the building prohibition and is only allowed to be done without the fulfillment of further conditions if the door is meant for constant exiting and entering. Thus, in the above case, if the side door is meant for constant entering and exiting, which is usually the case, then it would be permitted to at least enter it back into the doorframe without placing into the hinges. This however only covers the prohibition of building. Another prohibition that becomes relevant when a door comes off its hinges is the prohibition of Muktzah, and indeed the clear ruling is that a door which came off its hinges whether on or before Shabbos is considered Muktzah, and therefore may only be replaced into the doorpost with an irregularity which is by using the back of the hands or elbows and feet and other parts of the body, which may prove quite difficult.
Sources: See regarding the prohibition to place it into hinges: Admur 313:8; 17; 314:19; See regarding the prohibition of removing and replacing a door that is not on hinges: Admur 313:8-10; Michaber 313:3 See regarding the Muktzah prohibition that is relevant to a door: Admur 308:35; Shabbos 122b; M”A 308:38; M”B 308:35; Vetzaruch Iyun why no mention of this issue of Muktzah was made in 313 ibid!
- Moving the item itself:[45]
An oven which had one of its legs detached: An oven which had one of its legs detached from it, meaning its pegs which are similar to legs, it is forbidden to move it in order to use[46], due to a decree that [if one were allowed to use it then] he may come to replace the leg and will insert it there strongly and will thus be liable for [transgressing the Building prohibition.[47]
A bench which had one of its legs detached:[48] Similarly a long bench which one of its legs became detached, and certainly if two legs [became detached] is forbidden to move and to place it onto another bench and to then sit on it, even if the leg fell off from before Shabbos[49], unless one already sat on the bench in this way one time before Shabbos without having replaced its leg[50], in which case we do not suspect that one will change his mind to return [the leg] and insert it on Shabbos.[51]
May one reinsert the leg loosely into the bench? It is forbidden to reinsert the leg in it on Shabbos even loosely, due to a decree that one may come to insert it strongly, unless it is always usual for the leg to be loose inside the bench, as will be explained in Chapter 313 [Halacha 21].
What is the law if the leg actually broke?[52] All the above is referring only to when the leg has become detached [from its socket and thus only needs to be inserted back in]. However if it [actually] broke[53], then one is permitted to move the bench and place it on top of another bench, and sit on it, even if one did not sit on it in this way from before Shabbos, as in this situation there is no suspicion that one may come to return [the leg] and insert it strongly, as the top part of the leg has remained inside the bench [and thus fixing it in this method is not relevant].[54]
|
Summary: A vessel which became dissembled: Any part of a non-Muktzah vessel which became detached on Shabbos (such as the door of an oven) since it can be re-attached to the vessel after Shabbos, the detached piece is not Muktzah and still retains its vessel status.[55] However [the above is only with regards to the detached part of the vessel, however] regarding moving the vessel itself [then if it is difficult or troublesome to use it in its broken state[56] and it can be fixed without much effort then[57]], it may not be moved[58], unless it was already used in its broken state once before Shabbos.[59]
General Q&A on detached vessles Is the the detached leg also Muktzah, or only the the bench itself? Some Poskim[60] learn that the detached leg is not Mukztah. Others[61] however learn that both the vessel and the detached leg is Muktzah.
Is the vessel Muktzah even if it is still perfectly useable without the detached piece?[62] No. In the event that the vessel is useable as usual despite the detached piece then it is not Muktzah at all.
Is the vessel Muktzah even if it is difficult to fix the detached piece?[63] No. In the event that the vessel is useable as usual despite the detached piece then it is not Muktzah at all.
What is the law if the detached leg is missing?[64] In such a case the couch is not Muktzah as there is no worry that one may come to fix it.
What degree of Muktzah do items that have come apart, and we suspect will be fixed on Shabbos, receive?[65] There is implication from the wording in Admur [and Rama] that these items are only Muktzah in regards to using them for their purpose and not in regards to moving them for their space or to save from damage.[66] However there are Poskim[67] which rule that they are considered completely Muktzah [MM”G] and cannot be moved for any purpose.[68]
May one sit on a sofa that has a detached leg without moving the bench with one’s hands?[69] Some Poskim[70] rule one may sit on it without moving it. [71]
May one move the bench using a Shinuiy? Some Poskim[72] rule it is permitted to do so, as the moving of a candelabra follows all the general rules of Muktzah.[73]
How is one permitted to move an attached door on Shabbos if it is not considered a vessel? A non-vessel is only Muktzah when it serves no use. When it has a use, it is considered a vessel. Therefore, when it’s attached to the door and has a use it is not Muktzah, however, if it becomes detached and loses its use it returns to its Muktzah status. The same was said regarding paper. See above.
If a hammer detached from its handle is it Muktzah?[74] Yes. All vessles that have become detached follow the same laws as a bench with a detached leg.
Is a detached door of a MMC”K vessel considered Muktzah?[75] Yes. It remains MMC”K.
Practical Q&A Are buttons Muktzah? New buttons: New buttons are Muktzah.[76] However it is disputed as to which level of Muktzah they contain. Some Poskim[77] rule that they are MM”I and thus may be moved to use their space or for a use. Others[78] hold that they are MM”G, as they are not yet considered a vessel, and may thus not be moved at all. Are buttons that have fallen off clothing Muktzah? Some Poskim[79] rule that they are never Muktzah, being that they are still fit to be returned to their original clothing. Others[80] rule that only if one is particular and intends to return the button to its original clothing does it retain its non-Muktzah status. If however one is not particular to return it to this garment, then they are considered MM”I.[81] Others[82] rule that only if the button is fit to cover a vessel [such as a bottle] retains its Non-Muktzah status. However this later opinions is not held of by Admur [see footnote[83]].
May one fix broken glasses and if not then are they considered Muktzah? Lens came out: Is forbidden to be reinserted even loosely.[84] Is the lens and frame Muktzah? The lens itself is never Muktzah[85] unless it shattered or the glasses have broken to the point they are no longer useable.[86] The frames however are Muktzah[87] unless 1) one had worn it this way before Shabbos, or 2) the lens has shattered and thus can no longer be fixed[88] or 3) It is very difficult to reinsert the lens, such as if one lost the screw or if the screw broke and cases of the like.[89] Plastic glasses: If the lens popped out it is forbidden to reinsert it even though it can easily be done.[90] However there are Poskim[91] which are lenient if this had occurred once before Shabbos and one reinserted it. Furthermore there are Poskim[92] which allow it in all cases being that they do not consider this a proper fastening of parts being that the parts can be very easily attached The handle which rests on the ear came out of its screw: Is forbidden to reinsert the screw even lightly. As well one may not fasten it using a safety pin, twist tie and the like. Are the glasses Muktzah? The handle that dislocated is not Muktzah[93]. However, the glasses, some Poskim[94] say it is Muktzah[95]. Others[96] say that if only one ear handle became disconnected it is not Muktzah. According to all if: 1) one had worn it like this before Shabbos, or 2) the ear handle is broken and thus can no longer be reattached[97] or 3) It is very difficult to reinsert the handle, such as if one lost the screw or if the screw broke and cases of the like, then the glasses are not Muktzah.[98] If the nose piece broke: If the nose piece falls off, then seemingly both the glasses and the nose piece are not Muktzah since this does not diminish the use of the glasses in any way. Bending the glasses back into shape: Is forbidden due to Tikkun Keli.[99]
Is a handle which has fallen off a door Muktzah?[100] Yes, as it is similar to the door which itself becomes Muktzah when it falls off its hinges. However, in cases that it may be reinserted, it is obviously not Muktzah. See “The Laws of Building” Chapter 2/2 Q&A for the full details of this subject!
If a screen or window came out of its sockets may they be returned to them and if not are they Muktzah? It is forbidden to return a screen or window to its setting on Shabbos, and they are considered Muktzah, just like a detached door of a house. Thus, a sliding screen or glass door which became removed from its socket is Muktzah. However, in cases that it may be reinserted, it is obviously not Muktzah. See “The Laws of Building” Chapter 2/2 Q&A for the full details of this subject! |
F. Examples of broken vessels:
- The status of a broken wick:[101]
The broken pieces of a wick which are no longer useable to be used to light a candle with have the same status as pebbles and stones which are forbidden to move even in order to use them or to use their place. Regarding a whole wick see Halacha 5!
- A needle which has lost its head or its hole:[102]
However a needle which had its pointy head or its hole broken off, is forbidden to move because its status as a vessel has been annulled.
The reason for this is because: It is not [considered] similar to the broken pieces of other vessels which are permitted to be moved since they are fit to be used for another purpose, and [thus] this needle [too] which had its pointy side or hole broken off [should also be allowed to be moved being that] is also fit for another use, such as for example [it is still fit] to [use to] take out a splinter, nevertheless [it is still forbidden to be moved being that] it is not common at all to designate [a broken needle] for another use, and rather it is common for a person to throw it away into [the junkyard of] other broken metal pieces. This is opposed to [what is done with] the broken pieces of other vessels which is common to designate them for another use and thus they do not lose their status as a vessel.
If one designated this needle for a use: Nevertheless, if one [went ahead and] specified this needle for a certain use that is permitted to be done on Shabbos, then it receives the status of a vessel which is designated for permitted[103] use.
- Is a broken sandal Muktzah?[104]
The sandals of the old days had two straps which were attached to both sides [of the sandal]. One [strap served as the side] of the inner part [of the sandal] which is between the two feet, and one [strap served as the side] of the outer part [of the sandal]. [Now,] both of these straps were fastened on the upper part of one’s foot in order to secure the two sides of the sandal onto his foot [and thus allow him to walk with them] as [in those days] there was no [other] leather part on the sandals besides for the sides of the sandals alone, [and thus] the upper part [of the sandal] was completely open. Thus it required two straps to secure both sides of the sandal onto ones foot, and if one of these straps tore off it would be impossible to walk with the sandal until it got fixed[105].
Nevertheless [even if this were to occur on Shabbos] one is permitted to move it, even if it tore together with its set area of attachment[106], as [nevertheless] it still has a status of a vessel upon it, being that the sandal is still fit to [have the strap] returned to it and fixed.
However this only refers to if the inner strap which is between the feet [was torn] as in such a case if it is fixed, it will not be noticeable [and thus one will not refrain from wearing it]. However if the external strap [tore], then [since] it is not common to fix it being that the area fixed is noticeable to all, and is embarrassing, therefore the sandal has been nullified from having the status of a vessel and is [thus] forbidden to be moved. [A broken sandal of this case] is not similar to the broken pieces of other vessels which are permitted to be moved being that they are fit to be used to cover vessels, as it is not common to use a sandal to cover vessels with, being that doing so is repulsive.
What does one do if his sandals broke while walking[107]? If one’s sandal broke while walking in a Karmalis[108] the [Sages] permitted for him to take a moist [detached] weed which is animal food and is thus permitted to be moved, and to bind it on the sandal and tie it, in order to secure it so it not fall off his foot. However, it is forbidden for him to tie a thread over it or a cord, as perhaps he may decide to have them be nullified to be set to be there forever, [in which case] it ends up that he has made a permanent knot [on Shabbos].
If they broke inside ones courtyard[109]: [Furthermore] even with a moist weed the [Sages] only permitted [for one to tie it to the sandal] when in a Karmalis, as if one will not do this, and will [thus have to] leave his sandal there, then it will get stolen from there. However [if ones sandals broke] in ones courtyard being that it is safe to leave [the sandals] there, it is forbidden to fasten a weed on to it, as perhaps he will decide to have it nullified to be set there [on the sandal].
This applies whether the inner strap broke or the outer [strap] broke, although if the inner [strap] broke then it is permitted to move it in order to hide it within a more private area within the courtyard, while if the outer [strap] broke it is forbidden [as it is Muktzah,] as explained.
The status of our sandals today[110]: All the above only applies to the sandals of the old days, as when the strap breaks it is impossible to wear at all. However, our sandals, [since] even if the strap tears they are fit to be worn, and [thus] have the status of a vessel on them, [therefore] it is permitted to be moved in any situation.
G. Worn out mats:
Are worn out rugs or floor mats Muktzah?[111] The remains of mats which have worn out, even though they are no longer fit to sit on them, is permitted to be moved, being that their status of a vessel has not been removed, being that they are still fit to be used [as a rag] to cover a dirty area[112]. [However] if one threw them into the garbage before Shabbos, then it is forbidden to move them, as explained above regarding the broken pieces of other vessels.[113]
- Are worn out rags Muktzah?[114]
However rags, which are the remains of worn out clothing, if [each piece] does not contain [a measurement of] three by three fingers[115], then it is forbidden to move being that they are not fit to be used either for poor people or rich people.
If they are three by three: [However] if they are three by three [fingers], and they belong to a pauper, then it is permitted for all the paupers in the world to move it, being that they are fit for paupers to be used as patches for clothing, unless they have been thrown out by their owners from before Shabbos [in which case they are Muktzah even for paupers]. [However even when they have not been thrown out, they are only permitted to be moved by paupers] however rich people are forbidden to move them unless they are [a measurement of] three by three Tefachim[116], as then they are fit to be used also by rich people.
What is the law for a rich man who lives by a poor man? If a rich person lives by a poor person that owns rags [of three by three fingers], then he [the rich person] follows after the [status of the] owner of the house [which is poor] and it is [thus] permitted for [even] him [the rich person] to move it, even though that they are not fit him to use, being that are fit to be used in the house that he is living in.
What about if a poor person lives by a rich person? However the rags of a rich person which are less than three by three Tefachim are forbidden, for even all the poor people of the world [including one that lives by him].
The reason for this is: as since they are Muktzah for the owner which is rich, being that they are not fit for him to use, they [thereby] become Muktzah for the entire world, as [since they have no use for the owner] it is considered as if the owners has thrown them out to the garbage [in which case the law is that it is Muktzah for all]. This law applies as well for all similar cases to this.
Other Opinions: There are opinions which say that rags which are the remains of clothing, even if they are not [a measurement of] three by three fingers, are permitted to be moved by any person, being that they are fit to be used to wipe up a dirty area.
Their reasoning is because: [in their opinion the Sages] only differentiated between [a measurement of] three by three fingers and less then this amount, with regards to rags that are the remains of Prayer shawls [Taleisim], as a person refrains himself from using them to clean something up with, or to use them for a disgraceful usage.
The Final Ruling: The main [Halachic] opinion is like the former opinion, that even if they are fit to wipe with, they [nevertheless] do not have the status of a vessel [just] because of this, unless they were designated for this use.
The reason for this ruling is because: even the broken pieces of all other vessels do not have the status of a vessel on them, even if they are fit to be used for wiping, unless they were designated for this use. As well [even] if they are fit to lean a vessel on, if they were not designated for this purpose [they too do not receive the status of a vessel], unless they are fit to be used to cover a vessel with, as explained above.
H. May one break a piece off a broken vessel in order to use for a purpose on Shabbos?[117]
This is forbidden due to the Tikkun Keli prohibition. See “The Laws of Building and Destroying” for further details.
|
Summary-Items that broke on Shabbos: The shattered pieces pose a safety hazard:[118] All vessels which have broken on Shabbos and pose a safety hazard to the public [such as broken glass] may be moved on Shabbos even if they now have a Muktzah status. See above Halacha 3[I] for the full details of this law!!! The shattered pieces do not pose a safety hazard[119]: If no hazard exists with the broken pieces then if these broken pieces are not common at all to be designated for a use, and are rather thrown out, then the pieces are considered MM”G and are thus forbidden to be moved.[120] However if it is at times common[121] to use the broken pieces as a cover[122] for a vessel[123], then if they broke on Shabbos these pieces are not considered Muktzah[124]. However, if they broke on Yom Tov they are considered Muktzah due to Nolad[125], unless they are still fit to be used for their original use[126]. [Practically in today’s times being that pieces of broken vessels are no longer used as a cover for a vessel, seemingly all broken vessels which are not safety hazards are considered Muktzah.[127]] Broken pieces that were thrown in the trash: If a vessel broke before Shabbos and had its pieces thrown in the garbage before Shabbos, then those pieces are Muktzah whether or not they are commonly used for another purpose. This applies whether or not the owner which discarded the pieces is wealthy or a pauper.[128] If, however, the pieces were only thrown out on Shabbos, then if they are at times commonly used for a purpose they are not Muktzah.[129] Broken pieces of a MMC”K vessel:[130] A MMC”K vessel which shattered, and does not pose a public safety hazard, its pieces remain Muktzah even if the broken pieces are commonly used for a permitted purpose. [See Q&A regarding a MM”I object which shattered!] If the broken vessel was designated for a use before Shabbos:[131] In all cases that a broken vessel is considered MM”G, if one went ahead before Shabbos and designated the broken piece for a permitted use, it is now considered a Keli Shemilachto Liheter and is thus not Muktzah. A vessel which became dissembled: Any part of a non-Muktzah vessel which became detached on Shabbos (such as the door of an oven) since it can be re-attached to the vessel after Shabbos, the detached piece is not Muktzah and still retains its vessel status.[see footnote for other opinions[132]] However [the above is only with regards to the detached part of the vessel, however] regarding moving the vessel itself [then if it is difficult or troublesome to use it in its broken state[133] and it can be fixed without much effort then[134]], it may not be moved[135], unless it was already used in its broken state once before Shabbos.[136] The door of a house or room which became dissembled from its hinges:[137] A door of one’s house or room which has come off its hinges is considered Muktzah.[138]
Examples:
General Q&A When do the broken pieces of a vessel retain their non-Muktzah, vessel, status?[149] If the broken shards of the vessel is fit for a use and it is common pratcicie to now use these shards for that use, then it retains its vessel status and is not Muktzah. If, however, the shards are not commonly used for any use, and are rather discarded in the bin, then they are Mukztah even if they potentioally can be made of use uif one so desired.
If an MM”I object broke on Shabbos do the pieces remain MM”I even if they have a use? Some Poskim[150] rule that even if the pieces are at times commonly designated for a use the pieces nevertheless remain MM”I. However, most Poskim[151] rule that they are not considered Muktzah at all, and may thus be moved even to save them from damage[152], and so is implied to be the opinion of the Alter Rebbe.[153]
Practical Q&A Is a hand or pocket watch which has stopped considered Muktzah?[154] · The watch is broken:[155] According to all the watch is now MM”G or MC”K. · Battery has stopped: If the watch has ceased from working due to its battery, then according to some Poskim[156] it remains non-Muktzah[157] while according to others[158] it now receives a MM”G status. · A gold watch and other expensive watches:[159] Are not Muktzah even when they no longer work, so long as one is accustomed to wear it as an adornment despite its malfunction. · In a case that the watch is Muktzah must it be removed from one’s hand? It may be worn until one reaches an area which is safe for him to put it down[160], and he is to then remove it using an irregularity.
Q&A on Tzitzis Is a Pasul pair of Tzitzis Muktzah?[161] No, as they are fit to be worn by people who are not obligated in the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, [such as women][162].
Is a new Tallis which has not yet had its Tzitzis woven into them Muktzah?[163] No, as they are fit to be worn by people who are not obligated in the Mitzvah of Tzitzis, [such as women].
Are new detached fringes for Tzitzis Muktzah?[164] Yes. They are MMC”K
Are strings of Tzitzis found in a Sefer considered Muktzah? No, as they are placed there to act as a book marker [21/1] and hence have been designated before Shabbos for a use. However, Tzaruch Iyun as not all people know the purpose of placing the strings in the Sefarim and think it is a mere Segula, hence the strings have never been designated and should remain Muktzah.
|
_____________________________________________________
[1] Admur 308:24; Michaber 308:6; Mishneh Shabbos 124b
[2] However, there are cases of Nolad that the new creation is so apparent that it is forbidden even on Shabbos, such as wood that was burnt to ash on Shabbos. See Chapter 310 Halacha 19 and Chapter 498 Halacha 24.
[3] Admur ibid; M”A 308:15
[4] Admur 3308:29; Michaber 308:7
[5] However more than 4 cubits is forbidden, as it is forbidden to carry in a Public area.
[6] Admur 3308:29 based on Rashba 124b
[7] Lit. a little large
[8] Admur 3308:29
[9] Lit. and
[10] Admur 3308:32; Michaber 308:7; M”B 308:28
[11] Lit stumble
[12] Admur 3308:25; M”A 308:15
[13] Admur 3308:26; Michaber 308:6; Mishneh 124b
[14] Admur 3308:26
[15] Admur 3308:28; M”A 308:19; M”B 308:35
[16] Meaning that even though once the object broke one no longer is particular to not use it for anything else, being that they have lost their value and are no longer worth enough to be particular about, nevertheless….
[17] Which is what makes a vessel Muktzah.
[18] Admur 308:30-31; Michaber 308:7; Shabbos 124b
[19] Admur 3308:30; Michaber ibid; Shabbos ibid
[20] Admur 3308:30; Rama ibid
[21] Admur 3308:31; Gemara ibid; implication of Michaber ibid; M”A 308:17; M”B 308:32
[22] Vetzaruch Iyun on why throwing out the broken pieces on Shabbos is any different than if the pieces have broken so small on Shabbos that they are no longer fit for any use, in which case we do not follow the status of the vessel as it was by Bein Hashmashos, and rather consider it Muktzah.
[23] Admur 3308:30; 40
[24] Admur 3308:31
[25] Biur Halacha 308:7 ”Veim Zeraka” based on the ruling of worn out mats brought in Shabbos 125a; Michaber 308:12; Admur 308:40
[26] Biur Halacha 308
[27] Meaning an item only becomes Muktzah through throwing it out if it has lost its original vessel form, and only happens to have a common use for its broken form.
[28] Shulchan Shlomo 2:308-37 in name of Rav SZ”A; Shvus Yitzchak 4; Shalmei Yehuda 6:23; Rav Trevadavitch in his book on Shabbos; Shaareiy Halacha 11:28-4; See also Emek Hateshuvah 5:10; Sheilas Shaul 1:36; Kovetz Zera Yaakov 30:81; Sedeh Elchanan 2; See Divrei Pinchas 32
[29] The reason: As there are people that reuse disposable vessels. On the other hand it is not considered like an actual pot thrown in the garbage being that a pot is used by all people, and we can hence apply Batul Daato. This is opposed to a disposable vessel that is not reused by most people. [ibid]
[30] Tzaruch Iyun even if thrown out before Shabbos as on the one hand they retain their vessel form, on the other hand they are treated as if they no longer have a use and thus perhaps are Muktzah even if thrown out on Shabbos.
[31] Poskim ibid
[32] Shalmei Yehuda 6:23; Rav Trevadavitch in his book on Shabbos;
[33] Shulchan Shlomo 2:308-37 in name of Rav SZ”A; Shvus Yitzchak 4; See Divrei Pinchas 32
[34] Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 p. 138
[35] Admur 308:28
[36] Lit. Fixing
[37] Perhaps in truth it should say Chapter 340 Halacha 17, or chapter 314 Halacha 11 and 16, as in chapter 310 no recollection is made regarding this.
[38] 308:34; Michaber 308:8; Shabbos 122b
[39] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid
[40] P”M 308 M”Z 8; M”B 308:35
[41] Admur ibid; Rashi on Shabbos ibid; Taz 308:8; P”M 308 M”Z 8; M”B 308:35
Other Opinions: The Meiri holds that the reason why detached doors of vessels are not considered Muktzah is because they are fit to cover a vessel. Thus, accordingly only detached pieces which are fit to cover a vessel retain their non-Muktzah status. Admur however does not rule this way.
[42] Lit. “Due to their parents”. Meaning that the doors on their own are not considered vessels, however since they were attached to a vessel, they receive the status of a vessel from that vessel that they were attached to.
[43] Admur 308:35; Shabbos ibid; M”A 308:38; M”B 308:35
[44] Admur 308:35; Michaber 308:9
[45] Admur 308:47; Michaber 308:16; Shabbos 138b
[46] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Shabbos ibid
[47] Admur ibid; Taz 308:14; M”A 308:32; M”B 308:68
[48] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Terumos Hadeshen 71
[49] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Terumos Hadeshen ibid
[50] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Beis Yosef 313
[51] Admur ibid; M”A 308:37; M”B 308:71
[52] Admur ibid; Taz 308:14; M”B 308:69
[53] Meaning that part of it still remains in the socket, as it cracked in half.
[54] This last part “one may come to return [the leg] and insert it strongly, as the top part of the leg has remained inside the bench [and thus fixing it in this method is not relevant].” is not written in the Taz ibid and is added by Admur. The Taz ibid simply states “we do not suspect that one may come to make another leg”. Vetzaruch Iyun why Admur had to change the explanation and add “because the other part of the leg is still there”. Perhaps this is coming to exclude the next Heter of the Taz ibid which writes that also when a leg is missing we rule that the bench is not Muktzah, as in such a case there is no piece of the leg left in the couch, and in truth Admur omits writing this next Heter of the Taz. However, Tzaruch Iyun as to why?
[55] 308:34; As understood by Piskeiy Teshuvos 313:5 and SSH”K 15:77 that we never decree on the detached part, and only the actual vessel can receive a decree. However, Dirshu learns that the decree applies even to the detached part.
Other Opinions: Some learn that whenever we decree against the vessel itself, we also decree against the detached part. [Dirshu on M”B ibid]
The Meiri holds that the reason why detached doors of vessels are not considered Muktzah is because they are fit to cover a vessel. Thus, accordingly only detached pieces which are fit to cover a vessel retain their non-Muktzah status. Admur however does not rule this way.
[56] So is implied from 308:34 which does not make mention that the closets which had their doors detached have become Muktzah. See Q&A for a lengthy discussion on this topic.
[57] Ketzos Hashulchan 109:10; The latter condition which requires that it be easily fixable is learned from the Halacha [ibid] that if the leg of a bench broke as opposed to detached, then it is not Muktzah, being that it is difficult to make a new leg and then attach it.
[58] see Q&A regarding what status of Muktzah it contains!
[59] 308:47; The Reason they are Muktzah: because one may come to fix them.
[60] Piskeiy Teshuvos 313:5; SSH”K 15:77; Yesod Yeshurun 4:129
[61] M”B Dirshu footnote 87
[62] SSH”K 20:42; Shulchan Shlomo 308:45; Dirshu footnote 87; Based on 308:34 which rules that the vessles of detached doors is not Muktzah;
In 308:47 it brings two examples of vessels that if became detached on Shabbos they would become Muktzah out of fear that the person would fix it on Shabbos. The examples are an oven which had one of its legs detached and a bench which had one of its legs detached. This ruling seems to contradict an earlier ruling in 308:34 that vessels which had their doors or openings detached are not Muktzah. Why do we not suspect there as well that the person will come to fix the vessel if we allow to move it? It appears from this puzzling contradiction that we only suspect that a person will come to fix an object if the detached part infringes upon the normal use of the object. This would be the case by the bench or oven which he would not be able to use until he finds another support in place of its leg. If however, the dis-attachment bears no infringement upon the objects use we don’t suspect one will come to fix it on Shabbos. Such would be the case by the detached doors of vessels, which cause no harm to the vessels use. In K”H (109:10) it brings that a hammer which lost its handle would become Muktzah since the hammer does not have as good of a use without its handle. Thus implying, like above, that we view the decree in accordance with the infringement it makes on the objects use. וצ”ע See Michaber in 313:8 which implies that some opinions rule the bench is not Muktzah, and in the Beis Yosef explains that this is because the bench can still easily be sued by placing it on another bench.
[63] In the end of 308:47 it says that if one of the legs broke (or the detached leg was lost- Machatzis Hashekel) the bentch/oven is not Muktzah. On this one can still ask why don’t we decree it to be Muktzah out of suspicion that one will make a new leg on Shabbos and then attach it. The M”B (308:69) explains, that we do not suspect that one will come to do this amount of work on Shabbos. This would seem to imply as well that the decree of Muktzah on objects with pieces detached would only be in cases that one can easily re-fix it. If however, this will be a long strenuous job then we don’t suspect he will fix it and it would therefore not be Muktzah. SSH”K (20:42) rules accordingly, and so is implied in the Machatzis Hashekel and K”H (109:11). What still remains to be understood however is the Alter Rebbe’s reason mentioned for the oven/bench not being Muktzah. The reason he mentions is “since the top part of the leg is still attached”. Why should that make any difference in the object becoming Muktzah or not? As well, it would imply that if the leg was detached and later lost, the bench/oven would still remain Muktzah. וצ”ע
[64] Taz 308:14; M”B 308:69; Machatzis Hashekel, brought in Ketzos Hashulchan 109:9; omitted from Admur-Vetzaruch Iyun! [see previous footnote]
[65] Ketzos Hashulchan 109 footnote 10
[66] Ketzos Hashulchan ibid; Tehila Ledavid 308:22
In 308:47 it says that it is forbidden to move the oven to use [Legufah-this word is added to the ruling of the Michaber] or the bench to sit on. This implies, the object is not Muktzah with regards to moving it for other purposes. (such as to use its place or save from damage.) The reason for this is simply that only when he is using it is there a need to suspect he will fix it. According to this, it’s also understood why it was ruled that the vessels which had doors come off from them do not become Muktzah. Ideally they should be Muktzah out of fear one will come to attach the doors to them on Shabbos. However, according to above that this suspicion is only when one is using the item, there is no reason to decree on items with doors being that the doors do not diminish the use of the item.
[67] Tehila Laedavid ibid; M”B in Biur Halacha 308:16 “Deassur” based on Terumos Hadeshen ibid; Derech Hachaim 62; Minchas Shabbos in name of Tehila Ledavid; see Ketzos Hashulchan ibid
[68] The reason: As the bench follows all the regular rules of Muktzah due to this decree. [See Tehila Ledavid ibid]
[69] On the one hand all Muktzah may be sat on. On the other hand, if one is allowed to sit on it he may come to fix it. Vetzaruch Iyun especially according to the implication of Admur that the bench is not MMG but rather only Muktzah against using it, and hence why should it be allowed to sit on it as is the rule with Muktzah?
[70] M”B 308:70 in name of Elya Raba and so is implied form wording of Rama ibid and Admur ibid
[71] The reason: As the bench follows all the regular rules of Muktzah due to this decree. [See Tehila Ledavid ibid]
[72] Tehila Ledavid 308:22
[73] Vetzaruch Iyun as moving with a Shinuiy still contains the suspicion, and even more so, that it may fall, and one may come to reassemble it. See M”B Dirshu footnote 93.
[74] Ketzos Hashulchan 109 footnote 10
[75] Ketzos Hashulchan 109 footnote 8
[76] Being that they have never yet been attached to an actual vessel, and only those items which were originally attached to a vessel retain their vessel status when detached. [Ketzos Hashulchan 109 footnote 8]
[77] Ketzos Hashulchan ibid. As he holds that the buttons are considered a vessel being that they are designated for a specific use.
[78] Minchas Shabbos 88:2
[79] Minchas Shabbos ibid; brought in SSH”K [15:68 and footnote 221] however there he concludes that it is proper to be stringent like the third opinion that will be brought.
[80] Ketzos Hashulchan ibid
[81] As the entire allowance that detached parts do not become Muktzah is based on that one intends to return the item to its vessel.
[82] Meiri. SSH”K 15:68 footnote 222 in name of RSZ”A rules that it proper to be stringent like this opinion; Beir Moshe 6:87
[83] As their opinion is based on the Meiri which learns that the allowance by detached doors is based on that they are fit to be used to cover vessels. Admur however writes that the reason is because they were once attached to the vessel and are fit to be returned, and omits this concept of covering a vessel entirely. Thus according to Admur there it is irrelevant to what size the button is.
[84] Due to a Rabbinical decree that one may come to insert it firmly and transgress a Biblical prohibition of Building/Tikkun Keli. [Based on ruling of Admur: Rama in 313, and so rules Ashel Avraham Mahdurah Tinyana; Betzeil Hachachmah 6:123, Az Nidbaru 8:33; Imreiy Yosher 1:202; SSH”K 15:77]
However according to the Chazon Ish it is permitted to put it in loosely, and so rules Tzitz Eliezer 9:28; Cheilek Leivi 101; Beis Yisrael Landau 12 that one may loosely put it in without tightening the screw.
[85] Regarding the lens in a case that both the frame and lens are intact, it would appear it does not become Muktzah, being similar to the case of doors that have detached which are not Muktzah, and so rules Imrei Yosher 1:202; Piskeiy Teshuvos 313:5; SSH”K 15:77; Yesod Yeshurun 4:129
[86] Regarding the lens of glasses that have completely broken to the point they cannot be used unless fixed, it would appear that they would be Muktzah. This is not similar to the door case, being that the object that the doors were attached to is still usable even on Shabbos. Here however, neither the lens or the glasses have a use. Despite this however, one can also say that since they can be re-fixed they are not Muktzah and that is the reason for permitting to move the door of vessels. וצ”ע
[87] Since it if forbidden to fix it on Shabbos this would seemingly make the glasses be Muktzah (at least to use-see above) out of fear that one may come to fix it. So rules also Piskeiy Teshuvos 313:5
[88] As in such a case it is similar to the case that the leg broke as opposed to simply became disassembled.
[89] So rules Piskeiy Teshuvos 313:5 and so seems pashut from Admur.
[90] So rules Shraga Hameir 3:43, and so seems pashut from Admur.
[91] Betzeil Hachachmah 6:123
[92] Tzitz Eliezer 9:28; Az Nidbaru 8:33
[93] As explained above regarding a popped lens
[94] Kanah Boshem 1:19
[95] As it is difficult to wear the glasses in such a way and thus is no different than a lens which has popped out.
[96] Az Nidbaru 8:33
[97] As in such a case it is similar to the case that the leg broke as opposed to simply became disassembled.
[98] So rules Piskeiy Teshuvos 313:5 and so seems pashut from Admur.
[99] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid, Upashut.
[100] SSH”K 20:43
[101] Admur 308:33; M”B 308:34; Shabbos 47a
[102] Admur 308:39; Michaber 308:11
[103] So is the version in the new printing of the Alter Rebbes Shulchan Aruch. However in the old printings it says “forbidden” use, which does not really make sense in this Halacha.
[104] Admur 308:43; 308:15
[105] In other words the sandals back then did not appear like slippers which have a front top which ones foot slips into and thus secures the slipper onto his foot. As well it was not like our sandals which have straps that are fastened over our foot from one end to the other end. Rather the sandal back then simply had a sole with leather straps attached on their two sides, without any other additional piece. Thus, in order to be able to secure such a sandal onto ones foot one needed to tie the straps together towards ones top of his foot.
[106] Perhaps this means that the entire strap tore off from the entire side that it was on.
[107] Admur 308:44
[108] A Halachic area where carrying on Shabbos is Rabbinically forbidden.
[109] Admur 308:44
[110] Admur 308:45
[111] Admur 308:40; Michaber 308:12; Shabbos 125a
[112] Lit. some dirt
[113] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Maggid Mishneh 26:6
[114] Admur 308:41; Michaber 308:13
[115] 6×6 centimeters
[116] 24×24 centimeters
[117] Admur 308:82
[118] Admur 308:28
[119] Chapter 308 Halacha 24,26,29,31,32. . Badei Hashulchan-109:1
[120] Admur 308:29; [see also 39]. There it mentions that even if they are fit to be used for a cover, if this is not common at all, then it loses its vessel status. However, in 308:26 it mentions that when the pieces are not fit for any purpose then they become Muktzah. Perhaps though one can say that the definition of “fit” is determined by if it is at all common to make a use for it, and not whether or not it is physically possible to find for it a use, and thus the later ruling in 29 is coming to shed light onto the meaning if “fit” used in Halacha 26. Upashut. See Q&A for a lengthy discussion on this topic.
[121] Admur 308:29. As opposed to 308:24 which mentions “fit”. See above footnote that its fitness is determined by whether or not it is common to be used for this purpose, and this thus solves an apparent contradiction which would have implied that so long as it is fit for a use it is not Muktzah.
[122] See Q&A regarding why specifically a cover is mentioned.
[123] Whether or not one currently is able to use it for this purpose, such as if it were to be found in a public area where no vessels are available for covering, nevertheless they would not be Muktzah. [308:29]
[124] Admur 308:24 If they are fit to be used as a cover for a vessel.
The Reason they are not Muktzah: As since they were originally a vessel, and even now they are still fit and commonly used for a purpose, they therefore retain their vessel status. [308:32]
[125] Admur 308:24. If they broke from before Yom Tov and were fit to cover a vessel then they are not considered Muktzah when Yom Tov arrives. [Ibid] Furthermore, when the item is fit to be used to fuel a fire then it is not considered Muktzah even if it is not fit for any other purpose. [308:26]
[126] Admur 308:25
[127] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308 footnote 67 in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding all broken vessels today; SSH”K (20:41) See Q&A for a lengthy discussion on this topic.
[128] Admur 308:30; 40
[129] Admur 308:31
[130] Admur 308:27
[131] Admur 308:39
[132] Admur 308:34
Other Opinions: The Meiri holds that the reason why detached doors of vessels are not considered Muktzah is because they are fit to cover a vessel. Thus, accordingly only detached pieces which are fit to cover a vessel retain their non-Muktzah status. Admur however does not rule this way.
[133] So is implied from 308:34 which does not make mention that the closets which had their doors detached have become Muktzah. See Q&A for a lengthy discussion on this topic.
[134] Ketzos Hashulchan 109:10; The latter condition which requires that it be easily fixable is learned from the Halacha [ibid] that if the leg of a bench broke as opposed to detached, then it is not Muktzah, being that it is difficult to make a new leg and then attach it.
[135] see Q&A regarding what status of Muktzah it contains!
[136] Admur 308:47; The Reason they are Muktzah: because one may come to fix them.
[137] Admur 308:35
[138] The Reason: Since even when it was attached it was never considered a vessel, if it becomes detached, it cannot be moved. However according to this the following query is raised: How is one permitted to move an attached door on Shabbos if it is considered a non-vessel? A non-vessel is only Muktzah when it serves no use. When it has a use, it is considered a vessel. Therefore, when it’s attached to the door and has a use it is not Muktzah, however, if it becomes detached and loses its use it returns to its Muktzah status. The same was said regarding paper. See above.
[139] Admur 308:28
[140] Admur 308:40
[141] Admur 308:41
[142] This matter is disputed and Admur concludes that it is Muktzah.
[143] Sheivet Haleivi 5:40; Piskeiy Teshuvos 308 footnote 67 in name of Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding all broken vessels today.
[144] Admur 308:39
[145] Admur 308:33
[146] Admur 308:43-45
[147] And it is thus not commonly fixed and rather thrown out
[148] And it is thus common to fix them.
[149] Admur 308:29 based on Rashba 124b; M”B 308:44; SSH”K 20:41
Background:
In 308 (24-32) it mentions that if they are still fit for a use, like to cover a vessel, they are not Muktzah. However, in the Ketzos Hashulchan [109:2] he writes that only if it is fit to cover a vessel is it not Muktzah. However, if it is only fit to use to clean up spills (as a shmate) or to place other vessels on top of it, then it is Muktzah. This seems to contradict the above ruling in 308 which only lists the use of covering a vessel as an example of a use for the broken pieces, and is not coming to negate any other use. Furthermore, logically, for what reason would we limit the use to only a covering and not something else. For a possible explanation, it seems the source of the Ketzos Hashulchan for the above differentiation is in 308:41 regarding if the cloth is less than 3×3 finger lengths, it is Muktzah. It brings there a difference of opinion, with the Alter Rebbe concluding that the stringent opinion is the main ruling, and therefore the cloth is Muktzah. As an explanation for this argument one can say they are arguing over if a broken item must be normally used for its new purpose to retain a vessel status or even if not normally used for the purpose, as long as it has a use, it retains it vessel status. In the case of the cloths this would mean do we require these cloths to be normally used to clean up messes or is the fact that they have this potential use suffice. This differentiation is already mentioned in 308:29 with the Alter Rebbe siding with the former, more stringent opinion. Therefore, the K”H writes that to clean spills does not suffice as this is not a common use. However, any other common use, even not the use of a covering, would also permit the object. However, it seems the K”H was not satisfied with this explanation being that he concludes with a doubt whether one may move the broken pieces if they have a normal use for wiping up.
According to above, in today’s times it’s not very practical to have a broken piece retain its vessel status being that one usually throws them out and does not use them at all for anything. In SSH”K (20:41) they rule similarly, although mentioning at the same time that if they are fit for any use they are not Muktzah.
[150] Eliya Raba
[151] Ketzos Hashulchan 109 footnote 1; Peri Megadim 308 M”Z 14; Biur Halacha 308:6 “Kol Hakeilim”
[152] The reason: The reason behind this ruling, one can say, is that MM”I is not a true Muktzah. The actual word Muktzah means, that the person has set his mind apart from using the object on Shabbos. This is not applicable by a MM”I object since there are things he is allowed to use it for on Shabbos. Accordingly, the reason why they still received some Muktzah status must be only because we suspect the person may come to do a forbidden action with the object if he were allowed to move it regularly. However, it never really received a true status of Muktzah (set aside). For this reason once the object has broken and there is no longer fear that it may be used for a forbidden activity, it becomes completely permitted as any non-Muktzah object. ודוק.
[153] Ketzos Hashulchan ibid
[154] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:32; SSH”K 28:24
[155] Ketzos Hashulchan 108 footnote 3; Minchas Shabbos
[156] Ketzos Hashulchan 108 footnote 3; Minchas Shabbos
[157] Being that it still remains an ornament for a person.
[158] SSH”K 28:24
[159] SSH”K 28:24
[160] SSH”K 28:25
[161] Sheivet Haleivi 3:31
[162] They are this similar to the wine of a Nazir which Admur rules is not Muktzah since they are fit for others.
[163] Sheivet Haleivi 3:31
[164] Aruch Hashulchan 308:17
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.