To purchase this Sefer, click here

Introduction: This Halacha will discuss the laws of Muktzah items being moved in the process of moving non-Muktzah items. For example, may one move a non-Muktzah item which has a Muktzah item on top of it? This

question is dependent on if the non-Muktzah item has the status of a Basis. The rules of how an item becomes a Basis will be elaborated on in Halacha 13. If the non-Muktzah item has become a Basis then it too is now defined as Muktzah. If it has not become a Basis then the rules of how it may be moved will be explained in Halacha 14. Thus, in all cases below that the non-Muktzah does not becomes a Basis one must refer to Halacha 13 to see in which ways it is allowed to be moved. Examples of cases brought in Shulchan Aruch which may or may not have the status of a Basis, and how they may be moved if they are not a Basis, will be brought in Halacha 15.

13. The laws of a Basis:

A. The conditions required to define an item as a Basis:

• First Condition-Placed there purposely

One intentionally placed the Muktzah object there to remain there on Shabbos:[1] An item which is forbidden to be moved which is placed on an item that is permitted [to be moved], then if it was intentionally placed on it from before Shabbos with the intention that it remain there also on Shabbos, the permitted object becomes a base for the prohibited object, and is forbidden to be moved exactly just like it, [the Muktzah object].

One forgot to remove it from there before Shabbos:[2] However if one did not have in mind that the [Muktzah] object remain on it on Shabbos, and [just] forgot to remove it from it before the entrance of Shabbos, then [the non-Muktzah object] does not become a base for it [and is thus permitted to be moved in the ways to be explained].[3]

If one intended to have the Muktzah item removed on Shabbos-after Bein Hashmashos:[4] If one intentionally placed [a stone over a barrel of wine or money on his bed] with intention that it remain there also on Shabbos, then whether one [wants to move it because he] needs the space of the barrel or pillow, or whether one needs to use the actual thing itself, [such as] to take out wine from the barrel and to lay on the pillow, it is forbidden to even tilt and shake it, as since it has become a base for a forbidden item, it has therefore becomes forbidden just like it, and is forbidden to be moved at all, even by tilting and shaking it, just like the forbidden item itself [is forbidden to be tilted and shaken]. [Furthermore] even if one intended that the [Muktzah] item not remain there the entire Shabbos but rather only for the entrance of Shabbos alone, meaning that he had in mind that it should remain there only until after Bein Hashmashos[5], and he then [plans] to remove it from there by shaking [the base that it is sitting on], [nevertheless] this does not help at all to even permit him to shake it, which is the action he had in mind to do.

The reason for this is:[6] because once the barrel and pillow become a base for a forbidden item during Bein Hashmashos, which is the beginning of the entrance of Shabbos, it becomes Muktzah for the entire Shabbos, and one’s intentions [which he previously had] does not help [anymore] to permit it.

Other Opinions:[7] [However] there are opinions[8] which say that it does not become a base for a forbidden item unless one had intent for the stone and money to remain there the entire Shabbos. However, if one intended to remove it from there during Shabbos, whether through a gentile and whether through shaking it off [or another form of irregular movement[9]], then the barrel and the pillow have not at all become a Basis for them, even in the beginning of the entrance of Shabbos and they have thus not become forbidden to be moved and are not Muktzah for the entire Shabbos. Therefore [since the barrel and pillow are not a Basis] if one changed his mind even in the beginning of the entering of Shabbos to tilt the barrel and to shake the pillow, if one needs [to do so in order] to use them for something else or [he changed his mind] to move the barrel and pillow as they are together with the stone and money that are on them, in order to use their space, then it is permitted just like [in the case of one that] forgot [to remove it before Shabbos].

However if one did not have intent [before Shabbos] to remove the stone and the money off the barrel and pillow through shaking it off or through a gentile, but had intent to move in the middle of Shabbos the barrel and pillow together with the stone and money that are on it into another area, through [asking] a gentile [to do so] or through a Jew if he needs its space, then it does not help at all, as even in that place [that he intends to move it] the stone and the money will [still] remain placed on them, [therefore] the barrel and pillow are a base for the stone and money.

The final ruling:[10] The main [Halachic] opinion is like the first opinion. Nevertheless, in a case of loss one may rely on the latter opinion, such as for example if a candle fell on one’s table[11], as will be brought in the examples below.

What is the law if someone placed a Muktzah item on ones object without his knowledge?[12] If one placed something which is Muktzah on top of his friends permitted [non-Muktzah] item without his [friends] knowledge, then even if the item which is Muktzah also belongs to his friend[13], [nevertheless] the permitted item does not become a base for the forbidden item, as one cannot prohibit an item of another person without [that persons] knowledge.

If one would have consented to it being placed there:[14] [However] if one did so for his friends benefit, in which case we can assume that his friend is pleased with this being done [since it is] for his benefit, such as for example if Reuvein took an earthenware vessel of Shimon and placed it from before Shabbos under a candle that is in the house of Shimon, in order that [if] the candle falls, [it should fall] on it [as opposed to on the table or the like], so the house not get burnt down, then if the candle fell on it before Bein Hashmashos and remained on it until after Bein Hashmashos, the vessel has become a base for the candle [which is Muktzah], and it is [thus] forbidden for him to move it the entire Shabbos. The same applies to all similar cases. 

If is normal area of Muktzah-not considered forgotten:[15] A nest of chickens which has an egg with a chick inside of it[16], [in which case the law is] that this egg is forbidden to be moved[17] being that it is not fit even for a dog [to eat] due to its shell, then the nest has become a [Halachic] base for the egg, as since that the nest is made for the chickens, it [therefore] is not considered like one forgot the egg there, and rather it is as if one placed it there intentionally. The same applies for all similar cases. 

 

• Second Condition: No non-Muktzah object of greater worth also resting on the Basis

If a Non-Muktzah object of greater importance was also resting on the base:[18] If [the non-Muktzah object] was a base for [both] a prohibited and  permitted item, such as for example one placed before Shabbos [in addition to the Muktzah item], also an item that is permitted to move [i.e. not Muktzah], which is of greater importance then the prohibited item, as is explained in chapter 310 [Halacha 16], then since [the base] has not been made a base only for a prohibited item, [therefore] it still remains in its permitted status, and is [thus] permitted to be moved even though the prohibited item that is on it is also consequently being moved with it.

If the forbidden item is of more importance:[19] A vessel which is a base for a permitted and a forbidden object, is allowed to be moved [through shaking the Muktzah item off first]. [However] this only refers to if the permitted object is of more importance than the forbidden object, however if the forbidden object is of more importance than the permitted object, then the permitted [object] is nullified to the forbidden [object], and it is [thus] forbidden to even shake off the forbidden object, just as the law would be if it were a base for the forbidden object alone, in which case it is forbidden to even shake [it off].

If the permitted item is important to some but not to others:[20] If the permitted item is not important to oneself due to his great wealth, [then] even though it is of importance to the entire world, it is [nevertheless] not considered important, being that everything goes after the owner, as explained in chapter 308 [Halacha 89]. See there all the details of this law[21].

If there are many Non-Mukztah items on the Basis: Case 1:[22] There is only a prohibition to remove a [Shechita-MMC”K] knife from the casing, or to move the casing with this knife in it, after one already took out from it all the other knives. However, while the other knives are still in it [having been there from before Shabbos and being of more importance than the Muktzah knife[23]] one is permitted to move the casing even though this [Muktzah] knife is also in it. Case 2:[24] A box which has [in it] items which are permitted to be moved and [also has in it] money, then if the money is not the main item [in the box] it is permitted to move it in its current state, following the conditions which were explained above.[25]

The law if the Heter was removed from the Basis on Shabbos:[26] Even if after Bein Hashmashos the permitted item was removed from the [base], [nevertheless] the vessel does not become a [Halachic] base, since it was not a base during by Bein Hashmashos. Example:[27] Thus even after one removes the bread from the table it does not become a Basis for the candle alone being that it is already after the entrance of Shabbos.

If there was bread on the table by the entrance of Shabbos:[28] If a table became a Basis for the candle which had been left on it into the entrance of Shabbos, nevertheless if there was resting on the table with the entrance of Shabbos, which is by Bein Hashmashos, also bread (which is needed for Shabbos[29]) then the table has become a Basis for a permitted and forbidden item with the entrance of Shabbos. Furthermore, even after one removes the bread from the table it does not become a Basis for the candle alone being that it is already after the entrance of Shabbos, and one may thus shake the table to make the candle or other Muktzah fall off it, and then move the table to any area which he desires. The same law applies if there was on the table by Bein Hashmashos other items which are not Muktzah. However, this only applies if the (bread or) other non-Muktzah items are of greater importance then the light of the candle, meaning the flame to which the candle became a Basis for, as is explained in chapter 279.

The law in a case that the permitted item was only placed on the base after Bein Hashmashos:[30] All the above is referring to when the permitted item was there [on the base together] with the forbidden item from before Shabbos, as [in this case] by Bein Hashmashos the vessel has become a base for the forbidden and permitted item. Even if after Bein Hashmashos the permitted item was removed from the [base], [nevertheless] the vessel does not become a [Halachic] base, since it was not a base during by Bein Hashmashos, as explained above. However, if during Bein Hashmashos only the forbidden item was on it, and [only] after Bein Hashmashos the permitted item was also placed on it, then this does not help at all, being that during Bein Hashmashos it was only a base for the forbidden item, [and thus] it becomes forbidden for the entire Shabbos. [If, however, the Heter was placed on the table during Bein Hashmashos, even though it was not there the entire Bein Hashmashos, it is implied from Admur ibid that it does not become a Basis.[31] However from other places in Admur it is implied it must be on the entire Bein Hashamshos, starting before sunset.[32] Practically, the Poskim[33] rule the Heter must be on the entire Bein Hashmashos.]

If the Basis is specifically made to serve the Muktzah item:[34] Although the moving of a candle is only forbidden due to it having become a Basis for a forbidden item, which is the flame, [nevertheless] it does not help to place on the candle from before Shabbos a little bread or another item permitted to be moved in order so the candle be a Basis for a forbidden and permitted [item].

The reason for this is because:[35] The candle is made for the sake of the flame and is therefore secondary to it and not to the bread or other item even though that other matter is of more importance than the flame. The same law applies by a candelabra.

• Manufactured or designated? Some say that if the candle tray is not specifically manufactured to be used for candles[36], then it may have bread[37] [of the Shabbos meal[38]] or another permitted item of more value than the Muktzah items, placed on the tray. Others[39], however, say that even if the tray was not manufactured for this purpose, but was designated to now be used only for this purpose, then it is always a Basis.]

 

• Third Condition-Basis Beakraiy-Placing the Muktzah on the base serves a purpose:[40]

Is only Muktzah if placing the Mukztah there serves a benefit for either the Muktzah item or a different item: A permitted item only becomes a base for a forbidden item if [the forbidden item] was placed there intentionally for a certain purpose, whether for the need of the prohibited item itself, so that it sit on a good surface, such as for example money that is placed on top of a pillow, or whether [the Muktzah item was placed ] for the need of a different item that is permitted[41], such as for example a stone placed on top of a barrel. However if one randomly placed [the Muktzah item] on [the non-Muktzah base], without intending [to place it there] for a purpose that requires it to rest on [the base], but rather [for example] as is the custom to place in a box items on top of each other, being that one does have enough space to make place for each object [to sit] on the floor of the box, then [in such a case, the objects under the Muktzah objects] do not become a [Halachic] base for [the Muktzah object], and it has the same law as one which forgot [to remove the Muktzah object from the base before Shabbos, as here too one has no intention to have the Muktzah object on top of the other objects that are in the box]. [However, the box itself is Muktzah unless the other items in the box are more important than the Muktzah item[42], as is explained in chapter 310 Halacha 20]

The above law as it applies to a tablecloth that has Muktzah items sitting on it:[43] [For the above reason it is] therefore permitted to move a tablecloth even though that the candelabra [i.e. Shabbos candles] is resting on it, being that one has no need for the candelabra to sit on the tablecloth, but rather [it is only needed to sit] on the table [itself], and the only reason that one places it on the tablecloth is because one is not able to make space to place the candelabra on the actual table itself [being that the tablecloth is sitting on the table], or [one is able to make space to place the candelabra on the table itself, such as by a tablecloth that does not take up the entire table] but one feels no desire to make space for it [on the table]. Therefore, the tablecloth does not become a [Halachic] base for the candelabra and [the tablecloth] is not forbidden to be moved.

The above law as it applies to a corpse in a bed:[44] A bed [which has a corpse lying on it] does not become a basis for the corpse [even if the person died on it before Bein Hashmashos] since [the body] does not need the bed [at all], as [the body] is only needed to be placed on the ground.[45]

-Other Halachas which rule that a base is only a Basis if it serves a benefit for the Muktzah item:[46]

Muktzah insulation does not make the pot Muktzah:[47] The [allowance to remove the lid of a pot] is only if the lid of the pot is considered a vessel[48], and is thus not Muktzah. However, if also the lid is made of an item that is Muktzah[49], then [the cover may not be lifted]. [However] if part of the wall of the pot is not covered by the Muktzah insulation material, enough so one can grab that area with his hands, then one may grab it there and lift up the pot and remove it from the insulation, [thus] having the insulation fall off of it on its own. Afterwards one shakes the pot until the Muktzah lid falls off of it.

The reason that the pot is not considered a Basis:[50] [This is allowed] since the pot has never become a Basis for the lid and insulation, being that the lid and the insulation are there for the purpose of heating up the pot, and not [the other way around] that the pot is there to serve a purpose for them [and thus it does not have a status of a Basis, as an item can only become a Basis if its purpose in being there is to serve the Muktzah item].

A radish hidden in earth does not become Muktzah:[51] A radish which had been detached [from the ground] which is insulated in earth with part of its leaves revealed, then one may grab [the radish] by [the leaves] and pull it out, even though that through removing it he [also] moves the earth from its place.

The reason that the radish does not become a base for the earth:[52] The radish does not become a base for the earth that is on it even if he had in mind that it remains there the entire Shabbos, as one did not intend that the radish be there to serve [a benefit for] the earth, but rather that the earth serve [a benefit] to the radish. The same laws apply to all cases similar to the one above.

See footnote for final ruling![53]

• Fourth condition-The Muktzah item was on the base for the entire Bein Hashmashos:

General rule-For Muktzah to remain Muktzah the entire Shabbos it must be Muktzah by the entrance of Shabbos and for the entire duration of Bein Hashmashos:[54] All the above [cases that the object remains Muktzah the entire Shabbos] is only referring to an object that had been Muktzah for the entire duration[55] of Bein Hashmashos. However an item which was fit [to be used] during Bein Hashmashos, even for only a part of it, and then afterwards it became impaired in a way that it became forbidden to be eaten or moved, whether it became impaired on its own or through being actively pushed away by a person, and then afterwards it became repaired, then it returns to its permitted state, and we do not apply [the rule] that since it was set aside and prohibited already for a part of Shabbos [Bein Hashmashos] then it has become set aside for the entire Shabbos.

The reason for this is:[56] because the rule only applies when the item was set aside [Muktzah] at the beginning of the entrance of Shabbos, which is Bein Hashmashos, [as only then] is it set aside for the entire duration [of Shabbos, meaning a full 24 hours], however when it had not become set aside [Muktzah] until after [Shabbos had begun], in  which case there is no longer a full [24 hour] day [for it be set aside], then it does not become set aside for the rest of the day, as [the decree of that an item remains] Muktzah [for the rest of Shabbos] does not apply [when it would only be Muktzah] for a part of Shabbos, whether [at that part of Shabbos it was] prohibited to be eaten or to be moved.

Above rule as applied by Basis:[57] All items which are forbidden to move which one placed from before Shabbos on an item which is permitted to be moved with intent that it should remain there on Shabbos, [in which case the law is that] the permitted item has become a [Halachic] base for the forbidden item, and has become forbidden to be moved  just like [the forbidden item], as was explained in chapter 309 [Halacha 4], and then after Bein Hashmashos the forbidden item was removed from on top of the permitted item, nevertheless it is forbidden to move [the permitted base] the entire Shabbos. For example, a bed which one placed money on top of from before Shabbos with intent that it remains there on Shabbos, and after Bein Hashmashos [the money] got removed from the [bed] by a gentile or a child, [nevertheless] it is forbidden to move [the bed] the entire Shabbos. The reason for this is: because once [an item] is set aside from one’s mind during Bein Hashmashos, [as is the case here] being that he made [the bed] into a base for a prohibited thing [which thus makes it Muktzah], then it becomes Muktzah for the entire Shabbos.

Example by Basis-If a Muktzah item was only placed on the base after Bein Hashmashos:[58] If the money was not on the bed during Bein Hashmashos, and only afterwards a gentile or a child placed it there, then even if it was placed with the Jews knowledge, [and thus it was] set aside from his mind from moving [the bed] so long as the money is on it, nevertheless it is permitted to move it if the money was [later] removed from it, being that [the bed] was not Muktzah during Bein Hashmashos.

Example by Basis-Chicks on a vessel:[59] If chicks were on this basket throughout the entire Bein Hashmashos then it is forbidden to move it throughout the entire day [i.e. Shabbos] even after the chicks have descended from it, as once something is designated to be a base for something prohibited [i.e. Muktzah] by Bein Hashmashos, it becomes Muktzah for the entire day [Shabbos].

One had in mind to remove the candle on Shabbos-after Bein Hashmashos: See Condition A above

B. The law of a Basis when the Muktzah item was removed from it on Shabbos after Bein Hashmashos:[60]

All items which are forbidden to move, which one placed from before Shabbos on an item which is permitted to be moved with intent that it should remain there on Shabbos, [in which case the law is that] the permitted item has become a [Halachic] base for the forbidden item, and has become forbidden to be moved  just like [the forbidden item], and then after Bein Hashmashos the forbidden item was removed from on top of the permitted item, nevertheless it is forbidden to move [the permitted base] the entire Shabbos.

An example of the above: For example a bed which one placed money on top of from before Shabbos with intent that it remain there on Shabbos, and after Bein Hashmashos [the money] got removed from the [bed] by a gentile or a child, [nevertheless] it is forbidden to move [the bed]  the entire Shabbos.

The reason for this is: because once [an item] is set aside from one’s mind during Bein Hashmashos, [as is the case here] being that he made [the bed] into a base for a prohibited thing [which thus makes it Muktzah], then it becomes Muktzah for the entire Shabbos.

C. The law regarding an item that is designated to be a base for a Muktzah item only:[61]

Is considered like MMC”K.[62] See Halacha 4A for further details.

Summary-When does the base of a Muktzah object become a Basis and thus become defined as Muktzah? Any non-Muktzah object [such as a table] which is serving as a support or foundation for an object which is Muktzah, in certain cases becomes Muktzah, receiving the same level of Muktzah as the object that is on it[63]. The Muktzah definition of this non-Muktzah object is referred to as a Basis. Whenever an item is defined as a Basis it cannot be moved even if the Muktzah object later fell off.[64] The non-Muktzah object only receives this status of a Basis if all the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. The Muktzah item was on the supporting object during the entire[65] period of Bein Hashmashos of the entrance of Shabbos.[66] Practically this means that the object was on the Basis from sunset until nightfall. This excludes if the Muktzah object was placed on the base by a gentile or a child on Shabbos itself [after Shekiah], whereas the base does not become Muktzah and may be moved in ways to be explained.[67]  Likewise it excludes if the Muktzah was removed from the table before the end of Bein Hashmashos.[68] 2. The Muktzah object was intentionally placed there before Shabbos to be there on Shabbos: This excludes if one merely forgot to remove the object from the base before Shabbos[69] [See Q&A 1], and excludes if it was placed by someone else unknown to the owner, and the owner of the non-Muktzah base doesn’t receive benefit from the Muktzah item having been placed on it.[70] [See Q&A 2] [Likewise if the Muktzah object fell onto a non-Muktzah item before Shabbos, or one placed it without realizing what he was doing, then it is not Muktzah.[71]] If the object was placed by the owner with the intention to remove it on Shabbos[72], after Bein Hashmashos, through having a gentile remove it or through shaking it off, then in a case of loss the non-Muktzah item does not have a Basis status and may be moved in ways to be explained.[73] If the object was placed by the owner with the intention to remove it on Shabbos[74], before the conclusion of Bein Hashmashos, through having a gentile remove it or through shaking it off, then it is not a Basis.[75] 3. Placing the object on the Basis serves a benefit for the Muktzah object. This excludes if it being placed on the non-Muktzah item contains no benefit, such as one placed a Muktzah object on a table, over the table cloth, or in a box on top of other objects, then the tablecloth and other objects in the box don’t become Muktzah as they serve no benefit in being a Basis.[76] As well if the Muktzah item serves to benefit the Basis and not vice versa, such as Muktzah insulation placed over a pot[77] or earth placed over a radish to help it grow[78], then the pot and radish do not have the status of a Basis[79]. 4. The following condition is brought in later Poskim:[80] The Muktzah object has some importance in relation to its Basis, however if it is a non important object such as bones, dust, flies, or a few cents, the Basis isn’t Muktzah. 5. When there is another Non-Muktzah item on the Basis then the Basis is only Muktzah if: A. If the Muktzah object is more important than any other non-Muktzah object on the Basis then the Basis is nevertheless Muktzah.[81] See Q&A 3-4 If the permitted item is not important to the owner while the forbidden item is, then even if the non-Muktzah item is of more importance to the entire world, it is nevertheless not considered important being that everything goes after the owner, and the item thus becomes Basis.[82] [Regarding having bread on the table see Q&A below!]         Or   B. Even if the Muktzah is less important than the non-Muktzah item, nevertheless if the Basis was made specifically for the Muktzah object, such as candles sticks which are manufactured specifically for the flame which is Muktzah, then it is Muktzah. Thus, even if bread is placed on the candle stick it remains a Basis.[83] [Some[84] say that even if the Basis was not manufactured for this purpose, but was designated to now be used only for this purpose, then it is always a Basis.]        Or C. If the non- Muktzah item was only placed on the Basis after Bein Hashmashos already began, then even if it is of more importance and the Basis is not designated only for the forbidden item, nevertheless it remains a Basis.[85] [See Q&A regarding one who accepts Shabbos early!] · Summary of condition 5: Having a permitted item on the Basis only helps to remove its Muktzah state if: The non-Muktzah item on the Basis is of more importance then the Muktzah item [86], or the total amount of non-Muktzah items are of more importance then the Muktzah item[87], and the Basis is not manufactured for the use of Muktzah item[88], and the non-Muktzah item was placed there from before Shabbos and remained on it throughout the entire Bein Hashmashos.[89]  In a case that these conditions are fulfilled then the Basis does not become Muktzah, and it may be moved in the ways to be explained in the next Halacha, even if the permitted item has fallen off the Basis.[90] Regarding an object which to some may be viewed as more expensive and to others not, one is to always follow the owner’s perspective on the objects.[91] Note: An item which is designated to be used solely for a Muktzah item is always considered Muktzah[92]. See Halacha 4A.   A bed which a corpse died on:[93] Even if this occurred before Shabbos and the corpse remained on the bed throughout the entire Bein Hashmashos, nevertheless the bed does not become a Basis being that it serves no benefit for the body as well as that it has no need for the body, thus lacking condition 3.   General Q&A Can food become a Basis for a Mukztah object that was intentionally placed to rest on it? Example: A women intentionally placed her phone on top of a food, so it rests on it over Shabbos, does that food become Muktzah? Some Poskim[94] rule that in a time of need one may be lenient to not consider food which is a base for a Muktzah item as a Basis and it is thus not Muktzah.[95] Other Poskim[96] however rule that food has the same status as all other item, and can become a Basis, and so concludes Admur.[97]   If an MM”I object was placed on a Non-Muktzah item does that item become a Basis?[98] Some Poskim[99] rule that the Basis is not Muktzah at all, as the rule of a Basis becoming Muktzah was only said by MM”G or MMC”K. However other Poskim[100] rule that it does receive the same ruling as does MM”I.   If a Non-Muktzah item is resting over a Muktzah item does that Non-Muktzah become a Basis? No. However in a case that the non-Muktzah item serves the Muktzah item by being placed on top of it, then there are Poskim[101] which lean to be stringent to consider it a Basis. Others[102] however rule that it is never a Basis when sitting over Muktzah. If a Muktzah item is hanging on a Heter item, does it become Muktzah?[103] Yes. Q&A on condition of intent What is the definition of “forgetting” a Muktzah object on a non-Muktzah support?[104] Does forgetting mean that one had in mind before Shabbos to remove the object and later forgot or even if he placed the object there without intention of it being there for Shabbos and then on Shabbos recalled that he should have remembered to remove it, is it considered as if he forgot? According to all opinion if the object was placed before Erev Shabbos, then so long as he did not have explicit intent for it to remain there on Shabbos, the item does not become a Basis.[105] If, however, one placed the Muktzah on the item on Erev Shabbos, then some Poskim[106] rule that even if he did not have explicit intent to have it remain there into Shabbos, the item becomes a Basis if one did not have explicit intent to remove it before Shabbos. Other Poskim[107], however, rule that even when placed on Erev Shabbos, so long as one did not have explicit intent for it to remain there on Shabbos, it has the same status as “forgotten” and cannot become a Basis. It is implied from Admur like this latter opinion[108], and so is implied to be the final ruling of the M”B 277/12. If a member of one’s household placed a Muktzah object on a non-Muktzah item is it considered a Basis? A child under Bar Mitzvah:[109] If a child under Bar Mitzvah placed the Muktzah on the base then it is not Muktzah if this does not benefit the father.[110] A wife or child over Bar Mitzvah:[111] If one’s wife or adult child placed a Muktzah item on the Basis, and it does not benefit the father, then if the wife/child placed it on an object which belongs to the husband/father then he may be lenient. If, however, it was placed on a food or on an item which belongs to her as Nichsei Malug, then one is to be stringent and consider it Muktzah. Partners:[112] A non-Muktzah item which belongs to partners, and one of the partners placed a Muktzah item on top of it, then it becomes Muktzah for both partners. If the owner of the non-Muktzah item saw one placing a Muktzah item on it and did not protest, is it considered as if he has consented? Seemingly, the item is not Muktzah as even if we say Shetika Kehoda this does not mean that one has agreed that it be left there into Shabbos. A list of queries regarding having a more important non-Muktzah object on the Basis: If one had in mind to place the more important non-Muktzah item on the Basis before Shabbos, and forgot to do so, is the Muktzah object considered forgotten thus making the Basis not Muktzah? Some Poskim[113] rule that the Basis does not become Muktzah.  However other Poskim[114] rule that the Basis is Muktzah.[115] If one placed the more important non-Muktzah item on the Basis before Shabbos with intention to remove on Shabbos does the Basis become Muktzah? According to the opinion that a Basis only becomes Muktzah if one had intention for it to be there the entire Shabbos, likewise they would hold that a non-Muktzah object can only remove a Muktzah status if it was there the entire Shabbos. Accordingly placing bread on the table would be of no use if one plans to eat it within one of the Shabbos meals.[116] Practically however, it seems one may be lenient as the main opinion is that it only needs to be there for the duration of dawn. This is also implied in the ruling regarding placing Shabbos[117] bread by the candlesticks in 277, in which case Admur rules that the table does not become a Basis.  וצ”ע   If a more important non-Muktzah object was placed on the Basis without intention for it to be there on Shabbos, or with intention to remove before Shabbos and later forgot, can it still have the power to make the Basis non-Muktzah, despite that the Muktzah object was placed intentionally?[118] Yes. Even if the non-Muktzah object was merely forgotten on the basis, if it is of more importance than the Muktzah item then the Basis is not Muktzah. Is the importance of the objects measured in accordance to its value or in accordance to its necessity? One follows whichever is of more necessity to oneself at that moment.[119] Thus, when Shabbos candles are on one’s table the permitted item placed on one’s table must be of more importance to oneself than having the light on the table.[120] [Nevertheless, one must say that also value is taken into consideration, otherwise even an apple would override any Muktzah item that one does not need on Shabbos, such as if an apple and $100 is on the table, as one has no use for the money on Shabbos and has use to eat the apple on Shabbos.] Does placing bread on a surface help to override a Muktzah item which is also on it, and thus make the surface not be a Basis? See Halacha 12E Q&A May one place bread or another permitted item on a candle tray to allow moving it on Shabbos? See Halacha 12E Q&A

What type of Non-Muktzah item helps to be placed on a table with lit candlesticks, to allow to move the table on Shabbos:[121] Placing bread [of the Shabbos meal[122], or Kiddush wine[123] or Siddur or other Sefer one will use on Shabbos[124]] on the table helps to override the candles in all cases.[125] This applies even if there are expensive silver candlesticks on the table.[126] Regarding other permitted items, if the item is of more importance than the light[127] of the candle which is on the table, then it overrides the candles.[128] Regarding a case that one has silver candlesticks, then whether or not the non-Muktzah item must be of more value than those candlesticks is dependent on a dispute regarding whether silver candlesticks are considered MMC”K. See Halacha 5 Q&A where this was discussed at length. If one knows he will want to move the Basis on Shabbos with the Mutar item must he remove the Muktzah item from before Shabbos in order so he not need to shake it off? No.[129] If a Muktzah item and its Basis are on a surface, must the non-Muktzah item be of greater value then both the Muktzah item and its Basis?[130] No. It needs to be of greater value then only the Muktzah item, as the Basis is nullified to the Muktzah.   If the Muktzah and non-Muktzah object have the same value, does the Basis still become Muktzah? Some Poskim[131] rule that in a case that the Muktzah and non-Muktzah object which are on the Basis are of the same value of importance then the Basis is nevertheless Muktzah.[132] Other Poskim[133] however rule that it does not become Muktzah, and rather is only Muktzah when the Muktzah item that is on the Basis is of more importance then the non-Muktzah item.[134]    If one accepts Shabbos early, must the non-Muktzah item be on the table from when he accepts Shabbos?[135] No. [So long as it is on the table from before Tzeis Hakochavim, it is valid.[136] However, some[137] write it must be on the table before sunset, until after Tzeis Hakochavim. Practical Q&A If a Muktzah item was intentionally placed on a Sefer Torah does it become a Basis?[138] No. A Sefer Torah cannot become a Basis being that it is the property of Holiness and one thus does not have the ability to make it Muktzah, just like one cannot turn one’s friends object into a Basis. If a Muktzah item was intentionally placed on a Sefer does that Sefer become Muktzah? [139] If one intended to leave the Muktzah there throughout the entire Shabbos, then it becomes a Basis and is Muktzah. If, however, one intended to remove the Muktzah on Shabbos [through a gentile or shaking it off] then it is not Muktzah, as this case is no less than a case of loss in which one may be lenient. Thus, Muktzah papers [such as a blank paper which one intends to use to write on] are not to be placed into Sefarim, and if placed with intent to remain throughout Shabbos then that Sefer becomes a Basis and is Muktzah. If a closet has become a Basis for a Muktzah item, may its door nevertheless be opened?[140] Yes.   May one open the door of the fuse box? Yes. May one open the door of a closet which houses a video monitor? Yes. He may even store and remove things from inside even if doing so will cause the Basis to shake.

__________________________________________________________

[1] Admur 309:4; Michaber 309:4; Shabbos 142b

[2] Admur 309:4; Michaber 309:4; Admur 277:6

[3] The reason: As if one forgot the item there then the non-Mukztah is not serving the Mukztah with intent of the owner, but rather due to his forgetfulness. [Admur 277:6

[4] Admur 309:7; Michaber 309:4; Rashi Shabbos 51; 142b

[5] If, however, he intended to remove it before the end of Bein Hashmashos, then it is not Muktzah. [M”B 309:19; See Admur 308:79]

[6] Admur 309:7; Michaber 310:7

[7] Admur 309:7; 277:6; Michaber 309:4; M”A 377:8; See also Michaber 279:4; Admur 279:5 regarding a similar dispute regarding one who made a Tnaiy with a candle, in which the Michaber is lenient and the Rama is stringent.

277:6: There are opinions which say that the item is not considered a Basis unless one had in mind that the candle be on top of the tray throughout the entire Shabbos. However, if one had in mind to remove it from there after the entrance of Shabbos through a gentile or through shaking it off or another form of irregular movement, then it is permitted to shake it off if it is a wax candle or a candle of the like.

[8] Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafus 51a; 43b; 123a; Sefer Hateruma 254

[9] Lit. Tiltul Min Hatzad [277:6]

[10] Admur 309:7; 276:6; Bach 277; M”A 309:7 and 277:8; M”B 309:21 and 277:18

276:6:  One may rely on their words to be lenient in a case of loss, such as a candle which is on one’s table which fell onto the table and one is worried that it may burn down his table, then one may shake the table and have the candle consequently fall off, if the candle is of wax or something of the like, and one had in mind from before Shabbos to have it removed from the table on Shabbos through a gentile or through shaking or an irregular form of moving.

Ruling of Admur in 279:5: Vetzaruch Iyun from 279:5 [to be brought in the examples below] where a) Admur does not mention that in a case of loss one may be lenient; b) Admur mentions the lenient opinion first [stam] and the stringent as the “other opinions”. This is in contrast to the ruling here which both mention the stringent opinion first [as the stam] and the lenient opinion as the “other opinion”. Furthermore, there Admur rules that in a case of loss one may be lenient. Also, in Michaber 279:4 he rules plainly like the lenient opinion that holds a Tnaiy helps to remove the status of a Basis from it. See M”B 279:11 that explains the difference between the regular case of a Basis and the case of a candle is that by a candle one knows for certain that it will extinguish, and hence the Michaber is more lenient. Vetzaruch Iyun as if so then certainly Admur should rule that in this case one may be lenient in a case of loss. Furthermore, the stringent opinion there is Tosafus, while the lenient opinion here is Tosafus. Vetzaruch Iyun.

^[11] And one fears that the table may burn, he may tilt the candle onto the floor, if the candle is made of wax, if one had in mind on Erev Shabbos when he placed the candle there that the candle be removed from the table. [To note however that today if there is danger of death due to fire, then in all situations one may even extinguish the fire. The above is only referring to a case that there are no lives endangered by the fire.]

[12] 309:11; Rama 309:4 in name of Or Zarua 2:86

[13] Admur ibid; recorded 309:29 in name of Admur

[14] Admur ibid; M”A 309:8

[15] Admur 309:10; M”A 309:?; M”B 309:18

^[16] Meaning that it has developed to the point that a chick has begun to form inside it.

^[17] However, an egg that does not have a chick inside, is fit for even humans to eat, and is thus not Muktzah

[18] Admur 309:4; Based on Michaber 310:8; brought in Admur 310:16

[19] Admur 310:16

[20] Admur 310:16; M”A 310:8; M”B 310:33

^[21] Seemingly this is coming to include the scenario explained there of when a rich person is staying by a poor person, in which case the rich person follows the poor person status.

[22] Admur 308:5; M”A 308:1

^[23] As otherwise the casing has become a Basis as explained in chapter 310 Halacha 16, see summary there.

[24] Admur 310:20; Michaber 310:9

[25] Meaning that if possible, one must shake the money out prior to moving it.

[26] Admur 310:18; 279:6; M”B 277:18; SSH”K 20:55; So learns also Shearim Hametzuyanim 89:2 in the M”B.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rules that the Basis may only be moved while the permitted item is still on it, as when it is removed the Basis receives a Basis status to the Muktzah. [Peri Megadim 309:1 and 279 A”A 14, brought also in Minchas Shabbos 89:7; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 278:5 footnote 17]

[27] Admur 279:6

[28] Admur 277:6; M”A 277:8; M”B 277:18

[29] Admur ibid; M”B 277:18; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 277:10; Seemingly this is coming to teach that only the Shabbos Chalas are considered to oneself of more importance then the candles. This is in contrast to weekday bread to which the candles hold more importance in relation to, and thus the table would still remain a basis. This can seemingly answer why in the end of this Halacha Admur mentions that bread also must be of more importance than the flame, as if it is weekday bread then it is not of more importance. [See also Q&A below, Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 24; Kitzur Hilchos Shabbos 279 footnote 16]

[30] Admur 310:18; Rama 310:8 based on Teshuvas Rashba

[31] As we only say the rule of Iskatzi Lechol Hashabbos if the item was Mukztah for the entire Bein Hashmashos, and hence if the Mukztah was not on the Basis for the entire Bein Hashamshos then it is not a Basis, as ruled in Admur 310:4; 309:11; Admur 308:78; 310:8; M”B 309:19; SSH”K 20:53 footnote 186. Thus here too since for even one moment before Tzeis the Basis was not Muktzah, therefore it is not a Basis.

Other opinions: Some write it must be on the table before sunset, until after Tzeis Hakochavim. [Piskeiy Teshuvos 277 footnote 105]

[32] So is implied from Admur which writes “from Beod Yom”.

[33] Kitzur SHU”A 89:2; Minchas Shabbos 89:6; SSH”K 20 footnote 224; Piskeiy Teshuvos 277 footnote 105

[34] Admur 279:4; Michaber 279:3

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the bread overrides the candle even in such a case. [Kol Bo, brought in Michaber ibid]

[35] Admur ibid; M”A 279:5; M”B 279:10

[36] Such as a simple metal or silver tray, or deposable baking pan. Now, although these have been designated to be used for the candles, nevertheless since they were not specifically made for this use, they can become nullified to the permitted object over the Muktzah object. So is implied from the term used in Admur 279:5 “since the candle is made for the sake of the flame”, and not simply designated. So rules Piskeiy Teshuvos 279:2, however see the new Piskeiy Teshuvos 277:10 brought below.

[37] Although the bread is not necessarily of more worth than the candle sticks, which for certain are a basis for the flame, it nevertheless overrides the candle sticks as a) It is of more importance for the meal [see above Q&A], and b) the candlesticks are merely a Basis and thus there is no need to override them, so long as the bread is of more value than the actual Muktzah which is the flame.

[38] So rules Admur in 277:6. Seemingly this is coming to teach that only the Shabbos Chalas are considered to oneself of more importance then the candles. This is in contrast to weekday bread to which the candles hold more importance in relation to, and thus the table would still remain a basis.

[39] P”M 279 A”A 14; Piskeiy Teshuvos 277:10; M”B Dirshu; Igros Moshe 5:22-11

[40] Admur 309:9; M”A 309:6; questioner in Mahariy 193

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that that even if the Muktzah was placed coincidently onto the non-Mukztah, without any specific need for it to rest on the non-Muktzah, then the item becomes a Basis. Thus there is no need for the Basis to benefit the Mukztah at all, and this opinion does not hold of this condition. [Mahariy brought in M”A ibid; Taz 309:1] Some Poskim rule based on this that one may only be lenient in a time of need. [M”B 309:18; SSH”K 20:52 and 60]

[41] Admur ibid; based on M”A ibid in name of Ramban in Milchamos that a Mukztah object on top of a cover make the cover Muktzah; and based on Michaber 309:4 in his ruling of a barrel; See however below for the cotradictory rulings in Michaber:Admur:M”A which state that a Basis never becomes Mukztah when the Issur was placed to serve the Heter. The explanation [as explained there in footnotes] is that here Admur does not mean to say that even when the Issur is serving the Basis, the Basis becomes Muktzah, but rather that even when the Issur is serving an external non-Mukztah item it turns the Basis into a Basis, as the Basis is still serving the Mukztah for the sake of serving the non-Mukztah item. Thus, in the case of the barrel the barrel becomes Muktzah, as the barrel and stone are both serving the wine [which is Mutar] and the barrel is serving the stone so it cover the wine. However, in a case that the Mukztah is actually serving the basis, then it would not become Mukztah, and hence there is no contradiction between the laws. [Tehila Ledavid 259:5] This can be inferred also from the wording of Admur here which writes “or for the need of a different item that is permitted”, meaning an item that is not the Basis. Upashut!

[42] M”B 309:19 in name of Chayeh Adam

[43] Admur ibid; Admur 277:6; based on questioner in Mahariy ibid as mentioned in Taz 309:1

Other opinions: The other Poskim rule that that even if the Muktzah was placed coincidently onto the non-Mukztah, without any specific need for it to rest on the non-Muktzah, then the item becomes a Basis. Thus, according to this opinion, the tablecloth becomes a Basis, and is Muktzah just like the table itself. [Taz 309:1; Mahariy brought in M”A ibid] Some Poskim rule based on this that one may only be lenient in a time of need. [M”B 309:18; SSH”K 20:52 and 60] Some Poskim rule that according to this opinion the entire tablecloth becomes a Basis. [Levushei Serud on Taz ibid] Other Poskim rule that only the area under the Menora becomes a Basis even in accordance to the Taz ibid. [P”M 309 M”Z 1] Some Poskim rule that according to all opinions the tablecloths of today become Mukztah, as one desires the tablecloth to be on the entire table. [Igros Moshe 4:73] However it is clear from the wording of Admur “or [one is able to make space to place the candelabra on the table itself, such as by a tablecloth that does not take up the entire table] but one feels no desire to make space for it [on the table]” that this is not correct, and so rules SSH”K 20:52 and 60

[44] Admur 311:1

^[45] Seemingly this means that the body is meant to be on the ground and thus the bed never becomes a basis, as it serves of no benefit towards the body, as explained in chapter 309 Halacha 9.

[46] Above Admur ruled that even when the Muktzah benefits the base, it has the law of a basis. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol from 259 Halacha 3 and 311 Halacha 14 [to be brought below] where Admur rules that an item only becomes a basis if it benefit’s the Muktzah item and not vice versa if the Muktzah item benefits it.

Attempted answers for this query: See Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 11 which mentions this contradiction and refers one to see Rav Akivah Eiger which discusses the contradiction and leaves the matter inconclusive. The Tehila Ledavid [259:5] also brings up this contradiction in Admur and suggests [bidochek] that perhaps since here both the stone and the barrel serve the wine in it therefore the barrel is considered Muktzah, while there in 259 since the cover itself serves also to heat up the food, it therefore is not considered Muktzah. In any event he concludes that since anyways there are opinions which say that when one intends to remove the Muktzah on Shabbos it does not become a basis, therefore in the case of 259 which deals with food insulated for Shabbos which one intends to uncover on Shabbos, therefore one may be lenient. [Nevertheless, this cannot be used as the explanation behind the contradiction in Admur being that a) Admur should have mentioned this in his reasoning there, and b) In chapter 311 Halacha 14 Admur rules a similar ruling to 259 that a radish which as insulated with earth may be removed on Shabbos and in that case, there is no reason to assume that one intended to remove it on Shabbos, as opposed to the case in 259. Vetzaruch Iyun why this opinion was not mentioned in the above footnote of the Ketzos Hashulchan. This possibly further verifies what is said that the Ketzos Hashulchan did not have the sefer Tehila Ledavid available to him. [See Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 2 page 348]]

In the Sefer Hilchasa Kirav [R. Terbodavitch] he explains that the difference between the two cases is that here in 309 the barrel is specifically made to have a cover placed on it, and thus becomes a Basis being that it is now serving the stone. [However, Tzaruch Iyun why this was not mentioned specifically by Admur, and furthermore in the wording of Admur it implies that in any case that the Muktzah serves the permitted item it is allowed, and is not limited to a scenario that the Permitted item was made to serve it.]

The final ruling: The Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 11 rules that a Basis is only considered Muktzah if it serves a benefit for the Muktzah object and not if vice versa that the Muktzah serves as a benefit for the Muktzah item.

[47] 259:3; Michaber 259:1

^[48] This applies to any lid that has been either designated for covering, or for any other ready usage.

^[49] Such as if one took a stone and placed it over the pot to cover it.

[50] 259:3; M”A 259:6; M”B 259:9; 309:18 Shaar Hatziyon 23; based on Razah and Ran

Other opinions: The Ramban holds the cover does become Mukztah. [brought in M”A 309:6]

[51] Admur 311:14; Michaber 311:8

[52] Admur ibid; M”A 311:23; M”B 311:29

[53] The final ruling: The Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 11 rules that a Basis is only considered Muktzah if it serves a benefit for the Muktzah object and not if vice versa that the Muktzah serves as a benefit for the Muktzah item. So rules also SSH”K 20:52 and M”B Dirshu

[54] Admur 310:7; Michaber 310:3; Beitza 26; SSH”K 20:53 [p. 254]

[55] Admur ibid; 309:11: “Fell on it before Bein Hashmashos and remained on it until after Bein Hashmashos”; Admur 308:78; See also Admur 310:8 “However if during Bein Hashmashos only the forbidden item was on it, and [only] after Bein Hashmashos the permitted item was also placed on it, then this does not help at all, being that during Bein Hashmashos it was only a base for the forbidden item, [and thus] it becomes forbidden for the entire Shabbos.”; M”B 309:19; SSH”K 20:53 footnote 186; omitted by Michaber ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim question whether it needs to be Muktzah for the entire Bein Hashmashos, or even part of Bein Hashmashos suffices. [See P”M 279 A”A 14; Tehila Ledavid 310:3; 279:17] This is based on 638 in which we rule that the Sechach becomes Mukttah if a Tnaiy was not made before the beginning of Bein Hashmashos. However, see Chikrei Halachos 5:45 that the laws of Mukzta Machmas Mitzvah are stricter and hence no proof can be brought from there.

[56] Admur ibid

Other reasons:  Some explain the reason we follow Bein Hashmashos is because the main preparation for an item is prior to Shabbos, and hence since it was not on one’s mind in the beginning of Shabbos, therefore it is Muktzah the entire day.

[57] Admur 310:11; Michaber 310:7

[58] Admur 310:11; M”B 310:37 in name of Taz

[59] Admur 308:78; See also 309:7 “[Furthermore] even if one intended that the [Muktzah] item not remain there the entire Shabbos but rather only for the entering of Shabbos alone, meaning that he had in mind that it should remain there only until after Bein Hashmashos, and then he [plans] to remove it from there by shaking [the base that it is sitting on], then [nevertheless] this does not help at all to even permit him to do the shaking which he had in mind to do.”

[60] Admur 310:11; Also 309:8: “According to all opinions if the situation is that the base had [Halachicly] become a base for a prohibited item during Bein Hashmashos, then even if afterwards the forbidden item was removed from on top of it, it is [nevertheless] forbidden to move the [base] throughout the entire Shabbos, just like it was forbidden when the forbidden item was on it, as once it has been Muktzah during Bein Hashmashos it is Muktzah the entire Shabbos, as will be explained in chapter 310 [Halacha 4].”; Rama 309:4; M”A 308; M”B 308:148;

[61] Admur 310:12

[62] Vetzaruch Iyun from here 279:4 which implies that only when the other conditions of a Basis are fulfilled is it considered Muktzah. While in 310:12 it implies that all vessels designated for a Muktzah item are Muktzah.

^[63] Admur 309:4

^[64] Admur 309:8; 310:11

[65] Admur ibid; 310:18; 308:79; M”B 309:19; SSH”K 20:53 footnote 186; omitted by Michaber ibid;

Other opinions: Some Poskim question whether it needs to be Muktzah for the entire Bein Hashmashos, or even part of Bein Hashmashos suffices. [See P”M 279 A”A 14; Tehila Ledavid 310:3; 279:17]

^[66]  Admur 310:7 and 11; 309:7, 308:78; SSH”K 20:53.

^[67] Admur 310:11; See Ketzos Hashulchan 112:13

[68] Admur 308:78;

^[69] Chapter 309 Halacha 4

^[70] Admur 309:11. If however the owner is pleased with the Muktzah having been placed on his base, then it is as if he intentionally placed it there.

^[71] SS”K-20:51

[72] Whether this intention was made at the time of placing the object there from before Shabbos or after the entrance of Shabbos, prior to the end of Bein Hashmashos.

^[73] Admur 309:7

[74] Whether this intention was made at the time of placing the object there from before Shabbos or after the entrance of Shabbos, prior to the end of Bein Hashmashos.

[75] Admur 309:7; M”B 309:19; SSH”K 20:53

^[76] Admur 309:9

^[77] Admur 259:2-3

^[78] Admur 311:14

^[79] The Ketzos Hashulchan ibid rules as a final ruling that a Basis is only considered Muktzah if it serves a benefit for the Muktzah object and not if vice versa that the Muktzah serves as a benefit for the Muktzah item. Thus he learns that the case mentioned by Admur which contradicts this ruling is a mere exception.

[80] M”B 31:31 in name of Chayeh Adam; Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 20; 114 footnote 3; SSH”K 20:54

^[81] Admur 310:16; 309:4

[82] Admur 310:16

^[83] Admur 279:4

[84] P”M 279 A”A 14; Piskeiy Teshuvos 277:10; M”B Dirshu; Igros Moshe 5:22-11

^[85] Admur 310:18

^[86] Chapter 309 Halacha 4, and 310 Halacha 20

^[87] So is implied from Chapter 308 Halacha 5 regarding that the casing of the knives is not Muktzah if other knives were in it from before Shabbos. However, Tzaruch Iyun from 310:20 where Admur mentions that by a box filled with objects if the main object is not the money in it then it is not Muktzah, thus implying that we do not calculate all the objects together.

^[88] Admur 279:4

^[89] Admur 310:18

[90] Admur 277:6; So learns also Shearim Hametzuyanim 89:2 in the M”B. However, the Peri Megadim 309:1 [brought also in Minchas Shabbos 89:7] rules that the Basis may only be moved while the permitted item is still on it. See Piskeiy Teshuvos 278:5 footnote 17.

^[91] Chapter 310 Halacha 16

[92] Vetzaruch Iyun from here 279:4 which implies that only when the other conditions of a Basis are fulfilled is it considered Muktzah. While in 310:12 it implies that all vessels designated for a Muktzah item are Muktzah.

^[93] Chapter 311 Halacha 1

[94] Rama 311:8 writes “As food cannot become a Basis for a Mukztah item” based on Meiri Shabbos 142a; Minchas Shabbos in Shiyurei Mincha 89:4 in name of Piskei Dinim writes one may be lenient in a time of need

[95] The reason: This follows the opinion of the Meiri which rules that food cannot become a Basis being that one never removes his mind from food, as explained in 310:1

[96] Admur 311:14; M”A 311:23; Mishneh Berura 311:29; Tosefes Shabbos 311:27; Gra; Minchas Shabbos end of 89

[97] Admur 311:14 regarding a radish, that the only reason mentioned that it does not become a Basis is because it lacks the condition of having it benefit the earth. This implies that otherwise it would become Muktzah. See also Mishneh Berura 311:29 which rules likewise.

[98] Piskeiy Teshuvos 309:3

[99] Minchas Shabbos 89:2 in name of Yeshuos Yaakov; Minchas Yitzchak 8:22

[100] Tehila Ledavid 308:1; Peri Megadim introduction M”Z 308 leaves this matter in doubt.

[101] Peri Megadim 308 Introduction 308; Minchas Shabbos 88:22

[102] Az Nidbaru 2:49, as learns Bach and Daas Torah.

[103] Admur 277:3; M”B 277:7 [A door with an oil candle attached to it may be moved slowly in a way that will not cause the oil to extinguish the flame.] There is no [Muktzah] prohibition in moving the door due to the Muktzah candle which is attached to it. The reason for this is because the door has not become a Basis for the candle, being that the door is of importance, as it serves the house and is nullified to the house and not to the candle. [Thus, the reason that it is allowed to open the door is because it is considered Tiltul Min Hatzad with intent to move the door, and Tiltul Min Hatzad for a permitted matter is permitted to be done.]

[104] M”B 309:18

Background: In the M”B (309:18) he brings an argument between the Mahari and B.Y. regarding this issue. According to the B.Y. if he placed the object there on Erev Shabbos without intention of it being there for Shabbos and then on Shabbos recalled that he should have remembered to remove it, it’s considered as if he forgot and it does not make the Basis Muktzah. According to the Mahari it is Muktzah. If, however, he placed the object there on a regular weekday without intention of it being there for Shabbos and then on Shabbos recalled that he should have remembered to remove it, it’s considered as if he forgot it there according to everyone.

It appears the Alter Rebbe ruled according to the opinion of the B.Y. This is implied in the words (309:7) that he placed it “with intention to be there on Shabbos” as opposed to he placed it “without intention to remove before Shabbos.  וצ”ע

[105] M”A 309:6; M”B ibid

[106] Mahariy brought in M”A 309:6; M”B ibid

[107] Beis Yosef brought in M”B ibid

[108] See Admur 309:4 and 7 “with intention to be there on Shabbos” as opposed to he placed it “without intention to remove before Shabbos. 

[109] SSH”K 20 footnote 173 in name of Minchas Shabbos

[110] The concept of a child not having Machshava is brought in Minchas Shabbos 88:63; and Tosefes Shabbos in end of introduction to 308.

[111] Daas Torah 308:4; Ahavas Shalom brought in Minchas Shabbos 89:22. However the Minchas Shabbos himself leaves this matter in doubt even in a case that it was placed on the father:husbands belongings.

[112] Az Nidbaru 10:3

[113] Rav SZ”A in SSH”K 20 footnote 200

[114] Igros Moshe 3:51

[115] The reason: since we don’t go after ones thoughts rather by ones actions. The lenient opinion seems more logical being the whole concept of Muktzah is that one has removed his mind from using the object over Shabbos while here it is not the case.  וצ”ע

[116] Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 20

[117] Which one plans to eat on Shabbos, as otherwise, the candle would be considered of more use then the bread and the table would still be Muktzah.

[118] Minchas Shabbos 89:20; brought in SSH”K 20 Footnote 201, Rav SZ”A rules likewise.

[119] Based on Admur 277:6; M”B 277:18; RSZ”A in SSH”K 20 footnote 216; Beir Moshe  8:67; Piskeiy Teshuvos 277:10; and the following Q&A dealing with bread.

Other opinions: See P”M 279 A”A 14 that writes that so long as one has food or other expensive vessles on the table it overrides. Vetzrauuch Iyun

[120] Admur 277:6; Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 24

[121] Piskeiy Teshuvos 279 footnote 4

[122] So rules Admur in 277:6. Seemingly this is coming to teach that only the Shabbos Chalas are considered to oneself of more importance then the candles. This is in contrast to weekday bread to which the candles hold more importance in relation to, and thus the table would still remain a basis.

[123] RSZ”A in SSH”K 20 footnote 216

[124] Piskeiy Teshuvos 277:10

[125] As explained in the previous Q&A.

[126] See Admur in 277:6 that we measure versus what is more important and not versus the monetary value; See Ketzos Hashulchan in next footnote

[127] Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 24 that one must measure whether the light of the candle or the Heter is more important right now, and which one he would rather have now.

[128] Admur 277:6

[129] Sheivet Hakehasi 3:123

[130] SSH”K 20 footnote 215; Piskeiy Teshuvos 279 footnote 4

[131] M”B 310:33 based on Beis Meir; Tosefes Shabbos, Levushei Serud, Chayeh Adam; ; Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 21; In SS”K (20:note-302) he brings the M”B which likewise rules that the basis becomes Muktzah.

[132] In the Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnbote 21 he brings a proof from the case of a wealthy person that although to him both items are equal in their level of importance the basis is still considered Muktzah. Likewise from 309:4; 310:16 [in beginning] it is implied that only if the non-Muktzah object is of more importance is it not Muktzah. Vetzaruch Iyun from the conclusion of 310:16 as will be brought in the lenient opinion.

[133] Aruch Hashulchan 310:15

[134] The stringent ruling is difficult to comprehend in accordance to what is written in 310:16. There the term used is that “when the Muktzah object is more important, the Basis is Muktzah, due to the fact that a non-Muktzah object becomes nullified in the presence of an item of its superior”. This implies that when the Muktzah object is not superior, the non-Muktzah does not become nullified and therefore it does not make the basis Muktzah. In the Aruch Hashulchan he brings the stringent opinion and the above difficulty, concluding that the basis does not become Muktzah. However to note that from 309:4; 310:16 it is implied that only if the non-Muktzah object is of more importance is it not Muktzah, as rules the stringent opinion.

[135] Minchas Shabbos 89:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 277:11; SSH”K 20:184

[136] See above from Admur 310:18; that so is proven.

[137] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 105, his logic however is flawed, as explained in the above Halacha in Admur

[138] Igros Moshe 4:72

[139] Igros Moshe 4:72

[140] Ketzos Hashulchan 112 footnote 20; Piskeiy Teshuvos 309:5; SSH”K 20:59