To purchase this Sefer, click here

3. The general rules of Muktzah:

A. May one move a Muktzah item using parts of his body other than his hands?[1]

Moving in an irregular way: All Muktzah [items] are only forbidden to be moved in the regular way that they are moved during the week, which is through using one’s hands. However, it is permitted to move it with one’s body, as is explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 15].[2] This [moving with one’s body] is called “moving an object with an irregularity”[3] which [means that it is moved] differently than the way it is moved during the week.

Moving Muktzah with one’s feet:[4] Therefore it is permitted to move a Muktzah [item] with ones feet, to move it from one place to another while he is walking. This is allowed whether [he needs to move it] because he needs its space or even [if he wants to move it] for the benefit of the Muktzah itself, in order to hide it [so it not get stolen or broken] (See chapter 311 [Halacha 15]).[5]

Carrying Muktzah on the back of one’s hands and in-between one’s elbows:[6] Every Muktzah [item] is allowed to be moved through moving it from the side[7] such as [moving it] with the back of one’s hands or between one’s elbows[8] and the like.[9] And if one were to move it through moving his body, such as through [holding it] with the back of his hands, or between his elbows and cases of the like, then he is allowed to move it even to prevent it from getting stolen.[10]

Blowing a Muktzah item:[11] Certainly there is no need to mention that it is permitted to move a Muktzah [item] through blowing [it] as there is no greater irregularity then this.

An Example[12]: For example, straw which is Muktzah being that it is usually designated to be used as fuel, then if it is resting on one’s bed [and was] not [placed there with intention to use it] to lie on it, and on Shabbos one wants[13] to lie on it, he is allowed to [lie on it and] move it with his body in order for it to become fluffy[14] and soft and pleasant to lie on.

Opinion which holds it is forbidden to move with irregularity for purpose of saving from damage[15]: Those opinions[16] which allow moving Muktzah regularly through a gentile in all cases that he is allowed to move it from the side, as well hold that even through moving with one’s body there is no allowance to move [the Muktzah item] for the sake of the Muktzah itself [meaning to save it from damage] but rather only to use the body of the Muktzah [such as in this case for its light], or due to that one needs to use its space, and one may not be more lenient then they themselves are lenient.)  [We do not rule like this opinion as stated by Admur above]

May one hold the Muktzah item using an irregularity for the entire day [17]: One who forgot his wallet on him and remembered on Shabbos while he is in his house or in his courtyard, or even in a city with an Eiruv, is allowed to walk with it until [he reaches] a private room, and in there he is to loosen his belt and have the wallet fall. This does not contain the moving of Muktzah prohibition, as since the Muktzah is already on him, he is allowed to carry it on him to any place which he wishes, as is explained in Chapter 308 [Halacha 13]. (Furthermore [another reason to allow this movement of Muktzah is], as this [form of] carrying is through his body and not with his hands, which does not contain a [Muktzah] prohibition at all.) {However certainly even the slightest delay which is not for the sake of reaching the destination is forbidden, as the Sages only permitted him to bring the item to a place of his choice, of which has a limit, however not for him to stand with it, to which there is no limit as he can stand the whole day [with the Muktzah].[18]}

Summary Moving Muktzah in an unusual manner:[19]  All Muktzah objects are only forbidden to be moved in their usual manner, which is by using one’s hands. However, moving Muktzah objects in an unusual manner (shinui), is permitted in all case and for any purpose, even to save the item from damage. [See footnote for opinion of other Poskim[20]] Examples of unusual manners of moving Muktzah: The following are defined as unusual manners of moving and may thus be used to move all Muktzah for any purpose: · Moving with one’s feet while walking · by blowing it · by holding it with the back of one’s hand  · by holding it between one’s elbow[21] and the like. May one carry a Muktzah item using an irregularity without limit?[22] It is only permitted for one to bring the item immediately to the place of his choice. It is forbidden to delay or hold it without limit even when holding it using an irregularity. Q&A May one move a Muktzah item using an irregularity for no reason at all?[23] It’s implied that the Sages only allowed it to be done for a purpose and thus even when allowed one must take it immediately to its destination. If one finds money on the street in a place with an Eiruv, may one lift up the money with an irregularity and carry it home? It is implied from the Poskim that it is forbidden to do so.[24] However some Poskim[25] are lenient to allow moving it with one’s legs [or other form of irregularity].   When moving a Muktzah item with a Shinui where may one place the item down? One may place it down wherever he wishes, even on top of a non-Muktzah item.[26] It however requires further clarification as to why placing it down on a vessel would not be forbidden due to Mivatel Keli Meheichano.[27]   Q&A on the definition of an irregularity? Is carrying an item with one hand, if it usually requires two hands, an irregularity?[28] Yes[29], and thus may be done for all Muktzah objects of the sort. However, there are Poskim[30] which argue on this ruling. Is carrying an item with two people, if usually it can be carried alone, considered an irregularity?[31] Yes[32], and thus may be done for all Muktzah objects of the sort. However, there are Poskim[33] which argue on this ruling.

 

B. Using a non-Muktzah item to move Muktzah:[34]

Important Note: The following Halacha refers to taking a non-Muktzah item into ones hands and then using it to push a Muktzah item. Regarding moving a non-Muktzah item which has a Muktzah item on top of it-See Halacha 13-15 where this issue is dealt with and summarized.

Moving Muktzah with a knife and the like:[35] Peels which are not fit for animals [to eat] such as for example peels of almonds and walnuts and the like, which are forbidden to be moved [on Shabbos] just like wood or stones, are forbidden to be removed from one’s table whether with ones hands and whether with an item that one is holding in one’s hand, such as [it would be forbidden to] move them with a knife, and the like.[36] [See summary for other opinions]

The reason it is forbidden to move Muktzah even with a knife is because:[37] The [sages] only permitted one to move [a Muktzah item] through [moving] another item [that is not Muktzah] when the forbidden [i.e. Muktzah] item is already on top of the permitted [i.e. Non-Muktzah] item and one moves with his hand the permitted item which then consequently causes the forbidden item to move along with it, such as for example one shakes with his hands a board or a cloth which already has the peels lying on it, and the peels thus also get shaken and consequently fall off [from their surface by themselves]. [It is not forbidden to move the board] because the board has never become a base for the forbidden item being that the peels [which were left over from the Shabbos meal] were not resting on it by twilight [and an item only becomes a base if by twilight it had a Muktzah item resting on it]. This is opposed to when one drags a Muktzah item with a knife that the item is not moving on its own [consequently of a different action] but rather [is directly moving] through the knife which is considered like an extension of one’s hand.[38]

Returning the pot to its insulation on Shabbos:[39] One who insulated [a pot of food] in a box that is filled with Mochin that are [Muktzah] forbidden to be moved, and he then removed the pot from the box in one of the permitted ways explained above, then as long as the Mochin remain inside the box in their pit making form[40], one may replace the pot there. However, if the pit making form [within the Mochin] has been ruined[41], it is forbidden to return it there, as by doing so one moves the Muktzah material through returning the pot.

The reason that it is forbidden when the Mochin have fallen:[42] This is not similar to the moving of the insulation through [lifting up] the lid [which is allowed to be done], as the insulation moves on its own through [one lifting up] the lid, and he only intends to move the lid itself [as opposed to the insulation], and it is just that it is impossible to remove the lid without also moving the insulation with it. However here he moves the insulation with his hands through [placing down] the pot, as [since the insulation has fallen into the hollow opening of the box] he needs to move the insulation into different sides in order to widen the hollow space [of the box] which the pot is meant to sit in.

Moving Chameitz on Pesach using a stick:[43] If on Shabbos or Yom Tov one found that the Chameitz of a gentile had rolled onto his roof, he may not push it with a stick. Rather he should cover it with a vessel until the evening, and then [by evening, after Shabbos or Yom Tov] push it with the stick to the roof of the gentile or to a public area.

The reason for why on Shabbos or Yom Tov this is not allowed:[44] is because the Chameitz is Muktzah and one may not move Muktzah even through using another item to move it [unless one is doing so because he needs the area that the Chameitz is on[45]], as explained in chapter 311.

Moving Chameitz with a stick for the need of its space:[46] [It is forbidden to move Chameitz past the 6th hour] even through [moving] another item, such as to push it with a rod, unless he needs [to use] the space [where the Chameitz is lying], in which case it is permitted for him to push it with a rod[47], as is written in chapter 311 [Halacha 14[48]].

Using a non-Muktzah item to move a Muktzah item: One cannot use a non-Muktzah item to move a Muktzah item.[49]/[50] Thus one may not use a knife and the like to move a Muktzah item[51], and may not replace a pot into a Muktzah insulator if doing so involves moving the insulator with the pot[52]. Regarding moving Chameitz on Pesach using a stick: From the 6th hour and on of Erev Pesach Chameitz becomes Muktzah Machmas Gufo, although may be moved using a stick if one needs the space that it is resting on [Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol from the above rule which states that doing so is forbidden]. Regarding moving a non-Muktzah item which has a Muktzah item on top of it–See Halacha 13-15. Q&A May one move Muktzah using a broom?[53]  In cases that one is permitted to sweep [as explained in chapter 337, depending on the type of broom and floor] it is permitted to also sweep filth that is Muktzah, such as earth clumps, almond peels and other filthy items which are Muktzah.[54] It is however forbidden to use a broom to move Muktzah items that have a use, and are not viewed as filth or garbage.[55]   If a stone is sitting in front of a door, may one open the door, hence causing the stone to move out of the way? Seemingly one may not do so as it is similar to returning the pot to the insulation and causing the insulation to move to the side.

From the Rav’s Desk Question: Is it permitted to sweep leaves that have fallen onto my patio on Shabbos and does it make a difference if they fell before Shabbos or on Shabbos?   Answer: It is permitted to sweep leaves from a tiled floor on Shabbos, such as the floor of one’s patio, if it is disturbing the cleanliness of the area, just as is allowed regarding sweeping the floor of one’s home. This applies irrelevant of when these leaves fell from the tree. It is however forbidden to sweep leaves from an earth floor due to a sweeping prohibition.   Explanation: Sweeping Muktzah on Shabbos poses two halachic issues; 1) a Muktzah prohibition 2) a sweeping prohibition. The Muktzah prohibition is waived in the event that an item is defined as a Geraf Shel Reiy, which means that its presence is considered a disturbance to the people who use the area. Thus, being that a dirty floor is considered a disturbance to a home or other area that one is sitting in, therefore it is permitted to sweep dirt from it on Shabbos. In this regard, there is no difference as to when the leaves fell from the tree, as either way it is considered Muktzah. [Seemingly this is being confused with the law of a fruit that fell from a tree in which case we differentiate between if it fell before Shabbos, in which case it is not Muktzah, and if it fell on Shabbos, in which case it is Muktzah. This has nothing to do with the question of whether you are allowed to sweep Muktzah which is disturbing the peace of an area.] Now, regarding the sweeping prohibition, although ideally the Rama rules that it applies to both tiled and untitled surfaces, nonetheless, practically today the Achronim conclude that it is permitted to sweep tiled surfaces, and the prohibition remains only with sweeping earth floors.   Sources: See regarding sweeping Muktzah: Admur 337:2; M”A 337:4; M”B 337:12; Biur Halacha 308:27 “Minaeri”; See regarding sweeping in general on a tiled versus an earth floor: Admur 337:2; Rama 337:2; Biur Halacha “Veyeish Machmirim”; Ketzos Hashulchan 146:27

C. May one touch a Muktzah item?[56]

All Muktzah is only forbidden to be moved, however it is permitted to touch it with one’s hand, as long as that one does not shake [at all] even a part of it, as is written in chapter 265 [Halacha 6[57]]. Therefore [for this reason] it is permitted to touch a candelabra that has candles lit in it, as long as it not hanging in the air, as was explained there [in chapter 265].  [Likewise, one may touch] a heater which has fire inside of it.

Example-Touching a Muktzah candle tray:[58] [Although it is forbidden to move a Muktzah candle tray] however it is permitted to touch the tray as it is permitted to touch all Muktzah as is written in chapter 308 [Halacha 4]

Summary:[59] All Muktzah is only forbidden to be moved. It is allowed to be touched. However, it is forbidden to touch it if doing so will cause it to move, even if one will only end up moving part of it.   Q&A May one remove a non-Muktzah item from a bag which has become a Basis if one will end up touching and moving part of the bag in the process? If one will end up moving the bag with his fingers, then doing so is forbidden. If one will end up moving the bag with his body or back of his hand, seemingly it would be permitted to remove it. May one touch a Muktzah object for the sake of the Muktzah?[60] If the Muktzah item will not shake in the process, then this matter is disputed in Poskim.   May one touch grass? No, as it will end up moving the blade.   May one touch a dog? No, as one will end up moving his hair.[61]

D. Removing an item from on top of a Muktzah item:[62]

Similarly, it is permitted to remove a permissible item [non-Muktzah] that is resting on top of something Muktzah, as is explained there [in chapter 265 Halacha 6, brought next]. [This is allowed] even if the Muktzah item will shake underneath him[63], as this is considered moving it in an irregular way[64]. [However, this is only allowed] as long as he does not touch it with his hand, as will be explained [in Halacha 15[65]].

Removing an item from a wax candle:[66] [Although touching a lit candle which is hanging is forbidden due to it inevitably causing it to shake] nevertheless if there was a permitted item placed on it, it is permitted to remove it from it, (as long as he does not touch [the candle] with his hands). There is no need to worry over the fact that the candle shakes through him taking that item from on top of it, as [this form of moving Muktzah is considered] moving from the side, which is not a [forbidden form of] moving, as is explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 14-15]. However, this only applies to a wax candle and the like.

Removing an item from an oil candle:[67] However if an oil candle was hanging, then it is forbidden to remove a permitted [non-Muktzah] item from on top of it, lest the candle will slightly shake and the oil will become closer to the wick and he will be liable for lighting an item on fire, or [perhaps the oil] will become further distanced [from the wick] which contains [the] extinguishing [prohibition], as is explained in chapter 277 [Halacha 2-3].    

Removing an item from on top of a Muktzah item:[68] It is permitted to remove a non-Muktzah item that is resting on top of something Muktzah[69], even if this will cause the Muktzah item to shake.[70] This is with exception to removing an item from on top of a hanging oil candle in which case doing so is forbidden due to a possible burning or extinguishing prohibition.   Q&A May one move a non-Muktzah object from on top of a Muktzah object for the sake of the Muktzah, such as so it does not get scratched?[71] If the Muktzah item will not shake in the process, then this matter is disputed in Poskim.[72] If the Muktzah will shake in the process then it is forbidden to do so.[73]

Getting benefit from a Muktzah item, and moving items for the sake of a Muktzah item: E-H

E. May one place an item on top of something Muktzah?

• For the sake of the non-Muktzah item:[74]

Similarly [one may] place [a non-Muktzah item] on top of a Muktzah item.

The reason that the above is allowed is: because all [the items that are considered] Muktzah do not have a prohibition against benefiting from them, to use them for something which does not involve moving it.

Leaning a pot on a stone:[75] Just like it is forbidden to eat Muktzah foods similarly it is forbidden to use it even for the sake of eating, such as to lean a pot on stones or woods which are Muktzah. The reason for this is because the benefit which he receives from using the Muktzah is forbidden to be eaten, being that the use of these stones and woods are considered their [form of] eating, and the Sages did not differentiate between wood and stones and food and drinks which are Muktzah, and they forbade the usage of all matters which are Muktzah. However, the above [prohibition] is only with regards to when one does an action to the body of the Muktzah [item] such as he moves the stone in order to lean the pot on it, or he ignites the Muktzah wood despite him not moving them from its space, [as] nevertheless being that he is placing fire under them and igniting them he is doing an action to the body of the Muktzah [item]. However, it is permitted to use Muktzah when he is not doing any action to the body of the Muktzah.

• For the sake of the Muktzah item-such as to cover a Muktzah item with a vessel?[76]

It is allowed to cover [a Muktzah item] with a vessel, as doing this does not forbid the vessel from being moved, as long as that the vessel does not touch the Muktzah item.

The reason that the vessel may not come into contact with the Muktzah:[77] [Now] although Muktzah is allowed to be touched even with ones hands, as long as one does not shake it [in the process], as is explained in chapter 308 [Halacha 14], nevertheless here that the vessel is being placed on top of the Muktzah for a purpose that serves the need of the Muktzah item, [therefore] it is forbidden to even touch it with the vessel.

Other opinions: [However] there are opinions[78] that argue on this and say that the Sages only warned against having the vessel touch the Muktzah item if the Muktzah item is an item which will [definitely] shake through having the vessel touch it, such as for example [placing a vessel over] a [Muktzah] egg[79] and the like, as [in this case] it ends up that one moved [a Muktzah item] through the vessel, [which is forbidden to do as] the [Sages] only permitted moving [a Muktzah item] through [moving] another item [which is not Muktzah] when done for a purpose which is permitted, as is explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 4].

The Final Ruling: [Admur does not conclude with a final ruling. See footnote for the conclusion of later Poskim[80]]

Example-Covering a candle with a bowl:[81] It is permitted to place an earthenware bowl over a candle so that the flame does not catch to a beam. As the fact that he is moving the bowl on Shabbos in order to save a beam which is forbidden to be moved on Shabbos contains no prohibition at all. Certainly, it is permitted to place it over a candle in order to allow marital relations. Nevertheless, one must leave some space in between the flame and the bowl as otherwise the flame will extinguish.

Example-May one cover feces with a vessel?[82] [Although one may not move feces away from an area which is not defined as a Graf Shel Reiy] nevertheless if one fears his child going there and getting himself dirty with [the filth], then it is permitted for him to cover [the filth] with a vessel, as one is permitted to move a vessel even for the purpose of using it for an item which may not be moved on Shabbos, as is explained in chapter 277 [Halacha 8].

Example-May one cover bricks meant for building with vessels in order to protect them from the rain?[83] Yes.[84]

May one place an item on top of something Muktzah: For the sake of the Non-Muktzah item:[85] One may place a non-Muktzah item on top of a Muktzah item [even if it will shake the Muktzah item in the process[86]] being that there is no prohibition in benefiting from a Muktzah object, with exception to a case where one is doing an action to the actual body of the Muktzah, such as lighting up a Muktzah log on Yom Tov, [as will be explained in G]. Thus, although one may not move a stone for the purpose of using it to lean his pot on, one may however bring the pot to where the stone is laying and lean the pot on the stone. For the sake of the Muktzah item, such as to cover a Muktzah item with a vessel[87]? It is allowed to cover a Muktzah item with a vessel [as long as the vessel does not touch the Muktzah item, even if it will not cause the Muktzah item to move[88]].   Q&A on covering Muktzah May one cover a Muktzah item in order to protect it from rain? One may place a vessel over it in a way that it does not touch the Muktzah item. If however no such vessel is available, seemingly one may be lenient to place an item [such as a plastic sheet] directly over the Muktzah item even if it will be touching it, so long as he does not shake the Muktzah item in the process.[89] In all cases one may move the Muktzah item out of the rain using an irregularity. May one place a car tarp over a car to protect it from the sun? Seemingly this is forbidden, as the tarp touches the car. However, if lack of doing so will cause damage to the car it is allowed so long as one avoids forming an Ohel in the process. If one’s alarm is buzzing may one cover it in order to drown out the sound? One may cover it with a box or bowl in a way that it will not touch the alarm clock. However, it is unclear if one may place a blanket or sheet over it if it will touch it.[90]

 

F. May one sit on a Muktzah item:[91]

The rule:[92] So too it is permitted to sit on a Muktzah item even if it will shake underneath him, as this is considered moving it in an irregular way[93], [however this is only] as long as he does not touch it with his hand.

The reason that the above is allowed is: because all [the items that are considered] Muktzah do not have a prohibition against benefiting from them, to use them for something which does not involve moving it.

Sitting on wood and stones?[94] [If one wants] to sit on [stones and wood] the way they are found, without touching them to be organized, then it is permitted in all cases, even if one never had sat on them beforehand, and had no thoughts at all about [using them for sitting] and did not do to them any action from before Shabbos, as all Muktzah are only prohibited to be moved. [Furthermore], even if through sitting on them one causes them to shake under him, [nevertheless] this is not [Halachically] considered moving it, as it is moving it in an irregular way [which is permitted to be done to all Muktzah].

May one sit on a Muktzah item:[95] It is permitted to sit on a Muktzah item even if it will shake underneath him as this is considered moving it in an irregular way. However, one may not move the object with his hands in the process of sitting on it. One may thus sit on random stones and logs of wood even if this will cause them to move in the process. Q&A May one sit on a car?[96] Yes [this is permitted even according to those opinions which are stringent against sitting on stones and the like[97]].

May one open the door of a car and sit inside it?[98] Even in a case that no lights will turn on in the process one is to avoid doing so being that it appears like one is doing a prohibition. However, in a case of great need one may be lenient.[99]    May one sit on grass? Yes, so long as one does not place his hands on the grass to lift himself up or to help himself sit down, due to the Muktzah prohibition.

G. Getting benefit from Muktzah by doing an action to the actual Muktzah item without moving it:[100]

[However getting benefit from Muktzah is only allowed] as long as one is not doing an action to the actual Muktzah [item] through using it, which is the case when on Yom Tov one lights a fire under Muktzah wood [and burns the wood using it as fuel]. Although he does not move the [wood] at all, [nevertheless it is forbidden as he is doing an action to the Muktzah], as is explained in 501 [Halacha 11].[101]

Summary: One may not get benefit from a Muktzah item if doing so involves using up or moving the actual body of the Muktzah item such as to burn Muktzah wood on Yom Tov, or to move a stone to lean a pot on.

  

H. Bittul Keli Meheichano: May one place a non-Muktzah item under a Muktzah item, to catch it just in case it falls?

The rule:[102]  

Any item that is forbidden to move, is forbidden to have a vessel placed underneath it in order so the Muktzah fall into it, even if one has in mind to shake [the Muktzah item, which fell into the vessel,] out afterwards.

The reason for this is: because [the Muktzah item] prohibits one to move the vessel so long as the Muktzah item is inside it[103], and it thus ends up that one has nullified the vessel from its designated use, which is forbidden to do on Shabbos even only temporarily, unless it is a case of a great financial loss, as explained in chapters 265 [Halacha 7], and 266 [Halacha 26]. [This itself is forbidden because by limiting the movement and use of the vessel it is considered like one is destroying the vessel, and it is forbidden to destroy a vessel on Shabbos.[104]]

Does not care for the Muktzah to rest on the vessel even momentarily:[105] The prohibition of Bittul Keli Miheichano only applies if one needs the Muktzah to rest on the vessel, even momentarily[106], such as to catch the Muktzah from landing on the floor and breaking[107], or due to a prohibition against shaking off the Muktzah until some time passes [such as placing a vessel to catch a lit wick[108]]. If, however, one does not care at all for the Muktzah item to remain on the vessel and he can shake it off at any moment, then it is permitted to do so, as the vessel has not been nullified from use even for a moment.[109]

Great loss:[110] Bittul Keli Miheichano is permitted to be done in a case of great loss[111] [and is hence more lenient than the regular laws of Muktzah]. Thus, it is permitted to move a vessel in order to catch a Muktzah object which would otherwise fall on the floor and cause one a great loss. However this only applies if after it lands one is able to shake the vessel and thereby cause the Muktzah object to fall off of it.[112] If however the Muktzah object is very heavy and cannot be shaken off by shaking the vessel, then one may not place the vessel under to catch the Muktzah, if there are other options available before him.[113] If however the only available option to prevent the breaking of the Muktzah, and an occurrence of great loss, is by placing the vessel under it, then some Poskim[114] are lenient even if the Muktzah will remain on the vessel the rest of Shabbos.[115] [Other Poskim[116] however are stringent in such a case even in a case of great loss.]

Geraf Shel Reiy:[117] In all cases that it is permitted to cause a Geraf Shel Reiy even initially, such as in order to prevent loss, then it is likewise permitted to cause a temporary Bittul Keli Miheichano in order to prevent the Geraf Shel Reiy.[118] Thus one may settle in an area that contains a leaking barrel of Muktzah wine and place a vessel under the crack, in order to catch the Muktzah wine from spilling on the floor and causing a muddy area that is repulsive.[119] After the bucket fills one is to spill the Muktzah wine back into the original barrel.[120] However in all cases that one may not initially perform a Geraf Shel Reiy, such as when there is no loss involved, then the prohibition of Mivatel Keli Miheichano is applicable.[121] Thus one may not place a bucket under a leak of dirty rain water [even if one is already settlked in the area[122]], as it is forbidden to initially perform a Geraf Shel Reiy[123] and it is thus also forbidden due to Mivatel Keli Miheichano.[124]

Heter is on vessel:[125] If there is a Heter object resting in the vessel in a way that will permit the vessel to be moved even if the Muktzah were to fall on it [such as that shaking off the Muktzah would cause loss to the Heter object] then it is permitted to allow the Muktzah object to fall on the vessel. Thus, one may place a vessel with water under a candle in order to catch the oil that falls into it.

Grama:[126] It is permitted to cause Bittul Keli Miheichano through Gerama. Thus, one may place a vessel under a table on Erev Shabbos and then on Shabbos move the table and have the oil of the candle fall into the vessel.

Examples:

Catching oil of a candle in a vessel:[127] It is forbidden to place a vessel on Shabbos near a candle in order to catch the oil, unless there is water inside the vessel.[128] One may place the vessel under the table on Erev Shabbos and then on Shabbos move the table and have the oil of the candle fall into the vessel.[129]

Catching the sparks and wicks of a candle in vessel:[130] It is forbidden to place a vessel on Shabbos near a candle in order to catch the burning wick.[131] It is permitted to place the vessel there in order to catch the sparks.

Placing pillows under a camel to catch falling Muktzah vessels:[132] It is permitted to move a vessel in order to catch a Muktzah object which would otherwise fall on the floor and cause one a great loss. However this only applies if after it lands one is able to shake the vessel and thereby cause the Muktzah object to fall off of it.[133] If however the Muktzah object is very heavy and cannot be shaken off by shaking the vessel, then one may not place the vessel under to catch the Muktzah, if there are other options available before him.[134] If however the only available option to prevent the breaking of the Muktzah, and an occurrence of great loss, is by placing the vessel under it, then some Poskim[135] are lenient even if the Muktzah will remain on the vessel the rest of Shabbos.[136] [Other Poskim[137] however are stringent in such a case even in a case of great loss.]

Placing a vessel for chicks to climb on:[138] It is permitted to place a vessel before chicks, so they climb up and down on it.[139]

Placing beam to support caving roof:[140]

Catching spill of Muktzah wine:[141] One may settle in an area that contains a leaking barrel of Muktzah wine and place a vessel under the crack, in order to catch the Muktzah wine from spilling on the floor and causing a muddy area that is repulsive.[142] After the bucket fills one is to spill the Muktzah wine back into the original barrel.[143]

Placing a bucket under dirty rainwater:[144] It is permitted to place a bucket on Shabbos under a drainage system of rainwater, and if it fills up one may then spill it out and return the bucket back to its place. However, this is only if the drainage water is at the very least fit for washing with. However, if it is not fit for anything then it is Muktzah and is forbidden to be moved. In such a case it is forbidden to place a bucket under it being that one nullifies it from its non-Muktzah state.

Saving Muktzah liquid from a broken barrel:[145] If the liquid content dripping from the [broken] barrel is Muktzah, such as the juice of uncrushed grapes which is flowing on Shabbos, then it is forbidden to simply bring a vessel to catch the liquid, being that by doing so one is nullifying the vessel from its non-Muktzah state. Rather one is to bring a vessel that contains water in it to catch the flow, as every drop of the Muktzah liquid which enters the bucket becomes nullified to the water, and hence allows the vessel to be moved without restriction.[146] Alternatively one can use an empty vessel if the drip is occurring in an area that one normally settles in.[147] If one does not normally settle in the area one may bring his table or bed to settle himself there and then bring the bucket.[148] However when using an empty bucket in the above scenarios one may not spill the content of the bucket into another vessel as by doing so one is nullifying the new vessel of its Non-Muktzah state. Likewise, one may not leave the content remain in the vessel as in such a case he has in truth nullified the vessel from its non-Muktzah state. Rather one is to spill it back into the barrel of liquid. In all cases one is to follow the above-mentioned laws regarding if one may use more than one vessel to save the spill.

Summary-May one place a non-Muktzah item under a Muktzah item, to catch it just in case it falls?[149] Any item which is forbidden to move, is forbidden to have a vessel placed underneath it in order to catch it in case it falls. This applies even if one has in mind to shake the Muktzah item immediately after it falls into the vessel. In a case of great loss however one may be lenient. If there is a Heter object resting in the vessel in a way that will permit the vessel to be moved even if the Muktzah were to fall on it [such as that shaking off the Muktzah would cause loss to the Heter object] then it is permitted to allow the Muktzah object to fall on the vessel. It is permitted to cause Bittul Keli Miheichano through Gerama. Thus, one may place a vessel under a table on Erev Shabbos and then on Shabbos move the table and have the oil of the candle fall into the vessel. Q&A on Mivatel Keli Meheichano When moving a Muktzah item with a Shinui where may one place the item down? One may place it down wherever he wishes, even on top of a non-Muktzah item.[150] It however requires further clarification as to why placing it down on a vessel would not be forbidden due to Mivatel Keli Meheichano.[151]   Does the prohibition of Mivatel Keli Meheichano apply to an MMI object? Some Poskim[152] rule it does not apply to an MMI object.   If one’s air conditioner is leaking water may one bring a bucket to catch the water?[153] Water which drips from an air conditioner on Shabbos is Muktzah.[154] It is therefore forbidden to place a bucket under to catch the water unless lack of doing so will cause a great loss, or cause a Geraf Shel Reiy.[155] Using a bucket that has dirty water: One may move a bucket with dirty water with an irregularity, such as one’s foot, in order to catch other water which is dripping.[156] Using a bucket with clean water: It is forbidden to place a bucket of clean water to catch the leak.[157] If one did so the entire water is Muktzah.[158] Furthermore, even if in the bucket which the drop fell into there was already water which had dripped from before Shabbos, and one simply left it there into Shabbos, it is Muktzah [159] Using a bucket with  any other non-Muktzah item:[160] If one places a non-Muktzah object in the bucket [i.e. a toy, a bottle of water, a fork, etc] then it is permitted to place the bucket under the leak to catch the water from the air conditioner.   Is a bucket of dirty water Muktzah? · Example: The water for mopping was left over into Shabbos. May the bucket be moved, and may the water be spilled out? If dirty water was left in a bucket from before Shabbos, such as the leftover mopping bucket, then the water is Muktzah, and one may only move the bucket in ways to be explained in Halacha 3L. If the water was purposely left in the bucket to stay there over Shabbos then the bucket itself is Muktzah due to having the status of a Basis.   Does Bittul Keli Miheichano apply even by items that are not vessels, such as a designated beam of wood, or by food?[161] This matter is disputed amongst Poskim.   If a bucket is dirty may one use it to catch fresh rain water, or water from the pipe? This matter requires further analysis.[162] May one pour Neigal Vasser water or Mayim Achronim water into a vessel?[163] Yes.[164] How is it allowed to use a tissue, disposable plate, garbage bag on Shabbos? Why is this not considered Bittul Keli Miheichano?[165] It is permitted being that the entire purpose of these objects is this form of use, and hence it is not considered that one is damaging the use of the vessel.   May one place a pillow under a table to catch a phone or other Muktzah object from falling on it? It is permitted to do so if damage to the Muktzah object would incur great loss.

  

I. What does one do if he accidently picked up a Muktzah object or realized that he was carrying Muktzah?[166]

First opinion:[167] If one forgot[168] and took with his hand [an item which is] completely Muktzah [i.e. may never be moved], [nevertheless] he is allowed to move it to anywhere he wants since it is already in his hand.

Other Opinions:[169] [However] there is an opinion[170] which prohibits [this] with an [item that is] completely Muktzah [as opposed to merely MM”I. Regarding if one must put down a MM”I object-see Halacha 5].

The Final Ruling: It is proper to suspect for the stringent opinion [and thus place a totally Muktzah item down immediately after accidently picking it up] unless it is a case of loss, as is explained in chapter 266 [Halacha 19[171]].

The law by one who picked up the Muktzah purposely-Bimeizid:[172] The above leniency applies whether one lifted the Muktzah accidently [Shogeg] or with full knowledge of the prohibition Bimeizid] nevertheless he may continue and bring the Muktzah to his place of desire [if the Muktzah is an MMI, or in a case of loss].

One who noticed he was carrying a wallet in ones pocket:[173] One who forgot his wallet on him and remembered on Shabbos while he is in his house or in his courtyard, or even in a city with an Eiruv, is allowed to walk with it until [he reaches] a private room, and in there he is to loosen his belt and have the wallet fall.

The reason this does not contain a Muktzah prohibition:[174] This does not contain the moving of Muktzah prohibition, as since the Muktzah is already on him, he is allowed to carry it on him to any place which he wishes, as will be explained in Chapter 308 [Halacha 13]. (Furthermore[175] [another reason to allow this movement of Muktzah is], as that this [form of] carrying is through his body and not with his hands, which does not contain a [Muktzah] prohibition at all, as will be explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 15].)    

May one hold the Muktzah for the entire day?[176] Certainly even the slightest delay, to stand for rest[177], which is not for the sake of reaching the destination, is forbidden. As the Sages only permitted him to bring the item to a place of his choice, of which has a limit, however not for him to stand with it, to which there is no limit as he can stand the whole day [with the Muktzah].

Hiding the knife while still in the Mohels hand:[178] A Mila knife is Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis and is forbidden to be moved with exception to moving it for the Mila.[179] It may not be moved to hide [after the Mila], and not even for its space or use, and certainly not for no need at all as is written in chapter 308 [Halacha 5]. Nevertheless, while the Mila knife is still within the Mohels hand after having circumcised with it he is permitted to carry it to any place of his wish and hide it there, as is explained there [308/13].

Summary-What does one do if he already picked up a Muktzah object?  If one accidently picked up a completely Muktzah object [MM”G; MMC”K], he is to put it down as soon as he remembers unless it will cause one a monetary loss, in which case he may bring it immediately to its destination. If the Muktzah is MM”I one may carry it to its destination. Thus, if one remembered that he is wearing a money belt or that his wallet is in his pocket then he does not need to put it down right away, and rather may bring it to a place of his desire.[180] However in all cases, one must bring the Muktzah item to its destination right away and may not stand there or make detours.[181]   Q&A If one remembered that he is carrying a Muktzah item in his pocket or on his belt and dropping it does not involve loss, may he nevertheless bring it to a desired area? Any Muktzah item which dropping it in its area will cause it damage or cause it to get lost, may be brought to its desired location.[182] However, if no loss is involved at all, then it requires clarification if one must shake it out immediately.[183] If, however, he is carrying the Muktzah item in a hanging pocket, such as a typical pants pocket [as opposed to a dress shirt pocket], then he may carry it without limitation [in an area with an Eiruv] even if shaking it out would cause no damage to the item.[184]   May one switch hands when holding a Muktzah object which one mistakenly picked up? Seemingly one may not do so as even by MM”I which was picked up permissibly there is a dispute if this is allowed.

J. Moving Muktzah through a gentile:[185]

• In a case of great loss, great need, Mitzvah, or illness:[186]

Asking a gentile to do a Rabbinical prohibition in case of illness or Mitzvah:[187] A matter which is not a Melacha and is only forbidden to do on Shabbos due to a Rabbinical prohibition, is permitted for a Jew to tell a gentile to do it on Shabbos, so long as there is slight illness involved[188] [which requires the action to be done], even if the illness does not consume the entire body, and is not endangering any limb, or [if there is no illness involved it may be done through a gentile] for the sake of a Mitzvah.

Other Opinions-May ask gentile in case of loss:[189] There are opinions[190] which say that the same applies in a case of loss that the Sages did not decree against Rabbinical prohibitions, such as to carry through a gentile Muktzah merchandise which can get ruined in the rain (and even to bring it to one’s house through a Karmalis [is allowed] if there is no other option [in getting the merchandise away from the rain].

The Final Ruling:[191] One may rely on their words in a case of great loss (and the same applies in a case of great need[192], even if it does not involve a loss).  

• In all other cases:

The general rule:[193] If there truly is a side of allowance applicable in which a Jew can do it in a permissible way that same matter that the gentile is doing in a forbidden form, then there are opinions[194] which permit one to merely tell the gentile [to do it] in a language that does not mention explicitly that he is to do it in a forbidden way, and the gentile then goes [on his own] and does it in a forbidden way, as is explained in chapter 276 [Halacha 9[195]]. However if there is no side of allowance for a Jew to do that same action which the gentile is doing for him, then even if there is a side and way that the Jew can reach that same outcome which the gentile is doing, without doing that action which the gentile needs to do with that matter until it reaches the Jew, such as to tell a gentile to bring him water to drink from the river, then even though the Jew himself can walk to the river and drink there, [nevertheless] this does not help at all to allow telling the gentile to bring it, as is explained in chapter 325 [Halacha 16[196]].

Asking a gentile to move a candle to another room to use its light there or for its space:[197] To tell a gentile to bring him an already lit candle from another area there are opinions which allow [this to be done] even if it is possible for him [to see] without it, whether it is a candle of wax, fat, or a candle of oil.

The reason behind this allowance is:[198] being that moving the candle is only forbidden due to it being Muktzah, as will be explained in chapter 279, and every Muktzah [item] is allowed to be moved through moving it from the side [meaning with one’s body, or through moving another non-Muktzah tem] as will be explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 14-15], and since the Jew himself was able to bring the candle here in a permitted way through moving it from the side such as [moving it] with the back of one’s hands or between one’s elbows and the like, [therefore] when the gentile brings it in a prohibited way, [which is] with a complete movement [meaning moving it directly with one’s hands], it is Halachically meaningless, as the Sages only prohibited doing [forbidden work] through a gentile on Shabbos by matters that there is no allowance for a Jew to do so himself.

Allowance only for Bnei Torah:[199] This allowance is only to be ruled for students of Torah[200]. However, for the ignoramus it is not to be allowed [for them to ask a gentile to move Muktzah], in order so they do not customize themselves with asking gentiles [to do forbidden work] and they will [come to] compare one matter to another and they will be [even] more lenient.    

Asking a gentile to move it to save it from being stolen:[201] The above however only refers to when it is brought here [by the gentile] in order to benefit here from its light or due to that he requires the space in which the candle was standing there. However, it is forbidden to have a gentile carry it in order to hide it so it does not get stolen.

The reason for this restriction is:[202] due to that this movement is being done for the sake of the candle, which is Muktzah, and there is no allowance for a Jew to move a Muktzah item even through moving it from the side [meaning through moving another non-Muktzah object[203]] when ones intent in doing so is for the Muktzah item itself, as will be explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 14-15].[204]

The reason why a gentile may be asked to move it to use its light elsewhere but not to save it from damage:[205] (Now although it will be explained there that whenever moving an item from the side, when it is done through [moving it with] one’s body, without one’s hands,  he is allowed to move it even for the sake of the Muktzah [item], while other forms of moving a Muktzah item from the side with one’s hands [such as through moving another non-Muktzah item with it] is only allowed when he moves it for the sake of using that space [in which the items were on], however [it is not allowed] when one needs to use the actual body of the Muktzah [item]. Thus, this candle if it were to be moved through moving another item which is in his hands it would not be allowed to move it in order to benefit from its light here in the place that he is bringing it to, as well as that it is impossible to bring it through moving another item which is in his hands. And if one were to move it through moving his body, such as through [holding it] with the back of his hands, or between his elbows and cases of the like, then he is allowed to move it even to prevent it from getting stolen[206]. Nevertheless it is not allowed to tell a gentile to hide it, as those opinions[207] which allow moving Muktzah regularly through a gentile in all cases that he is allowed to move it from the side, as well they hold that even through moving with one’s body there is no allowance to move [the Muktzah item] for the sake of the Muktzah itself [meaning to save it from damage] but rather only to use the body of the Muktzah [such as in this case for its light], or due to that one needs to use its space, and one may not be more lenient then they themselves are lenient.) 

Having a gentile shake a candle off its tray:[208] Through a gentile it is permitted to have [a candle] moved and shaken off due to the reason explained in chapter 276 [above].

In Summary:[209] Through a gentile it is permitted to move any Muktzah when [one is] not [moving it] for the benefit of the Muktzah itself, as explained in chapter 276 [Halacha 9-10].

Summary-May one ask a gentile to move a Muktzah object?  One may ask a gentile to move a Muktzah item on behalf of the Jew in a case of great loss, great need, a case that involves slight illness, or for the need of a Mitzvah.[210] Furthermore [even without great loss], learned Jews may ask a gentile to move a Muktzah object in order to free up its space or in order for the gentile to do an action with it on behalf of the Jew[211], so long as they do not explicitly tell him to take the object with his hands.[212]  However one may not give over this allowance to ignoramuses. As well, even for the learned, this allowance does not apply to asking the gentile to move it in order to save the object from damage [unless it involves great loss as explained above].[213]   Q&A If one’s laptop is outside in the rain may one ask a gentile to bring it in? Yes, as this involves a great loss.

K. May one move Muktzah items if they are a safety hazard?[214]

Broken glass and the like:[215] 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 to clear it from the area, and thus prevent a safety hazard to the public.[216]

The reason for this is[217]: 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 [next].

Thorns-Public area:[218] A thorn which is in public domain is permitted to be moved less than 4 cubits at a time, until he removes it to the sides of the public domain. While [if found] in a Karmalis one is to carry it in a regular fashion, even a long distance, with having lifted it up only once[219].

The reason that this is permitted is:[220] because we suspect that perhaps [if the thorn were to be left there] it will cause injury to the public, and in a case of a public safety hazard the Sages did not make a decree against carrying [for a distance of] 4 cubits in a Karmalis or [carrying] less than 4 Amos at a time in a public domain, as well as [they did not apply their decree against] moving Muktzah [in such a situation].

A sharp stick:[221] [On Yom Tov] a skewer which had meat roasted on it, if it was not designated for use as a skewer but one rather took a sharp stick similar to a skewer and in mere randomness roasted on it, then after the roasting is complete one is to remove the stick from in front of him by dragging and moving it from the side[222], until it is moved from his presence to a corner area in order so one not get injured from it. However, it is forbidden to move it in a complete form of moving after the roast has been removed from it being that it has become repulsive and is thus Muktzah [see footnote[223]].

The reason the skewer must be moved with an irregularity: Now, even according to those which permit Muktzah Machmas Mius on Yom Tov only allowed this regarding an item which has a vessel status upon it. However, this skewer after one has finished his task with it, it does not have a vessel status at all, being that it is not designated as a skewer, and therefore even for the sake of using it or moving it for its space is forbidden.

Summary –Muktzah items which pose a safety hazard: Muktzah items which pose a safety hazard are permitted to be moved [regularly[224]] if they are in an area where people are found and there is thus worry that they may get injured by it.   Q&A If an item poses a safety hazard to the public may it be moved regularly or only with an irregularity? It may be moved regularly.[225] However some Poskim are stringent.[226]   If an item poses a safety hazard only to an individual, such as he is the only one home, may it be moved?[227] No. It is only allowed to be moved if it poses a hazard to the public [see next question for definition].[228]  [See footnote for opinion of M”B[229]]   How many people are defined as a “public” for it to be considered a public safety hazard?[230] Three people are defined as a public, with exception to a case where toddlers are found, in which case even by less than three it is considered like a public hazard.   If the people are able to avoid the hazard may it nevertheless be moved?[231] If all the people who could possibly be injured are in the area and know to avoid the hazard then the hazard may not be moved.

May a pit in a public area be covered?[232] If it poses a public safety hazard, then one may move an item to cover the pit [by walking less than 4 cubits at a time]. If possible, one should only cover it partially in order to avoid the building prohibition. If, however, leaving it partially open still poses a hazard then it may be fully covered.   May one turn off the gas of a stove of which its fire extinguished?[233] Yes.

 

L. Geraf Shel Reiy-The law of Muktzah items which are repulsive:[234]

If the repulsive item is in one’s front yard or another area of constant use:[235] Any item that is repulsive[236], such as for example garbage and vomit and feces, whether of a human or of a chicken and the like, if they are found in ones courtyard that he lives in, meaning the courtyard that is in front of his house or on the side of his house which he uses to leave and enter from constantly, and is thus a place that people are particular to make sure to keep clean from dirty substances, then it is permitted to move them to the trash or to the bathroom, even with one’s actual hands without using any vessels [to help move it]. This concept is referred to in all places by the term “Graf Shel Reiy” “A bucket of garbage”.

If the item is in an alleyway:[237] As well, if the repulsive item is in an alleyway by an area that people walk on, then it is permitted to move it to the side.

If the item is in ones backyard or other area that one does not visit often:[238] However if the filthy item is in a different courtyard which one does not live in, or if it is in ones backyard, which are [both] areas that [people] are not particular about dirty substances being found inside of them unless one is sitting there, while at the times that one is not sitting there he is not particular about it even when entering and leaving the area, being that one does not regularly enter and leave from there, it is forbidden to remove the filth from there, unless one is actually sitting there [and has become repulsed by the filth].

The definition of sitting there[239]: He has a bed there to lie on, or a table to eat there, as well as other useable vessels there such as books to learn from and items of the like, as with these it is considered settling down in that area, in which case when one’s mind starts feeling bothered by the repulsiveness, he may remove it from there and place it in another area. The same applies for all cases of the like. However, to sit there alone without a bed or table or other items that he uses, does not help at all, as if his mind is bothered by the repulsiveness then we just tell him get up and move from here and go sit elsewhere, being that to begin with he was not sitting here, and only sat here temporarily. However once one has set his place of residence to be there, through [bringing out] a bed or table or other items that he uses, we do not trouble him to remove his residence from there, and rather [allow him] to remove the bucket [of filth] from in front of him.

May one cover the above mentioned filth with a vessel?[240] If one fears his child going there and getting himself dirty with [the filth], then it is permitted for him to cover [the filth] with a vessel, as one is permitted to move a vessel even for the purpose of using it for an item which may not be moved on Shabbos, as is explained in chapter 277 [Halacha 8].

If the filth is found in the garbage area of one’s front yard:[241] Even if [the filth] is located in a courtyard that one lives in, but is in the area of the yard that is designated for garbage or for the chickens, it is forbidden to remove it from there.

What if the garbage area is now full, may he empty it?[242] If the garbage can is in an area that one is not particular to keep clean from it, but it is now full and it is thus impossible to place any more garbage there, then it is permitted to remove it [from the courtyard, empty its garbage and then] return it, in the way that will be explained [in the next Halacha].

The reason for this allowance: [This is allowed even though the item is Muktzah] in order to give respect for people [that they should not need to be in the presence of repulsive items].

• May one initially enter himself into a situation that will allow him to throw out a repulsive item?[243]

One may not initially [enter himself into a situation that will permit him to throw out a] bucket of garbage. For example [one may not] bring in front of him an item which will eventually become repulsive, and [may not] do something which will eventually become repulsive, and rely in his mind to remove it when the item becomes repulsive.

The reason for this is because: even though the [Sages] permitted one to remove a repulsive item, nevertheless [they did not permit] to initially do something in front of oneself which will for certain eventually become repulsive and he will then throw out.

What is the law if one initially entered himself into a repulsive situation:[244] Nevertheless if one transgressed and entered himself into this situation, it is permitted to remove it afterwards [when it becomes repulsive].

What is the law if one does not have intention to throw it out even if it becomes repulsive:[245] If one does not have in mind initially to remove it out later on [when it becomes repulsive] then one is permitted to even initially do this, and afterwards if he changes his mind to take it out, it is permitted to do so.

The law in a case of loss?[246] In a case of loss one may settle himself down in an area that has a “bucket of garbage” which is in a place that one is not particular [to keep clean and thus may not be thrown out in regular circumstances], in order so the bucket becomes repulsive in his eyes and he will then [be allowed to] take it out and save himself a loss.

Example of a case of loss case:[247] For example in a case that a certain item [was left outside in the rain] and is becoming repulsive and losing value due to the rain which is falling on it, [then if the item is] in a yard where one does not live[248], then he may place his bed there to lie on, or to enter his table there to eat there, as well as [entering] other useable vessels there such as books to learn from and items of the like, as doing so is considered settling down in that area, in which case when one’s mind starts feeling bothered by the repulsiveness then he may remove it from there and place it in an area which is safe from the rain. The same applies for all cases of the like.

The reason one needs to bring out a bed or table and the like:[249] However to sit there alone without a bed or table or other items that he uses, does not help at all, as if his mind is bothered by the repulsiveness then we just tell him get up and move from there and go sit elsewhere, being that to begin with he was not sitting here, and only sat there temporarily. However once one has set his place of residence to be there, through [bringing out] a bed or table or other items that he uses, we do not trouble him to remove his residence from here, and rather [allow him] to remove the bucket [of filth] from in front of him.

How may one eat foods that have on them Muktzah shells and seeds?[250] All [foods that have] shells and seeds that are not edible for animals, one eats the food and throws away [the waste] with his tongue towards the area behind him.[251] [However] one may not throw them away with his hands or [throw them away] with his tongue towards the area in front of him on the Basis, on the assumption that when there will end up being a lot of waste in front of him, it will be repulsive in his eyes, and it will then be permitted for him to remove them from there, as is the law regarding a “bucket of garbage”.[252]

The reason that one may not throw them in front of him on this Basis is:[253] because one is not allowed to intentionally make a “bucket of garbage” [in a way that he will be allowed to move it when it becomes repulsive to him.]

• May one return the garbage can, or potty after emptying them out?[254]

A bucket of garbage, and a urine potty, even though they are permitted be moved to the trash area to be placed there, [nevertheless] it is forbidden to bring them back into ones house, because they are forbidden to be moved even when they are empty being that they are so repulsive that they are not even fit to be used to cover a vessel with, and Muktzah Machmas Mius[255] was only permitted [to be moved] if it is fit to be used to cover a vessel. [Thus, here since they are not even fit for this purpose, they are Muktzah.]

What if one needs to reuse it again on Shabbos? [However] if one needs to bring it back in order to reuse it again today to place filth in them, then one is permitted to return them by placing in them water which may be moved [is not Muktzah], meaning [one places enough water] that [it] is still drinkable for an animal even after being placed in the potty or garbage can.

The reason this works:[256] Now, although the [Sages] did not permit to move an item that is forbidden to be moved through moving with it an item that is permitted to be moved, with the exception of a dead person as will be explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 7], nevertheless here since one needs to reuse it today to place filth in, [therefore] they were lenient out of respect of humanity. This same law applies if one needs to return these vessels in order to remove feces with today [on Shabbos][257].

Other opinions:[258] There are those[259] which permit one to return [the potty and garbage can] to the house in any situation, even if one does not need to use it [anymore] today to place filth inside or to remove feces with, as long as one places [drinkable] water into them.

The final ruling:[260] One is to be stringent like the first opinion, although in a case where there will be a monetary loss, such as if the garbage can is a little expensive, and there will thus be a loss if one were to leave it [outside by the public] dumpster as it will get stolen from there, then one may [be lenient and] rely on the second opinion.

What is the law if one never let go of the garbage can or potty after having emptied it?[261] All the above [restrictions in returning the vessel to the house] is only if one already removed it from his hand when he arrived to the dumpster. However, if it is still in his hand one is permitted to return it according to all opinions and in all situations, and even without [needing to] add water inside of it, as is the law with all Muktzah [items], that if they are already in one’s hands it is permitted for him to move it to wherever he wishes, as explained above [in 3A]. [However] according to what it was explained there that it is proper[262] to be stringent in this, so too here it is proper[263] to place water into the vessel even though it is still in one’s hands.

• May one place a bucket under a drain of dirty water, and may one move the bucket elsewhere?[264]

It is permitted to place a bucket on Shabbos under a drainage system of rainwater, and if it fills up one may then spill it out and return the bucket back to its place. However, this is only if the drainage water is at the very least fit for washing with. However, if it is not fit for anything then it is Muktzah and is forbidden to be moved. In such a case it is forbidden to place a bucket under it being that one nullifies it from its non-Muktzah state.

If the water is repulsive: If one transgressed and placed the bucket there then it is permitted to carry the bucket with its repulsive water in order to remove it from that area, if this is an area where one commonly settles himself in.

The Reason: This is because the bucket of water is considered like a bucket of feces which was permitted to be moved to be taken to the garbage, out of human respect, if it is in an area that one is settled in as is written [above]. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to initially place the bucket there on the reliance that in the end one will remove it from there and spill it, thus not nullifying the vessel from its non-Muktzah state. This is because the allowance of moving a bucket of feces was only given after the fact. However initially it is forbidden to make a bucket of feces unless it is a case of loss as explained [above].

• Moving the candle if it is repulsive to oneself:[265]

Although the candle which was lit on that Shabbos is forbidden to be moved that entire Shabbos, even for the need of using it or its space, nevertheless one who is pampered and the candle is repulsive to him at times that he does not require it, such as (after it has extinguished or) tomorrow during the day, and he is unable to bear that it be resting by him, then he is allowed to move it to a different area.

The reason for this is because:[266] This candle is considered for him like a bucket of feces for all other people, of which the Sages permitted it to be moved, to be taken out of one’s house.

Who may claim to be pampered?[267] (Nevertheless not every person may claim that “I am pampered”, but rather only one who is known to be pampered.)    

Summary- The law of a Graf Shel Rie/Items that repel a person: Its definition and law:[268] Any Muktzah item that repels a person which is placed in an area where one is constantly found in, and is therefore usually kept clean from this item, may be removed with ones hands. However if one is not usually careful to clean it from this area, being that he is not found there often, he may not move it unless he has settled by that area and is beginning to become nauseated by the item. [See next for definition of settling] Nevertheless, one may not settle in that area with the intention of being disgusted by the item so he could throw it out unless there is a loss. This is because it’s forbidden to initially make an item repulsive to oneself in order to remove it. If one however transgressed and did so, it is permitted to remove the item. What is the definition of “settling” to make an item receive the status of a repulsive item?[269] Only if one were to bring a table, bed, book or other household materials to the area is it considered that the person has settled there. However just to sit in the area is not considered settling and if the person feels disgusted he must leave the area rather than move the repulsive Muktzah item. Removing one’s garbage: It is permitted to remove one’s garbage if the garbage is full. It is forbidden to remove the garbage if it is not yet full.[270] Bringing the garbage can back to the house: If one took out the garbage with the garbage can, and placed it down outside, it may not be returned to the house unless it is a case of loss to leave the garbage can there until after Shabbos, or if one plans to use it on Shabbos. In both of the above exceptions one is to place drinkable water in the garbage can and bring it back. If one however never let go of the garbage can, it is permitted for one to return it in all cases, although it is best to place water into it before returning it, even if one has never let go. Examples of item that repel? Feces, vomit[271], shells of seeds.[272] [From this it would appear that anything which to a person is repulsed by, would be considered an item that repels.] May one place a bucket under drainage of dirty water, and may one then move it?[273] Rainwater is not considered Muktzah [even on Yom Tov[274]] so long as they are at least fit for one to bathe in[275]. If, however the water has become dirty [as is common with the water which comes through ones roof drain which is very dirty] then it is considered Muktzah. Thus, one may not place a bucket to catch this dirty water. However, if a bucket was already placed there and one is disgusted by the water then if this is an area where he settles himself in, then it may be moved. Q&A May one move a Muktzah item [garbage] for the sake of a Geraf Shel Reiy? This follows the same ruling as moving a garbage can back into the house, as stated above,   What is defined as a Geraf Shel Reiy?[276] This follows the feelings of each person individually, and hence if to him something is repulsing him, it has as a status of Geraf Shel Reiy.   Is a dirty pot defined as a Geraf Shel Reiy?[277] Yes [if it is bothering you].   Is a dead rodent or animal a Geraf Shel Reiy?[278] Yes.   Is the morning washing water considered a Geraf Shel Reiy?[279] Yes.

May one move a clean potty?[280] Earthenware or wood potty: Is Muktzah and may thus not be moved even if clean.[281] Metal or glass potty: It is permitted to move so long as it is clean and does not smell.[282] Plastic potty: It is permitted to move so long as it is clean and does not smell.[283] However some Poskim[284] rule it is Muktzah even if it is clean. May one move a potty for the sake of a child? Yes.[285]   May one throw out his kitchen garbage if the smell is nauseating? Yes.[286]   Is spilled Muktah water considered a Graf Shel Reiy?[287] Yes, if it is dirty.

 

M. The law of Muktzah items which underwent a change on Shabbos and lost their reason to be Muktzah:

• An item which was Muktzah for the entire duration of Bein Hashmashos:

The rule:[288] Any item that was forbidden to be moved during Bein Hashmashos, and on Shabbos the reason that caused it to be prohibited became no longer applicable, such as for example an item that was set aside during Bein Hashmashos because it was designated for a prohibited use, meaning that because of some prohibition it was forbidden to be eaten and was [thus] not fit for anything, in which case during Bein Hashmashos it was Muktzah and prohibited to be moved, and then on Shabbos the prohibition became no longer applicable and it [thus] became fit [to be eaten], nevertheless it is forbidden to move it the entire Shabbos.

The application- only when actively made Muktzah by the owner such as a lit candle[289]: However this is only referring to [a case that] a person actively set it aside, meaning that he physically caused it to become prohibited [from being used during Bein Hashmashos], such as for example a candle which was lit from before Shabbos and extinguished after Bein Hashmashos, and there remained some oil in it, [then since] this oil was actively set aside by a person from being fit to use on Shabbos [by Bein Hashmashos], as by him lighting it, it became forbidden to remove any of the oil from it on Shabbos [while it is still lit], due the prohibition of extinguishing [a fire][290], therefore it is forbidden to use [this oil] even after the lamp has extinguished and the prohibition [of extinguishing] is no longer applicable.

The reason for this is: because since during Bein Hashmashos, which is the beginning of the entrance of Shabbos, it had been [actively] set aside from the persons mind, being that he set it aside from his mind when he caused the prohibition [of extinguishing] to become applicable, it [therefore] has become set aside for the entire Shabbos.

Another example of an item being actively made Muktzah by the owner-dried figs and dates:[291] The same applies to an item that was not fit [to be used] during Bein Hashmashos in it of itself, and not due to a prohibition, and then [later] on, when it became dark [after Bein Hashmashos] it became fit [to be used], [nevertheless] it is forbidden to be moved the entire Shabbos, if it was actively pushed away by a person from being fit [to be used] during Bein Hashmashos. Such as for example, figs and raisins which were not [dried enough to be] fit [to be eaten] during Bein Hashmashos, and on Shabbos they dried out completely and became fit, then since during Bein Hashmashos they had been [actively] set aside from the persons mind, being that he set them aside from his mind when he placed them to dry, [therefore] they have become set aside [Muktzah] for the entire Shabbos.

The law in a case that the item was made Muktzah against the will of the owner:[292] However if an item was Muktzah during Bein Hashmashos against the will of the person, then it has not become Muktzah for the entire of Shabbos.

For example, an item which was Muktzah [during Bein Hashmashos] due to a prohibition [against using it] which came on its own accord and not through the actions of a person, [then if] when it becomes dark [after Bein Hashmashos] the prohibition becomes no longer relevant, then it is no longer Muktzah, even though that when it had reached Bein Hashmashos he had removed his mind from it completely and was not at all expecting that the prohibition would no longer become relevant [later on,] on Shabbos.

Example- Animals which were slaughtered on Shabbos:[293] Such as for example, animals which are Muktzah on Shabbos because of the prohibition of slaughtering, [then if] one slaughtered it on Shabbos for  a sick person who had become sick that day [on Shabbos], then it is permitted for even a healthy person to eat from its raw meat, even though that he had removed his mind off from [this animal] when Bein Hashmashos had arrived due the prohibition of slaughtering, as since this is a prohibition that comes of itself and not through the action of a person, [it therefore loses its status of Muktzah when the prohibition leaves]. The same applies to all similar cases.

Is meat of a gentile that was slaughtered on Shabbos permitted to be moved?[294] A gentile’s meat that was slaughtered today [on Shabbos], is permitted to be moved, just as is the law by the meat of a carcass that died on Shabbos, as will be explained in chapter 324 [Halacha 5].

The meat of a dead animal is not Muktzah:[295] One may cut a [hard[296]] carcass and throw its meat to dogs even if the animal died that day. It is not Muktzah even if one was not at all sick from before Shabbos and thus did not have in mind at all to feed its meat to dogs from before Shabbos. The reason for this is because an item which one removed his mind from is only considered Muktzah if one pushed it away with his hands, as was explained in chapter 310 [Halacha 6].

• Flour which was baked into bread on Shabbos by a gentile:[297]

In places where it is accustomed to [allow to] eat bread of a gentile bakery there are those opinions[298]  which permit to take from him on Shabbos even bread which was baked that day (on Shabbos) if it is a city which is majority of gentile population.

The reason for why this does not involve a prohibition of benefiting from a gentiles actions: because [when the majority of the population is gentile] one can assume that [the bakery] is baking it for the gentiles and not for the Jews, and thus there is no reason to prohibit [the bread] in consistency with the law regarding a gentile who does labor for a Jew [in which case the item that the work is done to is forbidden in benefit.]

The reason for why the bread is not Muktzah: As well it is not forbidden due to the laws of Muktzah even if it was flour or dough during twilight [of before Shabbos] which are [materials that are] Muktzah, as explained in chapter 308 [Halacha 8], [as] we do not apply here [the rule] that since [the “bread”] was Muktzah during twilight [of the entrance of Shabbos] it is therefore Muktzah for the entire Shabbos, as this rule is only said by an item which became ready and fit [to be used] on its own after dark [meaning after twilight was over], such as a candle which extinguished on its own after dark. However anything which was finished through a person, meaning that he finished preparing it on Shabbos and it becomes ready through a person, then it does not involve [the prohibition of] Muktzah at all, even during twilight when it is still not ready being that one does not remove his mind away from it at all during twilight from benefiting from it on Shabbos since it is within his ability to prepare it and make it ready for that day.

For example, flour which is in the hands of a gentile does not have the status of Muktzah at all on Shabbos because he has the ability to bake and make it ready for that day, and since it is readily useable for the gentile which is the owner it is therefore considered readily useable for everyone.

Other Opinions-If was flour or dough by twilight then is Muktzah: [However] there are other opinions[299] which say that [the Sages] only said that an item which was completed through the hands of a person does not have the law of Muktzah by an item which its action that is needed to prepare it to make it useable was already begun from before Shabbos and was then finished on Shabbos. Such as for example a gentile which started to make a vessel before Yom Tov and finished it on Yom Tov [the vessel] does not contain the [Muktzah] status of “Nolad” [a new existence] since it was finished through the handiwork of a person as was explained in chapter 252 [Halacha 12]. (Similarly bread which started to bake [from before Shabbos], meaning that it was placed in the oven before Shabbos, then even though during twilight it was not yet ready [nevertheless] it still does not contain [the] Muktzah [prohibition])

However, bread which its action that is needed to prepare it to make it useable, which is its baking, began on Shabbos then it does contain the problem of Muktzah if it was flour or dough during twilight.

However, if it was grain during twilight and it was grinded and baked on Shabbos then it does not contain a problem of Muktzah and neither of “Nolad” on Yom Tov, as will be explained in chapter 517 [Halacha 3].

The Final Ruling:[300] Regarding the final ruling: One is to be strict like the latter opinion unless it is a pressing situation, such as one is the sole Jew who lives in certain settlement and thus it is impossible to ask for bread from [Jewish] acquaintances. [As well one may be lenient when done] for the need of a Mitzvah, such as by the festive meal of a Bris Mila or in order to make the blessing over bread [for the Shabbos meal], in which cases one may then rely on those that permit [using bread that was baked on Shabbos by a gentile bakery].

In any event it is forbidden to give money to a gentile baker from before Shabbos in exchange for the bread that he will give him on Shabbos as [in such a case] it ends up that [the gentile] baked [on Shabbos] for the need of the Jew of which [the law is that] it is forbidden to eat [from that bread] until enough time has passed after Shabbos to have been able to bake it.

• The law of an item that had only been Muktzah for part of Bein Hashmashos:[301]

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 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: 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.

Summary of items which were Muktzah by Bein Hashmashos and then lost their reason for being Muktzah: Was actively made Muktzah for the entire Bein Hashmashos[302]: Once an item was Muktzah for the entire Bein Hashmashos due to an action done by the owner, such as that the owner lit a candle before Bein Hashmashos[303] or set aside figs to dry[304], then even if later on, on Shabbos, the reason for it being Muktzah left, such as the candle extinguished and the figs became ready, nevertheless it continues to be Muktzah for the entire Shabbos. Was not Muktzah for entire Bein Hashmashos[305]: However, if it was only Muktzah for part of Bein Hashmashos, then once its reason for being Muktzah dissipates on Shabbos, it no longer has the status of Muktzah. Was not actively made Muktzah:[306] Even if it was Muktzah for the entire Bein Hashmashos but was not actively made Muktzah and rather was Muktzah on its own, such as a live animal, then once its reason for being Muktzah dissipates on Shabbos, such as one slaughtered the animal for an ill person, then it no longer has the status of Muktzah[307]. Will actively be made “not Muktzah” on Shabbos:[308] An item which was actively made Muktzah for the entire Bein Hashmashos, such as the flour of a gentile, and the gentile plans to bake it, thus making it actively not Muktzah, there is a dispute as to whether it is Muktzah even while it is still flour. Practically one is to be stringent to consider it Muktzah for the entire Shabbos, unless it is pressing situation. Q&A Are raw foods which require cooking considered Muktzah if they belong to a non-Jew? In 325/6 [brought above] the Alter Rebbe brings a difference of opinion if raw items belonging to a non-Jew are MM”G. He concludes that one should be stringent unless it is a pressing circumstance or for the need of a mitzvah, such as a Bris.   Are raw foods which one began cooking right before Shabbos in a permitted way[309] considered Muktzah until they are ready? They are not considered Muktzah even when still raw and on the fire.[310] [However it is forbidden to mix the pot or remove and return it due to the cooking prohibition-see “The laws of Chazara” and The Laws of Cooking”] May one move an extinguished candle that was not lit during the entire duration of Bein Hashmashos? Yes, it may be moved in need of its space or use.   What is the law of an item that was Muktzah by Bein Hashmashos due to previous day?[311] An item which was Muktzah on Bein Hashmashos because of the previous day does not remain Muktzah for the rest of Shabbos. May one eat Chametz that was sold to the gentile on Shabbos which follows the last day of Pesach in Eretz Yisrael? From the letter of the law, one may eat Chametz on this Shabbos.[312] The Chametz is not considered Muktzah[313], and one is not considered to be stealing from the gentile.[314] However, the custom is not to do so in order not to get Chametz on one’s Pesach vessels and kitchenware.[315]

 

N. May one move Muktzah in a case of a great loss?[316]

It is forbidden to move Muktzah items even if not doing so will cause one a great loss.[317] Thus if it is raining on one’s Muktzah merchandise, and any case of the like, it is forbidden to move the objects from the rain.[318] This however is with exception to saving Muktzah items from robbers or an oncoming fire from a neighbor, in which case moving Muktzah is allowed as will be explained.

Asking a gentile to move the objects: In all cases it is permitted for one to ask a gentile to move the Muktzah items if lack of doing so will cause one a great loss.

May one save his items from an approaching fire that is in his neighbor’s home?[319]

If the fire is in a neighbor’s home, there is no limit given in items that one may save from the potential fire that may spread into his home.[320]

May one save Muktzah objects? It is permitted for one to save from a neighbor’s oncoming fire[321] valuable Muktzah items.[322] It is forbidden according to all to move Muktzah items which are not of much value.[323]

May one carry the items outside if there is no Eiruv? It is forbidden for one to carry the items into a Karmalis.[324] Hence one may only save the items into an area that has an Eiruv.

Saving items from robbers:[325]

If robbers are coming to search and rob from one’s home, it is permitted for one to move valuable Muktzah items[326], in order to save them from the robbers. It is forbidden according to all to move Muktzah items which are not of much value.[327]

May one carry the items outside if there is no Eiruv? It is forbidden for one to carry the items into a Karmalis.[328] Hence one may only save the items into an area that has an Eiruv.

 

O. Taaruvos of Muktzah:[329]

If one mixed ash which was made on Shabbos with ash that was made beforehand, then it is nullified in majority if it had never yet been recognizable on its own, as is explained there.[330] If, however, it was recognizable on its own, then it is not nullified even in 1000x, as it is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin.[331]

__________________________________________

[1] Admur 308:15; 311:15; 276:9-10; 266:19; 301:39 KU”A 10; So also rules: Mishneh Shabbos 141a; Rosh 3:19 in name of Rabbeinu Yonah; Michaber 311:8; Michaber 308:43; Rama 308:3 regarding blowing; M”A 308:7 regarding kicking Muktzah and 308:41 regarding his question on Michaber regarding sitting on Muktzah; M”B 276:31; 308:13 and 81 and 88; 311:30; 1^st opinion in Chayeh Adam; Derech Hachaim; 1^st opinion in Aruch Hashulchan 311:20; Kaf Hachaim 311:68 [although brings strict opinion in 69].

Background:

The above ruling of Admur and Poskim ibid follow the ruling of the Rosh ibid in the name of Rabbeinu Yonah, in the method he learns the Mishneh ibid in Shabbos. However, the Ran [20b “Kashya”] learns that the Mishneh that one may only move Muktzah with a Shinuiy for the purpose of using the space, and not in order to use the Muktzah or save the Muktzah from damage. The Tosafos [Shabbos 43a] learns that one may only move Muktzah with a Shinuiy for the purpose of using the space or in order to use the Muktzah object, however not in order to save the Muktzah from damage. [Admur 276 Kuntrus Achron 3] Thus there are a total of three opinions in Rishonim regarding moving Muktzah with a Shinuiy. [Admur ibid] This strict opinion of the Ran/Tosafus is mentioned in Admur in 276:10; Chayeh Adam ibid; Aruch Hashulchan 311:20; Kaf Hachayim 311:69. The Poskim ibid all plainly rule like the lenient opinion of the Rosh.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it is not permitted to move Muktzah with a Shinuiy in all cases. [Rishonim ibid brought in background; Chazon Ish 47:12-13 rules is only permitted when not recognizable] The following Poskim rule one may not sit on Muktzah if it will shake: Mordechai, brought in Magen Avraham ibid; Elya Raba 308:41; Chazon Ish 47:12; M”B in Shaar Hatziyon 302:35; So rule most Rishonim-Beir Moshe 1:26; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:20; The Meiri writes that one is to avoid doing so. [brought in M”B 308:82]

Ruling of Michaber: The Michaber 308:21 rules that one may not sit on Muktzah stones that are Muktzah. The M”A ibid brings the source of this ruling from the Mordechai which limits the prohibition to only a case that the Muktzah will shake under the item. However, in a case that the Muktzah will not shake, even the Michaber agrees it is permitted. The M”A ibid then questions this ruling of the Michaber [that shaking is forbidden] as it is merely moving Muktzah with one’s body, which is permitted as the Michaber himself rules in 311:8. He concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun. Admur and M”B ibid conclude based on this question of the M”A that it is permitted even if the Muktzah will move under it.

Ruling of M”B: The M”B [308:13 and 81 and 88; 311:30;] rules that it is permitted to move Muktzah with a Shinui and it is thus permitted to sit on Muktzah even if it will shake under him. However, in 308:81 he concludes with the Meiri ibid that in a case of no need it is best to avoid doing so. In Shaar Hatziyon 302:35 he rules simply that it may not be done if the item moves in the process. Vetzrauch Iyun!

Ruling of Chazon Ish: The Chazon Ish 47:12-13 innovates and that according to all opinions [even the Rosh] one may never move Muktzah solely for the sake of the Muktzah [and it is only permitted for the sake of the space, and only allowed by the Rosh even not for space in the case of the Mishneh ibid where there was straw on the bed], and he hence argues on the M”B ibid that allows moving Muktzah with one’s feet in a case of loss.

[2] Ruling in 311:15: “All the above [mentioned Muktzah restrictions] refer to when moving the [Muktzah item] with ones hands …., however to move the Muktzah item with one’s body, without ones hands, is allowed to be done even if he is doing so for the sake of the forbidden item.”

^[3] Lit “moving an object as if using the back of his hand”

[4] Admur 308:15; M”A 308:7; M”B 308:13 “to prevent loss” and 308:29

[5] This ruling that one may move the object with a Shinui even to save the Muktzah from damage was innovated by Rabbeinu Yonah as brought in the Rosh 3:19 [Admur 276 KU”A 3]; So also rules: Michaber 311:8; M”B 308:13; 311:30;.

Other opinions: The Ran [20b “Kashya”] learns that the Mishneh that one may only move Muktzah with a Shinuiy for the purpose of using the space, and not in order to use the Muktzah or save the Muktzah from damage. The Tosafos [Shabbos 43a] learns that one may only move Muktzah with a Shinuiy for the purpose of using the space or in order to use the Muktzah object, however not in order to save the Muktzah from damage. [Admur 276 Kuntrus Achron 3] Thus there are a total of three opinions in Rishonim regarding moving Muktzah with a Shinuiy. [Admur ibid] This strict opinion of the Ran/Tosafus is mentioned in Admur in 276:10. 

[6] Admur 276:9-10; M”B 276:31

[7] Lit. “Tiltul Min Hatzad”. This can refer to either moving Muktzah through use of one’s body other than his hands [Rashi Shabbos 141b; Admur 276:9-10; 277:6 “or through shaking it off or Tiltul Min Hatzad”; M”B 311:30;], or moving Muktzah through moving another non-Muktzah item in his hands. [Shabbos 123a; 311:14]

[8] Other opinions: The Daas Torah [311:8] brings proofs to forbid moving Muktzah in this method.

[9] Admur 276:9; M”B ibid

[10] Admur 276:10

[11] Admur 308:15; Michaber 308:43; Rama 308 3

[12] Admur 311:15

^[13] Lit. comes

^[14] Lit. to float

[15] Admur 276:10; For full background of this opinion refer to Halacha 3I.

[16] Tosafus brought in Admur 276 KU”A 3

[17] Admur 266:19

[18] Admur 301:Kuntrus Achron 10

^[19] Admur 308:15; 276:10; 311:15

[20] The following Poskim rule as does Admur: Mishneh Berurah [308:13;] Chayeh Adam [bstam in his 1^st opinion]; Derech Hachayim; Aruch Hashulchan 311:20 [Bstam in his 1^st opinion]; Kaf Hachaim 311:68 [although brings strict opinion in 69].

The opinion of the Chazon Ish: The Chazon Ish rules like the Ran that there is no differentiation between moving an item in its usual manner or moving it in an unusual manner, and it is thus moving in an unusual way is always forbidden. The Chayeh Adam; Aruch Hashulchan 311:20; Kaf Hachayim 311:69; Admur in 276:10 mentions this strict opinion in their rulings, although plainly rule like the lenient opinion. 

In Rishonim: The Ran rules like the stringent opinion while the Rosh rules like the lenient opinion.

[21] In Daas Torah [311:8] he brings proof to forbid moving Muktzah in this method.

[22] Admur 301 Kuntrus Achron 10

[23] Admur 301 Kuntrus Achron 10; M”B 308:13 “in a case of loss” implies that for no reason at all it is forbidden

[24] Michaber 266:13 and Admur 266:20 rule one may not pick up the Muktzah. One may not even ask a gentile to move it even in a city with an Eiruv. [Admur ibid] The only option given is for the finder to stand by the object and guard it until after Shabbos. [ibid] Now, although the Michaber and Admur clearly rule that all Muktzah may be moved with an irregularity, nevertheless here they do not mention this option. Seemingly the reason for this is because since one does not own the object, it is perhaps considered as if one is moving it for no use, as although he is saving himself from a loss by moving I, since he does not yet own it perhaps it is not considered a loss at all, and hence is similar to one who is moving an object with an irregularity for no reason at all, in which case it is implied from Admur 301 KU”A 10 that doing so is forbidden. Accordingly it is also understood why Admur here does not allow a gentile to move it, despite his ruling in 276:9-10, as in truth in this case even a Jew cannot move it with an irregularity, and one hence does not have to resort here to the long explanation of Admur in 276 KU”A 3 as for why one may not ask a gentile to move the item to prevent loss.

[25] Biur Halacha 266:13 “Pen”

[26] Admur 265:7; 266:24-25; 308:78; 335:4; 337:9

[27] See sources in previous footnote as well as 310:10. These sources seem to be self-contradictory regarding when we apply the prohibition of Mivatel Keli Meheichano. See Tehila Ledavid 335:7; In short one can answer that that if one does not care to immediately shake off item, there is no Bittul Keli. If one is particular to delay shaking it off, or he is not allowed to immediately shake it off it is only allowed to do so for a case of loss or Graf She Reiy.

[28] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:7

[29] Tosefes Shabbos; See also Admur in 312:12 that one needs to hold the wiping stone with an irregularity which is defined as two fingers in contrast to one hand

[30] Az Nidbaru 5:25

[31] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:7

[32] Tosefes Shabbos

[33] Az Nidbaru 5:25

[34] Admur 308:60; 259 KU”A 3 based on the M”A 259:8; Implied from reason of allowance in 337:2; So rules also Chazon Ish 47:14

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is permitted to move Muktzah with an extension, such as a knife for the sake of a Non-Muktzah item, such as to make space on a table. [Taz 308:18; P”M 308 M”Z 18; Mishneh Berurah 308:115; Shaar Hatziyon 337:7 and Biur Halacha 337:2 “Viyeish; SSH”K 22:36 [37 in new]]. In Az Nidbaru 9:33 he rules that one may be lenient in a time of need.

Opinion of Taz: In 308:18 the Taz rules it is permitted. However, in 311:2 the Taz rules it is forbidden. The Beir Heytiv 308:33 mentions this contradiction. The P”M ibid and M”B ibid answer this contradiction by stating that when one is moving the Muktzah for a permitted purpose, such as to clean the table, we rule it is permitted, as is always the rule of Tiltul Min Hatzad for the sake of a permitted item. However, when one moves it for the sake of the Muktzah, such as for the sake of the corpse in 311:2, then it is forbidden.

Opinion of Admur in 444:13: In 444:13 Admur allows one to use a stick to move Muktzah if one needs its space. This follows the ruling of the Taz ibid as explained in P”M ibid. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol as how this does not contradict 308:60 and 259 Kuntrus Achron 3, that it is always forbidden to move Muktzah with an item in one’s hand, unlike Taz [Rav Garelick, and Rav Ashkenazi in Mareh Mikomos Vetzeyunim; as well as Zichron Yosef 343 and 347]. Practically the ruling in 308:60 is the main ruling [Zichron Yosef 347], however perhaps one can partially answer that by Chameitz Admur chose to rely on Taz when one desires to move it for its place being that it is also proper to move it so he not come to eat it. [Zichron Yosef ibid]

[35] Admur 308:60

[36] Vetzaruch Iyun as for why moving Muktzah using an item in one’s hand not considered a Shinuiy and thus allowed?

[37] Admur 308:60

[38] In 259 Kuntrus Achron 3 Admur explains this matter in greater length, basing his ruling on the M”A 259:8, and explains that in truth this form of movement is not considered Tiltul Min Hatzad and does not carry its leniencies of movement for the sake of a Mutar item. The reason for this is because by Tiltul Min Hatzad, such as moving a barrel with a stone, one is clearly moving the non-Muktzah and the stone is simply dragging along. However, when using a stick to move Muktzah, one is clearly moving the Muktzah, and it is apparent to all that the non-Muktzah is just an extension of the hand, and hence cannot be compared to the case of a barrel with a stone. [ibid]

[39] Admur 259:4; Michaber 259:3; This ruling does not contradict the ruling of the Taz and M”B ibid, as everyone agrees it is forbidden to move using a stick for the sake of the Muktzah, and in this case one is moving the insulation for the sake of the insulation, so it work properly.

^[40] Lit” that the indentation has not been damaged. This means that the Mochin have remained stuck to the walls of the pot and thus form a hollow space to allow the pot to slip into.

^[41] Meaning the Mochin has fallen from the walls of the box and are now standing in the center, thus filling up the hollowness in the box.

[42] Admur 259:4

[43] Admur 446:7 Pure Translation: If one found on Shabbos or Yom Tov the Chameitz of a gentile which rolled onto his roof, he is not to push it with a rod, being that [by doing so] he is moving Muktzah, of which it is forbidden to move Muktzah even through moving another item as was explained in chapter 311 [Halacha 14]. Rather one is to cover it with a vessel until evening and then push it with a rod back onto the roof of the gentile or into a public area.

[44] Admur 446:7

^[45] Admur 444:13, brought next

[46] Admur 444:13

[47] So rules Taz

[48] There the laws of Tiltul Min Hatzad are explained. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol as there it is explained, as well as in 308:60 and 259 Kuntrus Achron, that it is always forbidden to move Muktzah with an item in one’s hand, unlike Taz [Rav Garelick , and Rav Ashkenazi in Mareh Mikomos Vetzeyunim; as well as Zichron Yosef 343 and 347], and this is the main ruling [Zichron Yosef 347], however perhaps one can partially answer that by Chameitz Admur chose to rely on Taz when one desires to move it for its place being that it is also proper to move it so he not come to eat it. [Zichron Yosef ibid]

[49] Since the non-Muktzah item becomes an extension of one’s hand and it is thus considered as if one is moving the Muktzah item with his actual hands

^[50] Admur 308:60, and Chapter 259 Halacha 4 and Kuntrus Achron 3. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol from 444:13 that there Admur allows one to use a stick to move Muktzah if one needs its space-see previous footnote.

^[51] Chapter 308 Halacha 60

^[52] Admur 259:4

[53] Admur 337:2; M”A 337:4; Biur Halacha 308:27 “Minaeri”

[54] The reason: It is permitted to sweep them being that they are to the person like a pile of filth, which the Sages permitted one to remove to the garbage, due to one’s dignity. [Admur ibid; Rashba and Ran; M”B 337:12] Alternatively, the reason is because this is considered Tiltul Min Hatzad which is permitted to be done for a Mutar item, such as to make room on the floor. [Shaar Hatziyon 337:7; Biur Halacha 337:2 “Veyeish Machmirim”; Ramban in Milchamos 48b] Admur negates this reason in 308:60, and 259 Kuntrus Achron 3, based on M”A 259:8.

[55] So is implied from Admur here which depends the allowance on the Muktzah being a Graf Shel Reiy. See also 308:60, and Chapter 259 Halacha 4 and Kuntrus Achron 3. See Volume 1 “The Laws of Muktzah” Chapter 1 Halacha 3C!

Other opinions: According to those that rule one may move Muktzah with a knife for the need of the space [Taz 308:18; M”B 308115] would likewise rule here that it is allowed.

[56] Admur 308:14; 277:6; Rama 277:4; 308:3; Mordechai; Rabbeinu Yerucham

[57] The following is a translation of the Halacha there: It is forbidden to touch a lit candle while it is hanging, despite the fact that he is not moving it and there is no prohibition by Muktzah in mere touching, as nevertheless it is forbidden lest it will move slightly upon him touching it.

[58] Admur 277:6

^[59] Admur 308:14; 311:12

[60] See Admur 310:10 [brought in E!] regarding placing a non-Muktzah on top of a Muktzah, for the sake of the Muktzah, and see the source of the stringent opinion there, which is the M”A 310:3 and Taz 310:5, that states the reason is because one may not touch Muktzah for the sake of the Muktzah item. Admur there does not conclude with a final ruling and the Ketzos Haashulchan 113:2 is stringent, while the M”B 310:22 is lenient. 

[61] See Admur 308:78; Taz 308:23; M”A 308:68; M”B 308:151 that it is forbidden to move any part of Muktzah; Admur 305:23 “Even to rub a child on its back to entertain him is forbidden”; The following Poskim rule it is forbidden to move even the hair both due to Muktzah and due to the prohibition of making use of an animal on Shabbos: Tosefes Shabbos 302:34, brought in Biur Halacha 305:18 “Mikaneach”; Toras Shabbos 302:21; Shevisas Hashabbos Kotzer 137; Kaf Hachaim 302:89; Keren Ledavid 92; Piskeiy Teshuvos 305:5 footnote 34 and 308:54 footnote 446

Other opinions: Some Poskim question that perhaps it is permitted to move the hairs of an animal, and the Sages only forbade against moving their bodies. [Biur Halacha 305:18 “Mikaneach” based on Michaber 302:11 who permits cleaning mud off using the tail of a horse]

Ruling of Poskim permitting cleaning mud with the tail of an animal: The Poskim rule that it is permitted for one to use the tail of a horse or cow to clean mud off one’s hands. [Admur 302:22; Michaber 302:11; Rambam 22:19; Tosefta 17:5] This seems to imply that one may use and move the hairs of an animal on Shabbos, and the Sages did not decree against it. [Biur Halacha ibid] Other Poskim however suggest that this ruling refers to a detached tail from a horse and cow, or to a case of Geraf Shel Reiy, which permits moving Muktzah. However, in truth, it is forbidden to move the tail of an animal both due to Muktzah and due to the prohibition against making use of an animal. [Tosefes Shabbos 302; Toras Shabbos 302:21; Shevisas Hashabbos Kotzer 137; Kaf Hachaim 302:89; Keren Ledavid 92; Piskeiy Teshuvos 305 footnote 34]

[62] Admur 308:14; Brought also in 265:6; Rama 308:3

[63] Admur ibid; P”M 308 A”A 8; M”B 308:19; See however next footnote that in truth one must conclude that this statement here of Admur regarding both shaking and Tiltul Keliachar Yad is not going on this case of removing a non-Muktzah from Muktzah, but rather on the case of sitting on Muktzah. Nevetrheless in Admur 265:6 he explicitly rules that it is permitted even if it shakes.

^[64] Lit. “Moving with the back of one hand”; However, see 265:6 [next] that Admur states it is Mutar due to Tiltul Min Hatzad. The P”M and M”B ibid both state that it is permitted because it is considered Tiltul Min Hatzad for a permitted item. However, from Admur 308:14 it is implied that it has the status of movement through a Shinuiy. The practical ramification is in a case that one is moving the non-Muktzah for the sake of the Muktzah, such as the Muktzah not get scratched, in such a case if the reason is because of Shinuiy then it is permitted, however if it is because of Tiltul for a permitted object then it is permitted. Regarding why in 265:6 Admur states the reason is because of Tiltul Min Hatzad, and not Shinuiy, in truth moving an item through a Shinuiy is also defined as Tiltul Min Hatzad, as written in Rashi Shabbos 141 and Admur 276:9, and thus there is no contradiction in Admur as to the reason behind the allowance. However, Tzaruch Iyun Gadol if at all this reason of “Tiltul Keliachar Yad” mentioned here in 308:14 by Admur is at all going on this case, as Admur mentions two other cases afterwards, which are covering Muktzah and sitting on Muktzah. Thus perhaps this reason of allowance only refers to sitting on Muktzah, while removing an item from Muktzah is in truth due to Tiltul Min Hatzad, as explained in 265:6 and M”B ibid that it is for the sake of the Heter. A proof for this conclusion can be brought from Admur 310:10 where he rules that one may not cover a Muktzah item that will shake under him for the sake of the Muktzah. Now if the allowance in all three cases [removing, placing and sitting] is due to Shinuiy then it would be permitted to cover Muktzah even if he shakes, just as one can move Muktzah with his feet. Hence one must conclude that this reason in Admur is not going on the case of removing or placing. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[65] That irregular movement of Muktzah is allowed to be done on Shabbos.

[66] Admur 265:6

[67] Admur 265:6

^[68] Admur 308:14; 265:6

[69] Admur 308:14; 265:6

[70] Admur 265:6; However the shaking mentioned in 308:14 is seemingly only going on the sitting case. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[71] See Admur 310:10 that one may not cover Muktzah for the sake of the Muktzah, and seemingly the same should apply here; See P”M 308 A”A 8; M”B 308:19 that the entire reason that removing is permitted is because of Tiltul for the need of the Mutar.

[72] See Admur 310:10 [brought next in E!] regarding palcing a non-Muktzah on top of a Muktzah, for the sake of the Muktzah, and see the source of the stringent opinion there, which is the Terumos Hadeshen 1:67, that discusses both cases of placing on the Muktzah and removing from the Muktzah, and hence there is no reason to differentiate between the cases. Admur there does not conclude with a final ruling and the Ketzos Haashulchan 113:2 is stringent, while the M”B 310:22 is lenient. 

[73] P”M 308 A”A 8 and M”B 308:19 that the allowance to shake is only for the sake of the Heter; Admur 310:10 regarding placing on the Muktzah and the same would apply to removing

Background:

Admur 308:14 states it is permitted to remove the non-Muktzah, even if the Muktzah will shake, due to Tiltul Kiliachar Yad. The P”M and M”B ibid both state that it is permitted because it is considered Tiltul Min Hatzad for a permitted item. However from Admur 308:14 it is implied that it has the status of movement through a Shinuiy. The practical ramification is in a case that one is moving the non-Muktzah for the sake of the Muktzah, such as the Muktzah not get scratched, in such a case if the reason is because of Shinuiy then it is permitted, however if it is because of Tiltul for a permitted object then it is permitted. Regarding why in 265:6 Admur states the reason is because of Tiltul Min Hatzad, and not Shinuiy, in truth moving an item through a Shinuiy is also defined as Tiltul Min Hatzad, as written in Rashi Shabbos 141 and Admur 276:9, and thus there is no contradiction in Admur as to the reason behind the allowance. However, Tzaruch Iyun Gadol if at all this reason of “Tiltul Keliachar Yad” mentioned here in 308:14 by Admur is at all going on this case, as Admur mentions two other cases afterwards, which are covering Muktzah and sitting on Muktzah. Thus perhaps this reason of allowance only refers to sitting on Muktzah, while removing an item from Muktzah is in truth due to Tiltul Min Hatzad, as explained in 265:6 and M”B ibid that it is for the sake of the Heter. A proof for this conclusion can be brought from Admur 310:10 where he rules that one may not cover a Muktzah item that will shake under him for the sake of the Muktzah. Now if the allowance in all three cases [removing, placing and sitting] is due to Shinuiy then it would be permitted to cover Muktzah even if he shakes, just as one can move Muktzah with his feet. Hence one must conclude that this reason in Admur is not going on the case of removing or placing.

[74] Admur 308:14; This ruling must be discussing for the sake of the permitted item as explained in 310:10 [brought next]; Terumos Hadeshen 1:67; M”A 310:3; Taz 301:5

[75] 509:16

[76] Admur 310:10

Background:

The Michaber 310:6 rules that one may not cover a Muktzah item if the item will touch the Muktzah. The Maggid Mishneh questions this ruling being that it is permitted to touch Muktzah on Shabbos [as ruled in Rama 308:3]. Some Poskim conclude that the Michaber is referring to a case that one is covering the Muktzah for the sake of the Muktzah, and in such a case in truth doing so is forbidden. [Terumos Hadeshen 1:67; Taz 310:5; M”A 310:3; 1^st opinion in Admur] Others conclude that touching is always permitted and the Michaber is referring to a case that the Muktzah will shake under the covering. [Maggid Mishneh ibid; 2^nd opinion in Admur]

[77] Terumos Hadeshen 1:67; Taz 310:5; M”A 310:3; 1^st opinion in Admur

[78] Maggid Mishneh ibid; 2^nd opinion in Admur

^[79] Such as an egg that has a chick inside it.

^[80] The Ketzos Hashulchan 113 Halacha 2 rules like the former opinion. The M”B 308:17 and 310:22 rules like the lenient opinion, as so rules also the Beir Hagoleh, Gr”A and Derech Hachaim.

[81] 277:8

[82] 308:72

[83] 338:8

[84] According to the first opinion mentioned above, as rules the Ketzos Hashulchan, it is forbidden to have the vessels touch the bricks. Accordingly, these vessels referred to in this Halacha must be very large, as how else can they cover bricks without even touching them. Vetzaruch Iyun according to Ketzos Hashulchan why no mention was made here that one should be careful not to touch the bricks in the process? Perhaps however since it is a case of loss there is more room to be lenient like the second opinion. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[85] Admur 308:14 and 509:16

[86] So is implied from 310:10 and 265:6 that when intending for the benefit of the non-Muktzah item it is permitted to be placed on the Muktzah even if the Muktzah will shake.

^[87] Chapter 310 Halacha 10

^[88] So rules the Ketzos Hashulchan 113:2 like the first opinion in Admur; However the M”B 310:22 rules like the lenient opinion that the above ruling was only referring to an egg which is moved when touched. Hence by other items one may cover it even if the cover touches the item.

[89] See footnote brought above by the 3^rd example regarding the understanding of this Halacha, that perhaps in a case of loss there is room to be lenient like the opinion which permits doing so.

[90] As perhaps doing so is not considered “for the sake of the Muktzah object” and is hence permitted. Vetzaruch Iyun if perhaps it can be considered a Graf Shel Reiy.

[91] Admur 308:14; 15; 308:52; M”A 308:41; M”B 308:82 and 88, Meiri [brought in M”B ibid];

Background:

The Michaber 308:21 rules that one may not sit on Muktzah stones that are Muktzah. The M”A ibid brings the source of this ruling from the Mordechai which limits the prohibition to only a case that the Muktzah will shake under the item. However, in a case that the Muktzah will not shake, even the Michaber agrees it is permitted. The M”A ibid then questions this ruling of the Michaber [that shaking is forbidden] as it is merely moving Muktzah with one’s body, which is permitted as the Michaber himself rules in 311:8. He concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun. Admur and M”B ibid conclude based on this question of the M”A that it is permitted even if the Muktzah will move under it.

Other Poskim: Some Poskim rule it is forbidden to sit on any Muktzah item if the item will shake or move upon sitting on it. [Mordechai, brought in Magen Avraham ibid; Elya Raba 308:41; Chazon Ish 47:12; M”B in Shaar Hatziyon 302:35; So rule most Rishonim-Beir Moshe 1:26; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:20] The Meiri writes that one is to avoid doing so. [brought in M”B 308:82]

Ruling of M”B: The M”B [308:82 and 88] rules that based on the M”A it is permitted to sit on the Muktzah even if it will shake under him. He then concludes with the Meiri ibid that in a case of no need it is best toa void doing so. However, in Shaar Hatziyon 302:35 he rules simply that it may not be done if the item moves in the process. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:20]

[92] 308:14; This ruling here is based on the ruling in 308:15 and 52

^[93] Lit. “Moving with the back of one hand”

[94] Admur 308:52; See previous footnotes for background

^[95] Chapter 308 Halacha 14

[96] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:20

[97] As even the stringent opinion was only stringent regarding items which are completely Muktzah and not just Muktzah Machmas Issur. [Beir Moshe 1:26]

[98] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:20

[99] So rules Beir Moshe 1:26

[100] Admur 308:14; also brought in 501:11 and 509:16; based on M”A 501:12 and Rashba Shabbos 29; explained in Kuntrus Achron 509:3 and so rules also [based on M”A and the explanation of Admur] M”B 501:23 and Shaar Hatziyon 501:31

Background:

In the laws of Muktzah [chapters 308-312] of the Michaber there is no reference made as to whether it is forbidden to benefit from Muktzah, and on the contrary it is implied from many Halachos there that it is permitted. In 501:6 the Michaber rules that one may not move Muktzah wood on Yom Tov even in order to use as fuel to cook food. The M”A ibid states that not only is it forbidden to move the Muktzah wood but it is even forbidden to light a fire under them, even if one does not move them at all, as it is forbidden to benefit from Muktzah. The source of this ruling of the M”A ibid is from the Rashba ibid, however it forms a contradiction as we do not hold like the Rashba that Muktzah is forbidden in benefit, as is evident from many allowances recorded in the poskim, such as to rest an item on something Muktzah. Admur ibid addresses this question and hence novelizes that in truth Muktzah is permitted in benefit so long as it does not change or destroy the Muktzah. However, when one’s actions does an actual change to the Muktzah, such as turning the wood into ash, then it is as if one is moving it and is forbidden.

[101] The following is the ruling there: “It was already explained that one is to be stringent regarding Nolad on Yom Tov. Therefore, vessels which have broken on Yom Tov and can no longer be used for their original task, as was explained in chapter 495, may not be used for fuel being that they are Nolad and are forbidden to be moved. Furthermore, even to burn them in their place is forbidden, even though he is not moving them, being that Muktzah is forbidden to be used and benefit from as will be explained in chapter 509”

The following is the ruling in 509:16: Just like it is forbidden to eat Muktzah foods similarly it is forbidden to use it even for the sake of eating, such as to lean a pot on stones or woods which are Muktzah.

The reason for this is because: The benefit which he receives from using the Muktzah is forbidden to be eaten, being that the use of these stones and woods are considered their [form of] eating, and the Sages did not differentiate between wood and stones and food and drinks which are Muktzah, and they forbade the usage of all matters which are Muktzah.   

Benefit is only forbidden when using the body of the Muktzah item: However the above [prohibition] is only with regards to when one does an action to the body of the Muktzah [item] such as he moves the stone in order to lean the pot on it, or he ignites the Muktzah wood despite him not moving them from its space, [as] nevertheless being that he is placing fire under them and igniting them he is doing an action to the body of the Muktzah [item] . However, it is permitted to use Muktzah when he is not doing any action to the body of the Muktzah, such as to warm oneself up near a fire which was ignited from Muktzah wood, or to use its light. Now, although he is benefiting from the Muktzah [item] nevertheless since the benefit comes on its own, without him doing any action to the body of the Muktzah in receiving its benefit, the Sages did not decree against doing so even on Shabbos as was explained in chapter 308 [Halacha 14]   

[102] 310:10; brought also in: 265:3 [regarding catching oil of candle in vessel]; 265:7 [regarding catching sparks and wicks in vessel]; 266:23 [regarding placing pillows under camel to catch vessels] 308:78 [placing vessel for chicks to climb on]; 313:23 [placing beam to support caving roof]; 335:4 [catching spill of Muktzah wine]; 337:9 [regarding catching leak in bucket] Michaber 265:3; 266:9; 310:6

[103] One may not move a non-Muktzah item that contains a Muktzah item on it until one shakes off the Muktzah item. [See Halacha 15 regarding Tiltul Min Hatzad] Hence it is considered that one has now limited the movement and usage of the non-Muktzah due to causing the Muktzah to fall on it.

^[104] Admur 265:3; Kuntrus Achron 266:11 of chapter 266 “It does not appear that he is destroying it”; Rambam 5:23; M”B 265:6; 310:20 in name of Tur; See Rashi and Tosafus 42-43

[105] Based on Admur 265:7 [explains is only forbidden because cant shake off wick until it extinguishes]; 266:24-25 [Cant catch vessel from breaking unless is great loss]; 308:78 [may place vessel before chicks to rest on]; and Kuntrus Achron 266:11 [explains difference between if can shake off immediately and if cannot]

[106] Kuntrus Achron ibid

[107] 266:23-25

[108] Admur 265:7

[109] Admur 308:78; Kuntrus Achron ibid

[110] Admur 266:23-26; 265:7; 310:10; Michaber 266:9; M”B 266:27

[111] Admur 266:26; 265:7; 310:10; M”B ibid

[112] As the Sages permitted doing temporary Bittul Keli Miheichanoi in a case of great loss.

[113] Admur 266:24; As the Sages did not allow one to be Mivatel Keli Miheichano for the entire Shabbos even in a case of great loss.

[114] M”A 266:14

[115] Admur 266:25 The above is the exact wording of Admur and he does not bring a dissenting opinion or rule whether one may follow this opinion.

[116] M”B ibid brings both opinions; See Biur Halacha 266:9 “Leshamtam” that brings both opinions and leans to be stringent in this matter.

[117] Admur 335:4; Michaber 335:4; Kaf Hachaim 338:63

[118] Tehila Ledavid 335:7 based on Admur and Michaber ibid

Meaning that just like the Sages permitted to perform a Geraf Shel Reiy to perform a loss, similarly the Sages permitted to perform a temporary Bittul Keli Miheichano in order to prevent a Geraf Shel Reiy.

[119] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

This is allowed, even though one is initially causing a Geraf Shel Reiy by settling himself in the area [and causing the bucket to fill up-Tehila Ledavid 338:9], being that otherwise there will be loss caused to the wine.

[120] One is allowed to spill it out because otherwise the wine will spill and cuase a Geraf Shel Reiy. One however must spill the wine back into the original barrel in order not to cause a new Bittul Keli Miheichao. [Admur ibid]

[121] Tehila Ledavid ibid based on Admur 335:4

[122] Admur ibid as explained in Tehila Ledavid ibid. However, see 335:4 that implies that if one is already settled in the area then it is permitted, Vetzaruch Iyun!

[123] By placing the bucket there to fill up with water one is causing this bucket to become a Geraf Shel Reiy. [Tehila Ledavid 338:9]

[124] Admur 335:4 as explained also in Tehila Ledavid ibid that when a loss is not involved and one hence cannot perform a Geraf Shel Reiy, then the Sages likewise did not permit temporary Bittul keli Miheichano.

[125] Admur 265:3; M”A; M”B 265:6

[126] Admur 265:4; Mahril; M”A; M”B 265:6

[127] Admur 265:3; Michaber 265:3

[128] Admur 265:3; Michaber 265:3

The reason: This is forbidden due to Bittul Keli Miheichano. [ibid]

[129] Admur 265:4

[130] Admur 265:7

[131] The reason: This is forbidden due to temporary Bittul Keli Miheichano as one cannot shake the wick out until the wick extingusihes. [ibid]

[132] Admur 266:23; Michaber 266:9

[133] As the Sages permitted doing temporary Bittul Keli Miheichanoi in a case of great loss.

[134] Admur 266:24; As the Sages did not allow one to be Mivatel Keli Miheichano for the entire Shabbos even in a case of great loss.

[135] M”A 266:14

[136] Admur 266:25 The above is the exact wording of Admur and he does not bring a dissenting opinion or rule whether one may follow this opinion.

[137] M”B ibid brings both opinions; See Biur Halacha 266:9 “Leshamtam” that brings both opinions and leans to be stringent in this matter.

[138] Admur 308:78

[139] The reason: This is not forbidden due to Bittul Keli Miheichano as the chicks and be shaken off the vessel at any moment. [ibid; Kuntrus Achron 266:11]

[140] Admur 313:23

[141] Admur 335:4

[142] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

This is allowed, even though one is initially causing a Geraf Shel Reiy by settling himself in the area [and causing the bucket to fill up-Tehila Ledavid 338:9], being that otherwise there will be loss caused to the wine.

[143] One is allowed to spill it out because otherwise the wine will spill and cause a Geraf Shel Reiy. One however must spill the wine back into the original barrel in order not to cause a new Bittul Keli Miheichao. [Admur ibid]

[144] Admur 338:9                                                 

[145] Admur 335:4

[146] Hence one may spill out the content when the vessel fills up and then replace it to catch the flow. Now although eventually the amount of Muktzah liquid will overpower the amount of water, there is no need to worry about this as even regarding Yayin Nesech there are opinions which are lenient in such a case and hence certainly regarding Muktzah one may be lenient. Now although the Muktzah liquid is a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin, and hence should never be nullified, it is nullified to the water as a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin is only not nullified when it is mixed Min Bemino in contrast to Min Beino Mino. [Admur ibid]

[147] As in such a case the spilling of the liquid onto the floor is considered a Graf Shel Reiy and one is thus allowed to move the bucket when it fills to the top in order so it does not spill. Hence it is not considered to be nullifying the vessel from its non-Muktzah state as one will still be allowed to spill out its content upon it filling up. [ibid] Now although Admur only considered the spill a Graf Shel Reiy if it will spill on an earth floor and create mud, nevertheless we wrote the allowance above inclusive of all floors, as today any spill on one’s floor is considered repulsive and hence follows the laws of Graf Shel Reiy. 

[148] As in a case of loss the Sages did not decree against initially making a Geraf Shel Reiy. [ibid]

^[149] Chapter 310 Halacha 10

[150] Admur 265:7; 266:24-25; 308:78; 335:4; 337:9

Other opinions: Some write that one may never place a Muktzah item down on a vessel. [see SSH”K 11 footnote 67; Piskeiy Teshuvos 506:7

[151] See sources in previous footnote as well as 310:10. These sources seem to be self-contradictory regarding when we apply the prohibition of Mivatel Keli Meheichano. See Tehila Ledavid 335:7; In short one can answer that that if one does not care to immediately shake off item, there is no Bittul Keli. If one is particular to delay shaking it off, or he is not allowed to immediately shake it off it is only allowed to do so for a case of loss or Graf She Reiy.

[152] Tehila Ledavid 266:7; However see Tehila Ledavid 308:1 that says there is basis to say that it is forbidden.

[153] See SSH”K 13:39

[154] M”B 310:32 regarding drops of liquid which fall from trees in the spring due to condensation. Since the water was never around prior and was now created on Shabbos it is considered a great form of Nolad and is Muktzah.

[155] See Admur 335:4; SSH”K ibid

[156] As the bucket is already considered Muktzah due to its current dirty water, and hence causing it to have more dirty water makes no greater of a Muktzah state. However, an empty bucket, even to kick it there is forbidden, as by causing it to receive dirty water one is making it Muktzah for those moments.

[157] M”B 310:32 in name of Chayeh Adam; Implication of Admur 335:4; Michaber 335:4; M”A 335:4

The reason: As the water from the air conditioner is considered a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin which is not nullified even in a 1000x. [See Admur 320:4; 507:3; Michaber 320:2; 507:2; M”A 320:8; 507:3; Rama Y.D. 102:4; Shach 102:12; Taz 102:11]

[158] See sources in Hebrew

[159] As this is similar to ash which was recognizable on its own and then got mixed into other ash in which Admur rules that it is all Muktzah due to that it is a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin, and thus the law of bittul does not apply. [M”B ibid]

[160] Admur 265:3; M”A 265:2; M”B 265

[161] See M”B 313:49; Shaar Hatziyon 313:37 for a dispute between the M”B and P”M on this matter.

[162] If there is enough dirt in the bucket to make the water unusable then seemingly one may not do so, as the water will eventually become dirty and Muktzah, and one hence has nullified an object from its non-Muktzah state. However, on the other hand, perhaps it is allowed as water is not a vessel, and perhaps the Issur of Bittul Keli is only by a vessel? See M”B 313:49; Shaar Hatziyon 313:37 for a dispute between the M”B and P”M on this matter.

[163] Biur Halacha 338:8 “Assur”; Admur 335:4

[164] The reason: See Admur ibid; Biur Halacha ibid; Tehila Ledavid 335

[165] SSH”K 22 footnote 47 in name of Rav SZ”A

[166] Admur 308:13

Background:

The Michaber 308:3 rules that one who lifted a Keli Shemilachto Leissur for need of its space is allowed to place it down wherever he wishes. The M”A 308:7 extends this allowance to even a case that he was not allowed to pick up the Mucktah and accidently did so, being that the Sages did not decree against the continued movement of the Muktzah and only forbade the initial lifting and movement. It is evident from the M”A in 266:19 and 331:5 that this allowance applies even if one accidently lifted an item that is completely Muzkath, such as MMG or MMCK. [P”M 308 A”A 7] Admur in 308:13 brings a first opinion [which is this opinion of the M”A] that states that one may continue moving all Muktzah, even Mukzath Gamur, that was accidently lifted. Admur then brings a second opinion [Smag, Even Haozer] that prohibits the continued movement by Muktzah Gamur and allows it only by MM”I. Admur concludes that in a case of loss one may be lenient by Muktzah Gamur. An example of this allowance is brought in 266:19 in which acse we rule that one who forgot his wallet in his pocket may continue to carry it home, and in 331:10 that the Mohel may continue carrying the Milah knife [both of these cases involve loss].

Ruling of M”B: The M”B in 308:13 brings both opinions and rules like the stringent opinion, as so rules also the Derech Chaim. However in 266:35 he concludes that in a acse of loss one may be lenient, and hence in conclusion his opinion is the same as that of Admur here.

[167] Admur 308:13; M”A 308:7; 266:19; 331:5; M”B 308:13

[168] See below regarding Meizid

[169] Second opinion in Admur ibid; ruling of M”B 308:13; Derech Hachaim

^[170] Smag Asei 30; Even Haozer 266

[171] Brought next regarding a pouch of money

[172] Admur 307:36 in parenthesese

[173] Admur 266:19; Rama 266:12

[174] Admur 266:19; M”A 266:19 says first reason

[175] Admur brings a second reason as some argue on the first reason, as stated above from 308:13

[176] Admur 301 Kuntrus Achron 10

[177] Lit. Lafush

[178] Admur 331:10; M”A 331:5; M”B 310:15

[179] This follows the ruling of the Taz/Magen Avraham in 331 that even on a Shabbos Bris the knife is Muktzah. However, the Rama and Shach Yoreh Deah 266:2 rule that the knife is not Muktzah at all as something cannot be Muktzah for only part of Shabbos.

The M”B 310:15 rules that in a time of need, such as there is suspicion of robbery, one may rely on this lenient opinion to hide the knife even after one already placed it down. The Sheivet Haleivi [4:135] rules likewise saying that majority of Poskim are lenient.

^[180] Admur 266:19

^[181] Admur 301:KU”A

[182] SSH”K 20:72

[183] As Tzaruch Iyun if the allowance by the wallet case is due to that it is a case of loss, as is implied from 308:13, or due to that he is carrying it with his body as Admur writes in the Halacha there. Or perhaps both reasons together, or perhaps either reason suffices.

[184] See Admur 310:14-15; Rama 310:7; M”A 310:7; Gloss of Rav Akiva Eiger 310; M”B 310:30; Kaf Hachaim 310:40

[185] Background: It is Rabbinically forbidden to ask a gentile to perform any Melacha for a Jew, even a Rabbinicla Melacha. This prohibition is called Amirah Lenachri. [See 307:5; Admur 30712] Nevertheless, some Poskim rule that any action that a Jew can perform in a permitted method, he may likewise ask a gentile to perform it, even if the gentile will do it in a forbidden method, so long as he does not explicitly tell the gentile to do it in the forbidden method. [307:16; 276:9; Rama 276:3; Maharam Merothenberg 558 in name of Rabbeinu Tam; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 12; Mordechai; Hagahos Maimanis] Thus one may ask a gentile to move a candle [or any other Muktzah] for it to be used in another room that is dark [Rama ibid] being that a Jew himself is allowed to move Muktzah with a Shinuiy. [M”A 276:11; Admur 276:9; M”B 276:31] However this allowance is only to be given to Bnei Torah. [M”A 276:10; Admur 276:9; M”B 276:29] Furthermore, even Bnei Torah, may only ask a Gentile to do so for the sake of using the Muktzah or to free up its space, however not in order to save from damage. [M”A 279:9 based on Rama 279:4; Admur 276:10; M”B 276:10] The reason for this is because according to Rabbeinu Tam, which is the source of this allowance, even a Jew cannot move Muktzah through Tiltul Min Hatzad or Shinuiy for the sake of the Muktzah, to save it from damage. [M”A ibid as explained in Admur 276:10 and Kuntrus Achron 3] Nevertheless in a case of great loss any person can ask a gentile to move the Muktzah. [M”A 307:7; Admur 307:12; M”B 307:22 in first opinion]

[186] Admur 307:12; Michaber 307:5; M”A 307:7

[187] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

[188] A slight illness is more than a mere ache or pain, as is evident from chapter 328:20

[189] Admur ibid; M”A ibid

[190] Rambam

[191] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; M”B 307:22, although he brings the Elya Raba that is stringent even in such a case.

[192] Michaber ibid

[193] Admur 307:16; based on M”A 276:11

[194] Rama 276:3; Maharam Merothenberg in name of Rabbeinu Tam 558; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 12; Mordechai; Hagahos Maimanis

[195] Regarding asking a gentile to move a candle, that it may be asked by a Torah scholar. Vetzaruch Iyun as there it is only permitted through a Torah Scholar, so the ignoramus not come to be lenient in Mariah Lenachri, why then is this stipulation not mentioned here too?

[196] There it is explained that it is forbidden to ask a gentile to a gentile to bring him water even from a Karmalis.

[197] Admur 276:9; Rama 276:3; Maharam Merothenberg in name of Rabbeinu Tam 558; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 12; Mordechai; Hagahos Maimanis

[198] Admur 276:9; M”A 276:11; M”B 276:31                                                                                        

[199] Admur 276:9; M”A 276:10; M”B 276:29

[200] Lit. Bnei Torah

[201] Admur 276:10; M”A 279:9; M”B 276:31

[202] Admur 276:10; M”A ibid

[203] As to move it with one’s body even in such a case it is allowed, as explained in 311 there. In any event we see that Admur defines moving from the side to refer to at times both, moving the Muktzah through moving another item or using one’s body to move it [as brought above in Halacha 9], and at times only to using another item to move it, as is the case here.

[204] There it is explained that to move it through moving another non-Muktzah object is forbidden in such a case while to move with one’s body even in such a case it is allowed, and as will be explained next in the parentheses!

[205] Admur 276:10

[206] And thus I would think that here too it should be allowed to ask a gentile to save it from damage just like one may himself move it through moving another object using an irregularity, and for this reason he is allowed to ask the gentile to move it to use its light elsewhere, nevertheless…………

[207] The source of this opinion is Rabbeinu Tam. The Alter Rebbe explains in length in Kuntrus Achron 3 that Rabbeinu Tam is of the opinion that one may not move Muktzah to save from damage even if he will use an irregularity, hence since Rabbeinu Tam, who is the source of the allowance of asking a gentile to move Muktzah in a case that a Jew can do so with a Shinuiy, himself forbids a Jew to move for the sake of saving from damage, hence even according to him one may not ask a gentile to move Muktzah for this purpose.

[208] Admur 277:6

[209] Admur 308:32

^[210] Admur 307:12

^[211] Admur 276 Halacha 9-10

^[212] Admur 307 Halacha 16

^[213] Admur 276 Halacha 9-10

[214] Admur 308:28; 308:49; Rama 308:6; Michaber 308:18

[215] Admur 308:28; Rama ibid; Kol Bo 31; Orchos Chaim 361

[216] Admur ibid limits this allowance to a public safety hazard. This is based on the Michaber ibid which also states that his law applied only by a public safety hazard, and so rules Aruch Hashulchan 308:8

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even by a safety hazarad to an individual the Sages did not decree the law of Muktzah and it hence may be moved. [P”M 308:37; M”B 308:77]

[217] Admur 308:28; based on Michaber 308:18; Admur 308:49

[218] Admur 308:49; Michaber ibid

^[219] Meaning that he should not walk more than 4 cubits and then stop and then continue walking, as each time he stops past 4 cubits and then continues walking he is considered to be picking up the object anew, and is adding an additional transgression of carrying. Thus the Alter Rebbe is saying that we only allow him to walk with it regularly without stopping on the way, once he has walked past 4 cubits of where the object was found.

[220] Admur 308:49

[221] Admur 518:5

[222] Meaning using an irregularity.

[223] Seemingly this is unlike the Taz [518:3] which explains that it may not be moved regularly due to a decree that one may come to think that the item is not Muktzah, being that on Yom Tov he is allowed to move it for roasting purposes, and thus the irregularity is a reminder that it cannot be moved for other purposes. Based on the explanation of Taz there is no contradiction between this ruling and the ruling by a thorn/glass in which it is ruled that no irregularity is needed when moving it away, being that glass and thorns are never allowed to be moved in other circumstances. However according to Admur the contradiction stands in its place, as Admur explains the reason for requiring an irregularity is because the item is Muktzah. Thus, accordingly by broken glass and a thorn an irregularity should also be required being that it is Muktzah. The M”B 518:4 Biur Halacha “Ela” deals with this contradiction and brings three possible answers 1) Like Taz, 2) a skewer is not so common to cause damage, 3) must always use Shinuiy]. He concludes that if possible, one should always move the safety hazard using an irregularity, but nevertheless leaves the matter in a Tzaruch Iyun. Practically according to Admur, who in 308:28 differentiates between a public and private safety hazard, one can say that the case here in 518 is referring to a private area, of which the rule is that a safety hazard may not be moved when in private. However the M”B 308:77 who learns that the allowance applies even for a private safety hazard, this differentiation would not be applicable.

[224] Admur 308:49. Vetzaruch Iyun from 518:5. See previous footnote!

[225] Simple implication of Poskim in 308, as otherwise there would be no novelty in this ruling. [SSH”K 23 footnote 71 in name of Rav SZ”A] See previous footnote for opinion of Admur!

[226] Olas Shabbos 308; Biur Halacha 518:3 “Leshamto”

[227] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:19

[228] In 308:28 it says that when the Muktzah item poses a public safety hazard then one may move it, being, in such a case the decree of Muktzah was never instituted. This would imply that if it only poses a hazard to an individual, it would be forbidden for him to move it and he would have to be careful to avoid the item. Vetzaruch Iyun what is the reason to differentiate between a hazard to an individual or to the public.

[229] The M”B [308:77] rules that by a hazard to one’s household (in one’s house) one may move a Muktzah item, as by Muktzah the Sages allowed to move it even if it does not pose a public hazard, and only regarding carrying from one domain to another were they stringent to only allow moving the hazard if it endangers the public.

[230] SSH”K 25:8

[231] SSH”K 25:8

[232] Sheivet Haleivi 5:40

[233] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:19

[234] Admur 308:72-76; Michaber 308:34-37; Gemara Beitza 36b; Shabbos 121b

[235] Admur 308:72; Michaber 308:34; M”A 308:58; M”B 308:131-132

^[236] Li. dirty

[237] Admur ibid; M”A 308:58; M”B 308:131

[238] Admur 308:72; Michaber 308:34; M”A 308:58; M”B 308:133

[239] Admur 308:76; Michaber 308:37; M”A 308:63; M”B 308:141

[240] Admur 308:72; Michaber 308:34; M”B 302:135

[241] Admur 308:72; Beis Yosef 308

[242] Admur ibid; Beis Yosef; M”A 308:59; M”B 308:134

[243] Admur 308:75; Michaber 308:36; M”B 308:139

[244] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

[245] Admur ibid

[246] Admur 308:76; Michaber 308:37

[247] Admur 308:76; Raba Beitza 21b; See M”B 308:140 for more examples

^[248] As explained above in Halacha 72 to mean an area that he does not constantly pass by.

[249] Admur 308:76; Beis Yosef; M”A 308:59; M”B 308:134

[250] Admur 308:67

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one may throw out the leftovers based on Geraf Shel Reiy [Shita Mekubetzes Beitza 21b; M”B 308:115], as the prohibition of making an initial Geraf Shel Reiy was not applied in a case of eating. [Shita Mekubetzes ibid]

[251] Vetzaruch Iyun why spitting the shells behind him make any difference, as they are still in an area that one is constantly found in and hence the shells may be removed due to their repulsiveness? Perhaps today based on this even according to Admur it would be permitted to do so, as write the other Poskim in previous footnote, as either way he will have to move the leftovers based on Geraf Shel Reiy.

^[252] However, when one throws them behind him, since he does not see them, they will not become repulsive to him, and there is thus no basis for him to be allowed to eventually move them.

[253] Admur 308:67

[254] Admur 308:73; Michaber 308:35

^[255] See Halacha 2

[256] Admur ibid; M”A 308:61; M”B 308:136

^[257] Seemingly this means that it is not only permitted to return it if one wants to place filth inside of it and leave it there, but even if one wants to use it in order to take out feces with. [Vetzaruch Iyun]

[258] Admur ibid; M”A 308:61; M”B 309:138

[259] M”A ibid

[260] Admur ibid; Elya Raba 308:77; M”B 308:138

[261] Admur 308:74; M”A 308:60; M”B 308:137

Other opinions: Some Poskim question whether one may return the potty without water even if it is still in one’s hands. [Elya Raba 308:76; P”M 308 A”A 60; brought in M”B 308:137]

^[262] Lit. Good; Vetzaruch Iyun as there Admur explained that we are stringent unless in a case of loss, and not that it is merely proper to be stringent. See Other Poskim brought in previous footnote!

^[263] Lit. Good

[264] Admur 338:9

[265] Admur 279:3; Rama 279:2

[266] Admur ibid; Rama ibid

[267] Admur 279:3; Mordechai

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even non-pampered people may claim that the candle is repulsive and hence move it. [M”A; Bach; M”B 279:5]

^[268] Halacha 72-76

[269] Admur 308:76

[270] This applies even if it is found in an area that people are commonly found, such as one’s kitchen, being that the garbage has a designated space.

[271] Admur 308:72

[272] Admur 308:67

[273] Admur 338:9

[274] So is implied from M”B 338:30 from fact he says it is not Nolad. However, Tzaruch Iyun from Admur which here specifically mentions “on Shabbos” regarding the scenario. Although one can say that this is coming to contrast before Shabbos.

[275] Admur 338:9 from that it is permitted to place a vessel under rainwater and if fit for use then it is not Muktzah; Mishneh Berura 338:30 explains that rainwater is not Muktzah or Nolad; Beir Moshe 3:20 explains in length that rainwater is not Muktzah. Vetzaruch Iyun as for what is collected rainwater used for in today’s time? Should it thus be considered Muktzah?

However, the Peri Megadim Introduction to Hilchos Yom Tov 29 rules that rain is considered Muktzah due to Nolad.

[276] Igros Moshe 5:21-2

[277] Biur Halacha 308:4 “Keli”

[278] M”B 308:130 based on Gemara Shabbos 121; SSH”K 22:42

[279] Biur Halacha 338:8 “Assur”

[280] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:27

[281] Admur 308:73 regarding earthenware potties, as a Geraf and Avis are made of earthenware; Mishneh Berurah 308:136.

[282] Admur 87:2-3; Michaber 87:1; M”B 308:136 Vetzaruch Iyun as seemingly one will not use it to cover a vessel due to its repulsive use.

[283] SSH”K 22:44;  Az Nidbaru 11:25; see Chelkas Yaakov 2:163; Igros Moshe 1:27; Minchas Yitzchak 3:67; Bear Moshe 4:7

[284] Shalmei Yehuda in name of Rav Elyashiv

[285] Aruch Hashulchan 308:62. One may do so even without entering water into the potty, as whatever was needed for the honor of the people the Sages did not decree against by Muktzah [ibid]

[286] It may be discarded, as in such a case it is no different than garbage which is overflowing that may be discarded. Now although when the trash is in its designated area it may not be thrown out, as explained above, nevertheless this is only if it is “meant to be there in its current state” [Admur ibid], otherwise, even if it is not overflowing it may be thrown out.

[287] See Admur 335:4

[288] Admur 310:4

[289] Admur 310:4

^[290] By removing oil from a lamp that is lit one is liable for extinguishing a flame, as by doing so one is shortening its lifespan.

[291] Admur 310:5

[292] Admur 310:6

[293] Admur 310:6

[294] Admur 308:70

[295] Admur 324:5

[296] As if it is soft then the dogs do not need one to cut the meat for them and they rather are to do it on their own. It is only by a hard carcass in which the dogs are unable to eat without having it cut that the Sages allowed one to trouble himself to cut it. [ibid]

[297] Admur 325:6; Michaber 325:4

The din of Gamru Beday Adam: See Admur 325:6; M”B 310:18; SSH”K chapter 20 New

[298] First opinion in Admur 325:6; Admur 308:8 in parentheses; Admur 310:3; Second opinion in Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Rosh

[299] Second opinion in Admur 325:6; First opinion in Michaber ibid; Sefer Hateruma 247-248; Rosh in name of Rabbeinu Tam

[300] Admur 325:6; Michaber ibid; Vetzaruch Iyun from 308:8 in parentheses and 310:3 where Admur plainly rules like the lenient opinion that it is not Muktzah if it belongs to a gentile.

[301] Admur 310:7

^[302] Admur 310:4-5

^[303] Admur 310:4

^[304] Admur 310:5

^[305] Admur 310:7

^[306] Admur 310:6-7

^[307] Admur 310:6

^[308] Admur 325:6; Vetzaruch Iyun as in 308:70; 310:6 the Alter Rebbe explains, that since the Muktzah status of an animal on Shabbos comes due to a Halachic prohibition (since it is forbidden to slaughter on Shabbos) therefore when the prohibition is no longer applicable (such as when it already died) it ceases to be Muktzah. This thus raises a question regarding the ruling in 325:6 where it says that flour which was baked on Shabbos by a non-Jew remains Muktzah unless in a case of loss. In accordance to the former ruling, since the prohibition on baking the flour which caused it to be Muktzah is no longer applicable it should also no longer be Muktzah just like by the dead animal. וצ”ע However perhaps one can say that by flour it is forbidden as by the gentile having grinded it from kernel to flour that itself has turned it actively from a non-Muktzah food to a Muktzah food, and thus is not similar to meat of a dead animal.

[309] Such as the flame is covered or contains raw meat which will not get done until the next day. See “The laws of Shehiyah”

[310] Piskeiy Teshuvos 310:5 as one’s mind was not set aside from the food and he has the ability to make it ready. It is thus not similar to dried figs and raisins which may not get done on Shabbos [see 310:2]

[311] Michaber 665:1; Tosafus Beitza 4a; Sukkah 10b; Rosh Sukkah 4:5; However, see Maharash Engel 4:92 in name of Rav Akiva Eiger; P”M O.C. 498 M”Z 2; However, see Tzitz Hakodesh ibid that all would agree here because Lo Dachinan Beyadayim.

[312] Birchos Mayim [Rav Mordechai Meyuchas] 446; Or Sameiach Yom Tov 4; Makor Yisrael 104; Yechaveh Daas 2:64

[313] The reason it is not Muktza: 1) Edible Chametz is not Muktza on this Shabbos, despite it being inedible during Bein Hashmashos, as it is similar to a cow which was slaughtered, that as soon as its prohibition leaves it is permitted, and only by those things which were pushed away with one’s hands and thus became Muktzah [such as candles/esrog/dried grapes] do they remain Muktzah even after their reason of Muktzah has left. [See Tzitz Hakodesh 1:35; Admur 310:4; M”B 318:8] On other hand, however, perhaps one can say that Chametz is Dachuiy Beyadayim. 2) An item which was Muktzah on Bein Hashmashos because of the previous day does not remain Muktzah for the rest of Shabbos. [Michaber 665:1; Tosafus Beitza 4a; Sukkah 10b; Rosh Sukkah 4:5; However, see Maharash Engel 4:92 in name of Rav Akiva Eiger; P”M O.C. 498 M”Z 2; However, see Tzitz Hakodesh ibid that all would agree here because Lo Dachinan Beyadayim.]

[314] See Rav Avraham Chaim Naah in Hamodia [Yagdil Torah Yerushalayim 6/2610] that one may eat from the Chametz even before the sale. See Chapter 16 Halacha 1!

[315] Luach Rav Tukichinsky writes not toe at the Chametz on Shabbos

[316] 334:2

[317] A dispute of this matter is brought in Admur. Some opinions [Ran:Murdechaiy] rule there is no Muktzah prohibition in a case of great loss and hence all Muktzah may be moved in such a case if there is no other way of saving the object. Others [Ramban/Rashba] however rule that even in a case of great loss, and there is no other way to save the object, the Sages upheld their Muktzah decree and hence it is forbidden to move any Muktzah even in such a case. Practically the main opinion follows the stringent opinion. [334:2] According to all it is forbidden to move a Muktzah object even in a case of great loss if there is another method which one is able to save the object. [ibid]

[318] This matter does not cause one to be in such a state of panic [in contrast to fire and robbers] to the point we suspect he may come to do an even graver sin if we were to prohibit moving the Muktzah. Thus, the Sages upheld their decree. [ibid]

[319] 334:2; 301:40

[320] As so long as the fire has not yet reached one’s home one is not in a state of panic to the point that he will forget it is Shabbos. [ibid]

[321] However, if the fire is in one’s own home, it is forbidden for him to even food more than 3 meals worth, let alone Muktzah items. [ibid] Hence even according o the opinion that moving Muktzah was allowed in a case of great loss or in a case of fire, certainly they agree that when the fire is within one’s own home it is forbidden.

[322] As there are opinions which rule one may move Muktzah in a case of great loss. Furthermore, even according to those which rule Muktzah is forbidden to be moved even in a case of great loss, there are opinions which say in such a case moving Muktzah is allowed, as if it were to be forbidden, out of panic, one may come to transgress an even more severe sin, such as extinguishing the fire. Practically with the joint of these two opinions one may be lenient to move out his Muktzah items from the fire. [ibid]

[323] As in such a case there is no great loss, and one is not panicky about it.

[324] There are opinions which rule that it is even permitted to carry into a Karmalis the items which one desires to save, as if we were to forbid this, they may come, due to panic, to transgress a more sever sin such as extinguishing the fire. Nevertheless, many Poskim argue on this opinion and practically one may not be lenient, and it is only by Muktzah that some Poskim also rule that Muktzah is permitted to be moved in a case of great loss, that we combine the opinions and allow one to be lenient. [ibid]

[325] Admur 334:2; 301:40

[326] As there are opinions which rule one may move Muktzah in a case of great loss. Furthermore, even according to those which rule Muktzah is forbidden to be moved even in a case of great loss, there are opinions which say in such a case moving Muktzah is allowed, as if it were to be forbidden, out of panic, one may come to transgress an even more severe sin, such as extinguishing the fire. Practically with the joint of these two opinions one may be lenient to move out his Muktzah items from the fire. [ibid]

[327] As in such a case there is no great loss, and one is not panicky about it.

[328] There are opinions which rule that it is even permitted to carry into a Karmalis the items which one desires to save, as if we were to forbid this, they may come, due to panic, to transgress a more sever sin such as burying the money. Nevertheless, many Poskim argue on this opinion and practically one may not be lenient, and it is only by Muktzah that some Poskim also rule that Muktzah is permitted to be moved in a case of great loss, that we combine the opinions and allow one to be lenient. [ibid]

[329] Admur 310:19; M”A 310; M”B 310:32; See also 305:31 regarding milk of an animal that it is forbidden on Shabbos due to Nolad/Muktzah.

^[330] There it is explained that if the wood burnt over the ash of the previous day, then since the new ash has never become yet recognizable, then it is nullified in majority.

[331] See Admur 320:4 and 335:4 regarding wine; 305:31 regarding milk; 507:3 regarding wood; Shabbos Kehalacha in volume 3