To purchase this Sefer, click here
6. Muktzah Machamas Gufo-Items which do not have the status of a vessel:
A. The definition and law:[1]
All the above [categorizations] are with regards to items that have the status of a vessel. However any item that does not have the status of a vessel, and is not food for humans and is not food for an animal, such as for example stones, and money[2], and [pieces of] wood, and bamboo, and beams, and dirt, and sand, and flour, and dough (of a Jew, however of a gentile there are those which permit it as will be explained in chapter 310 [Halacha 3]) and a dead body, and animals, anything of the like of these [are forbidden to move]. [Furthermore] even something which is useable to do with it a purpose which is permitted to be done on Shabbos, such as for example stones which are useable for breaking [the shells of] nuts, and pebbles which are useable to cover vessels with, and anything else of the like, since they do not have a status of a vessel, [therefore] it is forbidden to move them even in order to use it [to do something with] and [even in order] to use the space that it under it[3], with exception to the [permitted] ways [of moving] that is explained [in Halacha 53[4]]. This [type of Muktzah] is called Muktzah Machmas Gufo [“because of itself”].[5]
Is a very large vessel Muktzah?[6] Any item which has a status of a vessel, even if it is very large and heavy, [nevertheless] its status as a vessel is not nullified from it [and is thus permitted to move], irrelevant of its size and irrelevant of its weight. Similarly, the same applies to a large stone or a large beam, even if [it takes] ten people to carry it, [nevertheless] if it has the status of a vessel, such as [before Shabbos] one designated it to carry for a certain use, as will be explained [in Halachas 50-53], then it is permitted to move it on Shabbos.
- Items that are not useable to some people due to it being degrading to them:[7]
Even an item that is fit to be used on Shabbos, [nevertheless] if it is something degrading in the eyes of the rich and it is thus not common for them to use it due to their prosperity, then this item becomes absolutely Muktzah for them and is forbidden for them to move, even if it belongs to paupers.[8] However the rich people that live in the poor person’s houses are permitted to move it just like the poor people themselves.[9] If this item belongs to a rich person then it is forbidden to be moved by even all the paupers in world, as once it has become Muktzah for its owner it becomes Muktzah for the entire world.[10]
What is the law of items that are forbidden to be used by their owner?[11] However the above rule only applies by items that are not useable for their owners due to it being degrading in his eyes. However an item which is not useable for its owner because it is forbidden for them [to use], such as wine for a Nazir, then it does not become Muktzah because of this being that it is [still] fit for others [to use] and thus even the Nazir himself is permitted to move it.
B. Foods which are defined as MM”G:[12]
- The general rule:
Foods that are not fit for humans or animals:[13] Any item that does not have the status of a vessel, and is not food for humans and is not food for an animal it is forbidden to move them even in order to use it [to do something with] and [even in order] to use the space that is under it.
- Animal foods:
What items that are edible to animals may one move?[14] Any item that is edible for the commonly found animals and birds, are permitted to be moved, even if they are not edible for the majority of animals and birds, such as for example sea-squill[15] that is only edible for deer, and mustard that is only edible for doves, are permitted to be moved in an area that deer and doves are commonly found, meaning, that it is an area where it is usual for the common-folk to raise them and they are accustomed [in doing this].[16] [However] it does not suffice if they are only found by the aristocrats [as will be explained in the next Halacha].[17]
What is the law if the type of animal or bird which eats the food is not found in ones area?[18] An item that is edible only for animals and birds which are not found in one’s area, then if one personally owns that type of animal or bird, then he is permitted to move the foods that they eat, however if [one does] not [own these animals or bird], it is forbidden [to be moved]. For this reason, it is forbidden to move bones in an area where dogs are not found, such as for instance if one is staying for Shabbos in a field or in an inn[19] where there are no dogs[20]. [This applies] whether the bones were separated from the meat on Shabbos or from before Shabbos, [nevertheless it is still forbidden to move them].
|
Summary: · Any food which is inedible to both humans and animals is MMG.[21] · Regarding foods which are inedible to humans but edible to animals: If the food is meant to be eventually eaten by humans, or is not meant to be eventually eaten by humans but there are no animals which eat this food commonly found in the houses of ones area [see footnote[22]] and one does not own such an animal, then the food is MM”G. If there are animals commonly found which would eat this food, or one owns such an animal, and one has not designated the food to be eventually eaten by humans, then the item is not Muktzah. If a certain animal is only commonly found amongst the wealthy, it is not considered commonly found.[23] Q&A If a certain inedible food is edible for a commonly found animal, but due to lack of an Eiruv one is not able to feed the animal that food on Shabbos, does the food become Muktzah?[24] No, the food is not Muktzah, as since the food is edible for the animal it retains its food status. |
- Leftover bones and peels:[25]
*Important note: This law simply discusses the Muktzah status of leftover peels and bones. For details regarding how to clean the table of Muktzah bones and shells, See Halacha 15F!
Bones which are fit for dogs and peels of fruits that are fit for animals, such as for example the pods of legumes [which are] the [stalks that] the legumes grow inside of[26], and any other [item] of the like, is permitted to be remove from the table because they are permitted to be moved just like any other animal food.
What is the law if the type of animal or bird which eats the food is not found in ones area? See above
Why the above is not prohibited to be moved because of Nolad?[27] Now, even though the bones have been detached from the meat and the peels [detached] from the fruits on Shabbos itself, and they are thus Nolad [a new item which was born on Shabbos], as will be explained in chapter 501 [Halacha 16], [nevertheless] this does not pose a problem being that Nolad is permitted [to be moved] on Shabbos.
The law of the above items on Yom Tov: However, on Yom Tov one needs to be stringent by Nolad, and [thus] needs to be careful not to remove these items from ones table, unless done in the way that will be explained [later on in this Halacha].
The law by shells which are inedible even to animals: [However] if the peels 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 ones table whether with ones hands and whether with an item that one is holding in ones hand, such as [it would be forbidden to] move them with a knife, and the like.[28]
The reason it is forbidden to move shells even with a knife is because: See Halacha 3B
May one move hard bones?[29] Hard bones which are so hard that even a dog cannot eat them, are forbidden to be moved in all places, just like a tree or stone.
The law of date pits:[30] Date pits, in areas that it is common to feed it to animals, one is permitted to move them. However, an important person[31] needs to be strict upon himself not to move them, unless done with an irregularity, such as placing a piece of bread next to them, or [placing next to them] another item that is permitted to be moved, and then move them together.
The reason for this stringency is:[32] because in many places [these pits] are not fed at all to animals. Therefore one should be stringent with [moving] even in those places that feed them [to animals].
How may one eat foods that have on them Muktzah shells and seeds?[33] 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.[34] [However] one may not throw them away with his hands[35], or [throw them away] with his tongue towards the area in front of him on the Basis that when there will end up being a lot of waste in front of him, and it will be repulsive in his eyes, then it will be permitted for him to remove them from there, as is the law regarding a “bucket of garbage” as will be explained [in Halacha 72].[36] [However according to all one may remove a pit from a date and the like with ones hands, in order to check it for bugs.[37]]
The reason that one may not throw them in front of him on this Basis is:[38] 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.]
|
Q&A If the pit or bone still has some meat or fruit left on it, is it Mukztah?[39] No.
May one remove a pit from a fruit in order to check it for bugs? [40] Yes.
May one peel a fruit and carry the peel to the garbage? If throwing it on the floor etc would make it a Geraf Shel Reiy then perhaps one may do so.
Are Avocado pits Muktzah on Shabbos?[41] Can they be used to prevent browning? In general, all pits that are inedible, and are not designated to be eaten by local house pets and farm animals, are Muktzah.[42] The question however is asked regarding avocado pits being that they are commonly reused to prevent the avocado from browning. Practically, the following is the law: If one removed the avocado pit from the avocado before Shabbos, and designated it to be used to prevent the avocado dip from browning, then it is not considered Muktzah.[43] If, however, they were removed on Shabbos itself, then as soon as they are separated from the fruit, it is best for it to be immediately discarded and treated as Muktzah just like all other pits.[44] If one only desires to use half of the avocado, then there is no problem with leaving the pit in the other half, so long as it is not removed and then replaced on Shabbos. It is interesting to note, that scientifically in truth avocado pits indeed do not help to prevent browning with exception to the area directly under the pit, and simply using an airtight container is one’s best solution.[45] |
- The law of raw foods:[46]
Tender meat:[47] [Tender] raw meat, even if completely unsalted, is permitted to be moved being that it is edible for humans [the way they are], as there are people which are coolheaded and chew raw meat, (which does not carry any blood prohibition when doing so as explained in Yorah Deah Chapter 67[48]).
Tough meat:[49] However tough [raw] meat which is not able to be chewed is forbidden to be moved.
Raw fat and other foods that are fit for dogs:[50] Similarly this law as well applies to other similar cases, such as for example cold raw fat [is Muktzah] as even though they are edible for dogs nevertheless [since] they are not designated to [be given to] dogs, but rather to be eaten by humans after Shabbos [when they can be cooked], [therefore] on Shabbos they are not considered fit for anything [and are thus Muktzah].
Spoiled meat:[51] However, spoiled meat is permitted to move being that they are edible to dogs and are designated to [be given to] dogs.[52]
The law of raw fish:[53] Salted fish [which is raw, such as herring] is permitted to move [being that they are edible]. However, if they are [raw and] unsalted, then it is forbidden [to move them], being that they are inedible for any person and are not designated to be thrown to the dogs, [as one plans to eventually eat them].
Is meat of a gentile that was slaughtered on Shabbos permitted to be moved?[54] 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].
Grains and flour:
Grains are not considered Muktzah on Shabbos.[55] However flour is Muktzah.[56]
Flour which was baked into bread on Shabbos by a gentile: See Halacha 3J!
Are non-edibles due to lack of being cooked considered MM”G when belonging to a non-Jew?[57]
Some Poskim[58] rule that all raw items of a gentile are not Muktzah for a Jew. Others[59] rule it is Muktzah for a Jew. Practically one is to be stringent unless it is a pressing circumstance or for the need of a mitzvah, such as a Bris.[60]
Are raw foods which one began cooking right before Shabbos in a permitted way[61] considered Muktzah until they are ready?[62]
They are not considered Muktzah even when still raw and on the fire.[63] [However, it is forbidden to mix the pot or remove and return it due to the cooking prohibition-see the laws of Chazara and Cooking]
Food cooked by a gentile on Shabbos which is not Bishul Akum:[64]
(All the above [discussion] is with regards to bread, however a gentile which cooked for himself foods that do not have applicable to them the prohibition of “Bishul Akum” [food cooked by a gentile] then they do not have the status of Muktzah according to all opinions even if they are fruits which are not edible raw and were not at all fit [to be eaten] during twilight. [The reason for this is] because we only apply [the rule] of “since it was Muktzah during twilight it is Muktzah for the entire Shabbos” by things which were set aside from the mind of a person and was pushed away with his hands, such as by grains that were ground into flour, however not by something which was forcibly set aside from [the mind of the] person as was explained in chapter 310 [Halacha 6]).[65]
|
Q&A Are raw foods Muktzah on Yom Tov? Any food that may be prepared on Yom Tov is not Muktzah.[66] This would as well apply to frozen items on Shabbos or Yom Tov, which although not edible in their frozen state, can become edible through melting it and would therefore not be Muktzah.
Are foods which are in the midst of the pickling process considered Muktzah?[67] No as they are nevertheless still fit to be eaten in times of need.
If one’s freezer has lost electricity, may the raw meat be moved to another freezer?[68] In a case of great loss one may be lenient to move the frozen meats and fish into another freezer.
Examples Chicken: Seemingly, raw chicken is Mukztah according to all, as people do not eat it raw.
Sushi: Is not Muktzah.
Is a raw egg Muktzah? Raw eggs are not Muktzah.[69] If, however, they have a chick inside then they are Muktzah.[70]
Is a frozen food which can only be eaten when it defrosts considered Muktzah?[71] No. However this only refers to a food which is edible in its defrosted state without requiring cooking.
Raw hard avocado: The Piskeiy Teshuvos writes that it is not Muktzah. However, Rav Trebodovitch writes in his Sefer that it is Muktzah. |
- Is rainwater considered Muktzah?[72]
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 in chapter 308. 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 in chapter 308 [75-76].
| Is rainwater Muktzah?[73]
Rainwater is not considered Muktzah [even on Yom Tov[74]], even if it fell on Shabbos, so long as it is at least fit for one to bathe in [or for drinking of even an animal[75]]. If however the water has become dirty [to the point that even an animal will not drink it[76], as is common with the water which comes through ones roof drain which is very dirty] then it is considered Muktzah.
Is snow Muktzah?[77] Snow retains the same law as rainwater, and is thus not Muktzah, even if it fell on Shabbos, if it is useable for eating or drinking [of even an animal[78]], or bathing, as stated above by rainwater. However, some Poskim[79] rule that snow that fell on Shabbos is Mukztah due to Nolad. |
- Foods that are inedibile due to Kashrus reasons:[80]
The status of Non- Kosher foods that are prohibited in benefit: Included in [the above category-Muktzah Machmas Gufo] of Muktzah, are foods which are forbidden to have benefit from[81], [meaning] that one may not feed them even to dogs.[82] [Thus Chametz[83] and a forbidden Basar Bechalav mixture and Arla are MM”G.]
Rabbinically forbidden in benefit:[84] [Furthermore this applies] even if the food is only Rabbinically forbidden [in benefit], such as for example Stam Yayin[85] or foods of the like.
Temporarily forbidden in benefit:[86] [Furthermore] even if the prohibition [of benefiting from the food] is only relevant for that day itself meaning it is only prohibited on Shabbos], such as for example Tevel[87] which can [have its tithes removed] after Shabbos and then be eaten, [and] its only [forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos] because on Shabbos it is Rabbinically forbidden to remove its tithes, as will be explained in chapter 339 [Halacha 7], and [so too] anything of the like of this, is Muktzah Machmas Gufo and is [thus] forbidden to be moved even in order to use it [to do something with] and [even in order] to use the space that it under it. [Tevel is MMG also on Yom Tov.[88]]
The status of Non-Kosher foods that are permitted in benefit:[89] However foods which are forbidden to eat but are permitted to benefit from, [meaning] that one may feed it to dogs, [then] if these foods are ready and prepared to be fed to dogs, such as non kosher meats[90] and the like, then it is permitted to move them just like [one may move] any other animal foods [in areas that dogs are found[91]].
However if these foods are not designated for dogs despite their prohibition [in being eaten by a Jew], because their eating prohibition is only on Shabbos, such as for example juices which have flowed out from fruit on their own on Shabbos, which are forbidden to drink only on that day, and so too an egg which was laid on Shabbos which is forbidden to eat it only on that day, and similarly milk which was milked [from the animal] on Shabbos which is forbidden only on that day and so too all cases of the like, [then] even though they are allowed to be fed to dogs nevertheless since they are not designated for this, but rather [are designated] for humans to eat after Shabbos, [therefore] it is forbidden to move them even in order to use it [to do something with] and [even in order] to use the space that is under it.
Foods which are forbidden to be eaten for long periods of times:[92] However foods which are also forbidden to be eaten during the week [but are permitted in benefit], then even if they will eventually after some time become permitted [to even eat], such as for example Chadash[93], [nevertheless] it is permitted to be moved even in Eretz Yisrael[94], as since its time of prohibition [of eating] carries for a long time [therefore] it is designated within this time [of prohibition], to be fed to animals and sold to gentiles.
Wine for a Nazir:[95] An item which is not useable for its owner because it is forbidden for them [to use], such as wine for a Nazir, then it does not become Muktzah because of this being that it is [still] fit for others [to use]. Thus even the Nazir himself is permitted to move it.
Food on Yom Kippur[96]: Is not Muktzah.[97]
|
Summary: · Any food which is forbidden on Shabbos[98] for all Jews[99] to eat and receive benefit from whether Biblically or Rabbinically.[100] · Any food which is forbidden to be eaten but permitted in benefit, then if it is not meant to be given to animals, such as that in a short time[101] it will become permitted to be eaten, or is meant to be eaten by animals but there are no animals common in one’s area[102], is considered MM”G.
Examples of foods that are forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos and are defined as MM”G:
(Taken from 308/9)
Q&A Are the non-Kosher foods of a gentile considered Muktzah? If the food is forbidden in benefit, then it is Muktzah for all Jews.[109] Some write that the Tevel of a gentile is not Muktzah.[110] If the food is permitted in benefit then seemingly it is not Muktzah being that it is fit to be eaten by the gentile owner in its current state.[111]
Is food with a Hechsher that one does not rely upon considered Muktzah?[112] No as they are fit to be eaten by those which do rely on this Hechsher. Furthermore even if they do not at all contain a Hechsher they are not Muktzah as they are fit to be given to a gentile.
Is Kitniyos Muktzah for Ashkenazim on Pesach? Some Poskim[113] rule that it is not Muktzah. Others[114] rule that it is Muktzah.
Is Kitniyos Muktzah on Shabbos which follows the last day of Yom Tov in Eretz Yisrael?[115] No.[116] Thus, one may buy Chumus and Techina which are Kosher for Pesach during Chol Hamoed and eat it that 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.[117] The Chametz is not considered Muktzah[118], and one is not considered to be stealing from the gentile.[119] However, the custom is not to do so in order not to get Chametz on one’s Pesach vessels and kitchenware.[120]
Is Gebrocks/Matzah Shruya, Muktzah for one who is stringent not to eat it?[121] No as it is fit to be eaten by others who are not stringent.[122]
Is Neigal Vasser water or Mayim Achronim water Muktzah?[123] Yes. However seemingly it is a Graf Shel Reiy. |
| 1. Question: [Thursday, 7th Tamuz 5781]
During the week, I am accustomed to use a breast milk collector cup in order to both save as much milk as possible, as well as prevent my clothing from getting wet. Is it permitted for me to use this on Shabbos?
Answer: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with wearing it on Shabbos so long as one does not actively squeeze out any milk into it, and it is no different than wearing a nursing pad. However, the milk that is collected is considered Muktzah according to many authorities, and so rules the Alter Rebbe, and therefore may only be moved with an irregularity. Accordingly, it may not be dealt with, poured into a bottle, and fed to a child on Shabbos. However, seemingly, to remove it from the body and spill it into the sink is permitted to be done. Likewise, if one places some water into the cup and has the milk drip into the water, then the milk does not become Muktzah at all, and it is permitted to move the nursing cup to spill out the milk for any purpose on Shabbos, even to save it and place it in the fridge [however, Tzaruch Iyun if it may be fed to the baby on Shabbos].
Explanation: Although it is a Biblical prohibition of Dash/Mifareik to squeeze milk on Shabbos, whether from a milking cow or a nursing mother, nonetheless, this prohibition only applies against actively squeezing the milk, however, to have the milk simply drip out on its own is not under any prohibition, and is not something that one can control. Nonetheless, according to many Poskim, the milk itself is considered Muktzah due to being a complete Nolad and perhaps also due to the decree of Mashkin Sheavu, and so rules the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch. [Other Poskim differentiate between milk of a mother and cows milk and argue that perhaps mothers milk is not Muktzah as they disregard the reason of Nolad altogether, and claim that since it is meant for breastfeeding, there is no decree of Mashkin Shezavu. However, according to Admur who invalidates cows milk due to Nolad, the same would apply to women’s milk.] Theoretically then, it would seem that it would not be permitted to use a milk collector cup on Shabbos being that the milk is forbidden to be handled due to Muktzah. However, in truth we can permit moving the nursing cup that holds the milk in order to then spill it out into the sink under the basis of Tiltul Min Hatzad, which permits moving a non-Muktzah object that contains a Muktzah object in it for the sake of the non-Muktzah object, and so too here one desires to get rid of the milk from the cup for the sake of emptying it. Likewise, perhaps it can be permitted under the status of Geraf Shel Reiy, being no different than throwing out a soiled nursing or sanitary pad. However, if one desires to keep the milk for feeding after Shabbos, then it is a problem due to Muktzah to move the breast cup for the sake of spilling and saving the milk, as Tiltul Min Hatzad is prohibited when done for the sake of the Muktzah item. Nonetheless, as by all Muktzah, it would be permitted to do all this using an irregularity, such as the back of one’s hands, if one can manage to do so. Now, regarding circumventing the Muktzah prohibition by placing water in the cup, so is explicitly ruled in the Poskim regarding Muktzah wine that flowed on Shabbos, and works under the basis of Kama Kama Batul. However, if in the end there will be more milk than water in the mixture then although it is still not Muktzah, it is questionable whether a child may drink as perhaps the milk is forbidden to be consumed due to the decree of Mashkin Shezavu. Vetzaruch Iyun!
Sources: See regarding the squeezing of milk prohibition: Admur 328:41; 305:28-33 regarding cow; See regarding that milk that flowed on Shabbos is Muktzah: Admur 305:31; 308:9; Kuntrus Achron 305:2; Michaber 305:20; M”A 305:12; Shut Rav Akiva Eiger 5; Tehila Ledavid 328:56; Chazon Ish 44:4-5; M”B 328:58 regarding moving Muktzah milk for baby with Shinuiy; Tzitz Eliezer 8:15-12; Peir Hador 3:182; Megilas Sefer 66; Maor Hashabbos Shevet Halevi 8:80; Shabbos Kehalacha 19:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 330:11 and 12 footnote 88; See regarding status of Muktzah of complete Nolad: Admur 310:19; 507:3; M”A 310; M”B 310:32; See regarding the decree of Mashkin Shezavu: Regarding fruits: Admur 320:3; Michaber 320:1; Shabbos 143b; Regarding milk: Admur 305:33; Kuntrus Achron 301:2; See regarding Tiltul Min Hatzad: Admur 308:61-62; 309:4-6; 310:17; 311:14; Michaber 308:27; 309:3-4; 310:8; 311:8; See regarding Geraf Shel Reiy: Admur 308:72-76; 335:4; Michaber 308:34-37; Gemara Beitza 36b; Shabbos 121b; See regarding Kama Kama Batul: Admur 335:4; M”A 335:4; Darkei Moshe 335:1; M”B 335:15; Yoreh Deah 134:1 and 3; Shach Y.D. 134:4; Avnei Nezer Y.D. 225; Shabbos Kehalacha 19:15 and 16 Biurim 8 p. 20 |
- The laws of foods that have been set aside from being eaten:[124]
Designated to be sold:[125] Any item that is fit to be eaten on Shabbos is not considered Muktzah, even if it is designated to be sold, such as for instance, dates and almonds and other fruits which are designated to be taken to be sold in another area, one is permitted to eat from them on Shabbos, even if one physically set them aside from being eaten on Shabbos[126], such as wheat which one planted in the ground, it is permitted to eat from it on Shabbos, if it has not yet rooted [into the ground].
Other examples:[127] Similarly eggs that were placed under the chickens in order to develop them into chicks, are permitted to be moved. As well dates that were picked before they were fully ripe, and were gathered into a basket, in which they ripen on their own, are allowed to be eaten [on Shabbos even] before they have fully ripened.
The law by fruits that are drying out: Similarly, all types of fruits that were set aside to dry out, one is allowed to eat from them [even] before they have dried out[128], with exception to figs and raisins [of a Jew[129]] which are forbidden to be eaten from or moved once one has set them aside [to be dried] until after they are completely dry.[130]
The reason for why figs and raisins are Muktzah during the drying process is:[131] because they give off bad odor in the interim [until they are dried], and are thus inedible [starting] from after they have begun drying[132] until they are fully dried. They are therefore forbidden on Shabbos because of Muktzah.
How inedible must they be to be Muktzah?[133] It goes without saying that if they are not fit at all [to be eaten by any person, that they are Muktzah] as they are worse than any other Muktzah [i.e. item set aside to not be used on Shabbos], as they are like stones and dirt, and even if one prepared them before Shabbos [to be eaten on Shabbos] it does not help them. However [not only in the above case is it Muktzah but] even if [the raisins and figs] are edible and inedible, [meaning] that there are people that eat them [at this stage] and others that do not eat them [yet at this stage], nevertheless they are forbidden because of Muktzah, as since one physically set them aside[134] [from being eaten] they do not leave this status of being set aside [i.e. inedibility] until they are completely ready [to be eaten by all].
The reason:[135] They are not similar to other items which one physically sets aside[136], which are allowed [to be eaten], being that even though one has physically set them aside one has not removed his mind from them completely. This is opposed to raisins and figs which one left to dry, that since one knows that they will give off bad odor, he has [therefore] removed his mind from them completely until they have completely dried out, and become processed well enough that they are fit [to be eaten] by everyone. Now even though that now on Shabbos one has changed his mind [and decided to] eat them [the way they are], [nevertheless] they are not considered ready [to be eaten] through this [intention], since they were set aside from his mind from the beginning of Shabbos, as was explained that any item that has been set aside from one’s mind by Bein Hashmashos has become set side [Muktzah] for the entire Shabbos.
Raisins and figs which became fully dried before Shabbos unknown to the owner:[137] Raisins and figs which were Muktzah because they were not fit [to be eaten yet] and when Bein Hashmashos began they had already become dry and are [now] fit to eat, then even if the owner did not know at all during this time that they had dried, and then afterwards it became known to them that during Bein Hashmashos they had been dried already, then they are allowed to be eaten.
The reason for this is: because [even] initially when [the owner] set them aside and removed his mind from them, he only set them aside until they become dry, and [thus now that] they have dried [before Shabbos] they have become prepared [to be eaten] while it is still daytime [and are thus not Muktzah on Shabbos].
-Designating before Shabbos raisins and figs that are still in the drying process:[138]
Edible to some people: Raisins and figs which [in their drying process] have [already] dried out a bit, to the point that they are edible and inedible, meaning that there are people that eat it [at this stage] while there are others that do not eat them, then if one designated them to be eaten from before Shabbos, one is allowed to eat from them on Shabbos. As since he has revealed his mind that they are fit for him [to eat], they have left their Muktzah status.
[However] if [he did] not [designate them to be eaten from before Shabbos] it is forbidden [to eat or move on Shabbos], as since he did not reveal his mind [that he wants them yet], they remain in their Muktzah status, as they were originally Muktzah when they were not [dry enough to be] fit for any person.
Inedible to all[139]: However, if one designated to eat, raisins and figs which are not fit at all [to be eaten by people], then this designation does not help at all [to remove its Muktzah status], as it’s like one designating a stone to be eaten.
The law of a gentiles raisins and figs that are in the process of being dried out:[140] The above [law regarding half edible[141] dates and raisins] was only referring to the dry dates and raisins of a Jew, however the dry dates and raisins of a gentile are allowed, [to be eaten and moved by a Jew], if they are edible [for some] and inedible [for others][142], as there is no setting aside status by a gentile, since everything is prepared [to be used] by him, as a gentile does not set anything aside and always has in mind on everything, and thus [a Jew may eat it, as] once something is ready [enough to be eaten] for one person it is considered ready for all people[143].
The laws of the fruits of a gentile that have been picked on Shabbos[144]: The above [cases in which it is allowed to move and eat the fruits] only refer to [fruits] that have been removed from the tree [from before Shabbos], however if it was attached [to the tree on Shabbos] and then [later] got removed on Shabbos, then even if it belongs to a gentile which removed it for himself, and [furthermore] even if the gentile had intention from before Shabbos to pick these fruits on Shabbos, such as in a case that one heard the gentile say on Erev Shabbos that “tomorrow I will pick these fruits”, and even [furthermore, even] if the fruits were fully ripe, in which case they are considered prepared [to be eaten] even when they are still attached [to the tree] as will be explained in Chapter 318 [Halacha 6], nevertheless [despite all the above] they are forbidden to be eaten and moved.
The reason for this is: because of a decree of fruits that have fallen off [from a tree on Shabbos], as will be explained in chapters 322[145] and 325 [Halacha 8].
The laws of animals or birds which were trapped by a gentile on Shabbos[146]: An [animal or bird] which had not been trapped from before Shabbos and was then trapped by a gentile on Shabbos, then even if he had intention [from before Shabbos] to trap it on Shabbos, his intention does not help at all, being that [successfully trapping an animal] is not [only] dependent on him, and it is thus forbidden on Shabbos due to it being set aside[147]. As since it was not in any persons possession [from before Shabbos], it is [therefore] not considered to be prepared [to be used, and is thus Muktzah].
|
Summary-MM”G by Foods: The following foods are defined as MM”G and may thus not be moved for any purpose: · Any food which is inedible to both humans and animals[148]. · Regarding foods which are inedible to humans but edible to animals: If the food is meant to be eventually eaten by humans, or is not meant to be eventually eaten by humans but there are no animals which eat this food commonly found in ones area [see footnote[149]] and one does not own such an animal, then the food is MM”G. If there are animals commonly found which would eat this food, or one owns such an animal, and one has not designated the food to be eventually eaten by humans, then the item is not Muktzah. If a certain animal is only commonly found amongst the wealthy, it is not considered commonly found.[150] · Any food which is forbidden on Shabbos[151] for all Jews[152] to eat and receive benefit from whether Biblically or Rabbinically.[153] · Any food which is forbidden to be eaten but permitted in benefit, then if it is not meant to be given to animals, such as that in a short time[154] it will become permitted to be eaten, or is meant to be eaten by animals but there are no animals common in ones area[155], is considered MM”G. Foods which are edible but set aside from one’s mind: All edible foods which are set aside from being used for anything, whether because one plans to sell them, or because he wants the food to further develop or ripen, or because he wants to dry the food, then it is nevertheless not Muktzah. This however is with exception to figs and grapes of a Jew which are set aside to dry, of which they are considered Muktzah until they become dry enough to be edible for all people, prior to Bein Hashmashos of Shabbos.[156] However figs and grapes of a gentile which were put to dry, once they have become fit to be eaten by even some people, then they are not Muktzah for a Jew.[157] If a Jew designated his figs or grapes before Shabbos to be eaten, then if they are already edible to some people, they are no longer Muktzah on Shabbos. However, if they are not fit for anyone yet to eat then they nevertheless remain Muktzah.[158] Fruits picked by a gentile[159]: All fruits which were picked from their tree or vegetables which were picked from the ground, on Shabbos by a gentile are considered MM”G. Wild animals which were trapped by a gentile[160]: Are always Muktzah even after being slaughtered for a sick person. Examples (Taken from Admur and SS”K-20/25-36) Examples of raw foods which are inedible in their raw state and are thus defined as MM”G and may not be moved for any purpose:
(All the above examples were taken from 308/8; SS”K-20/28; Ketzos Hashulchan 111/3)
Examples of foods that are forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos and are defined as MM”G:
More miscellaneous examples:
Examples of foods that are not MM”G and thus may be moved:
|
C. Items which are defined as MM”G and how they can be designated to become a vessel and lose their Muktzah status:
- Designating a non-vessel to be used as a cover:[202]
An item which does not have the status of a vessel which one made into a lid of a vessel receives the status of a vessel through doing so, and one is thus permitted to move it just like any other vessel. [However, if one never used the vessel yet as a cover, then this status only applies] if one altered it and did an action to it and prepared it for this [new job] in a way that the alteration shows that it is [now] designated for this [new job]. [Now, when an alteration was done it receives the status of a vessel] even if one has never yet used this item as a cover.
Is the above alteration needed if one already begun using the item as a vessel? [However] if one had used this item as a cover before Shabbos, even if this had only been done once, then it receives a status of a vessel, and is permitted to move it on Shabbos even if he has not done to it any act of alteration.[203] However this only applies by an item that is regularly made into a lid, such as for example pieces of boards and the like. However, an item that is not common for it to be made into a lid, then even if one had used this item many times as a lid during the week, such as for example one who used a stone to cover the opening of a barrel many times, then it is [nevertheless] forbidden to move it on Shabbos, as will be explained.[204]
- May one move the lid of a pit/sewage?[205]
All the above is referring to [when making an item into the] lid of vessels. However [an item made into a] lid for the ground, such as for example a lid of a Bor pit or a Dus pit[206], even if he altered it and did an action to it, and also used it [already] many times during the week, [nevertheless] it is forbidden to be moved, unless it has a handle with which one holds on to when one removes it from the pit, as [only this] shows that it has been made to be moved and that it has the status of a vessel.[207]
What is the law of vessels that are attached to the ground? The lids of vessels which have been buried completely into the ground have the same laws as the lids of the ground [I.e. lids of pits], as the [Sages] decreed on these [lids of buried vessels] because of the [ground lids].
However, a vessel which is not completely buried into the ground, even though it is attached to the ground, such as for example the ovens of the old days which were like a pot and had their bottoms attached to the ground with clay, these lids do not need a handle [to be allowed to be moved]. However, our ovens [today] which are built on the ground[208], their covers have the same law as the cover of a Dus pit which needs a handle [to be allowed to move].
|
Do the side handles of a sewage pit cover suffice for making it not Muktzah? Seemingly yes.
May one remove the drain cover of one’s floor on Shabbos?[209] If the cover has a handle, or indentation which forms a handle area then it is permitted to be removed [if it is common for one to do so]. If there is no handle at all then it is forbidden and is Muktzah. |
- Bricks:[210]
Designated for leaning and sitting on: Bricks that have remained after a building has been finished, are permitted to be moved, as they are now no longer designated to be used for building, but rather to lean and sit on them, and therefore they have the status of a vessel.
Designated for building: However if one organized the bricks one on top of the other, then he has revealed his intention that he has designated them for building with, and they are thus forbidden to be moved as they do not have the status of a vessel upon them.
- The law of palm branches:[211]
There are some palm branches that people designate for sitting on while others are designated to be burned [as fuel for a fire], just like other [branches of] wood.
Designated for fire wood: [Thus] if one cut them off the palm tree for burning, then they are Muktzah like all other wood, and are forbidden to be moved as they do not have the status of a vessel, being that they are designated to be burned.
If one later decides to designate the branches for sitting: However, if one afterwards changed his mind and decided that they should be designated and specified for sitting on until they will need to be cleared [from the area], then this thought [to use them for sitting] over-rides the original thought [which was to use them for burning], if he changed his mind and decided this before Shabbos. Thus they receive the status of a vessel, and are permitted to move them on Shabbos, to organize them to be sat on.
[This applies] even if at the time that he changed his mind during the week, to use them for sitting, he did not have in mind explicitly [to] also [use them for sitting] on Shabbos, and rather had changed his mind with regards to using them to sit on during the week.
If one only thought about sitting on them only for that Shabbos: [Furthermore] even if he did not change his mind to designate and specify them for sitting, but rather just thought about them before Shabbos to use them to sit on only the next day, [which is] on Shabbos, while after Shabbos he plans to use them for burning, then [nevertheless] it is permitted to move and organize them to be sat upon on this Shabbos.
If one did not think about sitting on them on Shabbos but did sit on them before Shabbos[212]: Even if one did not think about them at all to be used for sitting, but it happened to occur that he sat on them for a little bit [of time] from before Shabbos, then it is permitted to organize them and sit on them [on Shabbos].
As well he may [even] move them in order to use their space or for their own benefit [such as to save from damage] just as [is the law] by vessels that are designated for permitted use.
The reason for this leniency is[213]: because since it is common for palm branches to also be designated for sitting, therefore since he had sat on them, they have [automatically through this] become designated for sitting upon, and have thus received the status of a vessel [which is designated for permitted use].
- Designating other pieces of woods, and bricks waiting to be used for building with, to sit on:[214]
However by other pieces of wood, as well as a pile of stones [designated for building with[215]], even if one has sat on them many times during the week, and has also thought about them to be designated for sitting upon also on the [future] Shabbosim, until the time comes that he will need to clear them from there [in order to use them for building], then [nevertheless] they do not receive the status of a vessel through this.
The reason for this is: because it is not common for other pieces of wood and stones to be designated for sitting on, being that it is not as comfortable to sit on them as it is [to sit] on palm branches. Therefore, they do not become designated for sitting on through one sitting on them, or through thinking [to use them to sit upon], alone, so long as one has not designated them to be used for this purpose permanently.
If one did a great action to designate them for sitting: [However] if one did a great action to prepare them for sitting, meaning that he organized them before Shabbos so they be ready to be sat on the next day, [then it is permitted to move them in order to sit on them on Shabbos], as such a great action helps to give them the status of a vessel, even though they are not commonly designated for sitting on. However if one [merely] polished them before Shabbos in order to sit upon on them the next day, then this is considered a minor action and does not help at all [to give them the status of a vessel].
May one sit on the items the way they are even if no action was done to them? All the above [methods] is only regarding making it permissible to move the wood and stones on Shabbos in order to organize them to be sat upon. However [if one wants] to [just] sit on them 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 [Halachicly] considered moving it, as it is moving it in an irregular way [which is permitted to be done to all Muktzah].
When a great action has been done, for what may the items be moved for? To move the items not for a sitting purpose but rather to use their space or for another usage, is forbidden in all cases, as the action of organizing the [items before Shabbos] only helps to be allowed to move them for the purpose of sitting upon, as it was for this purpose that they were organized for.
- Designating wood and stone to cover a barrel and the like:[216]
It is forbidden to move chopped wood or a stone to cover the opening of a barrel or to close a door or to use them to knock in the faucet [of a barrel so that] the hole in the barrel be closed, even if one has already used them for this purpose many times during the week and has also thought from before Shabbos about using them for this on Shabbos, [nevertheless] this does not help at all unless one designated them for this purpose forever [even in one’s mind[217]]. As when they are designated for this purpose forever, they receive the status of a vessel through this.
However, when designated to be used for this purpose for this Shabbos alone, then this does not acquire them the status of the vessel, unless one did to them any act of alteration which show on them that they are prepared and designated for this purpose, in which case it is permitted to move them for the purpose of using them for the use that they had been prepared for, however not for other purposes.[218]
- Designating wood and stone for a common designated use:[219]
The above only applies to [using the wood and stone to] cover the opening of a barrel and to close a door and to knock in a faucet and uses of the like, of which it is not usual for wood and stone to be designated for this.
However if one thought about them to use them the next day [on Shabbos] for a purpose which they are regularly designated to be used for, such as for example one thought about using a stone to crack nuts with the next day [on Shabbos], then even if one only designated them for this use for only this Shabbos, [nevertheless] it is permitted to move them for even any need, being that they are fit to be designated for this use forever, and it is common to do so, therefore it suffices to do a light preparation to designate it for this. Meaning that [even] thinking [about using it] for this Shabbos alone [designates it for this purpose], or [alternatively] if he has already used it for this purpose before Shabbos even only once, then it is considered designated for this [purpose] even though he did not think about using it for this specific Shabbos.
- Using a vine as a rope to help draw water with:[220]
A [detached] vine which has its head split like a fork and is [thus] fit to [use to] hang a bucket on and to [thus use to] draw [water] with [such as to place it down a well to draw water, using the vine as a rope to place it down and bring it back up], then even if one thought about this from before Shabbos to use the [vine] to [help] draw [water] with on Shabbos, then [nevertheless] it is forbidden to use it to draw with, unless the vine was tied to the bucket from before Shabbos.
The reason for this is: due to a decree that perhaps the vine will be too long for him, and one will cut it, being that it is soft and easy to be cut, and will thus end up [transgressing the prohibition of] fixing a vessel on Shabbos.
- Designating branches to be used as a fan:[221]
Branches which have been cut off from a tree from before Shabbos in order to be used as a fan on ones table to flee the flies away, is permitted to fan with on Shabbos and to move it just like all other vessel, as since one designated it for this he has made it into a complete vessel.
Designating it as a consequence for children: The same law applies if one designated [the branches to be used] to threaten children to be hit with it [that it is permitted to be moved on Shabbos], as long as one designated it for this purpose from before Shabbos.
May one remove a reed from ones broom? However it is forbidden to remove a reed[222] from a broom which is used to clean the house, being that through removing it he is fixing it for the use that he wishes to use it for, which is for hitting the children with, and [the law is that] any item that one fixes to be used for any use is included in the prohibition of fixing vessels, as is explained in chapter 340 [Halacha 17]. [Furthermore] even through a gentile it is forbidden to remove it, meaning [to even have him] detach it and remove it out from under the binding area[223] of the broom, and it goes without saying that it is forbidden to [ask a gentile to] break the reed off from the broom, as by breaking it there is an additional prohibition [being transgressed which is] breaking a vessel, as will be explained in chapter 337 [Halacha 3]. However when one removes out an entire reed [from the broom] there is no [prohibition involved] of destroying a vessel, as this is similar to a vessel assembled by placing many pieces together, which does not contain [the prohibition of] destroying [a vessel] when taking it apart, unless the [attached pieces] were inserted [in their sockets] strongly and professionally, as will be explained in chapter 313 [Halacha 19 and 21]. [However, one nevertheless transgresses the prohibition of Tikkun Keli.]
- Designating combed flax and spun wool as a bandage:[224]
Combed flax and spun wool that are [common to be] placed on a wound, even if one did not think about designating them for his wound, but rather happened by chance to place it on his wound from before Shabbos, and then immediately removed it, [nevertheless] it is permitted to be moved on Shabbos to place on his wound or for another use, being that these materials are common to be designated for a wound, and therefore have become designated for this use by merely placing them on [his wound], and have thus received the status of a vessel.
It goes without saying that if one thought about them from before Shabbos, that they be designated to be used to place on wounds, even though one has never actually placed them on a wound, [that they may be moved]. Furthermore, even if one did not think about them that they be designated and prepared for wounds, but rather just thought from before Shabbos to place them on [his wound] the next day, on Shabbos alone, while after Shabbos he plans to throw them out [then even so they may be moved on Shabbos].
It [also] goes without saying that if one did an action to them from before Shabbos to prepare them [to be used for wounds], such as for example he dyed them with oil and bound them with a cord [then they may be moved on Shabbos].
Why is the above not prohibited due to that it is forbidden to place medicine on Shabbos? There is no transgression involved in placing this on top of a wound on Shabbos, regarding [the prohibition of] healing [on Shabbos] which was decreed against due to that one may come to grind herbs, as will be explained in chapter 328 [Halacha 1], as these [materials] do not heal, and they are only placed on [wounds] in order to prevent ones clothing from irritating the wound.
- Designating combed flax and spun wool as a toupee:[225]
Similarly combed flax and spun wool which bald people place on their heads so that they appear like they have hair, then even if one did not think about these materials that they be designated for this purpose, but rather by chance placed them on his head once during the week, then it is permitted to move on Shabbos to place on one’s head, or for another purpose.
It goes without saying that if one thought about them from before Shabbos, that they be designated to be used [as a toupee], even though one has never actually placed them on his head [that they may be moved]. Furthermore, even if one did not think about them that they be designated and prepared for this purpose, but rather just thought from before Shabbos to place them on his head the next day, on Shabbos alone, while after Shabbos he plans to remove them from [his head] and make himself another one [then even so they may be moved on Shabbos].
It [also] goes without saying that if one did an action to them from before Shabbos to prepare them [to be used as a toupee], such as for example he dyed them to make them look nice and bound them with a cord [then they may be moved on Shabbos].
May one walk with a toupee into a public domain? [However] all this is referring to [being allowed to] place [the material] on his head in his house. However, to go out with them into a public domain there are opinions that forbid it, unless one did an action to them [such as] he colored them or bound them. Otherwise he may not go out with them [into a public domain] unless he placed it on his head one time before Shabbos.
The reason for the above restriction: Thought and designation only help to allow one to move them and not to [be allowed to] bring them outside, as since one did not place it on his head from before Shabbos, and there is no action that shows that it had been prepared for this use, it therefore seems like he is simply [wearing them on his head outside] in order to find a way to carry them outside [and not because he really views it as a toupee].
This is opposed to [the law by] flax and wool which are on a wound [which are allowed to be worn outside], as the wound shows that one really needs it and it thus does not appear like he is wearing them just in order to be able to carry them outside, even if one did not place them on [the wound] from before Shabbos.
- Items which do not have a status of a vessel but received designation and are set aside to be sold:[226]
Items which are not actually a vessel, but were given the status of a vessel being that they are useable for certain uses on Shabbos, such as for example shears of wool which are useable to be lean and sit on, and the like, then if one placed them in the storage to be sold, then one has nullified the status of a vessel which was upon it, and it is thus forbidden to move them, even if he is not particular at all against using them, unless one goes back and designates them for a permanent use.
- May one move skins?[227]
Hides whether they were tanned[228] [and] whether they were not tanned are permitted to be moved being that they are fit to be used to lie and sit on, and [they thus] have the status of a vessel upon them. This applies whether they belong to a regular person or to a professional which tans them and [then] sells them, as even [a professional] is not particular to [not] lie and sit on them [as] he is not worried that perhaps through doing so their value will diminish.
Moist skins: However the above permission granted in moving non-tanned hides is only referring to hides which have already dried out. However if they are [still] moist, then [since] they are not [yet] fit to lean and sit on unless this is a last resort, [being that] it is not common [to sit on wet skins], therefore they do not have the status of a vessel [even though they are able to be sat on] and are thus not permitted to be moved.
Other opinions: [However] there is an opinion which permits [moving] even moist [hides] of a Gasah[229] animal but they prohibit [the hide] of a Dakah[230] animal even when they have been dried out, being that they are not fit to be used to lean or sit on due to their small size.
The Final Ruling: The main [Halachic] opinion is like the first opinion, as I have written in chapter 334 [Halacha 22] and chapter 499 [Halacha 8].
- Are boards Muktzah?[231]
The boards of an ordinary person are allowed to be moved, [although] of a professional are forbidden [to be moved], as [professionals] are particular with them to not use them for any other use in order so that they not get ruined. [They are thus] Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis. [However] if he thought about the boards before Shabbos to [use them to] place bread on them for guests on Shabbos, or [he thought about using them] for another use, then it is permitted to be moved.
- Designating earth to be used on Shabbos:[232]
One may bring into his home before Shabbos a box full of earth and then pour it onto his floor in his house[233], and then use this dirt for all his needs on Shabbos, such as to use it to cover saliva or feces and the like.
The designation must be recognizable: [However, this is only allowed if] one designated a corner [for the earth to be placed], as then the matter is recognizable that [the earth] is prepared and designated for this purpose [of covering filth]. However, if one poured [the earth] in middle of one’s house for it to be stepped on[234], then it is nullified to the dirt of the floor, and is thus Muktzah and forbidden to be moved.
For this reason fruits which are insulated within sand[235] are permitted to be moved from there on Shabbos, as that dirt is not Muktzah being that it had been previously prepared for this purpose, and was designated a vessel or corner of the house.
The earth must be loose: [However this is] only [allowed] if the dirt used is so loose that when removing dirt from it, it will not create a ditch within the dirt [being that the loose earth falls into the area that dirt was removed from, thus filling it up and preventing a ditch from being formed. However, if the dirt is not loose enough that it will fall into the ditch then it is forbidden], as will be explained in chapter 498 [Halacha 29]
- May one play ball on Shabbos?[236]
It is forbidden to play with a ball on Shabbos or Yom Tov[237] because it is forbidden to be moved, being that it does not have the status of a vessel.[238]
Other Opinions: [However] there are opinions[239] which permit to move it and play with it in a private[240] domain [so long as one is not doing so on an earth floor[241]].
The final ruling:[242] It is an old custom to be lenient and they were not protested in doing so being that they have upon whom to rely.
|
Q&A May one play ball on Shabbos? Although it is ruled in Shulchan Aruch that one may play ball on Shabbos, nevertheless it is forbidden to do so on a steady basis as part of one’s Shabbos schedule, as doing so is a great belittlement of Shabbos, and is what caused a great city[243] to be destroyed.[244] A ball which is inflatable with air: Some Poskim[245] rule that all inflatable balls are forbidden to be played with on Shabbos, due to a decree that one may come to inflate it with air upon noticing that it needs this to be done, and he will thus transgress the fixing prohibition. According to other Poskim[246] however it is even initially permitted to inflate a ball with air on Shabbos, and thus it remains permitted to play with such balls. [Furthermore, perhaps today even according to the stringent opinion it would be permitted, as it is not common to inflate a ball with air but rather to purchase new ones.] Playing on a dirt floor:[247] It is forbidden to play ball on a dirt floor due to a decree that one may come to smoothen holes in the ground and thus come to transgress the building prohibition. Playing in an area without an Eiruv:[248] It is forbidden to play ball in an area without an Eiruv.
May one play ping pong on Shabbos? Some opinions[249] rule that it is allowed, as the custom is to allow playing with a ball on Shabbos and not consider it Muktzah. Others[250] rule that it is forbidden to play ping pong on Shabbos according to all opinions as it is belittling of Shabbos.
May one play with play dough on Shabbos?[251] No. It is forbidden even for children to play with play dough and the like due to the smearing prohibition. It is thus Muktzah.
May one play with apricot pits?[252] Yes. |
- May one move silkworm cocoons?[253]
It is forbidden for one to carry under ones arm[254] the egg[255] of the silkworm[256], being that they are forbidden to be moved as they are not fit for any use [in their current state], as well as that one’s [body] heat causes them to them to be born[257].
- Are Shatnez clothing Muktzah?[258]
First Opinion: There are opinions[259] that forbid one to move Shatnez clothing of a Jew even if one needs to do so in order to use it [for a permitted purpose] or in order to use its space.[260]
Their reason is: because [the cloth] is not fit for any use, not to wear and not to place under him, if it is not made of hard material as is explained in Yorah Deah chapter 301 [Halacha 1-2][261].
Second Opinion: [However] there are opinions[262] which permit to move it if one is doing so in order to use it [for a permitted purpose] or in order to use its space.[263]
Their reasoning is: because it nevertheless has the status of a vessel, although is considered designated for a prohibited use[264].
The final ruling:[265] The main [Halachic] opinion is like the first opinion.
The reason behind the final ruling is: because the status of a vessel only helps [to allow to move an object that is designated for a prohibited use] if the item is only prohibited to be used [for its designated use] on Shabbos alone, while during the week using it [for its designated use] is permitted, [as in such a case] even if on Shabbos [the item] is not fit for any use at all, it is [nevertheless] permitted to be moved being that it has the status of a vessel due to it being fit to use [for its designated use] during the week.
For example a lamp which is [designated to be] lit with kerosene [and is thus not used for any other purpose due to its repulsiveness and thus] on Shabbos is not fit to be used for anything, is [nevertheless still] permitted to be moved being that it has the status of a vessel, as explained above [that since it is useable during the week it has the status of a vessel].
However if [an item] is also during the week not fit to be used, such as a clothing of Shatnez which is forbidden to be worn also during the week, then it does not have the status of a vessel and clothing at all.
[Now] even though that [these Shatnez clothing] can be used for other purposes, such as to cover vessels with it or to use it to hover over ones head [as an umbrella, or for a tent], and uses of this nature for which the clothing are not designated to be used for, and were not made for this purpose, [nevertheless] they do not receive the status of a vessel unless they were designated for this [purpose], just like is the law by all pebbles and stones that are fit to be used to cover vessels and nevertheless do not have the status of a vessel because of this, unless they were designated for this, as was explained above.
[As well] it does not help at all for the clothing that they have the form and design of a clothing, being that it is forbidden to wear it. It is thus just like food that is forbidden to eat on Shabbos which does not help for it to be permitted to move just because it has the form of food, [and if this is the law by food then certainly this is the law by a vessel as] the status of a food is more lenient then that of the status of a vessel[266].
A Kamia that has not been verified [to work], even though one may not go out with it [into a public domain] because we suspect that perhaps it does not work at all and thus does not have the status of an ornament, which thus means that it [also] does not have the status of a vessel at all, being that it is not fit to do anything with even during the week, whether it is made from [a charm] written [on parchment] or from roots of herbs[269], nevertheless it is permitted to move it. As the [Sages] only suspected for [that the Kamia would not work] regarding the prohibition of carrying into a public area, and not regarding the Muktzah prohibition. [However] if it is permitted to wear the Kamia on oneself inside ones house and courtyard, it was already explained in chapter 303 [Halacha 23].
- The law of bundles of straw and wood:[270]
Bundles of straw and bundles of wood that are soft, if they were [specifically] ordered [in order to be used] as animal fodder, they are permitted to be moved even if they are very large.
However [when no specification has been made] they are assumed to be designated [to be used] for fire [as fuel], and are thus forbidden to be moved.
[However] in places that unspecified straw is not designated to be used for fire, but rather [is designated to be used] as animal fodder, or [is designated to be used] to lie on, then it is permitted to be moved.
- Straw:[271]
Straw which is Muktzah being that it is usually designated to be used as fuel, then if it is resting on ones bed [and was] not [placed there with intention to use it] to lie on it, and on Shabbos one wants[272] to lie on it, then he is allowed to [lie on it and] move it with his body in order for it to become fluffy[273] and soft and pleasant to lie on.
The status of the straw if one placed a pillow on the straw before Shabbos: If one placed on it from before Shabbos a pillow or sheet, then it is considered as if he laid on [the straw] from before Shabbos and it is thus [considered] prepared to sit or lie on, and from now it has the status of a vessel on it and is permitted to be moved with ones hand.
If one thought about sitting on it from before Shabbos: Similarly if one thought about it from before Shabbos to sit or lie on it, as was explained in chapter 308 [Halacha 50-53] with an item that is common to be designated for sitting or lying on [it is not Muktzah].
If designated as fodder: If one designated [the straw] as animal fodder from before Shabbos then one is allowed to move it in all situations.
The law in areas that that the straw is normally used for animal food or to lie on: All the above is only referring to places where straw is usually designated to be used as fuel, however in places that it is usually designated as animal fodder or to lie on, then one is allowed to move it in any circumstance, as was explained there [in Halacha 63].
- Are Mochin insulators Muktzah?[274]
Mochin[275] that were used to insulate a pot from before Shabbos, in a coincidental way, [meaning] that one did not designate [these Mochin] to be used for this purpose, then it is forbidden to move the Mochin on Shabbos, being that they are Muktzah. As [unless there is change of designation] they are considered designated to be used to make sheets and not to insulate pots in them or to do other uses that are permitted on Shabbos, and thus [they are Muktzah as] they are not considered vessels at all.
However if one designated them to use for insulation, meaning that he resolved in his mind to always use them for the purpose of insulating, then it is permitted to move them. As since this material is fit to be used as insulation, and he designated them for this, they are thus considered a vessel being that they are [now readily] useable for the purpose that they have been designated for.
- Are shears of wool Muktzah?[276]
If one insulated [his pot] in shears of wool, then even if one did not designate them for this purpose, it is permitted to move them, being that shears of wool do not hold that much importance, and thus when one insulates with them for the first time they are considered to be designated [from now on] for insulation [unless explicitly designated for something else].
However, those shears that have been placed in storage to be sold as merchandise (and he is thus careful to not use them for any other purpose, then) if it happened that he insulated with them, then it is forbidden to move them on Shabbos, unless they have been designated to be always used for this purpose.
- Is ash Muktzah?[277]
Ash is only permitted to be moved if it was made into ash from before Shabbos, however if it turned to ash on Shabbos, then it is forbidden because it is Nolad, as will be explained in chapter 498 [Halacha 24].[278]
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.[279]
- May one remove a shirt from a Muktzah hanger?[280]
A shirt which was laundered and was placed on a [hanger made of a] stick from before Shabbos, in order to hang it there in order to dry [and has dried prior to Shabbos[281]], one is permitted to remove [the shirt] off the stick [on Shabbos].
May one remove the hanger? However, to remove the stick from within it is forbidden, because it is not a vessel, unless one [previously] designated the stick for this use, in which case it receives the status of a vessel through this designation.
- May one move an item that has a stone inserted into it?[282]
A basket with a stone insert: A basket which had a hole in it which was sealed up with a stone from before Shabbos, (then if the stone was strongly inserted [into the hole][283]), then it is permitted to move the basket. The basket has not become a base for a forbidden [Muktzah] item, as (when) the stone (is strongly inserted, it) too becomes [the status of] a vessel, being that the [stone] has become like part of the [baskets] wall.
A bucket to draw water with: Similarly, a hollow pumpkin [shell] in which one hangs a stone from in order to weigh it down so one can use it to draw water[284], then if the stone is well attached to it from before Shabbos, in a way that it does not fall from [the shell] when one draws water with it, then it is permitted to draw with it. As even the stone has become permitted to be moved, as it has become like the pumpkin [shell] itself, to which it is nullified to. [However] if [the stone is] not [well attached] it is forbidden to draw with it, unless one has designated the stone for this purpose forever, as explained above in chapter 308 [Halacha 53].
- Are grass and plants Muktzah?[285]
Grass that is still attached to the ground, is Muktzah, hence if one desires to make use of grass, he must beware not to move it with his hands [but rather with his body]. The same applies for all produce which is attached to the ground, that even when allowed to be made of use of it on Shabbos, nevertheless they may not be moved with one’s hands. [See Chapter 336 regarding when one may make use of ground products attached to the ground.]
- Are the plants entered in Shul in honor of Shavuos considered Muktzah?[286]
If one designated the plants before Yom Tov for this purpose then they are not Muktzah may be even initially spread over the Shul on Yom Tov.
- Pot Plants:
See below for a short discussion on the subject. See Volume 3 Chapter 9 Halacha 8C for the full details of this subject!
| Are flowers that are on the table Muktzah?[287]
No.[288] |
|
From the Rav’s Desk Question: Is it permitted on Shabbos for me to rest my Siddur on a pot plant? I have many pot plants in my yard sitting on the gate and they are a perfect height for me to rest my Siddur on when I Daven there on Shabbos. May I do so?
Answer: Resting just on the actual pot without touching any of the plants: Is permitted. Resting it on the actual plant: It depends on the type of plant, as well as the height of the plant, growing within the pot. If the plant has grown taller than 24 cm then you may not rest your Siddur on top of the area that is higher than 24 cm if the plant contains a hard stem which if bended will break. However, if the plant is less than 24 cm tall, or if the plant is soft and its stem is flexible and will not break when bent, then you may rest items on top of the actual plant, although making sure not to touch the plants with your actual fingers and hand, unless necessary for the sake of the resting of the item.
The explanation: There are two halachic issues with making contact with plants on Shabbos; 1) Muktzah 2) Making use of a tree. All plants that are attached to the ground are Muktzah on Shabbos, and thereby may not be moved with one’s hands. However, not all plants contain the second prohibition of making a use with them in other ways [without moving them with your hands] and this depends on whether it is a tree, or bush with branches, or a plant with a hard cane in which case it is forbidden to make any use of it from 24 cm and higher, versus if it is a soft plant in which case it is permitted to make a use of it [without moving it with one’s hands] even if it is taller than 24 cm. Even by trees and bushes with branches and plants with hard stems that cannot be bent without breaking, they are only prohibited in use from a height of 24 cm while below this height it is permitted to be used. Now let’s discuss pot plants: Regarding the second prohibition of making use of a tree, pot plants follow the same law, and hence one may not make use [i.e. rest a siddur] on any area of the plant that grows to a height of 24 cm if its stem is not flexible, [although it remains permitted to rest it simply on the pot itself without it touching any of the plants]. However, one may rest it on top of flexible plants, or areas of the plant that do not reach 24 cm, as even if we were to define pot plants as Muktzah [the first issue above], it is permitted to rest an object on top of a Muktzah item on Shabbos. Furthermore, a pot plant is not defined as actual Muktzah, but rather as a Keli Shemilachto Lissur [or even Heter], if the plant is less than a height of 24 cm or is flexible as explained above. Thus, in such a case, one may even bend the plant for the sake of resting one’s Siddur on top of it as is the law by any Keli Shemichato Lissur that it may be moved for a use or for its space.
Sources: Regarding the prohibition of making use of trees/plants on Shabbos: Admur 336:1, 4-6; 312:9; Regarding the Muktzah status of plants attached to the ground: Admur 312:9; 336:4; M”A 312:6; See Peri Megadim 312 A”A 6; See also: Elya Raba and Tosefes Shabbos brought in Machatzis Hashekel 312:6; so rules also M”B 312:17; Shaar Hatziyon 336:42; Regarding Muktzah status of pot plants: Admur 336:12; P”M 636:10; Tiferes Yisrael Kalkeles Shabbos Zoreia 1; Shevisas HaShabbos Kotzer 5 and 7; Shaar Hatziyon 336:38; Tehila Ledavid 636:6; Regarding the allowance to rest an object on top of a Muktzah item when it is not for the sake of the Muktzah item see: Admur 308:14; 310:10; Terumos Hadeshen 1:67; M”A 310:3; Taz 301:5; Ketzos Hashulchan 142 footnote 5; Minchas Shabbos 80:194; Az Nidbaru 1:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 336:16 footnotes 123-125 |
- Compilation-Are flowers in a vase Muktzah on Shabbos?[289]
Background: All items that do not contain a use are considered Muktzah Machams Gufo on Shabbos and may not be moved for any purpose in a regular fashion, neither for space, use or to save from damage.[290] Thus, ground products such as plants, flowers, grass, branches and twigs that are laying on the ground are Muktzah on Shabbos, whether they are attached or detached from the ground, plant or tree.[291] However, if one takes any of the above products before Shabbos and designates it for a use, it is no longer considered Muktzah and may be moved on Shabbos like any other non-Muktzah item.[292]
The law: Although flowers that are lying on the ground are Muktzah on Shabbos, flowers that have been gathered and prepared from before Shabbos to be used for decoration of one’s home, are not Muktzah.[293] Accordingly, it is permitted without restriction to move a bouquet or vase of flowers on Shabbos. Likewise, on Shavuos, it is permitted to move the various flowers and plants [that are not in pots with earth] that have been placed around the house or Shul for decorative purposes.[294] For this reason, it is also permitted to lift and move a good scenting branch or leaf [i.e. myrtle, rosemary, mint, etc] that has been designated before Shabbos for smelling, and there is no Muktzah prohibition involved.
Plants in pots with earth: Plants or trees that grow within pots that contain earth do have Muktzah restrictions applicable to them, as will be discussed in a further Halacha!
Entering and removing the flower to and from the water vase: It is permitted to remove flowers from the water vase on Shabbos, however, certain restrictions apply regarding placing the flowers into the water vase, as will be explained in a future Halacha.
|
Summary: Flowers in a vase are not Muktzah and may be moved without restriction. |
D. What is the status of an item that was turned into a vessel on Shabbos by a gentile?[295]
Something that was Nolad [first created] on Shabbos, such as for example a gentile which made a new vessel on Shabbos on his own accord[296], then it is permitted to move it and use it in the ways explained in chapter 252 [Halacha 11-12] and in chapter 311 [Halacha 3], even though one did not have in mind before Shabbos to move it on Shabbos. However, on Yom Tov one needs to be stringent against moving a new object [made on Yom Tov] as will be explained in chapter 495 [Halacha 13].
E. Moving Animals
- May one move animals and birds on Shabbos?[297]
It is forbidden to move a domestic animal, a wild animal or birds[298] because they are not fit for any use on Shabbos while they are alive.[299] Even a bird which can be used to entertain a crying baby is forbidden to be moved. [It is forbidden to move them even in a case that the animal is causing damage to one’s home or vessels, even if it involves great loss.[300] This applies even if the animal already accutsoemd to the home, and does not need to be trapped.[301]]
- May one physically help the animal move:[302]
All domestic animals, wild animals and birds may be physically encouraged to move while they are in a private domain. Meaning one may grab their neck and their side and help them and move their legs so they walk. [This is allowed] as long as one does not lift them up in a way that their feet leave the ground, being that they are Muktzah and are [thus] forbidden to be moved.
The reason that this is allowed:[303] Now, even though by all Muktzah [items] just like it is forbidden to move it entirely so too it is forbidden to move only part of it [and thus here too this encouragement should be forbidden], nevertheless [the Sages] permitted one to help them walk in a case that the animals need this to be done [for their own benefit], in order to prevent suffering to the animal.
If the animal does not need help in moving:[304] However if the [animals] have no need [to be helped] it is forbidden to even help them move.
May one help a chicken move?[305] A chicken is forbidden to be helped to move even if it needs [help], being that it lifts itself up when being helped and it thus ends up that he was moving it entirely, and [in such a case] the [Sages] did not permit [helping it move] even in order to prevent an animal from suffering. However it is permitted to push the chicken from its back with ones hands in order so it enter [back] into its coop if it ran away from it. [It is permitted to push it from behind even if it is not for the sake of preventing animal pain, but to prevent loss, such as if the chicken ran away from the home.[306]]
- May one help animals walk in a Public domain?[307]
All the above [permission granted] was to [be allowed] to help it move in a private domain. However in a public domain, it is forbidden to help move any domestic animal, wild animal, and bird [in the way described in the previous Halacha, that one holds its neck etc. However, to push from behind, see end of this Halacha].
The reason for this is: due to a decree [that if this was to be allowed then] one may come to lift it up and carry it and will thus become liable for [transgressing the prohibition of] carrying 4 cubits within a public domain.
The reason it is forbidden to carry an animal in a public domain, while a human is permitted: The [Sages] only said that a live item is considered to carry itself[308] [even when being carried by someone else, and thus one does not transgress the prohibition of carrying it] with regards to humans [being carried], however not by domestic animal, wild animal, and birds.
May one help animals walk in a Karmalis?[309] A Karmalis has the same law as a public domain regarding this matter.
May one push the animal from behind? To push the animal from behind if it had run away is permitted even in a public domain.
- Trapping insects and the like which only cause pain:
See “The Laws of Trapping and Killing Animals” for the details on this subject.
- May one move non-Muktzah vessels for the need of animals?[310]
[Although it is forbidden to move an animal or bird,] nevertheless it is permitted to place a basket upside down in front of hens in order so they go up and down it, as a [non-Muktzah] vessel may be moved even for the need of an item that may not be moved on Shabbos.
Why is this not forbidden due to “Nullifying a vessel from its non-Muktzah status“, which is forbidden to do on Shabbos? Now even though that while the hens are on the basket it is forbidden to move the basket due to the hens that are on it[311], nevertheless this is not considered that one is even temporarily nullifying a vessel from its allowed use [in which case it would be forbidden to do so], as one has the ability to chase away the hens from the basket immediately upon then going up or down on it or that they not be able to stand on it for even a second[312], and once they have descended from [the basket] it is permitted to move it.
- If an animal was intentionally on a vessel by Bein Hashmashos:[313]
[However] if the hens were on this basket throughout the entire Bein Hashmashos then it is forbidden to move it throughout the entire day [i.e. Shabbos] even after the chicks have descended from it, as once something is designated to be a base for something prohibited [I.e. Muktzah] by Bein Hashmashos, then it becomes Muktzah for the entire day [Shabbos].
May one lift up an animal that is stuck in a trap to help it get out?
It is forbidden to lift up the animal being that it is Muktzah.[314] This applies even if the animal is in pain and/or will die as a result.[315] Nonetheless, in the event that the animal is in pain or may die if left in the trap, then one may push it and encourage it to free itself from the trap without actually lifting it.[316] According to all, one may ask a gentile to help release the animal.[317]
| Summary:
Animals and birds are considered MM”G and may thus not be moved for any purpose in their normal way.[318] Likewise if an animal was intentionally placed on a non-Muktzah item for Bein Hashmashos of the entrance of Shabbos then that item becomes a Basis and is Muktzah for the entire Shabbos.[319] However it is permitted to move a non-Muktzah item for the sake of an animal.[320] Helping an animal walk[321]: All animals and birds which are in need, despite being Muktzah, may be assisted to move by pushing them from behind, as the sages permitted this form of Muktzah in order to prevent the animal pain. However one may never lift the animal in a way that its feet are lifted up even when trying to assist it. In a private domain one may further assist a needy animal or bird by grabbing their neck and their side and help them move their legs so they walk. It is forbidden to use this method of assistance in a public area or Karmalis due to fear that one may come to carry the animal. It is however allowed to assist it from behind even in a public area. A chicken may not be assisted by its neck etc even if it is in a private area, although one may assist it from behind. It is never allowed to assist move an animal or bird which is not in need of it.
Q&A May one move a pet dog, bird, fish on Shabbos? Some Poskim[322] rule that the fish, birds, aquarium and cage are not Muktzah being that they all serve for a decorative purpose, which is considered a permitted work. Other Poskim[323] rule that both the pet fish, dogs, birds, are Muktzah as the Sages did not differentiate in their Muktzah decree against animals.[324] Aquarium or bird cage: Some Poskim[325] rule that although the actual fish and birds are themselves Muktzah and may not be lifted or moved, nevertheless it is permitted to move the aquarium and cage together with the fish and birds inside them.[326] Other opinions[327] rule that both the fish, birds, cage, aquarium are Muktzah, as the Sages did not differentiate in their Muktzah decree against animals. Moving to prevent pain for the birds or fish:[328] According to all opinions it is permitted to move even the fish or bird itself in order to prevent it from having pain, such as it is in the sun.
Is a guide dog meant for the blind Muktzah on Shabbos? Some Poskim[329] rule it is not Muktzah. One may use the dog to go to shul and the like.[330] See previous Q&A!
May one move a birdcage on Shabbos? If the bird was in the cage for the entire Bein Hashmashos then the cage is Muktzah. See previous Q&A
May one pet his dog? Seemingly this may not be done as one moves its hairs by doing so, and moving even part of an animal is forbidden unless done to prevent the animal pain. Perhaps however one can claim that hair is not considered a real substance as is a limb. Vetzrauch Iyun.
May one walk a dog with a leash in an area without an Eiruv?[331] No.[332] Even if the area has an Eiruv it is forbidden.[333] See 305/6 |
- Compilation-Are pets [dogs, cats, birds, fish] Muktzah on Shabbos?
All living creatures, other than humans, are Muktzah on Shabbos and hence are forbidden to be moved [in their normal method[334]].[335] This applies even if the animal is fit for entertaining children.[336] It is forbidden to even pet the animal.[337] In addition, independent of the Muktzah prohibition, it is forbidden to make use of animals on Shabbos, [even in an irregular method] such as to lean on it, play with it, and the like.[338] If, however, one designates the animal/creature for a specific purpose, such as to have as a pet for the sake of pleasure in seeing and interacting with the animal, then some Poskim[339] rule the pet [bird, fish, dog, cat, turtle, etc] is not Muktzah and may be moved on Shabbos.[340] Other Poskim[341], however, rule that the animal remains Muktzah, and remains forbidden to be moved on Shabbos.[342] Practically, one is to be stringent in this matter, and not move even a pet animal on Shabbos.[343] Furthermore, even according to the lenient opinion who permits moving the pet on Shabbos, it remains forbidden to make a use of the pet on Shabbos, such as to ride on it, or cuddle with it for one’s benefit.[344] Hence, one may not pet an animal on Shabbos.[345]
To prevent Tzaar Baalei Chaim:[346] The Sages allowed encouraging the movement of an animal in certain ways in order to prevent Tzaar Baalei Chaim. [Some Poskim[347] rule that pets, which are under the dispute mentioned above, may be moved in any way in order to prevent Tzaar Baalei Chaim.] This matter will be discussed in greater length in a future lesson.
|
Summary: According to all, it is forbidden to make use of a living creature on Shabbos [leaning, riding, cuddling], including pets. However, to move a pet not for the sake of making a use of it, is disputed amongst Poskim if it is forbidden due to Muktzah. Practically, one is to be stringent not to move or even pet an animal on Shabbos. |
|
Summary of Muktzah Machmas Gufo (MM”G): A. MM”G by inanimate items: Any item which does not have the legal status of a Keli/vessel [see C and E below] is considered MM”G and thus may not be moved with ones hands for any purpose on Shabbos. This applies even if one has found a use for this object, and even if one wants to use its space. However, an item which does have the legal status of a vessel is not Muktzah even if the vessel is very large and can only be moved with many people lifting it simultaneously.[348] An item which for the poor is considered a vessel while for the rich is waste[349]: An item which is not used by wealthy people due to it being degrading in their eyes, and they rather throw it to waste, then for a rich person it is Muktzah while for a poor person it is not. Thus, if a poor person owns a degrading object which he makes use of, it is Muktzah for all the wealthy, although wealthy people which are members of the poor man’s household may move it. If a wealthy person owns the degrading object then it becomes Muktzah for everyone, even for the poor, as we follow the status given by the owner[350].
B. MM”G by Foods: The following foods are defined as MM”G and may thus not be moved for any purpose: · Any food which is inedible to both humans and animals[351]. · Regarding foods which are inedible to humans but edible to animals: If the food is meant to be eventually eaten by humans, or is not meant to be eventually eaten by humans but there are no animals which eat this food commonly found in ones area [see footnote[352]] and one does not own such an animal, then the food is MM”G. If there are animals commonly found which would eat this food, or one owns such an animal, and one has not designated the food to be eventually eaten by humans, then the item is not Muktzah. If a certain animal is only commonly found amongst the wealthy, it is not considered commonly found.[353] · Any food which is forbidden on Shabbos[354] for all Jews[355] to eat and receive benefit from whether Biblically or Rabbinically.[356] · Any food which is forbidden to be eaten but permitted in benefit, then if it is not meant to be given to animals, such as that in a short time[357] it will become permitted to be eaten, or is meant to be eaten by animals but there are no animals common in one’s area[358], is considered MM”G. Foods which are edible but set aside from one’s mind: All edible foods which are set aside from being used for anything, whether because one plans to sell them, or because he wants the food to further develop or ripen, or because he wants to dry the food, then it is nevertheless not Muktzah. This however is with exception to figs and grapes of a Jew which are set aside to dry, of which they are considered Muktzah until they become dry enough to be edible for all people, prior to Bein Hashmashos of Shabbos.[359] However figs and grapes of a gentile which were put to dry, once they have become fit to be eaten by even some people, then they are not Muktzah for a Jew.[360] If a Jew designated his figs or grapes before Shabbos to be eaten, then if they are already edible to some people, they are no longer Muktzah on Shabbos. However, if they are not fit for anyone yet to eat then they nevertheless remain Muktzah.[361] Fruits picked by a gentile[362]: All fruits which were picked from their tree or vegetables which were picked from the ground, on Shabbos by a gentile are considered MM”G. Wild animals which were trapped by a gentile[363]: Are always Muktzah even after being slaughtered for a sick person.
C. What makes an item receive the status of a vessel: Any item mentioned above that is Muktzah Machmas Gufo because it doesn’t have the status of a vessel may receive the status of a vessel- before Shabbos- in one of the following ways (thus allowing it to be moved on Shabbos): 1. Any item which one designates in his mind[364] to permanently use for a certain permitted purpose may be moved like a Keli Shemilachto L’heter.[365] 2. A non-vessel designated for a use for a limited amount of time[366] or was used already before Shabbos for a certain purpose[367], may be moved on Shabbos like any vessel, if it is common to designate/use it for the purpose the person wants.[368] If it is not common to designate it for this purpose then it remains Muktzah even if it was temporarily designated and was used one time before Shabbos.[369] 3. If it’s not common to designate an item for a certain purpose, then if a person does an action to the object which shows that it is now designated for this purpose, then it may be moved on Shabbos[370] for that purpose alone and not for anything else.[371] Items which are not an actual vessel but have a designated use:[372] Then if they are set aside to be sold have the status of MM”G. An item which was made into a vessel by a gentile on Shabbos[373]: Is not Muktzah. However, on Yom Tov it is considered Muktzah.
D. Animals: Animals and birds are considered MM”G and may thus not be moved for any purpose in their normal way.[374] Likewise if an animal was intentionally placed on a non-Muktzah item for Bein Hashmashos of the entrance of Shabbos then that item becomes a Basis and is Muktzah for the entire Shabbos.[375] However it is permitted to move a non-Muktzah item for the sake of an animal.[376] Helping an animal walk[377]: All animals and birds which are in need, despite being Muktzah, may be assisted to move by pushing them from behind, as the sages permitted this form of Muktzah in order to prevent the animal pain. However one may never lift the animal in a way that its feet are lifted up even when trying to assist it. In a private domain one may further assist a needy animal or bird by grabbing their neck and their side and help them move their legs so they walk. It is forbidden to use this method of assistance in a public area or Karmalis due to fear that one may come to carry the animal. It is however allowed to assist it from behind even in a public area. A chicken may not be assisted by its neck etc even if it is in a private area, although one may assist it from behind. It is never allowed to assist move an animal or bird which is not in need of it.
E. Examples of items that are MM”G Examples of items that were not pre-designated before Shabbos which are defined as MM”G: 1) Stones 2) money 3) wood 4) twigs 5) beams 6) reeds 7) dirt 8) sand 9) (All the above examples were taken from 308/8) 10) Mochin which refers to pieces of soft material such as cotton and strings [made] of soft wool of an animal, and scraps of worn out clothing.[378] 11) Shear of wool.[379] 12) Dead person 13) All animals[380] 14) Feathers which are not fit to be used to lie on (there is a difference between feathers that are made to sleep on in pillows and those that aren’t) 15) cover of a pit that doesn’t have a handle (308/37) 16) An egg that has a chick inside (309/10); 17) Shatnez[381]: Clothing that are Shatnez are MM”G. 18) Non-usable wick (308/33). 19) Silkworm cocoons.[382] 20) Hides of an animal which are wet are MM”G being that they are not fit for any use.[383] 21) All grass, plants and any produce which are attached to the ground.[384]
Examples of raw foods which are inedible in their raw state and are thus defined as MM”G and may not be moved for any purpose: 22) Flour [385] 23) dough 24) potatoes 25) dry legumes, 26) beans, 27) Rice[386] 28) Pasta[387] 29) Raw meat: Tough raw meat [such as meat of animals[388]] is MM”G however tender raw meat [such as poultry[389]] is not Muktzah as it is fit to be eaten by some people.[390] [However today that people no longer eat even tender raw meat all raw meats are Muktzah.[391] See Q&A regarding what one is to do in case his freezer has lost power on Shabbos]. 30) Raw fish: Raw unsalted fish is MM”G. However salted fish, such as herring is not Muktzah being that it is edible.[392] 31) Raw cold fat of an animal 32) Spoiled meat: In areas where there are no animals found to which to give the meat to, then the meat is MM”G.[393] (All the above examples were taken from 308/8; SS”K-20/28; Ketzos Hashulchan 111/3)
Examples of foods that are forbidden to be eaten on Shabbos and are defined as MM”G: 33) Tevel[394] 34) Stam Yayin[395] 35) Date pits which are not commonly fed to animals in one’s area.[396] 36) Milk that was milked on Shabbos.[397] 37) An egg that was laid on Shabbos 38) Juices that flowed on Shabbos from fruits[398] [that are designated to be juiced, with exception of olives and grapes that even when not designated to be juiced their liquids are forbidden[399]]. 39) (Taken from 308/9) 40) Chameitz on Pesach 41) Arla-forbidden fruits 42) Kilayim of a vineyard 43) Teruma 44) Terumas maaser 45) Chalah that was separated for Hafrashas chalah, 46) Dough or bread that one hasn’t taken chalah from 47) Fruits that could have fallen off a tree on that Shabbos 48) Meat cooked with milk (Taken from SS”K-20/25-36),
More miscellaneous examples: 49) Bones which are too hard for even dogs to eat.[400] 50) Shells of walnuts and almonds, as well as all shells which are not fit for even animals to eat [401] 51) Bones, peels, and shells which are fit for animals to eat but one doesn’t own these animals and they are not found in his vicinity.[402] 52) Shells of sunflower seeds [Garinim]:[403] If they are roasted and salted then they are not Muktzah, as there are people which suck on the shells. However, they do become Muktzah after they have already been sucked and spat out. If they are not salted, then they are Muktzah once their seeds are removed. 53) Peels of citric fruits:[404] Are Muktzah unless animals are found in ones area. However orange [and Esrog] peels are not Muktzah as they are fit to be eaten by humans. [Others[405] however wonder at this ruling and rule that citric peels are likewise Muktzah as they are not edible in their raw state.] 54) Peanut shells: [406] Are Muktzah unless animals are found in one’s vicinity. 55) Apricot pits:[407] Are Muktzah unless designated to be used for children games before Shabbos. However possibly for children themselves they are not Muktzah even when removed on Shabbos. 56) Raisins and dates that have been put out to dry and until then are inedible due to their smell (310/2) 57) oil left over from Shabbos candles. 58) medicines[408]/vitamins that one can’t take on Shabbos.
F. Examples of items that are not MM”G and thus may be moved: 1) Chadash grains.[409] 2) The five grains are not Muktzah.[410] 3) Non-kosher meat, such as meat of a Niveila[411] or Treifa [in areas that dogs are found[412]] [413] 4) Salted raw fish, such as herring.[414] 5) Spoiled meat in an area that there are animals to be found to which one can feed the meat to.[415] 6) Sea-squill in areas that deer is found is not Muktzah.[416] 7) Inedible mustard in areas that doves are found.[417] 8) Small boards of wood not on sale that are used for different vessels. 9) Hides of an animal which are dry, even if aren’t tanned, are not Muktzah being that they are fit to lie on.[418] 10) Peels, such as pods of beans, which are fit to be eaten by animals, and these animals are found in one’s area are not Muktzah on Shabbos, however are Muktzah on Yom Tov due to Nolad if they were peeled on Yom Tov. [419] 11) Bones which are fit to be eaten by a dog and there is a dog to be found in one’s area is not Muktzah on Shabbos however on Yom Tov is considered Nolad if its meat was removed on Yom Tov.[420] 12) Wine of a Nazir is not Muktzah being that it is fit for others to eat.[421] 13) Peels which are fit for humans to eat like orange [and Esrog] peels (but not grapefruit peels) (SS”K-20) 14) Date pits which are common to feed to animals in one’s area are not Muktzah. However, a person of importance should not move them unless using an irregularity, such as placing a permitted item on them.[422] 15) Food on Yom Kippur.[423] 16) A ball[424]: It is disputed whether or not a ball is considered a vessel and thus whether or not it is MM”G. The custom is to be lenient. 17) A Kamia.[425] 18) Ash which was made from before Shabbos.[426] 19) Wooden boards which belong to a non- professional.[427] 20) A necklace which has a coin attached to it.[428] 21) Is rainwater Muktzah? Rainwater is not considered Muktzah [even on Yom Tov[429]] so long as they are at least fit for one to bathe in[430]. 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.[431]
G. Examples of MM”G items that have received the status of a vessel before Shabbos and are thus no longer Muktzah: Branches:[432] A branch cut off before Shabbos to use to discipline children or to brush away insects is not Muktzah. Palm Branches:[433] Palm branches which have been sat on before Shabbos, or that have been designated in one’s mind to be used for sitting, even if this designation was only for that Shabbos, they lose their Muktzah status. This form of designation is valid being that it is common to sit on palm branches. Stones: A stone which has been strongly inserted into a basket or tied to a bucket as part of its structure, or has been lightly inserted but is designated for this use forever, is no longer Muktzah and the basket or bucket thus does not become a Basis.[434] Similarly a stone which was used once before Shabbos for a common use, such as to break a nut, or was though about being used for a common use for even that Shabbos alone, is no longer Muktzah. However, for an uncommon use, such as to cover the opening of a barrel, or to sit on a stone, it only loses its Muktzah status when designated to be used forever for that use, or one does a great action which shows that it is designated for that use[435].[436] Bricks:[437] Bricks which remain after the completion of a building and have not been stack piled are no longer Muktzah as they are considered designated for sitting on. [However today being that it is customary for construction companies to reuse the leftover bricks this allowance no longer applies, and the bricks thus remain MM”G.[438]] Lids of vessels:[439] If it is common to designate a certain item as a lid for a vessel, then if it was used once before Shabbos as a lid, or one did an action to it which shows that it is designated as a lid, then it is no longer Muktzah. If it is not common to be used as a lid, then it only loses its Muktzah status when designated to be used as a lid permanently, or one did an alteration to the item which shows it is designated for this use. Lid of a pit:[440] Only loses its status of Muktzah if a handle is fixed onto it and thus shows to all that it is a lid. Wood:[441] When designated for sitting on it only loses its Muktzah status if it is designated for this use permanently, or a great action is done to it which shows that it is designated for sitting[442]. Mochin:[443] Which were designated in one’s mind to be permanently used for insulation are no longer Muktzah. Shares of wool:[444] Shares of wool which have been used for insulation are not Muktzah even if they have not been designated for that purpose. Straw[445]: Straw which is generally used in one’s area to lie on or use as animal fodder is not Muktzah. Furthermore, even if usually designated for fuel, if one now designated it for fodder, or thought about designating it for sitting on, then it is no longer Muktzah. Earth[446]: Earth which has been set aside in a corner to be designated for use for covering saliva or feces is not Muktzah. However, this only applies if the earth is so loose that when removing dirt from it, it will not create a ditch within the dirt. Bandage made of spun wool:[447] Combed flax or spun wool which was placed on one’s wound prior to Shabbos, or was thought about being used for a wound for over that Shabbos[448], or had some action done to it which prepared it as a bandage, such as he dyed it with oil, then the material is no longer Muktzah and may be moved for any purpose. Toupee made of spun wool:[449] Combed flax or spun wool which was placed on one’s head as a toupee prior to Shabbos, or was thought about being used as a toupee for over that Shabbos[450], or had some action done to it which prepared it for a toupee, such as he dyed it, then the material is no longer Muktzah and may be moved for any purpose. It however may not be worn outside in a public area [that does not have an Eiruv] unless it was dyed and the like, or was worn one time before Shabbos. A forked vine used for a well:[451] If tied to the bucket from before Shabbos is no longer Muktzah. However if not then it remains Muktzah even if one designated it in ones thought to be used for this purpose[452]. A stick used as a hanger:[453] A stick which was designated to be used as a hanger only loses its Muktzah status when designated for this use for permanent basis. Plants which are entered into Shul on Shavuos:[454] Are not considered Muktzah as they have been pre-designated before Yom Tov.
Q&A If one designated a MM”G item for a certain purpose and it is forbidden to do that purpose on Shabbos, is the item MMI or does it revert back to MM”G? Item was formed into a vessel: If the item has been formed into an item that is designated to be used to attach to a vessel [but is not yet an actual vessel], such as buttons and the like, then some Poskim[455] rule that they are MM”I and thus may be moved to use their space or for a use. Others[456] hold that they are MM”G, as they are not yet considered a vessel, and may thus not be moved at all. Item was not formed into a vessel:[457] If the item was not formed into a vessel and was simply designated for a certain purpose and that purpose is forbidden to be done on Shabbos, such as a piece of paper, then if one is particular against using the item for any other purpose[458], the item reverts back to MM”G. Likewise if the item is designated to be sold as merchandise then it reverts back to MMG even if one is not particular against using it for other purposes, unless one designated it for a certain use forever.[459]
Is the sand of a playground Muktzah?[460] No.[461] Nevertheless, children who are above the age of Chinuch may not add water to the sand.
Is artificial turf Muktzah? Seemingly yes, as the purpose of the artificial material is no different than actual earth.
Is carpet grass Muktzah? No.
Is a Rebbe dollar or coin Muktzah?[462] If it has been designated forever as a sentimental item that will not be used for commerce, as is common by items of a Rebbe, then seemingly it is not Muktzah. This especially applies if the dollar or coin is framed. Vetzaruch Iyun.
Are new buttons Muktzah? New buttons are Muktzah.[463] However it is disputed as to which level of Muktzah they contain. Some Poskim[464] rule that they are MM”I and thus may be moved to use their space or for a use. Others[465] hold that they are MM”G, as they are not yet considered a vessel, and may thus not be moved at all. Buttons that have fallen off a shirt etc: See Halacha 11! |
|
From the Rav’s Desk Question: May one carry tear gas or pepper spray on Shabbos in an area with an Eiruv?
Answer: Yes. Tear gas is not Muktzah, as it is made for self defense which may be needed on Shabbos, and is a permitted use. It is thus like a Keli Shemilachto Liheter and is no different than rocks and stones that have been designated for a use which is permitted on Shabbos. It is likewise no different than liquid soup.
Sources: See Gam Ani Odeka 1:12 and https://shulchanaruchharav.com/article-categories/muktzka/
Question: Is it permitted on Shabbos to play Dreidel? Also, may I play using beans that we designated for this purpose or are they considered Muktzah?
Answer: This is a complex question, as the playing of Dreidel on Shabbos can involve a “gambling” prohibition, and when playing with beans we have the added issue of Muktzah, and Bizuiy Ochlin. Practically, the following is the directive on this matter in accordance to the different forms of playing:
Playing Dreidel for the sake of winning and losing items of value/food: It is forbidden to play Dreidel on Shabbos for the sake of meriting something with each spin. Thus, it is forbidden on Shabbos to play dreidal in the typical way that it is played during the week even if money is not used, such as to use chocolate coins or chocolate lentils or any food or other item of the like in which there is a benefit for the players to win. This applies even to children, and the father is therefore obligated to educate them not to play dreidal in this fashion on Shabbos. Playing Dreidel without any item to win or lose: It is permitted for children below the age of Bar/Bas Mitzvah to play dreidal without any purpose of gain or loss simply to spin it and see who gets what. Accordingly, it is permitted to play dreidal using items that have no value or importance if gained, or if there will be no gain or loss, such as if the children will have to return everything they won back into the pile when they are done playing, and they will not gain or lose any more or less than any other child due to the game. Thus, they may play using almonds even if they are in their shell if at the end of the game they will return it back to the bag and no one will keep what they won. It is proper to designate a special beautiful Shabbos dreidel for this purpose in order to avoid any question of Muktzah or Uvdin Dechol that may be relevant to a Dreidel that is commonly only used for playing for gain and loss which is forbidden on Shabbos, as explained above. Regarding adults: It is best for them to avoid playing Dreidel on Shabbos both due to the general negation of playing games on Shabbos, as well as the stringency against playing games that involve luck. Playing Dreidel using predesignated beans: It is permitted for children to play Dreidel on Shabbos using beans that have been predesignated for this purpose to be used annually for Dreidel playing. Here too, a special Shabbos dreidel should be designated for this purpose as explained above. If the beans are not designated to be put away for annual use on Shabbos Chanukah and will be thrown out right after Shabbos, then it is best to avoid doing so, although those who do so have upon whom to rely. Even when playing with beans in which there is no true gain or loss for the players, there’s a stringency to avoid doing so as explained above, and thus it should only be done by children below the age of Bar/Bas Mitzvah.
Explanations: Explanation regarding playing Dreidel: The sages decreed against playing “gambling” games on Shabbos which refers to all games that involve a gain and loss of items of the players, even if it is not money but rather food, if the items gained and lost retain a monetary value. This is due to their general decree against doing business on Shabbos. Now, although in the case of children the items that will be won by the players belongs to the father of the home and is hence not exactly similar to business, nonetheless, this would still seemingly fall under the lottery prohibition applicable on Shabbos which is itself forbidden due to the gambling prohibition which is similar to business. Now, if there is no gain or loss at all achieved through playing the game then seemingly it would be permitted. When permitted to be played, seemingly it may be played even on a tiled floor and not just specifically on a table, being that it is never common to play Dreidel on a dirt floor, and hence it is not similar to the prohibition recorded in the Poskim against playing rolling games on even tiled floors. Now, although there are Poskim who prohibit playing any luck game on Shabbos, practically we do not rule this way, and therefore certainly children may be lenient to do so. However, since there are Poskim who rule that using a regular weekday Dreidel can transgress the prohibition of Muktzah and Uvdin Dechol, therefore, to avoid all issues one should designate a special Shabbos dreidel for playing on Shabbos. Likewise, it is best for adults and as well all children above bar/bas mitzvah to avoid playing it in order to avoid all the halachic issues and use one’s time properly on Shabbos. Explanation regarding using beens-Muktzah: Any item that is Muktzah Machmas Gufo because it doesn’t have the status of a vessel may receive the status of a vessel- before Shabbos if we designated to be used forever for this purpose. This applies even if it is not common to designate the item for this purpose, although in such a case a permanent designation must be done in a temporary one does not suffice. Now regarding our question of designating beans for Dreidel playing on Shabbos: Although beans are not commonly designated for such use, and hence a mere temporary designation does not suffice, nevertheless, if one designates it for this purpose alone and then throws it in the garbage when done playing, then this itself can be considered permanent use. It goes without saying that designating it for annual dreidal playing would suffice to remove its Muktzah state and practically this is the best option to be done rather than designate it only for one Shabbos. Explanation regarding using beens-Bizuiy Ochlin: Although using beans for dreidal playing will cause them to not be used anymore for eating being that they must be permanently designated for dreidal playing as explained above, as well as become dirty, nonetheless this does not transgress the prohibition of Bizuiy Ochlin being that is being done for a meaningful purpose to be able to create this game of entertainment. It is no different than the allowance that was followed throughout history to use flour for various nonfood purposes, such as to make playdoh, dolls, and to stuff up holes in the wall, which created a discussion in the laws of Passover regarding Chametz.
Sources: Regarding the prohibition of playing games for the sake of gain and loss and against doing a lottery: See Admur 338:6; Rama 338:5; Rambam Shabbos 23:17; Shabbos 23 and 148; Beis Yosef 338 in name of Igor 521; Bach 338; Michaber 322:6; M”A 322:9; Mur Uketzia 338 [forbids even for food]; Aruch Hashulchan 338:13; SSH”K 16:32; Piskeiy Teshuvos 338:11 [old] 14 [new]; Chayeh Halevi 10:58; Mishnas Yosef 7:128; Avnei Yashpei 126-2; Metziyon Teitzei Torah 117; AkeidasMoshe 4:33-3; Maaglei Eliyahu 3:30; Emes Leyaakov 679 footnote 593; Mishnas Aaron Leiberman Muktzha 88; Avnei Derech 13: 83; Chevel Nachalaso 20:10; Regarding the prohibition of playing what games, see: Bach 338; Olas Shabbos 338:5; Kaf Hachaim 338:41; omitted from the majority of Poskim, including Admur; Regarding the prohibition of playing rolling games on a floor see: Admur 338:6; Aruch Hashulchan 338:12; Ketzos Hashulchan 146 footnote 60; Shevisas Hashabbos; SSH”K 16:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 338:9; Regarding if the above prohibition applies to children see: Admur 338:6; Rama 338:5 and Darkei Moshe 338; Piskeiy Teshuvos 338:14 footnote 123 Regarding having a special designated Dreidel just for Shabbos see: Igros Moshe 5:22-10 [not Muktzah]; Mikdash Yisrael 274-275; Chayeh Halevi 10:58; Regarding designating beans so they are no longer considered Muktzah see: Admur 308:8; 53; Michaber 308:22; Ketzos Hashulchan 110:5; Regarding the prohibition of wasting food see: Admur Shemiras Haguf 14; Michaber 171:1, 4, 5; Torah Lishma 401; Mayan Omer 11:5
1. Question: [Thursday 1st Marcheshvan 5782] When my children go to the beach they love to collect seashells as many children do. Are they allowed to play with them on Shabbos or are they considered Muktzah?
Answer: Seashells which have been collected before Shabbos and are kept for personal use to serve as a collection, are not considered Muktzah and be moved on Shabbos regularly. Random seashells that are on the beach floor and have not been collected before Shabbos, are considered Muktzah on Shabbos and may not be collected until after Shabbos.
Explanation: Seashells are considered similar to any other raw material, similar to pieces of wood and stone, which are considered Muktzah on Shabbos unless they were predesignated before Shabbos. Now, although we find in certain cases, such as a rock or stone, that pre-designation is not enough and one must actually modify the item to show its purpose, this only applies if the use that one is designating it for is not a common use. If, however, it is a common use, then pre-designation suffices and it does not require any modification. Furthermore, even by a noncommon use, if a designated for this use forever, it does not require a modification. Accordingly, it is clear that seashells which were collected before Shabbos and designated by the individual to be part of his collection to enjoy, and they are considered designated for the sake of a use, and are no longer considered Muktzah. Now, although one could argue that a collection is not considered a use at all, in truth we find that designating an item for memorabilia purposes is considered a use according to Halacha, aside from the fact that kids play with the seashells to put by their ear and listen to the “waves,” and it is no different than any other toy, such as apricot pits and sand that are predesignated for children’s playing and are not considered Muktzah.
Sources: See regarding pre-designating Muktzah items before Shabbos: Admur 308:36, 50-53; Michaber 308:10, 20, 22; Biur Halacha 308:22 “Beyichud”; Ketzos Hashulchan 110:5 See regarding apricot pits: SSH”K 16:10; Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:43 See regarding sand: SSH”K 16:4; See regarding memorabilia items: Tehila Ledavid 336:6; Toras Shabbos 308:2; Ketzos Hashulchan 121 footnote 4; Rav SZ”A in SSH”K 20 footnote 214
|
_________________________________________________________
[1] Admur 308:8; Michaber and Rama 308:7
[2] Money is not a vessel and is hence considered MMG. However see 301:39 [M”A 301:45; Taz 301:22] that silver and gold, or even a coin, that has been turned into a piece of jewelry is not Muktzah.
[3] Rama ibid; Michaber ibid states that it may not be moved
[4] This is explained in C below regarding designating a non-vessel object for a use before Shabbos.
[5] Admur ibid; Rosh 22:8; Beis Yosef 308
[6] Admur 308:11
[7] Admur 308:89; Michaber 308:52; See also Admur 308:41
[8] “Even if it belongs to the paupers” so rules Admur ibid; Taz 308:25; brought in M”B 308:170
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it is permitted for all wealthy people if it is owned by paupers. [M”B ibid in his 1st opinion]
[9] Admur ibid; Taz ibid; M”A 308:79; M”B ibid
[10] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; M”A ibid; Taz ibid; M”B ibid; Tosefes Shabbos 308:98
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the item is not Mukztah for the poor people of the outside. [Bach and Shiltei Giborim, brought in Shaar Hatziyon 308:132]
[11] Admur ibid; M”A 308:79; M”B 308:170
[12] Admur 308:9; 64-65
[13] Admur 308:8; Beis Yosef Hakdama 308
[14] Admur 308:64; Michaber 308:29
[15] Sea squill is a bulb which sends up a tall stalk topped by an inflorescences of small white flowers, followed by a rosette of large dull green leaves, that last until the following summer. The bulb can get quite large, reaching over five pounds in weight. Its scientific name is the Urginea maritima plant. It is also called by the names red squill, sea onion, ein sit, and ada sogani. In Israel the sea squill (Hebrew: “Chatzav”) has gained an almost iconic status, and is popularly known as the “harbinger of autumn”, due to the fact that the flowers pop out all over the country at the end of the dry summer, some time before the first rain.
[16] This implies that we do not take street animals into account. So is also implied from M”B 308:119 and so rules Rav Elyashiv in Shalmei Yehuda 7 footnote 6
[17] If it is only raised by wealthy people it is not considered commonly found. [308:64] To note that the Mishneh Berurah 308:119 writes that it is commonly found if it is raised by majority of people. However the Minchas Yitzchak [7:16] rules that the M”B himself did not mean this literally and simply sated majority in order to contrast it being raised only by the wealthy.
[17] Admur 308:64
[18] Admur 308:65; Michaber 308:29
[19] Seemingly this refers to an inn found on the road, as was common back in the day, however not to hotels as we know of today which are found in the city for vacation.
[20] As seemingly it is not common for dogs to be found in a rural area. Rather they gather in areas that are habituated.
[21] Admur 308:8
[22] Regarding if street animals and birds are taken into account for commonly found animals, or only animals which are raised in homes are taken into account, see Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:22 which brings a dispute on this matter amongst today’s Poskim. To note that from the wording of Admur 308:64 that “such as for example sea-squill that is only edible for deer, and mustard that is only edible for doves, are permitted to be moved in an area that deer and doves are commonly found, meaning, that it is an area where it is usual for the common-folk to raise them and they are accustomed [in doing this]” it is implied that street animals are not taken into account, and only home raised animals are included in the definition of commonly found. According to all if an animal is not commonly found on the streets then it is only considered commonly found if it is raised by the common folk of one’s area. If it is only raised by wealthy people it is not considered commonly found. [308:64] To note that the Mishneh Berurah 308:119 writes that it is commonly found if it is raised by majority of people. However the Minchas Yitzchak [7:16] rules that the M”B himself did not mean this literally and simply sated majority in order to contrast it being raised only by the wealthy.
[23] Admur 308:64
[24] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:23
[25] Admur 308:60; Michaber 308:27
[26] Legumes, just like grains grow in stalks called pods. These pods before the legumes in them have ripened are edible after cooking. On today’s market this is synonymous to string-beans, or green beans. However once the legumes within the pods have already ripened then the pods become dried out and are no longer edible. It is to this type of pod that the above Halacha is referring to.
[27] Admur ibid; M”A 308:49; M”B 308:110
[28] However in SSH”K (22:36) based on M”B 308:115 he permits it saying, that using a utensil is considered a Shinui.
[29] Admur 308:65; M”B 308:114; See Michaber 308:27; Rama 308:29;
[30] Admur 308:66; Michaber 308:30
[31] Seemingly this refers to one who is looked upon as being extra meticulous in the commands, such as a Rabbis and the like. Vetzaruch Iyun
[32] Admur 308:66
[33] Admur 308:67
[34] M”A 308:50 based on Rambam
[35] Admur ibid based on M”A ibid, based on Shabbos 143 in name of Rav Sheshes “he would throw it with his tongue; See Ketzos Hashulchan [111 footnote 18] that explains that although in Shabbos ibid it states that other Amoraim would thwo it behind the bed, seemingly, in order not to create Machlokes of opinions, Adnmur learns that even he did so with his mouth and not his hands. However see ther for a possible understanding from the Talmud that according to some Amoraim removing with one’s hand would be permitted. However Admur concludes with the stringent approach. See Kuntrus Achron 262:1
Other opinions: SSH”K 20:26 writes that it is permitted to take the item out with ones hands seemingly relying on this alternative understanding in the Talmud.
[36] 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.
[37] Ketzos Hashulchan
[38] Admur 308:67
[39] M”B 308:114
[40] Ketzos Hashulchan
[41] See SSH”K 16:10 and Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:43 regarding apricot pits that they are Muktzah unless designated to be used for children games before Shabbos. However possibly for children themselves they are not Muktzah even when removed on Shabbos. [SSH”K ibid footnote 33] However, majority of Michabrei Zemaneinu rule that it is Muktzah if removed on Shabbos. [Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 359]
[42] Admur 308:8; 308:60; Michaber 308:27
[43] As a) The pit will be thrown out afterwards and is hence considered permanently designated for this purpose, in which case we rule that this form of designation before Shabbos removes its Muktzah status. [Admur 308:53; Michaber 308:22; Ketzos Hashulchan 110:5] b) It is common to use the pit for this purpose and hence follows the law that even if it is designated before Shabbos only for a limited amount of time for a common purpose, its Muktzah status is revoked. [Admur 308:36 [regarding if used in the past]; 50-51 and 53 [regarding both if used in the past or designated for temporary use]; 1st opinion in Michaber 308:22; Biur Halacha 308:22 “Beyichud” that using in past has same law as temporarily designating]
[44] On the one hand one can argue that even when it is separated on Shabbos it should not be considered Muktzah as a) there is still some fruit that always remains on the pit which one may want to eat and b) it is customary by many to use it right away to place in the dip to prevent browning and hence perhaps it should be considered an automatic designated vessel until one decides to throw it in the garbage. This would perhaps follow the same law as Shivrei Keilim, in which we rule that since they were originally a non-Muktzah vessel if it remains fit to cover a vessel, then it is not Muktzah even though it has yet to be designated for this purpose. [Admur 308:24; Michaber 308:6; Mishneh Shabbos 124b] Perhaps one can apply the same argument here that since it was originally attached to a fruit and not Muktzah, so too here as well, since it still retains a common use, therefore it is not Muktzah on Shabbos. Furthermore, one can argue that since the moment one detaches the pit from the fruit he intends to reuse it to prevent browning, it never goes to a moment in which it is considered a non-designated item which is Muktzah. [See Admur 308:50 regarding Palm branches that we follow one’s intent at the time that it was removed from the tree] On the other hand one can argue that the majority of pits are not saved and are rather thrown out right away, and hence the fact that some fruit may remain on it, and that some pits are used to prevent browning don’t turn it into an automatic designation. Vetzaruch Iyun and practically one is to be stringent, although perhaps those who are lenient do not have to be protested, as rules SSH”K regarding apricot pits.
[45] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/keeping-avocados-from-turning-brown_n_1196633
[46] Admur 308:68; Michaber 308:31
[47] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid
[48] There it is explained that only blood that has come out from the meat, such as when cooking, is forbidden to be eaten. However blood that has never yet separated from where it is absorbed is not forbidden. Nevertheless one still needs to wash the meat for exterior blood, as explained in Yorah Deah Chapter 69 see there.
[49] Admur ibid; M”A 308:56; M”B 308:125
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that even hard meat is not Muzktah on Shabbos, as it is possible to be eaten. [Taz 308:20; Elya Raba; Gra] The M”B ibid concldues that one may be lenient like their opinion in a time of need.
Background:
The Alter Rebbe rules, following the opinion of the M”A, that any meat which is not soft enough to chew raw is considered MM”G. This as well is the opinion of the M”B (308:125) and is ruled likewise in the sefer SS”K (23:20). However, the opinion of the TA”Z (308:20) and GR”A is that all meat is considered edible even if raw and is also fit for dogs to eat thereby avoiding it being Muktzah. For a more extensive understanding of this debate see the TA”Z there. Practically speaking, with regards to what is considered not chewable raw meat the M”B says all raw meats of animals are not chewable, while of pigeon and duck is chewable.
[50] Admur ibid; M”A 308:56; Hamaor 21; M”B 308:127
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the food is able to be eaten by a dog, then even if it is not designated for this purpose, it is not Muktzah. [Taz 308:20; Elya Raba brought in Beir Heiytiv 308:37]
[51] Admur ibid; Michaber 308:31
[52] Regarding if street animals and birds are taken into account for commonly found animals, or only animals which are raised in homes are taken into account, see Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:22 which brings a dispute on this matter amongst today’s Poskim. To note that from the wording of Admur 308:64 that “such as for example sea-squill that is only edible for deer, and mustard that is only edible for doves, are permitted to be moved in an area that deer and doves are commonly found, meaning, that it is an area where it is usual for the common-folk to raise them and they are accustomed [in doing this]” it is implied that street animals are not taken into account, and only home raised animals are included in the definition of commonly found. According to all if an animal is not commonly found on the streets then it is only considered commonly found if it is raised by the common folk of one’s area. If it is only raised by wealthy people it is not considered commonly found. [308:64] To note that the Mishneh Berurah 308:119 writes that it is commonly found if it is raised by majority of people. However the Minchas Yitzchak [7:16] rules that the M”B himself did not mean this literally and simply sated majority in order to contrast it being raised only by the wealthy.
[53] Admur 308:69; Michaber 308:32
[54] Admur 308:70
[55] Admur 325:6; 333:1; Michaber 333:1; M”A 333:1; Taz 333:1
Admur 325:6: “Bread which its action that is needed to prepare it to make it useable, which is its baking, began on Shabbos [by a gentile] 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]. [There it says “Grain prior to it being ground is fit to be eaten, to make of it roasted grains or porridge.”
Ruling in 517:3: The Alter Rebbe motions to look in 517:3 for the reason. There the Alter Rebbe explains that since the kernels can be roasted and eaten, they are not Muktzah. Applying this reasoning for Shabbos is puzzling, for on dusk of Shabbos eve roasting the grains is prohibited. Therefore, how can this reason apply to making kernels not Muktzah on Shabbos? In the M”A 517:2 there is an additional reason mentioned, that since they are fit to chew they are not Muktzah. This reasoning could as well apply to Shabbos. It is still a wonderment however, why the Alter Rebbe omitted this reason especially being that only with it can we apply the rule to Shabbos. Vetzaruch Iyun
[56] Admur 308:8; 325:6
[57] Admur 325:6; 308:8; 310:3; Michaber 325:4; Rama 310:1
[58] First opinion in Admur 325:6; Admur 308:8 in parentheses; Admur 310:3; Second opinion in Michaber ibid; Rama ibid; Rosh
[59] Second opinion in Admur 325:6; First opinion in Michaber ibid; Sefer Hateruma 247-248; Rosh in name of Rabbenu Tam
[60] 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 Mukztah if it belongs to a gentile.
[61] Such as the flame is covered or contains raw meat which will not get done until the next day. See The Laws of Shehiyah
[62] Admur 325:6 in parenthese; Piskeiy Teshuvos 310:5
[63] The reason: 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]
[64] Admur 325:7
[65] Q. According to this explanation then why by whole grains did we need to resort, in the latter opinion brought in the previous Halacha, that it is only permitted because of the reasons explained in chapter 517, when in essence the reason is explained here in this Halacha?!
[66] based on 517:3
[67] Piskeiy Teshuvos 310:2
[68] Based on Sheivet Haleivi 3:29 which rules that in case of great loss one can be lenient to rely on the opinion of the Beis Meir that Muktzah is always permitted to be moved in a case of great loss, as according to the Taz all raw meat is anyways not considered Muktzah due to it being fit for dogs to eat.
[69] Admur 310:2; 328:43; Michaber 310:2; 328:38
[70] Admur 309:10
[71] Shabbos Kehalacha Vol. 1 p. 147
[72] Admur 338:9; Michaber
[73] Admur 338:9; Michaber 338:8; Mishneh Berura 338:30; Beir Moshe 3:20; Har Tzevi 3 Soser
Background:
Admur 338:9 and Michaber 338:8 state 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.
Other opinions: The Peri Megadim Introduction to Hilchos Yom Tov 29 rules that rain is considered Muktzah due to Nolad Gamur. The Beir Moshe ibid questions this ruling, brining many proofs against it.
[74] 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.
[75] M”B 338:30
[76] M”B ibid
[77] Rav SZ”A in SSH”K 16:44 footnote 110; Beir Moshe 6:30; Har Tzevi Kuntrus of 39 Melachos “Soser”, and so is implied from other Poskim which deal with the question of making snowballs on Shabbos.
[78] M”B 338:30
[79] Igros Moshe 5:22-37; The Peri Megadim Introduction to Hilchos Yom Tov 29 rules that snow that fell on Shabbos is considered Muktzah due to Nolad Gamur. The Beir Moshe ibid questions this ruling, bringing many proofs against it.
[80] Admur 308:8
[81] Vetzaruch Iyun as in 308:10 it is listed as a separate category. As well in the Ketzos Hashulchan the laws of inedible foods and Muktzah Machmas Gufo are each given a separate chapter.
[82] Admur ibid based on the law by Chamtez, brought in sources in next footnote
[83] Michaber:Rama 446:1; Admur 446:5 and 444:13; M”B 446:5
[84] Admur ibid; M”A 446:3 in name of Beis Yosef in name of Rivash 401
[85] Admur ibid based on Beitza 21b
Stam Yayin is any wine of a gentile which one does not know if the gentile used it as libation for idols. Such wine is only Rabbinically prohibited. To note however from Yoreh Deah chapter 123 that there are opinions today that permit stam yayin in benefit, and thus seemingly according to those opinions the wine is not Muktzah, if designated for animals.
[86] Admur ibid based on Shabbos 126b and 128a regarding tevel
[87] Admur ibid; Gemara ibid; M”A 515:3; Tevel is any food which did not have its tithes removed from it. Although Tevel is not forbidden in all benefit, as it is permitted to sell Tevel [Yore Deah 331:117], nevertheless it is forbidden in benefits that destroy the Tevel, such as feeding it to an animal [See 331:88] and hence has no purpose on Shabbos.
[88] Admur 524:1 with exception to one who kneads dough on Yom Tov itself in which case Challah may be separated [506:5]
[89] Admur ibid; M”A 515:2; Based on Admur 308:68; M”A 308:56; M”B 308:125
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the food is able to be eaten by a dog, then even if it is not designated for this purpose, it is not Muktzah. [Taz 308:20; Elya Raba brought in Beir Heiytiv 308:37]
[90] Lit. Neveilas and Treifus. This refers to two different types of invalidations which can prohibit meat from being allowed to be eaten, and thus deem them non-Kosher. A Niveila is an invalidation that occurred in the slaughtering, while a Treifa is an invalidation which occurred in the animal before the slaughtering and had jeopardized the health of the animal.
[91] As explained in Michaber 308:29; Admur 308:64-65; So is implied from 308:9 from the mentioning of dogs in the explanation of why it is not Muktzah. However Tzaruch Iyun as in truth even if no dogs are found it should not be Muktzah as one can sell them to gentiles, as was similarly mentioned regarding Chadash here in 308:9 and regarding Chametz in 444:13. Perhaps one can answer that only by Chadash and Chametz does it help that it is on the market for gentiles, as being that it will eventually become permitted it retains the status of food merchandise which is not Muktzah, as will be explained below. However when the food is forbidden to be eaten forever by a Jew, as is the case by Niveila, then even when it is up for the food market it remains Muktzah, as since it is not edible for any Jew at any time it is considered like non-food merchandise which is MMC”K. Therefore only if there are animals available is the meat considered not to be Muktzah.
[92] Admur ibid; Tosefta 15:8
[93] Chadash are all grains of the 5 grains which had rooted into the ground after the previous Pesach, and are forbidden to be eaten until the next Pesach comes.
[94] In the land of Israel the laws of Chadash are more strict.
[95] Admur 308:89; M”A 308:79; M”B 308:170
[96] Admur 611:8-9
[97] See 611 that it is permitted from the letter of the law to prepare food for after the fast, as well as to feed it to children and touch it, thus proving that it is not Muktzah.
- Why is the food on Yom Kippur not considered Muktzah being that it has no use, similar to all inedible foods which have a status of Muktzah, and like is the law of chameitz on Yom Tov of Pesach, that the reason why we do not allow it to be burnt if found on Yom Tov is because it has status of Muktzah?
- By Pesach the chameitz is forbidden in pleasure forever, thus it literally has no use. Furthermore chameitz is forbidden to everyone, even children. However on Yom Kippur a) there is no prohibition from getting pleasure from the food thus the food still has a use (like to be sold), b) It is only forbidden for that day, and thus will once again have an edible use. C) Is permitted to be eaten by under Mitzvah age, and thus has an edible use on Yom Kippur itself.
- Nevertheless why shouldn’t the food be still be considered Muktzah Machmas Issur?
- Perhaps only an item which is a general Issur for all can be considered MM”I, however if it remains permitted for some (like children) then it’s not Muktzah. As well perhaps only items which can lead to desecrate the Melachas of Shabbos have a status of Muktzah Machmas Issur, and not items that can lead to transgress other prohibitions irrelevant to Melacha.
[98] Meaning even if after Shabbos it will become permitted, such as is the case by Tevel after it is tithed, nevertheless on Shabbos it is Muktzah.
[99] As opposed to food which is forbidden for one Jew and permitted to another, such as wine for a Nazir, which is not Muktzah. [308:89]
[100] Admur 308:9
[101] However if it will only become permitted for one to eat after much time, such as Chadash grains, then it is not Muktzah as it is commonly sold for fodder and to gentiles.
[102] Admur 308:65
[103] Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:33 which lists Tevel as not Muktzah since it can be given to a gentile, as Admur explicitly rules it is Muktzah. So rules also SSH”K 20:31 which he cites as his source, that it is Muktzah. Seemingly he misunderstood SSH”K 22:54 to be referring to Tevel of a Jew, when in truth it refers to Tevel of a gentile, in which case Admur would also agree that it is not Muktzah
[104] Admur 308:9
[105] Admur 308:66
[106] Admur 308:9
[107] Admur 308:9
[108] Admur 320:3-5
[109] Admur 446:7 and Rama 446:3 regarding Chametz
[110] SSH”K 22:59; Vetzaruch Iyun as it is forbidden for a Jew to benefit from it in a way of destruction of the Tevel. Perhaps however it is different then Chametz as it is not completely forbidden in benefit.
[111] Thus it is much better than the case in 325:6 regarding flour of a gentile, as here even by Bein Hashmashos the food was ready to be eaten by the gentile.
[112] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:33
[113] Tzitz Hakodesh 1:35; So is apparent from all the early and late Achronim mentioned in Minchas Yitzchak 7:33 which do not mention it as being Muktzah.
[114] Rav Poalim 3:30; brought in Kaf Hachaim 453:17; Minchas Yitzchak 7:33; Chazon Ish 49:16; Dovev Meisharim 1:49
[115] All the early and late Achronim mentioned in Minchas Yitzchak 7:33 who do not mention it as being Muktzah; Tzitz Hakodesh 1:35; See Admur 310:4; Yechaveh Daas 2:64
Other Opinions: The Minchas Yitzchak 7:33 brings that according to some opinions Kitniyos is Muktzah on the Shabbos directly following Pesach being that it was set aside by Bein Hashmashos from being eaten. See Chazon Ish 49:16; Dovev Meisharim 1:49
[116] The reason it is not Muktza: 1) Edible Kitniyos is not Muktzah 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.]3) Even on Yom Tov itself Kitniyos is not Muktzah as it is edible for Sephardim, and is hence similar to wine of a Nazir. [Tzitz Hakodesh 1:35; See Admur 308:89; So is apparent from all the early and late Achronim mentioned in Minchas Yitzchak 7:33 which do not mention it as being Muktzah; See however Rav Poalim 3:30; brought in Kaf Hachaim 453:17; Minchas Yitzchak 7:33; Chazon Ish 49:16; Dovev Meisharim 1:49 who rule it is Mukztah on Yom Tov for Ashkenazim]
[117] Birchos Mayim [Rav Mordechai Meyuchas] 446; Or Sameiach Yom Tov 4; Makor Yisrael 104; Yechaveh Daas 2:64
[118] 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.]
[119] 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!
[120] Luach Rav Tukichinsky writes not toe at the Chametz on Shabbos
[121] Minchas Yitzchak 1:33; Dovev Meisharim 1:49
[122] It is thus similar to wine of a Nazir which is not Muktzah
[123] Biur Halacha 338:8 “Assur”
[124] Admur 310:2; Michaber 310:2
[125] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid
[126] Lit. “pushed them away with his hands from eating on Shabbos”
[127] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid
[128] Admur ibid; Levush 310:2; Beis Yosef 310; M”B 310:9
[129] See next Halacha
[130] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid
[131] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid explains that the reason is because it is both “Dachinu Beyadayim and Lo Chazu”. Admur does not make any mention of the actual words Lo Chazu in his explanation, although one can explain that this is what he means by “This is opposed to raisins and figs which one left to dry, that since one knows that they will give off bad odor [i.e. Lo Chazu], he has [therefore] removed his mind from them completely until they have completely dried out, and become processed well enough that they are fit [to be eaten] by everyone.
[132] Lit. “From after they have stayed there a little”
[133] Admur ibid; Michaber 310:5, not mentioned explicitly in Michaber 310:2
[134] Lit. “pushed them away with his hands”
[135] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid explains that the reason is because it is both “Dachinu Beyadayim and Lo Chazu”. Admur does not make any mention of the actual words Lo Chazu in his explanation, although one can explain that this is what he means by “This is opposed to raisins and figs which one left to dry, that since one knows that they will give off bad odor [i.e. Lo Chazu], he has [therefore] removed his mind from them completely until they have completely dried out, and become processed well enough that they are fit [to be eaten] by everyone.
[136] Lit. “pushes away with his hands”
[137] Admur 310:8; Michaber 310:4
[138] Admur 310:9; Michaber 310:5
[139] Admur 310:9; Michaber ibid
[140] Admur 310:3; Rama 310:2
[141] Meaning edible to some people while not edible to others.
[142] Admur ibid; M”B 310:13; not explicitly mentioned in Rama ibid that the case refers to figs that are edible to at least some people.
[143] Tzaruch Iyun on the meaning of this, as if literally taken, then it’s not understood why when the raisins owned by a Jew in a way that it is edible to some, do we say that it is Muktzah. Perhaps however the idea is that by a Jew so long as it is not ready for all, the Jew sets it aside from his mind, while by a gentile so long as it is edible for some his mind is on it, in which case we say since it is ready for the gentile therefore it is ready for all.
[144] Admur 310:3
[145] Halacha 3 of the Shulchan Aruch of the Michaber. This chapter of the Alter Rebbe is not in print.
The Mishneh Berurah [322:8] explains that the reason why fruits which have fallen, or even questionably have fallen from their tree on Shabbos is Muktzah is because a) The sages forbade them from being eaten lest one come to actually pick the fruits from the tree. B) Since they were attached to the ground before Shabbos one has removed his mind from them and they are thus Muktzah.
[146] Admur 310:3
[147] Now, even though all animals are Muktzah on Shabbos, whether trapped or not, as already explained in chapter 308 Halacha 78, nevertheless here the novelty is that if it was not in one’s mind from before Shabbos then it remains Muktzah even a) on Yom Tov when slaughtering an animal is permitted, and animals thus are not considered Muktzah [as is explained in chapter 497] and b) even if on Shabbos the animal was slaughtered [such as for a sick person] or died and now became fit for dogs to eat, it remains Muktzah, even though in general it is now no longer Muktzah.
[148] Admur 308:8
[149] Regarding if street animals and birds are taken into account for commonly found animals, or only animals which are raised in homes are taken into account, see Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:22 which brings a dispute on this matter amongst today’s Poskim. To note that from the wording of Admur 308:64 that “such as for example sea-squill[149] that is only edible for deer, and mustard that is only edible for doves, are permitted to be moved in an area that deer and doves are commonly found, meaning, that it is an area where it is usual for the common-folk to raise them and they are accustomed [in doing this]” it is implied that street animals are not taken into account, and only home raised animals are included in the definition of commonly found.
According to all if an animal is not commonly found on the streets then it is only considered commonly found if it is raised by the common folk of one’s area. If it is only raised by wealthy people it is not considered commonly found. [308:64]
To note that the Mishneh Berurah 308:119 writes that it is commonly found if it is raised by majority of people. However the Minchas Yitzchak [7:16] rules that the M”B himself did not mean this literally and simply sated majority in order to contrast it being raised only by the wealthy.
[150] Admur 308:64
[151] Meaning even if after Shabbos it will become permitted, such as is the case by Tevel after it is tithed, nevertheless on Shabbos it is Muktzah.
[152] As opposed to food which is forbidden for one Jew and permitted to another, such as wine for a Nazir, which is not Muktzah. [308:89]
[153] Admur 308:9
[154] However if it will only become permitted for one to eat after much time, such as Chadash grains, then it is not Muktzah as it is commonly sold for fodder and to gentiles.
[155] Admur 308:65
[156] Admur 310:2
[157] Admur 310:3
[158] Admur 310:9
[159] Admur 310:3
[160] Admur 310:3
[161] Chapter 308 Halacha 8
[162] Az Nidbaru 9:24
[163] Az Nidbaru 9:24 as it is not common to eat them raw.
[164] M”B
[165] M”B
[166] Admur 308:68
[167] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:25
[168] Admur 308:69
[169] Admur 308:68
[170] Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:33 which lists Tevel as not Muktzah since it can be given to a gentile, as Admur explicitly rules it is Muktzah. So rules also SSH”K 20:31 which he cites as his source, that it is Muktzah. Seemingly he misunderstood SSH”K 22:54 to be referring to Tevel of a Jew, when in truth it refers to Tevel of a gentile, in which case Admur would also agree that it is not Muktzah
[171] Admur 308:9
[172] Admur 308:66
[173] Admur 308:9
[174] Admur 308:9
[175] Admur 320:3-5
[176] Admur 308:65
[177] Admur 308:60
[178] Admur 308:60
[179] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:23
[180] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:23
[181] So seems Pashut from Admur and so rules a noted Posek brought in appendix of Piskeiy Teshuvos.
[182] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:23
[183] SSH”K 16:10
[184] So rules Minchas Shabbos 88:16. See there regarding if one was sick before Shabbos and thus knew that medicine would be needed on Shabbos if even healthy people may move it for themselves.
[185] Admur 308:9
[186] Admur 325:6; 333:1; 336:17; 517:3.
In 325:6 the Alter Rebbe says that actual kernels are not Muktzah as opposed to when they have been ground to flour in which case they are Muktzah.
[187] Even if it died on Shabbos [324:5, see above Halacha 3L]
[188] So is implied from 308:9 from the mentioning of dogs in the explanation of why it is not Muktzah. However Tzaruch Iyun as in truth even if no dogs are found it should not be Muktzah as one can sell them to gentiles, as was similarly mentioned regarding Chadash.
[189] Admur 308:9
[190] Admur 308:69
[191] Admur 308:68
[192] Admur 308:64
[193] Admur 308:64
[194] Admur 308:60
[195] Admur 308:60
[196] Admur 308:89
[197] Admur 308:66
[198] Admur 611:8-9
[199] 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.
[200] Vetzaruch Iyun as for what is collected rainwater used for in today’s time? Should it thus be considered Muktzah?
[201] 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
However the Peri Megadim Introduction to Hilchos Yom Tov 29 rules that rain is considered Muktzah due to Nolad.
[202] Admur 308:36; Michaber 308:10
[203] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid
[204] Admur ibid [not mentioned in Michaber ibid or M”B] based on Admur 308:53 and Michaber 308:22; M”B 308:92
[205] Admur 308:37; Michaber 308:10
[206] A dus pit is a pit that has a wall surrounding it, while a Bor pit does not have anything surrounding it, and is rather just a hole in the ground. [See Baba Basra 64a and Rashi there] In Chapter 587:1 the Alter Rebbe explains that a Dus is any building which majority of its space is underground level. However if only minority of it is under ground level, then it has the same law as a house.
[207] The reason that by a pit cover must contain a handle, inaddition to being desiganetd as a vessel, is in order to remove a building and destroying prohibition involved in opening and closing the pit, as the handle proves that the cover is made to be constantly entered and removed. [M”B 308:42 based on Rashi and Peri Megadim]
[208] Seemingly the Tanur of the Alter Rebbes times were built just like a Dos pit, that one first digs a certain depth into the ground, and then builds walls to surround it and uses that inside space as an oven. Thus since the inside of the oven also contains underground space, it is considered a dus. However the ovens of the old days were built completely separately with a clay or metal bottom, and only then were they attached to the ground.
[209] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:13; SSH”K 23 footnote 28
[210] Admur 308:48; Michaber 308:17
[211] Admur 308:50; Michaber 308:20
[212] Admur 308:51; Michaber 308:20
[213] Admur 308:51; M”A ; M”B 308:92
[214] Admur 308:52; Michaber 308:21; M”A 308:40; M”B 308:90
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that stones for sitting have the same law as do palm branches. [Rama ibid] Admur and the above Poskim ibid negate this opinion.
[215] Rashi Tractate Shabbos 125b
[216] Admur 308:53; Michaber 308:22
[217] M”B 08
[218] In Chapter 309 Halacha 3 it is explained that when a stone is attached strongly to become part of a vessel, then it is permitted to be moved [for any purpose], even if it has not been designated for this use forever.
[219] Admur 308:53
[220] Admur 308:54
[221] Admur 308:55
[222] Lit. a branch
[223] Meaning out from the area where all the reeds have been fixed into.
[224] Admur 308:56
[225] Admur 308:57
[226] Admur 308:3
[227] Admur 308:58
[228] Tanning is the leather making process. Prior to tanning the skin is not durable and is susceptible to decompose. The tanning process uses different chemicals and materials to strengthen the skin so that it becomes impossible to ever decompose.
[229] This refers to large animals with tough meat and skin, such as a cow and an ox.
[230] This refers to smaller animals, such as a sheep and a goat.
[231] Admur 308:59
[232] Admur 308:77
[233] Back in the day earth was commonly used to cover filth that was on ones dirt floor, as most floors regardless were not tiled and were themselves made of earth.
[234] As was common to be done back then when the floors were dirt floors.
[235] Vetzaruch Iyun as sand is a material which adds heat which is forbidden to insulate with, as explained in chapter 257, and it was never explained there that raw fruits may be insulated with material that adds heat.
[236] Admur 308:83; Michaber and Rama 308:45
[237] Michaber ibid
[238] Admur ibid; M”A 308:72; Levush 308:45; M”B 308:157
[239] Rama ibid; Tosafus Beitza 12
[240] In other printings it says “Public domain”, however this version makes no sense as it is forbidden to carry in a public domain. Thus the Rebbe says [in Igeres Hakodesh 3 page 27-28] that the correct version is “private domain”. To note that the Ketzos Hashulchan 110 footnote 16 explains: On Shabbos they allow to play ball in a private domain, and on Yom Tov even in a public domain.
[241] M”B 308:158; Ketzos Hashulchan 110 footnote 16; See Admur 339:6
[242] Admur ibid; Rama ibid
[243] The city of Tur Shimon was destroyed, according to one opinion, for the sin of playing ball on Shabbos, which according to the lenient opinion means due to the sin of using their Shabbos for ball playing instead of learning Torah. [Yerushalmi Taanis 4:5; Ketzos Hashulchan 110 footnote 16]
[244] Ketzos Hashulchan 110 footnote 16; Taz 518:2 writes in name of Rashal that it is a wonderment that playing ball is allowed on Yom Tov when in truth it is a game of children and not meant for adults. Thus he rules that it is an evil custom for adults to spend their time playing ball, and “if I had the power I would nullify it”.
The Ketzos Hashulchan explains how even during the week ball playing is to be avoided, as it is a mere women’s game being that they are not obligated in learning Torah, as well as that some of the games are taken from the gentiles.
[245] Ketzos Hashulchan 110 footnote 16
[246] Yesod Yeshurun 4 page 270; Betzeil Hachachmah 4:92; Beir Moshe 2:20
[247] Ketzos Hashulchan ibid in name of Mishneh Berurah 308:158.
[248] Mishneh Berurah 308:158
[249] SSH”K 16:6
[250] Beir Moshe 2:27; Ketzos Hashulchan 110 footnote 16 that it was only allowed to play ball on Shabbos occasionally and not on a steady basis as doing so is a belittling of Shabbos.
[251] SSH”K 16:13; Piskeiy Teshuvos 314:6
[252] SSH”K 16 footnote 30
[253] Admur 308:84
[254] According to Rashi the term “Atzilav” refers to ones armpit, while according to Tosafus it refers to ones elbow. [See Nidah 30b]
Vetzaruch Iyun as it was explained above in Halacha 3 that one may move Muktzah in an irregular fashion.
[255] Lit. the seed, or egg. However seemingly it is referring to the cocoon of the silk worm, which looks similar to a seed and egg.
[256] The silkworm is a larva [caterpillar] which produces silk, and is the main source of silk textiles which are manufactured. As the larva develops it produces a silk cocoon in which it hibernates in. This cocoon is made of a wrapped up string of about 1000-3000 feet.
[257] Tzaruch Iyun what this latter part is adding to the prohibition.
[258] Admur 308:85; Michaber 308:47
[259] First opinion in Michaber ibid; Rabbeinu Yerucham 13:12 84:2; Tashbatz 46; Mordechai Beitza 666 in name of Or Zarua 2 Shabbos 53
[260] Admur ibid; M”A 308:74; M”B 308:160
[261] There it is explained that it is forbidden to sit on Shatnez made of soft material, and only when it’s made of hard material is it permitted. According to this it ends up that even according to this opinion by hard material Shatnez they would agree that it is not Muktzah being that one can use it to sit on
[262] Second opinion in Michaber ibid; Mordechai ibid; Or Zarua ibid in name of Rabbenu Simcha
[263] Admur ibid; M”A 308:74
[264] As it is prohibited to wear it.
[265] Admur ibid; Elya Zuta 308:24; M”B 308:161
[266] Seemingly this means that food has more lenient laws in Muktzah then do vessels, as is seen from the fact that food may be moved even for no need at all, as opposed to vessels. Thus if by food we are stringent in this case, then certainly by vessels.
[267] A Kamiah is an item which is said to carry with it super natural powers of healing and the like. Such items can be a potion written on parchment, or an herb and the like for which are prescribed supernatural powers. The question here is can such parchment be moved on Shabbos, or do we consider it worthless.
[268] Admur 308:71
[269] Rashi Tractate Shabbos 61a
[270] Admur 308:63
[271] Admur 311:15
[272] Lit. comes
[273] Lit. to float
[274] Admur 259:1
[275] Mochin is a general term for pieces of soft material such as cotton and strings [made] of soft wool of an animal, and the scrapes of worn out clothing. It does not refer to a full item made of soft cloth.
[276] Admur 259:1
[277] Admur 310:19
[278] There it is explained that even though Nolad is permitted on Shabbos, nevertheless by such a great form of Nolad, all agree that it is forbidden.
[279] 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.
[280] Admur 308:48
[281] To the point that it is not Tofeich Al Menas Lehatfiach. As otherwise the shirt itself is Muktzah. [M”B 308:62]
[282] Admur 309:3
[283] Magen Avraham. Vetzaruch Iyun as this is not written in the Gemara. [Admur]
[284] Seemingly this is referring to using the shell to draw water from a well. A stone is needed to weigh the shell into the water, as otherwise the shell will simply float on top of the water.
[285] Admur 312:9; 336:4; M”A 312:6; See Peri Megadim 312 A”A 6
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that all grass which is attached to the ground is not Muktzah. [Elya Raba and Tosefes Shabbos brought in Machatzis Hashekel 312:6; so rules also M”B 312:17; Shaar Hatziyon 336:42] According to this opinion Muktzah only applies to those things attached to the ground which had a decree of Shimush Gidulei Karka attached to it, such as fruits of a tree. However grass and the like is not forbidden due to Gidulei Karka, as explained in 336, and it is therefore also not Muktzah. However once the grass is detrachged it becomes Muktzah.
[286] Admur 494:14; M”A 494:5
[287] As rules Admur in 494:14 regarding the trees and plants brought in to the Shul for Shavuos
[288] As they have been designated for a use from before Shabbos.
[289] See Admur 336:18; 494:14; Rama 336:11; M”A 336:13; 494:5
[290] Admur 308:8; Michaber and Rama 308:7
[291] Admur 312:9; 336:4; M”A 312:6; See Peri Megadim 312 A”A 6
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that all grass which is attached to the ground is not Muktzah. [Elya Raba and Tosefes Shabbos brought in Machatzis Hashekel 312:6; so rules also M”B 312:17; Shaar Hatziyon 336:42] According to this opinion Muktzah only applies to those things attached to the ground which had a decree of Shimush Gidulei Karka attached to it, such as fruits of a tree. However, grass and the like is not forbidden due to Gidulei Karka, as explained in 336, and it is therefore also not Muktzah. However, once the grass is detached it becomes Muktzah.
[292] Admur 308:50
[293] See Admur 336:18; 494:14; M”A 336:13; 494:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 336:22
The reason: As they have been designated for a use from before Shabbos and thus have the status of a vessel. [Admur ibid]
[294] Admur 494:14; M”A 494:5
[295] Admur 308:23
[296] Meaning the Jew did not ask him to do it for him.
[297] Admur 308:78; See also 308:8; Michaber 308:39; Shabbos 43a and 128a
[298] Michaber ibid
[299] Admur ibid; Levush 308:39; M”B 308:146
[300] M”B 308:146; See Admur 334:2
[301] M”B ibid
[302] Admur 308:79; Michaber 308:40; Shabbos 128
[303] Admur ibid; Taz 308:23; M”A 308:68; M”B 308:151
[304] Admur ibid; Taz 308:23; M”A 308:68; M”B 308:151
[305] Admur ibid; Michaber 308:40
[306] M”B 308:152
[307] Admur 308:80; M”A 308:67; M”B 308:150
[308] This rule means that one carries his own weight and thus is not to be viewed within the prohibition of carrying when being carried, as the prohibition was only said by carrying items that cannot carry their own weight.
[309] Admur ibid; Tur 308; Levush 308:40
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule it is permitted to help an animal in the above method even in a Karmalis. [Beis Yosef 308; M”B 308:150]
[310] Admur 308:78; Michaber 308:39
[311] Seemingly this refers to moving the basket without restriction, as it is forbidden to move it together with the chick if one does not need to use the space under the basket, as explained in Halacha 61-62 that one must shake of the chick before carrying it. However if one does need to use the space, then it would be permitted to move the basket even together with the chick.
[312] Tzaruch Iyun on the meaning behind these words “or that they not be able to stand on it for even a second”
[313] 308:78; M”A 308:?; M”B 308:148
[314] Admur ibid and 308:79 and 305:26
[315] 1st and main opinion in Admur 305:26 regarding pain and death and Stam opinion in Admur 308:79 regarding pain
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule one may even lift the animal to save it from pain and death. [2nd opinion in Admur ibid in parentheses; M”B 305:70; Chazon Ish 52:16]
[316] Admur 308:79
[317] Admur 305:26
[318] Admur 308:78
[319] Admur 308:78
[320] Admur 308:78
[321] Admur 308:79-80
[322] Nezer Yisrael 10:3 Likkutei Rima 11 in name of Or Zarua 81; Halachos Ketanos 1:45, brought in in Minchas Shabbos 88:10; Az Nidbaru 8:36
[323] Rosh on Or Zarua 82 rules the animals are Mukztah even if one was Miyached; conclusion of Minchas Shabbos 88:10; Ketzos Hashulchan 121 footnote 4; Igros Moshe 4:16; Betzeil Hachachmah 5:33; Yabia Omer 5:26
Opinion of Admur: Admur 308:78 rules that one may not move a bird even for a child to play with. However see Az Nidbaru ibid that states this case is different, as the bird has been designated specifically for this purpose, while perhaps in the case of Admur it has not been designated, and hence according to all remains Mukztah. [Admur 305:23]
[324] The reason: As a) They are unable to be designated for a permitted use, just like dried figs and grapes may not be deeisganted while in the drying process. [Rosh ibid] b) As it is forbidden to make use of an animal on Shabbos.
[325] Ketzos Hashulchan 121 footnote 4; Rav SZ”A in SSH”K 18 footnote 62
[326] The reason for this is because the cage and aquarium are placed in one’s home for decorative purposes, it thus serves a permitted purpose on Shabbos and is thereby not Muktzah.
[327] Rosh on Or Zarua 82 rules the animals are Mukztah even if one was Miyached; conclusion of Minchas Shabbos 88:10; Igros Moshe 4:16; Betzeil Hachachmah 5:33; Yabia Omer 5:26
Opinion of Admur: Admur 308:78 rules that one may not move a bird even for a child to play with. However see Aaz Nidbaru ibid that states this case is different, as the bird has been designated specifically for this purpose, while perhaps in the acse of Admur it has not been desiganetd, and hence according to all remains Mukztah.
[328] Betzeil Hachachma ibid; SSH”K 27:28; Yabia Omer ibid
[329] Rav SZ”A 18 footnote 62; See Igros Moshe 1:45
[330] Igros Moshe 1:45
[331] Beir Moshe 6:95
[332] Due to the carrying prohibition which not all are familiar with.
[333] Due to the Muktzah prohibition which not all are familiar with.
[334] However, they may be moved with an irregularity, as is the law by all Muktzah. [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 Mukztah; M”B 276:31; 308:13 and 81 and 88; 311:30; 1st opinion in Chayeh Adam; Derech Hachayim; 1st opinion in Aruch Hashulchan 311:20; Kaf Hachaim 311:68 [although brings strict opinion in 69].
[335] Admur 308:78; See also 308:8; Michaber 308:39; Shabbos 43a and 128a
The reason: As they have no use on Shabbos when they are alive. [Admur ibid; Levush 308:39; Maggid Mishneh 25:25]
[336] Admur 308:78; Tosafus Shabbos 45a
The reason: This can be understood in one of two ways: 1) It is Muktzah because it was not designated for this purpose before Shabbos, and hence is similar to deciding on Shabbos to use a stone for a certain purpose. Or 2) It is Muktzah because it usually has no use on Shabbos, and hence the Sages did not create any ability of designation from before Shabbos, similar to figs and raisins that are in the drying process, which can never be designated. [See Admur 310:2 and 9] The practical ramification of the two reasons is in a case that one did designate the animal before Shabbos, as will be explained.
[337] 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 Mukztah 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]
[338] Admur 305:23; Michaber 305:18; Misneh Beitza 36b
[339] Halachos Ketanos 1:45, brought in in Minchas Shabbos 88:10; Nezer Yisrael 10:3 in Likkutei Rima 11 in name of Maharach Or Zarua 81 [Or Zarua later retracts his ruling in 82]; Tosafus Shabbos 45b in name of Rav Yosef [Tosafus ibid later rejects this approach]; Minchas Shabbos 88:10 in name of Pachad Yitzchak; Igros Moshe 5:22-21 [contradicts himself in 4:16]; See Betzel Hachochma 5:33-34; Az Nidbaru 8:36; 9:27
[340] The reason: As any Muktzah item which has been designated for a permitted use on Shabbos seizes to be Muktzah [see Admur 308:50-53] and there is no reason to not apply the same rule for animals, and hence if the animal has been designated for a permitted use, such as for a decorative purpose or for entertainment, then it is not considered Muktzah.
[341] Hagahos Rav Akiva Eiger 308:17; Tosafus Shabbos 45b “They are Muktzah like dates and figs” and dates and figs can never be designated; Rosh, brought in Or Zarua 82 “My Heart does not allow me to permit moving the chirping birds, as animals have a different law than vessels [Rules animals are Muktzah even if one was Miyached them, such as to serve as chirping birds]; Conclusion of Maharach Or Zarua 82 like the Rosh, as he was a known Posek; Conclusion of Minchas Shabbos 88:10; Orchos Chaim 308:24; Daas Torah 308; Kaf Hachaim 308:235; Igros Moshe 4:16 [contradicts himself in 5:22]; Yabia Omer 5:26; SSH”K 27 footnote 96 in name of Rav SZ”A; See Ketzos Hashulchan 121 footnote 4 regarding fish; See Betzeil Hachachmah 5:33;
Opinion of Admur: Admur 308:78 rules that one may not move a bird even to entertain a child. This ruling is based on Tosafus ibid who rules that animals are like figs and raisings in the drying process which are Muktzah even if designated. This would seem to imply that according to Admur one cannot designate animals for a use on Shabbos. Furthermore, from the fact Admur omits writing the ability of designating an animal, also seems to reveal his intent in the above words, that it comes to refer even to a case that the animal is designated. On the other hand, however, one can infer from the words “since they have no use on Shabbos” that if they are designated for a use, then they are not Muktzah. Furthermore, the words “even if they are fit to entertain a child” can be inferred that it refers to a case that they were not designated. Furthermore, the logic used by Admur 310:9 to explain why figs and raisins in the drying process always remain Muktzah does not fit with the case of animals, as figs and grapes in the drying process have absolutely no use and therefore cannot be designated for anything, while animals have the use of a pet. [See Az Nidbaru ibid who in truth learns this case is different, as the bird has been designated specifically for this purpose, while perhaps in the case of Admur it has not been designated, and hence according to all remains Mukztah.] Vetzaruch Iyun!
[342] The reason: As a) They are unable to be designated for a permitted use, just like dried figs and grapes may not be designated while in the drying process. [See Tosafus ibid; Rosh ibid] b) As it is forbidden to make use of an animal on Shabbos, and the Sages did not differentiate in their decree. [Rosh brought in Or Zarua ibid; See Admur 305:23]
[343] Minchas Shabbos 308:80; Az Nidbaru 8:36; 9:27; Beir Moshe 2:28; Yabia Omer 5:26; Piskeiy Teshuvos 305:5 and 308:54
[344] Minchas Shabbos 88:10 in name of Pachad Yitzchak; Az Nidbaru ibid
[345] See Admur 2305:23 and Poskim ibid that petting is included in the prohibition of making use of animals
[346] See 308:79; Michaber 308:40; Shabbos 128
[347] Betzeil Hachachma ibid; SSH”K 27:28; Yabia Omer ibid
[348] Chapter 308 Halacha 8
[349] Admur 308:89
[350] This rule however only applies by objects which are unusable to the owner due to their being degrading in his eyes. However if it is unusable due to it being forbidden for him to use, such as he made a vow against using it, then nevertheless it remains not Muktzah for all, including the owner. [308:89]
[351] Admur 308:8
[352] Regarding if street animals and birds are taken into account for commonly found animals, or only animals which are raised in homes are taken into account, see Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:22 which brings a dispute on this matter amongst today’s Poskim. To note that from the wording of Admur 308:64 that “such as for example sea-squill[352] that is only edible for deer, and mustard that is only edible for doves, are permitted to be moved in an area that deer and doves are commonly found, meaning, that it is an area where it is usual for the common-folk to raise them and they are accustomed [in doing this]” it is implied that street animals are not taken into account, and only home raised animals are included in the definition of commonly found.
According to all if an animal is not commonly found on the streets then it is only considered commonly found if it is raised by the common folk of one’s area. If it is only raised by wealthy people it is not considered commonly found. [308:64]
To note that the Mishneh Berurah 308:119 writes that it is commonly found if it is raised by majority of people. However the Minchas Yitzchak [7:16] rules that the M”B himself did not mean this literally and simply sated majority in order to contrast it being raised only by the wealthy.
[353] Admur 308:64
[354] Meaning even if after Shabbos it will become permitted, such as is the case by Tevel after it is tithed, nevertheless on Shabbos it is Muktzah.
[355] As opposed to food which is forbidden for one Jew and permitted to another, such as wine for a Nazir, which is not Muktzah. [308:89]
[356] Admur 308:9
[357] However if it will only become permitted for one to eat after much time, such as Chadash grains, then it is not Muktzah as it is commonly sold for fodder and to gentiles.
[358] Admur 308:65
[359] Admur 310:2
[360] Admur 310:3
[361] Admur 310:9
[362] Admur 310:3
[363] Admur 310:3
[364] M”B 308:93 explains that it does not have to be verbalized
[365] Admur 308:53; Michaber 308:22; Ketzos Hashulchan 110:5
[366] Admur 308:50 and 52-53; Michaber 308:22
[367] Admur 308:36 and 51 and 53; Michaber 308:10 [regarding covers] and 20 [regarding palm branches]; Biur Halacha 308:22 “Beyichud”
[368] Admur 308:36 [regarding if used in the past]; 50-51 and 53 [regarding both if used in the past or designated for temporary use]; 1st opinion in Michaber 308:22; Biur Halacha 308:22 “Beyichud” that using in past has same law as temporarily designating
Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it never helps to temporarily designate an item for a use. [2nd opinion in Michaber] The M”B 308:96 concludes that in a time of need one may be lenient.
[369] Admur ibid 36 [regarding if used in the past] and 53 [regarding both if used in the past or designated for temporary use]; Michaber 308:22
[370] Admur 308:36; 52-53; Michaber 308:21 and 22
[371] Admur 308:52-53; omitted from Admur 308:36; omitted from Michaber ibid or M”B ibid; This novelty of Admur is discussed in Tehila Ledavid 308:30 and explained in Minchas Yitzchak 5:129 and 8:23
What is considered an action which shows a use for the object? In 308:52 it says regarding setting aside stones for sitting, that they need a great action to show their use. It is not enough to rub them rather one must set them up. In 308:53 however, it says, that any Tikun or action is enough for a non-Keli. Possibly one can say the concept of a great action would only apply to stones as their use will not be noticeable without a great action
[372] Admur 308:3; 259:1
[373] Admur 308:23
[374] Admur 308:78
[375] Admur 308:78
[376] Admur 308:78
[377] Admur 308:79-80
[378] Admur 259:1
[379] Admur 259:1
[380] Admur 308:78
[381] Admur 308:85
[382] Admur 308:84
[383] Admur 308:58
[384] Admur 312:9; 336:4
[385] Chapter 308 Halacha 8
[386] Az Nidbaru 9:24
[387] Az Nidbaru 9:24 as it is not common to eat them raw.
[388] M”B
[389] M”B
[390] Admur 308:68
[391] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:25
[392] Admur 308:69
[393] Admur 308:68
[394] Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:33 which lists Tevel as not Muktzah since it can be given to a gentile, as Admur explicitly rules it is Muktzah. So rules also SSH”K 20:31 which he cites as his source, that it is Muktzah. Seemingly he misunderstood SSH”K 22:54 to be referring to Tevel of a Jew, when in truth it refers to Tevel of a gentile, in which case Admur would also agree that it is not Muktzah
[395] Admur 308:9
[396] Admur 308:66
[397] Admur 308:9
[398] Admur 308:9
[399] Admur 320:3-5
[400] Admur 308:65
[401] Admur 308:60
[402] Admur 308:60
[403] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:23
[404] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:23
[405] So seems Pashut from Admur and so rules a noted Posek brought in appendix of Piskeiy Teshuvos.
[406] Piskeiy Teshuvos 308:23
[407] SSH”K 16:10
[408] So rules Minchas Shabbos 88:16. See there regarding if one was sick before Shabbos and thus knew that medicine would be needed on Shabbos if even healthy people may move it for themselves.
[409] Admur 308:9
[410] Admur 325:6; 333:1; 336:17; 517:3.
In 325:6 the Alter Rebbe says that actual kernels are not Muktzah as opposed to when they have been ground to flour in which case they are Muktzah.
[411] Even if it died on Shabbos [324:5, see above Halacha 3L]
[412] So is implied from 308:9 from the mentioning of dogs in the explanation of why it is not Muktzah. However Tzaruch Iyun as in truth even if no dogs are found it should not be Muktzah as one can sell them to gentiles, as was similarly mentioned regarding Chadash.
[413] Admur 308:9
[414] Admur 308:69
[415] Admur 308:68
[416] Admur 308:64
[417] Admur 308:64
[418] Admur 308:58
[419] Admur 308:60
[420] Admur 308:60
[421] Admur 308:89
[422] Admur 308:66
[423] Admur 611:8-9
[424] Admur 308:83
[425] Admur 308:71
[426] Admur 310:19
[427] Admur 308:59
[428] M”B 303:74
[429] 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.
[430] Vetzaruch Iyun as for what is collected rainwater used for in today’s time? Should it thus be considered Muktzah?
[431] 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
However the Peri Megadim Introduction to Hilchos Yom Tov 29 rules that rain is considered Muktzah due to Nolad.
[432] Admur 308:55
[433] Admur 308:50
[434] Admur 309:3
[435] In which case it may be used for that use only and may not be moved for any other use.
[436] Admur 308:53
[437] Admur 308:48
[438] Sheivet Haleivi 5:40
[439] Admur 308:36
[440] Admur 308:37
[441] Admur 308:52
[442] In which case it may be used for that use only and may not be moved for any other use.
[443] Chapter 259 Halacha 1; Mochin is a general term for pieces of soft material such as cotton and strings [made] of soft wool of an animal, and the scrapes of worn out clothing
[444] Admur 259:1
[445] Admur 308:63; 311:15
[446] Admur 308:77
[447] Admur 308:56
[448] Even if one did not actually yet use it before Shabbos, and even if one did not designate it to be forever used as a bandage but rather simply for that Shabbos alone. It thus goes without saying that if one designated it to be forever used as a bandage that it is no longer Muktzah.
[449] Admur 308:57
[450] Even if one did not actually yet use it before Shabbos, and even if one did not designate it to be forever used as a toupee but rather simply for that Shabbos alone. It thus goes without saying that if one designated it to be forever used as a toupee that it is no longer Muktzah.
[451] Admur 308:54
[452] Due to decree that if one were to attach it on Shabbos he may come to cut it in order to adjust it and thus transgress the prohibition of fixing a vessel.
[453] Admur 308:48 as explained in 308:53
[454] Admur 494:14
[455] Ketzos Hashulchan 108 footnote 8
The reason: As he holds that the buttons are considered a vessel being that they are designated for a specific use. Alternatively, another reason can be brought from Admur 308:6 regarding paper that rules only if one is particular not to use the Toras Keli for other purposes does it revert back to MMG, hence implying that if one is not particular then it retains its Toras Keli status. So is also implied from Admur 308:3 regarding pieces of wool designated for sale-see there! Vetzaruch Iyun from Admur 308:35 regarding the door of a house which also has a Toras Keli and is nevertheless Muktzah. Perhaps however one can say the difference is that a button is considered an actual vessel, while a door is only considered Toras Keli and not an actual vessel. So is also proven from the fact that Admur in 308:6 only writes regarding paper that it reverts to MM”G if it is designated for a forbidden use on Shabbos and one is particular, in contrast to other vessels which arte MMCK which do not become MMG.
[456] Minchas Shabbos 88:2
[457] Admur 308:6 regarding paper; Rama 658:2 and M”B 658:4
Other Poskim: Some Poskim rule that a Lulav has the status of MMI and is hence permitted to be moved for its space and use on Shabbos, just like the law by Shofar. [Taz 658:3]
The ruling by the door of a house: and 308:35 regarding the door of a house that came out of its hinges
[458] Admur ibid regarding paper, hence implying that if one is not particular it retains its Toras Keli; and so comes out from the ruling of the Taz 558:2 regarding a Lulav on Shabbos Chol Hamoed that it is MMI. However see M”B 558:4 from which it is implied that even if one is not particular against using it for anything lese, nevertheless since it is not an actual vessel it is MMG.
[459] Admur 308:3
[460] SSH”K 16:4
[461] As the sand is designated for playing with.
[462] See Admur 301:39; Kuntrus Achron 301:10; Rama 301:32 regarding making a hole in coins so they are no longer Muktzah; M”A 301:45; M”B 303:74 [Is not Muktzah if designated forever, even if hole is not made]; Chazon Ish 42:13 [argues that is Muktzah]; Minchas Shabbos 86:29 discusses Rebbe coins worn as necklace in area without Eiruv
[463] Being that they have never yet been attached to an actual vessel, and only those items which were originally attached to a vessel retain their vessel status when detached. [Ketzos Hashulchan 109 footnote 8]
[464] Ketzos Hashulchan ibid. As he holds that the buttons are considered a vessel being that they are designated for a specific use.
[465] Minchas Shabbos 88:2
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.