The Global Yeshiva
Get More Enthusiasm for Your Judaism!
Muktza Simon 309
SEIF 1
CARRYING A CHILD WITH A ROCK IN HIS HAND
A father can carry his son that has a longing him (and might get sick if he doesn't hold him,) even if he has a rock in his hand. (The Tosfos Shabbos says this Heter only applies in a R'Shus Hayachid but not in a R'shus Harabim. Carrying the child would be as tantamount as carrying the rock.)
Rashi explains the Heter that the Rabanan allowed the moving of Muktza indirectly (not holding it with his hands) when it might bring on sickness otherwise. Magen Avraham quotes Tosfos that the reason that we don't require to knock the rock out of the son's hands before he picks him up because that would result in a crying fit. The Mishna Brurah adds, since we only permit moving the Muktza not with your own hands, if the son drops the rock, you cannot pick it up for him, because that will be moving the rock with your hands. Rather, he should lower his son, let him take the rock and then lift him again.
CARRYING A CHILD WITH A ROCK IN HIS HAND
A father can carry his son that has a longing him (and might get sick if he doesn't hold him,) even if he has a rock in his hand. (The Tosfos Shabbos says this Heter only applies in a R'Shus Hayachid but not in a R'shus Harabim. Carrying the child would be as tantamount as carrying the rock.)
Rashi explains the Heter that the Rabanan allowed the moving of Muktza indirectly (not holding it with his hands) when it might bring on sickness otherwise. Magen Avraham quotes Tosfos that the reason that we don't require to knock the rock out of the son's hands before he picks him up because that would result in a crying fit. The Mishna Brurah adds, since we only permit moving the Muktza not with your own hands, if the son drops the rock, you cannot pick it up for him, because that will be moving the rock with your hands. Rather, he should lower his son, let him take the rock and then lift him again.
SEIF 1 (CONTINUED)
CARRYING A CHILD WITH A COIN IN HIS HAND
Though we permitted carrying your son with a rock in his hand, we don't permit carrying him with a coin in his hands. We're afraid that the father cares about the whereabouts of the coin and would retrieve it if it fell from the son's hand.
Rashi says that not only can't you hold him, but you cannot even hold his hand while he's holding a coin. Since the problem is not because you're considered moving Muktza, but maybe you'll retrieve it if it fell, and this applies to holding the son's hand as well. The Ramban asks that if this was so they should prohibit looking at a child holding a coin or at least not to stand within his four Amos, since he might see the coin fall and retrieve it? So the Ramban says that we only prohibit holding the child while the coin is in his hand. Since we already gave a leniency to hold the boy holding the Muktza he'll extrapolate to permit carrying the coin when it fell, since he cares about the coin.
The Bach Paskins that we should be stringent like Shitas Rashi. The Elya Rabbah says that we can be lenient since the Ramban is enough to rely on when it might come to the sickness of the child. Also, since the Ramban is a later authority, we usually side with them and the Ran quotes him.
CARRYING A CHILD WITH A COIN IN HIS HAND
Though we permitted carrying your son with a rock in his hand, we don't permit carrying him with a coin in his hands. We're afraid that the father cares about the whereabouts of the coin and would retrieve it if it fell from the son's hand.
Rashi says that not only can't you hold him, but you cannot even hold his hand while he's holding a coin. Since the problem is not because you're considered moving Muktza, but maybe you'll retrieve it if it fell, and this applies to holding the son's hand as well. The Ramban asks that if this was so they should prohibit looking at a child holding a coin or at least not to stand within his four Amos, since he might see the coin fall and retrieve it? So the Ramban says that we only prohibit holding the child while the coin is in his hand. Since we already gave a leniency to hold the boy holding the Muktza he'll extrapolate to permit carrying the coin when it fell, since he cares about the coin.
The Bach Paskins that we should be stringent like Shitas Rashi. The Elya Rabbah says that we can be lenient since the Ramban is enough to rely on when it might come to the sickness of the child. Also, since the Ramban is a later authority, we usually side with them and the Ran quotes him.
SEIF 2
A STONE USED TO STUFF UP A HOLE IN A UTENSIL
Someone can use a rock to stuff up a hole in the side of a utensil. He can also put a rock in a hollowed pumpkin shell to weigh it down in order to draw water. The Gemara says that he must tie it. The Magen Avraham says that by the stuffing up the hole, it doesn't need to actually be tied, but as long as its snugly fit that it's stuck into it, it is good enough. The Shaar Hatzion that even in the case of the pumpkin, if the rock is snugly fit that you don't need to tie it, but it's very improbable to get such a fit.
The Elya Rabbah wants to suggest that maybe the Gemara needs to tie the rock in the case of the pumpkin. But when the case of stuffing up a hole, since the utensil is unusable without the rock, it's considered part of the utensil even without tying. But the Bais Yosef says the reason why the Rif leaves out the case of the hole in the utensil since he relies on what he wrote by the case of the pumpkin. This implies that the cases are identical, therefore both cases needs it to be tied or the equivalent.
A STONE USED TO STUFF UP A HOLE IN A UTENSIL
Someone can use a rock to stuff up a hole in the side of a utensil. He can also put a rock in a hollowed pumpkin shell to weigh it down in order to draw water. The Gemara says that he must tie it. The Magen Avraham says that by the stuffing up the hole, it doesn't need to actually be tied, but as long as its snugly fit that it's stuck into it, it is good enough. The Shaar Hatzion that even in the case of the pumpkin, if the rock is snugly fit that you don't need to tie it, but it's very improbable to get such a fit.
The Elya Rabbah wants to suggest that maybe the Gemara needs to tie the rock in the case of the pumpkin. But when the case of stuffing up a hole, since the utensil is unusable without the rock, it's considered part of the utensil even without tying. But the Bais Yosef says the reason why the Rif leaves out the case of the hole in the utensil since he relies on what he wrote by the case of the pumpkin. This implies that the cases are identical, therefore both cases needs it to be tied or the equivalent.
SEIF 3
A BASKET HOLDING FRUIT AND A ROCK
If you have a basket full of fruit with a rock in it and you want to move it. You need to dump all the items out and gather the fruit and put them back in the basket. Since it's possible to move it by removing the rock, we don't permit it to be moved along with the fruit. The Elya Rabbah says that even though we allow to move baskets of food with some of it's refuse that is found with it, as long as the contents are mostly fruits. That's because that they're found regularly with the fruit, so it becomes part and partial with them and are Butul to them, so you don't need to dump them out to remove them. The Tosfos Shabbos explains that you need to make sure that the fruit doesn't spill all over the place, because then you're not allowed to gather them afterwards, since it's a weekday action, as we Paskin in Simon 335.
If the fruit are soft and would get dirty and ruined if dumped on the floor, the Girsa of Rashi, Rif and Rosh is that you need to try to maneuver that the rock comes up on top and you can dump the rock out by itself. the Rambam's Girsa was that you don't need to try for this, rather you may move the whole thing as is. The Mechaber says here like the Rambam, but the Rama in 310:8 quotes the Rosh that you need to try to dump out the Muktza by itself if possible.
A BASKET HOLDING FRUIT AND A ROCK
If you have a basket full of fruit with a rock in it and you want to move it. You need to dump all the items out and gather the fruit and put them back in the basket. Since it's possible to move it by removing the rock, we don't permit it to be moved along with the fruit. The Elya Rabbah says that even though we allow to move baskets of food with some of it's refuse that is found with it, as long as the contents are mostly fruits. That's because that they're found regularly with the fruit, so it becomes part and partial with them and are Butul to them, so you don't need to dump them out to remove them. The Tosfos Shabbos explains that you need to make sure that the fruit doesn't spill all over the place, because then you're not allowed to gather them afterwards, since it's a weekday action, as we Paskin in Simon 335.
If the fruit are soft and would get dirty and ruined if dumped on the floor, the Girsa of Rashi, Rif and Rosh is that you need to try to maneuver that the rock comes up on top and you can dump the rock out by itself. the Rambam's Girsa was that you don't need to try for this, rather you may move the whole thing as is. The Mechaber says here like the Rambam, but the Rama in 310:8 quotes the Rosh that you need to try to dump out the Muktza by itself if possible.
SEIF 3 (CONTINUED)
A BASKET WITH FRUIT AND A ROCK (PART 2)
Tosfos asks: Why do we allow to move the basket with the soft fruit with the rock? Why are you not obligated to remove the fruit and carry it individually? Doesn't the Mishna that allows moving Truma Tamai (which is not usable on Shabbos) along with Truma Tohora (which is usable on Shabbos) in the same basket and R' Chisda says only if the Tamai are on top, but if the Tohar were on top, then you remove the Tahorim from the basket?
Tosfos answers that they're referring to that the Truma were put in small baskets in the big basket. The Magen Avraham understands the answer, since they're in their own baskets, it's not a burden to carry them by themselves. Tosfos Shabbos asks that the Mahrshal learns Tosfos differently. He learns that since the soft fruit will get dirty if they fell, so we don't say to move them by themselves only if they're in their own baskets that we don't have to worry they'll fall. The Machatzis Hashekel explains the Magen Avraham that he also held that the problem was that we're afraid the fruit will fall and get dirty. He's not particularly worried about the burden, since we anyhow say that, when the fruits are hard, to throw them down and pick them up again, even though it's burdensome to do so. He was just bothered, that if you're real careful and carry a little at a time you can make sure that it won't drop. To this the Magen Avraham is saying, to be so careful to make sure it doesn't drop is a great burden to someone, so they didn't require it.
If you need the place that the basket is on you may move the whole basket as is, even if you left the rock in there on purpose. Since the basket is both Bosis to Heter and Muktza and the Heter is worth more. The Tosfos Shabbos says that when you carry the basket and remove the fruit, you may continue moving the basket though only the rock is left in there. this is like all Muktza that once you start with a Heter to carry it, you don't need to put it down even after the Heter is gone.
A BASKET WITH FRUIT AND A ROCK (PART 2)
Tosfos asks: Why do we allow to move the basket with the soft fruit with the rock? Why are you not obligated to remove the fruit and carry it individually? Doesn't the Mishna that allows moving Truma Tamai (which is not usable on Shabbos) along with Truma Tohora (which is usable on Shabbos) in the same basket and R' Chisda says only if the Tamai are on top, but if the Tohar were on top, then you remove the Tahorim from the basket?
Tosfos answers that they're referring to that the Truma were put in small baskets in the big basket. The Magen Avraham understands the answer, since they're in their own baskets, it's not a burden to carry them by themselves. Tosfos Shabbos asks that the Mahrshal learns Tosfos differently. He learns that since the soft fruit will get dirty if they fell, so we don't say to move them by themselves only if they're in their own baskets that we don't have to worry they'll fall. The Machatzis Hashekel explains the Magen Avraham that he also held that the problem was that we're afraid the fruit will fall and get dirty. He's not particularly worried about the burden, since we anyhow say that, when the fruits are hard, to throw them down and pick them up again, even though it's burdensome to do so. He was just bothered, that if you're real careful and carry a little at a time you can make sure that it won't drop. To this the Magen Avraham is saying, to be so careful to make sure it doesn't drop is a great burden to someone, so they didn't require it.
If you need the place that the basket is on you may move the whole basket as is, even if you left the rock in there on purpose. Since the basket is both Bosis to Heter and Muktza and the Heter is worth more. The Tosfos Shabbos says that when you carry the basket and remove the fruit, you may continue moving the basket though only the rock is left in there. this is like all Muktza that once you start with a Heter to carry it, you don't need to put it down even after the Heter is gone.
SEIF 4
LEAVING MUKTZA ON HETER
If someone left a stone on a barrel or money on a bed, if it was left there by accident, then you may shake the Muktza off. If it was left there on purpose, you may not shake it off, since the Heter is Bosis to the Muktza. The Magen Avraham quotes the R' Yeruchim that allows shaking off the bed only if you need the bed and not if it's for the sake of the money. Then it would be moving Muktza indirectly (by means of a Heter object) for the sake of the Muktza, which is prohibited.
The Shaar Hatzion says how can you compare this to moving? You may not move Muktza indirectly for it's own sake, but how to you gather that you may not shake Muktza, which is weaker than moving it, for the Muktza's sake? Even R' Yeruchim can be referring only to the case of the barrel with the stone on it that you need to move the barrel to dump the stone. But the bed with the money he'll agree that it's permitted. But the Shaar Hatzion ends off saying that the implications of the Gemara that permit only shaking off seems to be going on shaking as well as moving.
LEAVING MUKTZA ON HETER
If someone left a stone on a barrel or money on a bed, if it was left there by accident, then you may shake the Muktza off. If it was left there on purpose, you may not shake it off, since the Heter is Bosis to the Muktza. The Magen Avraham quotes the R' Yeruchim that allows shaking off the bed only if you need the bed and not if it's for the sake of the money. Then it would be moving Muktza indirectly (by means of a Heter object) for the sake of the Muktza, which is prohibited.
The Shaar Hatzion says how can you compare this to moving? You may not move Muktza indirectly for it's own sake, but how to you gather that you may not shake Muktza, which is weaker than moving it, for the Muktza's sake? Even R' Yeruchim can be referring only to the case of the barrel with the stone on it that you need to move the barrel to dump the stone. But the bed with the money he'll agree that it's permitted. But the Shaar Hatzion ends off saying that the implications of the Gemara that permit only shaking off seems to be going on shaking as well as moving.
SEIF 4 (CONTINUED)
TWO LEVEL BOSIS
Rav Akiva Eiger asks: Why is the barrel of wine that has a stone on it Bosis only to the stone? Isn't the barrel also holding wine? Therefore it should be Bosis both to the wine and the stone (a Heter and an Issur) and be permitted to move.
He brings the Mekor Baruch that answers that we look at each surface of the object separately. The surface on the top of the barrel only has a rock on it, so it's completely Bosis to the rock and thus cannot be moved. The fact that the bottom of the barrel is holding wine doesn't play a factor into the Bosis status of the top of the barrel.
SHAKING A TABLE WHILE LEARNING
The Maharil allows someone to learn by a table that has money on it while he learns. Since it's you don't have intent to move the money (Davar Sheina Mischavin) and it won't definitely happen (not a P'sik Reisha,) it's permitted. The Shaar Hatzion points out that we're talking about a case where it's not going to be a great loss if you shake off the money off the table. If it would be, then even if it was going to definitely move the money it would be permitted (like you don't need to shake out the stone from a basket if it would ruin the fruits that were in there.)
He also makes the observation that the Maharil must have held like the Shitos that a P'Sik Reisha is also forbidden by an Issur D'rabanan, since he only permitted by Muktza, a Drabanan, only because it wasn't a P'sik Reisha.
TWO LEVEL BOSIS
Rav Akiva Eiger asks: Why is the barrel of wine that has a stone on it Bosis only to the stone? Isn't the barrel also holding wine? Therefore it should be Bosis both to the wine and the stone (a Heter and an Issur) and be permitted to move.
He brings the Mekor Baruch that answers that we look at each surface of the object separately. The surface on the top of the barrel only has a rock on it, so it's completely Bosis to the rock and thus cannot be moved. The fact that the bottom of the barrel is holding wine doesn't play a factor into the Bosis status of the top of the barrel.
SHAKING A TABLE WHILE LEARNING
The Maharil allows someone to learn by a table that has money on it while he learns. Since it's you don't have intent to move the money (Davar Sheina Mischavin) and it won't definitely happen (not a P'sik Reisha,) it's permitted. The Shaar Hatzion points out that we're talking about a case where it's not going to be a great loss if you shake off the money off the table. If it would be, then even if it was going to definitely move the money it would be permitted (like you don't need to shake out the stone from a basket if it would ruin the fruits that were in there.)
He also makes the observation that the Maharil must have held like the Shitos that a P'Sik Reisha is also forbidden by an Issur D'rabanan, since he only permitted by Muktza, a Drabanan, only because it wasn't a P'sik Reisha.
SEIF 4 (CONTINUED
BOSIS THAT'S SERVING THE OBJECT THAT IT'S ON
The Mishna Shabbos 51a: If you wrap up a pot (to retain it's heat) and the covering was with something Muktza and the sides where something that were Heter, if part of the pot was uncovered, you may lift it while the Muktza covering falls down. If it's not exposed, then you cannot move it. Rashi explains why you cannot just remove the wrapping of Heter around the walls of the pot and then, grabbing the walls, tip over the Muktza covering. Since you have Muktza covering on it, then the pot is Bosis to the Muktza and cannot be moved. If part of the pot was exposed, then your just shifting the pot (which is less than moving it) and the Muktza falls off and therefore permitted.
Tosfos asks on Rashi from a different Mishna that allows you to shake off a pot that has Muktza fleece on it, so we see it's not Bosis by having a cover of Muktza. Tosfos suggests the reason it's not Bosis since you have intent to remove it in middle of Shabbos. Bosis is only if you intended to leave the Muktza on it for the course of Shabbos. This that you cannot remove the Heter on the side and lift the pot and shake off the Muktza is because the case is that the sides are not exposed. We're referring to a case, that after you wrapped the walls with Heter, you covered the whole pot with a turned over utensil and cover the whole utensil with the Muktza covering. Alternatively, that the pot was put in a box and than the whole top was covered by the Muktza. In both cases, there is no way to reach the side walls without having to move the Muktza.
It would seem from Rashi, that doesn't learn like Tosfos, that even Bosis for part of Shabbos with the intent to remove it on Shabbos is till Bosis. The Bais Yosef says that Rashi was careful to deal with Tosfos' question on him from the Mishna of covering with Muktza fleece. He held that in that case, since the pot has a cover, and the intent of the fleece is to cover the pot, not the lid. So the lid is not Bosis to the fleece, so it may be moved.
BOSIS THAT'S SERVING THE OBJECT THAT IT'S ON
The Mishna Shabbos 51a: If you wrap up a pot (to retain it's heat) and the covering was with something Muktza and the sides where something that were Heter, if part of the pot was uncovered, you may lift it while the Muktza covering falls down. If it's not exposed, then you cannot move it. Rashi explains why you cannot just remove the wrapping of Heter around the walls of the pot and then, grabbing the walls, tip over the Muktza covering. Since you have Muktza covering on it, then the pot is Bosis to the Muktza and cannot be moved. If part of the pot was exposed, then your just shifting the pot (which is less than moving it) and the Muktza falls off and therefore permitted.
Tosfos asks on Rashi from a different Mishna that allows you to shake off a pot that has Muktza fleece on it, so we see it's not Bosis by having a cover of Muktza. Tosfos suggests the reason it's not Bosis since you have intent to remove it in middle of Shabbos. Bosis is only if you intended to leave the Muktza on it for the course of Shabbos. This that you cannot remove the Heter on the side and lift the pot and shake off the Muktza is because the case is that the sides are not exposed. We're referring to a case, that after you wrapped the walls with Heter, you covered the whole pot with a turned over utensil and cover the whole utensil with the Muktza covering. Alternatively, that the pot was put in a box and than the whole top was covered by the Muktza. In both cases, there is no way to reach the side walls without having to move the Muktza.
It would seem from Rashi, that doesn't learn like Tosfos, that even Bosis for part of Shabbos with the intent to remove it on Shabbos is till Bosis. The Bais Yosef says that Rashi was careful to deal with Tosfos' question on him from the Mishna of covering with Muktza fleece. He held that in that case, since the pot has a cover, and the intent of the fleece is to cover the pot, not the lid. So the lid is not Bosis to the fleece, so it may be moved.
SEIF 4 (CONTINUED)
BOSIS FOR PART OF SHABBOS
The Taz asks: People rely on moving the tablecloth under the Neiros. It would seem because they hold of Tosfos' ruling that Muktza that was put on Heter only for part of Shabbos, i.e. was intended to be removed in the middle of Shabbos, is not Bosis and may be moved. Why is this different than the candelabra itself? Since we know that the flame will go out in the middle of Shabbos, so the candelabra only had Muktza placed on it for part of Shabbos, so, according to Tosfos, you should be able to move it after the flame goes out.
The Bais Meir answers that a flame is different since it's not in existence when it's get removed from the candelabra. Only an object that is always existing and despite that, it was planned to be removed on Shabbos, do we say that it's not considered as a permanent base for the Muktza and is not Bosis. But something that was left on the Heter for the rest of it's existence, then the very fact that it's not there on the Heter anymore doesn't mean that it wasn't meant as a permanent base.
Rav Akiva Eiger points out from Tosfos that even this Shita only allows to shake off the Muktza that is on it, but not pick up the object while the Muktza is on top of it. Even though if someone forgets a Muktza on a Heter, if you need the space that object is on (and if you shake off the Muktza, it would land in the place you'll need) you're allowed to carry the object with the Muktza on it to a different place, over here is different. Since he purposely left the Muktza on top of the object, we cannot allow you to carry the Muktza, all we allow is to shake it off.
The Magen Avraham quotes a Gemara that a chicken nest that didn't have anything in the Erev Shabbos, and the chicken laid an egg on Shabbos (which is prohibited) in it, the nest is Bosis to the egg. Even though you didn't intend to have the egg in the nest it doesn't make it as you forget the Muktza there, but rather, since the nest is made for eggs, it's as if you intended to put the egg in.
BOSIS FOR PART OF SHABBOS
The Taz asks: People rely on moving the tablecloth under the Neiros. It would seem because they hold of Tosfos' ruling that Muktza that was put on Heter only for part of Shabbos, i.e. was intended to be removed in the middle of Shabbos, is not Bosis and may be moved. Why is this different than the candelabra itself? Since we know that the flame will go out in the middle of Shabbos, so the candelabra only had Muktza placed on it for part of Shabbos, so, according to Tosfos, you should be able to move it after the flame goes out.
The Bais Meir answers that a flame is different since it's not in existence when it's get removed from the candelabra. Only an object that is always existing and despite that, it was planned to be removed on Shabbos, do we say that it's not considered as a permanent base for the Muktza and is not Bosis. But something that was left on the Heter for the rest of it's existence, then the very fact that it's not there on the Heter anymore doesn't mean that it wasn't meant as a permanent base.
Rav Akiva Eiger points out from Tosfos that even this Shita only allows to shake off the Muktza that is on it, but not pick up the object while the Muktza is on top of it. Even though if someone forgets a Muktza on a Heter, if you need the space that object is on (and if you shake off the Muktza, it would land in the place you'll need) you're allowed to carry the object with the Muktza on it to a different place, over here is different. Since he purposely left the Muktza on top of the object, we cannot allow you to carry the Muktza, all we allow is to shake it off.
The Magen Avraham quotes a Gemara that a chicken nest that didn't have anything in the Erev Shabbos, and the chicken laid an egg on Shabbos (which is prohibited) in it, the nest is Bosis to the egg. Even though you didn't intend to have the egg in the nest it doesn't make it as you forget the Muktza there, but rather, since the nest is made for eggs, it's as if you intended to put the egg in.
SEIF 4 (CONTINUED)
WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED AS PLACING THE BOSIS ON PURPOSE
Trumas Hadeshen says that Bosis since it's considered as you left it there purposely, is when you put the Muktza on the object on Friday. He takes this from the implication of Rashi that forgetting an object takes place Bein Hashmashes. This implies that if it's put on in the vicinity of Bein Hashmashes (on Friday), then we don't consider that as forgetting, but putting it there on purpose so it should be there on Shabbos. The Bais Yosef argues. That you can learn as long as the forgetting was done during Bein Hashmashes, even if it was placed there right before that on Friday, it's still just forgetting and is not Bosis.
The Shaar Hatzion says that the argument is only when it was put on without any specific intention when you'll remove it. Then the Trumas Hadeshen hold that probably you intended to leave it there for Shabbos and the Bais Yosef holds that it's not sure that was your intention, so you can assume that it's not Bosis. If it was put on specifically to remove before Shabbos and then it slipped your mind to remove it, all agree that it's considered forgetting even if it was placed on Friday.
The Shaar Hatzion ends that from the Rambam implication it seems that he agrees with the Trumas Hadeshen.
SEIF 4 (CONTINUED)
PILING THINGS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER
The Trumas Hadeshen says that from Rashi that says that he wanted to put the Muktza on another object makes it Bosis implies that you definitively wanted it on top of the Heter object. If it's only there on a temporary bases, that you're putting objects in a box, and since there is no room to put everything, you need to pile objects on top of each other, that wouldn't be considered Bosis. But he concludes that it's not conclusive, since you can read the implication to mean that he didn't want to put the object there on Shabbos completely, but if he wanted to leave it there, even in a temporary pile up, it's Bosis.
The Magen Avraham says it's not Bosis. He brings a proof from the case of leaving Trumah Timeah on top of Trumah TiHorah in a box, that you may move the box if you need it's place. We must say that you purposely left it there, because if you just forgot it there, then you're allowed to move it even if only Trumah Timeah was in the box. So we must say that the reason why the bottom fruits where not Bosis is because they were piled up in the box.
The Tosfos Shabbos dismisses this proof. He says that we can say that the case was that he wanted to leave the Timeah in the box on Shabbos, he just didn't want to leave it on top of the TiHorah. Rather, he wanted to switch their positions before Shabbos but forgot to. Therefore if it was only the Timeah, then the box would be Bosis, but since regarding the TiHorah it isn't a Bosis, since you forgot to switch them, so the TiHorah remain Heter. Now the box contains both Muktza and Heter, so it doesn't become Bosis.
But you cannot answer that since like Tosfos we're referring to where the fruits are contained in their own baskets in the box, we'll also says that the Tamea's basket is sitting on the top of the TiHorah's basket, but not on the fruit itself (so the fruit never becomes Bosis.) This is not true, since this is similar to the case of a rock on top of a barrel that the whole barrel and wine is considered Bosis though the rock doesn't rest on the wine. So too here, the TiHorah fruit is Bosis along with the container it's in.
SEIF 4 (CONTINUED)
PILING THINGS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER (CONTINUED)
The Magen Avraham bring another proof to permit objects that have Muktza piled on them. The Gemara permits carrying an incense pot with the ashes (which are Heter since you can use them to cover spit in the house) with the leftover spice woods that didn't get burnt (which are Muktza, since you can't burn them on Shabbos.) From the Rambam it's implied that the wood lie on top of the ashes, and even so the ashes are considered Heter.
The Tosfos Shabbos dismisses this proof. He says that the Rambam anyhow has a printing mistake in it. It says that it can be moved since it's a Gerof Shel Reie (something disgusting) while the real reason is because it's Bosis to both Muktza and Heter. So once you need to change that, we cannot rely that this piece doesn't have other printing mistakes in it, so we cannot assume anything from his implication. The Gemara itself we can say that the wood and the ashes where next to each other, both resting directly on the pot. Rav Akiva Eiger answers that even if the wood was on the ashes, still since the ashes are not one piece, but rather each speck of ash is it's own entity. Even if some wood is on some ash and makes it Bosis, the specks of ash that's between the woods are not Bosis, so you have your Heter there.
The Mishna Brurah says that if needed you can rely on the Magen Avraham. Especially in the case of the tablecloth that's under the candelabra. Since the Bais Meir answers the Taz's question why people are more lenient by this is since the tablecloth is coming to serve the table, to protect anything that would drip on it, and not to serve the lamp. (This is like Rashi's explanation why the cover of a pot not Bosis to the Muktza that is insulating the pot. Since the cover is serving the pot and not serving the insulator, it's not Bosis to the insulator.)
WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED AS PLACING THE BOSIS ON PURPOSE
Trumas Hadeshen says that Bosis since it's considered as you left it there purposely, is when you put the Muktza on the object on Friday. He takes this from the implication of Rashi that forgetting an object takes place Bein Hashmashes. This implies that if it's put on in the vicinity of Bein Hashmashes (on Friday), then we don't consider that as forgetting, but putting it there on purpose so it should be there on Shabbos. The Bais Yosef argues. That you can learn as long as the forgetting was done during Bein Hashmashes, even if it was placed there right before that on Friday, it's still just forgetting and is not Bosis.
The Shaar Hatzion says that the argument is only when it was put on without any specific intention when you'll remove it. Then the Trumas Hadeshen hold that probably you intended to leave it there for Shabbos and the Bais Yosef holds that it's not sure that was your intention, so you can assume that it's not Bosis. If it was put on specifically to remove before Shabbos and then it slipped your mind to remove it, all agree that it's considered forgetting even if it was placed on Friday.
The Shaar Hatzion ends that from the Rambam implication it seems that he agrees with the Trumas Hadeshen.
PILING THINGS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER
The Trumas Hadeshen says that from Rashi that says that he wanted to put the Muktza on another object makes it Bosis implies that you definitively wanted it on top of the Heter object. If it's only there on a temporary bases, that you're putting objects in a box, and since there is no room to put everything, you need to pile objects on top of each other, that wouldn't be considered Bosis. But he concludes that it's not conclusive, since you can read the implication to mean that he didn't want to put the object there on Shabbos completely, but if he wanted to leave it there, even in a temporary pile up, it's Bosis.
The Magen Avraham says it's not Bosis. He brings a proof from the case of leaving Trumah Timeah on top of Trumah TiHorah in a box, that you may move the box if you need it's place. We must say that you purposely left it there, because if you just forgot it there, then you're allowed to move it even if only Trumah Timeah was in the box. So we must say that the reason why the bottom fruits where not Bosis is because they were piled up in the box.
The Tosfos Shabbos dismisses this proof. He says that we can say that the case was that he wanted to leave the Timeah in the box on Shabbos, he just didn't want to leave it on top of the TiHorah. Rather, he wanted to switch their positions before Shabbos but forgot to. Therefore if it was only the Timeah, then the box would be Bosis, but since regarding the TiHorah it isn't a Bosis, since you forgot to switch them, so the TiHorah remain Heter. Now the box contains both Muktza and Heter, so it doesn't become Bosis.
But you cannot answer that since like Tosfos we're referring to where the fruits are contained in their own baskets in the box, we'll also says that the Tamea's basket is sitting on the top of the TiHorah's basket, but not on the fruit itself (so the fruit never becomes Bosis.) This is not true, since this is similar to the case of a rock on top of a barrel that the whole barrel and wine is considered Bosis though the rock doesn't rest on the wine. So too here, the TiHorah fruit is Bosis along with the container it's in.
PILING THINGS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER (CONTINUED)
The Magen Avraham bring another proof to permit objects that have Muktza piled on them. The Gemara permits carrying an incense pot with the ashes (which are Heter since you can use them to cover spit in the house) with the leftover spice woods that didn't get burnt (which are Muktza, since you can't burn them on Shabbos.) From the Rambam it's implied that the wood lie on top of the ashes, and even so the ashes are considered Heter.
The Tosfos Shabbos dismisses this proof. He says that the Rambam anyhow has a printing mistake in it. It says that it can be moved since it's a Gerof Shel Reie (something disgusting) while the real reason is because it's Bosis to both Muktza and Heter. So once you need to change that, we cannot rely that this piece doesn't have other printing mistakes in it, so we cannot assume anything from his implication. The Gemara itself we can say that the wood and the ashes where next to each other, both resting directly on the pot. Rav Akiva Eiger answers that even if the wood was on the ashes, still since the ashes are not one piece, but rather each speck of ash is it's own entity. Even if some wood is on some ash and makes it Bosis, the specks of ash that's between the woods are not Bosis, so you have your Heter there.
The Mishna Brurah says that if needed you can rely on the Magen Avraham. Especially in the case of the tablecloth that's under the candelabra. Since the Bais Meir answers the Taz's question why people are more lenient by this is since the tablecloth is coming to serve the table, to protect anything that would drip on it, and not to serve the lamp. (This is like Rashi's explanation why the cover of a pot not Bosis to the Muktza that is insulating the pot. Since the cover is serving the pot and not serving the insulator, it's not Bosis to the insulator.)
SIEF 4 (CONTINUED)
PUTTING MUKTZA ON SOMEONE ELSE'S OBJECT
The Ohr Zaruah says that if someone puts Muktza on someone else's object it doesn't become Bosis. This is included in the rule that someone cannot make someone else's object prohibited (when it requires intention to prohibit. Obviously, if you throw pork in someone's pot it will prohibit it.)
The Magen Avraham says that if someone puts your bowl under a falling candle to protect your house, then it becomes Bosis. He reasons that we see that something can become Bosis if someone else puts the Muktza on with the owner's knowledge. This is gleaned from Tosfos that explains the case of purposely leaving Muktza on an object in middle of Shabbos (which he obviously cannot do himself, since he's prohibited to move it) by having a Goy or child do it with his knowledge. Knowledge in these cases are not dependant on a command from the owner, as we see that you may not allow a child to put out a fire on Shabbos, since we know his intent is to benefit his father (even if he hadn't commanded him to.)
The Derech Chaim says that if the one who put the bowl to catch the candle had in mind to dump it out in the middle of Shabbos, we can say it doesn't become Bosis. The reason is by combining that it's someone else's action that made the Bosis (so it's not so simple to say it's Bosis) with the Shita of R' Tam that if you intend to remove the Muktza in middle of Shabbos it doesn't become Bosis.
LIFTING BARRELS THAT ARE AMONG OTHER BARRELS
If the barrel that has a stone left on it unintentionally was around other barrels, therefore you cannot tip it over there to drop the stone so not to damage the other barrels, he may lift it and bring it to another place to dump the stone off. Rashi writes "he removes it from among the other barrels and shakes it off." Rav Akiva Eiger says this implies that it must be shook off right away after you get away from the barrels and cannot be moved further with the stone on it. He asks why should this be so? Since the barrel with the Muktza is still in his hand, the Halacha in Simon 308 is that he may move it to where ever he wants and doesn't need to discard it right away. Even the Even Haozer that said this Heter only apply to utensils, since this barrel is a utensil, you should be able to keep on carrying it.
PUTTING MUKTZA ON SOMEONE ELSE'S OBJECT
The Ohr Zaruah says that if someone puts Muktza on someone else's object it doesn't become Bosis. This is included in the rule that someone cannot make someone else's object prohibited (when it requires intention to prohibit. Obviously, if you throw pork in someone's pot it will prohibit it.)
The Magen Avraham says that if someone puts your bowl under a falling candle to protect your house, then it becomes Bosis. He reasons that we see that something can become Bosis if someone else puts the Muktza on with the owner's knowledge. This is gleaned from Tosfos that explains the case of purposely leaving Muktza on an object in middle of Shabbos (which he obviously cannot do himself, since he's prohibited to move it) by having a Goy or child do it with his knowledge. Knowledge in these cases are not dependant on a command from the owner, as we see that you may not allow a child to put out a fire on Shabbos, since we know his intent is to benefit his father (even if he hadn't commanded him to.)
The Derech Chaim says that if the one who put the bowl to catch the candle had in mind to dump it out in the middle of Shabbos, we can say it doesn't become Bosis. The reason is by combining that it's someone else's action that made the Bosis (so it's not so simple to say it's Bosis) with the Shita of R' Tam that if you intend to remove the Muktza in middle of Shabbos it doesn't become Bosis.
LIFTING BARRELS THAT ARE AMONG OTHER BARRELS
If the barrel that has a stone left on it unintentionally was around other barrels, therefore you cannot tip it over there to drop the stone so not to damage the other barrels, he may lift it and bring it to another place to dump the stone off. Rashi writes "he removes it from among the other barrels and shakes it off." Rav Akiva Eiger says this implies that it must be shook off right away after you get away from the barrels and cannot be moved further with the stone on it. He asks why should this be so? Since the barrel with the Muktza is still in his hand, the Halacha in Simon 308 is that he may move it to where ever he wants and doesn't need to discard it right away. Even the Even Haozer that said this Heter only apply to utensils, since this barrel is a utensil, you should be able to keep on carrying it.
Comments are closed for this blog post
© 2013 Created by Rav Mitterhoff.
