The אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט (first two paragraphs) explains the source is “והכינו” an item has to be prepared for use for Shabbos. If it was not prepared before Shabbos than it is Muktzah
2. Why does ר”ש not hold of – מיגו דאתקצאי?
The אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the right column “והנה”) gave two explanations
A) Either ר”ש does not agree to the requirement that an item needs to be prepared for Shabbos
B) He agrees to והכינו however in a case where the person is anticipating using it on Shabbos although it might be off limits at the beginning of Shabbos it is considered prepared.
3. Why does ר”ש agree that a large container of oil is muktza even after the flame goes out?
The אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד – left column) explained as the lantern and oil were not prepared for use for Shabbos/
4. There is a machlokes about what the position of ר”ש is in regards to an animal that died on Shabbos whether it is Muktzah.
What is the reasoning behind this machlokes?
This is a matter of dispute between the אפיקי ים and the Chazon Ish.
Based on what we learnt from the אפיקי ים and the Chazon Ish how can we explain the logic that only when there is a combination of מוקצה מחמת איסור and מוקצה מחמת מיאוס will we say מיגו דאתקצאי ?
We learnt the אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט (first two paragraphs) the source is “והכינו” an item has to be prepared for use for Shabbos. If it was not prepared before Shabbos than it is Muktzah
(See Monday email for the attachment of the copy of the אפיקי ים)
Why does ר”ש not hold of – מיגו דאתקצאי?
We learnt the אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the right column “והנה” for an incredible explanation) who gives two options
1. Either ר”ש does not agree to the requirement that an item needs to be prepared for Shabbos
2. He agrees to והכינו however in a case where the person is anticipating using it on Shabbos although it might be off limits at the beginning of Shabbos it is considered prepared.
The Gemara brought two opinions in regards to a large container of oil if ר”ש agrees that it is muktza even after the flame goes out.
What is the explanation for their argument?
Learn אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the left column “ומה נעים” for an incredible explanation.
What is the point of dispute between ר”ש & רבי אליעזר בן רבי שמעון in regards to the oil that drips out of the lantern while the flame is still burning?
Discussing the גמרא דף מז. “א”ר זירא (second line of the Amud) until “לוי בר שמואל”
The גמרא דף קמב states when a basket contains fruits and a rock although the basket is not a Bosis one must first shake out the rock before moving the basket.
Question:
Why in the case of the pan and the ashes does the broken pieces of wood not have to be shaken out?
See שולחן שלמה ס’ ש”ח ס”ק כח אות ג who gives a different definition then the משנה ברורה and אג”מ
The classic example to ensure a table is not a בסיס to candlesticks is to leave challah on the table for the period of bein hashmashos at the beginning of Shabbos.
Question:
According to Reb Shlomo Zalman why does that help wouldn’t rather give up the challah than the expensive candlesticks?
See אורחת שבת חלק ב פרק יט הערה תי”ד for an answer
What is the point of dispute between ר”ש & רבי אליעזר בן רבי שמעון in regards to the oil that drips out of the lantern while the flame is still burning?
The גמרא דף קמב states when a basket contains fruits and a rock although the basket is not a Bosis one must first shakeout the rock before moving the basket.
Why in the case of the pan and the ashes does the broken pieces of wood not have to be shaken out?
See שולחן שלמה ס’ ש”ח ס”ק כח אות ג who gives a different definition then the משנה ברורה and אג”מ
The classic example to ensure a table is not a בסיס to candlesticks is to leave challah on the table for the period of bein hashmashos at the beginning of Shabbos.
Question:
According to Reb Shlomo Zalman why does that help wouldn’t rather give up the challah than the expensive candlesticks?
See אורחת שבת חלק ב פרק יט הערה תי”ד for an answer
Very quickly review גמרא דף מז. “א”ר זירא (second line of the Amud) until “לוי בר שמואל”
Learn תוס’ “ואמר
Learn תוס’ “הוה
See גמרא דף קמב which states when a basket contains fruits and a rock although the basket is not a Bosis one must first shake out the rock before moving the basket.
Why in the case of the pan and the ashes does the broken pieces of wood not have to be shaken out ?
What is the point of dispute between ר”ש & רבי אליעזר בן רבי שמעון in regards to the oil that drips out of the lantern while the flame is still burning?
Review גמרא דף מז. “א”ר זירא (second line of the Amud) until “לוי בר שמואל”
Questions:
What concepts of Bosis is conveyed in this Gemara?
Why in the הוה אמינא of the Gemara did the Gemara believe one may not move a pan with ashes?
What switched in the conclusion of the Gemara that one is permitted to move a pan with ashes?
Learn תוס’ “ואמר
Learn תוס’ “הוה
See גמרא דף קמב which states when a basket contains fruits and a rock although the basket is not a Bosis one must first shake out the rock before moving the basket.
Why in the case of the pan and and the ashes does the broken pieces of wood not have to be shaken out ?
Learn ריטב”א
See שו”ע ס’ שי סע’ ח
Learn תוס’ “בגלילא
When do we consider a בסיס לדבר האסור ומותר as a base to the non Muktzah and not reverse?
Learn גמרא דף מז. “א”ר זירא (second line of the Amud) until “לוי בר שמואל”
Why in the הוה אמינא of the Gemara did the Gemara believe one may not move a pan with ashes?
What switched in the conclusion of the Gemara that one is permitted to move a pan with ashes?
Why does רש'”י “הא ליכא פירי need to establish this Gemara according to ר”י? Why would it not be Muktzah even according to ר”ש as he also holds of the concept of Bosis as stated in the Gemara above why a lit lantern is Muktzah as it is a bosis to the flame?
Learn מהרש”א
Learn תוס’ “לי
What concepts of Bosis is conveyed in this Gemara?
Based on the above different reasons are the following items Muktzah? (See אורחת שבת חלק ב פרק יט סע’ קפ והערה רמא)
Electric Light
Flashlight
Crock Pot, Hot water urn
Electric Light
See ספר טלטולי שבת from Rabbi Pinchos Bodner in the back of the Sefer this question to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l תשובות להגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין זצ”ל אות יא
See שמירת שבת כהלכתה פרק יג הערה ק”ג
And אורחת שבת חלק ב פרק יט סע’ קפא והערה רמג
Electric blanket
Learn אג”מ או”ח ח”ג ס’ נ (just the first four paragraphs)
Crock Pot, Hot water urn
See ספר טלטולי שבת from Rabbi Pinchos Bodner in the back of the Sefer this question to Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l תשובות להגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין זצ”ל אות יא
And אורחת שבת חלק ב פרק יט סע’ קפב & קפג והערה רמד-רמו
Learn אג”מ חלק ד ? & ה
Learn גמרא דף מז. “א”ר זירא (second line of the Amud) until “אמר אביי קרטין דבי רבי”
The שו”ע ס’ שי”א סע’ ח makes a distinction between moving for the purpose of the Muktzah item (prohibited) or for the non Muktza item (permitted) – לצורך דבר המותר או לדבר האסור
What is the logic of this distinction; Either indirect movement is considered movement or it is not considered movement, how does the intent of the movement affect the permissibility?
There are two approaches to explain this
1. Review שו”ע ס’ ש”ט סע’ ד, with the משנה ברורה ס”ק יד and the שער הציון ס’ ש”ט אות יז who gives a reason for the distinction
