Write a summary based on תוס’ דף מד. “מטה, the גמרא דף לו with Rashi & תוס’ דף לו. “אמר ר’ יהודה, and תוס’ דף מד: “הא – of the different explanations we learnt last week
Why a מטה שיחדה למעות is considered Muktzah?
What level of Muktza it is?
Is it Muktzah just according to ר”י or even according to ר”ש?
Learn רא”ש פרק ג ס’ כ starting from הוא שאמר רב מטה (towards the end)
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 learned 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 ?
Learn גמרא דף מד. “אמר רב יהודה (two lines from bottom of the Amud) until דף מד: “אמר עולא (middle of the Amud)
There is a major machlokes between ר”י & ר”ש if a lantern that was lit at the begining of Shabbos remains Muktzah for the entire Shabbos even after the flame is extinguished.
This machlokes is contingent on the concept of מיגו דאתקצאי – something which is Muktza during Bein Hashmoshas remains Muktza for the entire Shabbos.
Major Question:
What is the reasoning of מיגו דאתקצאי?
Review the אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – first two paragraphs.
Why does ר”ש not hold of – מיגו דאתקצאי?
Learn אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the right column “והנה” for an incredible explanation)
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.
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
There is a major machlokes between ר”י & ר”ש if a lantern that was lit at the begining of Shabbos remains Muktzah for the entire Shabbos even after the flame is extinguished.
This machlokes is contingent on the concept of מיגו דאתקצאי – something which is Muktza during Bein Hashmoshas remains Muktza for the entire Shabbos.
Major Question:
What is the reasoning of מיגו דאתקצאי?
Review the אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – first two paragraphs.
Why does ר”ש not hold of – מיגו דאתקצאי?
Learn אפיקי ים חלק ב ס’ יט – (page רד bottom of the right column “והנה” for an incredible explanation)
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.
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
Quickly review the גמרא דף מד. “א”ר זירא (two lines before the wide lines) until the two dots (two lines from bottom of the Amud)
Review תוס’ “לדברי
Question:
Tosfos says that although neither מוקצה מחמת איסור or מוקצה מחמת מיאוס is enough of a logic to make an item Muktzah when they are combined it will render the item Muktzah.
What is the reasoning for this?
Major Question:
What is the reasoning of מיגו דאתקצאי something which is Muktza during Bein Hashmoshas remains Muktza for the entire Shabbos?
Why does ר”ש not hold of – מיגו דאתקצאי – it does not remain Muktza for the entire Shabbos?
The Gemara earlier brought two opinions in regards to a large container of oil if ר”ש agrees that it is muktza even after the fame goes out.
Learn the גמרא דף מד. “א”ר זירא (two lines before the wide lines) until the two dots (two lines from bottom of the Amud)
Learn תוס’ “לדברי
Question:
Tosfos says that although neither מוקצה מחמת איסור or מוקצה מחמת מיאוס is enough of a logic to make an item Muktzah when they are combined it will render the item Muktzah.
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?
Very quickly review משנה דף מד and the גמרא until “אבל כוס קערה ועששית (middle of the Amud)
Questions:
Why is the נר Muktzah?
Why is a נר ישן של חרס Muktzah?
What is the point of dispute between ר”י & ר”ש in regards to מוקצה מחמת מיאוס?
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?
Learn רשב”א
Learn ח’ ר”ן
Learn the גמרא דף מד. “אבל כוס קערה ועששית until “א”ר זירא (two lines before the wide lines)
Questions:
According to ר”מ why does a lantern that was lit when Shabbos started remain Muktzah for the entire Shabbos even after the flame went out?
Why does ר”ש agree that a כוס קערה ועששית remains Muktzah for the entire Shabbos even after the flame went out?
Learn ריטב”א
Does רבי אליעזר בן רבי שמעון also agree that a כוס קערה ועששית remains Muktzah for the entire Shabbos even after the flame went out?
Is the oil Muktza to move or just prohibited to use?
Learn מהרש”א on Tosfos
According to ר”ש is the oil that drips out while the lantern is still burning just Muktza in regards to using the oil or also Muktzah for moving? – learn גליון הש”ס on Tosfos
List the different reasons why the oil is Muktzah and the נפקא מינה between the reasons
Learn משנה דף מד and the גמרא until “אבל כוס קערה ועששית (middle of the Amud)
See תשובה מהגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין in back of Sefer Muktzah from Rabbi Pinchas Bodner אות לב
See שמירת שבת כהלכתו פרק כח הערה נט
The גמרא דף מד concludes that טלטול מן הצד for the purpose of moving the Muktzah item is prohibited. However in a case where there is a dead body in a house that’s on fire one may move the body.
Question:
Is the special permission given to move the body directly or just by using טלטול מן הצד?
How do we conclude lhalacha in regards to moving Muktzah through טלטול מן הצד?
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
The Chazon Ish (above) argues on the leniency of moving Muktzah with ones body for the purpose of the Muktzah item.
How does the Chazon Ish explain
The Mishna which permits moving straw with ones back?
See תשובה מהגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין in back of Sefer Muktzah from Rabbi Pinchas Bodner אות לב
See שמירת שבת כהלכתו פרק כח הערה נט
The גמרא דף מד concludes that טלטול מן הצד for the purpose of moving the Muktzah item is prohibited. However in a case where there is a dead body in a house that’s on fire one may move the body.
Question:
Is the special permission given to move the body directly or just by using טלטול מן הצד?
