Rabbi Baruch Bodenheim: Gemara Shabbos: Muktza Monday night shiur, Tishrei 4 (09/14/26)
Conclusion Sugya – מיגו דאתקצאי
Last week we discussed at length
1. What is the reasoning of מיגו דאתקצאי?
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.
Learn חזון איש ס’ מא אות ד
https://hebrewbooks.org/
Clarify each of their explanations
Learn רשב”א חולין דף טו “עד כאן לא שרי for his explanation of animal that was slaughtered on Shabbos to feed a sick person
https://hebrewbooks.org/
Learn תוס’ “לדברי
Question:
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 ?
