מוקמה (Muktza) part one

ב"ה

Binyamin and I were learning today about מוקצה (Muktza). We first read the משנה (Mishna on page (42:2) מ"ב עמוד ב )--


אין נותנין כלי תחת הנר לקבל בו את השמן ואם נתנוה מבעוד יום מותר ואין ניאותין ממנו לפי שאינו מן המוכן


"You can't put a vessel (kli) under a 'candle' (ner) to catch (receive) into it the oil -- but if it was put there while it is still day [on Friday before Shabbat] it is permissible and you can't ******** from it because it is 'something that is not ready'"

So, when we read this, Binyamin said that this was one of the categories of מוקצה (Muktza).

 So he then said we should make a list of all the different categories we could think of that may or may not be מוקצה (Muktza) and this is what we came up with:

• שאינו מן המוכן -- for example: oil dripping (that was supposed to fuel the wick) -- (not called מוקצה in the גמרא Gemara) -- you can find mentions of this in שבת מ"ב:ב Shabbat 42:2 and חולין י"ד:א Hulin 14:1
  
• בסיס לדבר אסור -- a base for a forbidden object (for example: a candlestick tray)
  
• דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור -- A thing that is used for a melakha -- work forbidden on Shabbat -- for example: cigarette lighter, TV Remote, pencil, pen
  
• נולד (?) -- new egg, dripping condensation from an air conditioner, melting snow, calf born on שבת Shabbat [we couldn't decide if this was מוקצה or not]
  
• מחמת איסור -- like something in a car that you can't get without setting off the alarm [I think this means something that you can't get to without doing a מלאכה melakha]
  
• something that is unavailable at the beginning of שבת -- we thought נולד might be a subset of this -- for example: fruit that fell of the tree on שבת
  
• מחסרון כיס -- (expensive things) -- is it things that are important to you or things that are a certain price? There's a מחלוקת mahloket -- for example: knife for a ברית -- brit or for שחיטה -- shehita
  
• not a כלי -- garbage, nut shells (also not called מוקצה in the תלמוד Talmud
  
• מחמת מיאוס -- it's disgusting -- for example: an old candle -- not accepted Halakhically as מוקצה)
  

At some point in the future, we will figure out which of these is actually מוקצה and which of these is not.

More on Hulin 15A-15B

ב"ה

So Binyamin and I have been going over חולין פרק ראשון Hulin Perek Rishon. The משנה Mishna talks about שחיטה Shehita (Kosher Slaughter), which is prohibited on Shabbat. But, according to the משנה Mishna, if one does שחיטה Shehita on Shabbat, the שחיטה Shehita is Kosher.

The משנה Mishna doesn't go into any detail about when it can be eaten, though. So the גמרא Gemara starts off with רב Rav saying that, while the שחיטה Shehita is kosher, the meat isn't permitted on that day -- meaning that you can't eat the meat on שבת Shabbat.

Later on, the tables discuss a מחלוקת (Mahloket) in a ברייתה Breita that I mentioned in a previous post in this blog about what three different Rabbis say about cooking on שבת Shabbat, but this is about שחיטה Shehita on שבת Shabbat...

Later on, the גמרא Gemara talks about a time when the תנא Tanna (the man in the Yeshiva who remembered everything that was said in the Yeshiva word for word) was talking and רב Rav silenced him. So they are trying to figure out why רב Rav silenced the תנא Tanna.

The תנא Tanna said: המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל (one who cooks on Shabbat [if it is] accidental he can eat it [if it is] on purpose he may not eat it) -- (Which is what רבי מאיר Rabbi Meir said in the ברייתה Breita) --

רב נחמן בר יצחק Rav Nahmon Bar Yitzhak said that the תנא Tanna spoke about שחיטה Shehita and רב Rav says the table (the one I mentioned earlier) was about בישול Bishul (cooking) only and not about שחיטה Shehita. When it comes to שחיטה Shehita, רב נחמן Rav Nahmon says, all agree that you can't eat it on שבת Shabbat (that is, if someone slaughters an animal on שבת Shabbat, as the משנה Mishna says, the meat is Kosher but you can't eat it until after שבת Shabbat).

משנה: "שחיטה בשבת כשרה"
רב אמר: "אסורה לאכילה ליומה

The Mishna says "Slaughter on Shabbat is Kosher"
Rav says "It is forbidden to eat it [the meat slaughtered on Shabbat] on the day [meaning Shabbat]"

So the next suggestion about why רב Rav silenced the תנא Tanna is that perhaps it was because a live animal is מוקצה Muktza on שבת Shabbat and this made the whole שחיטה Shehita on שבת Shabbat issue quite different from the בישול Bishul on שבת Shabbat issue (since the food isn't מוקצה Muktza on שבת Shabbat as the live animal is). This, too, was discarded as a reason.

Finally, they suggested that perhaps the reason רב Rav silenced the תנא Tanna was that the תנא Tanna had said that if there is a חולה Hola/e (a sick person) then the animal can be slaughtered on שבת Shabbat and the meat can be eaten. But, because he was talking to the populous at the time, not the learned assemblage, the distinction of there being a חולה Hola/e might escape them, so Rav silenced the תנא Tanna so the populous wouldn't be confused. If there is no חולה Hola/e, then all agree that you can eat the meat on שבת Shabbat is

עין תחת עין -- An eye for an eye....

ב"ה

I was at a מלוה מלכה (Melave Malka -- a post שבת Shabbat get-together) tonight and the host of this מלוה מלכה is the person who leads our פרחי שושנים (Pirchei Shoshanim) learning group. When he has these get-togethers, those of us in the חבורה (Habura -- group) are expected to "sing for our supper" so to speak (give a דבר תורה -- d'var tora -- words of Tora). The nice thing about that is we get to hear cool דברי תורה and we also get an opportunity to come up with something interesting ourselves.

So, tonight was just like every other מלוה מלכה I put together a דבר תורה to share with the group.

עין תחת עין -- ayin tahat ayin An eye for an eye (or, more literally, an eye under an eye) -- most people seem to interpret this as being a call for vengeance. Or they think it means if you accidentally poke someone's eye out, yours should be poked out.

But עין תחת עין hearkens back to a time when there was one set of rules for the rich and another for the poor. A rich person could get away with killing a poor person while if a poor person accidentally caused a small injury to a rich person, (s)he could get killed. No, says השם -- Hashem -- G-d. עין תחת עין -- everyone's eye is equal to everyone else's eye. Your eye is just as important as my eye; the king's eye is no more important than the slave's eye.

Yesterday (February 12th) was Abraham Lincoln's birthday. Lincoln lived in a time when there was a different set of rules in the South for blacks and for whites. The whites in the antebellum South thought their eyes were more important than the eyes of their slaves. The תורה in this week's פרשה (Parsha -- Tora portion), משפטים -- Mishpatim -- civil laws -- tells us that even slaves need to be well treated.

The mistake the plantation owners made was to think they were better than others simply because of the color of their skin or the country (or continent) of their origin.

I have this rule of thumb that keeps me from feeling I'm better than anyone else (or that other people are better than I) and it keeps me from being jealous:

If you take any two people in the world:

1) each can teach the other something and
2) each one's life is better than the other's in some way.

If we all keep these two points in mind we can remember always that everyone's eye is equal in importance to everyone else's eye.

(I want to thank the people who helped me put my thoughts together on this -- to Shelly who suggested linking to Lincoln's birthday, to Ilan who talked about עין תחת עין , to Zeev who let me use him as a sounding board and to Rabbi B. for teaching me this interpretation of עין תחת עין)

כדי שיעשו -- Rabbi Meir, Rashi and "K'Dei She'ya'asu"

B"H

Last week, my Havruta and I spoke about this table:

R' Meir	B'Shogeg Yokhal		B'Mezid Lo Yokhal
R' Yehuda	B'Shogeg Yokhal B'Motzei Shabbat		B'Mezid Lo Yokhal Olamit
R' Yohanan HaSandler	B'Shogeg Yokhal B'Motzei Shabbat l'aherim	B'Shogeg Lo Yokhal lo	B'Mezid Lo Yokhal l'aherim	B'Mezid Lo Yokhal lo

So, this week, we began looking through רש"י -- Rashi -- on this ברייתה -- Breita.

According to רש"י -- Rashi -- רבי מיאר -- Rabbi Meir holds that, in a case of cooking on שבת בשוגג -- Shabbat B'Shogeg, even the person who did the cooking can eat it on that day (שבת -- Shabbat) and he doesn't have to wait until after שבת -- Shabbat and certainly doesn't have to wait כדי שיעשו -- K'Dei She'ya'asu -- the time it would take to do what was done on שבת -- Shabbat after שבת -- Shabbat.

Since the גמרא -- Gemara doesn't mention כדי שיעשו -- K'Dei She'ya'asu -- here, not in the actual גמרא -- Gemara -- or in the משנה -- Mishna.

So we found a note near the רש"י -- Rashi -- commentary on יאכל -- yokhal -- that referred to a gemara in (ערובין (דף מ -- eiruvin daf 40. In this גמרא -- Gemara -- there is a short segment that speaks about Gentiles who cut הדס -- Hadass -- Myrtle branches -- for some [Jewish] men (called, in the גמרא -- Gemara, בני גננא B'nei ganana) -- who used them to decorate canopy beds for grooms -- רבינא -- Ravina -- says that they can't use the branches because they aren't בני תורה -- B'nei Tora. -- רבא בר תחליפא Rava bar Tahlipha asks why specifically because they aren't -- B'nei Tora -- would it be any different, he asks, if they were -- B'nei Tora?

This is the spot where כדי שיעשו -- K'Dei She'ya'asu is mentioned. In this, and all other spots we could find in the גמרא -- Gemara -- that mention כדי שיעשו -- K'Dei She'ya'asu it always refers to work done by Gentiles for Jews on שבת -- Shabbat.

So if we go back to the רש"י -- Rashi from before, רבי מיאר -- Rabbi Meir doesn't hold that כדי שיעשו -- K'Dei She'ya'asu refers to מלאכה Melakha done by Gentiles on שבת -- Shabbat but to Melakha done by Jews on שבת -- Shabbat במיזיד -- B'Mezid.

Hulin -- Basis for Part of 318

B"H

My havruta, Binyamin Z, and I are learning Hulin because it's the talmudic basis of what we are learning in 318 of the Shulhan Arukh.

The mishna says, "HaShohet B'Shabbat u'v'Yom HaKippurim af al pi she'mit'hayev b'naphsho Sh'hita K'sheira" (emphasis added) -- "one who slaughters on Shabbat and Yom Kippur, even though he has violated a capital crime, the slaughter[ed animal] is kosher".

The Gemara begins by telling us that Rav Huna says that Rav says that you can't eat the meat on Shabbat itself. This, the Gemara says, is based on a breita (Mishneic literature not included in the Mishna) about Rabi Yehuda.

After mentioning two other breitot (plural of breita), the Gemara mentions a breita about a mahloket (Tora argument) between Rabi Meir, Rabi Yehuda and Rabi Yohanan HaSandler.

In our shiur (Pirchei Shoshanim Hilchot Shabbat Volume 1 Shiur 18 has a chart of the mahloket:

////////////	B'Shogeg		B'Mezid
////////////	For the cook	For others	For the cook	For others
R' Meir	Muter on Shabbat	Muter on Shabbat	Muter after Shabbat	Muter after Shabbat
R' Yehuda	Muter after Shabbat	Muter after Shabbat	Ossur forever	Muter after Shabbat
R' Yohanan HaSandler	Ossur forever	Muter after Shabbat	Ossur forever	Ossur forever

There was only one problem with this -- according to the breita, the different opinions went like this:

R' Meir	B'Shogeg Yokhal		B'Mezid Lo Yokhal
R' Yehuda	B'Shogeg Yokhal B'Motzei Shabbat		B'Mezid Lo Yokhal Olamit
R' Yohanan HaSandler	B'Shogeg Yokhal B'Motzei Shabbat l'aherim	B'Shogeg Lo Yokhal lo	B'Mezid Lo Yokhal l'aherim	B'Mezid Lo Yokhal lo

R' Meir seems only concerned with "Shogeg" versus "Mezid". R' Yehuda adds the element of when -- after Shabbat or never. R' Yohanan the Sandler adds the element of "the one who cooks" versus "others".

Back to the opinion of Rav at the beginning of the gemara (on daf yod daled amud aleph), the Gemara tries to figure out which of the three opinions of the breita Rav was following. At one point, they say that he was talking about the opinion of R' Yehuda, but in order to make things fit, the Gemara needs to interpret the Mishna as referring to "Shogeg" when it clearly needs to be referring to "Mezid" since one isn't hayav for the death penalty if it isn't B'Mezid with Hatra'a (warning).

I wondered (out loud) whether the Rabbis in this breita were sitting together discussing this in one Yeshiva or did the "recorder" (the person who recorded this mahloket) go to three different Yeshivot and ask three different people the same question with different results, and taking different necessary information into account.

According to the shiur, Tosefot and the Gra pasken like R' Meir and the Tur,the Gaonim, the Tur, the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh, and the Ramban all pasken according to the opinion of R' Yehuda.

Our next step (for next week) will be to analyze Rashi, who analyzed the second table (the one of the breita) to come up with the table from the shiur, and Tosefot, to get a better handle on how the opinion in the breita turned into the three opinions of the shiur.

Taz on RN"D Siman A

B"H

I was learning a bit with Binyamin (who I met at a Melave Malka Motzei Shabbat) and we went over a Taz that explained the opinions about roasting on Shabbat. I created a chart that explains what the Taz says the Mehaber (who the Taz says bases his opinion on the Rambam) and the Rama (who the Taz says bases his opinion on the Tur).

This chart shows where each stands on the difference between the opinions on using an open Tanur vs. a Tanur with the "mouth" sealed by pitch (tar) or a similar substance. The difference between kids and fowl and other meats (like goat or beef) applies only if the meats are cut up into pieces but if the animal is whole, the halakha is like beef and other meats. The reason that a sealed Tanur would be ok is that if you open the Tanur to stoke the coals you would ruin the meat.

Beit Yoseph: Kira She-hi G'rufa v'chu

B"H

I tried to look through the Beit Yoseph on my own, so I apologize for the gaps in (noted by question marks) and any misunderstandings I had of the text -- all comments greatly appreciated)

Beit Yoseph: Kira She-hi G'rufa v'chu -- Beit Yoseph quotes the mishna, then adds at the end that according to the gemara, Rav Sheishet says [what's "L'divrei Ha'Omer??] mahzirin (returning) means you can even return it on Shabbat.


Mem"shin: Rabeinu kol z'man she'hi rotahat -- if you leave it in your hand until the tavshil gets cold, it's assur to return it because [daled-hay-lamed ?] it's then like bishul (cooking). Rabeinu [who is this?] says in the name of the Ri -- everything that is a majority sauce and if you cook it it'll get better (mitztamek v'yafeh lo) and it's cold and it was returned to the top of the kira (and it cooks more and finishes the cooking?) and it was written in the gemara that if it didn't cool down even if there was a change in the sauciness a little you can return it and further it was written in the name of the Ri that if the food came to the point of ben drusai then it's ok to retun it but if it hasn't reached the level of ben drusai you can't return it if you left it (?)

According to the Ramban and the Rashba anything that is cooked (?) while it's still light -- so what does it matter if it's cooked when it's still day or when it's dark? If it was cooked right away after dark so then if it didn't get to the state of ben drusai while it's still day and it's still cooking and didn't get to the state (ben drusai) our Rabbis wrote in siman shin"het that if it isn't all the way cooked even if it's to the level of ben drusai it needs to get cooked even if it's still hot and after that how can we permit returning it here? If it's totally cooked, but specifically if it's not cooked all the way even if it's at the state of ben drusai it's assur to return it if there's any heat in the kira and the pot is hot from this heat.

Check out another blog:

Israel and it's Place in the World

(to the members of the HP/Edison Pirchei Shoshanim Habura/Hevra -- Please add comments, corrections, other sources. I want this to be a place where we all can share our ideas and other sources for and from our learning.)