Muktzeh (items set aside). Before we go further, we have to deal with one one clarity in muktzeh. That is a question that all the Rishonim (early rabbinic authorities) discuss, or Acharonim (later rabbinic authorities). It concerns a kli shemelachto le'issur (utensil whose function is prohibited) that has no other function but the issur. We always understood that a kli shemelachto le'issur has a forbidden function, which is its primary function, and a secondary function, which is heter, a permitted use. An ashtray or a hammer, for example. The hammer is primarily for building, which is issur, but it can also crack open nuts. So it has a double function. Since it has a heter function, we let you move it letzorech gufo (for its use) and letzorech mekomo (for its place). I’ll let you move it to crack open nuts, and if it’s in the way, I’ll let you move it out of the way.
But let’s say you have an item that’s a kli shemelachto le'issur, but it has no other function but the issur. What would that be? A tape recorder or a cell phone. What else can you use it for? Crack open nuts? What else—a paperweight? Everything could be a paperweight. That’s not considered a function. Putting something on a paper isn’t a function. It’s not a pretty function, but holding a door open might be considered something you can do with it. They say that about a rock, though; then everything becomes a paperweight. Right.
Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu melech ha'olam shehakol nihyah bidvaro (Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, by whose word all came to be). Amen.
But if it’s an electric item, you won’t be able to—So that’s the question. When we talk about a kli shemelachto le'issur that has no other function, what is the status? Wouldn’t a tape recorder or cell phone be a case of chisron kis (loss of value)? I don’t think so. I think that today we’re not so makpid, particular, about the cell phone. I give my cell phone to the kids. You give it to kids; the kids play with the tape recorder. You’re not so makpid. So the question is, how do we—
We have Menuchat Ahavah (Rest of Love). Does Menuchat Ahavah discuss muktzeh? Can you always have a kli shemelachto le'issur? It’s a kli shemelachto le'issur. What about a Chanukiah (Chanukah lamp)? We already went through that. Maybe they call that chisron kis, or they call it—But then again, what else can you use it for? These are all cases. Candlesticks. You’re right, but if you’re going to say it doesn’t have any other heter function, what’s the law? If you had your da'at, your intention, for it after it goes out—
Let’s see what he says here. We were reading this yesterday. This is in Menuchat Ahavah. Where was it—yud-alef? Muktzeh? Yes, kli shemelachto leheiter, okay, kli shemelachto le'issur. Fine, it’s over here.
“Vechol kli shera'ui be'ikar letashmish she'asur la'asot beShabbat, kegon et, misparayim”—here it says “telefon”—“vechayozei bo, din kechli shemelachto le'issur, afilu im lo hishtamshu bo me'olam limlechet issur shelo.”
Fine. Even if I’ve never used it for its melechet issur, its prohibited function—it’s a new phone, a new whatever it is. “Aval kli shera'ui letashmish shel heiter,” and its prohibited function; those are both discussed there. We’ll see that.
Then he says, “Aha! Mutar letaltel kli shemelachto le'issur letzorech mekomo, af al pi she'eino ra'ui leshum tashmish hamutar beShabbat.” So he comes out lenient. “Shemikeivan shetorat kli alav, umishtamshim bo biyemot hachol limlachto, harei darko betiltul kechol hakelim, ve'ein maktzim oto mitiltulo beShabbat.”
Now we have to examine this. We’re talking about an item whose only function is issur, so clearly I cannot pick it up for its primary function, because that’s issur. The only heter I would have is mekomo. One side would say that even mekomo should be forbidden. Once it has no function, maybe it loses the status of a keli. I can’t use it for its purpose on Shabbat. Is there anything else? There’s nothing else. So why should I have a heter to move it?
He comes along and says he wrote a big teshuvah (responsum) on this in Tefillah LeMoshe (Prayer of Moses): “Vechen nitba'er baMe'iri uvechiddushei haRashba vechen meduyak beLikkutei haRamban vechen mitba'er midivrei haMagen Avraham ushe'ar ha'Acharonim.”
He has a whole arichut (extended discussion) there; he writes “ayein sham” (see there). I’ll find the page in Minchat Shlomo. He already has a piece on this and explains what he was talking about. It’s in heh, siman heh, right at the beginning of the sefer. He has this question there. He says, “ken yesh lehochi'ach mikamah Rishonim.”
Ready for the main proof? The Gemara, Shabbat, daf lamed-vav, says: “tanya” (it is taught): “Shofar metultal.” A shofar (ram's horn) can be moved on Shabbat. “Chatzotzrot einan metaltelin”—chatzotzrot, a trumpet, cannot be moved. That’s one beraita (early rabbinic teaching). Another beraita says, “tanya idach” (it was taught elsewhere): “Keshem shemetalatlin et hashofar kach metaltlin et hachatzotzrot.” So we have a stirah (contradiction) here. Everyone says the shofar is okay; the machloket (dispute) is about the chatzotzrot.
The Gemara says, “la kashya” (There is no difficulty): “ha Rabbi Yehudah, veha Rabbi Shimon.” Now, in perush Rashi (Rashi's explanation): “ha Rabbi Yehudah”—the shofar can be moved, but the chatzotzrot cannot. Why? Because the shofar is ra'ui (fit for use) to draw water. So it has a shem keli (status as a utensil), according to Rabbi Yehudah. The chatzotzrot, however, are just a straight item, and they aren’t fit to hold water. So according to Rabbi Yehudah, the chatzotzrot don’t have a heter function; they’re assur.
That means the second beraita follows Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Shimon says both the shofar and the chatzotzrot are mutar, even though the chatzotzrot don’t have a heter function. So you see—and who do we hold like when it comes to muktzeh? We hold like Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, if you hold like the second beraita, that the shofar and chatzotzrot are mutar, the chiddush (novel point) is the chatzotzrot. The chatzotzrot have no function, and that’s how Rashi learned the sugya (Talmudic discussion). Rabbi Yehudah is lenient about the shofar because it has a function. Rabbi Yehudah is stringent about the chatzotzrot because they have only an issur function, so they don’t have torat keli (status as a utensil). “VeRabbi Shimon matir bekulam!”
So what do you see? I’ll read Rashi’s wording. On daf lamed-vav, Rashi explains Rabbi Yehudah’s view: “shofar metultal lefi shekafuf rosho”—its end is bent—“vera'ui lish'ov,” fit to draw water, “velishtot hatinok,” so you can give it to a child. “Chatzotzrot, peshutah,” straight, “einah re'uyah ela litko'a,” fit only for playing, “vehavei davar shemelachto le'issur ve'assur mishum muktzeh.” You see from Rashi’s words that the chatzotzrot are a kli shemelachto le'issur, and they aren’t fit for any permitted use. As he said, “ve'einah re'uyah ela litko'a.” If so, according to what we hold, like Rabbi Shimon, who permits moving the chatzotzrot too, it follows that it is permitted to move a kli shemelachto le'issur even if it has no use for its body on Shabbat.
Very important. If you hold like Rashi in this sugya, you have a clear derech (approach).
“Vechen mevo'ar bechiddushei haRashba.” Now look at the Rashba’s wording: “Ve'ukimna keRabbi Yehudah, vehilchach, shofar shemegam'in bo mayim lif'amim letzorech gufo uletzorech mekomo, sharei. Aval chatzotzrot, she'ein re'uyah ligmo'a bah mayim kelal, umeyuchedet hi litki'ah, va'asurah. Vehavya lah kemitah hameyuchedet lema'ot va'asirah. Veha detanya keshem shemetalatlin et hashofar kach metaltelin et hachatzotzrot”—the other beraita—“Rabbi Shimon hi, desharei letaltel afilu kelim hameyuchadim letashmish issur letzorech gufo uletzorech mekomo.”
How would that work, if he’s saying gufo and mekomo? What? Because it’s a kli shemelachto le'issur. But you can’t use it for gufo, because in this case the gufo is—Right, that’s his question. Obviously, gufo—But Rashi didn’t say that. Rashi said exactly that! What do you mean, did he? Did he say letzorech gufo umekomo? What did he say? It is possible to move it, fine, letzorech—Why would he say that? Is it a kli shemelachto leheiter? Are the chatzotzrot a kli shemelachto leheiter? I agree with that, but why—Rashi said it. Or did he not discuss Rabbi Shimon? Rashi only discussed Rabbi Yehudah: “Hachatzotzrot peshutah einah re'uyah ela litkoa, vehavei davar shemelachto le'issur ve'asur mishum muktzeh.”
Rashi didn’t discuss Rabbi Shimon. What did Rabbi Shimon hold? The chatzotzrot are mutar. What does mutar mean? They’re a kli shemelachto le'issur, but mutar. Mutar for what? Mutar letzorech mekomo. Make the rules. That’s the only way. “Umevo'ar da'at tochen Rashi dechatzotzerot einam re'uyot.” Look, that’s the point: they understand that the chatzotzrot have no function. At the same time, you see a stringency argued on that. They understand that the chatzotzrot have no function, and still Rabbi Shimon is lenient. “Ve'af al pi chen Rabbi Shimon dekaima lan kevatai, mutar letaltelo letzorech gufo umekomo.”
Now, your question—letzorech gufo, as the Rashba says, means an unusual use, such as using the chatzotzrot to crack open nuts. Let’s say you found chatzotzrot that you could use to crack open nuts. A certain kind—you probably wouldn’t do it, but a certain kind, okay.
This is how the Me'iri (Menachem Meiri) writes, and this is his wording: “Vezeh shematirin beshofar ve'asur bechatzotzrot le-Rabbi Yehudah, mitzad shehu ra'ui legufo, kegon gmi'at mayim shebeshofar. Ach chatzotzrot ho'il ve'ein lah tashmish gufah, asur af limkomah, le-Rabbi Yehudah. Vezu shematirin bishteihem le-Rabbi Shimon, she'ein lo muktzeh mishum keli letzorech mekomo.” The Mordechai writes this too and relies on it; I can rely on the Rashba’s words.
So, rabotai, we have a lot of tzaddikim (righteous people) here. We have a Rashba, a Me'iri, and Rashi’s approach in the sugya as well. They all agree that it doesn’t need to have a function. If you go with this klal (principle), it’s a big leniency in muktzeh. They’ve totally changed the rules. No, it doesn’t change the rules. It’s still a kli shemelachto le'issur. You never analyzed this before. You always looked at a kli shemelachto le'issur and thought, “Okay, mutar letzorech gufo, letzorech mekomo.” We never analyzed what you can use this item for. Who cares what you can use it for? A kli shemelachto le'issur is mutar letzorech gufo or letzorech mekomo.
We’re going to see another tzad (side). Tzad bet is going to tell you that these poskim say it’s assur. The only reason it’s mutar, they say, is because it has a heter function. A hammer has a heter function. A clear heter. But a tape recorder—what do you know? Does anybody break nuts with a tape recorder? Of course you can do anything, rabotai, but it isn’t done. It’s never done; it’s seldom done. You never think to do such a thing.
He says, “ken mitba'er midivrei haGra"z.” Who is the Gra"z? Rav Zalman! Rabbi Zalman. “Beve'ur ha'isur debeged sha'atnez”—what’s the issur of a beged sha'atnez (garment containing shaatnez)? It’s assur on Shabbat, muktzeh. It’s assur because you can’t wear it. What else could you do with it? Drop a spill? A beged sha'atnez? It’s impossible. Who would say that?
“Mipnei she'ein torat keli mo'il ela lechli shemelachto le'issur beShabbat bilvad, aval bechol melachto leheiter.” He says that even if it’s not at all fit for any use on Shabbat, it’s mutar to move it, since it has torat keli—that is, it’s fit for its weekday function. “Mah she'ein ken kli sha'atnez,” which isn’t even fit for use during the week. So that’s really muktzeh. You see, for Rav Zalman, for something to be a keli, it has to have a function, but not necessarily on Shabbat. As long as it has a weekday function, even if I can’t do that function on Shabbat, it doesn’t matter. That gives it torat keli. Anything that has torat keli makes the laws of muktzeh easier, as opposed to a rock, which is muktzeh machmat gufo (set aside due to its nature).
So, once again, what is Rav Zalman’s principle? Does this kli sha'atnez have any function on Shabbat? No, but it’s a keli. What makes it a keli? I’m sorry, not the kli sha'atnez; that’s the opposite. The kli sha'atnez has no function at all. Tools may have a function, too. So I can’t do anything with it—oh, that’s muktzeh. Not so with another kli shemelachto le'issur, whose only function is on a weekday. It has a weekday function? No problem. It has no function on Shabbat? I can move it letzorech mekomo. That’s Rav Zalman’s principle. He’s in line with these Rishonim. He says, “aval im gam bechol eino ra'ui limlachah, kegon beged sha'atnez, she'asur lehitlabesh bo gam bechol, ein alav torat keli umalbush klal, vezehu.”
So it’s assur for anything. “Ve'ayein beMekor Chayim (Source of Life) leBa'al Chavot Ya'ir shemutar letaltel leichter.” Right? The leichter, candlesticks, that you didn’t light on Erev Shabbat. What are you going to use candlesticks for? As a baseball bat? What do you use candle candlesticks for? They’re for lighting. But you can move them letzorech mekomo. You have the leichter on the table on Shabbat, you didn’t light them, they’re for show, let’s say, and you need the space. What is that? A kli shemelachto le'issur. You know that, but what else do you do with it besides light it? Nothing. You only light it. But that doesn’t matter. So that’s that school of thought.
Likewise, we can prove it from all the Acharonim who wrote that a ner shel sha'avah—a wax candle—is a kli shemelachto le'issur. All these rabbis rule this way, I guess. You don’t chew on your braces with a wax candle. So they call it a kli shemelachto le'issur, and it’s mutar to move it letzorech gufo and mekomo. They are the Magen Avraham, Maharshal, Pri Megadim, Tosefet Shabbat, Derech Chayim, Chayei Adam, Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (Concise Code of Jewish Law), and Mishnah Berurah.
Yalla, open up Shlomo. Shin-Chet, se'if katan lamed-dalet. Huh? Candles? Wax candles. Kli shemelachto le'issur. Are you at lamed-dalet already? No? Okay, go.
“She'ein bo shayachut, kegon ashashit shel barzel vetavla, vechein bik'at”—that means a piece of wood. Get to “vechein ner shel sha'avah.” “Vechein ner shel—” Continue: “vechein ner shel sha'avah.” A whole wax candle. “Ah, vechein ner shalem shel sha'avah o chelev, va'afilu nidlekah kevar bechol o beShabbat, shekol... shesha'ah... lo, kol shehi adayin re'uyah lehadlakah, mikrei keli shemelachto le'issur.” That’s the Mishnah Berurah.
“Umah shemargla bepumei de'inshi demutar letaltel ner shalem shel chelev o sha'avah kedei shelo tipased haner, o—” “Margla bepumei de'inshi”—that’s it! We’re going with the vernacular of the people. Go to shul and ask people the whole thing: “No, you can move it.” “Shelo tipased,” so it won’t be damaged. “She'ein yignavuha akum”—they’ll steal it. They’re mistaken, of course, because a kli shemelachto le'issur isn’t mutar to prevent a loss. You can move a kli shemelachto le'issur only when you need it letzorech gufo or mekomo.
That’s what people in shul—the am ha'aretz, the people—are saying: “O shetzarich haYisrael legufo shel hakeli lehishtamesh bo davar hamutar beShabbat, kegon kurnas liftzo'a bo egozim, velirdos zeitim.” And in the sefer Mor Uketzi'ah—ah! The Mor Uketzi'ah is stringent. What does he say? “De'afilu ner shalem uletzorech mekomo asur letaltel, she'ein alav shem keli klal.”
There’s the machloket right there. That’s the machloket the Mishnah Berurah brings down. But generally, he’s lenient. He brings the Mor Uketzi'ah, who is stringent, but generally his approach is that it’s a kli shemelachto le'issur. That’s it.
After that list, rabotai, it follows that a kli shemelachto le'issur that isn’t fit for any permitted function on Shabbat still has torat keli, and it’s mutar to move it letzorech mekomo. A wax candle isn’t fit for any use besides lighting, as the Beit Yosef writes about the words of the Rashbatz. The Rashbatz compared a wax candle to these reeds, chariyot shel dekel. This is the Beit Yosef’s wording: “Veli ein hanidon domeh lera'ayah.” I don’t compare the case of a wax candle to the example of the reeds, because in that case, when the reeds are fit to be used on Shabbat, you can lie or sit on them; they’re like a rug. That’s not so with a wax candle. Clearly, the Beit Yosef understood that a ner shel sha'avah has no function. Still, what are all the poskim saying? Mutar! Mutar if you need the place!
See the words of haGaramal Levi in Shut Tefillah LeMoshe. He brings the words of the Rishonim, and points to an extended Gemara: “Amar Rav Yehudah: shraga demishcha.” This is a great piece. “Shraga demishcha.” What does that mean? Boys, let’s work on your Aramaic. “Shraga” means flame; “mishcha” means oil. So it’s an oil lamp, an oil flame: “shraga demishcha, shetalak ner shel shemen, sharei letaltulei achar shekavah keRabbi Shimon dela ma'is.” It’s permitted to move after it goes out, according to Rabbi Shimon, because it isn’t repulsive. “Aval benafta”—but if it was neft, like kerosene—“demasrach,” it smells, “afilu Rabbi Shimon modeh,” even Rabbi Shimon agrees, because he holds of muktzeh machmat mi'us (set aside due to repulsiveness).
Therefore, he says, “delo chazi,” and it says, “afilu Rabbi Shimon modeh delo chazi ela limlachto.” So now we have to study this. The Gemara says that if it’s made out of shemen, there’s no problem moving it on Shabbat. It’s like a lamp with oil. Mutar. Obviously, it wasn’t lit on Shabbat, or whatever it is, but it’s mutar: oil. Now, presumably, there’s no oil in it. If there were oil in it, it might be that the oil had simply burned out; it’s empty, and now I want to move it. Oil is mutar. Neft is like kerosene, something like that. He says, “aval benafta demasrach, afilu Rabbi Shimon modeh”—here’s the key—“delo chazi ela limlachto.” What is the neft fit for? Only its intended function. Right. But what about the shemen? It’s also fit only for its intended function.
So what does he say here? “Umevo'ar she'af shener shel neft yesh alav torat keli,” it has the status of a keli, “keivan she'eino ra'uy leshum tashmish shel heter beShabbat machamat me'isuto.” Because it’s repulsive, it’s assur to move. Even though we conclude there that Rava and Rav Yosef permit moving the nefta lamp, we explain the reason there: “ho'il vera'uy lechasot bahem kelim”—it’s fit to cover utensils.
They can come along and say that you can use it to cover utensils. But remove that, and consider an item whose function is prohibited and that isn’t fit for any use. The Rabbis in the Gemara were lenient about moving this neft because they found a permitted use for it. But the sugya implies that if you couldn’t find a permitted use for it, it would be assur.
So what do you mean? Now we have a problem. Bottom line, Chacham Moshe wants to be lenient. He has to deal with this Gemara, which sounds like—Ah, so what? It’s repulsive? Repulsiveness is a different level; it’s worse. That’s exactly what he’s going to answer. You don’t need it to have a function, but your mind isn’t removed from it, because you can move it for other things. Once it’s repulsive, your mind is removed from it; that’s worse. The tape recorder isn’t repulsive. If it’s in the way, I’ll move it. But you wouldn’t even touch something repulsive. It isn’t something to play with.
He says, “Vechen mitba'er me'od Rishonim,” and goes through this. Among them are the Ran, Me'iri, and Ramban. “Deha demutar letaltel sheraga denafta”—the reason they allowed moving the sheraga denafta—“hainu mishum shera'uy lechasot bo kelim.” They all go out of their way to say the neft is mutar only because it’s fit to cover utensils. Don’t just say it’s a simple kli shemelachto le'issur that you can move letzorech—No, you see that if they couldn’t find a permitted use, they couldn’t say that. It seems that with a kli shemelachto le'issur, you have to find a reason. So it’s a problem.
He brings another proof from Shabbat. “Amar Rav Huna, hayetah behemato te'unah keli zechuchit.” Remember this Gemara? His animal has glass utensils on its back. He wants to unload them, so he brings pillows and cushions, puts them underneath the animal, “umani'ach tachteha, umatir et hachavalim.” He unties the ropes, and the sacks fall. The Gemara challenges this: “Veha netaran, notel et hakelim hanitanim beShabbat.” Why? Aren’t these utensils muktzeh? The Gemara answers: “ki ka'amar Rav Huna bekarnei de'umana delo chazya leh.”
Rav Huna’s statement is connected to the teaching, “notel et hakelim hanitanim beShabbat.” The Gemara asks: what do you mean, these utensils aren’t muktzeh? Why do you need the pillows? Just take them off the animal. No, they aren’t moving the animal. The Gemara asks a simple question: what’s the problem with these utensils? They aren’t muktzeh; just take them off. Why all this procedure? The Gemara says we’re talking about the makiz dam, the bloodletter, who has these tubes that are designated for bloodletting. So they were on the animal’s back.
“Makiz dam einam re'uyim leShabbat lefi sheme'usim.” They aren’t fit for Shabbat because they’re repulsive. The Ran writes this way: even according to Rabbi Shimon, who doesn’t hold of muktzeh machmat mi'us, it’s assur to move them. Rabbi Shimon permits the sheraga denafta only because you can cover something with it. That isn’t so with these implements; you don’t use them for anything else. You wouldn’t even cover a keli with them, so Rabbi Shimon holds they’re muktzeh.
Again, in this sugya it sounds like they’re trying to find a permitted use for the nefta. Why do that? Just say letzorech mekomo and finish! Or say it’s repulsive. But something else that isn’t repulsive might not need that.
This is how the Ba'al HaMa'or writes. Go to the next paragraph, “vechatav”—the haGeramal. Who is the haGeramal? HaGeramal, haGaon Rabbi Moshe Levi, haGeramal. He answers that there’s a distinction. “Veyeshev sheyesh lechalek. Bein keli shemelachto le'issur she'ein lo tashmish heter beShabbat machamat she'eino ra'uy bimtzi'ut,” meaning there’s nothing you can do with it, “lebein keli shemelachto she'ein lo tashmish begufo beShabbat machamat me'isuto.” Why is there no function? I can say there’s no function because, in reality, there’s nothing to do with the item. What else are you going to do with a tape recorder? Or I can say there’s no function because the item is repulsive. There’s a difference. What’s the difference?
“O machamat sheba'al habayit makpid shelo yishtamesh bo shelo yitkalkel ki keshe'ein lo tashmish heter machamat me'isuto, harei hu mesi'ach da'ato mitaltulo kelal uchelal.” If the reason is that it’s repulsive, the person has completely removed his mind from moving it. He’s particular not to use it for something else. But if it isn’t fit for a permitted function in reality, even though there’s no use for it, that isn’t a reason to set aside moving it. It still has torat keli, and he can move it, at least letzorech mekomo.
That’s a big difference. All these Gemarot are talking about muktzeh machmat mi'us. With muktzeh machmat mi'us, he’s given up on it entirely: “I’m not touching this keli for anything.” So it loses torat keli. Not so with sha'atnez. Not so with an item that has a heter, or is somewhat repulsive, although it doesn’t have a heter function; it doesn’t lose its status as a keli. Like Rav Shlomo Zalman said. During the week, too, I’m not going to touch this neft because it’s repulsive. So that Gemara doesn’t pose a problem because it’s discussing a repulsive item. You take a repulsive item out of the picture.
According to this, there’s no difficulty from the ner shel neft. It’s repulsive, and there’s no practice of moving it at all. If not for the fact that you found a permitted use for it, you wouldn’t move it. That’s only because the neft is repulsive. To take something repulsive out of that category, you have to find a function. But if it weren’t repulsive, even if it had no function, it would be mutar. Do you understand the reasoning? Why did you need to create a heter by saying, “I cover utensils with it”? Because it was repulsive. Repulsiveness is really worse; you have to bring it back into the game. Not so with a regular item.
He brings another proof. The last paragraph says, in the words of haGeram Feinstein: “Vehinei kelim gam im chashuvim kemo tape recorder, im eino makpid aleihem kol yemei ha-shavua, einam muktzeh machamat chesron kis, aval asurim midin muktzeh machamat shetashmishan le'issur.” He calls it a kli shemelachto le'issur. “Uvifshatut tape recorder mikrei kli shemelachto le'issur she'ein bo melechet heter, ve'af al pi chen matir letaltelo lefi mah shekatav haRosh, vechen matzinu haGeram Levi lehakel bazeh.”
By the way, rabotai, this is a big heter for your cell phones. It seems that this removes the need for letzorech gufo. Everything is now mekomo. It removes what? It removes the need to have a heter function for a kli shemelachto le'issur. Chisron kis doesn’t apply, so once again, it’s a kli shemelachto le'issur. Obviously, if it has no heter function at all, letzorech gufo is off the table. Take this hammer. I don’t have to say I’m breaking walnuts with it; I can just say I need the place. It’s always like that. If the hammer didn’t have the walnut use—Letzorech gufo is—Okay, but you can’t make up a reason for mekomo. “I just want to move the tape recorder.” What do you need the place for? You have to have a real reason. It’s on the table.
So, by the way, if this is the heter—this is a big heter, rabotai. If your cell phone is on the table, what is there to discuss? Pick it up and put it somewhere else. What is there to discuss? Don’t come and tell me, “Oh, it’s a kli shemelachto...” A cell phone is certainly not chisron kis. At least in my house. We give the cell phone to the kids. They want to watch a video or send an email; we give them the phone. The kids are running around asking, “Where’s the phone?” It’s thrown all over the place. The phone has become like who knows what, like a fork.
The question is, let’s say it’s on the table or counter charging, and we have to put the food out for Shabbat. Letzorech mekomo! Letzorech gufo is never going to apply, because what could you do with a cell phone?
“Yeah, but it has to be off, no? A cell phone has to be off when you—” What’s the difference? Rabotai, a signal comes in, shut it off, the light—Somebody calls, somebody calls, somebody calls. “Yeah, I’m talking about a regular cellphone that’s off.” That’s regular. Rabotai, I’m not talking about one where you lift it up and it—“I’m Jewish, I know that.” Of course, I’m talking about a phone where the light is going to go on. I’m not giving that heter. I’m assuming it’s a regular cellphone like our cellphones: when it’s off, it’s off. When you lift it up, nothing goes on. There are no movements, no zecher, nothing.
“How do we look at the fact that it’s electric? As kids, we all grew up thinking anything electric is muktzeh.” A tape recorder is electric. I’m saying, it is muktzeh. It is muktzeh machmat kli shemelachto le'issur. They were right when they told you that as kids. It is muktzeh. “But it’s off.” No, it’s muktzeh. It’s muktzeh in the category of kli shemelachto le'issur. “Right, yeah. Even if it’s off. You don’t need letzorech mekomo?” You do. That’s why we—What’s a kli shemelachto le'issur? That’s why we brought this up. You would have thought that a tape recorder or cell phone, since it doesn’t have a heter function, is worse than a kli shemelachto le'issur; it isn’t a keli. It’s like a beged sha'atnez. But the chiddush is no: to make something a kli shemelachto le'issur, it doesn’t have to have a heter function.
Here’s the example we always heard: a kli shemelachto le'issur. Take a pen. You can use it—heter? No, issur, yes. You can write with it, but you can move it because it’s a kli shemelachto le'issur. You can use it to scratch your back—No, they were trying to show you an example of gufo! That’s all they were trying to show: an example of gufo. They said you can scratch your back with a pen or break open nuts with a hammer. Bediyuk. You don’t have to—Say it a little differently. A kli shemelachto—See, a kid will do that. You have a tape recorder and scratch your back with it? It has to be something that’s at least within the realm of use. A guy would scratch his back with a grand piano if he had to take his grand piano and use it to scratch his back.
So say it this way: a kli shemelachto le'issur that you can move only letzorech mekomo is enough, even though you have no letzorech gufo. You might have thought you need gufo and mekomo. It has to have a gufo to allow mekomo. Since I can use it as a hammer to open nuts, even if I don’t need to open nuts, I can move it if it’s in the way because it has a heter function. But the chiddush is no. You don’t need a heter. Take gufo out of the equation.
That means there are two categories of kli shemelachto le'issur. Say it this way: “yesh kli shemelachto le'issur shemutar letzorech gufo umekomo, veyesh kli shemelachto le'issur sherak mutar letzorech mekomo.” That’s it. You don’t need gufo to permit it. Each has its own category, baruch Hashem. And that brings in a lot of muktzeh, by the way. Electronics—this applies to a lot of these electronic items. A camera, assuming these cheap cameras today that you give to the kids to use—not one of Adam’s fancy cameras with lenses, a $2,000 lens, but a regular camera today, the kind a kid gets for his bar mitzvah. The kids run around with it, taking pictures all day. Okay, no problem. Now it’s on the table on Shabbat. Besides asking whether you can scratch your back with a Nikon 350, the point is: mekomo? Mekomo, no problem. I mean, there are a zillion and one items. Kids’ toys. Headphones. All these things the kids use all day. iPads for kids and other things. This thing here—we throw it away; I don’t even know where the case is. The kids were playing with it. I don’t know where the case is. I have it somewhere at home, but the point is, it turns up on the table on Shabbat or something like that.
So now, lema'aseh, Chacham Levi is lenient. The Mishnah Berurah was lenient, based on the ner shel Shabbat. I didn’t see Chacham Ovadia; I didn’t see Chacham Ben Tzion. But you have the Rashba, the Me'iri, haGaon Rabbi Zalman, and—now, on the other hand, Rav Moshe Feinstein. What are we going to do now, boys? Do you still want to believe this? Yes, tzad bet. Tzad bet, okay. He quotes tzad bet. He has a whole tzad bet. The Mishnah Berurah brought someone who forbids it. No, he brought the other side. Do you want to hear the other side for a second, rabotai? Let’s hear it.
This is what the Avnei Nezer writes in his responsum, according to Tosfot (Tosafot). He found the Tosfot. “Vezeh leshono: vegimel chilukim hem bikli shemelachto le'issur.” There are three levels. “Im ein ra'uy klal rak limlechet issur, zeh muktzeh gamur.” Wait, so it’s a keli, but it’s not fit for anything? That’s complete muktzeh, which Rabbi Shimon agrees with. “Ve'ein lecha muktzeh gamur kazeh.” What does he mean, there’s no more complete muktzeh than that? “Ve'im ra'uy me'at limlechet heter,” that’s a dispute between Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon about muktzeh. “Ve'im ra'uy gamur limlechet heter rak she'ikar asiyato limlechet issur zeh gam leRabbi Yehudah mutar.” In any case, moving it from the hot place to the cool place is assur. These things are based on Tosfot, Shabbat.
Here’s the Tosfot: “deshofar dachazi legamrei limlechet heter sharei letzorech gufo umekomo gam leRabbi Yehudah.” We saw the Gemara. The shofar, we said, isn’t muktzeh according to everyone. Tosfot says why? Because you have a completely permitted use for it. You can use it for water. So far, so good. “Vachatzotzrot dachazi me'at.” That’s it. He says the chatzotzrot can be used if you fill them with water and put your hand over them so it doesn’t fall out. That’s a game changer. Rashi learned that the chatzotzrot had no function. So you have a machloket bimtzi'ut (dispute about the facts), rabotai. Welcome to the dispute about the facts. Tosfot comes along and says there is a heter; it’s just not such a useful heter. Rabbi Yehudah says muktzeh. Rabbi Shimon says, “I don’t care whether the heter is easy or difficult. Bottom line, you have a heter. Enjoy.”
Once Tosfot understands that the chatzotzrot have a function, the whole structure was resting on that. Our whole binyan, the foundation of the structure, was built on the chatzotzrot being functionless and Rabbi Shimon permitting them. What did Tosfot do? What was the basis of the chatzotzrot being permitted? That they had no function, and Rabbi Shimon permitted them. Tosfot comes along and says, “No, no, it has a function. That’s why he permits it.” It’s okay, it’s me'at, it’s a little. A little isn’t nothing. Why does Tosfot go out on a limb to say it’s a little—not nothing, but a little?
This is how Rabbi Akiva Eiger writes according to Tosfot: “demah delo chazi leShabbat leshum davar havei kemuktzeh machmat even.” The Mor Uketzi'ah writes this concerning a ner shel chelev, the one we saw in the Mishnah Berurah. So there we go. That’s Petach haDvir.
So what’s the difference between the shofar and the chatzotzrot? They understand that there are degrees of use. The shofar is used easily, so even Rabbi Yehudah will be lenient. “Beshefa” means easily. There’s no difference between a shofar and a ladle according to that; that’s simple. So everyone would be lenient. The chatzotzrot have a small permitted use because they’re difficult to use. They’re long; you have to fill them with water and put your hand there. The shofar is curved, so it’s easy. Not so with the straight chatzotzrot; you have to balance them. You can do it, but Rabbi Yehudah says that’s already too difficult. Rabbi Shimon says that’s enough; you don’t need that kind of heter.
But once Tosfot gets into trying to justify the chatzotzrot, the foundation falls. That’s it. He goes on and on. Look at the next piece, the next paragraph.
“Ume'atah aleinu lada'at mah mikrei kli shemelachto le'issur she'ein bo melechet heter deleda'at haTosfot havei muktzeh af leRabbi Shimon?” Now that we’re making three distinctions—an abundant permitted use, a difficult permitted use, and then mafi—what’s the mafi case? I guess you’ll always come along and say, “Well, there’s always something you can do with it.”
What is the criterion? According to what the Pri Megadim and Petach haDvir write, Tosfot’s statement that the chatzotzrot are fit for a small permitted use means that they’re fit to draw water for a child with difficulty, by plugging the narrow end with your thumb. You get that? You fill it with water and hold your thumb over it so it doesn’t fall out, then give it to the child to drink. It’s being used as a baby bottle. That’s what it was: a baby bottle.
By the way, this is connected to today being the ninth day of Chanukah (Dedication). I know, tonight. This is sfika deyoma, rabotai. One of the gezerot (decrees) the Greeks made was: “kitvu lachem al keren hashor” (Write for yourselves on the horn of an ox), “ein lachem chelek be'Elokei Yisrael” (You have no share in the God of Israel). What’s the pshat in that? If you want to make a gezerah that they have to write “You have no share” on billboards in the streets, or at school on the blackboards, why choose such a random place to write this pitgam, this saying: “You have no share; we have no share in the God of Israel”? According to Tosfot, now you understand. That’s how they explain it. What was the shofar for? To feed the babies.
Ah, chazak uvaruch. When the babies drink from their bottles, instead of seeing Gerber, or whatever, what do they see? “You have no share in the God of Israel.” So, can he read it? Ah! I was ready for that. It doesn’t matter. What’s the difference? It doesn’t matter. You see here that this Tosfot is connected to Chanukah.
So basically, rabotai, he comes along and says, “im ken, keivan deyesh lehochiach mizeh prat echad, deRabbi Shimon lo bayinan sheyehei derech lehishtamesh bakli lechach.” According to Rabbi Shimon, you don’t need it to be the normal way to use the keli. It clearly isn’t the normal way to use the chatzotzrot as a baby bottle, but it can be done with difficulty.
This also comes out from the Rashba in the sugya of the chatzotzrot. According to Rabbi Yehudah, the shofar is used to draw water sometimes for letzorech gufo, and he compares it to an ashashit and the chatzotzrot, which aren’t used that way. The practice of using the shofar for this purpose was specific to the shofar sometimes. If so, according to the approaches that permit the chatzotzrot because it doesn’t need to be the normal way, it only needs to be fit for use. It seems the criterion is as we wrote earlier: it has to be fit for a small permitted use because the tzurat hakli (the utensil's shape) makes it possible to get some permitted use out of it. Even if the use is difficult, it has to be a use that relates to the shape and structure of the keli.
Exactly. Don’t use the example of a backscratcher. That isn’t the tzurat hakli. Anything can be a backscratcher. The shape doesn’t make a difference. But here, the long shape of the chatzotzrot lets me do something else with them: put water in and hold my finger over the end. You understand the way they’re learning it? It’s not simply that I can find any function for it. The keli itself—what makes this item different from another item? The construction of it is what makes the permitted use possible.
So, according to this, why don’t we say every keli can be used to weigh down papers? Here’s a paperweight. Would you say every keli should be mutar because I can use it as a paperweight? Nothing unique about the shape of that keli makes it more useful as a paperweight than something else. What makes it fit as a paperweight more than this book or anything else? The weight of an item—everything has weight. That doesn’t make it a function.
But if you tell me the chatzotzrot can be used as a paperweight—Why do they have to jump to chatzotzrot as a way to feed a baby? Say chatzotzrot, paperweight! Didn’t they have papers in the zman Chazal (the era of the Sages)? Just say chatzotzrot, paperweight! A doorstop! There it is. Paperweight. Maybe they didn’t have a door. The Greeks took away the doors. They didn’t take away paper. Heavy paper.
My point is that this is a very important paragraph, because this is always a question that stymies you in hilchot muktzeh. You start learning and ask, “What do you mean, like a paperweight?” No, the principle is that the weight of the item isn’t called the shape of the item.
Likewise, according to this, why don’t we say every keli can be used to weigh down papers so they don’t fly away? Then you’d have no kli shemelachto le'issur without a permitted function. He says, “dehalo shimush zeh eino meyuchas letzurat hakli, uleficach lo nechshav ra'ui limlechet heter.” See the sefer Shalmei Yonatan, where he says that a certain Gaon told him this in the name of haGerish Elyashiv. Yishtabach shemo, it’s a good sevara (reasoning). You hear that sevara? I hear that sevara. Chazak uvaruch. A pen as a backscratcher—I hear that, absolutely. The shape of it is useful.
Okay, he goes through it there. So those are the two sides, rabotai. You have the Mor Uketzi'ah on the other side, who comes along and learns this based on Tosfot. Basically, it’s a machloket in Tosfot, and a machloket in the facts.
In the last paragraph, he says: “ve'agav azkir kan she'kli shemelachto le'issur kegon Scotch tape, stuff that you buy in a roll, lechulei alma yesh ledunam kemuktzeh gamur.” Why? “Kevan she'ein efsharut shimush bahem im lo al yedei keri'ah.” The only way to get the Scotch tape off is to rip it; these things come in rolls. “Ve'af sheshayach lehishtamesh bahem belo lekor'am”—I can use it without ripping it—“mikol makom kevan she'ein omdim leshimush be'ofen zeh, she'ein haderech lehishtamesh bahem ela al yedei chituch, nechshavim mechusarim ma'aseh adayin velo chal aleihem shem keli.” They’re considered to lack an act of preparation, and the status of a keli hasn’t yet taken effect. Wow! He wants to call Scotch tape worse than a kli shemelachto le'issur, because it’s like a rock: the only way we use Scotch tape is by ripping it. Why would that make it worse?
He repeats: “ve'agav azkir kan she'kli shemelachto le'issur kegon Scotch tape ush'ar devarim, lechulei alma yesh ledunam kemuktzeh gamur, kevan she'ein efsharut shimush bahem im lo al yedei keri'ah.” What does that mean? There’s no use without turning it on? What does that mean? What’s the difference? “Ve'af sheshayach lehishtamesh bahem belo lekor'am”—I could use the Scotch tape without ripping it, but nobody does that. “Mikol makom kevan she'ein omdim leshimush be'ofen zeh, ela al yedei chituch, nechshavim mechusarim ma'aseh adayin velo chal aleihem shem keli.” It hasn’t become a keli yet—or is it already a keli? Here already, since—
This principle relates to many things, such as a roll of paper, tin foil, and dental floss. We have to see this. He wants to treat Scotch tape and tin foil this way. If you’d asked me before, I would have said tin foil is a kli shemelachto le'issur because I can’t rip it. But if it were on my table, I would move it letzorech mekomo. He’s saying, “No, he calls it a rock.” How am I going to rip the tin foil? That’s—Well, it comes with scissors attached. How can I use tin foil on Shabbat? It’s on a roll. That’s a zache! All right, rabotai. He’s saying you don’t do that. Who does that, with the roll attached? Have you ever seen a guy come to the table with the roll of tin foil? You could do it, but it’s not done. No one does that. A guy coming with the roll of tin foil? No, it’s not done.
I agree it’s not done, but so what? It’s a kli shemelachto le'issur. No, because since you haven’t ripped it yet, the roll is muktzeh machmat gufo. It isn’t even a keli! Okay, we have to see this in the sefer. Keep that in your brain.
But, rabotai, “bizeh nachtinan uvezeh salkinan” (by this we begin and end): a kli shemelachto le'issur that has no other heter function can be moved letzorech mekomo. Tomorrow, rabotai, as long as it has torat keli. Chazak uvaruch. That excludes a beged shel sha'atnez, which has no function even on Tuesday. The roll of tin foil—we have to see that. And it can’t be repulsive.
Tomorrow, rabotai, we have to look at another question, because these are the rules. I hope somebody is keeping score of the rules, besides daily halachah. These are the rules of life, of muktzeh. Get them once and for all. We have to see what qualifies as letzorech mekomo. If I just want to move something because it’s annoying me—say I’m sitting at the table, and there’s a hammer here. I don’t need this fight. Everything is nice; I’m eating. Do I have to sit with a hammer at the table all Shabbat? I have guests sitting here. “Oh, Rabbi, nice. What is this, a segulah (auspicious practice) to have a hammer next to you? What’s the inyan? What’s the inyan to have the hammer?” That’s brought down in the sefarim. They bring it down. Bekitzur, why not? Everybody can have a hammer next to them next Shabbat.
Can I sit at the table with a Shabbat stick? The broom—the broom in the room. I want to go sit in my den after dinner, and there’s all this stuff. I can’t sit here and look at this typewriter all Shabbat, the tape across from my face? Get out of here. Move it, move it inside. I can’t look at this on Shabbat. Is that also letzorech mekomo, or do you actually need the space? Of course you’ll tell me, “Why not work around it? Lift the hammer and put the Gemara over there.” Yes, of course I could probably do that. But can I do that? Can I work around it and call that letzorech mekomo? The Gemara was there, and all around it—I wanted it on the left side of this, right? You put the Gemara here, so take the hammer and lift it over here. Is that mutar? Anyway, we have to see tomorrow. Throw it on the floor, and that’s it. That’s it.
“Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya omer (Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya says), ratzah haKadosh Baruch Hu (The Holy One, blessed be He, desired), lezakkot et Yisrael (to grant merit to Israel), lefikach hirbah lahem Torah umitzvot (therefore He gave them abundant Torah and commandments).”