I went to the next se’if (section) in the Aruch HaShulchan regarding disposables. It turns out there is a machloket (dispute) between Rav Scheinberg and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. You saw that he brings down here yesh lehakel (one may be lenient), yesh lehachmir (one should be stringent). There is a big machloket here about how you deal with something that has already been used. The logic is that it is still a keli (utensil). The logic is that it is still a keli. The logic is that, yes, that one was broken, but this one is still whole. How can you throw it away? You are not really—hey, you are throwing it away because it is cheap. Even the sevarot (reasoning), as long as we have—okay. We’ll say it in the daily halachah (Jewish law) today, I guess, but it was something interesting that came up.
Okay, that was delatot (doors). Chaf-zayin, chaf-zayin, rabotai (my teachers), is one—one, one chaf-zayin in the Aruch HaShulchan. Basically, we saw a difference between shivrei kelim (fragments of vessels) and delatot shenitparku (doors that came apart). Those are two very, very, very important halachot (Jewish law): shivrei and delatot. I think to review that one. There is a great Rambam. Benny, do you want to give out the Rambams? Okay, we have Rambams in front of us. Chachamim, we do. There is a great Rambam here that gives the difference between them. The Rambam is going to be—where is the Rambam now?—in Hilchot Muktzeh, perek chaf-heh (chapter 25), halachah yod-bet (law 12). Thank you, Net. Perek chaf-heh, rabotai, open up a Rambam. Perek chaf-heh be-Hilchot Shabbat, halachah yod-bet.
Baruch atah Hashem, Eloheinu Melech ha’olam, shehakol nihyeh bidvaro (Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, by whose word all things came to be). Amen. Let’s read it. This is an important one. Kol hakelim (all the utensils), got it? Michael got it? Everybody got it? Rambam, Maimonides, and that. We have these books there. That should have been placed in front of me. Okay, yod-bet. Do you have a Rambam there, John? This is a Rambam, this one here, Mishneh Torah. Give credit to Gary; they are beautiful books he bought for the kahal (congregation).
Yod-bet: “Kol hakelim hanitalim be-Shabbat shenitparku daltoteihem.” Okay, you have a keli, nitalim be-Shabbat, and their doors broke, like you said—a pair of glasses, the arm came off, we came out a button—“kegon daltot shiddah, teivah u-migdal”: the doors of a shiddah, teivah, and migdal. A non-muktzeh (set-aside item) item: a teivah, shiddah, or migdal is a movable item. “Bein shenitparku be-Shabbat,” whether they fell off on Shabbat, “bein shenitparku kodem ha-Shabbat,” whether they fell off before Shabbat, “mutar letaltel otam delatot.” So our Rambam says mutar (permitted). Does the Rambam here say they have to be useful? Not in perek chaf-heh? Perek chaf-heh. He doesn’t say anything about being useful. Mutar—it’s a blanket, blanket statement.
Now look at the next line: “Vechen kol hakelim hanitalim be-Shabbat shenishberu.” What does it mean, halachah? Shenishberu. “Bein kodem Shabbat bein be-Shabbat, shivreihem nitalin, vehu sheyihyu shivreihen osin me’ein melachah. Keitzad? Shivrei areivah lechasot bahen et pi hachavit, shivrei zechuchit lechasot bahen et pi hapach, vechen kol kayotzei bazeh. Aval im ein hashvarim re’uyim limlachah kelal, asur letaltelan.”
So our Rambam clearly makes a chiluk (distinction) between delatot shenitparku and kelim shenishberu. What is the difference? With delatot shenitparku, those doors do not have to be ra’ui (fit) for anything. The arm of the glasses is not ra’ui for anything. But the broken vessels have to be ra’ui for something. What is the chiluk? Why? Say the sevara (reason). Why with the doors—going back to Chazak uvaruch!—agav avihem, because we are using the sevara of agav avihem: the doors do not need to have a function because the mother or father is still there. So they are mutarim (permitted), because you plan to put them back, even though you cannot put them back on Shabbat. But agav avihem—that is the sevara for saying they are not going to be muktzeh.
Mah she’ein ken (unlike that), shivrei kelim—ma fi keli! The keli is in a million pieces! So I cannot come along and say that this keli is going to be mutar agav avihem. Ein, ein, ein aviv, zeh yatom (there is no father; this is an orphan), ma fi av. Oh, so what is the sevara going to be? They themselves have value. So that is the Rambam.
Clearly, if you are medayek (careful) when you read the Rambam, with the doors his lashon (wording) was mutarim—they are mutarim, period. He did not say, “Vehu sheyihyu re’uyim le…,” because they have the sevara of agav avihem. Mah she’ein ken, when it came to shivrei, the Rambam was careful to say, “Ah, vehu sheyihyu re’uyim limlachtam.” Once you see the two halachot and know the sevarot, you see that the Rambam is very, very particular in the way he wrote it.
Another thing I’ll point out to you: Lu yetzuyar (if you can imagine), I don’t have a scenario, but let’s say you had a case where you had a keli shemelachto le’issur—a utensil whose use is prohibited on Shabbat—and its delet (door) broke. I guess maybe a toy, an electric toy for the kids or something like that, and, you know, one of the—anyway, the door, the thing came off it. Now you are going to screw it back on after Shabbat. What would you say then? The av (parent item) is a keli shemelachto le’issur, so what would the status of this delet be? Muktzeh. It is not going to be better than the av! I guess it would also be a keli shemelachto le’issur. Right? Because the doors we are talking about are completely permitted. These doors that broke are permitted because you can move the teivah itself. See, the Rambam’s lashon was “kol hakelim hanitalim be-Shabbat.” It sounds like the Rambam is saying this law of doors applies only to kelim hanitalim. What? Nitalim can mean a keli shemelachto leheter (utensil used for permitted work), or it can mean melachto le’issur, which is nital letzorech gufo uletzorech mekomo—for its own use or its place—maybe not a chesron kis, a valuable item one is careful with. Maybe if a chesron kis item’s door broke, you couldn’t move the chesron kis, so the door would become better than the father? That is just a, you know, he’arah (observation).
Okay, rabotai. Now we can go further. I thought the Rambam was a very nice summary.
Okay, halachah kaf-zayin (law 27): “Vezehu hakol bedelatot hateluyim bevarzel o vachavalim, vehemma kevinyan atzmo,” which means we are talking about things that are attached to the house or attached to the ground. Whether they are attached with metal or ropes, they have the din (status) of mechubar lekarka (attached to the ground).
“Aval kisuyim be’alma (cover)”—but ordinary covers—“kemo kisuyei bor vedut” (pit and cistern). A guy has a bor (pit) in his backyard, and it has a kisuy (cover) on it, a covering, you know, something like that. “Af al gav deshayachim lehabinyan,” even though it is attached to the bor, “mikol makom kevan shehu kisuy be’alma,” since it is only a covering for the bor, “im yesh hekker shezeh kisuy,” if there is a heker (indication) that this is a cover, “kegon sheyesh lahem beit achizah,” if it has a beit achizah (handle) to pull it up, “im yesh hekker shezeh kisuy kegon sheyesh lahem beit achizah, de’az mutar letaltelo.” Aha, so that is not considered a problem. I guess it is not a manhole cover. The manhole cover has no handle; they have to use an apparatus to open it.
Mah she’ein ken, if you have a hole in the backyard and put a cover on it—you know what it was like? I don’t know if you remember: in Deal, a lot of the houses used to have a place in the backyard for garbage. It was in the ground, a hole in the ground, and there was a cover you lifted up. It was metal, regular, built into the—no garbage cans; it was built into the ground, and you lifted up this cover. That cover had a metal handle. So according to that, he is saying that is not considered mechubar lekarka, and you can lift that handle on Shabbat.
“Uvelo zeh yesh lachosh mishum binyan”—otherwise you have a problem of binyan (building). Taking it off is boneh (building), soter (demolishing), “kevan shebeshem yesh lo.” “Vechisuyei kelim shehakelim mechubarim betit lekarka”—now, if it is a keli and the keli is attached to the ground—but it is a keli, even though it is attached to the ground—“ein tzarich beit achizah.” Now you do not even need a handle. Keivan she’einam binyanim mamash. The pit is attached to the ground; it is the ground. So there, in order to be mekel (lenient) and take that thing off on Shabbat, it has to have a handle, to show that it is separate. Mah she’ein ken, a keli that you just, I guess, fastened to the ground so it does not fall or something like that—you do not even need a handle on top of it, because you see that it is really—it is not a binyan.
“Umikol makom asur letaltelam ad sheyitkenem veya’aseh bahem ma’aseh veyachinem lechach mib’od yom.” Oh, but even in that case he is saying asur letaltelam ad sheyitkenem. You have to make a yichud (designation) before Shabbat, and “veya’aseh bahem ma’aseh veyachinem lechach mib’od yom,” or “o sheyishtamesh bahem mib’od”—you used them before the day.
“Vecheivan shektzat decheivan shektzat chibur lakarka”—yes, since bottom line it is attached to the ground a little, they have—“nehi yesh lahem, chibur lakarka yesh lahem,” they have a status of attachment to the ground. “Nehi dela matzrichinan beit achizah,” even though you do not need a handle, “mikol makom eizeh heker tzarich.” That is why we need different levels. If it is a keli attached to the ground, you need a yichud before Shabbat to move the thing. If it is really attached to the ground and has a handle, it is already permitted, because that is an indication.
“Ve’im hachavit kvurah bakarka legamrei”—but let’s say you have a chavit (barrel). It is not attached to the ground above the ground; if the barrel is attached to the ground or buried in the ground, “kisuyah tzarich beit achizah,” “vezehu kebor vedut.” Okay, that is like a pit and cistern. “Ve’afilu kisui kelim she’ein lahem chibur”—even a cover of a keli that has no connection to the ground at all—“yesh mi sheba detzarich eizeh tikun,” “de’ein zeh torat kli, kecheres hanishbar mikli.” “Aval beda’at haTur Shulchan Aruch se’if yud delo nireh chen,” “veda’at dechol makom she’tikun mo’il, machashavah gam ken mo’il, kemo sheyitba’er ba’acharonot, vechen da’at echad mehagedolim.”
Okay, let’s see Maran, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, rabotai, to see what he says about this pit and cistern, and whether any halachot come out of it. Shin-chet, halachah—okay. The cover of a pit and cistern, halachah yud. Rashi says, “bor bachafirah”: a pit is dug into the ground; “vedut bebinyan.” It is also in the ground, but a little is exposed above it. Okay, one is a little elevated, raised; one is totally in the ground.
“Ein nitalim”—what does ein nitalim mean? Mishnah Berurah: “Af shetiknam ve’asah bahem ma’aseh hamochiyach shemuchan lechasot”—even though you showed they are only covers, not mechubar lekarka, just covers, and did something that shows they are ready to cover something, “o shehishtamesh bahem tamid lazeh,” and through this the name muktzeh was removed from them, “afilu hachi asur.” “Kan decheivan shehem kisui karka’ot”—since these are covers of the ground, the Mishnah Berurah says, “havei keboneh”: if he covers it, or “o kesoter” if he takes off the cover.
Mah she’ein ken, if they have a handle, “de’achuz bah,” it is clear that it is a keli; “mochach dahu kli,” and that shows what? That it is made to be taken on and off. “Umishum delahadurei avid”—it is made to be taken off and put back, “velo havei keboneh vesoter.” “Ayin Magen Avraham shebi’er demah shekatav hamechaber ein nitalim, hainu de’asurim afilu betiltul be’alma.” They are generally prohibited, even if they already came apart from the pit before Shabbat, because bottom line, the whole purpose is to put them back on, and you cannot put them back on on Shabbat because it is—and you cannot say agav avihem, because it is attached to the ground. What do you mean, “because of their parent”? “Vechol sheken de’asur letolam min habor.” “Veheta’am, decheivan dehem omdim umochanim lechisui karka’ot”—bottom line, they are destined to cover the ground; “einam min hamuchan letaltel,” even though they have the status of a keli.
Call it a keli, but what is its purpose? To put it back on something that is ground, and ground itself is boneh on Shabbat. There is no building in utensils and no demolishing of utensils, mah she’ein ken on the ground, where there is building. So these things have to have a handle.
Back to Maran: “Kisui bor vedut ein nitalim ela im ken yesh lahem beit achizah,” “de’az mochach shehu kli.” “Veshel kelim”—if it is a keli that is attached to the ground—“afilu hem mechubarim betit yecholim letolam afilu ein lahem beit achizah,” even if the item has no handle, “vehu shetiknam ve’asah bahem ma’aseh,” as long as you performed an action and designated them, let’s say, before Shabbat, “vehichinam lechach, o sheyishtamshu vahem,” or used them before the day. “Vechisui chaviyot hakevurot bakarka”—if you take a barrel and put it completely into the ground, “legamrei, tzrichot beit achizah.” It has the same law as a pit and cistern.
Look at the Mishnah Berurah. “Mechubarim betit, rotzeh lomar shehakli mechubar lakarka betit milematah.” “Ve’af debe’alma mechubar lakarka harei hu kekarka”—so this is attached to the ground. “Hacha, keivan dekisui eino mechubar”—and see, since the cover is not even attached by a hinge, it is just on and off—“vehakli me…” There are two things going on here: the keli is exposed above the ground, and the cover is not hinged. It is not considered building.
Mah she’ein ken with the covers of barrels buried in the ground: even though the thing is not hinged, since it is buried in the ground, it looks more like that, and therefore you need a yichud. “Keivan shekevurot bekarka, gazru rabbanan al kisui bor vedut.”
What is the difference between the barrel and something attached to the ground? What is the case of a barrel? You said the barrel, right? Right, the barrel. What is the difference between that and something attached to the ground? It sounds like they could be the same thing. Where are you looking, the barrel? Didn’t you say barrels are put in the ground? You put the barrel in the ground? Yes, that is going to be like the ground. If it is totally in the ground, it has the status of ground. It is like a pit and cistern. You dig a hole, stick it all the way into the ground, and then cover it. Okay, what is something attached to the ground? It is a keli above the ground. Above the ground, and you just put clay over it, so it is like a barbecue or something where you fastened it to the ground, or put screws in the ground so it does not move. Yes, it is exposed, it is on top, and it has a cover. So now you want to know: can I move that cover on and off on Shabbat? Tosafot made a yichud, so then because it is really above the ground, and, secondly, it’s a kisuy that’s not attached, really. It’s just on top. It’s movable. So therefore, in those cases, we will be lenient. So this is a building-and-demolishing issue. There is building and demolishing here. Okay, that is the law of a cover of a pit and cistern.
Now go to the machat (needle) case. The machat case is a story. Go to the machat case. David, Ben David, do you want to read for us? You are going to read for us chaf-chet. Exactly, chaf-chet. There are discussions here. Let’s go slowly in this case. I think this will have a nafka minah (practical consequence), I think, in halachah.
Machat. Machat shel yad. What is machat shel yad? A needle. A needle that they use with their hands. “Vezehu machat ketanah shetofrin bah begadim.” So, what do they do with it? They sew garments with it. “Mutar letaltelah kedei litol bah et hakotz.” It is beautiful. A guy has a splinter in his thing. What do they do? They take the kotz, take the needle, and try to get it out. So a needle would normally be called a keli shemelachto le’issur. Yes, a keli shemelachto le’issur, for sure. Okay, so now letzorech gufo (for its own use) is permitted. What does letzorech gufo mean? He has a kotz. The classic example we used to give is a hammer to crack open nuts, or you can use this case: a needle to remove a splinter. Beautiful. “Kedin kelim shemelachtan le’issur demutar letzorech gufan.” Okay. “Vehu hadin deletzorech mekomo,” it is permitted. Permitted. Right, you saw the needle your wife forgot on the table. You want to eat there. Pick it up with your hand, no problem. Pick up the needle with your hand, a keli shemelachto le’issur, and put it in the needle box, no problem.
“Vedavka keshehi shelemah.” Ah, only when it is complete. “Aval im nital chodah o hachor shelah, asur.” Either the point or the eye got knocked off. So now it is not functional anymore as a keli shemelachto le’issur; it is not a keli anymore. It is junk. It is garbage. Although you could probably still take out a splinter with it, it is not a keli. It is not a keli anymore. Now you probably need a yichud and all this other stuff. Now it becomes a broken scrap.
“Ve’af al gav denital hachor adayin re’uyah litol bah et hakotz.” Right! Even if, let’s say, the eye came out, what do I care? The sharp part can still take out the kotz, but that does not matter. The issue is not whether it is fit for something. You always have to look at two things here. First, classify it, like somebody did the other day. Chacham, how do we classify it first? A keli shemelachto le’issur? It is not a keli anymore. So you cannot get to the next level, gufo umekomo—for its own use or its place—if you did not solve the first part. It is not a keli anymore; it is broken. “But it is still ra’ui to take out a kotz?” Okay, it could be fit to take out a kotz, but it is not a keli now. Now you have a problem here. That is why maybe you have to make a yichud. Right, exactly.
“Umnam peirshu baGemara shenei te’amim bazeh.” Oh, now look at the reasons the Gemara gives. Let’s say the eye came out. So what is the reason we are not going to call it a keli anymore? Why does it lose its status as a keli? I would have thought it is because you cannot sew with it anymore. Its primary function is sewing. You cannot sew with it anymore; there is no eye. So look what he says here: “Veha’echad, mipenei shenitbatlah mikeli le’inyan tum’ah, batlah nami le’inyan Shabbat.” Oh, interesting. They compare tum’ah (ritual impurity) to Shabbat. Since with regard to tum’ah this is no longer a keli—meaning it is not susceptible to tum’ah—unbelievable! So the Gemara compares tum’ah to Shabbat. Once it is not a keli with regard to tum’ah, it is not a keli with regard to Shabbat either. Wow, what a comparison, tum’ah to Shabbat.
“Ve’ikar hata’am mishum dechishenital chodah o chorah, adam zorkah levein ha’ashpah.” Oh, that is the logic. We understand. Once the hole breaks or the bottom part breaks, what are you doing with it? Get rid of it! Next item. “Venimtza deve’atzmo mevatlah mitorat keli.” Exactly! You are nullifying it; you do not need tum’ah to get involved here. You are nullifying it! What does a guy do? He throws it in the garbage. Now, guess what: he has not thrown it in the garbage yet. It does not matter. It is on his table, but this is destined for the garbage. It is a broken keli, so it is destined for the garbage. “The eye has a function.” The eye has a function, so what? You are going back to the garbage business, right to the one who throws it out.
“Velachen lo dami leshever shever keli shemutar letaltelah keshehu ra’ui letashmish.” Exactly. A broken vessel is not something you throw away. A broken vessel—not in our times, but in the time of the Shulchan Aruch, in the time of the Gemara—as we just read in the Rambam, as long as it has a function, it is permitted. Why? “It broke.” It broke, but that does not mean I throw away everything that is broken. A broken vessel that has a function for many things—okay, I have a new keli now.
Mah she’ein ken, in those days the custom was that nobody kept a broken needle. A broken needle was worthless. You threw it out, even though it has a function. It has just as much function as these broken vessels, by the way. The same, just as much! So what is the difference? “This one I don’t throw away, and this one I do.” It all depends on the guy’s—oh, somebody will say, “Batlah da’ato (his opinion is nullified)!” Somebody will say, “Batlah da’ato!” Yes, somebody will say, “Batlah da’ato etzel kol benei adam regilim (his opinion is nullified among ordinary people).” But that is the reasoning here. The reasoning is about the broken vessels—because you could ask me a simple question: “Hey, Chacham, you said the broken vessels are broken too, and we said they are not muktzeh!” Nu, and that is safe! And by the way, apply this to broken vessels: if you do throw it out, indeed, it will be muktzeh too. Same thing.
Continue. “Bechadashah shelo nikvah adayin mutar letaltelah mishum…” Oh, interesting. The Gemara says this here. Let’s say you have a new needle, brand new, really. They have not put the eye in it yet. So it is permitted to move. Why? If it broke, that would be a problem. But if it never had an eye, it is permitted. Why? He says, “Mishum dezimnin demamlich alah umashvei umashvei lah mana kemo shehi litol bah et hakotz.” Oh! Because sometimes he leaves it like that. “You know, I’ll use this; this might be, like you said, Joe, my kotz item.” If it broke, he throws it out. He does not see—he does not—there you have to go out of your way to make it a kotz item. Do you understand the difference? If you already had it as a needle, to make it a kotz item, it will need a leshem yichud Kudsha Berich Hu. So if it broke, until you make a yichud, that’s it: it is broken, it is garbage. The next stage is broken, and it goes in the garbage. Therefore, it is muktzeh.
Mah she’ein ken, if it never had a hole in it, it was not committed to anything yet. I did not commit it to sewing; I did not commit it to—so at that point, since it is possible that I will meyached it for a kotz, it is not muktzeh yet. It is all mentality. If it is a broken one, even though the broken one and the new one are the same item, rabotai—once it breaks, it looks like the same needle without an eye over here, and a needle without an eye over there. This one is muktzeh; that one is not muktzeh? Mentality! It is a broken item, good boy, you throw it out. Mah she’ein ken, an item that never had a hole before: “Oh, this is a new item. It can still go either way.” It can be a keli for a kotz. Right? Either answer. Either regarding tum’ah, once I designate it for that it can be susceptible to tum’ah, or regarding designation, I designate it in my mind, so I can use it for a kotz.
“Uda devechelim shaninu sham, machat shenital chodah o oktzah, tehorah.” Okay, that is right. A needle that has broken is tehorah (pure). “Ve’im hitkinah limto’ach habegadim, teme’ah.” Well, if you prepare it now in order to pull the strings out of the clothes, then it is teme’ah (impure); it has a function again. “Ve’im ken gam le’inyan Shabbat ken hu.” If the point came off, that is what to do when the eye came out. Because if the eye came out, it is not fit to take out a splinter. Okay, we have gone back and forth, but if the sharp part comes off, then it really has no use at all.
Okay, as for our matter, open up Maran there. Open up Chacham Maran. What does Chacham Maran say? Yod-alef, exactly. “Machat shelemah mutar letaltelah litol bah et hakotz, nital chodah o chorah, asur.” So, all right, practically speaking, rabotai, on Shabbat, a kid comes home with a splinter, you take out the needle on Shabbat. I guess you have to be careful with blood and all that. Leave the blood—the Mishnah Berurah has to tell me something about blood, I’m sure. You have to be careful not to cause bleeding and stuff like that. You never know. Yes, you have to be careful. You have to be careful; that is the bottom line.
Continue Maran for a second, and then read the Mishnah Berurah. “Uvechadashah shelo nikvah, adayin mutar.” “Uvechadashah she’adayin lo nikvah, mutar.” Why? Because you can designate it either way. Okay, good. Continue. And that’s it? That’s the whole thing? Okay, Mishnah Berurah.
“Machat, hu machat meyuchad litfirah, dehovei kechol keli shemelachto le’issur, mutar letaltelo letzorech gufo, dehainu litol hakotz, o shenokev bah et hamursah lehotzi mimenah lechah.” Okay, how do you get the pus out? You want to drain the thing there. Huh? Is he talking about blood? He does not mention it. Okay, so we’ll mention it, then. They left us a little place in Shamayim (Heaven) to mention that. Yes, yes, go.
“Vehu hadin shemutar lidchov bah et hamalbushim lechabran be’et hadchak. Im hu bimkom she’asur lehotzi bo be-Shabbat, kevar mevo’ar le’el besiman shin-gimmel se’if yud-tet de’asur, ayen se’if yud-chet mah shekatavnu sham. Hakotz, hu hadin shemutar letaltelo letzorech mekomah.” Letzorech mekomah, no problem. We agree. Don’t we agree? Yes. Because bottom line, it is prohibited; it is prohibited for its own use or its place.
“Kol sheken shemutar letaltelah im metza’ah munachat bimkom sheyachol lehinawek bah ha’adam.” Ah, Chazak uvaruch! That is a danger, hello! If it is a hazard, I do not need its own use; I do not need its place. There is a needle on the table, and the kids are sitting on the table—take it off the table. “Vezeh afilu benital chorah she’ein aleha shem keli kelal, gam ken mutar letaltelah.” Beautiful.
“Uvechadashah, dizminah limlachah aleha ve’einah nikbah, umashvei lah mana kemot shehi lintilat hakotz, aval benital chorah, hufka, batel minah shem keli, dederech lizrok otah levein shivrei matechet.” He throws it out with the scraps! He throws it out with the scraps, so therefore it is muktzeh. “Aval im yichdah me’od yom le’eizeh tashmish, harei hu mutar letaltel kedin keli shemelachto leheter.” Okay, designation is designation. Right, once you designate it, it becomes a keli shemelachto leheter. This is the, what do you call it, the remover of kotzim (splinter). Okay, he designated it; a very easy law.
By the way, Chacham Berachah says here, “Shivrei kelim shederech ha’olam lezorkam, af al pi she’adayin lo zarkam,” which is this case here. He has not thrown it out yet. If it broke on Shabbat or before Shabbat, it does not matter, but it is on the table. I have not gotten it to the garbage yet. “Na’asu muktzeh, vedin zeh af im nishberu be-Shabbat.” Good. “Ve’af keshe’osim me’ein melachtam harishonah.”
We learned differently, Rabbi. Why? Why would we learn differently? We learned that if it broke on Shabbat, even if you put it in the garbage, you can take it out of the garbage. No, no, what we saw there was in an ordinary, whole keli, an ordinary glass. Like a guy’s—No! On the contrary! It’s nothing. Yes, why? Because there, in their time, it was not normal to throw it in the garbage; you could not undo it yet or something like that. But in our time, we said it is different. Here, for sure everybody threw these things in the garbage.
This law is about a needle. The Gemara says, “demachat shenital chor shelah asur letaltelah kevan dederech adam lezorkah levein geruta’ot,” and that is also in the Shulchan Aruch, shin-chet. “Vehineh haRashba medameh davar shederech lezorko ledavar shezarkah beyadayim.” That is a very important point, a very important proof. Something you have thrown in the garbage, or something you plan to throw in the garbage, is the same thing. That is what you see here. “Velachen lamad din machat shederech lezorkah mishiyarei machatzla’ot.” The next law will be about machatzla’ot—mats—that broke, you know, they ripped. There the law discusses where you actually threw them in the garbage. The Rashba compares these two cases. Even though, seemingly, that case is talking about where you actually threw it away, and here it is talking about where you intend to throw it away, in the Rashba’s mind it is the same.
“Shedafka im zarkan b’erev Shabbat na’asu muktzeh.” In the machatzla’ot case, it is specifically where you threw them in the garbage on the eve of Shabbat. So he says, okay, “ach setimut haShulchan Aruch d’afilu nishberah hamachat be-Shabbat na’asit muktzeh.” “Uve-ta’am hachiluk bein machat l’shiyarei machatzla’ot yesh lomar d’davar shederach l’zorko chamir midavar shezorko b’yadayim.” See, you could have an item that is not normally thrown away, so what makes it muktzeh? The throwing. But an item that is destined to be thrown away—that’s it.
“V’nireh d’din zeh afilu b’osim me’ein melachtam harishonah,” even if it does its original function, if it still serves a purpose. “V’afilu hachi im nishberu afilu b’Shabbat na’asu muktzeh.” “D’ha katav haRashba d’machat shenital chorah”—the eye—“adayin chazya limlachtah rishonah d’vchol nami notlim bah et hakotz.” What, it was fit to—it is still fit for a splinter; it does not matter. “Af al pi shehaRashba katav svara zo l’shitato, Shulchan Aruch lo palig bimtzi’ut zeh.” So an amazing thing: let’s say this had two functions, and I would also use it for splinters. It still works for splinters, but again, it goes in the garbage. That is the whole principle here.
And machat is worse than machatzla’ot. With machatzla’ot, once I have thrown them away, I have shown it, because they can go either way. But a needle is over. So, again, I do not want to beat a dead horse, but this is where you get into disposable utensils. With disposable utensils, you could come along and say: an empty cup on Shabbat, if I am the kind of guy who does not reuse them—I do not put them on my windowsill; I am not that kind of guy—that’s it. Menachem comes to Bakashot, drinks his coffee, finishes it, and puts the cup on the table. “Shabbat shalom u’mevorach,” and he leaves. Now there is an empty cup. Jimmy comes in, sees Menachem’s cup every week. Jimmy is not using it; nobody is drinking from it; Menachem is not coming back to drink from it. The cleanup crew—I pick up the cup, walk to the garbage over there, and throw it in. There is room to discuss.
Bottom line, I asked my son. Uri has shimush (close association and learning) with all the big tzaddikim (righteous people) in Eretz Yisrael. He said Rabbi Bellinson at Mikdash on Shabbat was stringent about disposable utensils. How did they clean the table? They cleaned them—no, by pulling the cloth. No, because it is a base for a permitted and prohibited item, and it is indirect movement; they pulled it like this, right into the… because of this. But he said that Rav Scheinberg—and Rabbi Schachter showed it to us last night—was lenient. We saw Halachah Berurah too. He brings two sides. What were the reasons? The reason to prohibit is: what do I care if you have not gotten it to the garbage yet? You have not gotten the needle to the garbage yet either, and you still see that it is muktzeh. Because this is now on a direct flight from here to Staten Island.
So therefore, muktzeh. Ah, what is the side for saying it is not muktzeh? “Hey, Chacham, Chacham! This did not break here! This is a complete keli. All your examples are shivrei kelim, a needle whose eye came off.” That is another—It is not like a cup of—It had water. There was water in there. The guy drank the water; it is empty. Empty water is not going to show there. So now—yes, like with water, let’s say. The guy drinks the water and leaves the empty cup on the table. No one is going to say, “Oh, I can’t look at this here.” So now he wants to say that this only applies when something was broken and all that. Mah she’ein ken, over here you would really use it again. You would really use it again. But why are you throwing it away? Because it is so cheap. That is why—over there you throw it away because it is really junk. Here, there were sevarot like this.
Okay, on the bottom he brings these reasons, by the way. He said, “Nitba’er base’if hakodem d’shivrei kelim she’omdim lizrikah havei muktzeh,” as we saw. “Afilu nishberu b’Shabbat, afilu osim bahem melachtam rishonah, l’kotz.” “Ulefi zeh yesh ladun d’kelim chad-pa’amim bizmanenu shehaderach l’zorkan b’gmar hashimush ye’asu muktzeh miyad b’gmar hashimush.” “V’omnam yesh lomar d’lo damu l’shivrei kelim keivan shelo nishtanu klal mimatzavam harishon.” They never changed their status. Not exactly, really, if you want to make distinctions. “Ach yitachen d’kelim chad-pa’amim geru’im”—or you can say that they are worse, because at least this needle becomes a permanent remover of splinters. This is not even a—this is temporary.
“O dilma yesh le-tzaref ba-zeh shitat ha-Rashba, de-gam be-davar she-derech ha-olam le-zorko, im nishbar be-Shabbat lo na’asu muktzeh, kol she-oseh melachto rishonah.” Ah, that is a big chidush (novel idea) of the Rashba, which Maran did not hold. The Rashba says that if it broke on Shabbat and can still do its original function, even if it is normally thrown away, it does not become muktzeh. That is not Maran. Maran said, “afilu nishbar be-Shabbat”: this thing broke.
“U-lefi zeh mi she-mekel le-taltel kelim chad-pe’amiyim she-hishtamesh bahem be-Shabbat yesh lo al mah lismoch.” “Mihu im zarko la-ashpah”—then it is already over. It is not like throwing an ordinary glass in the garbage. An ordinary glass: you threw it in the garbage, guys, and your opinion is disregarded by everyone; take it out. Mah she’ein ken, once you throw this in the garbage, who is going into the garbage? The Chinese guy is going to go into the garbage? Yes, the Chinese Chinese guy dead. Okay, so he brings both reasons. That is what comes out of it.
What is your reason? That what? Okay, you are okay with that. The Mishnah Berurah discusses the blood in the Bi’ur Halachah. Ah, Chazak uvaruch, Chazak uvaruch. Please, what did he say, David? Be careful. Yes, he speaks about whether it is a pesik reisha, an inevitable consequence. Pesik reisha, yes, you have to be careful not to make blood come out. Damaging, the whole discussion. He said not to make blood come out. Okay, David Mayer, since you talked, read the next halachah. Open this up—it is lamed, I’m sorry, chaf-tet. Just read here, chaf-tet.
“BaGemara hayu yoshvin al machatzla’ot, vechen shiyarei machatzla’ot shebalu, af al pi she’einan re’uyot leyashev aleihem, mikol makom mutar letaltelan lefi shelo nifka shem keli me’aleihem. Mipnei she-re’uyot adayin lechasot bahen eizeh tinuf.” Okay, explain. In the times of the Gemara, they used to have mats, and if the mat wore out—what would they do on the mats? They would sit on them. They had a mat that wore out, and it’s not—Not broken off; shebalu, they started to wear out, right? “Af al pi she’einam re’uyot leyashev”—they are not going to sit on them anymore, but they are still not muktzeh. Why? Because you can use them as a keli. As what? To cover something dirty. Chazak uvaruch, to cover something dirty, so they still have a function.
“Afilu pachot mi-gimel al gimel”—even if they are less than three by three, which is the shi’ur (measure) of tum’ah. Okay. “Dinam ke-keli shemelachto leheter u-mutar afilu me-chamah le-tzel.” Okay, beautiful. These mats, as a keli shemelachto leheter, do not lose their status. However, “ve’im zarkan la-ashpah,” if they threw them away before the day, “asur letaltelam,” like all broken vessels that were thrown in the garbage.
Ah, so he asks a question. Over there by machatzla’ot you have to throw them away. We just learned that with this machat, you did not have to throw it away; it was destined to be thrown away. Because it all depends, right? That’s right, because that one is destined to be thrown away more strongly. Here, you could have used it. Although over there you could have used it for the splinter too, but it is worse, it is worse.
“Ve-nir’eh li de-achshav bimchoz shelanu she-yadua she-ein mishtamshin bemachatzla’ot leyshiva babayit o beyshiva verubam lis’chorah.” Okay, so today they do not sit on them; they have changed. Yes, if anyone is selling these mats for business… “Ve-gam hamachatzla’ot atzman muktzin hen kedavar shemelachto le’issur, ve’ein mutarim ela letzorech gufan u-mekoman.” So the mats themselves today—even a regular mat. Yes, a regular mat today: they do not use them for a yeshiva. It is designated for business. It is a business item, so he is not calling it a valuable item one is careful with; he is calling it muktzeh machamat issur, muktzeh due to prohibited use.
“Ve’ein mutarim ela letzorech gufan u-mekoman, veshiyarei…” “Veshiyarei machatzla’ot bazman hazeh alulim, vegam bistama havei kezarkan la-ashpah.” Right, and the leftover mats are garbage. Like the needle, garbage. “Velachen nir’eh la’aniyut da’ati de-asurin legamrei ketzrorot ve’afar.” Okay, so that can be like rocks, so it is muktzeh machamat gufo, muktzeh due to its inherent status, because it is going in the garbage. It will depend on the place. Okay, no problem. He is talking about his place. I only know his place. Continue. “Im ken, yichdam mib’od yom le’eizeh tashmish heiter, ve’im yichdam letashmish issur, dino ke-keli shemelachto le’issur, demutar letzorech gufo u-mekomo, aval lo me-chamah le-tzel.” Okay, Chazak uvaruch, Chazak uvaruch. So it all depends on the place.
Continue, David, read inside. The Shulchan Aruch, yod-bet. Yod-bet. “Shiyarei machatzla’ot mutar letaltelan dechazi lechasot behu tinufa, ve’im zarkan la-ashpah mib’od yom asur letaltelan.” So what does he say here? It is exactly the same law we just read: “Shiyarei machatzla’ot mutar letaltelan.” Why? “Dechazi lechasot bahem tinufah.” “Ve’im zarkan la-ashpah mib’od yom asur letaltelan.” Let’s see the Mishnah Berurah. Mishnah Berurah, please, David. Mem-tet, leftover mats. “Shenifredu min hasered hayeshanah, uvein shenifredu me’erev Shabbat, bein shenifredu beShabbat, mutar letaltelan.” Tanyana? Defirkin mem-tet yod-bet, okay.
Look at the next one, the very important one, like you said. “Aval beShabbat bitlan miheyot od keli. Umachatzlet shelemah, afilu zarkan le’ashpah mutar, debatlah da’ato.” Chazak uvaruch! That is a very important one. They nullified it… So you come and tell me, “Oh, a guy took a beautiful, beautiful keli and threw it in the garbage.” Ah, his opinion is disregarded. You cannot make it muktzeh because you have a good item! Broken items, this item, that item—but not an item that is completely whole.
But what—this law would not belong here. This is just talking about a—we still did not change any rules that we—No, that’s fine. We are just classifying this mat. Right, that is exactly what we are doing. So is he disagreeing? The Michaber… No, no! Who is disagreeing? The Aruch. What if he is, you know, the Aruch—No, no, the Aruch is talking about the present time. The Mishnah Berurah did not get into the present time; he is telling you what happens now. No, no, there is no argument at all. Because he says here at the bottom, pesakim and… What did he say, pesakim uMishnah Berurah? Of course! “Pashut dehaMechaber shevakan.” “Peshita, ta’ama de’uvda.” No one’s—the Aruch HaShulchan agrees with that.
What was this law? Yod-alef? Yod-bet. Yod-bet, yod-bet, yod-bet. Let’s see if he brings something down here. On this one. What does he say here? Yod-bet, this is sh… “Uve’inyan shivrei kelim ha’omedim lizrikah.” Okay, okay, ready? Just for a little—we have ten minutes. A little iyun (analysis) on this? Where are you going? You want to hear it? Here we go, Gemara: “Ita, amar Rav Yehudah amar Shmuel.” Benny, we have Gemarot Shabbat in front of us? Bring a Gemara Shabbat. It’s open. We’ll learn a piece of Gemara. You guys suddenly forgot how to learn Gemara. What daf (page)? Kuf kaf daled amud bet (124b). Here you go, David. Kuf kaf daled amud bet. Kuf kaf daled amud bet, Gemara. What is happening here? Which Gemara do we need? “Amar Rav Yehudah amar Shmuel, bimegufat chavit.” Okay, who is going to find it first? Where is it? At the bottom, five lines from the bottom. Five lines from the bottom, beautiful. One, two, three, four, five. “Amar Rav Yehudah amar Shmuel,” it is kuf kaf daled amud bet, five lines from the bottom. Honor, Yachiam, bimegufat… “Amar Rav Yehudah amar Shmuel, megufat chavit.” What is megufat chavit? It is the cover of the barrel, the megufah, the covering of the barrel. “…Shenech…” What does nechtetah mean? Broken? Yes, I would say that is a close interpretation. Shenechtetah, he says the barrel broke. “Megufah al gav shel chavit shenechtetah hachavit.” So the barrel broke too now. Everything broke; the barrel broke. So now there is no purpose for this cover.
Continue. “…Mutar letaltel beShabbat. Tanya nami hachi, megufah shenechtetah, hi vesha- veshavreha mutar letaltelah beShabbat…” Okay. “Tanya nami hachi, megufah shenechtetah, hi veshavreha”—all of it and its broken pieces—“mutar letaltelah beShabbat.” Rashi: “Mishavreha shel hachavit muttarin beShabbat.” Rashi says, “Dechazi lechisui mana.” It is broken; that is a broken barrel, by the way, so do not get nervous. You can use it, of course; it still has a function.
Then the Gemara says, “Velo yispot…” “…Velo yispot mimena shever lechasot bah et hakeli velismoch bah kar’ei hamitah.” Okay, “velo yispot.” Rashi: “Yetaken litol belitoteha ve’oktza beShabbat.” Okay, do not fix it. Do not make any repair to it. Do not put it under the bed boards and all that. Do not—which means you can use it for permitted functions, but do not use it for prohibited functions. A keli—you would be doing makeh bepatish (finishing work). Right, you are going to start doing finishing work. Don’t paint it! Don’t start putting velvet on it!
Okay, “ve’im… ve’im zarkah ba’ashpah, asur.” Aha! Chazak uvaruch! Rashi: “Ve’im zarak megufah zo le’ashpah, batlah mitorat keli.” Okay, we understand that. Once you throw it in the garbage, he dumped it!
“Matkif lah Rav Pappa… Ela me’atah, zarak li glima, hachi nami de’asur?” Oh! Rashi: the guy threw his shirt in the garbage. “Zarak leglima beShabbat le’ashpah, hachi nami de’asur letaltelo, eh?” How can that be what you mean? Just because you throw it in the garbage, it becomes muktzeh? It is perfectly useful. What is throwing it in the garbage going to do? A guy throws his shirt in the garbage—is it going to be muktzeh? What is the answer?
“Ela amar Rav Papa, hatam mibe’od yom le’ashpah seruchah.” Ah, before the day! Rashi: “Mibe’od yom gali da’atei me’etmol delav mana hu.” Oh, so that is the Gemara here. That is the Gemara we need here. “U-feirush Rashi”—we saw Rashi here. “U-ve-Tosafot katvu”—look at Tosafot: “Im zarkah mibe’od yom, mibe’od yom leika ledamuye legelima.” At the top, top, top, top, top, top—Tosafot. “Im zarkah mibe’od yom hashta, hashta lo parich ela me’atah zarak legelima mibe’od yom.” No! So why did you say that too? Ah! Because if he threw it away before the day, what do we say? Muktzeh. Ah, if he threw the shirt away before the day, what does the Gemara say? “Ela”—if a guy throws his shirt away before the day, is it going to be muktzeh? It is Friday! Friday! “Dekeivan delo hayah muchan mibe’od yom leika ledamuye legelima.” Exactly! Which means this was not prepared before the day. This broke; this is something else. So it can go either way. It is a broken item. So it was not prepared, and the fact that he threw it out shows that. Mah she’ein ken, a shirt—even if you take a shirt and throw it in the garbage before the day, it is nothing, because it is a shirt. It was intended for a purpose before the day.
Tosafot is making a distinction between—why did the Gemara ask this? The Gemara asks: he threw it out on Shabbat. So, oh, if you throw out a shirt on Shabbat, it is going to be muktzeh? No, God forbid. The Gemara answers: “Ela im tomar”—here, you threw these broken pieces out before the day. That is the end of the Gemara. What did the Gemara ask? Ah, “If he threw out a shirt before the day, would that also make it muktzeh?” It did not even ask that, because the Gemara assumed a shirt thrown out before the day is not going to be muktzeh either, because it is a perfectly good keli.
“U-ve-Tosafot katvu”—here is the principle we see from the Gemara and Tosafot: “Dechol shezorek be’ashpah, yesh chiluk im zorek mibe’od yom, u-vateil shem keli mimenu, keivan shehu shever keli, af al pi shera’uy le-me’ein melachah.” Even though it is fit for something, “mikol makom, kol shezorko mibe’od yom, bateil shem keli mimenu, velo dami legelima, degam bezorek mibe’od yom lo bateil shem keli mimenah, de’ein asuy lizrok gelima u-vateilah da’ato.” May His name be praised. We hear a distinction. A broken keli is on the borderline of not being used anymore. A complete keli that I put in the garbage on Friday—it’s nothing. Exactly! A guy threw his shirt out, a perfectly good shirt. His wife says, “What, are you crazy? You threw it out? Give it to the kids. Why did you throw it in the garbage?” The guy says, “I don’t like this shirt anymore.” The guy is crazy, but take it out of the garbage and give it to somebody else. There is nothing wrong with it. It was not ripped, it was not torn, it was not this, it was a bottle of Windex. Exactly! That is where I am getting it from, by the way.
Not so: before the day. What does “before the day” mean? It does not matter whether it is before the day or on Shabbat; it is always the same standard. What are you asking? When is your question a question? “If he threw it in the garbage before the day.” Yes, it is talking about broken vessels, honey, but the Gemara is talking about broken barrels. The Gemara says—the Gemara is answering: broken barrels, you throw them out on Shabbat. Throw it out on Shabbat and it is muktzeh. The Gemara says, “What do you mean? If I throw a shirt out on Shabbat, it is going to be muktzeh?” No, God forbid. The Gemara answers: “Ela”—here, you threw these broken pieces out before the day. Because if it was before the day, it could have gone either way. Mah she’ein ken with a shirt, never. Never! As you saw in the Mishnah Berurah, if you throw out a whole mat, it is not going to be muktzeh either.
“Velachen bezorek mibe’od yom bateil shem keli, aval bezorek beShabbat lo paka shem keli mimenu, ho’il vehayah ra’uy beShabbat,” which is very important, by the way. It comes out that these leftover mats that entered Shabbat and that you had not thrown in the garbage yet are okay. If you threw them in the garbage on Shabbat, too late; they entered Shabbat. Okay? Well, not good—I mean, yes, you can use them. Well, you could have used them, and therefore they are not muktzeh. The Gemara is saying that leftover mats will be muktzeh because they were discarded only if they were thrown away before the day. But if he threw them away on Shabbat, since they entered Shabbat still useful, I had not thrown them away yet—or they broke on Shabbat and he threw them out.
Okay, there seem to be three categories. “Veyesh levareir be’inyan machat she’adam zorkah levein hagruta’ot,” the needle case. “Im dinah kemo shezorkah befo’al”—I have not thrown it away yet, but I am going to throw it away—“delo bateil shem keli mimenah bezorek beShabbat atzmah,” or “o dilma deshani machat de’asuyah lizrikah velachen chamira?” Would you compare a needle—let’s say it broke before Shabbat, and I did not throw it away yet—to this Gemara here? Until I throw it away, if it entered Shabbat, is it okay? Or do we say that a needle is worse? Do you understand the question?
Look at the Gemara there. Okay, next Gemara, rabotai, continue. Who is reading the Gemara? Yahya. “Amar Rav Hamduri amar Shmuel, kerumyot shel machatzlet.” What are kerumyot shel machtzelet? “Shenifsedu min hamachtzelet hayeshanah”: the mat wore out, and these bands came off. “Mutar letaltelan beShabbat.” “Mai ta’ama?” “Amar Rava, Bar Hamduri… amar Rava, Bar Hamduri asberah li.” Bar Hamduri explained it to me. What did he explain? “Machatzlet gufah lemai chazya?” “Dechasuye be’afra.” “Hani nami chazyen lechasuye behu tinofet.” They are still fit to cover something dirty. That is the Gemara; they are still fit, as we saw.
“U-feirush Rashi,” okay. “O perush haTosafot”—what does Tosafot say? Machatzlet gufah lemai chazya, right, Tosafot. The Gemara’s question was: what are these broken pieces fit for? So the Gemara says the mat itself was fit to cover things, and these pieces are fit for that too. Tosafot says, “Machatzlet gufah, lerivcha demilta mefaresh hachi.” Exactly. Why did the Gemara have to say it has the same function as the original? You do not need to go that far, that it must have the same function, even if it has a different function. The Gemara just said that for completeness, you do not need that. “Lerivcha demilta mefaresh hachi, af al gav dela ba’ya me’en melachto rishonah, ked’amar Rav Nachman.” No, exactly, as we learned with broken vessels: even if it does not have the original function. Okay, no problem. So far, so good? Okay, turn the page.
Oh, now we get to this Rashba, rabotai. “VehaRashba katav, ha de’amar Shmuel kerumit shel kanim mutar letaltelan beShabbat, ika man demefaresh dedavka benishberah beShabbat. Ha bechol, lo, mishum de’en adam matzni’am ela zorkan le’ashpah.” Normally, right away, they go in the garbage. “Umihu keshenishberah beShabbat”—so when it entered Shabbat, it was not muktzeh—“vehuchnu agav avihem, hashta nami chazya limlachtan rishonah sharei.” Okay, beautiful. “Ha lo chazi limlachtan”—well, it has to be fit for its original function. That is how he is learning the Gemara. Or, if it broke during the week, during the weekday, he is telling you that since it goes in the garbage, it is muktzeh. But if it broke on Shabbat, the Rashba says that if it broke on Shabbat, according to the wording of the Gemara, he is not learning like Tosafot. He is learning that the Gemara is specifically saying it has to be fit for its original function. Because it broke on Shabbat: “Vehasta nami beShabbat chazyen limlachtan rishonah, ha lo chazi limlachtan rishonah lo, de’af al gav dechazi lechafurei betinofet”—I could cover dirt with it—“keivan debeChol adam zorkan le’ashpah.” Wow, since during the week, if that had happened, I would get rid of it, it is permitted on Shabbat only if it is fit for its original function.
“Vehainu de’itztarich Bar Hamduri lefarshah mishum demachatzlet gufah lemai chazya lechasuye be’afra.” That is why Bar Hamduri had to go out of his way to say that the original mat was fit to cover. Not like Tosafot. Not like Tosafot. Tosafot said that is for completeness. The Rashba says no. If it broke on Shabbat, it has to have the original—We do not have a ladder? Why fight with him? “Ha nami chazi lechasuye betinofet.” Okay, so that is where the Rashba is.
Once again, that is only if it broke on Shabbat. So if it broke during the week, a person throws it away, and therefore it is muktzeh. Ah, so if it broke on Shabbat—because nobody saves this junk—but if it broke on Shabbat, and it still does its original function, which is covering, then that is why Bar Hamduri went out of his way and said, “Ah, rabotai, even the original one can do that.” That is okay too.
“Umachat shel yad, shenital charumo o uktzo, sheRabbah amar lefi she’adam zorkah bein geruta’ot, hahi keshenital charvo ve’uktzo me’erev Shabbat.” Ah, the Rashba holds that this is talking only about where it broke before Shabbat. “Ha nitlo beShabbat, shari, ho’il vehuchnu agav avihen vechazyen limlachtan rishonah. Debechol nami notlim bah et hakotz, kidre’Eli.” Yes, it was fit to take out the splinter during the week too. Or it had a second use. So what? People did it. Therefore, according to the Rashba, a big novel idea comes out: if this needle broke on Shabbat, since it is still fit for its original function—the use it would have during the week, namely taking out a splinter—I would… The Gemara said that once it breaks, it is muktzeh; that was on a Friday. If it broke on Friday, since people normally throw it away, it entered Shabbat already as garbage. When it entered Shabbat as garbage, it is garbage. Why isn’t the fact that the guy did not throw it out—No, no, it was garbage. It has to be meyached it, until he’s meyached it.
The Gemara assumes it is garbage. That is why, because it was garbage. No, no, now the Gemara is saying the opposite—the point the Gemara is making is not like that. The Gemara says that since people throw it among the scraps, it is as if it was thrown away. “But” on Shabbat, we are not going to make something muktzeh if it still has its original—That is the Rashba’s position.
“Ve’oleh mehaRashba svira de’afilu be’oseh me’ein melachto rishonah, kol she’asui lezorko erev Shabbat, lo sharei rak im nishbar beShabbat. Machat shenishberah beShabbat sharya.” By the way, that is going to be the basis for permitting these cups. He will be the basis for permitting cups, because he will say that bottom line, it broke on Shabbat, so to speak. Well, it does not matter; it is still fit for its original function. That is it. That is enough. Tosafot, on the other hand, says no, no, you do not need that. Even if it does not have its original function, bottom line, it broke; it is not muktzeh.
“Ulefi haRashba machat mikrei asui le-me’ein melachto.” A needle is considered to be fit for its original function, because during the week he would also use it to take this out. Okay, beautiful. Beautiful, beautiful. So that is at least one way of understanding it.
“Aval da’at Tosafot shehaGemara mazkira me’ein melachah lav davka.” Now, according to Tosafot, he says no, no, you do not need it to be fit for the same thing, just fit for something. “Uledido ein mikol sevarat haRashba.” Beautiful. According to Tosafot, the Gemara says Bar Hamduri came and explained that it is fit for its original function. What was the case of Tosafot, these mats? They broke. When did they break? On Shabbat. Right? “Tanu Rabbanan, machatzlet mutar letaltelah beShabbat. Mai ta’ama? Bar Pada asberah li.” Oh, so Tosafot understood “Bar Pada explained it to me” not to mean that it has to do exactly the same kind of work. Any function is enough. That is enough. But the Rashba comes along and says no: when it breaks on Shabbat, it has to have the—
Okay, there is a big machloket between the Rishonim, the early authorities, about how to understand this Gemara. Does it have to have its original function when it breaks on Shabbat, or not? Original function, which is taking out a splinter. Right, original function. On the contrary! No, something it was used for. Right. So he is going to be more strict than Tosafot, of course! Tosafot says you do not need its original function. He says the Gemara said that, but not specifically. Any use. That does not make a practical difference, exactly! Because the Rashba’s whole point about the mats is what? If they—With a needle, if the needle broke before Shabbat, this big novel idea comes out: if the needle broke before Shabbat, it is muktzeh. Everyone says it is muktzeh because people throw it away. If a needle breaks on Shabbat, the Rashba says that since people would use it for its original function—taking out splinters during the week—then it will not become muktzeh. It remains in that status. Wow!
So he says, “Vezeh hadin bechol oseh melachto rishonah, deba’asui lizerikah bechol havei muktzeh, lo chen ba’asui lizerikah beShabbat.” Exactly. Any item you would throw out during the week, on Shabbat, if that happens and it still does its original function, according to the Rashba it is still okay. “Aval be’ein oseh melachto rishonah, afilu asui lizerikah beShabbat havei muktzeh.” Okay, but if it does not do its original function, it will be muktzeh.
“Aval da’at haTosafot dehaGemara shehizkirah me’ein melachah lav davka, vesagi me’ein melachah.” Right, according to Tosafot, it does not need to do its original function. So the Rashba requires it to do its original function. According to Tosafot, even if it does not do its original function, like this mat, if it does any function, that is enough.
Okay, stay tuned for tomorrow. We’ll see what the Rambam holds, like either Tosafot or the Rashba. Then we’ll see, obviously, nafka minot (practical differences). We’ll see what the Shulchan Aruch says coming up. The kotz case will be the Shulchan Aruch’s case. Coming up. Beautiful, have a nice piece tomorrow.
Baruch Hashem le’olam, amen ve’amen (Blessed is Hashem forever, amen and amen). Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya omer… (Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to make Israel meritorious; therefore He gave them much Torah and mitzvot, as it is said: Hashem desired, for the sake of His righteousness): “Ratzah HaKadosh Baruch Hu lezakot et Yisrael, lefichach hirbah lahem Torah umitzvot, shene’emar, ‘Hashem chafetz lema’an tzidko.’”