Discussion on the Daf - Shabbat

Aylat

Sun, Apr 19 2020, 8:29 am

Shabbat 43

מניח עליו [המת] ככר או תינוק ומטלטלו היכא דאיכא ככר או תינוק
Why those two examples? I'm assuming they're examples of categories - what is included or excluded by each one. (Side point - putting a baby on a corpse - euch.)

amother

Orchid

Sun, Apr 19 2020, 8:45 am

Aylat wrote:

Because you wouldn't bury either one, I think. But I agree, yuck!

Aylat

Sun, Apr 19 2020, 8:55 am

amother [ Orchid ] wrote:

Because you wouldn't bury either one, I think. But I agree, yuck!

But it's not burying we're worried about here, it's moving muktze. So we're doing טלטול מן הצד (I think) by moving the non-muktze item and thus also the muktze corpse.

amother

Orchid

Sun, Apr 19 2020, 9:09 am

Aylat wrote:

But it's not burying we're worried about here, it's moving muktze. So we're doing טלטול מן הצד (I think) by moving the non-muktze item and thus also the muktze corpse.

Right, but the bread and baby are things that you need to move and are not muktza, and won't become muktza.

farm

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 1:14 am

Interesting as well, how the talmid was avoiding the one who held it’s assur to make Aliya from Bavel because he didn’t want to hear it and not be able to move to secrets Yisroel as planned. Is that an actual psak that people hold nowadays?

malki2

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 1:18 am

farm wrote:

It’s interesting- the exact two items that were suggested a few dapim back, when Shlomo Hamelech asked about his father’s body after he was niftar on Shabbos.

The idea is that they are both commonly available items that are themselves not Muktze. Many utensils could have a question of being Muktze according to some.

malki2

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 1:21 am

farm wrote:

No one holds that it’s Assur to make Aliya. (Except maybe Satmar, but that’s because of the Medina, not the Passuk. Before the Medina, no one had any issue with going to Palestine.)

Aylat

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 2:00 am

farm wrote:

My mind jumped to a modern-day comparison as well. Though the actual psak can't apply nowadays because it was from a pasuk about Bavel
ירמיהו כז, כב) בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו)

malki2

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 6:29 am

Aylat wrote:

My mind jumped to a modern-day comparison as well. Though the actual psak can't apply nowadays because it was from a pasuk about Bavel
ירמיהו כז, כב) בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו)

Not exactly, because the pasuk was also about the first Galut, and he applied it to the second Galut. So somehow he held that it was still relevant to nowadays.

Aylat

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 8:27 am

Shabbat 45

אלו הן מדבריות כל שיוצאות בפסח ונכנסות ברביעה
Why not say their muktze status depends on the time of year? Spring-summer the animals are far away and therefore not מוכן, autumn-winter they are close to the farmstead and readily available to be slaughtered on YT.

Aylat

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 8:36 am

Shabbat 45

יוחנן קינה של תרנגולת מהו לטלטולי בשבת אמר ליה כלום עשוי אלא לתרנגולין הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ביה אפרוח מת

רשי: דאית ביה אפרוח מת - דלא חזי למיכל ולכלבים נמי לא חזי ואף על גב דא"ר שמעון מחתכין את הנבלה לפני הכלבים הני מילי במסוכנת אבל בריאה לא דלא הוה דעתיה מאתמול לכלבים והאי אפרוח שמת בשבת נמי לא הוה דעתיה מאתמול לכלבים:

A chick that died on shabbat is muktze and can't be fed to the dogs because you weren't expecting it to die. Therefore the chicken coop is muktze because it's a בסיס למוקצה. R Shimon agrees in this case.

But I thought muktze status of בסיס is determined during בין השמשות and at that point the chick was still alive and therefore not muktze according to R Shimon.

malki2

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 8:57 am

Aylat wrote:

I think that what you said is correct regarding something that became בסיס and later the muktze object was removed from it, that it is still בסיס because it was there בין השמשות. But if the muktze object is actually on it on Shabbat, I think that it still can have a status of בסיס.

Aylat

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 8:58 am

malki2 wrote:

That would make sense.

malki2

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 8:59 am

Aylat wrote:

The relative “neediness” of the animal defines its general status. There wouldn’t be a difference in its status at different times of the year.

Aylat

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 11:25 am

malki2 wrote:

The relative “neediness” of the animal defines its general status. There wouldn’t be a difference in its status at different times of the year.

I think it's availability that defines its status.
Items are muktze if you wouldn't be able to use them on Shabbat/YT. Eg the fruits put out to dry.

malki2

Mon, Apr 20 2020, 1:34 pm

Aylat wrote:

I think it's availability that defines its status.
Items are muktze if you wouldn't be able to use them on Shabbat/YT. Eg the fruits put out to dry.

You are correct on that, but here availability is being defined as “are they בייתות or are they מדבריות? And the definition of that depends on how much they come back to the Yishuv. I guess it’s simpler to first categorize them by the first set of classification, which is binary.

Aylat

Thu, Apr 23 2020, 3:01 pm

malki2 wrote:

ביתיות are not muktze because they are close at hand and available. So I wondered why מדבריות couldn't be non muktze in the rainy season when they are also at hand. The answer could be that it's too confusing to have their status change according to time of year so we just make a blanket determination of muktze.