[Avodah] Mutzkeh: Sticks, Stones, and Pets

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:50AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: But *why* are stones and animals muktzeh?  Because they have no legitimate
: use.  These stones and animals do have a use, if you call playing with them
: a use (and if you don't then why aren't the checkers muktzeh too?).  So it
: shouldn't be enough to say "they remain stones and animals".

On Fri, Apr 04, 2008 at 08:13:58PM +0000, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
:I wrote:
:> To understand the reason why stones are muktzeh, one must
:> remember the principle on which muktzeh was based:
:> Everything handled on Shabbos must be prepared for Shabbos
:> in advance.

: R' Sholom Simon commented:
: > Well . . . except for the myriad of things which are
: > considered automatically prepared, no? ...

: Yes, indeed, being "automatically prepared" does count as "preparation"
: in this context.

We have here two different formulations of muqtzah:
- that which has no legitimate use on Shabbos (RSZ)
and
- that which was prepared, explicitly or imlicitly, for shabbos (RAM and
  RSS)

The latter position bothered me on two levels:

Linguistically, muqtzah is that which is separated off. The exact reverse
of the imiplication that the permissable is that which is separated.

Second, this notion of "automatic preparation" seems too much of an
oxymoron. Preparation connotes koach gavra, an intent to make something
non-muqtzah -- the opposite of automatic.

So, being bothered on both the level of language and of ta'am hamitzvah,
I did what should be the obvious... turned to RSRH! Grabbed my Horeb vol
I and for appropriate DE mindset, my SD card with Baroque music on it,
and had an enjoyable bus ride into work this morning.

RSRH writes:
> The term muqtzah comprises any object which was not designated for
> human use when Shabbos commenced,
> a) because its purpose is the production of melakhah;
> b) because it was not intended for use as an instrument or as food,
> as it is useless or incomplete or has not been detached from its place
> of growth or which could only be put to use by means of violation of
> the Shabbos laws;
> c) because is had been designated for the fulfillment of a mitvah.

RSRH then distinguishes between (a) and (b) & (c) by pointing out that
"objects under (a) may be removing for a use which is permitted or so
that the space it occupies may be used". (And so, in 10 lines of one
column of a 2-column page RSRH manages to explain the concept of muqtzah
even as far as the din of keli shemilakhto le'issur. Impressive.)

But note that despite his use of the word "designated" it appears that by
the time you get to the end of the sentence (which admittedly takes some
patience) RSRH gives RSZ's definition. I don't know the original german,
but there is no concept of setting it aside explicitly or implicitly. More
like "the kind of thing one would use". Which is why a keli shemilakhto
le'issur is okay for non-standard mutar uses.

These two theories imply a difference in threshold. Perhaps the machmirim
WRT pets (eg RMF) hold by the "preparation" sevara, and animals aren't
prepared for Shabbos use, not even by putting a collar on. Whereas the
"Shabbos use" sevara would explain the matirim (eg RSZA), since the
animal does have a commonly agreed-upon use.

In terms of derekh halimmud, I think my chiluq (right or flawed) would
be classical RSSkop. It explains a machloqes in terms of "fahr vus?"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha at aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507