Answer

According to most opinions, forbidden foods are muktzeh. However, some permit moving them, especially rabbinic prohibitions (such as ordinary non-kosher wine handled by others—for example, wine of Jews who desecrate the Sabbath or non-Jews who are not idol worshipers). There is also room to permit it because food that is fit for animals is not muktzeh. And if the food belongs to a person who is not strict about forbidden foods, then for its owner it is considered fit, and that too is something to consider.
By the way, if the wine is cooked or pasteurized, then according to many halakhic decisors it is not forbidden even for drinking, and certainly not for moving. A secular person’s utensils are not necessarily actually forbidden, and certainly not for cold use.
As a rule, if you can avoid it, that is preferable; but if not, there is room to be lenient—especially out of honor for one’s father and mother, so that you should not violate this prohibition.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
I saw that it says in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchatah: “A garment of shaatnez belonging to a Jew is muktzeh … but if it is a garment of a non-Jew, it is permitted to move it for the non-Jew’s sake.” My question is: what would the law be if we replaced the shaatnez garment with an item whose primary use is for prohibited activity, like a cellular phone? Likewise, what would the law be if we replaced the word “non-Jew” with “secular Jew”?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I assume you do not mean to replace the garment with a phone, but rather to permit moving a non-Jew’s phone for his needs. Perhaps here there is room to permit it simply under the law of an item whose primary use is for prohibited activity, when needed for a permitted use. As for the comparison itself, one can distinguish between them, since the prohibition of the phone stems from Sabbath prohibitions, and so there is reason to say that even if it belongs to a non-Jew it is muktzeh in any case. In contrast, with shaatnez the prohibition is unrelated to the Sabbath, and for a non-Jew there is no prohibition. As for a secular Jew, he has no permission—he is simply acting wrongfully. Why should that make it not muktzeh? If you mean my argument that he is not a person accountable for transgressions, obviously he is still obligated. Rather, his act is in itself a prohibition, except that it is not in the category of a personal transgression in the full sense (therefore it is still an item whose primary use is for prohibited activity).
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
1. It says in Shemirat Shabbat KeHilchatah: “It is permitted to move an item whose primary use is for prohibited activity in order to give it to one’s friend so that he can make permitted use of it, or for the sake of an animal.” Would it be correct to say that it is also permitted to move it for the sake of a non-Jew? (Because from his perspective it is a permitted use.)
2. It seems to me that a shaatnez coat is considered muktzeh because of its intrinsic nature (that is, it is forbidden to move it even for its own use or for its place). Yet moving it was still permitted for the sake of the non-Jew. Should we say that moving it is also permitted for the sake of the secular Jew?
3. Earlier you wrote about non-kosher foods: “If the food belongs to a person who is not strict about forbidden foods, then for its owner it is considered fit.” Does that principle apply only to foods? Or can it also be extended to a shaatnez coat belonging to a secular Jew?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
1. Clearly a shaatnez coat is considered muktzeh because of its intrinsic nature. The reason moving it was permitted for the sake of a non-Jew is that the non-Jew is permitted to use it, so it is not muktzeh at all. What I wrote was only about an item whose primary use is for prohibited activity, not about shaatnez. However, even regarding shaatnez there is room for discussion, since it is possible that once it belongs to a non-Jew, it is permitted to move it even for the sake of a Jew (because there is no muktzeh for the poor that is not muktzeh for the rich—that is, something is not muktzeh only for certain people), but I still need to examine that. But for the sake of a secular Jew, this is no permission at all, and there is no basis for comparison (both regarding shaatnez and regarding an item whose primary use is for prohibited activity).
2. What I wrote there no longer seems correct to me. There may be some room for that reasoning, but at the moment I am inclined to think that it is not correct, and his view is disregarded. I retract it.
——————————————————————————————
Questioner:
Does the bottom line remain the same—that it is permitted to move forbidden foods for the sake of a secular Jew—or does this affect the bottom line as well?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
It seems to me simply that it is forbidden.