Q&A: On the category of muktzeh due to its intrinsic nature — what is a “utensil”?
On the category of muktzeh due to its intrinsic nature — what is a “utensil”?
Question
What counts as a utensil for purposes of muktzeh?
In our regular study of section 308 (so far we’ve reached subsection 20, inclusive), a question came up: what is a utensil? The Shulchan Arukh writes in subsection 7: “something that has no relation to being a utensil, such as pebbles or stones, even though they are fit to cover a vessel with, it is forbidden to move them.”
How do you define what a utensil is?
A. Anything fit to be used is a utensil — that can’t be right, because in that very subsection in the Shulchan Arukh it says, and also explicitly in the Talmud in Sabbath 46a, that even though stones and pebbles are fit to cover a vessel with, they are muktzeh.
B. Anything that is used through a manual action — difficult, because if so, would every reading item be muktzeh? (And one cannot say that turning the page counts as a meaningful action.) Also, by this definition, any object whose purpose is decorative would be muktzeh as well (objects whose main point is beauty, like things placed on shelves and the like).
C. Anything that has a specific definition and designated purpose (the most sensible definition).
But according to this definition, I have not been able to understand why the Mishnah Berurah writes (subsection 25) that a lulav is muktzeh because it is not a utensil. Why is it not a utensil? According to what definition is it not a utensil? What is the difference between it and spices that I prepared for fragrance?
So from everything above, it is not clear what the definition of a utensil is.
What especially bothers me is: why is a rabbit (just an example) muktzeh because it is not a utensil, but a rabbit doll is a utensil?
I would be glad for the Rabbi’s answer.
Answer
The definition of a utensil appears both with respect to the laws of muktzeh on the Sabbath and with respect to the laws of ritual impurity. The Talmud even compares the two: “Since it is considered a utensil for impurity, it is considered a utensil for the Sabbath.”
With impurity, the rule is that it is supposed to be something created by a person — artificial, not natural. A natural thing does not contract impurity (unless it is food, and even then it requires preparation for impurity).
And that is also the definition of a utensil regarding the Sabbath: something created by human beings for use.
From this you can understand that a stone or wood is not a utensil. Only if one designates them for use through an action does that count as their having been prepared by human hands. As for a lulav, that is apparently a different issue. It is indeed designated and prepared for use, and should have been considered a utensil. The Mishnah Berurah apparently holds that waving it for a commandment is not considered a use (“the commandments were not given for benefit”).
Discussion on Answer
A prayer book serves me for reading. That is no different from an ordinary book. So it is not like a lulav, where the commandment is performed with the object itself. Certainly when the use is for the sake of a commandment performed on that same Sabbath, like a prayer book. That certainly would not be muktzeh.
Animals are not considered utensils because I did not make them. But once I designated them for play, then they really would not be muktzeh. A pet is not muktzeh, in my opinion.
If that’s how the Rabbi explains the Mishnah Berurah, then according to this a prayer book or other ritual-use items would also be muktzeh?
And what especially bothers me is the issue of animals — why are they not considered utensils, while toy dolls are considered utensils?
Thank you very much.