"But an animal that is entirely designated for such a purpose from before Shabbos would be permissible to move on Shabbos, just as it is permissible to move rocks on Shabbos when they are designated from before Shabbos for being moved (such as an ornamental rock that one shows around)...
Historically, there was simply no such thing as pets. People only owned animals for them to work or to raise them as food. Dogs were bred for specific work purposes - dachshunds to hunt badgers, poodles to retrieve ducks. Cats were kept to catch rats and thereby protect grain supplies. Domestic hamsters didn’t even exist. The only keeping of animals for non-work purposes was with kings and suchlike, who had unusual and beautiful animals to decorate their palaces, but they were still not held for interaction with humans."
Wow! Feels like the Tashbetz fight all over again! The above quote is simply not true. The Rosh (quoted in the Maharach Or Zrua, 81- 82) discusses a scenario of raising pet birds, and at the end of s. 82 rules that they are Muktze because of lo plug. R' Shlomo Zalman in Shmiras Shabbos C'hilchasa (chapter 27 footnote 101), quotes some authorities that prohibit handling pets based on the earlier authorities that prohibit a child to play with a bird, and specifically makes the distinction you are suggesting and disputes this proof, as the instance of a child playing with the bird was not talking about a bird that was a specifically a pet. HOWEVER, he then goes on to disagree with their entire line of reasoning based on the Rosh above, as the Rosh clearly says it's a lo plug and would prohibit playing with pets as well. And in chapter 18 footnote 62, RSHZA specifically says that this lo plug of the Rosh about pets would probably not apply for SEEING EYE DOGS. Not for all other pets, as he is specifically coming to differentiate from!!!
As far as R' Moshe, he is on record in his sefer saying that pets are muktze, and his position amongst his talmidim is far from clear on the matter. Some of his closest talmidim vehemently hold that R' Moshe never permitted pets to be handled on Shabbos. So the matter is far from being 'beyond doubt'.
This doesn't invalidate Slifkins claim. Lo plug in this case would be relevant if you had most, or perhaps some, animals kept for their use and some as pets.
This is no longer the case today where the overwhelming majority of people who keep animals, keep them as pets, not for work. Only a very specific kind of people, who live in specific areas, keep animals for work, and this is distinction enough that there is no reason to need lo plug.
Only a few decades ago, when R' S. Zalman lived, this was not the case, had he lived today he may well have agreed with my reasoning.
??? Do you know what 'lo plug' means?? It means that when Chazal made a Rabbinic enactment, they did it without exceptions, and regardless of whether the reasoning for their enactment was relevant for that scenario. So if the Rosh is arguing that Chazal enacted a blanket prohibition for handling animals as a lo plug, regardless of whether they are being used as pets or not, it would not make a difference as to what most animals are currently being used as!! (Which I anyways am pretty sure that most domesticated animals owned today are not pets, think of the vast number of poultry and cattle needed to feed the world. Definitely more than the number of dogs owned!)
That’s a very interesting theory but no one actually follows it. Instead we follow the MB and others who permit sweeping indoor hard floors even though earlier authorities prohibited it based on Lo plug. The fact that all indoor floors in town are hard floors changes the conclusion. Also I didn’t see the RSZA inside but if he is making a distinction for seeing eye dogs, then he too holds the Lo plug is not absolute.
It's not my theory. It's the Rosh's. And it has nothing to do with sweeping floors on Shabbos. Over there, the Sefer Hateruma says that there was a gezeira from dirt floors to stone/wood floors. So in event that almost all floors are paved, the Mishna Berura says that the concern would no longer apply. But over here the Rosh says that since even an animal that is intended to be handled remains an animal, and is not comparable to say something that becomes a kli shem'lachto lheter because it becomes something else, say a stone which is designated to be used as a door stopper, it remains assur. He argues that pet animals are comparable to tzroros she'bchatzer, which even if one designates a pebble because he wants to play with it, it does not become mutar and remains muktzeh because the pebbles are not ra'uy for any other usage. And the fact that he wants to use it isn't sufficient enough to permit it, it has to be able to transform to a different 'kli', otherwise it remains a pebble and is forbidden because all pebbles are muktzeh, even if one designates one to be used.
Additionally, even though this is not really relevant to the discussion, I think it's pretty ridiculous to make the argument that most animals today are no longer muktzeh. This is obviously not true.
That being said, I am not on a jihad to say that pet animals are muktzeh. They could very well not be and I never really did extensive research on the sugya. But the only opinion from Rishonim that I know of is that they are muktzeh, and I have not yet seen a cogent argument to the contrary. Just a few misquotes and mistakes.
Your argument was that once the Rosh said Lo Plug, no further factual developments could change that. But that is demonstrably false. The earlier authorities said Lo Plug on sweeping indoor hard floors, and the later authorities said that this doesn't apply in places where indoor hard floors predominate. Thus your argument is false.
Not all animal are pets and not all sweepable surfaces are are indoor hard floors. I would imaging that dirt floors are still at least 50% of all the worlds indoor floors not to speak of anything outdoors (and some poskim say that outdoor hard floors may not be swept on Shabbos for that reason). But among animals that city dweller touch or move, pets are the overwhelming majority just as hard floor predominate indoors where Jews tent to live.
Service dogs also don't fit the lo plug overrides everything paradigm.
Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a §81 permits carrying pet birds in their cage, maintaining that they are not muktzeh, albeit while noting that Rosh disagrees and maintains that all animals are muktzeh. Indeed, this is the opinion of the majority of poskim according to MB 308:146 and SSK 27:27 (Yabi’a Omer 5:26 states that if one wishes to move birds in order to prevent their suffering, such as if the sun is beating down on them, one may rely on Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a). However, all these discussions relate to birds, which are not commonly carried. In contrast, today people keep house pets and carry them around all week. For this reason, Igrot Moshe states that birds are muktzeh (OĤ 4:16) and succinctly that pets are not (OĤ 5:22:21). This is also the position of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74. Others are stringent (Yalkut Yosef vol. 2, p. 383; Orĥot Shabbat 19:124). As I have written above, the halakha follows those who are lenient. Bird cages and aquariums, which are not normally carried, are muktzeh. If one normally moves them around during the week for decorative purposes, then according to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach they are not muktzeh (Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74:2).
The Maharach Or Zrua was the Shoel who posed the shayla to the Rosh. And he printed the Rosh's response alongside his shayla. It's possible that he never meant to back down, but I did see RSZA express wonderment about people trying to permit pets based on the Maharach Or Zrua because he understood that was only the shayla, but the teshuva from the Rosh was the Maharach Or Zrua intention in printing it. As far as the assumption that birds are different than regular pets, I noticed the doc wrote that as well, the only problem is that the Maharach Or Zrua's whole premise for permitting them is based on the fact that they are domesticated and meant to be handled (which is exactly what Rabbi Melamed and the doc are trying to say they are not), but still the Rosh responded that he does not see that as grounds to permit it, the same way that pebbles, even if intended to be used, fall under the blanket prohibition of muktzeh, since they do not have a 'Toras Kli'. As far as R' Moshe, he never wrote it, it is in small letters which means that his grandson Rabbi Tendler wrote it. I recall seeing in a specific sefer (which I do not have access to right now and is not on otzar hachochma) that R' Moshe's talmidim strongly dispute this.
tzroros she'bchatzer, which even if one designates a pebble because he wants to play with it, it does not become mutar and remains muktzeh because the pebbles are not ra'uy for any other usage.
That is not the halochoh though. Pick up a pebble on erev shabbos, designate it as a door stopper and it is no longer muktzah. Either the halochoh is not like the rosh here, or the rosh is tallking on shabbos itself.
You’re missing the boat. Chazal (Shabbos 46a, see SA 308:7) specifically give the example of pebbles in a chatzer as something that is useless and incapable of becoming a kli. It is not the Rosh’s novelty. Therefore, even if one intends on handling them, they are still muktzeh. Theoretically, if one were to find a usage which a pebble would be appropriate for and designate it before Shabbos for that usage, according to many opinions it would become a kli shemlachto l’heter and no longer be considered muktzeh. However, that’s not the point here. The Rosh is comparing pet animals to regular pebbles that did NOT transform into another kli. After all, a pet is just a regular animal, just one that is more frequently handled. But I guess if you wanted to use a parakeet as a doorstopper (or a dog as a guide-dog), it would probably be permitted!
This is what the Pri Chadash said for cholov tisrael. He noted that there are no pigs on dairy farms, so the gezaira no longer applies. (As an aside, I wonder how anyone even knows if chazal made a takanah as a lo plug or not. Do they claim to know this for a fact? Or just strong feeling based on analyzing the general sugya?)
Halacha isn't chal on animals it's chal on people. I said the vast majority of people who own animals keep them as pets not that the vast majority of animals are pets. Do try to keep up.
You have an ... interesting understanding of lo plug. I can see why you could not conceive of it in any other way though.
Not sure what's so hard for you to understand! The Rosh says clearly that when Chazal said that animals are muktze, they did so as a 'lo plug'. That means 'no exceptions'. Kapish ?????
This would negate the entire gezaira if it was established that the taam was in fact batel. Now most orthodox rabbis rule like the rosh who maintains that even if the taam is batel the gezaira remains in effect.
This has nothing to do with lo plug which means that even in a case that should not have the gezaira because the taam doesn't apply since the taam applies to other _present_ cases the rabbis didn't differentiate and applied a blanket ban.
If an animal is kept as a pet and as an early warning system or guard dog(even if not trained specifically for this purpose) like many dogs in Israel on moshavs and in bad neighborhoods etc. it could be argued the lo plug would be in effect.
Domestication doesn’t by itself make the animal designated for purpose. But guard dogs of the past are probably not comparable to those of the present. It’s not a wild dog on a chain. It’s a familiar dog one of whose functions is protection of the familiar people.
With all due respect HaRav Mecharker, I don't think this is comparable to the Tashbetz issue at all. Here, Natan is well within his area of expertise as a zoological historian, and is perfectly within his rights to share his professional perspective in a halachic capacity. His valuable professional contribution is independent of whether he happens to have gotten the halacha part right or wrong, my point is that it is not a good comparison to the Tashbetz issue.
Ok, I agree that this is more within his area of expertise. What I meant by that it reminds me of the Tashbetz fight was how shockingly he goofed. But yes, this topic is right up his alley.
Finally got to the Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa. You have this all wrong. First off, "HOWEVER, he then goes on to disagree with their entire line of reasoning based on the Rosh above". This is a total misrepresentation of the two footnotes. All it says is that RSZA noted (along with others) that some authorities quote the Maharach Or Zarua 81 to be meikil with regard to an animal that can entertain a child, but neglect to quote 82 where the Rosh says otherwise. But he still maintains the distinction between things which are entirely for decoration and made to move from place to place and says that the Rosh would *not* apply his lo plug there. The two cases he applies this to are a portable aquarium with fish and water and to seeing eye dogs. He doesn't address dogs who are pets, but he definitely does say that the Lo Plug of the Rosh doesn't apply where the object is primarily designated for decoration or use where the object is moved. He doesn't "specifically ... differentiate from "pets and one of his examples is a pet fish in an aquarium. If anything these footnotes support the post. The case in the Maharach Or Zarua is not discussing animals primarily designated for decoration or human use such as pets which are different beasts from birds which can make nice noises and which you sometimes might want to move. In fact it's pretty clear form the aquarium that a pet bird which was primarily for decoration could be moved around with it's cage even according to the Rosh according to RSZA.
And my third and (hopefully) FINAL reply is that we are actually very forward-thinking. We came up with this very cool innovative concept called Kollel and B"H were able to stem the tide of the Haskalah with it. You guys are still stuck in the early 1800's watching your kids go off the path in droves and using completely antiquated methods (such as sitting on your bums and looking on in apathy) to try and deal with it!
I don't know, I just figured you had a concubine because your Judaism seems frozen around the year 0 C.E. (Another handy tip - if one of your wives is having trouble bearing a child, she can always give you her maidservant for you to have a relations with, then you can just pretend the child is really you and your wife's. Just trying to help you practice Authentic Judaism™ here.)
Anyway, I'm American yeshivish (just with daas), so I'm not sure what you mean by "you guys" and the Israeli army stuff. (As it happens, an Israeli soldier engaging in sexual activity with a fellow female soldier is a far more normal social arrangement than having a stable of concubines, though an aveira to be sure.)
Lastly, mass kollel was a response to the Holocaust, not the Enlightenment (which had a lot of positives in addition to the negatives, though I wouldn't expect you to understand that).
And FYI, if you are looking to secular society to determine what is a 'normal social arrangement', 'polygamous relationships' are all the rage now! Just ask SBF and Caroline Ellison. So go ahead, build yourself a concubine stable!
Unfortunately, my Judaism is not frozen around the year 0, but at least we TRY to practice authentic, old-fashioned Judaism, while of course adapting it to modern times (but at the same time doing our best not to c"v CONFORM it to modern society).
Your second statement leads me to seriously doubt that you are American Yeshivish. And if you are, definitely not with 'daas'! If you were, you would realize that two ravakim transgressing on an issur kares is not even comparable to owning a pilegesh. For the record, the Ya'avetz advocated for the return of pilagshim. Not that it was accepted, but from a Torah perspective, the two things are not even comparable.
I agree that mass-Kollel started post Holocaust. That's why I said that it was a new, innovative invention. But it took us until now to get it done. And no, the Haskalah did not have any direct positive benefits. All it did was cause millions of Jews to go astray. Those of us that despise it are faring much better, even if we do suffer from some slight, indirect influence from it. The whole deep hashkafic, institutionalized ivy tower Yeshiva empire in pre-war Europe was probably a response to the Haskalah, but obviously a good one. I think only the Chassidim can say it did not affect them at all.
The Ga'on's knowledge of astronomy had nothing to do with the Haskalah. In the Ga'on's time, the Haskalah was in its infancy and mostly confined to Berlin.
The Haskalah didn't lead to "all" the medical and technological advancement, the Enlightenment (amongst secular society, that is) did. The Enlightenment *also* led to the Haskalah, but the Haskalah itself did not produce anything positive.
I just advocate going by the books and not making stuff up as we go along! If the doc were to just call a spade a spade and admit he were doing that, I would disappear pronto. Just he likes to insinuate that the MODOX, despite always looking to change halacha, are practicing 'authentic Judaism', whereas the Charedim, who live by the books, are radical reformers. Go figure.
You are kind of an ass. Why are you fighting so hard against modern people. It will only breed hate. Even your icon of a wacky chosid and your moniker, irrationalist modoxism shows your here just to poke fun and argue shelo lishmah. Get a life and stay in your lane if you can't be respectful!
I am not sure I understand the practical difference between judging an animal muktzeh on shabbat. Since muktzeh does not prohibit touching - only moving, why wouldn't the concept of chai hotzi et atzmoh apply. By that I mean, if I walk my dog on shabbat, I am not carrying the dog, rather the dog is walking with me.
Indeed. We have a large standard poodle (weighs about 30 kg). You touch him and walk him. But we have friends who have toy poodles and miniature poodles and they carry them all over the place (not my kind of dog).
I absolutely love this post! I have researched this for a while now, and I am so happy to finally see this laid out in an organized coherent fashion. The thing that I can’t figure out is this. I understand the other point of view that wants to be strict with this with a “lo plug” argument. However, one must be able to see that there are legitimate reliable halachik opinions saying that pets that are handled on a regular basis are not muktza (much like a child’s toy). And if that is the case, since this is a rabbinic law, wouldn’t the practical halacha ruling be to rely on the lenient opinion since it is a machlokes regarding a rabbinic law. This is a point that Rabbi Slifkin makes very cogently, but I haven’t seen anybody able to dispute. Seems like sound logic to me.
The 'lo plug argument' is not my own. It's from the Rosh. And to the best of my knowledge, the Rosh is one of the only Rishonim that we have that explicitly discusses if pets are muktzeh or not. I was showing how the doc misunderstood/misconstrued R' Shlomo Zalman. R' Shlomo Zalman is discussing the Rosh's opinion above and acknowledges that the takana of muktzeh with animals fall under the rubric of lo plug and that includes pets. He does suggest that seeing eye dogs would be excluded from this takana. But to say that R' Shlomo Zalman permitted handling all pets is simply a mistake.
As per your question, the Rosh specifically discusses it and says that it is not comparable to something that is designated before Shabbos because that becomes a 'kli shemlachto l'heter', if you are intending to use it for a permitted usage on Shabbos. However, an animal does not transform into a different animal (pun intended) and remains under the prohibition of muktzeh that was imposed on animals, even if it is a pet.
Below is a direct quote from a footnote in Rabbi Melsmed’s psak where he points out the Maharach Ohr Zarua disagrees with the Rosh. Although the Rosh was older, I believe they lived in the same time period.
“Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a §81 permits carrying pet birds in their cage, maintaining that they are not muktzeh, albeit while noting that Rosh disagrees and maintains that all animals are muktzeh. Indeed, this is the opinion of the majority of poskim according to MB 308:146 and SSK 27:27 (Yabi’a Omer 5:26 states that if one wishes to move birds in order to prevent their suffering, such as if the sun is beating down on them, one may rely on Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a). However, all these discussions relate to birds, which are not commonly carried. In contrast, today people keep house pets and carry them around all week. For this reason, Igrot Moshe states that birds are muktzeh (OĤ 4:16) and succinctly that pets are not (OĤ 5:22:21). This is also the position of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74. Others are stringent (Yalkut Yosef vol. 2, p. 383; Orĥot Shabbat 19:124). As I have written above, the halakha follows those who are lenient. Bird cages and aquariums, which are not normally carried, are muktzeh. If one normally moves them around during the week for decorative purposes, then according to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach they are not muktzeh (Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74:2)”
I’m just saying that the statement from R’ Melamed that “the halakha follows those who are lenient” seems to be because it’s a machlokes Drabannan. That is normative halchic procedure. For anyone to hold themselves out to be strict on this matter is fine with me, just don’t get bent out of shape saying we are distorting Halacha and poskim when the issue is clearly very much in dispute and those who are lenient are acting properly according to sound halachic principles.
"Rav Eliezer Melamed... further states that while there is a dispute in this matter, one may be lenient, since it is a dispute regarding a rabbinic rather than a Scriptural prohibition."
That would be a very fair argument if it were actually a matter of dispute. But which Rishonim disagree with the Rosh?
I'm asking seriously. It's possible that such opinions exist, I didn't research this topic too thoroughly, but a quick perusal did not turn up anything.
Wow! Feels like the Tashbetz fight all over again! The above quote is simply not true. The Rosh (quoted in the Maharach Or Zrua, 81- 82) discusses a scenario of raising pet birds, and at the end of s. 82 rules that they are Muktze because of lo plug.
YidPoshut
Petting the animal if it has (long?) fur is discussed in biur halacha oc 302:11
מכרכר
??? Do you know what 'lo plug' means?? It means that when Chazal made a Rabbinic enactment, they did it without exceptions,..
Yacov Levi
I understand the other point of view that wants to be strict with this with a “lo plug” argument. However, one must be able to see that there are legitimate reliable halachik opinions saying that pets that are handled on a regular basis are not muktza (much like a child’s toy).
LOL !! What an exorbitant waste of time and effort. Plug, Lo Plug, Hair Plug, Fire Plug, Ear Plug…
Do you really believe that the architect of our extraordinary complex universe or perhaps many universes, really wants us to concern ourselves with picking up rocks or pets on a specified day of the week? What an ultra-weird system of beliefs. — entirely divorced from reality.
Hey Uriah’s wife, that’s a very simplistic way of looking at this. Discussing whether or not something fits into the category of muktza is a useful application of Torah study that is very relevant to hilchot Shabbat. For any law, you can make the same argument: why would a perfect being such as God care about what we do. Whether it’s a rabbinic law, such as muktza, or even a Tora law. God as a perfect being means that He has no needs like a human being, and as such, why would he even care about any of the things that we do. But that presumes that we know anything about God. And we don’t. We only know what He isn’t. What we do know is that the system that we have inherited from our forefathers, includes a system of Torah laws and rabbinic laws , and we believe that God wants us to keep them to the best of our ability. That is why we keep and do Mitzvot. Because doing mitzvot is supposed to help us develop a relationship with God and make us better people by doing his will. So, yes, I believe God does care about what we do. And discussing these matters is a worthwhile pursuit. But you can always say it’s stupid to argue about the minutia of these matters saying “why does God even care” but once you go down that road, it’s a slippery slope because you can say that about any and all of the commandments, even the ones you think you understand.
I don't think that Uriah's Wife is a true atheist. He's an atheist wannabe. So he has to come on over here every once in a while and mock religion in order to assuage his guilty conscience.
Misleading article as Tzeida with pets is a much bigger problem than your throw away: "Capturing escaped exotic animals in your home, on the other hand, is a different matter, potentially involving the melacha of tzeida"
They ate those lambs ducks and chickens and worked those dogs and wore those rabbits. (The goyim probably ate the rabbits but I'm judaising the story)!
Yakov, it does sound like that the ani was deriving livelihood from it. That was Nosson's point with his mashal to Dovid. He probably meant that it was his sole possession and he raised it in his house so it was very dear to him, but I always understood that the REASON he was raising it was as a source of livelihood and not merely as a pet.
Could be even though Batsheva is more suitable to be likend to a pet goat. At any rate, what we see is that a moshol of a family treating a goat as a pet, regardles of the ultimate purpose of having it, was used. This indicates that pet animals were held.
Noson, you are wrong that pets are a recent development. You must have forgotten the Gemora Kesubos 61:b. The Mishne stated that if a man is rich enough to afford 4 maids, his wife doesn't have to do any household chores. Then another two Tanaim argued that idleness can cause her, either to seek a paramour, or drive her to insanity (from boredom). The Gemora asked, what's the difference between these two approaches and answers if the husband gives her pet dogs to play with or a chess set to play, she won't go crazy from boredom, but she still may seek a paramour (presumably because these activities are detached from her husband, but when she does household chores they are for the sake of her husband, thus her mind in on her husband, sg.)
Rashi explains, Gurysa Kitnysa as small dogs. this means: as opposed to large dogs whose purpose is as guard dogs or sheep dogs. Small dogs are only good for pets.
Do you have a source for your statement that historically, there was no such thing as pets? This article seems to have numerous examples of ancient human-pet interaction?-
"It is thus perfectly legitimate to pet your pets on Shabbos."
Not sure why this is conditional on the cited opinions which concern muktzeh - moving, carrying. Touching muktzeh items is generally permitted if it doesn't cause the item to move.
Edit: Have subsequently seen that the Biur Halacha says with regard to the tail of a horse that it's never muktzah, as only the limbs of an animal are muktzah and not its hair or tail.
The author of the book is close with Rabbi Furst from Chicago, who does not accept the idea that R' Moshe was lenient. That is why he did not record R' Moshe's opinion. As far as I am concerned, that is no excuse, but it is what it is.
"But an animal that is entirely designated for such a purpose from before Shabbos would be permissible to move on Shabbos, just as it is permissible to move rocks on Shabbos when they are designated from before Shabbos for being moved (such as an ornamental rock that one shows around)...
Historically, there was simply no such thing as pets. People only owned animals for them to work or to raise them as food. Dogs were bred for specific work purposes - dachshunds to hunt badgers, poodles to retrieve ducks. Cats were kept to catch rats and thereby protect grain supplies. Domestic hamsters didn’t even exist. The only keeping of animals for non-work purposes was with kings and suchlike, who had unusual and beautiful animals to decorate their palaces, but they were still not held for interaction with humans."
Wow! Feels like the Tashbetz fight all over again! The above quote is simply not true. The Rosh (quoted in the Maharach Or Zrua, 81- 82) discusses a scenario of raising pet birds, and at the end of s. 82 rules that they are Muktze because of lo plug. R' Shlomo Zalman in Shmiras Shabbos C'hilchasa (chapter 27 footnote 101), quotes some authorities that prohibit handling pets based on the earlier authorities that prohibit a child to play with a bird, and specifically makes the distinction you are suggesting and disputes this proof, as the instance of a child playing with the bird was not talking about a bird that was a specifically a pet. HOWEVER, he then goes on to disagree with their entire line of reasoning based on the Rosh above, as the Rosh clearly says it's a lo plug and would prohibit playing with pets as well. And in chapter 18 footnote 62, RSHZA specifically says that this lo plug of the Rosh about pets would probably not apply for SEEING EYE DOGS. Not for all other pets, as he is specifically coming to differentiate from!!!
As far as R' Moshe, he is on record in his sefer saying that pets are muktze, and his position amongst his talmidim is far from clear on the matter. Some of his closest talmidim vehemently hold that R' Moshe never permitted pets to be handled on Shabbos. So the matter is far from being 'beyond doubt'.
This doesn't invalidate Slifkins claim. Lo plug in this case would be relevant if you had most, or perhaps some, animals kept for their use and some as pets.
This is no longer the case today where the overwhelming majority of people who keep animals, keep them as pets, not for work. Only a very specific kind of people, who live in specific areas, keep animals for work, and this is distinction enough that there is no reason to need lo plug.
Only a few decades ago, when R' S. Zalman lived, this was not the case, had he lived today he may well have agreed with my reasoning.
??? Do you know what 'lo plug' means?? It means that when Chazal made a Rabbinic enactment, they did it without exceptions, and regardless of whether the reasoning for their enactment was relevant for that scenario. So if the Rosh is arguing that Chazal enacted a blanket prohibition for handling animals as a lo plug, regardless of whether they are being used as pets or not, it would not make a difference as to what most animals are currently being used as!! (Which I anyways am pretty sure that most domesticated animals owned today are not pets, think of the vast number of poultry and cattle needed to feed the world. Definitely more than the number of dogs owned!)
That’s a very interesting theory but no one actually follows it. Instead we follow the MB and others who permit sweeping indoor hard floors even though earlier authorities prohibited it based on Lo plug. The fact that all indoor floors in town are hard floors changes the conclusion. Also I didn’t see the RSZA inside but if he is making a distinction for seeing eye dogs, then he too holds the Lo plug is not absolute.
It's not my theory. It's the Rosh's. And it has nothing to do with sweeping floors on Shabbos. Over there, the Sefer Hateruma says that there was a gezeira from dirt floors to stone/wood floors. So in event that almost all floors are paved, the Mishna Berura says that the concern would no longer apply. But over here the Rosh says that since even an animal that is intended to be handled remains an animal, and is not comparable to say something that becomes a kli shem'lachto lheter because it becomes something else, say a stone which is designated to be used as a door stopper, it remains assur. He argues that pet animals are comparable to tzroros she'bchatzer, which even if one designates a pebble because he wants to play with it, it does not become mutar and remains muktzeh because the pebbles are not ra'uy for any other usage. And the fact that he wants to use it isn't sufficient enough to permit it, it has to be able to transform to a different 'kli', otherwise it remains a pebble and is forbidden because all pebbles are muktzeh, even if one designates one to be used.
Additionally, even though this is not really relevant to the discussion, I think it's pretty ridiculous to make the argument that most animals today are no longer muktzeh. This is obviously not true.
That being said, I am not on a jihad to say that pet animals are muktzeh. They could very well not be and I never really did extensive research on the sugya. But the only opinion from Rishonim that I know of is that they are muktzeh, and I have not yet seen a cogent argument to the contrary. Just a few misquotes and mistakes.
Your argument was that once the Rosh said Lo Plug, no further factual developments could change that. But that is demonstrably false. The earlier authorities said Lo Plug on sweeping indoor hard floors, and the later authorities said that this doesn't apply in places where indoor hard floors predominate. Thus your argument is false.
Not all animal are pets and not all sweepable surfaces are are indoor hard floors. I would imaging that dirt floors are still at least 50% of all the worlds indoor floors not to speak of anything outdoors (and some poskim say that outdoor hard floors may not be swept on Shabbos for that reason). But among animals that city dweller touch or move, pets are the overwhelming majority just as hard floor predominate indoors where Jews tent to live.
Service dogs also don't fit the lo plug overrides everything paradigm.
Sorry, but you demonstrably misunderstood me (and the Rosh). See my back and forth with this slow guy where I explain it very clearly.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/are-pets-muktzeh/comment/12531578
The ohr zarua is a rishon who is meikel.
See rabbi melamed at
https://ph.yhb.org.il/en/01-20-05/#_ze05ftn20_3
Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a §81 permits carrying pet birds in their cage, maintaining that they are not muktzeh, albeit while noting that Rosh disagrees and maintains that all animals are muktzeh. Indeed, this is the opinion of the majority of poskim according to MB 308:146 and SSK 27:27 (Yabi’a Omer 5:26 states that if one wishes to move birds in order to prevent their suffering, such as if the sun is beating down on them, one may rely on Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a). However, all these discussions relate to birds, which are not commonly carried. In contrast, today people keep house pets and carry them around all week. For this reason, Igrot Moshe states that birds are muktzeh (OĤ 4:16) and succinctly that pets are not (OĤ 5:22:21). This is also the position of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74. Others are stringent (Yalkut Yosef vol. 2, p. 383; Orĥot Shabbat 19:124). As I have written above, the halakha follows those who are lenient. Bird cages and aquariums, which are not normally carried, are muktzeh. If one normally moves them around during the week for decorative purposes, then according to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach they are not muktzeh (Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74:2).
The Maharach Or Zrua was the Shoel who posed the shayla to the Rosh. And he printed the Rosh's response alongside his shayla. It's possible that he never meant to back down, but I did see RSZA express wonderment about people trying to permit pets based on the Maharach Or Zrua because he understood that was only the shayla, but the teshuva from the Rosh was the Maharach Or Zrua intention in printing it. As far as the assumption that birds are different than regular pets, I noticed the doc wrote that as well, the only problem is that the Maharach Or Zrua's whole premise for permitting them is based on the fact that they are domesticated and meant to be handled (which is exactly what Rabbi Melamed and the doc are trying to say they are not), but still the Rosh responded that he does not see that as grounds to permit it, the same way that pebbles, even if intended to be used, fall under the blanket prohibition of muktzeh, since they do not have a 'Toras Kli'. As far as R' Moshe, he never wrote it, it is in small letters which means that his grandson Rabbi Tendler wrote it. I recall seeing in a specific sefer (which I do not have access to right now and is not on otzar hachochma) that R' Moshe's talmidim strongly dispute this.
tzroros she'bchatzer, which even if one designates a pebble because he wants to play with it, it does not become mutar and remains muktzeh because the pebbles are not ra'uy for any other usage.
That is not the halochoh though. Pick up a pebble on erev shabbos, designate it as a door stopper and it is no longer muktzah. Either the halochoh is not like the rosh here, or the rosh is tallking on shabbos itself.
You’re missing the boat. Chazal (Shabbos 46a, see SA 308:7) specifically give the example of pebbles in a chatzer as something that is useless and incapable of becoming a kli. It is not the Rosh’s novelty. Therefore, even if one intends on handling them, they are still muktzeh. Theoretically, if one were to find a usage which a pebble would be appropriate for and designate it before Shabbos for that usage, according to many opinions it would become a kli shemlachto l’heter and no longer be considered muktzeh. However, that’s not the point here. The Rosh is comparing pet animals to regular pebbles that did NOT transform into another kli. After all, a pet is just a regular animal, just one that is more frequently handled. But I guess if you wanted to use a parakeet as a doorstopper (or a dog as a guide-dog), it would probably be permitted!
This is what the Pri Chadash said for cholov tisrael. He noted that there are no pigs on dairy farms, so the gezaira no longer applies. (As an aside, I wonder how anyone even knows if chazal made a takanah as a lo plug or not. Do they claim to know this for a fact? Or just strong feeling based on analyzing the general sugya?)
Halacha isn't chal on animals it's chal on people. I said the vast majority of people who own animals keep them as pets not that the vast majority of animals are pets. Do try to keep up.
You have an ... interesting understanding of lo plug. I can see why you could not conceive of it in any other way though.
All the best.
(???)
Not sure what's so hard for you to understand! The Rosh says clearly that when Chazal said that animals are muktze, they did so as a 'lo plug'. That means 'no exceptions'. Kapish ?????
Tosafos ע’ז ב maintains batel hatam batel hatakanah ( see more here
https://www.etzion.org.il/he/talmud/seder-nezikin/massekhet-avoda-zara/עבודה-זרה-בטל-הטעם-בטלה-התקנה
)
This would negate the entire gezaira if it was established that the taam was in fact batel. Now most orthodox rabbis rule like the rosh who maintains that even if the taam is batel the gezaira remains in effect.
This has nothing to do with lo plug which means that even in a case that should not have the gezaira because the taam doesn't apply since the taam applies to other _present_ cases the rabbis didn't differentiate and applied a blanket ban.
Seems like a tashbetz moment here......
If an animal is kept as a pet and as an early warning system or guard dog(even if not trained specifically for this purpose) like many dogs in Israel on moshavs and in bad neighborhoods etc. it could be argued the lo plug would be in effect.
Guard dogs of today and the past are completely different. A guard dog today is completely domesticated.
Domestication is not the topic at hand which is muktza . Domestication has to do with tzeida -trapping-.
The point is - an animal with a work use vs. An animal with no use other than companionship and play.
Domestication doesn’t by itself make the animal designated for purpose. But guard dogs of the past are probably not comparable to those of the present. It’s not a wild dog on a chain. It’s a familiar dog one of whose functions is protection of the familiar people.
With all due respect HaRav Mecharker, I don't think this is comparable to the Tashbetz issue at all. Here, Natan is well within his area of expertise as a zoological historian, and is perfectly within his rights to share his professional perspective in a halachic capacity. His valuable professional contribution is independent of whether he happens to have gotten the halacha part right or wrong, my point is that it is not a good comparison to the Tashbetz issue.
Ok, I agree that this is more within his area of expertise. What I meant by that it reminds me of the Tashbetz fight was how shockingly he goofed. But yes, this topic is right up his alley.
"But yes, this topic is right up his alley."
Goofing, that is. Halacha seems to be WAY beyond his paygrade.
Finally got to the Shmiras Shabbos Kehilchasa. You have this all wrong. First off, "HOWEVER, he then goes on to disagree with their entire line of reasoning based on the Rosh above". This is a total misrepresentation of the two footnotes. All it says is that RSZA noted (along with others) that some authorities quote the Maharach Or Zarua 81 to be meikil with regard to an animal that can entertain a child, but neglect to quote 82 where the Rosh says otherwise. But he still maintains the distinction between things which are entirely for decoration and made to move from place to place and says that the Rosh would *not* apply his lo plug there. The two cases he applies this to are a portable aquarium with fish and water and to seeing eye dogs. He doesn't address dogs who are pets, but he definitely does say that the Lo Plug of the Rosh doesn't apply where the object is primarily designated for decoration or use where the object is moved. He doesn't "specifically ... differentiate from "pets and one of his examples is a pet fish in an aquarium. If anything these footnotes support the post. The case in the Maharach Or Zarua is not discussing animals primarily designated for decoration or human use such as pets which are different beasts from birds which can make nice noises and which you sometimes might want to move. In fact it's pretty clear form the aquarium that a pet bird which was primarily for decoration could be moved around with it's cage even according to the Rosh according to RSZA.
Ah, Mecharker, always trying to keep Judaism medieval! Are you interested in trading a concubine for 3 camels, by any chance?
And besides, what do you need concubines for? You guys go to co-ed schools and serve in the army, so you get them for free!
And my third and (hopefully) FINAL reply is that we are actually very forward-thinking. We came up with this very cool innovative concept called Kollel and B"H were able to stem the tide of the Haskalah with it. You guys are still stuck in the early 1800's watching your kids go off the path in droves and using completely antiquated methods (such as sitting on your bums and looking on in apathy) to try and deal with it!
I don't know, I just figured you had a concubine because your Judaism seems frozen around the year 0 C.E. (Another handy tip - if one of your wives is having trouble bearing a child, she can always give you her maidservant for you to have a relations with, then you can just pretend the child is really you and your wife's. Just trying to help you practice Authentic Judaism™ here.)
Anyway, I'm American yeshivish (just with daas), so I'm not sure what you mean by "you guys" and the Israeli army stuff. (As it happens, an Israeli soldier engaging in sexual activity with a fellow female soldier is a far more normal social arrangement than having a stable of concubines, though an aveira to be sure.)
Lastly, mass kollel was a response to the Holocaust, not the Enlightenment (which had a lot of positives in addition to the negatives, though I wouldn't expect you to understand that).
And FYI, if you are looking to secular society to determine what is a 'normal social arrangement', 'polygamous relationships' are all the rage now! Just ask SBF and Caroline Ellison. So go ahead, build yourself a concubine stable!
Unfortunately, my Judaism is not frozen around the year 0, but at least we TRY to practice authentic, old-fashioned Judaism, while of course adapting it to modern times (but at the same time doing our best not to c"v CONFORM it to modern society).
Your second statement leads me to seriously doubt that you are American Yeshivish. And if you are, definitely not with 'daas'! If you were, you would realize that two ravakim transgressing on an issur kares is not even comparable to owning a pilegesh. For the record, the Ya'avetz advocated for the return of pilagshim. Not that it was accepted, but from a Torah perspective, the two things are not even comparable.
I agree that mass-Kollel started post Holocaust. That's why I said that it was a new, innovative invention. But it took us until now to get it done. And no, the Haskalah did not have any direct positive benefits. All it did was cause millions of Jews to go astray. Those of us that despise it are faring much better, even if we do suffer from some slight, indirect influence from it. The whole deep hashkafic, institutionalized ivy tower Yeshiva empire in pre-war Europe was probably a response to the Haskalah, but obviously a good one. I think only the Chassidim can say it did not affect them at all.
The Ga'on's knowledge of astronomy had nothing to do with the Haskalah. In the Ga'on's time, the Haskalah was in its infancy and mostly confined to Berlin.
The Haskalah didn't lead to "all" the medical and technological advancement, the Enlightenment (amongst secular society, that is) did. The Enlightenment *also* led to the Haskalah, but the Haskalah itself did not produce anything positive.
I just advocate going by the books and not making stuff up as we go along! If the doc were to just call a spade a spade and admit he were doing that, I would disappear pronto. Just he likes to insinuate that the MODOX, despite always looking to change halacha, are practicing 'authentic Judaism', whereas the Charedim, who live by the books, are radical reformers. Go figure.
You are kind of an ass. Why are you fighting so hard against modern people. It will only breed hate. Even your icon of a wacky chosid and your moniker, irrationalist modoxism shows your here just to poke fun and argue shelo lishmah. Get a life and stay in your lane if you can't be respectful!
I am not sure I understand the practical difference between judging an animal muktzeh on shabbat. Since muktzeh does not prohibit touching - only moving, why wouldn't the concept of chai hotzi et atzmoh apply. By that I mean, if I walk my dog on shabbat, I am not carrying the dog, rather the dog is walking with me.
I recall that Shmirat Shabbat KeHilchata (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shemirat_Shabbat_Kehilchatah) permitted walking a pet on a leash on shabbat even in an area without an eruv. I do not seem to have a copy of Shmirat Shabbat KeHilchata but this response from Aish.com is exactly what I recall from the book (https://aish.com/walking-a-dog-on-shabbat/).
So If I can both "touch" the animal and walk the animal on a leash - what would be prohibited if it was muktzeh?
Picking it up!
Indeed. We have a large standard poodle (weighs about 30 kg). You touch him and walk him. But we have friends who have toy poodles and miniature poodles and they carry them all over the place (not my kind of dog).
Petting the animal if it has (long?) fur is discussed in biur halacha oc 302:11
I absolutely love this post! I have researched this for a while now, and I am so happy to finally see this laid out in an organized coherent fashion. The thing that I can’t figure out is this. I understand the other point of view that wants to be strict with this with a “lo plug” argument. However, one must be able to see that there are legitimate reliable halachik opinions saying that pets that are handled on a regular basis are not muktza (much like a child’s toy). And if that is the case, since this is a rabbinic law, wouldn’t the practical halacha ruling be to rely on the lenient opinion since it is a machlokes regarding a rabbinic law. This is a point that Rabbi Slifkin makes very cogently, but I haven’t seen anybody able to dispute. Seems like sound logic to me.
The 'lo plug argument' is not my own. It's from the Rosh. And to the best of my knowledge, the Rosh is one of the only Rishonim that we have that explicitly discusses if pets are muktzeh or not. I was showing how the doc misunderstood/misconstrued R' Shlomo Zalman. R' Shlomo Zalman is discussing the Rosh's opinion above and acknowledges that the takana of muktzeh with animals fall under the rubric of lo plug and that includes pets. He does suggest that seeing eye dogs would be excluded from this takana. But to say that R' Shlomo Zalman permitted handling all pets is simply a mistake.
As per your question, the Rosh specifically discusses it and says that it is not comparable to something that is designated before Shabbos because that becomes a 'kli shemlachto l'heter', if you are intending to use it for a permitted usage on Shabbos. However, an animal does not transform into a different animal (pun intended) and remains under the prohibition of muktzeh that was imposed on animals, even if it is a pet.
Below is a direct quote from a footnote in Rabbi Melsmed’s psak where he points out the Maharach Ohr Zarua disagrees with the Rosh. Although the Rosh was older, I believe they lived in the same time period.
“Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a §81 permits carrying pet birds in their cage, maintaining that they are not muktzeh, albeit while noting that Rosh disagrees and maintains that all animals are muktzeh. Indeed, this is the opinion of the majority of poskim according to MB 308:146 and SSK 27:27 (Yabi’a Omer 5:26 states that if one wishes to move birds in order to prevent their suffering, such as if the sun is beating down on them, one may rely on Maharaĥ Or Zaru’a). However, all these discussions relate to birds, which are not commonly carried. In contrast, today people keep house pets and carry them around all week. For this reason, Igrot Moshe states that birds are muktzeh (OĤ 4:16) and succinctly that pets are not (OĤ 5:22:21). This is also the position of R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74. Others are stringent (Yalkut Yosef vol. 2, p. 383; Orĥot Shabbat 19:124). As I have written above, the halakha follows those who are lenient. Bird cages and aquariums, which are not normally carried, are muktzeh. If one normally moves them around during the week for decorative purposes, then according to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach they are not muktzeh (Shulĥan Shlomo 308:74:2)”
I’m just saying that the statement from R’ Melamed that “the halakha follows those who are lenient” seems to be because it’s a machlokes Drabannan. That is normative halchic procedure. For anyone to hold themselves out to be strict on this matter is fine with me, just don’t get bent out of shape saying we are distorting Halacha and poskim when the issue is clearly very much in dispute and those who are lenient are acting properly according to sound halachic principles.
If you read the psalm of Rabbi Melamed, he points out that the Maharach Ohr Zarua disagrees with the Rosh.
"Rav Eliezer Melamed... further states that while there is a dispute in this matter, one may be lenient, since it is a dispute regarding a rabbinic rather than a Scriptural prohibition."
That would be a very fair argument if it were actually a matter of dispute. But which Rishonim disagree with the Rosh?
I'm asking seriously. It's possible that such opinions exist, I didn't research this topic too thoroughly, but a quick perusal did not turn up anything.
See above. The Or zarua 81 was matir afterwards in 82 he brings the roshs response which is to assur. He isn't chozer he just brings a choleik
מכרכר:
Wow! Feels like the Tashbetz fight all over again! The above quote is simply not true. The Rosh (quoted in the Maharach Or Zrua, 81- 82) discusses a scenario of raising pet birds, and at the end of s. 82 rules that they are Muktze because of lo plug.
YidPoshut
Petting the animal if it has (long?) fur is discussed in biur halacha oc 302:11
מכרכר
??? Do you know what 'lo plug' means?? It means that when Chazal made a Rabbinic enactment, they did it without exceptions,..
Yacov Levi
I understand the other point of view that wants to be strict with this with a “lo plug” argument. However, one must be able to see that there are legitimate reliable halachik opinions saying that pets that are handled on a regular basis are not muktza (much like a child’s toy).
LOL !! What an exorbitant waste of time and effort. Plug, Lo Plug, Hair Plug, Fire Plug, Ear Plug…
Do you really believe that the architect of our extraordinary complex universe or perhaps many universes, really wants us to concern ourselves with picking up rocks or pets on a specified day of the week? What an ultra-weird system of beliefs. — entirely divorced from reality.
Hey Uriah’s wife, that’s a very simplistic way of looking at this. Discussing whether or not something fits into the category of muktza is a useful application of Torah study that is very relevant to hilchot Shabbat. For any law, you can make the same argument: why would a perfect being such as God care about what we do. Whether it’s a rabbinic law, such as muktza, or even a Tora law. God as a perfect being means that He has no needs like a human being, and as such, why would he even care about any of the things that we do. But that presumes that we know anything about God. And we don’t. We only know what He isn’t. What we do know is that the system that we have inherited from our forefathers, includes a system of Torah laws and rabbinic laws , and we believe that God wants us to keep them to the best of our ability. That is why we keep and do Mitzvot. Because doing mitzvot is supposed to help us develop a relationship with God and make us better people by doing his will. So, yes, I believe God does care about what we do. And discussing these matters is a worthwhile pursuit. But you can always say it’s stupid to argue about the minutia of these matters saying “why does God even care” but once you go down that road, it’s a slippery slope because you can say that about any and all of the commandments, even the ones you think you understand.
You say this stuff shouldn't concern anybody, yet you post about this constantly. Curious.
I don't think that Uriah's Wife is a true atheist. He's an atheist wannabe. So he has to come on over here every once in a while and mock religion in order to assuage his guilty conscience.
Misleading article as Tzeida with pets is a much bigger problem than your throw away: "Capturing escaped exotic animals in your home, on the other hand, is a different matter, potentially involving the melacha of tzeida"
וְלָרָשׁ אֵין כֹּל כִּי אִם כִּבְשָׂה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה וַיְחַיֶּהָ וַתִּגְדַּל עִמּוֹ וְעִם בָּנָיו יַחְדָּו מִפִּתּוֹ תֹאכַל וּמִכֹּסוֹ תִשְׁתֶּה וּבְחֵיקוֹ תִשְׁכָּב וַתְּהִי לוֹ כְּבַת
People always had pets. On my son's farm everyone loves playing with baby lambs, ducks, chickens, dogs, rabbits. Was no different 3,000 years ago.
They ate those lambs ducks and chickens and worked those dogs and wore those rabbits. (The goyim probably ate the rabbits but I'm judaising the story)!
בְחֵיקוֹ תִשְׁכָּב וַתְּהִי לוֹ כְּבַת
YidPoshut LOL
Yakov, it does sound like that the ani was deriving livelihood from it. That was Nosson's point with his mashal to Dovid. He probably meant that it was his sole possession and he raised it in his house so it was very dear to him, but I always understood that the REASON he was raising it was as a source of livelihood and not merely as a pet.
הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש, הרי אלו מועדין.
רבי אליעזר אומר, בזמן שהן בני תרבות, אינן מועדין.
.והנחש מועד לעולם
Could be even though Batsheva is more suitable to be likend to a pet goat. At any rate, what we see is that a moshol of a family treating a goat as a pet, regardles of the ultimate purpose of having it, was used. This indicates that pet animals were held.
Noson, you are wrong that pets are a recent development. You must have forgotten the Gemora Kesubos 61:b. The Mishne stated that if a man is rich enough to afford 4 maids, his wife doesn't have to do any household chores. Then another two Tanaim argued that idleness can cause her, either to seek a paramour, or drive her to insanity (from boredom). The Gemora asked, what's the difference between these two approaches and answers if the husband gives her pet dogs to play with or a chess set to play, she won't go crazy from boredom, but she still may seek a paramour (presumably because these activities are detached from her husband, but when she does household chores they are for the sake of her husband, thus her mind in on her husband, sg.)
Rashi explains, Gurysa Kitnysa as small dogs. this means: as opposed to large dogs whose purpose is as guard dogs or sheep dogs. Small dogs are only good for pets.
Do you have a source for your statement that historically, there was no such thing as pets? This article seems to have numerous examples of ancient human-pet interaction?-
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/CJ/44/4/Household_Pets*.html
Also some Torah examples that come to mind.
"It is thus perfectly legitimate to pet your pets on Shabbos."
Not sure why this is conditional on the cited opinions which concern muktzeh - moving, carrying. Touching muktzeh items is generally permitted if it doesn't cause the item to move.
Edit: Have subsequently seen that the Biur Halacha says with regard to the tail of a horse that it's never muktzah, as only the limbs of an animal are muktzah and not its hair or tail.
Can't you just let me enjoy my literary fun?
So now, are all your exotic animals safely housed in the museum, or are there a few special ones still in your home? And if so, do they count as pets?
The author of the book is close with Rabbi Furst from Chicago, who does not accept the idea that R' Moshe was lenient. That is why he did not record R' Moshe's opinion. As far as I am concerned, that is no excuse, but it is what it is.