"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'.
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 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.
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.
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"
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'.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.