By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
Very often, we can find answers to halachic questions from understanding the shift in thinking in a Gemorah from a hava Aminah to a maskana.� �Mah Savar HaMakshan� is a question that has been explored by meforshim � from the rishonim to the acharonim to the Gedolei HaRoshei Yeshiva.� Today�s daf is no different.
The Gemorah in the beginning of Shabbos 128a asks why the Mishna needed to list tevel as forbidden to be removed � is it not obviously Muktzeh since it is inedible and thus forbidden to be eaten?� The Gemorah answers that it also includes derabanan tevel such as from a tree grown in a potted plant.
WHAT WAS THE SHIFT?
The question is what is the movement between the Gemorah�s initial thinking and the Gemorah�s ultimate conclusion?� What is the shift in thought?
Also, we need to provide such possibilities both for the Rambam and for the Rashba.� The Rambam (Maachalos Asuros 17:27) holds that it is forbidden to feed a child food that is forbidden miderabanan.� The Rashba (Yevamos 114a and Teshuvos 1:92) holds that it is permitted, even though the Shulchan Aruch (OC 343:1) rules like the Rambam forbidding it.
Rambam Possibilities:
- Originally, we would have thought that since there are leniencies regarding shvus deshvus and such � that chazal did not also include derabanan prohibitions with Muktzah. The Gemorah concludes that since people would become confused they included all prohibitions within Muktzah.
- It is like the Chakira that Rav Moshe Feinstein provides in Dibros Moshe Baitzah 3a regarding how we understand Muktzah on foods � is it because of the pasuk of vehechinu asher yaviu and since this is not in the pasuk originally � they did not make it Muktzeh. The Gemorah concludes that it is solely dependent on the person�s thought process on Friday during Bain haShmashos.
Rashba Possibilities
- It could be that, the original thinking is that it is permitted to feed children � so it would not have been Muktzah at all. The Mishna is teaching us that, true – �it could be used to feed children, but since he plans to eventually take trumah off it � he is not thinking that it could be used and it is Muktzah in his mind.� This fits into the Sha�ar HaMelech Shvisas Asor 1:5).
- It could be that the makshan held that since one may feed it to another�s children � it is not muktzah. The Mishnah comes to teach us that even still, since there is a Mitzvah of chinuch on a father, a person only thinks of the tevel in terms of his own children and he does not even consider that it could be used for another�s children and it is still Muktzah.� This fits into the Chasam Sofer�s understanding of the Rashba.
There may be a halachic repercussion involved here regarding the question of whether specialized medicines are Muktzah on Shabbos in someone�s house � when there was no one in the house who needed it on Friday.� The Shmiras Shabbos K�hilchasa 20:36 seems to rule that all medicines are forbidden since they are Muktzah unless there was already a sick person in the house. �Perhaps though, there is a difference between regular medicines such as aspirin and highly specialized medicines � see Orchos Shabbos Vol. II p. 61. The understanding of what is the shift here, according to the Rashba, may have halachic repercussions regarding this issue.� According to the Mishna Brurah 328:58 � it is permitted even for a specialized medicine with a little bit of a shinui � if a choleh needs it.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
One Response
Why would anyone other than a professional pharmacist have antibiotic powder? It is not normally sold to consumers. Consumers normally have pills or liquid solutions. It is unheard of for a consumer to compound or mix a drug. If someone is so ill that they need a medicine that has to be especially manufactured by a specialist, it is likely they are in a life-threatening situation, rendering the discussion moot.