Is it allowed on Shabbat to collect bottles to return them to the store on weekdays to receive the deposit fee

If it is evident that it is done for the purpose of goods that are prohibited on Shabbat, it is not permitted, and if this is not evident, if the bottles are intended for drinking on Shabbat evening, apparently, shaking is permitted but not in the organization of the transaction, and if on Shabbat evening the bottles are intended only for the purpose of goods, there would be reason to say that shaking is prohibited, in any case in a rich one that does not use reusable disposable bottles.

And regarding whether they changed their purpose in the middle of Shabbat, there seems to be a disagreement among the arbitrators, but in fact the Gramm Lubin ordered (and although he did not refer specifically to the rich, but in general he ordered) that empty bottles are not particularly important for the goods, and regarding other discussions related to this it is better to refer to the inside of the sources.

Sources: In the matter of dealing with the needs of the Holy Spirit in things that are forbidden on Shabbat in a way that is evident, Yaoi' in Eruvin 10 AA, and Ohh C. Shu SA and in the Mishnab and in the Hal Isam, and there C. Shaz C. 9 and in the Mishnab Sqm .

And it should be noted that the main thing that is discussed in the above-mentioned sources in a way that clearly deals with the need for a holiday, is to forbid api' without any business at all, but during a visit or a stay and the like, all of these mm. Taltul in Alma, as the Mishnav C. Rand Skamag, (and instead of a loss that if he does not collect the bottles now they will lose from him, this should be discussed by A. in the Mishnav Ibid. and the Mishnav C. Shacha Skakaa).

And while moving one bottle from place to place may not be a prohibition at all (according to the words of the Gershza 66 Pacha 8 note Kets 4 Shosha 3 Sha 6 S4), but going to the trouble of collecting bottles is apparently included in the Tirha case for the sake of sand .

And in the matter of bottles intended for the evening of Shabbat only for the purpose of goods and not for any other apparent purpose, there was reason to say that they were allocated to goods, and A. C. Shay SA in the matter of a thing that stands for goods that is not food.

And it is true that regarding bottles that stand for drinking and goods, there is no concern about them, since at most they are nothing more than a tool whose function is to prohibit and permit, according to C. Shach in the Maga Skt in the name of the signs of heroes MH 1a letter 2 and was brought up in the Mash'nab SKK, and "A in Shoa C. Shay 9, and it should not be argued that the AAP stands for what is permitted, that nevertheless there will be a prohibition assigned due to a lack of pocket, as we found that there is a prohibition assigned due to a lack of pocket in a thing that is about to be merchandise (cit. Rama At the end of the 18th century and in the Bible there and in the HL C. Rant in the 4th century, but), it cannot be argued that it does not belong here at all, since there is no care that these bottles should not be used in the meantime, and in any case there is no prohibition against having a pocket in them (cit. from the Bible) C. Sh. S. K. Z.).

But on the other hand, it must be discussed on the other hand that there is no prohibition of goods except because of lack of pocket, but when there is no strictness and then there is no allocation due to lack of pocket, then there will be no prohibition at all if the allocation is completely for goods only and not for permissible use at all.

And on the other hand, it should be said, as we proposed to say in the beginning, that although there is no assignee because of a lack of pocket, but there is an assignee because the merchandise is pending.

And we seem to find a contradiction in this matter in the Mishnav, the Debbihal in the above-mentioned C. Rent ruled on the basis of several recent ones, not as the MGA there, but rather took the view that it is not strictly necessary if the thing entered into the treasury is made as an allocation for goods and is prohibited for this reason, however, in C. Sheh in the Mishnav "B SKZ means that the Mishnav is just like the above-mentioned MGA in C. Rent to make it easier, and C.E.

And another Dhamishnav in C. Rent brought that the AR doubts the Maga, while in C. Shah brought in the name of the AR himself that he agrees with the words of the Maga, (and one must add DCA another Dhagarz in C. Rent took Allegedly as the MGA there and B.S. Shah allegedly took Dla as the MGA, and I. in his KOA C. Rent SKA).

And to the body of the contradiction in the words of the Mishnav, it should be noted that Dr. Gofia in C. Rant SQ brought the words of the Maga in a blind and raiding manner, but he wrote a leaf and it is possible to divide it accurately in the tools in which it is careful and ended with a tsa, and so it is explained to the pz everything, the commentary The halacha in S. Rant that ruled as a matter that is not a tool, which is in any case if it stands for goods, he does not use it, but in the Mishnav in S. Shach Meiri regarding a thing that is a tool, in which the AR himself agrees with the HGA, that if he does not adhere to it is not assigned.

And the explanation of the division between a thing that is a tool and a thing that is not a tool is possible, that a thing that is a tool does not distract from its use even when it is intended for merchandise, (however strict and then it is prohibited in all respects), as for a thing that is not a tool if it is intended for merchandise, one does not intend to use this thing as a rule of thumb is not strict, so something that is not a tool in any way will be allocated, so it is possible to divide.

And if this division is correct, it would be appropriate to say regarding empty disposable bottles that everyone knows are not suitable for use, they are not legal as tools for this purpose, but as woolen fleeces (cit. Rant, ibid.) , and so on.

And I looked at the collection books and saw that they brought in the name of the helper (who is the one who based on his words, the commentary went there, to rule rather than as the Maga in this) the Supreme Court decided to divide between tools and woolen fleeces, and he chose that woolen fleeces, since they are only suitable for spinning, in any case distracts from them, But in this way he admits that if he is not careful it is not forbidden.

And according to this reason, there is perhaps a reason to say, on the other hand, that on the other hand, a bearer who goes back and uses empty bottles on a regular basis to fill them with cold water or juice, their judgment is as a vessel, and if they are not careful with them, it is allowed even if they stand for goods, but in a house where this is not used, a pashita is not better than woolen fleeces.

And on the other hand, it is still necessary to say dafi' in the house where it is customary to go back and use empty bottles, however, it is not important as a tool for our case, since it is just a tool that is being discussed by the judges (we were what the above-mentioned latter came up with, according to the Rama'a C. Shah SA) It is a tool that is definitely ready for use and it is decided who will use it, and since it is ready for use, the seller may use it and is not distracted, but a tool that has been used and has now decided to end its use and its sale is not for the purpose of use but for the purpose of the craft of recycling and remanufacturing in the factory, It is more similar to woolen gizzes in this, since woolen gizzards also have the use of burial as explained in C. Rent there, and however, since they are intended for the production of clothes, they are not considered tools.

And once again I looked at the body of the words of the stone, the helper in the interior and the psalmist, and the Maga wrote [section 4] precisely when he is careful about them as it is written in the mark of the 18th end of section 1, and not thin, they were demarcated from merii with tools that are not assigned even though they were given to the goods, but when he is careful about them He is assigned because of a lack of pocket, and he took out there the 2 [Amud Rachtz 4 HaKit] in the name of the Rabbi the Magid [Shabbat 20, 10] a sum for fruits that were prepared for the goods of the day by eating, but here it is explained that woolen sticks are assigned, only if they did not give For the hidden treasure, they are canceled for burial, and this is the Torah of tools on them, but he gave the hidden treasure a future to return them to the treasury, therefore there is no void for burial, and it is in any case assigned, as explained in Rashi in the Gemara [Shabbat 9, 1 D. Rabina] 8, and 2 [ Here is the page of Paz DH Mohin] written by G.C.

And it is explained from his words that the reason for prohibiting woolen gizzards more than bales is not a new law in the definition of a muqza that is a commodity, but the definition is that only something that is allocated is prohibited when it is allocated to a commodity, and the definition of allocation to a commodity is only a definition that helps woolen gizzards receive their forfeiture from the permitted use on Shabbat and singles them out for craft use that is prohibited on Shabbat , and for our purposes, it was found that the issue will depend on the matter of the factory itself, which bottles are set apart for production, if it is considered allocated by them, it will also be considered allocated by the seller of bottles (according to what is explained in the account in the auxiliary stone), but if it is stated that the factory is not considered allocated by them, since it is also suitable for them to drink if they want, So apparently even with the seller to them it will not be considered assigned.

And in fact there was a great place to say that at the Effi factory, if they do not avoid reusing empty bottles in their day-to-day life, the bottles in the factory that are special for the craft are like throwing away the remnants of Dalkman mats, which by its uniqueness makes it unique, and like climbing figs and grapes to the roof of an egg, etc. And I. in Sogi' in PV Dashabt regarding the matter of the wicking of the garment that folded what was brought in the fences there, and in this matter in fact.

However, I spoke with the GRAMM Lubin of LITA and he said that it turns out that these bottles are considered tools and not as woolens, since he can still use them, and if he has completely removed his mind from the MM bottles, if he needs them, he will take them from them to use them as tools for Akkad, var. For the woolen fleeces of their own shape that are intended for craft use, as a bottle is shaped to be used for drinking, and what one wants to use for crafting does not deprive it of what is included in the essence of its shape, which is a vessel used for drinking.

And there really is a fine line here in the division between woolen gizzards and drinking bottles, since even with woolen gizzards, the helper used them for things permitted on Shabbat without the edge being merchandise, and yet when they are intended for merchandise, they are void of kosher use.

And it is possible to clarify the above division of the LTTA Mover that the division is in the casual use of this by mere mortals, that by mere mortals empty bottles are used several times for drinking, and on the other hand, by mere mortals, woolen gizzards are used for crafts and not for burial, and indeed if The person himself uses it for the permitted thing such as landfill, after all, it is permitted, but if he uses it for goods, it has nothing to do with permitted use on Shabbat.

And Yeoi' in a second thread (HG PNA end of SKA) that empty bottles if thrown into the trash on Shabbat are not assigned because they are fit for use, and if they were thrown into the trash on Shabbat it means that they are assigned, and perhaps there is room for a division between Yahidan for commerce and thrown into the trash, that if it is singled out for trade, it is possible that it is easier than a thrower for the trash, although even with regard to trash, the definition of throwing a broken vessel a day in advance is stated, and that if you throw a whole vessel in the trash a day in advance is not prohibited [from the 20th century], and also with regard to being singled out for trade, the majority of the latter agree as For only something that is a finished tool is not prohibited, and yet in the raids for our purposes it should be said that the law of garbage is equal to the law of trade, but there is room for division in this, since after throwing it in the garbage he will not come back and use it, because of disgust, you took something out of the garbage, but after he set it aside for trade he can come back and use it.

It is true that in the body of the words of the above-mentioned two threads, in the letter of the Garshaza in Ma'or Hasabbat 12, letter 22, letter 7, that it is possible that the Garnak is stricter about this, and it is possible that our empty bottles are not considered a one-time use, since they are filled again and sometimes they are more convenient To fill them with reusable jugs for various reasons, and it is more common to reuse disposable plates and cutlery, and I don't have the book in my possession right now.

And according to the side that a bottle that stands for merchandise has a specific prohibition in it, regarding a bottle that at the beginning of Shabbat was also standing for drinking purposes and in the middle of Shabbat was emptied and its purpose changed only to merchandise, perhaps the condemned party should discuss the issue in the case of Assigned to half of Shabbat, and all that is discussed regarding another who will leave the reason for assigning, but as long as he is in an assigned state, a name that is considered assigned from the middle of Shabbat is explained as well, and also explained in the types of dakhlim that were broken in the Mishna Shabbat Kakad EB and Shu'a Och C. Shech Sou, And it must be discussed whether he is a judge in the allocation because of his body, but in the simplicity of God also in the Nidd in the allocation because it stands for goods (and it should not be made difficult by the words of the Maga cited in Bihal C. Shay 36 D. A bed, whose opinion tends to allow a boy a bed that is made a base For meot in the middle of Shabbat, according to Yisrael, Desham Meiri is not the mover of the assignee itself but the basis of the assignee, as the mover of the assignee itself, and yet there is also a reference to this as the Mash of the Behal in the name of the Maga).

And it does not belong to the condemned for a package that was emptied on Shabbat, where the condemned is on the part of the thing that it is not suitable for use, and the bottle is allocated because of his body, the same here that the thing becomes a vessel whose work is prohibited in the middle of Shabbat and an empty bottle is not allocated because of his body because it is used for reuse.

And Ya'oi' in the Mishnav C. Shay Skacho regarding the issue of being assigned due to a lack of pocket, the 16th was forbidden in the middle of Shabbat, and as for the opinion of the Maga, and the Rama, and the Shach differ, and the Mishnav seems to have taken that only in times of need can be trusted on the dividers, while the Chazu'a acted as dividers (Och C. Mag 7 and C. Matt. 9), but the permission is as explained in his words because the knife in question there is a tool and was assigned to his mitzvah between the panes, but if it is not a tool, he admits to the 16 In the middle of Shabbat, since it began to be set aside because of lack of pocket, and because it was a pashita for the judges to set such a set aside, we learned from figs and grapes to consider the middle of Shabbat set aside, according to the 15th century, even for a matter set aside because of a prohibition, one must say yes, and according to the opinion of the Hazaza It also belongs here, since this thing is worthy of a vessel and was assigned to the permitted use on the evening of Shabbat, and so apparently it will be discussed depending on the latter's dispute.

And if he is rich and does not use a bottle for reuse (such as those who bring it to the deposit for a poor person who came and asked for the bottle) it is apparently assigned because of his body, A.C. Shekh Sanav.

And since the one who threw an entire vessel into the garbage is void of opinion for any person and is not assigned, according to the Mishnab C. Shach Sana, MM here it seems that the reality that a rich person will not reuse an empty bottle belongs.

And here is the KIL Och Shach Sib that if he threw the remains of mats before the day into the trash, the hol is assigned, and it means that if he threw on Shabbat it is permissible, and because of this we would have to discuss our case, but it must be said that there is no money, then a change is made in the body of the use of the tool on Shabbat and is similar to the tool that is broken, and also the reason that if it was thrown away on Shabbat it is not assigned, it is possible that it is because if it is thrown out of the trash now it is found to have a use again, and something that was assigned for half of the Sabbath comes back and becomes permissible when the assigned is canceled from it as above, and in our case the purpose of taking it is for goods, and in this I do not mean, and although there is There is a bit of urgency in this rejection. It is found that if the remains of the mat were thrown into the garbage on Shabbat and it was shaken, not out of necessity at all, it would be forbidden, and this is not mentioned in the Gm' and Shu'a, but the rejection must be said in a different way, that something that is considered a commodity since it has a chain of prohibition makes no sense to permit it only Because it was not like that in the Bishnu Shashom, Masha'k is assigned because of its body in a way that is not assigned because of a prohibition on its part and its form, but only because of the opinion of the Hebrew Bible, that the definition of use is determined in the Bishnu Shashom, and in this way.

However, after I spoke with the above-mentioned Mover Shalita, in his opinion it meant that empty bottles are simply not allocated, and he avoided using them and singled them out for fun because if he had to, he would use them for reuse, and he did not mention a rich issue at all, and perhaps Mover thinks that Regarding a rich person who does not use empty MM bottles, his opinion is invalid, and it should also be mentioned here that he believes that sometimes even a very rich person will be more comfortable using a disposable bottle instead of the necessary one, even though he has the money to buy something else and there are plenty of examples of this.

מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5130 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5130