Playing with a pet on Shabbos

Question

Is there any opinion that holds one may play or touch a pet on Shabbos (even though animals are normally muktzeh on Shabbos.) Specifically one that is meant for this purpose (to play with.) I heard recently that the Maharach Or Zaruah mentions such a thing. Is there any such opinion found?

Answer 1

I had thought the answer was "absolutely yes" (i.e., you cannot pet even your own dog on Shabbos), but I checked two of my Shabbos seforim and the Internet and found a bit of nuance.

Volume 2, Part V of The Concise Code of Jewish Law: Compiled from the Kitzur Shulhan Aruch and Traditional Sources by Rabbi Gersion Appel says this:

"All animals including pets are muktzeh. Hence it is not permitted to handle and fondle dogs, cats, and other animals on the Sabbath. It is, however, permitted to give them food, as indeed it is one's duty to feed his animals. [...] If the animal is in distress, or it is necessary to prevent its suffering, one may hold it by the neck and lead it" (333).

Volume 1 of A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Shabbos: An English Translation and Compilation of the Laws of Shabbos from the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, in Accordance to Topic by Rabbi Yaakov Goldstein reiterates that animals, including domestic animals, are muktzeh and cannot be moved on Shabbos; however, in a private domain they can be moved by their neck, their sides, and their legs (without lifting them off the ground) if "the animals need this to be done"; i.e., to prevent suffering (331). In a public domain or a karmalis, one may only push the animal[s] from behind, so as not to come close to carrying. (Interestingly, this source suggests that the specific prohibition of carrying does not apply to non-domestic animals--although they may still be muktzeh, and certainly my first source suggests they are.)

On p. 332, my second source responds thus to the specific question "May one pet his dog?":

"Seemingly this may not be done as one moves its hairs by doing so, and moving even part of an animal is forbidden unless done to prevent the animal pain. Perhaps however one can claim that hair is not considered a real substance as is a limb. Vetzrauch Iyun."

I found another lenient discussion here:

A. Are Pets Muktza? The Talmud (Shabbat 128b) states that animals are muktza. The reason for this, explains Magid Mishnah41 (commentary to Rambam Hilchot Shabbat 25:25), is that animal have no utility on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Hence, they are comparable in this regard to sticks and stones which are classified as "muktza machamt gufa", muktza by its very nature (i.e., because they have no utility on Shabbat and Yom Tov). The Rishonim, however, debate whether an animal which can be used to quiet a child from crying is considered to be muktza. Tosafot (Shabbat 45b s.v. hacha), Mordechai (Shabbat 316) and Hagahot Oshri (commenting on Rosh, Shabbat 3:21) cite authorities who believe that such animals are not muktza by virtue of the fact that they have utility. Yet Tosafot, Mordechai, Hagahot Oshri, and Rosh (cited in the responsa of Maharach Or Zarua, 82) reject these authorities because of two possible considerations. First, the fact that an animal can be used to quiet a child from crying is insufficient utility to render the creature no longer to be considered muktza machmat gufa. Second, the rabbis classified all animals as muktza regardless of whether a particular animal has utility on Shabbat and Yom Tov. This is an example of "lo plug rabbanan", rabbinic legislation which was instituted for a reason, yet embraces even the cases for which the reason does not apply Shulchan Aruch (308:39) appears to accept the position that all animals are considered to be muktza since Rabbi Karo states that animals are muktza without exception. Indeed, Shulchan Aruch Harav (308:78) rules stringently in this regard.43

The question arises, though, whether circumstances have changed since the time of the Rishonim. These authorities discuss animals which can possibly be used to amuse children but not animals whose entire purpose is to entertain and provide companionship to their owners. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Shmirat Shabat Kehilchata 27, footnote 96), in fact, raises the possibility of making this distinction, yet he rules that pets are muktza. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:16 and cited in "the halachos of Muktza" p. 7 of the Hebrew section, paragraph twenty-four) and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer, 5:26) also reject the possibility of making such a distinction. It appears that this question is contingent on one's acceptance of one of the two reasons (stated above) offered by the Rishonim) for why an animal that can be used to quiet a child from crying is muktza. If one adopts the position that the rabbis have deemed all animals to be muktza, regardless of their utility, then even household pets are to be included I this category. However, if one assumes the position that the possibility of using an animal to amuse a child is insufficient utility to remove it from being considered muktza, then a cogent argument can be made that a pet is sufficiently useful to the extent that one no longer can say that they have no purpose to their owners on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and hence are not muktza.44

Rabbi Shmuel David (Sheilot uteshuvot Meirosh Tzurim 38:6) concludes his discussion of this issue with a citation of the opinion of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein.

It is proper to conduct himself in accordance with the stringent opinion in this matter, since this appears to be the opinion of Tosafot, Mordechai, Hagahot Oshri, and Rosh. Yet one need not admonish those who practice in accordance with the lenient opinion in this matter. Since this issue is embroiled in a dispute amongst the Rishonim and the logic of those who rule leniently is compelling. However, even according to the stringent opinion it is reasonable to say that one may move a household pet to alleviate its suffering (Yabia Omer 5:26). This is because some authorities permit moving items which are undoubtedly muktza to spare an animal from suffering (see Mishnah Berurah 305:70 and Chazon Ish 52:16). Since the question as to whether household pets are muktza, is in dispute, there exists a s'fek s'feka, a double doubt, which would lead one to rule leniently in this ragard.45

41. This explanation is also cited by Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim 308 s.v. kofin) and Mishnah Berurah (308:146).
42. See Tehilla Ledavid 308:42 for a distinction between Kosher and non-kosher animals regarding the category of muktza under which they should be classified.
43. However, see Respnsa halachot Ketanot (number 45) who adopts a lenient position in this matter. Rabbi Shmuel David (Sheilot Uteshuvot Meirosh Tzurim 38:6) cites Chief Sepharadic Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu who rules leniently in this matter since the issue debated by the Rishonim is a rabbinic law where one may rule leniently in case of doubt.
44. Rabbi Shmuel David (Sheilot Uteshuvot Meirosh Tzurim) cogently argues that one who is accustomed to move his pets is analogous to someone who prepares a rock prior to Shabbat for use on Shabbat. In such cases the rock is no longer muktza since he has demonstrated that the rock has utility for him on Shabbat (ordinarily, rocks are muktza since they serve no purpose on Shabbat; once one demonstrated his use for a rock then it is no longer classified as muktza). Similarly, one who ordinarily moves his pets demonstrates thereby that they have utility on Shabbat and hence are not muktza. Rabbi Auerbach (cited in Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata 18, footnote 62) rules that seeing-eye dogs are not muktza. He reasons that since their essential function is such that they must necessarily be moved, then one surely intends to move them on Shabbat and hence their designation as muktza is avoided. Rabbi David points out that a rabbinic authority who rules that a seeing-eye dog is not muktza would not necessarily rule that a household pet is not muktza. One can distinguish between seeing-eye dogs whose function requires their being moved (and hence one surely intends prior to Shabbat to use them on Shabbat) and household pets which are ordinarily moved but are not necessarily moved.
45. Rabbi Y. Neuwirth rules leniently in this regard, though he expresses some hesitation in doing so; see Shmirat Shabbat Kehilchata 27:28 and 30 and footnote 98.

Another relevant issue might be the prohibition of gozez (shearing), since it may be likely or inevitable that hair is pulled out of the dog in the course of petting. This is just a thought I had, though, and I'm not sure.

Another remaining question, it seems, is to what extent indirect petting of your dog (i.e. with an object) would be a problem.

A personal note: This prohibition initially caused me pain as a dog owner and lover who usually pets her dogs at every opportunity. I quickly learned, however, that some sweet words will readily assuage a dog, and dogs are actually better behaved (read: less spoiled) on the days you don't pet them. Good luck!

Answer 2

It seems From the Igros Moshe OC 5:22:21 that pets are different and are not like other animals which are muktzah see the tshuvah inside it is very short.

It is worth noting that the word pets in the teshuva was added on during editing. The reason for the edit to the teshuva is from stance that Rav Moshe changed his opinion on the matter and was more lenient later on after the question was answered . However, there are those who are still of the opinion that Rav Moshe prohibited all pets.

For a more explicit leniency regarding pets see Shu"t Az Nidberu 8:36.

Answer 3

It is not clear what R' Moshe held, as he is quoted elsewhere (Tiltulei Shabbo, p 119) as taking a stricter approach.

For other opinions see here: http://doseofhalacha.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/pets-on-shabbos.html

R’ Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe 5:22:21) writes that small birds that are usually played with are not muktza, though elsewhere (Tiltulei Shabbo, p 119) is quoted as taking a stricter approach. As there is a machlokes as to whether playful pets are muktza, too, R’ Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 5:26) writes that one should follow the majority of poskim and not move one’s pets. Nonetheless, as some poskim (Az Nidberu 8:36) are lenient, one shouldn't criticize those who do handle their pets on Shabbos.

Answer 4

In “The Halochos of Muktzah” page 118 Rabbi Bodner says that animals are muktza. On page 9, Rabbi Bodner says

“Items which are muktza may not be moved or eaten. They may be touched, however, providing this does not cause them to move.”

So you see that animals can be touched as long as that does not make them move.

In “Shemirath Shabbath” Rabbi Neuwirth says 27 (8)

“an animal which needs to be kept on a leash to prevent it from running away may be taken out on a leash ...etc.”

He does not mention putting the leash on. From Rabbi Bodner, I would assume that if the animal would not move while the leash is being attached, it should be permitted, but CYLOR.

Edit: later I found Halachic Perspectives On Pets, an extensive article by Rabbi H Jachter.

He discusses putting a leash on an animal in respect to the prohibition of trapping an animal on Shabbos and says,

A practical application of these halachot occurs when one removes the leash of a pet to allow the animal to run freely in an open area, one would be permitted to reattach the leash on the pet on Shabbat and Yom Tov only if the animal is obedient to its owner. However, if the animal is somewhat disobedient to its owner and resists its owner, it is best not to reattach the leash. It is proper not to remove the leash of such an animal in an open space in order to avoid the necessity of relying on the lenient opinion.

He does not mention muktzah there. Of course trapping is a potential Torah prohibition and muktzah is Rabbinic; so he could be expected to mention the more severe prohibition. But since he does not mention muktzah, he may hold that as long as the person only touches the animal without causing it to move there is no issue of muktzah.