1. The law instituted by Nechemyah, and mentioned in the Gemara (Shabbos 123b) is very different from that which David ha'Melech and Shlomo ha'Melech instituted. The law of Nechemyah related specifically to Muktzah connected with different utensils, or Kelim: Kli she'Melachto l'Isur, and Kli she'Melachto l'Heter, etc. In contrast the law mentioned here (Shabbos 30b) that a corpse is Muktzah is a more basic law. The corpse cannot be buried on Shabbos (because of the prohibiton against digging a hole in the earth, "Chofer"); since there is nothing that can be done with the corpse on Shabbos, it follows that it is Muktzah.

2. The word "Muktzah" means that a person was "Maktzeh Da'ato" -- he removed his attention from the object and therefore it is as if it has been set aside from being used and therefore may not be moved on Shabbos. This may be similar to the Gemara later (45a) that says that the only type of Muktzah to which Rebbi Shimon agrees is that of "Gerogeros v'Tzimukim." Since the person put his dried figs and raisins on the roof, he showed that he has placed them totally out of his attention and it follows that even according to Rebbi Shimon they are Muktzah because there is nothing that can be done with them.

3. There is an opinion in the Gemara in Pesachim (47b) that handling Muktzah is prohibited mid'Oraisa. I am not necessarily claiming that the law of the corpse here in Shabbos (30b) is also mid'Oraisa, but it certainly is an earlier enactment of Muktzah which predates the Gezeirah of Nechemyah. Nechemyah's Gezeirah was instituted because the people were making light of Shabbos, so a new law was instituted to make a clear differrence between Shabbos and the weekday, as the Rambam writes (Hilchos Shabbos 24:12-13). In contrast the law that a corpse is Muktzah on Shabbos is based on the fact that nothing can be done with it on Shabbos and thus a person puts it aside and has no intention to touch it.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

I found that your question is asked by Rav Chaim Greinemann shlita, in his sefer Chidushim u'Biurim Shabbos 12:11.

1) Rav Greinemann writes that it would appear that there were 2 gezeros concerning Muktzeh. The first gezero was an early one which already existed in the time of Dovid Hamelech as one sees in our Gemara. This gezero applied to stones and to a corpse etc. which are not fit for any use. Afterwards, in the time of Nechemiah, a gezera was made concerning Keilim.

2) R. Greineman cites the Rambam Hilchos Shabbas 24:12 who explains why the Chachamim made a prohibition on Muktzeh. He writes that since we find that the Neviim warned and commanded that one should not walk or speak on Shabbos in the same manner that one walks or speaks on a weekday, then Kal v'Chomer one should not move around objects on Shabbos in the same way that one does on a weekday. The fact that the Rambam uses the word "Neviim" suggest that the prohibition against Muktzeh was a later gezera, which is more appropriate if one says the Rambam is referring to the gezera against keilim. However R. Greinemann then suggests that the word Neviim could even be referring to Moshe Rabeinu or to Dovid Hamelech and means that there was a tradition that existed about Muktzeh. He adds that it appears that the gezera against keilim was a later institution which was added on to the earlier gezera against moving a dead body or stones.

3) I also found that the Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim at the beginning of chapter 308) writes at length about the origin of the prohibition of Muktzeh. In 308:3 he writes that one cannot say that the start of the gezera on Muktzeh was only in the time of Nechemiah. He cites proofs and sources for this. However he does not cite our Gemara Shabbos 30b, so we can now add a proof from our Gemara for the Aruch Hashulchan's pshat that Muktzeh started before Nechemiah.

4) I also found that Teshuvos Chasam Sofer Orach Chaim #79 (DH Noraos) writes that there is a Torah prohibition against eating Muktzeh because one must prepare Shabbos meals before Shabbos starts. However Chasam Sofer writes that the prohibition against moving Muktzeh was only made later by Nechemiah. In the light of our Gemara we can ammend this slightly and note that there is an intermediate stage in the development of the issur of Muktzeh:- namely the prohibition that already existed in the time of Dovid Hamelech that one may not move a corpse on Shabbos unless one places a loaf of bread or a baby on the body.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Here is a further insight into the Gezeirah of Nechemyah concerning Muktzeh and a further proof that his Gezeirah was only a temporary enactment for his own generation, and therefore Nechemyah's influence on the history of Hilchos Muktzeh is limited.

1. This is based on Tosfos in Bava Kama (94b, DH bi'Yemei). The Gemara there cites an Amora who said, "In the days of Rebbi, this Mishnah was taught." (This clearly bears a similarity to the Gemara in Shabbos 123b which states, "In the days of Nechemyah ben Chilkiyah, this Mishnah was taught.") Rabeinu Tam asserts that this indicates that the law in this Mishnah was stated only for the generation of Rebbi because of a certain incident that occurred then, and it does not apply to the times before or after Rebbi's generation. Tosfos similarly writes in the name of Rabeinu Tam that what Rebbi Chanina says in Shabbos 123b, that the Mishnah there was taught in the days of Nechemyah, means that the statement cited there in the Gemara -- that originally it was said that one is permitted to move only three Kelim on Shabbos -- was relevant only to Nechemyah's generation and not for longer.

2. The Aruch ha'Shulchan (OC 308:3, which I cited in brief in an earlier follow-up) proves from the Gemara in Shabbos (123b) itself that the Gezeirah of Nechemyah was intended right from the start only as a temporary measure. This is because the Gemara there states that after the original Gezeirah, which forbade everything apart from the three Kelim, "Hitiru v'Chazru v'Hitiru" -- the Chachamim permitted what they had originally prohibited. The Aruch ha'Shulchan asks that this appears to contradict a principle stated in the Mishnah in Eduyos (1:5), and which appears several times in Shas, that a Beis Din cannot annul the ruling of a previous Beis Din unless the second Beis Din is greater than the first. The Aruch ha'Shulchan writes that it is unlikely that the later Beis Din that permitted Nechemyah's Gezeirah was greater than his. The Nevi'im, Chagai, Zecharyah, and Malachi, were contemporaries of Nechemyah, so who after them would dare to permit what they had prohibited? In addition, Ezra ha'Sofer was also together with Nechemyah. It clearly was not possible to relax the Gezeirah that was enacted by such great people.

3. Aruch ha'Shulchan cites the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos (21:1) who writes that the Torah (Shemos 34:21) states, "And on the seventh day you shall rest (Tishbos)." This teaches that one must rest even from things which do not involve Melachah. At the time that the Torah was given, Moshe Rabeinu commanded us all of the Shevusim, and they are included in the Mitzvah of "Tishbos." The Aruch ha'Shulchan writes that according to the Rambam, the laws of Muktzeh, as we have them nowadays, were also given at Har Sinai. However, in the time of Nechemyah, when the people had been in exile in Bavel, they became lax in their observance of Shabbos. Therefore, Nechemyah together with Ezra, Chagai, Zecharyah, and Malachi imposed strict measures in order to strengthen the observance of the laws of Shabbos. However, those measures were not intended to be permanent, and therefore when the level of observance of Shabbos among the people improved, it was possible for the later Beis Din to return the law to its original format.

4. In short, the law of Muktzeh was not in fact instituted by Nechemyah but dated back much earlier, so that the Halachah that we find in Shabbos (30b) that a corpse was Muktzeh in the time of David ha'Melech was part of the original law of Muktzeh.

5. There are several Mefarshim who write that the Gezeirah that Nechemyah made did not actually fall under the category of Muktzeh. According to this explanation, the prohibition against moving different Kelim is a Gezeirah to prevent people from carrying in the public domain, but it is not because of Muktzeh. In contrast, the prohibition against moving a corpse comes under the category of Muktzeh, so it follows that the enactment of Nechemyah and the enactment of David ha'Melech are two quite different Halachos.

6. A source for this is what the Vilna Ga'on writes in Bi'ur ha'Gra to Yoreh De'ah 266:3. He writes that a "Kli she'Melachto l'Isur" is not Muktzeh. This is evident from the fact that one is allowed to move a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur (a utensil generally used for a forbidden Melachah) "l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo." "L'Tzorech Gufo" means that one needs the Kli itself. (For example, even though a hammer is generally used for a forbidden Melachah (building), one is permitted to move it and use it for a permitted purpose, such as to crack open nuts.) "L'Tzorech Mekomo" means that if one needs the place where the Muktzeh object is situated, one may move it in order to evacuate the space. Even though one may not move an object of Muktzeh from the sun into the shade, the Vilna Ga'on writes that this is because doing so "she'Lo l'Tzorech." (It appears that he means that one does not need the use of the Muktzeh object when he moves it from the sun into shade, and his only motive is to prevent the Muktzeh object from being ruined by the sun. -D. Bloom)

7. The Vilna Ga'on proves that a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur is not considered Muktzeh from the fact that Rebbi Shimon, who throughout Shas maintains that there is no such Isur of Muktzeh at all (see, for example, Beitzah 2a and 2b, where Rebbi Yehudah holds of the prohibition of Muktzeh while Rebbi Shimon does not agree that there is such an Isur), agrees that one may not move the Muktzeh object from the sun to the shade (the Vilna Ga'on writes that this is the opinion of Tosfos in Shabbos 35b, DH veha'Tanya, and 36a, DH Ha). This shows that the prohibition of Muktzeh and the prohibition of moving a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur are not connected to each other.

8. In fact, what the Vilna Ga'on writes is already found in the Rishonim. The Ritva (Shabbos 124b, DH l'Inyan Halachah) writes that the reason why one may not move a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur is not because of Muktzeh, but rather it is forbidden by a Gezeirah of "Hotza'ah" (lest one come to carry the Kli in Reshus ha'Rabim). The Ritva writes that this is similar to the stricter Gezeirah made in the days of Nechemyah ben Chilkiyah that one may not move even a Kli she'Melachto l'Heter (a utensil generally used for permitted purposes). This Peshat is based on the Gemara in Shabbos (beginning of 124b) that the prohibition against moving Kelim is a Gezeirah of Hotza'ah. Rashi (DH Tiltul) writes that if one is lax with the Isur against moving forbidden utensils, he eventually will be lax with the Isur against carrying things out into the public domain. (See also the Chidushim ascribed to the Ran, end of Shabbos 123a).

9. I also found that the Sefer Shevus Yitzchak on Hilchos Muktzeh (written by Rabbi Yitzchak Darzy of Ramot, Yerushalayim; Rav Darzy is a Talmid of Rav Elyashiv, shlit'a, may he have a Refu'ah Shleimah) opens by asking the apparent contradiction between Nechemyah and David ha'Melech. He answers by citing the Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav (OC 308:17) who says that the Gezeirah in the time of Nechemyah related only to utensils. In contrast, in the time of David and Shlomo, and possibly even earlier, it already was forbidden to move things which wre not fit for use on Shabbos.

Dovid Bloom