Download Now »

Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter Five

Show content in:

Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter Five


Although the Torah allowed carrying on a holiday even when it is not necessary [for the preparation of food], one should not carry heavy loads as he is accustomed to do on a weekday; instead, he must depart [from his regular practice].1 If, however, making such a departure is impossible, it is permitted.

What is implied? A person who brings jugs of wine from one place to another place should not bring them in a basket or in a container. Instead, he should carry them on his shoulder or in front of him. A person who is carrying hay should not sling the bale over his shoulder. Instead, he should carry it in his hands.


אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֻתְּרָה הוֹצָאָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ לֹא יִשָּׂא מַשָּׂאוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּחל אֶלָּא צָרִיךְ לְשַׁנּוֹת. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁנּוֹת מֻתָּר. כֵּיצַד. הַמֵּבִיא כַּדֵּי יַיִן מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם לֹא יְבִיאֵם בְּסַל וּבְקֻפָּה אֲבָל מֵבִיא הוּא עַל כְּתֵפוֹ אוֹ לְפָנָיו. הַמּוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַתֶּבֶן לֹא יַפְשִׁיל אֶת הַקֻּפָּה לְאַחֲרָיו אֲבָל מוֹלִיכָהּ בְּיָדוֹ:


Similarly, loads that a person might ordinarily carry with a pole should be carried on his back. Those that are ordinarily carried on one's back should be carried on one's shoulder. And those that one usually carries on one's shoulder should be carried in one's hands before him, or a cloth should be spread over them. Similarly, one should depart from one's ordinary practice with regard to carrying loads. If it is impossible to depart from one's ordinary practice,2 one may bring the load in the ordinary manner.

When does the above apply? When a person is carrying the burden. If, however, an animal is carrying the burden, one should not bring them at all, so that one does not follow one's weekday practice.3


וְכֵן מַשּׂוֹאוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִשָּׂא אוֹתָן בְּמוֹט יִשָּׂא אוֹתָן עַל גַּבּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו. וְשֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִשָּׂא אוֹתָן מֵאֲחוֹרָיו יִשָּׂא אוֹתָן עַל כְּתֵפוֹ. וְשֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהִנָּשֵׂא עַל הַכָּתֵף יִשָּׂא אוֹתָן בְּיָדוֹ לְפָנָיו אוֹ יִפְרשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בֶּגֶד וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה מִשִּׁנּוּי הַמַּשָּׂא. וְאִם אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְשַׁנּוֹת נוֹשֵׂא וּמֵבִיא כְּדַרְכּוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּנוֹשֵׂא עַל הָאָדָם אֲבָל עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה לֹא יָבִיא כְּלָל שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּחל:


We may not direct an animal with a staff, nor may a blind man go out with a cane,4 nor may a shepherd carry his pack.5

Neither a man nor a woman may be carried out in a chair, so that the ordinary weekday practice will not be followed. A person whose presence is required by many6 may be carried out on a chair on another person's back. Similarly, he may be carried out in a litter, even on people's shoulders.


אֵין מַנְהִיגִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּמַקֵּל. וְאֵין הַסּוּמָא יוֹצֵא בְּמַקְלוֹ וְלֹא הָרוֹעֶה בְּתַרְמִילוֹ. וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּכִסֵּא אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּחל. ואִישׁ שֶׁהָיוּ רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לוֹ יוֹצְאִין בְּכִסֵּא אַחֲרָיו וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַכָּתֵף אֲפִלּוּ בְּאַפִּרְיוֹן:


We may not move a ladder used for a dovecote7 from one dovecote to another in the public domain, lest [an observer] say, "He is moving [the ladder] to fix his roof."

It is, however, permitted to move such a ladder in a private domain. Although all the restrictions instituted by the Sages because of the impression that might be made on an onlooker normally apply even in the most private places, leniency was granted in this instance [to increase] rejoicing on the holiday.8


אֵין מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסֻּלָּם שֶׁל שׁוֹבָךְ מִשּׁוֹבָךְ לְשׁוֹבָךְ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ לְתַקֵּן גַּגּוֹ הוּא מוֹלִיכוֹ. אֲבָל בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד מוֹלִיכוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאָסְרוּ חֲכָמִים מִפְּנֵי מַרְאִית הָעַיִן אֲפִלּוּ בְּחַדְרֵי חֲדָרִים אָסוּר כָּאן הִתִּירוּ מִפְּנֵי שִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב:


A person who has [left] produce [to dry] on his roof and who must move it from one place to another9 should not pass it from one roof to another roof - even if both roofs are of the same height - nor should he lower it by a rope from a window or carry it down a ladder. [These restrictions were instituted] so that he will not follow his ordinary practice. He may, however, throw it down through an aperture, [thus moving it] from place to place on one roof.10

If one slaughters an animal in a field,11 one should not carry it to the city [hanging from] a small or large pole. Instead, one should carry [its meat] limb by limb.12


מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת עַל גַּגּוֹ וְצָרִיךְ לְפַנּוֹתָם לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר לֹא יוֹשִׁיטֵם מִגַּג לְגַג וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּגַּגִּין הַשָּׁוִין. וְלֹא יְשַׁלְשְׁלֵם בְּחֶבֶל מִן הַחַלּוֹנוֹת וְלֹא יוֹרִידֵם בְּסֻלָּמוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּחל. אֲבָל מַשִּׁילָן אֲפִלּוּ דֶּרֶךְ אֲרֻבָּה מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגַּג. שָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה בַּשָּׂדֶה לֹא יְבִיאֶנָּה בְּמוֹט לָעִיר אוֹ בְּמוֹטָה אֲבָל מְבִיאָהּ אֵיבָרִים אֵיבָרִים:


On a holiday it is permitted to send a colleague13 any article from which one could benefit on a weekday, even though one cannot benefit from it on a holiday - e.g., tefillin. Needless to say, one may send [a colleague] articles from which one may benefit on the holiday itself - e.g., wine, oil, and fine flour.14

When, however, one could not derive benefit from an article on a weekday unless one performed a task whose performance is forbidden on a holiday, one may not send that article to a colleague on a holiday.15


כָּל שֶׁנֵּאוֹתִין בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בְּחל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נֵאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב כְּגוֹן תְּפִלִּין מֻתָּר לְשָׁלְחָן לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דָּבָר שֶׁנֵּאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב כְּגוֹן יֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְשָׁלְחָן. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין נֵאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּחל עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב:


What is implied? One may not send grain, because one does not benefit from it on a weekday unless one grinds it,16 and it is forbidden to grind on a holiday. We may, by contrast, send legumes, since one may cook them on a holiday or roast them, and eat them.

We may send a beast, a domestic animal, or a fowl on a holiday even when alive, because it is permitted to slaughter them on a holiday.17 The same rules apply in other similar situations.


כֵּיצַד. אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב תְּבוּאָה לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נֵאוֹתִין בָּהּ בְּחל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן טָחַן וְאָסוּר לִטְחֹן בְּיוֹם טוֹב. אֲבָל מְשַׁלְּחִין קִטְנִיּוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּבַשְּׁלָן בְּיוֹם טוֹב אוֹ קוֹלֶה אוֹתָן וְאוֹכְלָן. וּמְשַׁלְּחִין חַיָּה בְּהֵמָה וְעוֹפוֹת אֲפִלּוּ חַיִּים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לִשְׁחֹט בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:


When one sends a colleague as a present any article that is permitted to be sent on a holiday, one should not send it with a delegation.18 A delegation includes at least three people.

What is implied? When one sends a colleague animals or wines with a group of three people who walk together, or four who walk one after the other, and they all walk in a single line,19 this is forbidden, so that one does not follow one's weekday procedure.20It is permitted, however, to send three different types [of articles] with three people who walk together.


כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְשָׁלְחוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב כְּשֶׁיִּשְׁלָחֶנּוּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ תְּשׁוּרָה לֹא יִשְׁלָחֶנּוּ בְּשׁוּרָה וְאֵין שׁוּרָה פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁלַח לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּהֵמוֹת אוֹ יֵינוֹת בְּיַד שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד אוֹ אַרְבָּעָה זֶה אַחַר זֶה וְכֻלָּן הוֹלְכִין בְּשׁוּרָה אַחַת הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בְּחל. שָׁלַח שְׁלֹשָׁה מִינִין בְּיַד שְׁלֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:


When a person establishes an eruv t'chumim for a holiday, his animal, his articles, and his produce are bound by the same restrictions as he is.21 They also may not be taken beyond two thousand cubits in all directions from the place where the person established his eruv.


הַמְעָרֵב עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין לְיוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְכֵלָיו וּפֵרוֹתָיו כָּמוֹהוּ. וְאֵין מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בְּתוֹךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ מִמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ:


[The holiday limits] of ownerless articles follow the limits of those who acquire them.22 [The holiday limits] of articles belonging to a gentile are determined by their place [at the commencement of the holiday]. They are granted [only] two thousand cubits in all directions from this place.23 This is a decree. [Our Sages placed restrictions on articles] belonging to gentiles, because of articles belonging to Jews.

When produce was taken beyond [the holiday limits] and returned - even if this was done with a conscious intent to violate the prohibitions involved - there is no prohibition against moving it throughout [the holiday limits]. It is considered analogous to a person who was forcibly taken beyond [the holiday limits] and forcibly returned.24


חֶפְצֵי הֶפְקֵר הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי מִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָּהֶן. וְחֶפְצֵי הַכּוּתִים קוֹנִין שְׁבִיתָה בִּמְקוֹמָן וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ מִמְּקוֹמָן גְּזֵרָה בְּעָלִים כּוּתִים מִשּׁוּם בְּעָלִים יִשְׂרָאֵל. פֵּרוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָן וְחָזְרוּ אֲפִלּוּ בְּמֵזִיד לֹא הִפְסִידוּ אֶת מְקוֹמָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּאָדָם שֶׁיָּצָא בְּאֹנֶס וְחָזַר בְּאֹנֶס:


When a person entrusts an animal to his son, [the holiday limits] of the animal follow those of the father.25 If he entrusts [an animal] to a shepherd, even if he gives it to him on a holiday,26 its [holiday limits] follow those of the shepherd. If he entrusts it to two shepherds, its [holiday limits] follow those of the owner, since neither acquired [responsibility for it beforehand].27


הַמּוֹסֵר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לִבְנוֹ הֲרֵי הִיא כְּרַגְלֵי הָאָב. מְסָרָהּ לְרוֹעֶה וַאֲפִלּוּ נְתָנָהּ לוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי הִיא כְּרַגְלֵי הָרוֹעֶה. מְסָרָהּ לִשְׁנֵי רוֹעִים הֲרֵי הִיא כְּרַגְלֵי בְּעָלֶיהָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן:


When a person invites guests on a holiday, [the guests] should not carry the portions [of food they were given] to a place where their host may not go himself. For the [holiday limits] of [the food served at] the feast depend on those of the host, and not on those of the guests.28 [These restrictions apply] unless [the host] granted [the guests] their portions [as presents via] another individual29 before the commencement of the holiday.


מִי שֶׁזִּמֵּן אֶצְלוֹ אוֹרְחִים בְּיוֹם טוֹב לֹא יוֹלִיכוּ בְּיָדָם מָנוֹת לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בַּעַל הַסְּעֻדָּה יָכוֹל לֵילֵךְ בּוֹ. שֶׁכָּל הַסְּעֵדָּה כְּרַגְלֵי בַּעַל הַסְּעֻדָּה לֹא כְּרַגְלֵי הָאוֹרְחִין. אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן זָכָה לָהֶן אַחֵר בְּמָנוֹת אֵלּוּ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב:


Similarly, when produce belonging to a person was left in another city for safekeeping, and the inhabitants of that city established an eruv [t'chumim] so that they could visit [the owner], they should not bring him his produce. For his produce [is governed by the same laws] as he is,30 even though it was [entrusted] to people who established an eruv [t'chumim].

When does the above apply? When the people to whom the produce was entrusted have designated a corner of their property for it.31 If, however, they did not designate [a place for the produce], its [holiday limits] follow those of the people to whom it was entrusted.32


וְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיוּ פֵּרוֹתָיו מֻפְקָדִין בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת וְעֵרְבוּ בְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר לָבֹא אֶצְלוֹ לֹא יָבִיאוּ לוֹ מִפֵּרוֹתָיו שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו כָּמוֹהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּיַד אֵלּוּ שֶׁעֵרְבוּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁיִּחֵד לָהֶן קֶרֶן זָוִית אֲבָל אִם לֹא יִחֵד לָהֶן הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי זֶה שֶׁהֵן מֻפְקָדִין אֶצְלוֹ:


[The holiday limits of the water in] a cistern belonging to one person follow those of the owner.33 If a cistern is owned by a city, [the holiday limits of its water] follow those of the inhabitants of the city.34 [The holiday limits of the water in a cistern made] for the festive pilgrims coming from Babylon, which is donated to the public at large, follow those of the person who draws the water.35 Whoever draws water may carry it wherever he is allowed to proceed.

[The holiday limits of the water in] springs that flow freely follow those of all people.36 Even if [the water] flows from outside the [holiday] limits within those limits, we may draw water from [such springs] on the Sabbath.37 Needless to say, this is permitted on a holiday.


בּוֹר שֶׁל יָחִיד כְּרַגְלֵי בְּעָלָיו. וְשֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר כְּרַגְלֵי אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר. וְשֶׁל עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל שֶׁהֵן מְסוּרִין לַכּל כְּרַגְלֵי הַמְמַלֵּא מֵהֶן שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁמִּלֵּא מֵהֶן מוֹלִיכָן לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא מְהַלֵּךְ. נְהָרוֹת הַמּוֹשְׁכִין וּמַעֲיָנוֹת הַנּוֹבְעִין כְּרַגְלֵי כָּל אָדָם וְאִם הָיוּ בָּאִין מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם לְתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם מְמַלְּאִין מֵהֶן בְּשַׁבָּת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּיוֹם טוֹב:


[The holiday limits of] an ox belonging to a herder follow those of the inhabitants of his city.38 [The holiday limits of] an ox fattened for slaughter follow those of the person who purchased it with the intention of slaughtering it on the holiday [even if he lives outside the city]. [This leniency was granted] because the fact that it was fattened for slaughter makes its reputation well known, and many come to purchase it [even from afar].

Similarly, if the owner slaughtered [such an ox] on a holiday and sold its meat [to many different people], each of the purchasers may bring the meat to any place where he is allowed to proceed himself. [The reason for this leniency is] that on the day before the holiday, [the ox's] owner had the intent that people from [surrounding] villages would purchase [its meat]. Therefore, this ox is comparable to a well designated for festive pilgrims, [the water of] which is provided to the public at large.


שׁוֹר שֶׁל רוֹעֶה כְּרַגְלֵי אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר. וְשׁוֹר שֶׁל פְּטָם כְּרַגְלֵי מִי שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ לְשָׁחֳטוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּעַת בְּעָלָיו לְמָכְרוֹ לַאֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים חוּץ מֵאַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְפֻטָּם וְהַכּל שׁוֹמְעִין שָׁמְעוֹ וּבָאִין לִקְנוֹתוֹ. וְכֵן אִם שְׁחָטוֹ בְּעָלָיו בְּיוֹם טוֹב וּמָכַר בְּשָׂרוֹ. כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִן הַלֹּקְחִים מוֹלִיךְ מְנָתוֹ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּעַת בְּעָלָיו מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב כָּךְ הוּא שֶׁיִּקְחוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אַנְשֵׁי עֲיָרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת וְנִמְצָא שׁוֹר זֶה כְּבוֹר שֶׁל עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לַכּל:


[The holiday limits of] a coal follow those of its owners,39 and not those of a person who borrows it. [Those of] a flame, by contrast, follow those of the person carrying it.40 Therefore, a person who lights a lamp or a piece of wood [from] a colleague's [flame] may carry it to any place where he is permitted to proceed himself.


הַגַּחֶלֶת כְּרַגְלֵי בְּעָלֶיהָ לֹא כְּרַגְלֵי שׁוֹאֲלָהּ וְהַשַּׁלְהֶבֶת כְּרַגְלֵי מִי שֶׁהִיא בְּיָדוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הַמַּדְלִיק נֵר אוֹ עֵץ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ מוֹלִיכוֹ לְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ:


When on the day prior to a holiday, a person [secures] a colleague's [consent] to lend him a utensil, [on the holiday, the holiday limits of] the utensil follow those of the borrower, even when [the owner] did not give him the utensil until [after the commencement of] the holiday.41

When a person borrows a utensil on the holiday, even if he always borrows this utensil from [its owner] on a holiday, [the holiday limits of the utensil] follow those of the owner.42


הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נְתָנוֹ לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל. שְׁאָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ תָּמִיד לִשְׁאל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלִי זֶה בְּכָל יוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי הַמַּשְׁאִיל:


When [before a holiday commences] two people both [arrange to] borrow the same cloak [from a person on the holiday], one [asks] to borrow it on the morning and the other [asks] to borrow it towards evening, [the holiday limits] of this [cloak] are dependent on those of both borrowers.43 They may not bring it to a place other than one to which they both may proceed.


שְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ חָלוּק אֶחָד הָאֶחָד שְׁאָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לוֹ שַׁחֲרִית וְהַשֵּׁנִי שְׁאָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַרְבִית הֲרֵי כְּלִי זֶה כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁנֵי הַשּׁוֹאֲלִים וְאֵינָם מוֹלִיכִים אוֹתוֹ אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם יְכוֹלִין לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ:


What is implied? If the first established an eruv [t'chumim] that was one thousand cubits to the east of the cloak, and the other established an eruv that was five hundred cubits to the west of the cloak, when the first person takes the cloak he may move it no more than one thousand five hundred cubits to the east of the cloak's present location. For this is the end of the holiday limits to which the person who established his eruv to the west may proceed.

When the second person takes the cloak, he may move it no more than one thousand cubits to the west of the cloak's present location. For this is the end of the holiday limits to which the person who established his eruv to the east may proceed.

Based on the above, if one person established his eruv two thousand cubits to the east of the cloak and the other established his eruv two thousand cubits to the west [of the cloak], they may not move it from its place.44


כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁעֵרֵב הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּרִחוּק אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הֶחָלוּק לְמִזְרָח וְעֵרֵב הַשֵּׁנִי בְּרִחוּק חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הֶחָלוּק לַמַּעֲרָב. כְּשֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ הָרִאשׁוֹן הֶחָלוּק אֵינוֹ מוֹלִיכוֹ לַמִּזְרָח אֶלָּא עַד אֶלֶף אַמָּה וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הֶחָלוּק שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַתְּחוּם שֶׁיָּכוֹל זֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב בַּמַּעֲרָב לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ. וּכְשֶׁיִּקַּח הַשֵּׁנִי כְּלִי זֶה אֵינוֹ מוֹלִיכוֹ בַּמַּעֲרָב אֶלָּא עַד אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הַכְּלִי שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַתְּחוּם שֶׁיָּכוֹל זֶה שֶׁעֵרֵב בַּמִּזְרָח לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם עֵרֵב זֶה בְּרִחוּק אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה מִן הֶחָלוּק לַמִּזְרָח וְזֶה בְּרִחוּק אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לַמַּעֲרָב הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יְזִיזוּהוּ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ:


Similarly, when a woman borrows water or salt from a friend to use in the kneading of dough or in the preparation of food, [the holiday limits of] the dough or the food are dependent on those of both women.45

By the same token, if two people purchased an animal in partnership and slaughtered it on a holiday, [the holiday limits of] the meat are dependent on those of both [partners]. If, by contrast, they purchased a jug [of wine] in partnership, and divided it on the holiday, [the holiday limits of] each partner's portion follow those of [its owner].

[What is the difference between these two laws? In the latter instance,] since the [prohibition against going beyond the holiday] limits is Rabbinic in origin,46 the principle of b'reirah applies. Thus, it is considered as if the portion that is given to [either partner] were distinct and separated as his in the jug before the holiday; [i.e.,] it is as if [the two portions of wine] were not mixed with [the other].47

This cannot be said with regard to an animal. Even if the portion that was given to [either partner] were considered to be separated within the animal, and it is as if it were distinct [leniency cannot be shown in this instance]. For the portion derived nurture from the portion belonging to the other colleague while the animal was alive, since all of an animal's limbs derive nurture from each other. Thus, all the animal's limbs are considered as being intermingled with the portions belonging to both partners. Therefore, [the holiday limits of the animal] are dependent on both of them.48


וְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ מַיִם אוֹ מֶלַח וְלָשָׁה בָּהֶן עִסָּתָהּ אוֹ בִּשְּׁלָה בָּהֶן תַּבְשִׁיל הֲרֵי הָעִסָּה אוֹ הַתַּבְשִׁיל כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ בְּהֵמָה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת וְשָׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלָּקַח כָּל אֶחָד מְנָתוֹ הֲרֵי כָּל הַבָּשָׂר כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן. אֲבָל אִם לָקְחוּ חָבִית בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת וְחָלְקוּ אוֹתָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב הֲרֵי חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל כָּל אֶחָד כְּרַגְלָיו. הוֹאִיל וּתְחוּמִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים יֵשׁ בְּרֵרָה בָּהֶן וְנַחְשֹׁב כְּאִלּוּ חֵלֶק שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לָזֶה הָיָה בָּרוּר לוֹ וּמֻבְדָּל בֶּחָבִית מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה מְעֹרָב. וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר כֵּן בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁחֵלֶק זֶה שֶׁהִגִּיעוֹ אֲפִלּוּ נַחְשֹׁב אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מֻבְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וּכְאִלּוּ הָיָה בָּרוּר הֲרֵי יָנַק מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה קַיֶּמֶת שֶׁכָּל אֵיבָרֶיהָ יוֹנְקִין זֶה מִזֶּה וְנִמְצָא כָּל אֵיבָר וְאֵיבָר מְעֹרָב מֵחֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן:

Test Yourself on This Chapter


Rashi (Beitzah 29b) explains that this restriction applies even to foods that are necessary for the holiday. The reason for this stringency is that a person carrying large loads appears to be going about his weekday affairs without awareness of the holiday.

Rashi [cited by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 510:8)] also states that these restrictions apply only in the public domain. Within a courtyard or a home, one may carry in one's ordinary fashion. Rav Kapach explains that this is also the Rambam's view, for (although it is not explicitly stated) the entire chapter speaks about passage through the public domain.


As an example, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 510:10) cites an instance where a person has invited many guests and must bring food for them promptly. Therefore, instead of requiring him to bring smaller loads that would take more time, he is allowed to bring a larger amount in his usual fashion.


The Maggid Mishneh states that other opinions explain that it is forbidden to use an animal on a holiday, just as it is forbidden to do so on the Sabbath, lest one break a branch of a tree. Shulchan Aruch HaRav 495:12 accepts this view as binding.


This refers to a blind man who uses a cane to tap his way. By contrast, a person who needs a cane to walk may use a cane on a holiday (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 522:3).


Carrying a pack in this way appears as an act of disrespect for the holiday (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 522:1; Mishnah Berurah 522:2).


Beitzah 25b interprets this as referring to a sage who lectures to the people.


I.e., this type of ladder is mentioned in contrast to a ladder leading to a loft, which may not be carried on Sabbaths and holidays, because it is considered a permanent part of the structure of a building and not a utensil (Hilchot Shabbat 26:7).


The Ra'avad objects to the Rambam's interpretation of Beitzah 9a. According to the Ra'avad, an even greater leniency is in place, and it is permitted to carry such a ladder even in the public domain (for the ladders used for dovecotes could be distinguished from other ladders). The Ra'avad's view is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 518:4).


E.g., he sees rain coming, which will spoil the produce (Rashi, Beitzah 35b).


Our translation is based on the explanation in the D'rishah of the interpretation of the Rambam's statements provided by the Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 521). The Beit Yosef maintains that the Rambam, unlike Rashi, loc. cit. and the Tur, forbids bringing the produce indoors in this manner. Others, however, interpret the Rambam's words as meaning: "One may throw them down the aperture, even though this involves moving them from place to place..."


The Mishnah (Beitzah 3:3) mentions this law with regard to an animal that is sick and is slaughtered before it dies. The Rambam, however, explains that the law applies in all instances, even when the animal is healthy (Maggid Mishneh).


Although this involves greater effort (for one will have to return to the field several times), it is preferable, so that one departs from his ordinary practice.


As the Ramah (Orach Chayim 516:3) emphasizes, it is permissible to send these presents in the public domain. For since sending and receiving these articles increases one's festive joy, there is no prohibition against their transfer.


See the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), which permits sending clothing, although it is unfinished, provided it is fit to use for some purpose in its present state.


According to the Rambam, it would appear that the reason for this prohibition is not that it involves the forbidden labor of transferring articles, since, as he states in Chapter 1, Halachah 4, this activity is permitted even when no benefit can be derived on the holiday itself. Rather, the reason is - as in the previous halachot - so that one will not conduct oneself in a weekday manner on a holiday.

Significantly, the Magen Avraham 516:1 and the Turei Zahav 516:1 associate this prohibition with the forbidden labor of transferring articles. Therefore, they explain, when a city has an eruv constructed, it is permitted to send such articles on a holiday as well. (See the discussion of this law in the Mishnah Berurah 516:4.)

[Significantly, in Hilchot Eruvin 8:4, the Rambam mentions the establishment of an eruv t'chumim on a holiday, but he does not mention the establishment of an eruv chatzerot on a holiday at all.]


There are certain people who eat roasted grains. Therefore, there is a minority opinion in Beitzah 14b that allows grain to be sent on a holiday. Nevertheless, since this is not a widely prevalent practice, this view was not accepted by the majority of Sages.


This leniency applies even when one knows that the recipient will not slaughter them on the holiday (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 516:1; Mishnah Berurah 516:1).


Since this prohibition was instituted as an expression of respect for the holiday, it applies even in a courtyard and a private domain if there are many people there (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 516:6; Mishnah Berurah 516:6).


The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 516:2) uses slightly different wording: "Three people or more, one after the other." There are versions of the Mishneh Torah which also use such wording.


Rashi (Beitzah 14b) states that by sending the articles in this manner, it appears that one is taking them to the market to be sold.


A person is forbidden to proceed more than 2000 cubits in any direction from his location at the onset of the Sabbath or a holiday. If he is in a private domain or in an enclosed city, the 2000-cubit limit begins from that area's peripheries.

Our Sages offered an additional leniency: a person can establish a location within his Sabbath limits as his place for the Sabbath or a holiday by depositing food at that location before the onset of the Sabbath or the holiday. This is referred to as an eruv t'chumim. In this instance, his 2000-cubit limits are calculated from that place, and not from the place where he is located at the onset of the Sabbath.

In this halachah, the Rambam is stating that the restriction against proceeding beyond 2000 cubits applies not only to the person himself, but to the possessions he owns. For them as well, the 2000-cubit limit is calculated from the location of the food he deposited.

[The Rambam does not mention this concept with regard to the Sabbath, since it is forbidden to carry articles or to lead an animal on that day. There are, nevertheless, ramifications of this law with regard to the Sabbath. The Ramah (Orach Chayim 305:23) states that it is permitted to entrust one's animals to a gentile shepherd to watch, even though one knows that he will lead them beyond the Sabbath limits. The commentaries explain that since the Jew himself neither performs nor initiates the activity, there is no prohibition.]


I.e., they may be carried within a 2000-cubit radius beginning from the place where the person who acquires them was located at the commencement of the Sabbath, or from the place where he deposited his eruv t'chumim.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam on this point and maintains that the Sabbath limits are calculated from the place where the article itself was located at the commencement of the Sabbath. Nevertheless, the later authorities, including the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 401:1), follow the Rambam's view.


For this reason, our Sages placed several restrictions on benefitting from articles brought by gentiles on a holiday, lest they have brought them from beyond the holiday limits.


A person who left his Sabbath or holiday limits and returned is allowed to walk only within a square of four cubits by four cubits (Hilchot Shabbat 27:12-13). These restrictions are not placed on a utensil. A person is capable of acting on his own initiative, while a utensil must be carried by a person. It is thus comparable to a person who was taken from and returned to his Sabbath limits by force. As stated in Hilchot Shabbat (ibid.), it is considered as if he had never departed. Nevertheless, as reflected in Hilchot Shabbat 6:24, if the produce was taken from the city by a Jew with a conscious intent to violate the law, one should not benefit from it on the holiday.


Because the father does not expect his son to take responsibility for the animal, it is not considered as having entered the son's possession (Maggid Mishneh). Although the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 397:4) follows the Rambam's ruling, there are later authorities who differ. (See Mishnah Berurah 397:10.)


The Mishnah Berurah 397:12 explains that the rationale is that we assume that even before the commencement of the holiday he had the intention of entrusting it to the shepherd. As the Mishnah Berurah mentions, other authorities differ with this ruling when there is more than one shepherd in a city and the owner does not also entrust his sheep to the same one, because it is not clear - even in the owner's mind - to which shepherd he will entrust his animal.


In this instance as well, although the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:5) quotes the Rambam's ruling, many later authorities differ. They maintain that this applies only when a person entrusted the animal to the shepherds on the holiday. If he entrusted it to them before the holiday, they are responsible, and the animal may be taken only within an area in which they both may walk (Mishnah Berurah 397:13).


Since the food belonged to the host at the beginning of the holiday, the holiday limits in which it may be carried are dependent on him. Although he gives the guests permission to take portions of the food home, they may not take the food beyond the limits in which it could originally be carried.


I.e., he must give another person the portions of food, and he will acquire them on behalf of each of the guests (Rashi, Beitzah 40a).


And he did not establish an eruv.


In such an instance, it is as if that corner were loaned to the owner of the produce. The people to whom the article was entrusted, however, are not held responsible for it. Therefore, the status of the produce depends on the owner.


For they are responsible for the article.


I.e., the water may be brought only to a place to which the owner of the cistern is permitted to proceed.


The Mishnah Berurah 397:34 interprets this as follows: If an inhabitant of the city draws the water, he may carry it as far as he is permitted to proceed himself, even if he extended his holiday limits by establishing an eruv t'chumim. If a person who does not live in the city draws the water, he may carry it only within the city itself.


Since the water is left for all travelers without distinction, its status is comparable to that of the ownerless articles mentioned in Halachah 10. (For that reason, the Ra'avad, who raises an objection to that halachah, also objects here.)


Seemingly, the intent of the latter phrase is the same as "those of the person who draws the water." [Indeed, Rabbenu Asher and the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 397:15) use the phrase, "those of the person who draws the water."] One wonders why the Rambam uses different wording.


Since the water continuously flows and does not stay in a single place, there is no place that is considered to have been established as its "place" for the Sabbath or holiday.


The herder raises oxen for slaughter. Nevertheless, the oxen he raises are not unique, and he cannot expect them to attract the attention of people beyond his immediate area. For that reason, their holiday limits are confined to those of their owner's town.


A coal is considered to be an object with substance. Therefore, the laws that govern all other articles pertain to it as well.


For a flame, by contrast, has no substance, and is therefore not considered to be an article that belongs to a person and is subject to his holiday limits.


A borrower does not become responsible for an object until he performs a formal kinyan (contractual act). Nevertheless, since the owner consented to give the borrower the article before the commencement of the holiday, with regard to the law at hand it is considered as if it were already in the borrower's possession (Mishnah Berurah 397:26).


It is at the commencement of the holiday that the holiday limits of a utensil are established. Since the owner did not consent to give the utensil to the borrower before this time, the utensil's limits still depend on its owner. The fact that he frequently lends the article to the borrower is of no halachic significance. Since the borrower did not ask for the article before the holiday began, the owner could have assumed that he had found another person from whom to borrow it.


Since the owner of the cloak agreed to let both of the borrowers use it before the holiday began, they both figure in the determination of the holiday limits of the cloak.


For by moving it to either direction, one will be taking it beyond the holiday limits of one of the people to whom it is entrusted.


Since the ingredients belonged to both women at the commencement of the holiday, the holiday limits of the dough or the food made from them are dependent on those of both women.


In Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 27, the Rambam explains that the concept of Sabbath limits has its origins in the Torah itself. Nevertheless, according to the Torah, it is permitted to proceed twelve mil from one's place. The restriction of two thousand cubits is Rabbinic in origin.


Therefore, each of the partners is allowed to take his portion with him throughout his own holiday limits without worrying about his partner's circumstances.


This represents the opinion of Rav (Beitzah 37b). The Talmud, however, records the opinion of other Sages who differ and maintain that there is no difference between the laws pertaining to an animal and those pertaining to wine.

In the debate concerning this manner, two of the other Sages, Rav Kahana and Rav Assi, asked Rav: There is another relevant prohibition, that of muktzeh, for each of the partners diverted his attention from the portion designated for the other. Nevertheless, although the portions of meat belonging to each of the partners derived nurture from each other, none of the Sages thought of applying the prohibition of muktzeh for that reason.

Rav did not reply. This has led some authorities (see the gloss of Rav Moshe HaCohen, Tur, Orach Chayim 397) to the conclusion that Rav conceded and retracted his position. According to these views, the meat belonging to each partner may be taken throughout his holiday limits. Others (including the Rambam) maintain that Rav's inability to reply at that time does not represent a retraction of his position. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 397:10) follows the Rambam's ruling. Nevertheless, the Be'ur Halachah 397 states that if there is a necessity, it is possible to rely on the more lenient view.

The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.