Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter Two

Since one could not know whether the chick would be hatched on the holiday itself or not, there is no way one could designate it as food. Hence, it falls into the category of muktzeh. Indeed, even the more lenient opinions that allow muktzeh to be used on a holiday forbid slaughtering such a chick, since before it was hatched it was not useful for any purpose whatsoever (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 513:19; Mishnah Berurah 513:36).

This applies only when we know that the calf has undergone a full period of gestation. If not, it is forbidden to be slaughtered on the day it was born (Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 4:4).

For the slaughter of the mother also causes the calf to be permitted (lbid. 5:13-14).

The Rambam is employing the wording of the Mishnah, Beitzah 5:6. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (based on Beitzah 40a), the Rambam explains that this refers to animals that graze outside the city limits from the spring until the beginning of the rainy season. This interpretation also changes the definition of animals that “retum and spend the night inside the city,” to refer to those that return to the city occasionally. These definitions are reflected in the decisions of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 498:5 and the Mishnah Berurah 498:12,14.

This refers to a firstbom animal, which is consecrated by birth. Alternatively, the intent is the tenth animal after a herd has been tithed. These animals may not be offered as a sacrifice, because the Temple is destroyed. The law is that the firstbom must be given to a priest, who may not slaughter it until it acquires a permanent blemish. The tithed animal may be kept by its owner, who may slaughter it after it acquires a blemish. The designation of a blemish as permanent or not must be made by a sage trained in this field.

The Rambam maintains that even if the animal had acquired the blemish before the holiday, it must be inspected before the holiday, and not on the holiday itself (Maggid Mishneh).

For until birth, the animal could have been eaten by slaughtering its mother.

The animal may not be checked by an experienced sage to see whether the blemish is permanent or not. This restriction is an extension of the Rabbinic safeguard mentioned in the previous halachah.

As such, moving the animal is forbidden. Therefore, the only alternative is to wait until the conclusion of the holiday and in the interim, to feed the animal while it is in the cistern.

As Leviticus 22:28 states, it is forbidden to slaughter both a cow and its calf on the same day. Thus, it would seem that we could take only one out of the cistem, and the other would be considered muktzeh.

From the wording chosen: by the Rambam, it appears that it is necessary to slaughter one of the animals. The Maggid Mishneh cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Beitzah 3:4), from which one might infer that this is not necessary, but he also cites the opinion of the Rashba, who recommends slaughtering one of the animals.

See Hilchot Shabbat 21:9-10 for other examples of leniencies granted by our Sages in consideration of the suffering endured by an animal. See also the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 3:4), which states that consideration of the suffering endured by an animal is a Scriptural obligation.

Although this phrase appears in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah, we have placed it in brackets, because a) it is omitted from many authoritative manuscripts and early printings, and b) it does not fit the Rambam’s statements regarding the subject in Hilchot Shechitah 9:19.
One might justify the inclusion of the bracketed phrase by explaining that according to the Rambam, the possibility that the animal may not be kosher does not disqualify its slaughter on the festival. Nevertheless, the prevailing opinion (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 498:8) is that we are allowed.to slaughter an animal on a festival only when it is likely to be kosher.

See Hilchot Shechitah 9:9,17, where the Rambam states that an animal that falls from a roof and is unable to walk afterwards must be inspected after it was slaughtered to see whether any of its vital inner organs were crushed.

In the Talmudic era, basins were built into the facades of homes for doves to nest.

The Maggid Mishneh states that there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis regarding whether this law refers to large doves that are able to fly, or to small doves that are unable to do so.
The more stringent view maintains that since the doves are able to fly away, they must be snared, and this labor is forbidden. The more lenient view maintains that since the doves have nested in these places, great effort is not required to snare them, and this is permitted on a holiday. From the Rambam’s wording, it appears that he subscribes to the more lenient view. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 497:9) follows the more stringent opinion.

As a rationale for this stringency, the Maggid Mishneh explains that the doves will be permitted for eating on the following day with סn restrictions. Therefore, we are required to wait until then to partake of them, as explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 1:3), the Rambam explains two reasons for this restriction:
a) It is possible that this entire group is made up of new doves that came from afar;
b) Even if two of the doves were the ones designated on the previous day, the entire group is forbidden because they were joined by a third dove who is not distinguished from them.

It is an accepted principle that doves will not waddle further than 50 cubits. Even within these 50 cubits, they will not walk on a diagonal.

The Ra’avad explains that this restriction also applies to fish in small ponds. Since fish cannot always be seen easily and are difficult to snare even in a small pond, greater stringency is applied with regard to them. His opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 497:1).

It would appear that the reason that snaring is forbidden is not the fact that it is one of the 39 forbidden labors, for it is necessary for the preparation of food. Rather, it is forbidden as a result of the Rabbinic prohibition against muktzeh (Meiri, P’nei Yehoshua, Beitzah 23b).

This leniency does not apply when the animals make their home more than 70 cubits beyond the city limits (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:8), for then a person would not be likely to have these animals in mind for his holiday meals.

This ruling depends on the principle mentioned in Halachah 6, that whenever there is doubt whether or not an article had been designated for use on a holiday, it is forbidden.

As explained by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 497:5), Shulchan Aruch HaRav 497:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 497:14, this refers to a narrow waterway that has been dammed at both ends. Hence, there is no difficulty in catching the fish, and they can be considered to be designated before the commencement of the holiday.

We do not say that since the building was closed before the commencement of the holiday, the produce is no longer considered designated for use. There are authorities (Rashba, Rabbenu Asher) who follow a more stringent view, and maintain that the produce is permitted only when it appeared that the building would open. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam (as well as Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and the Ramban), the fact that it is located in a closed building does not alter the status of the produce. When, as in the instance described, it is possible to take it, doing so is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 518:9) quotes the Rambam’s ruling.

The Mishnah (Beitzah 4:7) mentions this instance with regard to the Sabbath. Since the Rambam maintains that the prohibitions against muktzeh do not apply on the Sabbath, he cites these laws with regard to the holidays.

The Sabbatical year is mentioned because there is no obligation to tithe in that year. In other years, the produce would not be considered to be designated for use until it had been tithed, and it is not customary to tithe fruit that has been set out to dry until it is fully dried. (See the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah, loc. cit.)

I.e., the person must make a mark on the ground to designate the area from which he desires to take produce. ln Halachah 5, the Rambam does not require a person to perform a deed while designating doves to be eaten (thus negating the opinion of the School of Shammai). In this instance, however, since people do not generally eat fruit left out to dry until it is completely dry, it is necessary for him to perform a deed to clarify his intent. The Ramah (495:4) differs and does not require that a deed be performed even in this instance.

The same laws apply with regard to gentile merchants who desire to sell produce or other types of food on a holiday.

When this type of produce is still growing in the ground, there is the possibility that the gentile harvested it on the holiday itself.

There are two reasons why these foods are prohibited:
a) because a Jew may not have a gentile perform forbidden labors on the Jew’s behalf on a holiday,
b) because the food he brings is muktzeh.

There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if, in the diaspora, an object that became forbidden for these reasons on the first day of a holiday is permitted to be used on the second day or not. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 515:1) allows it to be used on the second day of the holiday after one waits enough time to perform the forbidden labor. The Ramah requires the person for whom the gentile brought the produce to wait until after the conclusion of the holiday. ln times of need, however, he enables the produce to be used by the person’s guests on the second day.

This safeguard ensures that one will derive no benefit at all from the gentile’s activity, nor ask him to perform such a labor again.

Although such food is also forbidden to all the members of the household of the person for whom it was brought.

Beitzah 4b explains that the restrictions applying to an entity that will become permitted at a later date do not apply with regard to this wood, since the benefit one receives from the wood comes after it has been consumed by the flames. It is permitted to add the larger quantity of permitted wood because we are allowed to nullify the existence of a prohibited entity if the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. (See also Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot 15:26.)
Rabbenu Nissim states that this leniency is granted only when there is also some permitted wood in the oven. If not, one may not nullify the prohibited wood. His opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 507:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 507:7).

This refers to straw or wood that has been set aside to be sold.

This refers to wood that has been set aside to be used for construction (Rashi, Beitzah 31b).

Before the holiday the beam was part of a building, and only on the holiday itself did the possibility of its being used for other purposes arise. Therefore, it is considered to be nolad.

If, however, it is still possible to use the pieces to perform the task originally performed with the utensil, the pieces are still permitted to be used for kindling or for any other purpose (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 501:11; Mishnah Berurah 501:29).

Although the utensil existed beforehand, no one considered using it for kindling while it was intact. Only when it became broken was it considered to be fit for kindling. Hence, it is considered to be nolad.

If a person desires to use an intact utensil for kindling, there is no difficulty. Since the utensil is intact, carrying it is permitted.

Because the possibility of using them for kindling arose only on the holiday, they are considered to be nolad.

For it is uncommon to use nut shells for any significant purpose. See Hilchot Shabbat 25:6,12.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 501:7) quotes the former version as halachah.

Wood is not fit for kindling until it dries out. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 11.)

We may not, however, take wood that is used for the walls themselves, for by doing so we would be destroying a building (Beitzah 30b ).

We have translated the term sukkah as hut, because this law applies throughout the year, not only to the sukkot constructed on the holiday of that name. (See Kessef Mishneh; Mishnah Berurah 518:38.)

From the Rambam’s mention of this law in the chapter dealing with the subject of muktzeh, it would appear that he considers muktzeh as the rationale for this restriction as well. Other authorities have offered other rationales; among them, that collecting wood in the field is forbidden because it is a mundane activity unfit for the sacred atmosphere of the holidays. Alternatively, it resembles the forbidden labor of me’ amer, collecting sheaves (Mishnah Berurah 501: 11 ).

Several later authorities (Rav Shlomo Luria; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 501:7) are more stringent, and rule that since it is usual to collect wood from a field, doing so on a holiday bears too close a resemblance to the forbidden labor of me’ amer. Hence, this leniency is allowed only in an open courtyard.

I.e., it is forbidden if the wood is scattered in a courtyard, or the courtyard is beyond the Sabbath limits or lacks a fence with a gate.

In this instance as well, it appears that the Rambam considers this restriction as an outgrowth of the prohibition against muktzeh. Since it is possible that they will become dispersed, one does not rely on their remaining in their place.
Other authorities explain that the restriction is a safeguard against performing the forbidden labor of me’amer. (See Mishnah Berurah 501:18,20.)

Even if they are dispersed. By placing the heavy utensil upon them, the person indicated his intent that the leaves be used for kindling. This leniency is not accepted by the authorities who explain that the restriction is a safeguard against performing the forbidden labor of me'amer.

I.e., since it was ill, the person considered the likelihood that it would die. Even before the holiday began, he had it in mind to feed the carcass to his dogs.

A consecrated animal that dies may not be used for any mundane purposes; its corpse must be buried. Therefore, even if it was sick on the day before the holiday, it may not be moved on the holiday (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah 3:5).

Terumah that becomes impure must be given to a priest, who can use it for kindling or feed it to his animals. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to perform either of these activities on a holiday. Hence, the impure terumah may not be used that day, and thus becomes muktzeh (Rashi, Beitzah 27b).

This applies even to living creatures for which the person is required to provide food. The restriction involves placing the food directly before the animals. It is permitted to place it far from the usual place, for this departure from the norm will remind one not to pick up the animals (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 497:5; Mishnah Berurah 497:5).

For this reason, this prohibition does not apply to feeding non-kosher animals (Maggid Mishneh).

As mentioned in the first halachah of the following chapter, earth was necessary for covering the blood of fowl and wild beasts that were slaughtered. In Talmudic times, when the homes had earthen floors, earth was also used to cover spills, excrement, and other filth. Since the earth was not flattened, we do not say that the person brought it in to use as part on the floor. Instead, we allow him to use it for other purposes

The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:15) states that, after the fact ,)דיענדנ( if one has already slaughtered a fowl or beast, it is preferable to use even cold ash, rather than negate the mitzvah of covering the blood.

The Rambam’s statements should not be interpreted as license to, in fact, implant a shaft in the ground and pull it out on the holiday. The Rambam (as is his source, the Mishnah, Beitzah 1:2) is speaking after the fact )דיעבדב(—i.e., the person has already uprooted the earth and is questioning whether or not he may use it. This ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:14).

If the earth is powdery, uprooting it from the ground is not considered to be digging a hole (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah 1:2). This powdery earth can—in contrast to clods of earth—be used to cover the blood.

Crumbling the earth is a derivative of the forbidden labor of grinding.