Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter 4

The Ra’avad differs with the rationale quoted by the Rambam. He states that a flame ignited on a holiday is forbidden because of the prohibitions of nolad, for there is no way that one could have designated it for use before the holiday. The Maggid Mishneh mentions a practical difference. According to the Rambam, if one erred and ignited a flame on a holiday, it would be permissible to make use of it, while according to the Ra’avad this would be forbidden.

Chapter 1, Halachah 4.

The Ramah follows the opinion of Rabbenu Asher and others, who state that when extinguishing a fire is necessary to provide one with food for the holidays—e.g., one’s food has caught on fire—it is permitted. Although the Rambam’s wording does not appear to allow for this leniency, the leniency is accepted by the later Ashkenazic authorities.

Although one may desire to extinguish a candle to sleep or for the reasons mentioned in Halachah 4, and doing so would thus contribute to one’s holiday pleasure, it is nevertheless forbidden.

All these activities appear to be considered as commissions of the forbidden labor itself, and not merely Rabbinic safeguards.

The Ra’avad and others note that Beitzah 32b appears to indicate that it is permitted to remove the charred portion of the wick with a utensil as well. The wording of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 514:10) leaves room for doubt with regard to which view is accepted. In practice, it is customary not to remove the charred portion of any wick—neither by hand nor with a utensil (Mishnah Berurah 514:47).

If, however, a piece of wood has already caught fue, it is forbidden to move it if one’s intent is to extinguish it (Ramah, Orach Chayim 502:2).

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 514:1) allows a leniency: If a person has no other home, and sees his house being consumed by flames, he may put out the fire so that he will have a place to eat his festive meals. As mentioned in the notes on Hilchot Shabbat 12:3, it is customary at present to extinguish raging fires, because there is surely the possibility of a threat to life if they are left unchecked.

For it is forbidden to engage in sexual relations by the light of a candle (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 21:10).

The intent is a utensil that will allow the candle to continue burning. lt is forbidden to cover the candle with a utensil that will snuff it out.

This refers to an extension of a temporary partition. In such an instance, the prohibition is merely Rabbinic in origin. When the partition was opened at least a handbreadth before the cqmmencement of the festival, there is no restriction at all (see Hilchot Shabbat 22:27).

Note the Chatam Sofer (Orach Chayim, Responsum 145), who questions the Rambam’s intent in adding the last phrase.

For it is forbidden to use a tree on the Sabbath or festivals. See Hilchot Shabbat 21:6-8. From the wording of the Maggid Mishneh, it appears that, for this same reason, it is forbidden to leave a candle on a date palm before the commencement of the holiday, so that it will burn there on the holiday. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 514:6) cites this law with that emphasis.

Beitzah 22b states that the incense first extinguishes some of the fire onto which it was placed, and then it catches fire itself and begins to burn. One might think that this would be permitted, because it brings pleasure to people. Nevertheless, our Sages ruled that it is only pleasure that is appreciated by all people—e.g., food—for which one is permitted to perform labor on a holiday, but not pleasure appreciated by only a minority, like fragrance.

This restriction was instituted because it was possible—and indeed, it was usual—to do this before the holiday. Concerning other produce, one may use charred wood to sweeten it, although one temporarily extinguishes the charred wood in the process (Mishnah Berurah 511 :25).

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 514:1) allows one to extinguish the fire if there is no other alternative to saving one’s food or the place in which one desires to eat one’s festive meals.

This is one of the restrictions instituted so that one would not follow one’s ordinary weekday practice.

Provided the oil is not in a lamp that is lit at that time (Ramah, Orach Chayim 514:9). If this were the case, one would be removing the lamp’s fuel, and that is considered to be extinguishing.

In Talmudic times, it was common to soak a shard or papyrus in oil and then put it under the fish as a makeshift roasting pan, to prevent the fish from becoming charred (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah 4:5).

The Maggid Mishneh explains the Rambam’s ruling as follows: There is a difference of opinion (Beitzah 28b) between the Sages and Rabbi Y ehudah whether one is allowed to perform a forbidden labor to prepare articles that are auxiliaries to cooking on a holiday. When it is possible to prepare these auxiliaries before the holiday, all opinions agree that it is forbidden to do so on the holiday. When, as in the instance of the spit that became askew on the holiday itself, and it is only on the holiday that the auxiliary can be made fit for use, the Sages forbid doing so; Rabbi Yehudah maintains that this is permitted.
The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the Rambam rules according to the Sages’ position. Others maintain that he accepts Rabbi Yehudah’s view, but rules stringently because the Talmud states that one should not publicize the fact that the halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 509:1) quotes the Rambam’s ruling verbatim. The Ramah states that if it is impossible to use the spit at all while it is crooked, it may be straightened. He states, however, that this ruling should not publicized.

Potters would usually fashion cups and lamps in pairs and then break them in half before using them (Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, loc. cit.:4).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 3:7), the Rambam defines a sharpener as a grinding stone.

Beitzah 28a associates this law with the difference of opinion between Rabbi Y ehudah and the Sages mentioned in the notes on the previous halachah. There is, however, a difference of interpretation among the commentaries regarding the defmition of these respective positions.
The Maggid Mishneh, who maintains that the Rambam does not accept Rabbi Yehudah’s position at all, explains that this ruling follows the Sages’ view. The Kessef Mishneh clarifies that according to this position, whetting the knife on wood or a shard is not considered grinding at all, and it is therefore permitted.
Others, however, explain that the Rambam is quoting the Talmud’s view that accepts Rabbi Yehudah’s position, but that the Rambam does not desire that the ruling be publicized. According to this view, even Rabbi Yehudah would not allow a knife to be sharpened using a sharpener, because this is a mundane activity, or for other similar reasons. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 509:2) quotes the Rambam’s ruling verbatim.

Needless to say, he himself may use it to slaughter. In Talmudic times, it was customary for a slaughterer to have a sage inspect his knife before using it. At present, the practice is that every slaughterer inspects his own knife. The inspection should be carried out before the holiday. If, however, this was not done, a slaughterer may inspect his knife on a holiday (Ramah, Orach Chayim 498:l).

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 4:3). The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 50 l: l) states that at present, we are not certain what is meant by a butcher’s mace. Hence, it is forbidden to chop wood with anything other than a knife.

The Maggid Mishneh states that one might infer from the Rambam’s wording that it is forbidden to chop any wood that would burn without being chopped. This law is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. :2).

Since it was not designated for that purpose on the previous day, its use is forbidden on the holiday (Maggid Mishneh, quoting the Rashba). Although our Sages allowed wood to be carried for the purpose of kindling without being designated before the holiday, this leniency was applied for that reason alone. When one desires to use wood for another purpose, one must designate it before the commencement of the holiday (Rabbenu Nissim, Shulchan Aruch HaRav 502:8).

This addition is made according to the interpretation of the Rashba (Beitzah 11 b). Rashi interprets the term to be referring to the shutters of storefronts. Even according to his interpretation, this does not refer to a building attached to the ground.

Even though returning the shutter to its place is not for the sake of festive joy, our Sages permitted this, because otherwise the storekeepers would not desire to open their shops and run the risk of their wares being stolen (Beitzah 11 b).

This would make one liable for building (Hilchot Shabbat 10:13).

See Hilchot Shabbat 22:25, which states that the doors of cabinets, chests, and the like, which are on hinges, may be removed on the Sabbath but may not be put back in place.

On the Sabbath, our Sages imposed a decree on this activity (ibid.: 26), but not on the holidays.

Lest one come to erect a permanent structure on a holiday.

The Maggid Mishneh permits placing a board over the legs of the table. Although Rav Yosef Karo takes issue regarding this matter in the Kessef Mishneh, in the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 315:3) he permits erecting a table in this manner on the Sabbath.

Since the person has no intention of causing a wound (his intent is merely to remove the fleas), this is not prohibited [Beitzah 23a; Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 2:7)]. lt is, however, forbidden to comb an animal with an iron comb, for this will surely remove its hair, and is hence forbidden (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 523:2).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbat 18:3), the Rambam explains that this refers to pulling the calf out from the mother, for this involves extra effort.

To remove the fluids clogging them.

Shabbat 128b states that the pain that the mother will suffer will cause her to react mercifully to her young.

Once a non-kosher animal has rejected her young, she will never accept it again (ibid.).

It is possible that a person will be very involved with festive preparations before the holiday, and desire to leave the immersion of the vessel for the holiday, when he will be less pressured.

Although this immersion also purifies the vessel in which the water is contained, there is no difficulty.

See Hilchot She’ar Avot HaTum’ah 13:2, which explains that although a person immersed himself with the intent of partaking of terumah, he is considered impure and is required to immerse himself again if he desires to partake of meat from the sacrificial offerings. In particular, there are five levels of purity: a person who desires to partake of unconsecrated articles in a state of ritual purity, a person who desires to partake of ma’aser sheni, a person who desires to partake of terumah, a person who desires to partake of sacrificial foods, and one who desires to take part in the burning of the red heifer.

For there was no opportunity to immerse it before the holiday.

As explained in Hilchot Sha’ar Avot Hatum’ah 7:1-2, when a liquid comes in contact with a primary source of impurity, it becomes impure. According to Scriptural law, contact with this impure liquid does not cause an object to contract ritual impurity. Nevertheless, our Sages decreed that foods and utensils that come in contact with this impure liquid should be considered impure.
The Rambam explains that since the impurity is Rabbinic in origin, our Sages did not forbid immersing this utensil on a holiday so that it could be used in a state of purity. Rabbi Mordechai HaCohen and the Rashba note that Beitzah, loc. cit., offers a different rationale, and they question why the Rambam deviates from the source. The later commentaries, however, justify the Rambam’s position.

When the bucket is immersed in the well, the bucket becomes ritually pure. This is permitted, because it is not obvious to an observer that the person is immersing the utensil.

To emerge from the state of impurity, the woman must immerse herself; this is permitted on a holiday. She is, however, forbidden to immerse her clothes. Nevertheless, if she has no other pure clothes to wear, our Sages offered her an alternative. She can immerse herself while wearing her clothes, thus causing them to become ritually pure.
For her immersion to be acceptable, her clothes must be loose fitting, so that they will not prevent the water from penetrating to her skin.

As the Rambam explains (Hilchot Shabbat 23:12), the Sages forbade commercial activity on the Sabbath lest one write. The rulings regarding the holidays are somewhat more lenient than on the Sabbath, in order to allow one to purchase food for the holiday, but as a whole the prohibition remains in force.

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 500:1) states that it is permitted to enter into such a partnership agreement on a holiday only with a Jew, but not with a gentile.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 500:2) states that it is forbidden to weigh meat even to know how much to use when cooking.

I.e., an experienced butcher is able to approximate the weight of a portion of meat by holding it in his hands.

By measuring the amount of water the piece of meat displaces, one will be able to determine its weight.

Shabbat 149b, the source for this halachah, states that one should not cast lots “for portions of “.לוח Rashi, the Ra’avad, and others interpret this to refer to portions of sacrificial meat that were offered during the week. The Rambam, by contrast, interprets this to refer to non-sacrificial meat.

This represents a reversal of the Rambam’s ruling in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 3:8). This change in thinking appears to result from the Rambam’s understanding of Rav Yitzchak Alfasi’s rulings with regard to Beitzah 29a, the Talmudic passage on which this halachah is based (Rav Kapach). (See also the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.)

The Maggid Mishneh states that this does not apply only to a chef, but to anyone.

The reason for this and the following prohibition is that it appears that the person is measuring the flour or the barley for the purpose of selling it.

For the dough will not spoil if one errs in his approximation of the proper amount to use.

This is permitted because even at home a person will ask for a specific number of eggs or nuts, so that he will not have more or fewer than he requires.

Although these laws would also apply to a storekeeper, many suggest that this word should be omitted from the text, because it is not found in Beitzah 29b, the source for this halachah. Authoritative manuscripts and early printings of the Mishneh Torah do not contain this word.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 517:1) states that this applies only when the storekeeper is Jewish. If he is non-Jewish, we may not take anything that might have been harvested or snared on the holiday.

We are not speaking about a loan of money, but rather food that was given in lieu of payment.

See Hilchot Shabbat 23:15.

These portions must be given to a priest whenever an animal is slaughtered. (See Deuteronomy 18:3; Hilchot Bikkurim 9:1.)

Indeed, there is no prohibition against separating these portions on a festival itself, since they are not forbidden to common people, nor is it necessary to immerse oneself before partaking of them (Maggid Mishneh). (Se~ also Chapter 3, Halachah 8 and notes.)