Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter 5

1Although 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.אאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֻתְּרָה הוֹצָאָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצֹרֶךְ, לֹא יִשָּׂא מַשָּׂאוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בַּחֹל, אֶלָא 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 לַאֲחוֹרָיו, אֲבָל מוֹלִיכָהּ בְּיָדוֹ.

2Similarly, 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.3בוְכֵן מַשָּׂאוֹת שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִשָּׂא אוֹתָן בְּמוֹט, יִשָּׂא אוֹתָן עַל גַּבּוֹ מֵאֲחוֹרָיו; וְשֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִשָּׂא אוֹתָן מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, יִשָּׂא אוֹתָן עַל כְּתֵפוֹ; וְשֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהִנָּשֵׂא עַל הַכָּתֵף, יִשָּׂא אוֹתָן בְּיָדָיו לְפָנָיו אוֹ יִפְרֹס עֲלֵיהֶן בֶּגֶד. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּזֶה 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 בַּחֹל.

3We 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.גאֵין מַנְהִיגִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּמַקֵּל, וְאֵין הַסּוּמָא יוֹצֵא בְּמַקְלוֹ, וְלֹא הָרוֹעֶה בְּתַּרְמִלּוֹ. וְאֵין יוֹצְאִין בְּכִסֵּא אַחַר הָאִישׁ וְאַחַר הָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בַּחֹל.

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 sedan chair, even on people’s shoulders.וְאִישׁ שֶׁהָיוּ רַבִּים צְרִיכִין לוֹ, יוֹצְאִין בַּכִּסֵּא אַחֲרָיו, וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הַכָּתֵף, אֲפִלּוּ בָּאַפִּרְיוֹן.

4We 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.8דאֵין מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסֻּלָּם שֶׁל שּׁוֹבָךְ 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.

5A 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.12המִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ פֵּרוֹת עַל גַּגּוֹ וְצָרִיךְ לְפַנּוֹתָם לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר - לֹא יוֹשִׁיטֵם מִגָּג לְגָג, וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּגַּגִּין הַשָּׁוִין, וְלֹא יְשַׁלְשְׁלֵם בְּחֶבֶל מִן הַחַלּוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא יוֹרִידֵם בְּסֻלָּמוֹת; שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בַּחֹל. אֲבָל מַשִּׁילָן אֲפִלּוּ דֶּרֶךְ אֲרֻבָּה, מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם בְּאוֹתוֹ הַגָּג. שָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה בַּשָּׂדֶה - לֹא יְבִיאֶנָּה לְעִיר בְּמוֹט אוֹ בְּמַטֶּה, אֲבָל מֵבִיאָהּ אֵבָרִים אֵבָרִים.

6On 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.15וכָּל שֶׁנְאוֹתִין בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ בַּחֹל - אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין נֵאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, כְּגוֹן תְּפִלִּין - מֻתָּר לְשַׁלְּחוֹ לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב; וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר דָּבָר שֶׁנְאוֹתִין בּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, כְּגוֹן יֵינוֹת שְׁמָנִים וּסְלָתוֹת, שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְשַׁלְּחָן. וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין נְאוֹתִין בּוֹ בַּחֹל עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָסוּר לַעֲשׂוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין אוֹתוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב.

7What 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.זכֵּיצַד? אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב תְּבוּאָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין נֵאוֹתִין בָּהּ בַּחֹל אֶלָא אִם כֵּן טָחַן, וְאָסוּר לִטְחֹן בְּיוֹם טוֹב; אֲבָל מְשַׁלְּחִין קִטְנִיוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּבַשְּׁלָן בְּיוֹם טוֹב אוֹ קוֹלֶה אוֹתָן וְאוֹכְלָן. וּמְשַׁלְּחִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמֻּתָּר לִשְׁחֹט בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּזֶה.

8When 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.20 It is permitted, however, to send three different types of articles with three people who walk together.חכָּל דָּבָר שֶׁמֻּתָּר לְשַׁלְּחוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב - כְּשֶׁיְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ לַחֲבֵרוֹ תְּשׁוּרָה, לֹא יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ בְּשׁוּרָה. וְאֵין שׁוּרָה פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלוֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם. כֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁשִּׁלַּח לַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּהֵמוֹת אוֹ יֵינוֹת בְּיַד שְׁלוֹשָׁה אַרְבָּעָה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד זֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְכֻלָּן הוֹלְכִין בְּשׁוּרָה אַחַת - הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה בַּחֹל. שִׁלַּח שְׁלוֹשָׁה מִינִין בְּיַד שְׁלוֹשָׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד, הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר.

9When 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.טהַמְּעָרֵב עֵרוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין לְיוֹם טוֹב - הֲרֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְכֵלָיו וּפֵרוֹתָיו כָּמוֹהוּ, וְאֵין מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתָן אֶלָא בְּתוֹךְ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ מִּמְּקוֹם עֵרוּבוֹ.

10The 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.יחֶפְצֵי 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.

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.24פֵּרוֹת שֶׁיָּצְאוּ חוּץ לִתְחוּמָן וְחָזְרוּ, אֲפִלּוּ בְּמֵזִיד - לֹא הִפְסִידוּ אֶת מְקוֹמָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כְּאָדָם שֶׁיָּצָא בְּאֹנֶס וְחָזַר בְּאֹנֶס.

11When 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.27יאהַמּוֹסֵר בְּהֶמְתּוֹ לִבְנוֹ, הֲרֵי הִיא כְּרַגְלֵי הָאָב. מְסָרָהּ לָרוֹעֶה, וַאֲפִלּוּ נְתָנָהּ לוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב - הֲרֵי הִיא כְּרַגְלֵי הָרוֹעֶה. מְסָרָהּ לִשְׁנֵי רוֹעִים - הֲרֵי הִיא כְּרַגְלֵי בְּעָלֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן.

12When 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.יבמִי שֶׁזִּמֵן אֶצְלוֹ אוֹרְחִים בְּיוֹם טוֹב, לֹא יוֹלִיכוּ בְּיָדָם מָנוֹת לְמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בַּעַל הַסְעוּדָה יָכוֹל לֵילֵךְ בּוֹ, שֶׁכָּל הַסְעוּדָה כְּרַגְלֵי בַּעַל הַסְעוּדָה, לֹא כְּרַגְלֵי הָאוֹרְחִין - אֶלָא אִם כֵּן זִכָּה לָהֶן אַחֵר בְּמָנוֹת אֵלּוּ, מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב.

13Similarly, 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.יגוְכֵן מִי שֶׁהָיוּ פֵּרוֹתָיו מֻפְקָדִין בְּעִיר אַחֶרֶת, וְעֵרְבוּ בְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר לָבוֹא אֶצְלוֹ - לֹא יָבִיאוּ לוֹ מִפֵּרוֹתָיו, שֶׁפֵּרוֹתָיו כָּמוֹהוּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן בְּיַד אֵלּוּ שֶׁעֵרְבוּ.

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.32בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּשֶׁיִחֵד לָהֶן קֶרֶן זָוִית; אֲבָל אִם לֹא יִחֵד לָהֶן קֶרֶן זָוִית, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי זֶה שֶׁהֵן מֻפְקָדִין אֶצְלוֹ.

14The 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.ידבּוֹר שֶׁל יָּחִיד, כְּרַגְלֵי בְּעָלָיו; וְשֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, כְּרַגְלֵי אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר; וְשֶׁל עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל שֶׁהֵן מְסוּרִין לַכֹּל, כְּרַגְלֵי הַמְּמַלֵּא - שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁמִּלָּא מֵהֶן, מוֹלִיכָן לִמְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא מְהַלֵּךְ. נְהָרוֹת הַמּוֹשְׁכִין וּמַעְיָנוֹת הַנּוֹבְעִין, כְּרַגְלֵי כָּל אָדָם. וְאִם הָיוּ בָּאִין מִחוּץ לַתְּחוּם לְתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, מְמַלְּאִין מֵהֶן בַּשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּיוֹם טוֹב.

15The 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.טושׁוֹר שֶׁל רוֹעֶה, כְּרַגְלֵי אַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר; וְשׁוֹר שֶׁל פַטָּם, כְּרַגְלֵי מִי שֶׁלְּקָחוֹ לְשָׁחַטוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּעַת בְּעָלָיו לְמָכְרוֹ לָאֲנָשִׁים אֲחֵרִים חוּץ מֵאַנְשֵׁי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְפֻטָּם וְהַכֹּל שׁוֹמְעִין שִׁמְעוֹ וּבָאִין לְקַחְתּוֹ.

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.וְכֵן אִם שְׁחָטוֹ בְּעָלָיו בְּיוֹם טוֹב וּמָכַר בְּשָׂרוֹ, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִן הַלּוֹקְחִים מוֹלִיךְ מְנָתוֹ לְמָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדַּעַת בְּעָלָיו מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב כָּךְ הוּא, שֶׁיִּקְּחוּ מִמֶּנּוּ אַנְשֵׁי עֲיָרוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת, וְנִמְצָא שׁוֹר זֶה כְּבוֹר שֶׁל עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל, שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לַכֹּל.

16The 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.טזהַגַּחֶלֶת - כְּרַגְלֵי בְּעָלֶיהָ, לֹא כְּרַגְלֵי שׁוֹאֲלָהּ; וְהַשַּׁלְהֶבֶת, כְּרַגְלֵי מִי שֶׁהִיא בְּיָדוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ הַמַּדְלִיק נֵר אוֹ עֵץ מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, מוֹלִיכוֹ לְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ.

17When 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.42יזהַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּלִי מֵחֲבֵרוֹ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נְתָנוֹ לוֹ אֶלָא בְּיוֹם טוֹב - הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי הַשּׁוֹאֵל. שְׁאָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ תָּמִיד לִשְׁאֹל מִמֶּנּוּ כְּלִי בְּכָל יוֹם טוֹב - הֲרֵי הוּא כְּרַגְלֵי הַמַּשֶׁאִיל.

18When 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.יחשְׁנַיִם שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ חֲלוּק אֶחָד, הָאֶחָד שְׁאָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לוֹ שַׁחַרִית וְהַשֵּׁנִי שְׁאָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁיִּתְּנוֹ לוֹ עַרְבִית - הֲרֵי כְּלִי זֶה כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁנֵי הַשּׁוֹאֲלִים, וְאֵינָם מוֹלִיכִים אוֹתוֹ אֶלָא לִמְקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם יְכוֹלִין לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ.

19What 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 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 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.44יטכֵּיצַד? הֲרֵי שֶׁעֵרַב הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּרִחוּק אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הַחֲלוּק לְמִזְרָח, וְעֵרַב הַשֵּׁנִי בְּרִחוּק חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הַחֲלוּק לְמַעְרָב - כְּשֶׁלּוֹקֵחַ הָרִאשׁוֹן הַחֲלוּק, אֵינוֹ מוֹלִיכוֹ בְּמִזְרָח אֶלָא עַד אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הַחֲלוּק, שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַתְּחוּם שֶׁיָּכוֹל זֶה שֶׁעֵרַב בְּמַעְרָב לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ; וּכְשֶׁיִּקַּח הַשֵּׁנִי כְּלִי זֶה, אֵינוֹ מוֹלִיכוֹ בְּמַעְרָב אֶלָא עַד אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִמְּקוֹם הַכְּלִי, שֶׁהוּא סוֹף הַתְּחוּם שֶׁיָּכוֹל זֶה שֶׁעֵרַב בְּמִזְרָח לְהַלֵּךְ בּוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם עֵרַב זֶה בְּרִחוּק אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה מִן הַחֲלוּק לְמִזְרָח וְזֶה בְּרִחוּק אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְמַעְרָב - הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יְזִיזוּהוּ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ.

20Similarly, 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.כוְכֵן הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלָה מֵחֲבֶרְתָּהּ מַיִם אוֹ מֶלַח, וְלָשָׁה בָּהֶן עִיסָתָהּ אוֹ בִּשְּׁלָה בָּהֶן תַּבְשִׁיל - הֲרֵי הָעִיסָה אוֹ הַתַּבְשִׁיל כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁלָּקְחוּ בְּהֵמָה בְּשֻׁתָּפוּת וּשְׁחָטוּהָ 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 כָל אֶחָד כְּרַגְלָיו.

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.47הוֹאִיל וּתְחוּמִין מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה בָּהֶן, וְנַחְשֹׁב כְּאִלּוּ חֵלֶק שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְזֶה הָיָה בָּרוּר לוֹ וּמֻבְדָּל בֶּחָבִית מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב, וּכְאִלּוּ לֹא הָיָה מְעֹרָב.

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.48וְאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר כֵּן בַּבְּהֵמָה. שֶׁחֵלֶק זֶה שֶׁהִגִּיעוֹ, אֲפִלּוּ נַחְשֹׁב אוֹתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מֻבְדָּל בַּבְּהֵמָה מִבָּעֶרֶב, וּכְאִלּוּ הָיָה בָּרוּר - הֲרֵי יָנַק מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ כְּשֶׁהָיְתָה הַבְּהֵמָה קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁכָּל אֵבָרֶיהָ יוֹנְקִין זֶה מִזֶּה וְנִמְצָא כָּל אֵבֶר וְאֵבֶר מְעֹרָב מֵחֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ, לְפִיכָךְ הֵן כְּרַגְלֵי שְׁנֵיהֶן.

« Previous

Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter 4

Shevitat Yom Tov - Chapter 6

Footnotes

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 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.

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 caחied 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).

10.

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... “

11.

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).

12.

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.

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

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 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.

16.

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.

17.

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).

18.

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).

19.

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.

20.

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.

21.

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. 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.

22.

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.

23.

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.

24.

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).

25.

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.)

26.

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.

27.

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).

28.

Since the food belonged to the host at the beginning of the holiday, the holiday limits in which it may be carried are depe, ndent 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.

29.

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).

30.

And he did not establish an eruv.

31.

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.

32.

For they are responsible for the article.

33.

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

34.

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.

35.

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.)

36.

Seemingly, the intent of the latter phrase is the same as “those of the person who draws the water.” [lndeed, 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.

37.

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.

38.

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.

39.

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

40.

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.

41.

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 ofthe 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).

42.

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.

43.

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.

44.

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

45.

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

46.

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.

47.

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.

48.

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.

Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.

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.

More in this section

You may also be interested in...