Siman 495

Six days in the year, and in the diaspora twelve days, are yamim tovim. And these are they: the first day of Pesah, and in the diaspora two days; and the seventh of Pesah, and in the diaspora also the eighth of Pesah; and Shavuot one day, and in the diaspora two days; and Rosh Hashanah one day, and in the diaspora two days, and now also in Eretz Yisrael so; and on the first of the festival of Sukkot, and in the diaspora two days; and on Shemini Atzeret, and in the diaspora one more day.

The Torah forbade labor on these days, except for labor involving food preparation, as it is written in parashat Bo (Exodus 12:16): "No labor shall be done on them; only what every person must eat, that alone may be prepared for you." Therefore, in Emor (Leviticus 23:7) and in Pinehas (Numbers 28:18) it is written: "You shall do no laborious work," meaning: that labor involving food preparation is not "laborious work," but rather labor of pleasure to delight the body. And that which is written at the end of Re'eh (Deuteronomy 16:8) regarding the seventh day of Pesach, "you shall do no labor" – it was not concerned to specify "laborious work," because it already specified this in Emor and in Pinehas. Therefore, it spoke briefly in Mishneh Torah, and several mitzvot were shortened in Mishneh Torah, as is known.

Therefore, anyone who rests from creative labor on one of them has fulfilled a positive commandment, as it is stated regarding them "shabbaton," meaning: you shall rest from labor. And anyone who performs labor on one of them has transgressed a negative commandment of "you shall not do any creative labor." And this is what is common in the Shas to say that Yom Tov is a "positive commandment" and a "negative commandment," meaning: that one who performs labor transgresses the positive commandment of "shabbaton," and the negative commandment of "you shall not do any creative labor." (And thus Rashi explained in Beitzah 8b.)

Regarding all the festivals it is written, "it shall be a holy convocation (mikra kodesh) for you." And it is expounded in Torat Kohanim, Parshat Emor, and in the Mechilta, Parshat Bo: "A holy convocation" – sanctify it. With what do you sanctify it? With food and with drink, and with clean clothing. And in Rosh Hashanah (32a) we say: "A holy convocation" – this refers to the sanctification of the day. And it seems to me that also in Torat Kohanim and in the Mechilta this is the explanation: "A holy convocation" – sanctify it, meaning with the sanctification of the day: in kiddush, and in prayer, and in the grace after meals. With what do you sanctify it? Meaning: with what will there be an actual practical recognition that this day is holy to you? With food, and drink, and clean clothing. That you shall not eat as on a weekday, and you shall not drink as on a weekday, and you shall not dress as on a weekday. And this is the delight (oneg) of Yom Tov, and it follows that the delight of Yom Tov is like a commandment from the Torah (so it seems in my humble opinion).

Even though on Shabbat if one performed many melachot in one lapse of awareness—he is liable for each and every melacha, as is written in siman 242, and behold on Yom Tov there is no sacrifice for an unintentional act, since for an intentional act there is only a negative commandment. However, if one performed many melachot with a single warning, it should logically follow that he should be lashed for each and every melacha, just as on Shabbat he is liable for a chatat for every melacha even if they were in one lapse of awareness. Nevertheless, it is not so, and one who performs many melachot with a single warning, such as if he built, and demolished, and sowed, and wove, and the like—he is lashed only once. And so our sages, of blessed memory, said (Makkot 21b): The division of melachot applies to Shabbat, but the division of melachot does not apply to Yom Tov. For on Shabbat there is an exposition for this as is written there, which is not the case for Yom Tov.

We learned in a Mishnah at the beginning of the third chapter of Beitzah (23b): One may not hunt fish from ponds on Yom Tov, even though slaughtering, baking, and cooking are among the primary categories of labor, and they were permitted for the needs of Yom Tov. The reason: because it is impossible to do them on the eve of Yom Tov, for regarding slaughtering—one is concerned about the meat becoming warm and spoiling. But regarding hunting, it is possible to hunt it while it is still day, and leave it in its net in the water and it will not die, and the next day he may take it. Thus far the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory. The explanation of his words: that which the Torah permitted the labor of food preparation on Yom Tov—this is because hot bread, and cooking that one cooks today, and meat that one slaughters today, are better. But regarding hunting, even though fish from today are better than those from yesterday—nevertheless, he is able to hunt them on the eve of Yom Tov and keep them in the water, and they will be as good as if they were hunted today.

And behold, even though there is one who says that the intention of Rashi is that the prohibition regarding things that one could have done on the eve of Yom Tov and they would not spoil is only rabbinic (Magen Gibborim), nevertheless, many have agreed that his intention is that the prohibition is from the Torah (Yam Shel Shlomo and Penei Yehoshua, and so wrote the Ran, see there). And so wrote the Semag in the name of Rabbeinu Yitzchak the Elder, the author of the Tosafot. This is the wording of the Semag at the beginning of the laws of Yom Tov: Our teacher Yitzchak bar Shmuel says that regarding preparatory acts—it is logical that they should be permitted from the Torah in every case if the Merciful One did not exclude them, for they would be just as good if they were done yesterday as if they were done today. But food preparation is certainly prohibited from the Torah, except for a thing that spoils if it were done yesterday. Thus far his words. And the Ran also wrote that it appears explicitly from the Yerushalmi that they are from the Torah. And even the baraita in Shabbat (95a), as it is taught: One who sweeps, and one who sprinkles, and one who removes honeycombs; if he did so intentionally on Yom Tov, he receives forty lashes, see there—it implies this.

There is another approach in the Yerushalmi, Beitzah chapter one (halacha 10). It is stated: From where do we know that one may not sort, nor grind, nor sift? Rabbi Acha in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: "No work shall be done on them" until "And you shall guard the matzot." Rabbi Yose asked: Did they learn anything for cooking? Rather from here, Rabbi Yose did not say so. Rather, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: "Save that which every soul must eat, that alone may be done for you" until "And you shall guard the matzot." Chizkiyahu taught and disagreed: "Save," "it," "alone" — these are exclusions, that one may not reap, nor grind, nor sift on Yom Tov. Thus far the wording of the Yerushalmi. And the explanation is: that the Torah only permitted from kneading and onward, which is the time of guarding the matzah. But not the preceding labors, which are not typically performed immediately before eating, but rather a long time before, such as reaping and grinding and sifting. And regarding sorting, they disagree.

And behold, in the Mishnayot at the end of the first chapter of Beitzah, Beit Hillel permit the pounding of spices and the selection of legumes. However, in truth, the Yerushalmi explains there that even though pounding is a subcategory of grinding—nevertheless it is permitted, because it is grinding in an unusual manner. And that matter of selection is rejected, see there carefully, for it says that there is a dispute of Rabban Gamliel and the Rabbis regarding this. And from the words of the Rosh at the beginning of the third chapter, it appears that this Yerushalmi is a mere asmakhta. And it is a wonder to say so, for previously it says there: One who selects, or grinds, or sifts on Shabbat—is stoned, and on Yom Tov—receives the forty lashes; see there. And so it is in the Yerushalmi in Kelal Gadol, Halacha 2, see there. And according to the Yerushalmi, that which is found at the beginning of Beitzah is well-understood: a decree lest one climb and pluck. But according to the explanation of Rashi it is somewhat difficult: for it is certainly true that fruit plucked today is superior to fruit plucked yesterday, as the Ra'avad wrote in the Hassagot, chapter 1, law 8, and this is his wording: In all of these there is no reason why one should not pluck greens or gather fruit on Yom Tov from the tree, for those of the same day are more beautiful..., thus far his words. But according to the Yerushalmi it is settled, because they are not labors performed prior to the meal like kneading. (And the Ra'avad also wrote there: And the Yerushalmi supports it with the verse "save that which every soul must eat," thus far his words, which also implies that it is an asmakhta. Yet the Yerushalmi says: receives the forty lashes. And this requires great investigation.)

And this is the opinion of the Maharshal in Yam Shel Shlomo at the beginning of the third chapter, and this is his wording: Specifically those labors that are immediately ready for eating, such as slaughtering, and similarly from kneading and onward. But all other labors are intended for many days..., such as plucking fruit and harvesting grain, and even grinding is usually... for many days. And from the grinding of peppers there is no proof, because they are intended for eating since spices... lose their flavor. And even though salt does not lose its flavor, nevertheless it is not the way to make a storehouse of it after crushing, but rather one crushes for the need of a day or two... And the general rule that emerges for us: harvesting and grinding and plucking and trapping, and all that are similar to them, which are not ready for eating like slaughtering and kneading—it is forbidden by Torah law. And a change does not avail for it, even if it happened to him in a manner that it was not possible to do them while it was still day. And actual food for a person, even if it is possible to do them from the eve of Yom Tov—by Torah law it is permitted, and by Rabbinic law it is forbidden. And by means of a change it is permitted. And if it loses its flavor—it is permitted even without a change. Thus far his words, and this is the approach of the Yerushalmi. And from our Talmud there is no contradiction to this, and on the contrary, from that which we decree at the beginning of Beitzah lest one go up and pluck, it implies explicitly that plucking is a Torah prohibition. And the Tosafot in Beitzah agreed to this system.

However, the approach of the Rambam, the Rosh, and the Tosafot in Shabbat (95a) and several of the Rishonim, is that from the Torah all melakhot pertaining to food preparation are permitted, even reaping and grinding, and only by rabbinic decree did they forbid many melakhot. This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter one, law 5: Any melakha that can be performed on the eve of Yom Tov, and would involve neither loss nor deficiency—the sages forbade performing it on Yom Tov, even though it is for the purpose of eating. And why did they forbid this matter? A decree lest a person leave melakhot that can be performed on the eve of Yom Tov for Yom Tov, and it will result in the entirety of Yom Tov being spent in the performance of those melakhot, and he will be withheld from the joy of Yom Tov… and for this very same reason they did not forbid carrying on Yom Tov, even though carrying is possible on the eve of Yom Tov, in order to increase the joy of Yom Tov: he goes and brings whatever he desires, and his hands will not be as if they are bound. But other melakhot, since they involve labor—one may not perform them on Yom Tov. How so? One may not reap, nor thresh, nor winnow, nor select, nor grind wheat, nor sift on Yom Tov, for all these and their like can be performed on the eve of Yom Tov, and there is in this neither loss nor deficiency. Thus far his words.

The Ra'avad raised a difficulty: If so, why did they not permit the plucking of vegetables and fruits, for behold, those of the same day are better than those of yesterday? The Maggid Mishneh answered: That as long as in the essence of the labor there is no loss, they were not concerned with that part of it where there is a loss. And since regarding the essence of harvesting grain, those of yesterday are as good as those of today, they were not concerned to permit a part of this, namely fruits and vegetables, even though there is a loss in them. And even though they permitted the crushing of spices, even though it is a derivative of grinding, because this is like the preliminaries of food preparation, and regarding preliminaries they were lenient; see there. And he concluded: And it requires further study. And in truth, why would the sages be more lenient regarding preliminaries than regarding the food preparation itself? And also, it is impossible to say like the Yerushalmi that we brought in section 9, that it is specifically permitted by means of a change, for behold, the Rambam ruled explicitly in the third chapter, law 12, that spices do not require a change. And this is the way of the Rif: That the change mentioned in the Gemara is only regarding salt, see there. It appears more likely to say as the Ran wrote, that the sages only prohibited labor that is performed for many days, such as harvesting and plucking and grinding, even if it will spoil like the plucking of fruits and vegetables, and they are treated like the essence of the labor. But the crushing of spices, where the labor is not performed like the essence of grinding but rather in a mortar, and it is not performed for many days—they permitted, since they spoil from yesterday, see there. For in this, the reason of the Rambam—that he would be distracted by this from the joy of Yom Tov—also does not apply. And one cannot say that since, in any event, grinding in such a manner is permitted, if so let us say "since it was permitted for a need, it was also permitted not for a need." For this is not a difficulty at all, because the essence of the labor was not permitted, and this grinding is not the essence of the labor of a grinder, as I have written. And particularly according to the opinion of the Rambam that will be explained, we do not say "since" except regarding carrying and kindling, and not regarding other labors. (And according to this approach, one must say regarding that which one who scrapes honeycombs on Shabbat [Shabbat 95a] is lashed, that it does not refer to this but rather to one who sweeps and sprinkles, as the Ran wrote there; or like the words of the Tosafot there, that it deals with something that is not fit for eating. And regarding that which is at the beginning of Beitzah, "lest he go up and pluck," in truth the Rif and the Rambam did not rule based on this reason, but rather like the reason of Rabbah because of preparation, see there. Furthermore: just as they said there that it is all one decree, so too we say it is all one decree for Shabbat and for Yom Tov. And when they decreed on Shabbat—they also decreed on Yom Tov. And examine and you will find it easy.)

It is stated in Beitzah (12a) that regarding every melakhah that was permitted on Yom Tov for the sake of ochel nefesh, we say "Since it was permitted for a need – it was also permitted not for a need." And the reason appears to be: since it is written (Exodus 12:16) "Save that which every soul must eat – that alone may be done for you," it implies that the melakhah which is for eating – was permitted on Yom Tov (and so wrote the Pnei Yehoshua, see there). And according to the system of Rashi, even if there is no need in it at all – it is permitted. And so it is explained from the words of the Rambam there, as we will explain with the help of Heaven. However, the Tosafot and the Rosh proved from several proofs that specifically when there is a slight need, but not for any need at all – it is forbidden by the Torah. And they brought proofs from one who bakes on Yom Tov for a weekday, that he receives lashes. And even according to the one who does not hold he receives lashes, this is because of "ho'il" as will be explained. And if we say "mitokh" completely, why should he receive lashes and why do we need the reasoning of "ho'il"? Furthermore, we established: "for you" – and not for others, "for you" and not for animals; since we say "mitokh," why should it be forbidden? However, one could say according to the system of Rashi that this is not a comparison, for regarding a weekday and others, since the Torah forbade this explicitly – certainly he receives lashes. And it is not similar to a matter in which there is no need at all, for the Torah did not explicitly forbid this (and so wrote the Korban Netanel there).

And behold, according to the system of Rashi, Tosafot, and the Rosh, we say "mitokh" regarding all melakhot that are for the purpose of okhel nefesh. However, the system of the Rambam is that we only say this regarding the melakhot of hotza'ah and hav'arah. This is the wording of the Rambam there in law 4: Any melakhah for which one is liable on Shabbat, if he performed it on Yom Tov not for the purpose of eating—he is lashed; except for hotza'ah and hav'arah, for since hotza'ah was permitted on Yom Tov for the purpose of eating—it was permitted even not for the purpose of eating. Therefore, it is permitted on Yom Tov to carry out a minor, or a Sefer Torah, or a key, and the like from domain to domain. And similarly, it is permitted to kindle, even though it is not for the purpose of eating. And other melakhot—anything in which there is a purpose of eating is permitted, such as slaughtering, baking, cooking, and the like. And anything in which there is no purpose of eating—is forbidden, such as writing, weaving, building, and the like. Thus far his words. And according to his words, the difficulties of Tosafot and the Rosh are resolved regarding one who bakes from Yom Tov for a weekday, or one who cooks for others, for regarding baking and cooking we do not say "mitokh." (And it must be said that in his version of the Gemara in Beitzah 12b, the text "hav'arah and cooking is not a Mishnah" was not present, but rather "hav'arah" alone. And it is implied accordingly from how it concludes there: "So too we do not say since hav'arah was permitted for the purpose..., for if Beit Hillel..., since hav'arah was permitted for the purpose..." And it did not say cooking, see there.)

And his reasoning seems to me to be because we do not find in the Gemara this logic of "mitoch" except regarding these two melachot. And there is great logic to distinguish them from all other melachot regarding the matter of Yom Tov, because even on Shabbat, although they were included in the general rule of "you shall do no melacha," nevertheless there are verses for them on their own. For hotza'ah we learn on Shabbat at the beginning of HaZorek (Shabbat 96b) from "And Moshe commanded and they passed a voice through the camp" (Exodus 36:6), and as the Tosafot wrote at the beginning of Shabbat (starting with the words "Yitziot") that because hotza'ah is an inferior melacha, therefore if there were not a specific verse for it—we would not have included it in the general rule of melachot. See there. And regarding hav'arah there is the verse "You shall not kindle" (Exodus 35:3). And even though the Tannaim learn from this verse whether hav'arah was singled out for a negative commandment or singled out for separation, nevertheless, ultimately there is a verse for it on its own, which implies specifically on the Shabbat day. And furthermore: just as for the one who holds that hav'arah was singled out for a negative commandment—certainly there is no prohibition of hav'arah on Yom Tov, since it is not within the generality of "whoever does melacha on the Shabbat day shall surely be put to death." And furthermore: for a melacha that on Shabbat is punishable by stoning is a negative commandment on Yom Tov, and if so, hav'arah which on Shabbat is a negative commandment—on Yom Tov it would be nothing at all. And therefore even the one who holds it was singled out for separation, it is not within the general rule of melachot, for on this they did not disagree. (See Maggid Mishneh who wrote regarding hotza'ah: because it too is with food and drink. And it is not understood at all, for shechitah and cooking and baking are also with food and drink. And see Lechem Mishneh who wondered about him. And as for what the Lechem Mishneh questioned, that if so why do these two need the reason of "mitoch" since they are not within the general rule of melachot, see there—I wonder at this, for ultimately they too are within the general rule of "you shall do no melacha" of Shabbat, after we learned hotza'ah from the verse of "And Moshe commanded," and regarding hav'arah we hold that it was singled out for separation, rather we said that therefore they were distinguished regarding the matter of "mitoch" because there is a difference in them. Examine it and you will find it simple.) (And in Ketubot 7a where it says regarding chavurah "mitoch"—it does not stand so. And this is the explanation: what is your thinking to say regarding this also "mitoch," for it is not possible. And see in section 21).

And that which the Rambam wrote regarding hotza'ah, "to carry out a minor, or a Sefer Torah, or a key" – certainly from the Torah it is permitted even with stones and with anything that is not for a need at all, according to the method of Rashi, of blessed memory. However, by rabbinic decree it is forbidden. And indeed, that which he wrote that all other melakhot that involve a need for eating are permitted, such as shechitah…; and all those that do not involve a need for eating are forbidden, such as writing and weaving… – this is not relevant to that which he began. For hotza'ah and hav'arah are permitted even not for the need of eating, and he should have concluded that other melakhot such as shechitah and cooking are forbidden if they do not involve a need for eating. And what is the relevance of writing and weaving here? And the Maggid Mishneh explained that hotza'ah and hav'arah are like writing and weaving, but since they are needed for ochel nefesh, they were permitted entirely; see there. And the comparison is not understood at all. (And the words of the Lechem Mishneh, who wrote that writing and weaving are forbidden even for the need of ochel nefesh, and he rejected and elaborated and remained in need of further study. And all these matters are wondrous. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

And in my humble opinion, it appears that this is the explanation: for this is the difference between hotza'ah and hav'arah and other melachot of ochel nefesh, for hotza'ah and hav'arah are permitted even not for the purpose of ochel nefesh, but other melachot of ochel nefesh, such as shechitah and baking and cooking – were only permitted for the purpose of the ochel nefesh of a Yisrael and what is needed on Yom Tov. But anything not for the purpose – they are forbidden, like writing and weaving and building, for they certainly have no connection to ochel nefesh; likewise shechitah and cooking and baking. And that which he said "such as writing and weaving" is "like writing and weaving," meaning: that shechitah not for the purpose of ochel nefesh is like writing.

We learn in Pesachim (46b): One who bakes on Yom Tov for a weekday, Rav Chisda said: He is lashed. Rava said: He is not lashed, since if guests should happen to visit him, it would be fit for him. And the halacha follows Rava. Therefore, the Rambam ruled there that one who cooks on Yom Tov for others, or for an animal, or for a weekday—he is not lashed, for if guests came to him, that cooked food would be fit for them. Thus far his words. And I saw that there is a difference between the words of the Rambam and the commentary of Rashi. For from the wording of the Rambam, it is clear that even when one explicitly cooks for others or for an animal or for a weekday—he is not lashed, for the reason that if guests should happen to visit him, it would be fit for them. But Rashi, of blessed memory (starting with the words "One who bakes"), explained: One who bakes on Yom Tov for a weekday after he has eaten and finished his meal, where it is obvious to us that it is not fit for him from now until evening which is a weekday. Thus far his words. From this it is clear that it is not that he explicitly cooked and baked for a weekday, for in such a case he would certainly be lashed, and likewise in one who cooks for others or for an animal. Rather, here we are dealing with a case where it appears to be for a weekday because he has already eaten, for in this case we say "since...". And according to both of them, this is certainly so if he baked and cooked close to darkness that he is lashed, for in such a case it is not relevant to say "if guests should happen to visit," for they would not come until the night. And we have already explained why we do not say "since" according to Rashi, because it is explicitly proven that it is for a weekday or for others or for dogs, for in this the Torah explicitly prohibited. This is not the case when it is for no need at all, which is more lenient because the Torah did not prohibit this labor. And according to the Rambam it works out well simply, because we only say "since" regarding carrying and kindling. (And that which is implied in Ketubot 7a that we also say "since" regarding wounding will be explained in section 20, and as I wrote at the end of section 15).

And know that I have a great wonder regarding the Rambam, for he omitted in the laws of Yom Tov the law that we require a matter that is equal for every soul. And in Ketubot 7a it is explicitly stated that the prohibition of incense is because we require a matter that is equal for every soul. And so Rashi and the Ran explained regarding the prohibition of incense in the Mishnah in Beitzah (22b). And so too in the Mishnah there (21b) regarding the prohibition of heating water for washing one's entire body, the Tosafot wrote (in the comment beginning "Lo") that the reason for the prohibition is because it is not equal for every soul but only for the pampered. But the Rambam in chapter 1, halacha 16, wrote regarding the reason for the prohibition of heating water for the sake of washing one's entire body—that it is due to the decree of the bathhouses, see there. And so it is clear from the words of the Rif there, who wrote that the prohibition is due to a decree, see there. And regarding the reason for incense, the Rambam wrote in chapter 4, halacha 6, that the reason is because of extinguishing, for at the time one places the incense upon the coals he extinguishes the fire. And in no place did he mention the reason of being equal for every soul.

It appears to me regarding its reasoning, for behold in Ketubot (7a) Rava Papi and Rav Papa disagreed according to Rava, concerning the initial act of intimacy with a virgin on Shabbat and Yom Tov. For Rav Papi said that it is permitted even on Shabbat, and so we hold as the Rambam wrote in chapter thirty of Shabbat and the Tur and siman 280, for such is the conclusion there. And Rav Papa permits on Yom Tov and forbids on Shabbat. And Rav Papi said to Rav Papa: What is your reasoning that you permit on Yom Tov more than Shabbat? Because on Yom Tov we say: Since wounding was permitted for the sake of food, such as in slaughtering—it was also permitted not for its sake. If so, it should be permitted to make incense on Yom Tov, for since kindling was permitted...? And he said to him: Concerning you the verse stated "for every soul"—something that is equal for every soul. And the Tosafot asked: Does Rav Papi then not hold that we say "since"? But is this not the reasoning of Beit Hillel regarding carrying out a child or a Torah scroll? And they answered that he was of the opinion that the reasoning of Beit Hillel is because there is no eruv and carrying..., thus far his words. And it is further difficult to me regarding what he asked: If so, it should be permitted to make incense...—what was difficult to him? For in truth Rabban Gamliel permits in the Mishnah of Beitzah there, and the Rabbis who forbid it is due to the reason of extinguishing.

And it appears in my humble opinion that this is its explanation, and thus Rava Papi said to him: It is well according to me, for I say that even on Shabbat it is permitted to have intercourse, as there is neither a prohibition of opening nor of wounding—it is correct that we do not need to say that regarding wounding we say "since," for in truth we only say "since" regarding carrying and kindling. And the reason for incense is because of the concern of extinguishing, but from the Torah it is permitted, by the reasoning that since kindling was permitted for a necessity, it was also permitted not for a necessity. But according to you, that on Shabbat it is forbidden due to wounding, and there is also a concern of opening as explained there previously in the sugya, see there; if so, according to you, why is it permitted on Yom Tov? Perforce one must say that even regarding wounding we say "since," and therefore they permitted it on Yom Tov even though there is a concern of opening. If that is so, it should be permitted to make incense, meaning that since regarding kindling we certainly say "since," if so, the sages should not have forbidden incense due to the concern of extinguishing, just as they were not concerned regarding intercourse due to the concern of opening. And he answered him that regarding incense, in his opinion the prohibition is from the Torah, because it is not equal for every soul. And this is all according to Rav Pappa. But we, who hold like Rav Papi—we do not hold "since" regarding wounding, and we do not hold the prohibition of that which is not equal for every soul. And this is the reasoning of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in all his words, as we have explained with the help of Heaven.

And regarding the preliminaries of food preparation, we have not found a clear matter for the halacha. For behold, in the Gemara (28b) it brings a baraita that the sages completely forbid preliminaries, as it is written "it" – and not its preliminaries. And Rabbi Yehuda permits them, as it is written "for you" – for all your needs. And that which is written "it" – this refers to preliminaries that it was possible to perform on the eve of Yom Tov, which are forbidden. And that which is written "for you" – this refers to preliminaries that it was impossible to perform on the eve of Yom Tov. And it says there previously, Rava said to Rav Chisda: Do we expound in your name that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda? And he said to him: May it be the will [of Heaven] that all such excellent matters be expounded in my name. See there. Behold, it is explicit that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda. And so it is explained from the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in this siman, who wrote: And so too the preliminaries of food preparation that it was not possible to perform yesterday – are permitted. And this is according to Rabbi Yehuda. And so wrote the Smag and the Rosh, that the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda.

And behold, there in the Gemara it is stated that Rava Chisda expounded: Whether a knife that was nicked, or a spit that was flattened, or the scraping of an oven or a stove on Yom Tov – we have come to the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. See there. And since we hold according to Rabbi Yehuda – it should be permitted. And likewise previously there, regarding "one may not sharpen the knife on Yom Tov," it says there: Who is the Tanna that holds it is forbidden with a whetstone? Rav Chisda said it is not according to Rabbi Yehuda. See there. And since we hold according to Rabbi Yehuda, it should be permitted to sharpen the knife. And likewise in the second chapter (22a) it says: Abba bar Marta asked Abaye: What is the law regarding extinguishing a lamp for the sake of intimacy...? He said to him: It is forbidden. He raised an objection: One may not extinguish a log in order to save it. But if it is so that the house or the pot should not be filled with smoke – it is permitted?! He said to him: That is Rabbi Yehuda; when I spoke – it was according to the Rabbis. See there. And since we hold according to Rabbi Yehuda – it should be permitted to extinguish the lamp for the sake of intimacy. Yet the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch all ruled to forbid it.

This is their wording in siman 514: One may not extinguish a log, even so that the house or the pot does not become smoky, or in order to engage in marital relations. Thus far their words. And in siman 509 they wrote: A spit that was bent, one may not repair it... and one may not sharpen a knife on its whetstone. See there. Only regarding the scraping of an oven and stove did they rule in siman 507 that it is permitted when it is impossible to bake without this. See there. And it is not understood: why was this law changed to be permitted, unlike all other instruments for food preparation? (And in siman 509 this will be explained with the help of Heaven.)

And from the words of our teachers I have learned reasons for all of this: because in the Gemara there we say the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda but we do not instruct so. Therefore, everyone ruled to prohibit, except for the scraping of an oven or a stove, for this is a prevention of actual okhel nefesh, as it is impossible to bake without this and therefore it is permitted. And a support for this is from what the Rambam wrote in chapter 1, law 8, and this is his wording: And so too the preparatory requirements of okhel nefesh that involve a loss, if they could have been done from the eve of the festival – one may do them on Yom Tov, such as the grinding of spices and the like. Thus far his words. And it is difficult: since he compares the grinding of spices to the preparatory requirements of okhel nefesh, how did he permit it? For in all of them he ruled to prohibit. Rather, certainly when it touches upon okhel nefesh itself, it is permitted. And therefore in chapter 3, law 10, regarding the scraping of an oven, he also ruled to permit when it is impossible to bake without scraping, see there. And according to this, the Rambam also holds like all the poskim. And I wonder at the Maggid Mishneh, chapter 4, law 8, regarding a spit that was bent which the Rambam prohibits, who wrote that the Rambam ruled not like Rabbi Yehuda but like the Rabbanan, see there. And the matters are astonishing, for he explicitly ruled in the first chapter like Rabbi Yehuda, as I have written. And his opinion is like the opinion of the Rif, except that he distinguishes between preparatory requirements that touch upon the okhel nefesh itself or not. And behold, in the laws we have cited there are further details, such as those who hold that a whetstone of stone is prohibited even according to Rabbi Yehuda. And they will be explained with the help of Heaven, each one in its place. (And see Beit Yosef siman 509 who elaborated on this. And according to our words, everything works out well. And since it is only that we do not instruct so, but as a matter of law the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda – an individual may be lenient in a time of pressing need, as the Taz wrote at the beginning of siman 514 in the name of the Maharshal, see there. And see in section 34).

Regarding the matter of extinguishing on Yom Tov for the purpose of food preparation, it is explained in the Gemara (23a) that it is permitted, as it says there: Rava said: Upon a coal it is also permitted, just as it is with meat upon coals. Rashi explained (starting with the words "Rava said"): And if it is because of extinguishing and kindling and creating a scent, it is just as it is with meat upon coals, where all of these exist and it is permitted. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in siman 507 at the end of section 4, and this is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there: And even though he extinguishes—it is impossible without it. And just as it is permitted to kindle for the purpose of food preparation, so it is permitted to extinguish for the purpose of food preparation. And this is like one who places meat upon coals. And such is the custom. Thus far his words, and so wrote the Maggid Mishneh in chapter 3, law 10 in the name of the Rashba, and this is his wording: And to sweep the oven of the ash and the coals after heating—it appears to me that it is permitted. And even though he extinguishes—it is impossible without it. And just as it is permitted to kindle for the purpose of food preparation, so too it is permitted to extinguish… Thus far his words. And that which the Rambam in chapter 4 prohibited incense on the grounds of extinguishing—it is because this is not actual food preparation, and the sages did not want to permit it. And proof for this: for there he permitted smoking under fruit even though he extinguishes, and he wrote the reason that it is similar to meat upon coals, see there. Rather, it is certainly as I have written. And there are detailed laws in this, and they will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 511. However, in any event, we have heard as the law that for actual food preparation—extinguishing is permitted, and for that which is not food preparation—it is prohibited; even if the thing is permitted to be done on Yom Tov, nevertheless, by way of extinguishing it is prohibited. And there it will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Regarding the matter of muktzeh on Yom Tov, the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: There is a matter in which they were more stringent on Yom Tov than on Shabbat, such as the prohibition of muktzeh according to the Rav Alfas. For even though we hold regarding Shabbat like Rabbi Shimon, on Yom Tov he ruled like Rabbi Yehuda because it is light, and they were stringent regarding it so that they should not come to treat it with disrespect. And so ruled the She'iltot, and so ruled the Rambam, of blessed memory. But the Bahag, and Rashi, and the Ri, and our teacher Tam rule like Rabbi Shimon, whether on Shabbat or on Yom Tov. However, our teacher Tam would distinguish, saying that the halacha is not like Rabbi Shimon except regarding muktzeh, but regarding nolad the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda. And so our teacher Chananel ruled like Rabbi Shimon even on Yom Tov, except regarding muktzeh due to a prohibition and nolad he ruled like Rabbi Yehuda on Yom Tov. Thus far the wording of the Tur. And see what I wrote above in siman 308, section 6, see there. And the details of the laws of muktzeh were explained there and in siman 310, see there.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 1, law 17: Everything that is forbidden on Shabbat, whether because it resembles a labor or leads to a labor, or whether it is because of a shevut—it is forbidden on Yom Tov, unless it involves the need for eating and the like, or matters that are permitted on Yom Tov, as will be explained in these laws. And everything that is forbidden to be moved on Shabbat is forbidden to be moved on Yom Tov except for the need of eating and the like. And everything that is permitted on Shabbat is permitted on Yom Tov. And there is that which applies to Yom Tov which does not apply to Shabbat: the prohibition of muktzeh, for muktzeh is forbidden on Yom Tov and permitted on Shabbat. Because Yom Tov is lighter than Shabbat, they forbade muktzeh within it, lest people come to treat it lightly. How so? A hen designated for raising eggs, and an ox designated for plowing, and dovecote pigeons, and fruits designated for merchandise—all these and their like are muktzeh, and it is forbidden to eat from them on Yom Tov until one prepares them from the evening before and intends for them to be for eating. But as for Shabbat—everything is prepared for Shabbat and does not require preparation. And just as muktzeh is forbidden on Yom Tov, so too nolad is forbidden. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words: That which we said, that they were more stringent regarding the matter of muktzeh on Yom Tov than on Shabbat, is not a general rule for all types of muktzeh. For behold, there are many more types of muktzeh on Shabbat than on Yom Tov, such as the muktzeh of living creatures, which are forbidden on Shabbat, while on Yom Tov those designated for eating are permitted. And so too the muktzeh of fire, coals, and wood, which are forbidden on Shabbat and permitted on Yom Tov, for it must be so since on Yom Tov food preparation is permitted; consequently, muktzeh does not apply to them, which is not the case on Shabbat. And the stringency is only in one specific detail: muktzeh according to its name. And that is, that which he set aside from his mind, meaning: that it is fit for eating but he set it aside from his mind. For the hen he set aside for eggs, and the ox for plowing, and the pigeons for raising pigeons, and the fruits for merchandise, for on Yom Tov they are forbidden and require invitation. But on Shabbat, that which is fit for Shabbat, such as fruits for merchandise—they are permitted without invitation. (And his reasoning is clear: for regarding the Mishnah of an egg that was laid on Yom Tov, they said in the Gemara that Yom Tov is more stringent than Shabbat in that it has this muktzeh and also nolad, and regarding a hen designated for raising eggs, see there. And this is the goat for its milk and the ewe for its shearing in the first chapter of Shabbat 19b, where Rav forbade slaughtering them on Yom Tov as Rashi explained there, unless one invited them. And the halacha is like him regarding Yom Tov.)

And know: that even though in several matters our sages, of blessed memory, were more stringent regarding Shabbat than regarding Yom Tov, as we learned in Beitzah at the beginning of the fifth chapter: We may drop fruit through a roof-opening on Yom Tov but not on Shabbat. And in Beitzah (21b) regarding consecrated items it says: Shabbat shevut is different from Yom Tov shevut, meaning that they were more stringent regarding Shabbat. And in Yevamot (114a) regarding one who is in pain, where they permitted him to suckle from a pure animal, it says: Detaching in an unusual manner, on Shabbat which is a capital prohibition—the rabbis decreed against it; on Yom Tov which is a negative prohibition—the rabbis did not decree against it. See there. If so, why were they more stringent regarding muktzeh of preparation on Yom Tov more than on Shabbat? For the reason is this: Certainly in matters that are not constant but incidental, such as dropping fruit when rain falls, or regarding consecrated items where it happened that they slaughtered them not for their sake, or when one is in pain and close to becoming ill and needs healing, and there is a concern of coming to a complete prohibition—it is obvious that they were more stringent on Shabbat than on Yom Tov, because Shabbat is a capital prohibition and Yom Tov is a negative prohibition. And even though in Yevamot (82a) we say: Anything that is from the Torah, there is no difference between a negative prohibition and a kared prohibition, nevertheless Rashi already explained there (119a, starting with the words "Mah") that this is regarding a doubt, that one must be concerned for a doubtful negative prohibition just as for a doubtful kared prohibition. But regarding a distancing decree—certainly one must be more concerned for the distancing of kared than the distancing of a negative prohibition. See there. But here where they were more stringent on Yom Tov—it is only in a constant matter regarding the preparation of foods for Yom Tov, so that one should not take from whatever comes to his hand as on a weekday. And we require that he prepare them from the eve of Yom Tov, to know that today is Yom Tov and not a weekday. For even though the Torah permitted food preparation, nevertheless it is not exactly like a weekday and requires preparation, and in a matter that he set aside from his mind—it is forbidden. And this is a reinforcement so as not to treat Yom Tov lightly, for it is light in the eyes of people because of the permission for food preparation that the Torah permitted. (See Mishneh LaMelekh there who labored over this. And according to our words it works out well with simplicity; examine it and you will find it easy.)

And know that we have a great question on the Rif and the Rambam who ruled that muktzeh is more stringent on Yom Tov than on Shabbat. For in the fourth chapter of Beitzah (31b) we learned in a Mishnah: A house that is full of fruit and was breached — one may take from the place of the breach. And the Gemara asks: But is this not muktzeh? And it answers: They said this regarding Yom Tov and not regarding Shabbat. That is to say: that on Yom Tov they permitted muktzeh for the sake of ochel nefesh for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov, and not on Shabbat. Behold, it is explicit that regarding muktzeh itself they were more lenient on Yom Tov than on Shabbat. And our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote in three places in Beitzah (ibid. starting with the words "Amar", and page 8b starting with the words "Amar", and page 28b starting with the words "Gerifat") that muktzeh is permitted because of ochel nefesh.

However, according to what we have explained, it works out well. For certainly it is so, that Yom Tov is much more lenient than Shabbat, but this is regarding a matter of happenstance even in mokezeh, such as a house full of fruit that was breached, which is a happenstance. And similarly, the scraping of an oven when it is impossible to bake in another manner, such as when plaster fell into it and he did not know while it was still day (Rashi 28b, starting with "And one"), for this is a happenstance. And that which they were stringent regarding muktzeh, this refers to a permanent designation, so that he should not take on Yom Tov from whatever comes to his hand as on a weekday. And if he set them aside not to eat them—they are forbidden, unless he designates them from the eve of Yom Tov, as I have written. And this is the essence of the sanctity of Yom Tov: so that they shall know that it is true that the Torah permitted food preparation on Yom Tov, however, they require designation from the eve of Yom Tov, and not to take from the muktzeh items that he set aside from eating as on a weekday.

Regarding the matter of the resting of one's animal on Yom Tov, for on Shabbat this is divided into two parts: The first is placing a load upon it, and this is certainly permitted in a reshut ha-rabim. For on Shabbat the prohibition is in a reshut ha-rabim, and on Yom Tov even the person himself is permitted to carry in a reshut ha-rabim, as there is no prohibition of hotza'ah in a reshut ha-rabim, and his animal is not more stringent than himself. However, there is another type of resting for an animal, which is that he shall not perform melakhah with it. And this is relevant even on Yom Tov. And we have already written above in siman 246, section 15, that there are those who say that even this does not apply on Yom Tov, for "so that your ox may rest" is written regarding Shabbat, and not regarding Yom Tov. And this is the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, there. And consequently, the resting of a manservant and maidservant also does not exist on Yom Tov, as I wrote there. And there are those who say that Yom Tov is like Shabbat. And in the Yerushalmi, the fifth chapter of Beitzah, they said that one may not ride on an animal on Yom Tov because of the resting of one's animal. And for the halakhah, we explained there with the help of Heaven. And we also explained that mehamer likewise is not relevant on Yom Tov, see there section 16. And nevertheless it is prohibited, as I wrote in section 37.

And after we have clarified with the help of Heaven the principles of the melachot of Yom Tov according to the opinions of our teachers, the Rishonim, we shall return and see toward what the opinions of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, incline. Behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: Any melacha that is forbidden on Shabbat is forbidden on Yom Tov, except for melacha of ochel nefesh, and except for hotza'ah and hav'arah. And similarly, machshirei ochel nefesh that it was not possible to perform yesterday. And harvesting, grinding, grape-gathering, squeezing, and trapping, even though they are melacha of ochel nefesh—the sages forbade them. Thus far his words, and this is the method of the Rambam, of blessed memory, because it is possible to perform them on the eve of Yom Tov such that they will not spoil. And they were concerned that with such major melachot, one would be distracted from the joy of Yom Tov, as I wrote in section 11. (And see Taz, subsection 2, and Magen Avraham, subsection 4. And that which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 1, that he intended the lowering of fruits mentioned in siman 521—it requires further study; for certainly the Beit Yosef did not intend this. And the Machatzit HaShekel was forced to say his intention was regarding the Tur, and this too is puzzling. And the Pri Megadim also remained in "requires further study," see there. And the core of his words are puzzling, for in Beitzah 37a when it challenges it, it did not raise a difficulty against the Mishnah in Megillah as the Tosafot wrote there. For it is not dealing with shevutin, and it only challenges the Mishnah of shevut, see there. And examine it and you will find it easy.)

However, one must examine closely: how did he write that preparatory acts for food that were impossible to perform yesterday are permitted? For the Rambam wrote this only regarding the grinding of spices, but other preparatory acts are forbidden. Furthermore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, himself rules accordingly, as we explained in section 24. And it appears to me that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, spoke a great matter. For behold, in section 25 we explained that according to the law it is permitted, but we do not instruct thus. If so, an individual for himself may be lenient in a time of pressing need, see there. Therefore, he stated the matters here without specification, to say that according to the law all preparatory acts for food that were impossible to perform yesterday are permitted. However, when he arrived later to the particulars of each detail, he did not instruct to permit but rather to forbid.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that there are those who are stringent even regarding actual ochel nefesh, so long as it does not lose its flavor at all if one prepared it on the eve of Yom Tov. However, if one did not prepare it on the eve of Yom Tov, and there is a need for it on Yom Tov – it is permitted to prepare it by means of a shinui. Thus far his words. And this is according to the system of Rashi and the Semag, that even regarding the primary categories of ochel nefesh, the Torah only permitted that which is better today than from yesterday, such as slaughtering, baking, and cooking. But if it is not better – it is forbidden. Only by means of a shinui is it permitted, as I wrote in section 10, see there. And the Tosafot wrote at the beginning of Beitzah and at the beginning of the third chapter, that regarding actual ochel nefesh there is no distinction, for even if it does not spoil – it is permitted. And such is not the opinion of Rashi, the Semag, and the Maharshal, as I wrote there.

And according to this, all types of dried fruits when they are cooked, namely all types of confit, which are better from yesterday than from today – it is forbidden to cook them on Yom Tov, unless it is by means of a shinui. And it is permitted ab initio to set them to cook on Yom Tov by means of a shinui (Magen Avraham, subsection 2 and subsection 3). And so too all types of confectionery, and all types of sugar-baked goods, such as lekach, and tortes, and teiglach, and preserves – one should not make them on Yom Tov except by means of some shinui. And so too to crush almonds to extract milk from them – it is forbidden to do so on Yom Tov except by means of a shinui (ibid.). And even though the taste dissipates a bit, nevertheless, this is similar to the squeezing of fruits which is forbidden (ibid.). And all the more so it is forbidden to curdle cheeses on Yom Tov, as I have written below in siman 510, see there.

And in section 3, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: One may not bring out a load upon an animal on Yom Tov. Thus far his words. That is to say: even though there is no requirement of "the resting of his animal" in such a case, as I wrote in section 32, nevertheless it is forbidden for the reason that one should not act in the manner that he acts during the weekday. For the Rambam ruled thus at the beginning of the fifth chapter, see there. Furthermore: there is a prohibition on account of using animals (Maggid Mishneh ibid.).

And in section 4 he wrote: Muktzeh, even though it is permitted on Shabbat—they were more stringent regarding it on Yom Tov and forbade it. Thus far his words, and he was extremely brief. And he did not explain that he is referring to muktzeh of preparation. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And there are those who permit muktzeh even on Yom Tov. However, nolad is forbidden according to their words even on Shabbat. Thus far his words; he was precise to say "according to their words," meaning: that there are some among those who permit muktzeh and forbid nolad, but there are those who permit nolad as well. And he did not see fit to bring their opinion, because most of them forbid nolad. And as I wrote in section 27 in the name of the Tur, see there.

He further wrote: And any muktzeh that is not living creatures, such as a storehouse of fruit or wood, it is sufficient that he says "from here I will take," and there is no need for him to mark it. And it is permitted to prepare from the first day of Yom Tov for the second, during the two days of the diaspora. Thus far his words, meaning: for those who permit it, no speech is required at all, except regarding dried figs and raisins which were pushed away by hand, as I wrote in siman 310. However, even according to those who forbid it, who require preparation, for birds one specifically requires preparation, that he says "this one and this one I will take tomorrow." But when he says "from here I will take tomorrow" without a specific marking of "this one and this one" – it is forbidden, as will be explained in siman 497. But in a storehouse of fruit, it is sufficient that he says "from here I will take tomorrow." And also, in this case, preparation from one day of Yom Tov to the other is permitted; even though all preparations are forbidden, nevertheless, a minor preparation such as this is permitted. But regarding birds, it is forbidden to prepare from one day of Yom Tov to the other, for this is a complete preparation when he says "this one and this one I will take." And there are those who are stringent and say: that even in a storehouse of fruit he must mark it, that from this place he will take. And this is the opinion of the Rambam (Magen Avraham subsection 10). And all the more so regarding fruit that is not yet completely fit to eat, even though it is somewhat fit, nevertheless, he must mark that these he will take tomorrow (ibid.). And it seems to me that ab initio he should act according to the stringent ones. And post facto regarding a light prohibition such as this – he may rely on the lenient ones for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov.