Siman 498

In Yoreh Deah siman 18 it was explained that every butcher must show his knife to a sage before the slaughtering, out of respect for the sage. And our sages, of blessed memory, said in Beitzah (28b) that on Yom Tov he should not show him his knife. Rashi explained the reason: for it appears like weekday activities, as it is a public matter that his intention is to sell in the market; see there. And the Rambam in the fourth chapter wrote the reason: lest he find it nicked, and he will say to him that it is nicked, and he will go and sharpen it with a whetstone. And the Rif wrote the reason: lest he go outside the techum. That is to say: if you require him to show it to a sage, he will follow after him even outside the techum. And the Ba'al HaMaor wrote the reason: that this is like the inspection of blemishes of a firstborn, and the giving of his permission is like the fixing of an object on Yom Tov. And the Beit Yosef wrote only the reason of the Rambam.

And there is a practical halachic difference between the reasons: for according to Rashi, it appears it is specifically a butcher whose way is to do so during the weekday, and it would be a publicizing of the matter. But an ordinary person—we have no concern (see Bach). And similarly, according to the reason of the Rif, it is only regarding a butcher who is accustomed to go to a sage, for we fear perhaps he will go even outside the techum, and not an ordinary person. So it appears to me that according to Rashi and the Rif there is no prohibition in this time, for we do not show knives to a sage as is explained in Yoreh Deah there, because nowadays sages have waived their honor. And if so, there is no publicizing of the matter here, nor a fear that he will go outside the techum, since he is not accustomed to this. But according to the Rambam and the Maor, even for every person—it is forbidden; and also nowadays—it is forbidden, for perhaps he will sharpen it with a whetstone, and it appears like a repair. And similarly, there is a leniency according to the Rambam when the butcher is a talmid chacham, and there is no fear regarding him that perhaps he will sharpen it. And similarly according to the Rif it is permitted, for a talmid chacham will not go outside the techum. But according to Rashi and the Maor it is forbidden, of course.

And how shall they act? The talmid chakham should inspect the knife for himself, for regarding himself there is no concern even according to the reasoning of the Ma'or, for regarding himself there is no "repairing of a vessel" here, but rather to clarify the doubt (Ran). And afterward, he lends it to others. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that now in this time, when every shochet inspects the knife himself, anyone who wishes to slaughter on Yom Tov should check his knife on the eve of Yom Tov, and not on Yom Tov lest he sharpen it. However, if he did not check it on the eve of Yom Tov, and it is a time of pressing need—he may check it on Yom Tov. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: for certainly even in the time of the Shas he was obligated to prepare it on the eve of Yom Tov, but the checking would not have availed him without the inspection of the sage. And perforce he must show it on the eve of Yom Tov, for on Yom Tov it is forbidden for the reason that has been explained. But now that he inspects for himself—could he not prepare it on the eve of Yom Tov and check it on Yom Tov; and if it is good—he shall slaughter, and if not—he shall not slaughter? To this he says that it is not so, for even now there is a concern lest he sharpen it if he is not a talmid chakham. And even a talmid chakham, why should he enter into this, perhaps he is not a talmid chakham. And he added to say that post facto when he did not check it on the eve of Yom Tov, and it is a time of pressing need—he may check it on Yom Tov. And this is not only according to all the explanations, but even according to the explanation of the Rambam. And not only if he is a talmid chakham, but even if he is not a talmid chakham, for it is possible to say in this time, since he relies upon his own checking—presumably he prepared it well as is his habit, and there is no concern lest he sharpen it. And it is a simple matter that after slaughtering they are obligated to check the knife, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah there. And in Yoreh Deah siman 6 it was explained that on Yom Tov it is permitted to wrap a cloth over the notch, see there. (According to what I have explained, everything that the Magen Avraham hesitated over regarding the words of the Rema is settled, and his words are clear. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And even though it has been explained in siman 495 that according to all opinions it is forbidden at least rabbinically to perform ochel nefesh that could have been done since yesterday, and all the more so machshirei ochel nefesh when it is possible to do them since yesterday, for according to the Torah – it is forbidden. According to this, one who needs to slaughter an animal or a bird on Yom Tov – he should have prepared the knife and the animal or the bird in one place from the eve of Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov the shochet would come and slaughter them; and not bring the animal or the knife to the shochet. Nevertheless, the sages, of blessed memory, permitted (11a) bringing the animal and the knife to the shochet, or the shochet may bring his knife to the animal. And the reason we explained there in the name of the Rambam, that regarding the matter of hotza'ah they permitted us completely, so that our hands should not be bound regarding the joy of Yom Tov. And we are permitted to carry and bring whatever we want without any prevention at all. Therefore, even a kid that one needs to carry on his shoulder – it is permitted for this reason. (That which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 3: since it is ochel nefesh, see there – it requires further study, for behold, according to everyone it is rabbinically forbidden, as I wrote there.)

It has already been explained in siman 495 that regarding muktzeh of preparation, according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam – Yom Tov is more stringent than Shabbat, for on Yom Tov it is forbidden. Therefore, there is no permission to slaughter animals except those prepared for him from the eve of Yom Tov. And it is not specifically when they stand by him always, but even if they go out and graze outside the techum, and come and lodge within the techum – behold, these are prepared, for his mind is upon them, and one may take from them and slaughter them on Yom Tov. But those that graze and lodge outside the techum, if they came on Yom Tov – one may not slaughter them on Yom Tov, because they are muktzeh, and the minds of the people of the city are not upon them. And even though they are forbidden anyway because they came from outside the techum, that is not so, for this is not a prohibition except for the one for whom it came. But for others – it is permitted, as I wrote in siman 515. But for the reason of muktzeh – they are forbidden even to others. And according to this, for the poskim who permit muktzeh, as I wrote there, these too are permitted to others. And there is one who is stringent even according to these opinions, because there is an interpretation in the Gemara (end of Beitzah) that compares them to dried figs and raisins, which he pushed away with his hands. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the Rosh that since there is another interpretation in the Gemara that they are not similar to dried figs and raisins – one should be lenient in a rabbinic matter. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 4, that the Yam Shel Shlomo was stringent. And I do not know why he was stringent in a rabbinic matter against the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur. However, it seems the opinion of the Rema is also thus, since he did not provide a gloss here in section 3 on the words of the Mechaber, as he provided a gloss in siman 495. Deduce from this that he holds that here, according to everyone, it is forbidden. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And all of this is with the animal of an Israelite. But the animal of a non-Jew is permitted in every case, for it has already been explained there according to the Yerushalmi that theirs does not require hachanah, and they are not subject to the laws of muktzah unless they came for the sake of an Israelite on Yom Tov—for then it is forbidden to the one for whom it came, according to the law of that which comes from outside the techum. And for others it is permitted. Sometimes it is forbidden to all the people of the city: for example, if he brought the animal from outside the techum for whoever would purchase it, and the city is a majority of Israelites, for he brought it with the Israelites in mind. But when the city is a majority of non-Jews—it is permitted, as will be explained in siman 515. And if it is a doubt whether he brought them from outside the techum or not, such as if he has animals within the techum and outside the techum—it is permitted, even if he brought it for the sake of an Israelite, for in matters of muktzah we follow the lenient view in a case of doubt. And even though we were stringent regarding a doubt of mochan in siman 497, that is when there is reason to be concerned about a Torah prohibition, such as tziddah and the like, and not in a doubt of outside the techum, which is rabbinic. And there is one who forbids even in a doubt of outside the techum (see Magen Avraham subsection 7). And if it is known that he brought it for the need of a non-Jew—it is permitted in every case. And one should not ask: how can he purchase it from him on Yom Tov? For it can be said that he acquires it from him without a transaction and without weight, or that he gave it to him as a gift.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: Animals known to lodge outside the techum and were found in the city on the second day, I say perhaps they were brought in during the evening and lodged outside the wall – and they are permitted. And all the more so those slaughtered in the morning, for there is a presumption that they were brought within the techum during the evening. Thus far his words. And there is one who wrote that even on the first day it is permitted in a case of doubt regarding outside the techum, as I wrote in the previous section (Taz subsection 1 and Magen Avraham subsection 7 in the name of the Shach). And so wrote the Rashba. And there is one who says that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds that on the first day one must be stringent even in a case of doubt regarding outside the techum (Magen Avraham ibid.), and this will be explained in siman 515. (And regarding what the Taz wrote that on the second day the "all the more so" is not applicable, see there – I do not know why. For that which comes from outside the techum on the first day is permitted on the second, as I wrote in siman 515. And the Pri Megadim also remained in need of further study, see there.)

A calf born on Yom Tov: if the animal is not designated for slaughter, it is forbidden to slaughter it due to the reason of muktzeh and nolad. However, when it is designated for eating and we knew that its months of gestation were complete, such that it does not need to wait eight days, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 13—it is permitted to slaughter it on Yom Tov, because it is prepared by way of its mother through slaughter. For if they had slaughtered the mother while it was in her womb, it would also have been permitted, according to the law of a ben pekuah, and it turns out that the status of muktzeh never applied to it, nor even the status of nolad, for its birth did not bring it to a state of permissibility. And even if it happened that they slaughtered the mother and she was found to be treifah, such that now it was not permitted with the mother—nevertheless, it is permitted for the reason that the treifah was prepared for dogs, and we hold that what is prepared for dogs is prepared for man (Maggid Mishneh). And according to those who hold that muktzeh is permitted on Yom Tov, even if the animal is not designated for eating, the calf is permitted. There is a line of reasoning to say that it is permitted even if nolad is forbidden on Yom Tov, for regarding a calf nolad is not applicable, since there is a permission for it sometimes even when it is in its mother's womb, namely, when they would slaughter the mother. (Tosafot 6b, starting with the words "A calf," and see there in the Maharamal and the Maharshal, in Yam Shel Shelomo, and in Magen Avraham subsection 8, and in Machatzit HaShekel.)

And even on Shabbat and Yom Tov that are adjacent to one another, if the calf was born on Shabbat—it is permitted on Yom Tov; if it was born on Yom Tov—it is permitted on Shabbat, provided it was standing for consumption and its months were complete. And even though an egg laid on Yom Tov is forbidden, even from a hen standing for consumption, due to the reason of hachanah—meaning: if Yom Tov falls on Sunday, it is forbidden by the law of hachanah, for any egg that is born now was completed yesterday, and it turns out that Shabbat prepared for Yom Tov. Therefore they decreed regarding every Yom Tov, as will be explained in siman 513. And why is there no law of hachanah regarding a calf? Indeed, the reason is because hachanah is not truly applicable to a calf; for specifically an egg, which while in its mother's womb is not fit to grow a chick, but upon its exit is fit, and it turns out that its exit made it a complete vessel—it is appropriate to call it "hachanah." This is not the case with the calf. It is the same to me when it is in its mother's womb as it is after its birth.

The Tur wrote: A calf born on Yom Tov is permitted to be slaughtered… and such as… its months of gestation were complete, and such as it placed its hooves upon the ground, so that it has left the category of crushed limbs. Thus far his words. And they questioned him: for behold, we explicitly conclude in Chullin (51b) that the womb does not cause crushed limbs. And the Tur himself in Yoreh Deah siman 58 wrote that a fetus that was born – we do not concern ourselves with crushed limbs, even if we see a defect in it such that it cannot stand. And it is permitted to slaughter it immediately if its months were complete, see there (see Beit Yosef, and Bach, and Derishah).

Regarding this, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 on this law, and this is his wording: And we also require that it spread its legs upon the ground, for we fear lest he see a defect in the internal organs, and it will turn out that he slaughtered on Yom Tov without necessity. Thus far his words. Meaning: certainly on a weekday it does not require spreading on the ground, and if he finds a defect—he shall declare it treifah. Therefore, on Yom Tov, when it is forbidden to slaughter a treifah—it requires spreading upon the ground, for through this it appears that there is no defect in the internal organs. And even though regarding a bird that was trampled, which requires inspection—and nevertheless it is permitted to slaughter it, and we do not fear a defect, as will be explained, this is because it survived twenty-four hours, as will be explained. Therefore, even though it requires inspection, nevertheless it is more likely that there is no defect in it since it survived twenty-four hours. But here, it is likely that a defect will be found in it. Therefore, one should not slaughter it unless it spread its legs upon the ground. And all this was in the time of the Shas. But nowadays, we are not experts in "completion of its months," and we do not slaughter a calf until the night of the eighth day. (And see what I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 15 section 8 on the words of the Tur, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

And a dangerously ill animal, and he fears that it will die, and he does not need it because he has already eaten his meal, but rather he slaughters it because of his loss (Rashi 25a) – he may not slaughter it unless he is still able to eat from it a kezayit of roasted meat during the day. And if there is that much time – it is permitted for him to slaughter, even though he does not eat, for we say: "Since if he desired to eat, he could eat" (Pesachim 46b). Even though we do not permit ab initio because of "since," for it is forbidden to cook from Yom Tov for a weekday, and we do not say "since if guests happened to arrive it would be fit for him," as is evident from what will be explained in siman 503, because of his monetary loss – they permitted it. And even without "since" – he resolves in his heart because of his monetary loss to eat a kezayit of meat, and a kezayit is impossible without slaughtering. (So it appears to me to explain in Pesachim ibid., for if not so, it is difficult even for Rabbah, see there. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

This is the wording of the Tur: A moribund animal… unless there is time in the day to eat a kezayit from it while it is still day. And even if there is no time in the day to examine it and to carve it—he may eat without examination. Thus far his words. And there is one who inferred from this wording that the Tur holds that one must specifically eat, and it is not sufficient that he is able to eat (Bach). But it does not seem so, for it is explicitly proven in Pesachim there that according to the one who holds that we say "ho'il," he does not specifically need to eat. Rather, the Tur is teaching us that if he wants to eat—he may eat the kezayit without examination and carving. For even though it is forbidden to eat before the examination of the lung—nevertheless, they permitted it here because of a loss. And so it is explicitly stated in the words of the Rosh there. And they were forced to this: for if not so, how did they permit it even though there is no time to examine, for is he not unable to eat? Rather, certainly they permitted him even to actually eat. And this is also the intention of our teacher, the Rema, in section 6, who wrote regarding this law: And even if there is no time to carve it and to examine it first. Thus far his words. (And see the HaGra"z section 11, and in my humble opinion it is clear as I have written. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

And they did not permit this matter except for an animal in danger of dying, and not for a healthy one. And when they permitted an animal in danger of dying where there is time, they permitted even to flay the hide if the meat will spoil by the next day. However, to move the hide after the flaying—they did not permit due to muktzeh, unless one limb remains still attached to the hide, or a bit of meat, and he moves the hide by way of the meat. And even though in every slaughter of Yom Tov they permitted moving the hide, and even to place it before those who tread, for they permitted the end because of the beginning as I wrote in siman 499, this is because since the slaughter is for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov—it is necessary to permit, for if not so—he will not slaughter. But not when the slaughter is because of his loss, for even without this he will slaughter, and if he does not slaughter there is no prevention of the joy of Yom Tov here. And in truth, there are those who say that it is forbidden to flay it completely in such a case, when it was not slaughtered for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov. And so it is proper to rule (the Rema ibid.).

When one slaughters an animal on Yom Tov in the field, even a healthy animal, and for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov—nevertheless, he should not bring it on a pole or a carrying-frame in the manner he does on a weekday, because of the disparagement of Yom Tov. Rather, he should bring it in his hand limb by limb, for its publicity is not as great. And this certainly applies when one slaughters a dangerously ill animal because of the loss. And even though through this he will need to walk several times and increases his walking, whereas by means of a pole he would carry it in one time—nevertheless, it is preferable to increase the walking than to carry it as on a weekday, because of the disparagement of Yom Tov (Magen Avraham, subsection 15).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 8: A bird that was trampled by feet and there is concern that its organs were crushed, and therefore it requires a delay of twenty-four hours and an examination after slaughtering—it is permitted to slaughter it on Yom Tov. And we do not fear that perhaps it will be found to be treifah, even though a deficiency has arisen in it. Thus far their words, for since it had a presumption of fitness—it is permitted to slaughter it, as we establish it upon its presumption. And the presumption is by power of the majority, for the majority of animals are fit, just as with every animal that requires examination of the lung and despite all this it is permitted to slaughter it, because we rely on the majority, and here too it is so. And even though it is not comparable since a deficiency has arisen, nevertheless we do not fear, for as long as the deficiency has not been clarified—we establish it upon its presumption. And even though a calf born on Yom Tov is forbidden to be slaughtered unless we know that its months of gestation were complete—this is a general decree that the sages decreed, that anything that has not remained for seven days is a stillborn, and even on a weekday it is forbidden. But regarding a chance deficiency which is permitted on a weekday—it is permitted on Yom Tov as well. (And the difficulty of the Magen Avraham, subsection 16, from a calf is answered, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

But there are those who forbid it when a defect is found. And similarly, in a place where treifot are as common as kosher ones – it is forbidden to slaughter on Yom Tov (Taz, subsection 8, in the name of the Ran, and the Or Zarua and the Yam Shel Shelomo, and so wrote the Magen Avraham there in the name of the Hagahot Ashri). And in truth, our custom is not to slaughter on Yom Tov (ibid.). Nevertheless, if the matter is a necessity – we slaughter (ibid.). And it seems to me that it is not due to a concern of a prohibition that we practice not to slaughter on Yom Tov, for behold, with birds it is a daily occurrence on every Yom Tov that we slaughter. And also with animals, it is not from the perspective of the prohibition of slaughtering, but rather because the sale is difficult on Yom Tov, as they must sell without a price and without weight. And one who has never slaughtered – shall not slaughter for the first time on Yom Tov, for he is liable to ruin it and make it treif (Sha'arei Teshuva). (See Sha'agat Aryeh, siman 64, who wrote at length to prove that there is no prohibition to slaughter when a defect is found, and like the first opinion.)

A bekhor in this time, when it is forbidden to slaughter it without a blemish, and a beit din is required to permit it, and if they slaughtered it before the permission its meat is forbidden as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 310; therefore, if they did not permit it before Yom Tov – it is forbidden to permit it on Yom Tov, for it is like adjudicating a law. For certainly to see the blemish, and to calculate in his heart if it is a blemish or not in order to permit it after Yom Tov – is permitted, for this is merely a ruling. But to permit it – is like fixing, and like adjudicating a law. And not only ab initio, but even if they transgressed and permitted it on Yom Tov – it is forbidden to slaughter it, for it is muktzeh. And this muktzeh is like dried figs and raisins, since it was not fit at all for eating for this reason from the moment it was born. And even though in its mother's womb it was fit by way of its mother if they slaughtered her, for as long as it has not emerged into the air of the world it is not seized by sanctity, nevertheless, immediately when it was born he removed it from his mind. Therefore, if it was born with its blemish, and they transgressed and saw it on Yom Tov – they may slaughter based on their word, because it was prepared by way of its mother, as I wrote. And this is when it was born on Yom Tov from an animal standing for eating, and its months were complete, for during bein hashemashot it was prepared by way of its mother. And even though after it was born it became muktzeh – there is no muktzeh for half a Shabbat, for muktzeh is only during bein hashemashot, as I wrote in siman 308. And so too if they saw the blemish on the eve of Yom Tov, and saw that it is a blemish fit to slaughter upon, even though they did not say "you are permitted to slaughter" – the muktzeh was removed from the eve of Yom Tov. And even though they still have to investigate if the blemish fell on its own, or if they made it intentionally and it is not permitted through that, such as if the bekhor is in the hand of a kohen who is suspect regarding the bekhor, nevertheless, this does not delay the permission. For even if they were to slaughter it before the inquiry and investigation – in this case it would also be permitted, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah there siman 314, see there.

A bechor that fell into a pit, since it is not fit to be slaughtered today—it is forbidden to raise it from the pit, for it is muktzeh, since it is not fit for eating. And furthermore: it is forbidden to exert effort for its sake on Yom Tov; rather, one provides for its sustenance in its place, meaning that he gives it in the pit everything it needs to eat and drink. And the same law applies to an animal designated for milking and not for slaughter, for it too is not fit for slaughter on Yom Tov—it is likewise forbidden to raise it. And it appears to me that by means of a non-Jew it is permitted, for a shevut d'shevut in a case of tza'ar ba'alei chayim and a concern of loss—is certainly permitted. And regarding "it and its offspring" that fell into a pit, where one of them is fit for slaughter on Yom Tov, and consequently the second is forbidden to be slaughtered today because of the prohibition of "it and its offspring on one day"—he may raise the first on the condition to slaughter it. And afterwards he may reconsider so that he does not slaughter it, but rather his desire is to slaughter the other, and he raises the second. For even though it is an artifice—they permitted it because of tza'ar ba'alei chayim and loss. And afterwards he may slaughter whichever he desires: if he wants this one—he slaughters, if he wants that one—he slaughters, since the raising of each one was in a permitted manner. And it appears that if he desires, he need not slaughter them at all, for behold, animals designated for eating, when they fell into a pit—it is certainly permitted to raise them even if he does not slaughter one of them, since they are fit for slaughter. And here too it is so. And in the Yerushalmi there it is explicitly explained that regarding "it and its offspring"—he does not need to slaughter one of them, see there. (This is the wording of the Yerushalmi, third chapter of Beitzah, halacha 4: Even if he did not intend to slaughter one of them—it is permitted, see there.)

An animal that is half-owned by a non-Jew and half-owned by an Israelite—they may slaughter it on Yom Tov. And it is not similar to dough in such a case, which is forbidden, as I wrote in siman 506; for dough can be divided, and he can bake his own alone. But with an animal, it is impossible to have an olive-sized piece of meat without slaughter (Gemara 21a). Furthermore, even if they have two—he may slaughter both of them. For even though it is possible to divide, nevertheless they are not completely equal, and it can be said that he wants his portion in every animal. And according to this, there is one who says that if the non-Jew wants to give him the better and fatter one, he is forbidden from slaughtering both of them (Magen Avraham, subsection 21). And some disagree, for despite all this he can say, "It is pleasing to me to eat from the second one as well" (Levush and Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 21). And there is one who says that when both are equal—he is forbidden from slaughtering even one of them without division, so that he does not labor for the portion of the non-Jew (Taz, subsection 10). And this is certainly not so, for why should we force him into division? (And what the Taz wrote from Tosafot there regarding dough—it is no comparison at all. For with dough there is labor in each and every part of the dough, which is not the case with slaughter, as the labor is one. And this is what they said: It is impossible to have an olive-sized piece of meat without slaughter. Meaning: slaughter for an olive-sized piece is slaughter for the whole thing. Furthermore: with an animal the Israelite can say that he wants to taste from every animal, as it is impossible for the tastes to be completely equal, which is not the case with dough. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

The Rambam wrote in chapter three, law 3: One who slaughters an animal on Yom Tov—it is permitted for him to pluck wool at the place of the knife with his hand, provided that he does not move it from its place, but rather it remains there entangled with the rest of the wool of the neck. However, with a bird, he may not pluck because that is the normal way, and it results in plucking on Yom Tov. Thus far his words. That is to say: for an animal, its normal way is through shearing, and plucking is not like shearing. And it is shearing in an unusual manner when he plucks with his hand, for with a knife it is exactly like shearing and is forbidden. But with his hand, it is permitted for him to pluck intentionally, only that he should not move it from its place so that the plucking is not clearly visible. However, a bird's normal way is to be plucked and it is a complete plucking, and it is a primary category of labor and therefore forbidden. And even though after slaughtering they will pluck it entirely—this is because for the sake of food preparation every labor was permitted, which is not the case before the slaughtering, as it is only like preparatory acts. Therefore, a thing that is a necessity like the slaughtering itself—is permitted. But the plucking—behold, he could have done it yesterday (Maggid Mishneh).

The Ramban, of blessed memory, disagrees with him, and holds that it is permitted to pluck the bird in the place of its shechitah, for just as its shechitah was permitted—so too its plucking. For all of them are "food preparation," meaning that the labor is performed on the food itself, and it is permitted. However, Ri, the author of the Tosafot, and the Rosh, and the Tur agreed with the Rambam that it is forbidden to pluck. And on the contrary, even regarding an animal they were stringent to say that it is forbidden to pull out [the wool] directly, for pulling out is "shearing," and it is only permitted when one does not intend to pull it out, because we hold that an unintended act is permitted. And so ruled our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 12, and this is his wording: One who slaughters an animal on Yom Tov—is not permitted to pull out the wool to make a place for the knife, but rather he moves it and pulls it this way and that. And if it is pulled out, it is pulled out. Thus far his words, for this is an unintended act, and it is not a "pesik reisha." And our teacher, the Rema, glossed that he moves it with his hand. And not because there is a difference between a hand and a knife, for that is only according to the Rambam, that pulling out is not "shearing," while with a knife it is "shearing." But if pulling out is "shearing"—it is forbidden even by hand as with a knife. And the permission is because he does not intend, and if so, it should be permitted even with a knife. However, the reason is that with a knife it is a "pesik reisha," for it is inevitable that he will pull it out. And regarding a bird, he ruled in section 13 like the Rambam, and this is his wording: One who slaughters a bird—shall not pluck the feathers in order to make a place for the knife. Thus far his words, because of the reasons we have explained. (And their dispute depends on the sugya of the Gemara in Bechorot 25a. And see what I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 24, section 21, that one must be careful that the knife not be covered by the feathers, so that it not be like "haladah," see there. And it seems to my humble opinion that if it is impossible for the shochet to slaughter properly without plucking the feathers—he may rely on the Ramban and pluck. For the primary reason for the prohibition is because it is not a necessity for the shechitah and does not override Yom Tov, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote, and in the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 24, see there. But when there is a necessity—it is permitted. Examine this and you will find it simple.)

One who knows that he needs to slaughter a bird on Yom Tov, and a bird requires kisuy hadam with earth, and all earth is muktzeh—therefore, he must prepare earth from the eve of Yom Tov. And if he did not prepare it—he shall not slaughter, as the Rambam wrote at the beginning of the third chapter: One who had prepared earth, or prepared ashes that are permitted to be moved—this person may slaughter a beast or a bird and cover their blood. And if he does not have prepared earth, or ashes fit to be moved—this person shall not slaughter. And if he transgressed and slaughtered—he shall not cover their blood until the evening. Thus far his words. For regarding this, it is not relevant to say that it should be permitted on Yom Tov for the sake of ochel nefesh, as the covering is among the preliminaries of ochel nefesh, and he could have done it yesterday. Therefore, it does not override Yom Tov; and consequently, if he has nothing with which to cover—it is forbidden for him to slaughter. And against his will he is nullified from the joy of Yom Tov, and even though he could leave the blood until the evening and cover it, who is to say it will remain until the evening? Perhaps it will be consumed, and he will have nothing to cover, and he will nullify the positive commandment of covering. Therefore, it is forbidden to slaughter. Nevertheless, if he slaughtered, he should leave the blood until the evening, and if it remains—he shall cover it, and if not—the commandment of covering is nullified. And they did not permit him to take earth that is not prepared, for they upheld their words in a case where he himself is liable, for he did not prepare from the eve of Yom Tov. And certainly the positive commandment of covering does not override the negative commandment of Yom Tov regarding a Torah prohibition such as digging the earth or crushing it, even though a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment, however, Yom Tov is a positive and a negative commandment, and a positive commandment does not override a negative and a positive commandment (Gemara 8b). Therefore, even though it will certainly dry up by nightfall—nevertheless, it is forbidden. (So it appears to me from the sugya of the Shas 8b, for if not so, what relevance is there to a positive commandment overriding a negative commandment? For it is possible to fulfill the positive commandment in the evening. And even if there is a doubt if it will remain, nevertheless, how is it possible to override the negative commandment because of a doubt? Rather, certainly—even if it will certainly dry up. Examine and you will find it simple.)

We learned in a Mishnah at the beginning of Beitzah: One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on Yom Tov, Beit Shammai say: He may dig with a spade and cover it. And Beit Hillel say: He may not slaughter unless he had soil prepared from while it was still day. And they agree that if he slaughtered—he may dig with a spade and cover it. And it is stated in the Gemara that this is specifically when he had a spade stuck in from while it was still day, and the soil is loose, such that it does not require crushing. And even though he makes a pit, behold we hold: One who digs a pit and needs only its soil—is exempt for it, and here he needs only the soil. And even though it is prohibited by rabbinic law, here, for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov, they were lenient when there is a spade stuck in that he prepared from while it was still day. But without preparation, they did not permit it due to the reason of muktzah (Tosafot ibid. 8a, starting with "And he needs only"). And this is specifically after the fact, when he has already slaughtered. But ab initio, even in such a case, it is prohibited because of digging the pit. Therefore, if there is much loose soil, in a manner that he will not make a pit—it is permitted even ab initio to slaughter, since there is no prohibition here at all. And similarly, after the fact even without a spade stuck in, where there is no preparation—it is permitted when there is much loose soil, for just as they permitted the prohibition of a pit when there is preparation, so too they permitted the prohibition of preparation when there is no pit. (Magen Avraham subsection 25 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo. And see Turei Zahav subsection 12, who elaborated on the intention of the teacher of the Semag, who wrote that if he already slaughtered and does not have prepared soil—he may cover it with that which is not prepared, see there. And the Beit Yosef understood that this is according to the system of Rabbeinu Tam, and the Turei Zahav elaborated on this as well. But according to the words of the Magen Avraham, the matters are simple, that this is the system of Tosafot, that with a spade stuck in they permitted the prohibition of a pit, and where there is no pit, the prohibition of preparation is permitted, and we are not concerned with muktzah. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

But the sages did not permit slaughtering without covering, and leaving the blood until the evening ab initio, for perhaps the blood will be consumed and the mitzvah of covering will be nullified. And according to what we have said, that with loose earth and where there is no pit it is permitted to cover when one has slaughtered even if he did not prepare the earth; or even if he prepared the earth, that it is permitted ab initio to slaughter as has been explained; if it happened that when he slaughtered the blood fell upon hard ground, if there is much blood—he should take some of the blood and place it in loose earth, and cover it. For ex post facto one does not need to cover all the blood, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 28. But if the blood dried—it is forbidden to scrape it on Yom Tov, for by this he makes a bit of a pit in the house, and it is close to a Torah prohibition (ibid.). And it is simple that when there is prepared earth, one must place earth below according to the law of covering. And we are not concerned to say that since he places the earth below before the slaughtering, we should fear perhaps he will reconsider and not slaughter, since it is impossible in any other manner. And so it is implied in the Gemara there.

Regarding this matter where they permitted when a spade was stuck in from while it was still day, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 14 that even if one needs several thrusts—it is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say: since the soil is loose and the spade is stuck in such that there is preparation, but there is a rabbinic prohibition of a hole, if so, what difference is it to me if it is one thrust, and what difference is it to me if it is many thrusts? And some say that they only permitted one thrust, because to stick it into a new place is like a new digging (ibid. subsection 26 in the name of the Bach, and Taz at the end of subsection 21). And such is not the opinion of the poskim (Magen Avraham ibid.).

The ash of a stove or oven that was heated from the eve of Yom Tov—it is permitted ab initio to slaughter and cover with it, as it is not muktzeh. And one covers with ash, as I have written in Yoreh Deah siman 28. But if it was heated on Yom Tov—it is forbidden, as it is nolad, for originally it was wood and now it is ash. And regarding absolute nolad such as this, even Rava who does not hold of muktzeh—concedes that it is forbidden (see Tosafot Eruvin 46a). However, if the ash is still hot, such that it is fit for roasting an egg—the status of muktzeh does not apply to it, for its status remains that which was permitted to him on Yom Tov, and it follows that it is also permitted to cover with it. And if one heated wood today upon the ash of yesterday and they became mixed—the prohibition of today is nullified by the majority of yesterday if there is a majority. And one does not judge regarding ash as "liquid in liquid" which requires sixty, since the prohibition is rabbinic, and the prohibition was never recognizable on its own—it is properly nullified by a majority (see Magen Avraham subsection 28). However, if one slaughtered, and there is no hot ash here—it is permitted to cover even with cold ash that was heated today, because we have already explained that they permitted one rabbinic prohibition for the sake of covering ex post facto when one has slaughtered (ibid. subsection 30).

And regarding this law that when one has slaughtered he is permitted to cover even with cold ash, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 15, and this is his wording: However, it is much better to cover with a spade stuck in loose earth if he has it. Thus far his words. And according to his words, that which involves digging a hole where he only needs its earth, which is exempt but forbidden, is more lenient than the prohibition of muktzah. And this refers to the muktzah and nolad of cold ash. And even though both are rabbinic prohibitions, nevertheless, muktzah and nolad are general prohibitions, and their prohibition is more severe than a specific rabbinic prohibition. And they brought a proof for this from the Yerushalmi at the beginning of Beitzah which says: It is better that he take ash that was kindled on the Yom Tov than that he dig with a spade and cover, see there. Behold, regarding the matter of digging with a spade which is from the Torah, ash is more lenient, but not when the spade is already stuck (Beit Yosef and Taz subsection 16). But there are those who say the opposite, that muktzah is more lenient, for it was permitted for the sake of food preparation, as I wrote in siman 495. And the Yerushalmi stands on our Mishnah, which deals with a spade stuck in the ground as our Gemara established it. And regarding this it says that it is better that he take ash (and this is the intention of the Magen Avraham in subsection 31). And it appears to me that the primary view is like the first opinion, for the Yerushalmi explains there that the reason for "he shall dig with a spade and cover" is because a positive commandment overrides a negative commandment (see there in Halacha 3). Consequently, it explains "he shall dig with a spade" without the spade being stuck, unlike our Talmud.

If one brought much earth into his house for the purpose of his garden or his ruin, and the earth is loose such that it lacks neither crushing nor digging, but rather preparation for his garden or his ruin—this is not considered preparation, for these are labors forbidden on Yom Tov. Nevertheless, it is permitted to cover with it, because as long as it is still piled in one place and they have not spread it over his garden or his ruin, we say that his intent is to use the earth for all types of necessary uses, and it is like preparation. And in this case, neither digging nor a hole is relevant, since it is not in its original place. Nevertheless, if the earth is not loose, a hole is relevant even if the earth is not in its original place, since the entire clod is whole as it was in its place. But if the earth is loose, even if it later becomes stuck together with water like clay, it appears to me that a hole is not relevant in this, as I wrote in siman 510. (See Magen Avraham, subsection 32, who wrote that regarding one who sticks a wax candle into hard sand on Yom Tov—a hole is relevant in that, see there. And according to what I wrote, when it is stuck together by means of water—there is no concern of a hole. And for the most part they are thus, as they do on Simchat Torah).

That which we said regarding one who brought in much soil for the purpose of his garden, that it is permitted to use it, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in section 16 wrote that he brought it into his house for the purpose of his garden. However, in the Gemara (8a) it is stated: One who brought soil into his garden or into his ruin—it is permitted to cover with it. This implies that even when he brought it into the garden or the ruin, it is permitted. It appears that their opinion is that for a garden or a ruin it is forbidden in any case, for from now on the soil is nullified to them. Therefore, they interpret that he brought it into the house for the purpose of his garden or his ruin. The Rambam in the second chapter omitted this law, and I do not know why. The Rif brought it, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, added and wrote: But if he brought in a basketful for the purpose of his garden—no, for since it is a small amount, it is nullified. Thus far his words, and I do not know his source. And his reasoning is that since he brought it into his house, how is it nullified to the garden? It appears that he learned this from what they said in the Gemara (Beitzah 8a): A person may bring in a basketful of soil and perform with it all his needs. And its explanation is: that he brought it in without specification, as will be explained. And so wrote the Tur. And it implies specifically without specification, and automatically, for his garden or his ruin it is forbidden. And the reason, it can be said, is that since the repair of the garden and the ruin are necessary for him, and the soil is a small amount, he certainly designated it only for this. This is not the case with much soil.

A person may bring a basketful of earth into a house or a courtyard without specification, and use it for all his needs. We do not say that it is nullified to the ground of the house or the courtyard. This is provided that he designated a corner for it, meaning that he designated a place for this. For if he spread it over the surface of the ground—he certainly nullified it to the ground, even on ground that has flooring. However, when he designated a place for it and did not spread it, the matter is evident that he needs the earth for his requirements. Therefore, if the earth is loose—it is permitted to cover with it. According to this, one must warn in our locales, as there are those who scatter green sand on the floors in the houses, that it is forbidden to use the sand for any need, for it is nullified to the ground. They should use sand that they placed in a corner. It seems that the world is not careful in this, and perhaps they hold that specifically when scattered on the ground without flooring is it nullified to the ground, but not on flooring. One cannot say: if so, why is a corner necessary? For one can say that this refers to a place where there is no flooring. And so we wrote above in siman 308, section 64, that when there is flooring—the earth is not nullified to the ground. See there.

It is stated in the Gemara (8b): Rava said: If one brought in earth to cover excrement with it if the infant soils himself—it is permitted to cover the blood of a bird with it. For since he designated it for a doubt, lest the infant soil himself, all the more so he designated it for the blood of a bird, which he knew for certain he would need to slaughter on the Yom Tov. But if he brought it in to cover the blood of a bird—it is forbidden to cover excrement with it, for he designated it for the certain and not for the doubt. Those of Neharbel said: Even if he brought it in for the blood of a bird—it is permitted for excrement, for since he designated it—he designated it for everything, whether for the certain or for the doubt. And behold, the poskim did not mention this statement at all. And it appears that they hold that the halacha is like those of Neharbel, for even though Rava was the master of the entire Talmud, nevertheless, in a case of an individual against many, the halacha is like the many. Furthermore: in matters of rabbinic law we adopt the lenient position. Therefore, it follows that since they did not write that if he designated it for this it is not effective for that—one may infer from this that it is all one designation. And he does not need to specify a thing in the designation, and even if he specified for a certain thing—it is permitted for all things. Nevertheless, they should not have been silent and omitted it entirely. (And the Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 23, ruled like Rava, see there. And this is certainly against all the poskim, as is understood. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

A koy, which is a doubt whether it is a wild animal or a domestic animal, and requires kisuy out of doubt—it is forbidden to slaughter it on Yom Tov, for the reason that it is impossible to cover it on Yom Tov, as will be explained. And if he slaughtered it—one does not cover its blood, even if he has earth prepared from before the day, for another reason: for we fear that one who sees that they cover its blood on Yom Tov will say "it is certainly a wild animal," for if it were not so, they would not trouble themselves to cover its blood on Yom Tov. And they will come to permit its chelev like the chelev of a wild animal. And on a weekday we do not fear this, as they will say he needs to clear his courtyard (Gemara ibid.). That is to say: he does so to clean it, and not for the sake of kisuy. But on Yom Tov they will not attribute it to cleaning the courtyard, for it is not the way to clean a courtyard on Yom Tov. Therefore, when he slaughtered it—he should leave the blood until evening. And if its mark is still recognizable—he should cover it, and if not—he should not cover it. And the eating is not hindered, for the kisuy is not a matter related to the eating.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this law in section 18: And specifically if he slaughtered in a corner and the like. But if he slaughtered it in the middle of the courtyard, even the blood of a beast may be covered if he has prepared earth, for it is like a vessel of excrement. And he must cover it so that his vessels in the courtyard do not become soiled. Thus far his words, meaning: even though we say in the Gemara that on Yom Tov one may not depend on the cleaning of the courtyard as I have written, that refers to cleaning the entire courtyard until they even clean the corner—this is not common on Yom Tov. But a repulsive thing placed in an exposed area—one is forced to remove it from here even on Shabbat. For for this reason we say above in siman 308 that a vessel of excrement is permitted to be moved on Shabbat, see there. Therefore, in the middle of the courtyard it is certainly like a repulsive thing, and it is their way to cover it even on Yom Tov, and they will not attribute it to the mitzvah of covering. (See Magen Avraham subsection 35 who was greatly pressed regarding this. And according to what I have written, the matters are clear in their reasoning. Examine and you will find it simple.)

It is stated in the Gemara (8b): Rabbi Zera taught: They did not speak only of a koy, but even if one slaughtered a domestic animal, a wild animal, and a bird, and their blood became mixed with one another—it is forbidden to cover it on Yom Tov. Because he also exerts effort for the sake of the domestic animal (Rashi). Rabbi Yosi bar Yasinah said: They only taught this where he is unable to cover it with a single thrust. But if he is able to cover it with a single thrust—it is permitted. For he does not increase the effort for the sake of the domestic animal. And it asks: This is obvious! And it answers: Lest you say we should decree against a single thrust on account of two thrusts? It comes to teach us. And from the plain meaning of the language, which says "They did not speak only of a koy...", it implies that it is forbidden with any type of covering, even if he has prepared earth, and as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 19, and this is his wording: If one slaughtered a domestic animal and a wild animal and their blood became mixed, and he has prepared earth or stove ash, if he is able to cover it with a single thrust, such that he does not need to increase for the sake of the blood of the domestic animal—he shall cover it. And if not—he shall not cover it. Thus far his words.

But the matter is astonishing: for with earth that is completely prepared, why should we nullify the mitzvah of kisuy for the sake of a slight exertion? And it is true that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, raised this difficulty, and they answered that with "sit and do not act" they have the authority, see there. And it is not understood. For it is true that they have the authority, but what did they see to institute thus? Furthermore: what is the language of "one stabbing," "two stabbings," for this language applies only to a fixed spade. But regarding the covering with ash and earth, it should have said "one covering," "two coverings." Furthermore: that which it says "they did not say only regarding a koy, but even...", what is the relevance of a koy to one who slaughters domestic animals and wild animals? Regarding a koy they decreed because of the permitting of its fat, as has been explained, but regarding domestic and wild animals it is because of exertion? And it can be said that the Baraita holds that even regarding a koy it is due to the reason of exertion.

It seems clear to me that from all this the Tur wrote, and this is his wording: It appears that if he can cover it with one thrust, since he has already slaughtered—it is permitted, even if he does not have prepared earth, provided that he has a fixed shovel and loose earth. And if he has prepared earth—he may cover it, even with many thrusts. Thus far his words. And the Tur holds that this law only applies regarding a fixed shovel, where there is a prohibition of a hole. And as I wrote in section 24 that there is a rabbinic prohibition in this, is it relevant to state the reasoning of the Tosafot, that they established their words to nullify the mitzvah of covering through "sit and do not act" when two thrusts are required? For otherwise it is permitted even with many thrusts, as I wrote in section 26. But when he has completely prepared earth, it is obvious that it is permitted in all manners. The commentators found difficulty with his words, but according to our words, his words are necessary. (See the glosses of the Tur who wrote similarly to this. And perhaps it can also be said that the Tur holds that here too they were concerned on account of the permitting of its fat, for when they see two thrusts they will think that both were wild animals. And see the Bach and Taz, subsection 21, who spoke at length on this. And according to what I wrote, everything works out well. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

The Rambam at the beginning of the third chapter explains that even with prepared earth it is forbidden. However, from his words I have learned a different intention in this, and this is his wording: If one slaughtered a domestic animal, a wild animal, and a bird and their blood became mixed—he should not cover it until the evening. But if he had prepared earth or ash, and he is able to cover everything with one thrust—he should cover it. Thus far his words, and his intention is that certainly one should not nullify the mitzvah of covering because of the exertion, but rather because he can leave them until the evening and then cover. For presumably, since they were mixed and there is a large amount of blood—it will not be consumed until the evening. And according to his words, that which was said "Not only a koy..." is settled, meaning: "Not only a koy shall he leave until the evening, but even...". And they said in the Gemara there that if one slaughtered a bird on the eve of Yom Tov and did not cover it—it is forbidden to cover it on Yom Tov because of unnecessary exertion, since he was negligent in that he did not cover it on the eve of Yom Tov. Therefore, even a small amount of blood like a bird, which will certainly be consumed by the conclusion of Yom Tov—it is forbidden to cover on Yom Tov, since he himself was negligent. And there is no prevention of the joy of Yom Tov here, for the covering does not delay the eating, as I wrote in section 33.