Siman 499

It was taught in a baraita in Bekhorot (33a): One may not "flay from the legs" on Yom Tov, because he exerts an exertion that is not fit for him. Rashi explained: One may not "flay from the legs" – to strip it through the legs so the entire hide remains whole, to make a bellows for blacksmiths or for wineskins, see there. This is the opinion of the Tur, who wrote that they strip the hide whole in order to make a wineskin from it. However, the Rambam in the third chapter wrote: How does one "flay from the legs"? This is one who removes all the meat through one leg, so that he may remove the entire hide whole and it will not be torn, because he exerts a great exertion in this stripping, and there is no need for it for the festival. Thus far his words. And they were not concerned to permit the end for the sake of the beginning—for if not so, he would not slaughter, and would refrain from the joy of Yom Tov—as they permitted regarding a hide before the treaders, for it was established to our sages, of blessed memory, that even if they do not permit him this, he will slaughter and not refrain.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1 according to the wording of the Rambam. There are those whose opinion is that according to the Rambam, that which the Tur mentioned—flaying the skin whole—is permitted, according to the explanation of Rashi that only by way of one leg is it forbidden. Therefore, they wrote that it is proper to be stringent like the Tur (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And there is one who wondered about our teacher, the Rema, as to why he did not provide a gloss according to his custom (Taz, subsection 1). In my humble opinion, there is no dispute here. Even according to the Rambam, whenever one flays the skin whole—it is forbidden, because there is excessive labor involved. The Rambam followed the manner that existed in his days in his country, and Rashi explains according to the manner that existed in his days in his country. Therefore, the Tur stated the matters without qualification, to say that whenever they flay the skin whole—it is forbidden. For if it were not so, he should have explained that in this manner it is forbidden, and in that manner it is permitted, or that even in this manner it is forbidden. Rather, it is certainly so that there is no distinction, and in all manners it is forbidden when he flays it whole. There is no difference whether he begins with the leg, or whether he begins with the head, or between a large animal and a small animal.

One is permitted to scald a bird in order to remove the feathers, for flaying is not applicable to a bird, and plucking them involves more exertion than scalding them. However, any species of animal, even a small kid where it is possible to flay the skin—which is more convenient than scalding it—it is forbidden to scald it. And even if his intention in scalding is to eat the skin, for since the skin is soft it will soften even more through scalding and be like meat, nevertheless it is forbidden because it is an excessive exertion on Yom Tov. Only the head and the feet are permitted to be scalded, as I will write in siman 500, but not the entire body. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: It is forbidden to scald a kid unless he scalds it to eat the skin. Thus far his words. And they wrote that a corrupted version of the text happened to be before him in the Tur (Bach and Magen Avraham and Taz). I do not know why they attributed this to an error, for the Maggid Mishneh in the third chapter brought that there is a dispute of the Geonim regarding this, and one who is lenient in a rabbinic matter has lost nothing. Furthermore, in the Tur before us the version is so, see there. And that which they said in the Gemara (34a): "They scald the head and the feet"—they spoke of the common practice (Maggid Mishneh ibid.), for such was their way. (And that which the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 2, that the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote so—I am wonderstruck. For the Tosafot did not mention anything of this, see there. And the law of scalding was explained in Yoreh Deah siman 68).

An animal that was slaughtered on Yom Tov, even though the hide is muktzeh, nevertheless, to lift the hide after it was placed on the ground after the flaying, and to place it in a location where people walk, even though there is no meat on it at all, for in this the hide is somewhat tanned—it is permitted. And the sages permitted this, "their end because of their beginning" (11a), for if we do not permit it to him—he will not slaughter, and he will withhold himself from the joy of Yom Tov. And they permitted this thing because there is not such a great recognition that this is for tanning, for they will say that this is in order to sit upon them. And also, this is not tanning at all. And they further permitted salting meat upon the hide, which is to say that he should set the hide on an incline so that the blood of the salting will flow from there and he salts the meat, and automatically a little salt will also remain on the hide, and there will be a benefit for the tanning. And even to salt a little here and a little there was permitted in the Yerushalmi, so that the salt will spread over the entire hide, even though this is a manner of artifice. And specifically when he salted for roasting, which does not require much salt. But for a pot, it requires much salt and it is forbidden, for this is like complete tanning. And likewise, it is forbidden to place the hide upon pegs to stretch it, for in this the matter is evident. And there is one who permits in this as well, but it is not so (Magen Avraham, subsection 3).

And all this is regarding one slaughtered on Yom Tov, but regarding one slaughtered on Erev Yom Tov, they did not permit all this. And it is forbidden to move the skin on Yom Tov even if they flayed it on Yom Tov, for example where there was no time to flay it during the day, because the permission was only for those slaughtered on Yom Tov. But regarding Erev Yom Tov – surely there is plenty of time to do them from Erev Yom Tov. And even if this person slaughtered close to evening – we do not distinguish between one and another. And some say that as long as there was no time to flay them while it was still day, they permitted him all these leniencies: to move them, and to place them before those who tread, and to salt meat for roasting upon them (see Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 5). And whenever he could have done it while it was still day and did not do so, even if he forgot or was under duress – we do not permit it to him on Yom Tov (ibid.). And we who observe two days – the first is considered weekday relative to the second. For if he slaughtered on the first – it is forbidden to move it on the second. And know that this is regarding a moist skin that is not fit for sitting. But with a dry one it is permitted in any case, as it is fit for sitting and is not muktzeh at all, and on every Shabbat and Yom Tov it is permitted to move it, as I wrote in siman 308.

And similarly, a hen that was slaughtered on Yom Tov – it is permitted for him to move the feathers after their plucking and to store them away, even though they are muktzeh since they are currently fit for nothing; nevertheless, if we do not permit him to store them away – he will not slaughter, and he will come to refrain from the joy of Yom Tov. And know that the Mordechai wrote that any type of artifice was only permitted for a scholar, so that he will not come to be lenient in other matters, but not for every person. And such is not the opinion of all the poskim (Beit Yosef).

Even though they were lenient regarding the hide, as I have written, nevertheless, regarding the fats they were not lenient. This means that it is common practice to salt the fats after their removal from the animal so that they do not spoil, and on Yom Tov it is forbidden, because this is complete tanning. And one may not turn them over even to spread them upon pegs, because in this everyone sees that he is acting for their preservation and he may come to salt them. This is not the case regarding the hide, where the preservation is not evident, as I have written. And even though they were slaughtered on Yom Tov, and it is possible that because of this he may refrain from slaughtering, nevertheless, it is impossible to permit a complete prohibition that is visible to all. And similarly, it is forbidden to salt meat over them in the air directly above them; it is impossible [otherwise] for it is forbidden to place meat upon fats and only in the air is it possible, and automatically a little salt will fall upon the fats. And it is forbidden to do so, because the matter is evident that he is acting for the preservation of the fats, which is not the case regarding the hide. Furthermore: regarding fats, even a little salt constitutes tanning, and it is a complete prohibition. And there is one who says that nowadays, when it is not the common practice to salt upon the hide—even regarding the hide it is forbidden to salt upon it, for the matter is evident (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). And so one should instruct.

But to move the fats, the poskim wrote that it is permitted, for they are not muktzeh because they are fit for lighting. And there is one who raised a difficulty: for in siman 501 it will be explained that the pits of food are forbidden to be moved even though they are fit for lighting (there, subsection 9). And this is not a comparison, for foods are not designated for lighting, and it is like a new thing that was born. But the fats are primarily for lighting, and this is not like nolad. (And it is a wonder that the Magen Avraham himself there in subsection 15 wrote this reasoning.) And they wrote another reason to permit, because his mind is upon them to store them away so they will not be lost. And since it is not absolute nolad as I have written—his intent is effective for this, like a carcass that became a carcass on Shabbat, when his intent was from yesterday to give it to the dogs. And there is one who was stringent in all this (Magen Avraham ibid.), and the primary view is like those who are lenient. (And with what we have explained, everything that he questioned is answered, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it easy.)

It is permitted to cut meat even upon an object that is muktzeh due to monetary loss, and it is permitted to move it for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov. For example, a pestle, which is a thick and heavy board, except that it is a vessel whose primary function is for a forbidden labor, as it is made to crush grain upon it. And it is muktzeh due to monetary loss, which is forbidden to move even for the use of the object itself or its place, as I wrote in siman 308. Yet they permitted moving it to butcher meat upon it, because of the joy of Yom Tov. And after one has butchered the meat upon it – it is forbidden to move it from the sun to the shade. But for the use of the object itself or its place – they permitted its end because of its beginning. But from the sun to the shade it is possible to be careful not to come to this, and they did not see fit to permit this. (The Rif in the first chapter wrote this law, and concludes as we established in the chapter "Kol HaKelim." And the Rosh wrote that the Ri disagrees because according to Rava there 123a this is muktzeh due to monetary loss. And the Rif holds like the establishment of Rava 124a, that this is only muktzeh due to a prohibition, see there. And according to this, it is not a matter of their end because of their beginning. But in my humble opinion, the intention of the Rif is that Rava does not necessarily disagree with Rava. And that which he establishes regarding from the sun to the shade – the intention is also like Rava, that it is muktzeh due to monetary loss. Only for the use of the object itself or its place did they permit its end because of its beginning, and not from the sun to the shade, as I have written. Examine it and you will find it simple.)