Siman 501

One may not split wood for fuel on Yom Tov from beams designated for building. And it is not specifically splitting, for even without splitting it is forbidden, as they are muktzeh. And even Rava admits regarding this muktzeh, for it is muktzeh due to monetary loss, as building beams are not designated for fuel because of their high cost. And even from a beam that broke on Yom Tov, for the reason that it was muktzeh during twilight. However, this is only according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds of muktzeh, and like the Rif and the Rambam who ruled like Rabbi Yehuda regarding muktzeh on Yom Tov, as I wrote in siman 495. But according to Rabbi Shimon, and like the poskim who ruled like him as I wrote there – this is not muktzeh. This is the wording of the Tur: But according to Rabbi Shimon it is permitted if it is unstable and close to breaking. And if it is not unstable – even Rabbi Shimon admits. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words: For even Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold "since it was set aside during twilight, it is set aside for the entire day" – this is only when his mind was upon it during twilight, such as with a lamp that was extinguished on Shabbat, because during twilight he sits and anticipates when his lamp will be extinguished (Shabbat 46b). However, if it was lit in a large vessel like a bowl, where he does not sit and anticipate when it will be extinguished – it is forbidden (ibid.), and as I have written in siman 279, see there. And here too regarding a building, we say in Beitzah (30b) that the law is also thus: that if it was unstable and standing to be broken – it is permitted according to Rabbi Shimon, for his mind is upon it and he anticipates when it will break. But when it was not unstable – he does not sit and anticipate, and it is forbidden.

And if the beam broke on the eve of Yom Tov – it is permitted to kindle it on Yom Tov. However, in the Yerushalmi, the fourth chapter of Beitzah (halacha 3), it says: But regarding a beam that broke on the eve of Yom Tov – it is permitted when it does not possess the form of a vessel. But if it possesses the form of a vessel – even if it broke on the eve of Yom Tov, it is forbidden. And immediately after this it says: We may kindle with vessels, but we may not kindle with shards of vessels, with vessels that broke on Yom Tov. But if they broke on the eve of Yom Tov – it is permitted when they do not possess the form of a vessel. But if they possess the form of a vessel – even if they broke on Yom Tov, it is permitted. Thus far his words.

And this is its explanation: for a beam that broke on the eve of Yom Tov—it is permitted, because it was designated for fuel from the eve of Yom Tov. And this is when the form of a vessel no longer remains upon it, meaning the form of a beam. But if the form of a beam remains upon it—behold it is still like a complete beam designated for building, and it is muktzeh. And regarding vessels, where the law is that one may kindle with complete vessels and not with fragments of vessels because it is nolad, and consequently the prohibition is only if they broke on Yom Tov. However, even if they broke on Yom Tov, if the form of a vessel still remains upon them—it is like a complete vessel, and one may kindle with them. Therefore, regarding vessels, it is an advantage that the form of a vessel remains, and regarding a beam, it is a disadvantage, because one may kindle with a complete vessel, but one may not kindle with a complete beam. And there are those who understood that the Yerushalmi contradicts its own words, and said that there is a corruption here. But it is not so, and the Yerushalmi is well-settled. (See Magen Avraham subsection 2, who said that there are two versions, and wrote that it is nolad, and so it is implied in the Darkhei Moshe. And also the Pnei Moshe wrote that the first part is according to the one who forbids kindling with vessels, see there. And all of these are puzzling and forced. And the truth is as I have written, that the "form of a vessel" mentioned first refers to a beam, and therefore it is forbidden. And so wrote the Korban HaEdah in Sheyarei Korban, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

A beam that broke on the eve of Yom Tov, if it is possible to kindle it without any splitting at all—it is forbidden to split it; and if it is impossible to kindle it without splitting—one may split large pieces from it but not small ones. And the reason for the matter: for the labor of splitting does not override Yom Tov, as they are preparatory acts that could have been performed yesterday. Rather, when one splits large pieces—the name of a labor does not apply to this, but merely a general exertion, and for the sake of the honor of Yom Tov they permitted it. For even though one who cuts wood into pieces is liable for the sake of grinding—this is regarding thin pieces, which somewhat resemble grinding. Therefore, it is indeed forbidden to cut small pieces. But large ones—the prohibition of grinding does not apply to them. And the measure of large and small has not been clarified for us. And if one is precise in how to split—he is liable for the sake of cutting to measure, as I wrote at the beginning of siman 321. Therefore, we have never heard in our days of splitting wood on Yom Tov, and one who is compelled to do this should split them by means of a non-Jew. And there is one who says that wood is like food itself, for it is fit to warm oneself with them, and since it is permitted to split them for the need of heating—it is also permitted for the need of cooking (Magen Avraham, subsection 3 in the name of the Ran, see there). And this is only when the weather is cold, and when only small pieces are fit for heating. For if not so, Yom Tov was not given to be overridden for this, and this is not common at all (and even according to this, it is only permitted by means of a shinui).

And when he cleaves—he shall not cleave with an ax, nor with a sickle, nor with a saw, so that he does not act in the manner that he acts on a weekday. Rather, with a kofitz, which is a butcher's knife. And some make it with two heads, somewhat resembling an ax. And even with a kofitz, he shall not cleave with its wide side, but rather with the short side. And the Tur forbids even with a kofitz, because we are not expert in the form of this vessel, as it is not found among us. And it is only permitted with a knife, for with a knife it is certainly recognizable that the cleaving is not like on a weekday. And we have already explained that among us we do not cleave at all on Yom Tov. And even on Chol HaMoed, those who are meticulous are accustomed not to cleave wood, and to prepare everything before Yom Tov, even small pieces of wood for cooking fish (ibid. subsection 4 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo). However, in a case of necessity—it is obvious that on Chol HaMoed it is permitted. And on Yom Tov, he should do it by means of a non-Jew if it is impossible in another manner. And this too by means of a slight change, and in private, and a small amount, because among us this constitutes a desecration of Yom Tov.

Large pieces of wood that are somewhat substantial and fit for stoking without splitting—it is certainly forbidden to split them, and even to break them by hand the Tur forbids. And there are those who permit breaking them by hand, and even inserting them into a hole and breaking them. And only with a stone is it forbidden to break it. And so it was taught in the Tosefta (third chapter of Beitzah): A person may not place a stone upon a log in order to break it, but he may insert it into a hole and break it, see there. Behold, it is explicit that even in a hole it is permitted, and all the more so by hand (and see the Peri Chadash who forbids).

This is the wording of the Rambam in the fourth chapter: And why did they forbid with an ax and the like? So that he should not act in the manner that he acts on a weekday, for it was possible for him to chop from the eve of Yom Tov. And why was chopping not forbidden entirely? Because it is possible that he will encounter a thick piece of wood and not be able to ignite it, and he will be prevented from cooking. Therefore, they permitted chopping with a shinui. And all things similar to this, for this reason—they permitted in them what they permitted, and forbade what they forbade. Thus far his words. And the explanation of his words: For behold, ostensibly even if we compare this to food preparation, according to the opinion of "there is one who says" in section 5, it is also in any event forbidden by rabbinic law when it is possible to do it from yesterday, as I wrote in siman 495, and all the more so if this is of the category of "preparatory tools." However, the sages saw that this matter is like that which is impossible to do from yesterday, for even if he prepared wood—it is not possible to be precise as to which is thick and which is thin. And of necessity, at the time of cooking one must observe this, and therefore they saw fit to permit it by means of a shinui. And so too with everything similar to this—one should not ask why they permitted this and forbade that, because this depends on their abundant wisdom, to understand and discern which matter is customary to do from yesterday, and which matter is not customary to do from yesterday. And we are not to question why they forbade this and permitted that.

The wood that one kindles on Yom Tov must be prepared, for if not, it is muktzeh. And even according to the one who does not hold of muktzeh, nevertheless, gathering them bit by bit would be like me’amer (Ran). However, some say that there is no me’amer except in the place where they grow (Tosafot 31a). Therefore, one may not bring wood from the field; and even if they were gathered there from the eve of Yom Tov such that there is no muktzeh here, nevertheless, one must decree due to scattered wood if there is me’amer involved, which is a Torah prohibition. But one may gather in the courtyard before him near his pot. And similarly in the field if he is cooking there, for this does not appear like me’amer, as his pot proves regarding him that his intention is not to store it for tomorrow in the manner of me’amer, but rather for the needs of cooking. And some prohibit in the field, for in the field it always appears like me’amer (Magen Avraham subsection 7, in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo). And similarly, that which is in the field is muktzeh, but everything that is in the courtyard is prepared. And according to the opinion of the Rambam in chapter two, law 14, even in the field there is no muktzeh from that which is before him, see there. And one may say the reason is that certainly his mind was upon this from the eve of Yom Tov. And according to this, if certainly his mind was not upon this while it was yet day—it is muktzeh and prohibited.

And if the wood was gathered in a domain enclosed by partitions, and even if it was not enclosed for dwelling, if this domain was within the techum, and it has a frame such that it is not a place of hefker – it is permitted to take from there. And if any one of these is missing – they are muktzeh. And according to the Tur, as long as it is near the city within seventy cubits and four handbreadths, which is the city's outskirts – even if it does not have a frame it is permitted, for this is like his actual courtyard. And there is no muktzeh in this, and it also does not appear like gathering, for they are placed in order within a domain enclosed by partitions.

Leaves of trees, and similarly leaves of reeds and leaves of vines, even though they are gathered in a fenced-in karpef, nevertheless, since the wind can scatter them—they are as if scattered and are forbidden, either because of muktzeh or because of imur. And it appears that if the leaves are hanging on the branches, if they are not light such that the wind would scatter them—it is permitted when they are gathered, but otherwise they are forbidden. And one should not ask: if at the time he takes them the wind did not scatter them, what concern is there in this? For it can be said: they concerned themselves that perhaps at the time of taking them the wind will come and scatter them, and he will gather them (Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham). Therefore, if he placed a heavy vessel upon the leaves from the eve of Yom Tov, a thing that is permitted to be moved—it is permitted to take them on Yom Tov, for it is impossible for the wind to scatter them and they are not muktzeh, and it also does not appear like imur. And wood that fell from the tree on Yom Tov—one may not kindle a fire with them because it is nolad, for originally it was a tree and now it is wood. Furthermore: we decree lest he climb and pluck. And if they fell into the oven—it will be explained in siman 507 with the help of Heaven.

It is stated in the Gemara (33b): Our Rabbis taught: One may gather from the courtyard and kindle, for everything in the courtyard is considered prepared. Provided that he does not make piles upon piles. And so wrote the Tur. And when one gathers wood in the courtyard to burn—he should not make a pile from them, but rather he should bring a little and burn it, and bring a little and burn it. Thus far his words. The Rif and the Rambam did not cite this law, and their reason is not known. And perhaps since they wrote that one only gathers from what is before him and kindles—it follows automatically that there are no piles here (see Beit Yosef and Perisha). But some say that this matter is not related to that, for gathering from what is before him applies only to thin wood, which is nullified relative to the ground. But for wood that is somewhat large—we do not require specifically from before him, and with these one may not make piles (Ran ibid.). And in my humble opinion, the distinction between large and small wood pertains only to the reason of me'amer, which is the reason of the "some say." But according to the Rif and the Rambam, for whom the reason is because of muktzeh—there is no difference between large and small. (And it requires further study why this was not mentioned at all in the Shulchan Aruch).

We hold that one may kindle with vessels, but one may not kindle with fragments of vessels. For vessels are permitted for handling and are not muktzeh, and therefore it is permitted to cast them into the fire if there is no concern of bal tashchit, such as when they are only worth the value of wood. And if it is because he nullifies them from being a vessel on Yom Tov, and it is like destroying—one can say that there is no building or destroying regarding vessels. And even though it was explained in siman 314 that there is complete destroying even regarding vessels—that is regarding actual destroying, but when one uses it for the need of ochel nefesh on Yom Tov—it is no worse than other labors of ochel nefesh, when he does not actually destroy with his hands; for he performs the kindling, and the destroying happens of its own accord (see Magen Avraham, subsection 13, and examine it and you will find it easy). However, in this one must be careful: for if he kindled with vessels—he should not turn them in the fire after some of them have caught fire, for then they are fragments of vessels and are forbidden for handling, unless he added wood to them as I wrote in siman 507.

One may not stoke a fire with fragments of vessels if they broke on Yom Tov, for they are considered nolad. However, if they broke while it was still day—they are permitted. We have already cited in section 3 from the Yerushalmi that if they still possess the status of a vessel, in that they serve a function similar to their original work, even if they broke on Yom Tov—they are permitted. And anything that is forbidden to be moved—it is forbidden even to light it in its place without moving it, for muktzeh is forbidden for benefit. However, when one lights a whole vessel, even though the benefit comes when it is broken—it comes of its own accord (Magen Avraham, subsection 12). And in its place there is a permission when one increases the amount of prepared wood, as I wrote in siman 507. And a non-Jew who made a vessel on Yom Tov—it is forbidden to light it or to move it, for it is nolad.

Almonds and nuts that one ate from the eve of Yom Tov – one may kindle with their shells. But if he ate them on Yom Tov – one may not kindle with their shells, for it is nolad, as yesterday they were designated for man. Therefore, even if they are fit for animal fodder – it is forbidden. And even though from yesterday his intent was for this, that he would eat the fruit and kindle with the shells – nevertheless it is of no avail, for since the shells are necessary for the food to protect them until the time of eating – they are considered like the food itself, and it becomes nolad (Tosafot Shabbat 29a, beginning with the words "one ate them," see there). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that one also should not kindle with the nuts and almonds themselves, unless they are still in the shell. Thus far his words. And they are inferior to vessels which one may kindle with, because vessels are at any rate a type of wood, and this type is designated for kindling, which is not the case with fruits (Magen Avraham, subsection 15), and therefore this itself is like a new thing. However, when they are in their shells – it is permitted, for the shells are indeed designated for kindling, and when they are together there is no concern. And in the Yerushalmi, third chapter (halacha 3), it is stated: Rabbi Chiyya taught: One may kindle with foods but not with their shells and their pits – implying that it is permitted. However, it can be said that the intention is when the foods are in their shells, and it is not speaking of all foods but rather of fruits, since it said "with their shells" and not "with shells" (the Magen Avraham there challenged from this Yerushalmi and there is no proof). And so it implies in the Tosefta, third chapter, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that torches remaining from the first day of Yom Tov that were extinguished—it is permitted to return and light them even on the second day of Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah or a Yom Tov following Shabbat. Thus far his words. That is to say: regarding torches that were extinguished, and the same law applies to wicks, they are better than those that were not burned at all, and there is an issue in this of preparation from one day of Rosh Hashanah to the other or from Shabbat to Yom Tov, for preparation is forbidden in them, which is why an egg laid on this one is forbidden on this one. The Tur indeed ruled for prohibition, see there. And he decided for permission based on the reason written by the Mordechai, that since the substance of the wick exists in the world—the concept of preparation is not so applicable (see Taz subsection 7, and Magen Avraham subsection 16). And there is one who ruled like the Tur (Yam Shel Shlomo). However, in our wicks there is no difference between those that were not lit and those that were lit and extinguished, and therefore with us it is simple that it is permitted.