Siman 503

It is a known matter that it is forbidden to trouble oneself to prepare something from a Yom Tov for its fellow, even something that is not a melakhah. Certainly, it is forbidden to cook or bake from a Yom Tov for its fellow. For since the two days of Yom Tov that we observe are due to doubt—perhaps tomorrow is a weekday—it turns out that one prepares or performs melakhah from Yom Tov for a weekday. Certainly now, when we are experts in the fixing of the month, it is certainly so that it is forbidden. And even the two days of Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah, which are one sanctity—this is for stringency and not for leniency; except regarding the matter of an eruv for two days, for this is also for leniency on Rosh Hashanah, as I wrote above in siman 416, that one may walk on the second day with his eruv of the first. And the reason is simple, for there, if the first is the primary day, as is the truth—then the second is a weekday, and does not require an eruv. But here, on the contrary, if the second is a weekday—is it not forbidden to cook from Yom Tov for a weekday (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And so too from Yom Tov to Shabbat it is forbidden, unless one set an eruv tavshilin. And it is a kal vachomer that it is forbidden to cook from the second day of Yom Tov for the evening, which is a complete weekday.

The Rabbis taught (17a): One may not bake on Yom Tov for the next day. In truth they said, a woman may fill the entire pot with meat, even though she only needs one piece; a baker may fill a barrel of water, even though he only needs one pitcher, because it is all done with a single exertion (Rashi). But regarding baking—he may only bake what he needs. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A woman may fill the entire oven with bread, because bread bakes better when the oven is full. Rava said: The halacha follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. And this is the explanation: The Rabbis did not permit additional labor for the sake of the improvement that this small necessary portion would gain. They only permit what is done with a single exertion, even if there is no improvement in the portion that is permitted, such as the water in the barrel, where the portion of water he needs is not improved by the remaining water. And certainly regarding a pot of meat which is improved, as it is known that the more meat there is in the pot—the more the flavor rises into each and every piece within it. Therefore, the Rabbis only permitted cooked food and water which are prepared in a single vessel. But baking, where each loaf is an act unto itself—they did not permit. And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar added that they permitted it even for the sake of improvement, and therefore it is also permitted regarding baking, and certainly he permits that which is done in a single act. And such is the halacha, and all agree to this (see Taz, subsection 1). And as for one who puts the water into the pot not all at once—it appears there is no concern in this, as this is not a labor. But to draw from the well multiple times—it appears that it is forbidden.

And all the more so it is permitted to slaughter an animal, even if one only needs a small portion of it, for it is impossible to have a kezayit of meat without slaughtering. And similarly, she may cook many pots and eat a little from each one. And if there is artifice in this, it will be explained before us. And know that there is a difference between the reason of "one labor" and the reason that the portion is improved. For where the reason is only because of one labor, such as with a barrel of water, if they placed the barrel on the fire—it is forbidden to add water to it afterward, as this is a new labor. This is not the case with a pot of meat or an oven of bread—it is permitted even to add meat to the pot and bread to the oven afterward, in order to improve those that one wishes to eat. And even if she placed it in a small pot—she may transfer it to a large pot and add meat (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And regarding the law of bread, it will be explained in siman 507 that in our ovens, the minority is not improved by the oven being full of bread. Therefore, it is forbidden nowadays to bake more than what is needed; see there.

The Tur wrote that some say even if she said explicitly that she wants it for the needs of tomorrow – it is permitted. And some forbid it. And it appears that it is permitted, since the reason for the permission is because the addition causes flavor in the cooked food. If so, even if she stated explicitly – it is also permitted. Thus far his words. And the Rokeach is the one who forbids it. And his reason appears to be that although it is true that our sages, of blessed memory, permitted it because of this, nevertheless if the primary intention is for the needs of tomorrow – it is certainly forbidden. And the Tur holds that we are not concerned with the intention, since it is permitted according to the law. However, I saw in the Rokeach that he is not particular about the intention, only about the speech, and this is his wording (in siman 298): A woman may fill a pot... but one should not say "these shall be for the needs of the Yom Tov and not those." But when she fills the pot then the cooked food is good, and her artifice is not recognizable, like that of salting piece by piece... Thus far his words, and his intention is that the reason for the permission is because the artifice is not recognizable. And when she said it – behold, the artifice is recognizable.

And according to this, it must be said that the Tur, who disagrees with him, holds that even if the artifice is recognizable—it is permitted. But it is impossible to say so, for afterwards the Tur wrote in the name of the Ittur that specifically before eating she may increase the cooking, but after eating she cannot cook and say "I will eat a kezayit from it," for you have no greater artifice than this. Thus far his words, and the Tur agreed to this. Consequently, he holds that a recognizable artifice is forbidden. And if so, how did he permit it when she says that she desires it for the needs of tomorrow? Behold, there is a recognizable artifice here. And it must be said that he holds that it is only called a recognizable artifice when the observer understands the artifice on his own, such as after eating. But before eating, even though she says her desire is for the needs of tomorrow, nevertheless, since during the entire time of cooking there is no artifice in appearance—we are not concerned with her statement which is momentary, and also the listener will estimate that afterwards the desire arose in her to leave some for tomorrow as well. And like this reasoning, it is explicitly proven in the Tosafot (11b, starting with the words "one practices artifice," see there well, and examine and you will find it easily). (And see Taz, subsection 1.)

And even though after eating it is forbidden to use a legal artifice even if one desires to eat a piece of it, nevertheless, if one transgressed and cooked after eating, and ate a kezayit of the food, and likewise when one slaughtered an animal after eating and ate a kezayit – it is permitted to eat it in the evening, even on the day of Rosh Hashanah. And there are those who forbid it even post facto, but this is not the primary view (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And the proof for this is: for behold, in the case of a dangerously ill animal they permitted doing so ab initio, as I wrote in siman 498. And if it should enter your mind that even post facto it is forbidden in a case other than a dangerously ill animal or with other cooked foods – he should not have permitted it in the case of a dangerously ill animal.

And know that there is a dispute among the poskim regarding that which they permitted to practice artifice before the meal to cook much, and his intention is for the evening even though now he only needs one piece as has been explained, because this piece is better when the pot is full as I have written: whether the intention is specifically when he truly needs this piece for his meal today, but when he does not need it at all for his meal today as he has other foods, but rather he wants to eat a little of it for the sake of the permission – it is forbidden. Or perhaps: even in such a case it is permitted. For there are those who forbid (Bach and Knesset HaGedolah in the name of Radbaz), and there are those who permit (Magen Avraham subsection 2, and Yam Shel Shlomo, and Taz at the end of subsection 1), and she may even cook many pots and taste a kezayit from each one (ibid.). And so it is implied from the words of the Tosafot, and the Tur, and the poskim who forbade after the meal, as I have written. And behold, after the meal he certainly does not essentially need the piece that he eats – conclude from this that before the meal even in such a case it is permitted. And such is the custom of the world, that they cook some food for the night, and taste a little of it (ibid.). And it is a simple matter that the way of tasting is not effective, but rather to eat a little in the manner of eating. And there are those who say that only from the first day of Yom Tov to the second day of Yom Tov is it permitted in such a case, and not from the second day of Yom Tov to a weekday (ibid.). And I do not understand the distinction in this (and so he wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham that it is permitted).