Siman 507

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: One may bake in a furni, which are our large ovens whose opening is on their side, provided that it is not new, for we fear perhaps it will collapse, and the bread will be ruined, and he will be prevented from the joy of Yom Tov. And one may heat water in an antiki, which is a large cauldron. Thus far his words, and it is in the Gemara (34a). And the explanation of the matters: For their ovens were small, and the furni is a large oven similar to ours, and it comes to teach us that we do not say that it is a great exertion on Yom Tov, and only with a new one do we fear perhaps it will collapse. And in our ovens, this fear is not relevant. And also with us, before one bakes in it – one fires it beforehand several times to dry it. And that of the antiki is also to teach us that we do not fear such a great exertion. And also the heat lasts until the next day, and I would have said that this is like preparation for a weekday – it comes to teach us that it is permitted.

It has already been explained in siman 501 that wood that fell from a palm tree on Yom Tov is forbidden to be used for fuel due to the reason of muktzeh and nolad. Nevertheless, if this wood fell into the oven, one may add a greater amount of prepared wood to them and nullify them by a majority. And even though one may not nullify a prohibition lekhatchilah, here, since the prohibition is destined to be burned and the benefit comes afterward, we are not concerned for this, and we nullify them by a majority according to the law of dry in dry. For this reason, we are not concerned even though it is a thing that has permitters, and also the essence of the prohibition is rabbinic, provided that he is careful not to touch them until they are nullified by a majority. And touching is not literal, for muktzeh is not forbidden by touching, as I wrote in siman 308, but rather it means: that he should not move it. (Regarding the difficulty raised by the Magen Avraham, subsection 3, from Tosafot Pesachim—the Dagul Mervavah and the Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger have already wondered at him.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that when one adds prepared wood to them—we require that the prohibited wood not be recognizable. And his reasoning: for this is the case with every matter of nullifying a prohibition in a permitted substance: that it must not be recognizable, for if it is recognizable—it is not nullified even one in a thousand, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah in siman 98. Nevertheless, some say that even if they are recognizable—they are nullified (Magen Avraham subsection 2 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo), for behold, many leniencies were applied to this nullification, because the prohibited substance is destined to be burned. And so it is explicitly explained in the responsa of the Rashba siman 485, see there. (And it seems to me there is a proof for this from Shabbat 29a, see there. Examine it and you will find it easily.)

There are those who wish to say that since the reason for the permission is because the forbidden object is destined to be burned, and the benefit will come to him afterward—therefore it is forbidden to warm oneself against them, for the benefit comes before the completion of their burning. And even if we say that the benefit of the heat comes from that which has already been burned—nevertheless, to use them for light, for which the benefit certainly comes before the completion of their burning, is forbidden. And in truth, there is no basis for this, for is it forbidden to derive benefit that comes of its own accord from muktzeh? Behold, a non-Jew who lit his candle for his own needs—it is permitted for the Israelite to use its light. And the prohibition is only regarding moving it. And that which it is forbidden to use its light when the non-Jew lit it for the sake of the Israelite—this is because a labor was performed for him (see Magen Avraham, subsection 3). However, there are those who hold that muktzeh is forbidden for benefit, as I wrote in siman 501, and it requires further study.

And all the leniencies that they applied in this matter—this refers to the rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh. However, regarding the Torah prohibition of hachanah—they did not apply leniencies. Therefore, if they fell into the oven on Shabbat—it is forbidden to kindle them on the Yom Tov that follows it, even by means of nullification in a majority. For Shabbat does not prepare for Yom Tov, and here, through its detachment, Shabbat prepared for Yom Tov, as Shabbat itself does not require kindling. And therefore, conversely, if it fell on a Yom Tov that occurred on the eve of Shabbat, and the next day kindling is required by means of a non-Jew for the sake of an ill person or the like—it is permitted, for Yom Tov did not prepare for Shabbat but rather for itself, as kindling is permitted on Yom Tov. And some say that Shabbat also prepared for itself, for if there were a dangerously ill person—it would have been permitted (Magen Avraham subsection 4 in the name of the Ran, see there). And I do not understand: for if so, all muktzeh and all matters are nullified, for all things are permitted for a dangerously ill person, and it requires further study. Nevertheless, for the practical law it is forbidden, as I have written.

There is one who says that specifically when the wood fell into the oven, where presumably there is also permitted wood, then it is permitted to add to them so that they are nullified by the majority. However, if they fell outside of the oven, without a mixture of other wood—it is forbidden to add (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). And I wonder: for even if they fell into the oven, since there is no majority of permitted wood—it is still as if it is entirely forbidden, and despite all this it is permitted to add? If so, then outside of the oven as well! Furthermore: is it to say that in an oven there is always wood? And the Shas, which used the expression "into the oven," did so for another reason, for if it were not into the oven, who would compel him to take muktzeh wood and nullify them by the majority? Let him take wood that is not muktzeh. But in the oven he is compelled to do so, for he needs to bake there. And to remove them from the oven—is forbidden, because they are forbidden in handling. Furthermore: for if it were outside of the oven, how would he bring them into the oven? But to divide between whether there was some permitted wood or there was not—this is certainly wondrous. (And the proof that he brought from Yoreh Deah siman 99 is no proof at all to one who looks there. And the Machatzit HaShekel elaborated and pressed the matter, and there is no proof, see there. And look closely and you will find it easy.) (And in Yam Shel Shlomo, first chapter, siman 6, it is explained according to our words. However, in the Responsa of the Rashba, part 1, siman 336, it is explained like the Magen Avraham. And the Ran at the beginning of Beitzah is as one who is doubtful regarding this, see there. And it requires further study.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3: It is forbidden to take a piece of wood from among the wood to stir the fire in the oven, for it is like one who fashions a vessel. Thus far their words, and this is in the Gemara (33a). And seemingly, what fashioning of a vessel is there in this, for is it not a piece of wood like all other wood? And the wording of the Tosafot in Shabbat (143a) is more precise, as they wrote that even though he does not fashion it—even so it is forbidden, for we decree lest he come to fashion a vessel. Thus far his words. And the Rosh in Beitza there wrote that it appears like fashioning a vessel, and it is forbidden even if it is dry and fit for fuel, unless it was prepared for this from the eve of Yom Tov. And the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch appears to me that this is its explanation: for certainly when one selects a piece of wood from among the wood—this wood is not like ordinary wood, but it is somewhat like a vessel, as it is fit to stir with it. And this itself is like the making of a vessel. And likewise, it is forbidden to select a piece of wood from the wood to bolt the door for this same reason, unless he prepared it from the eve of Yom Tov (Taz, subsection 4).

In our ovens, where they bake on the floor of the oven—it is obvious that without sweeping the ash and the coals it is impossible to bake, for it is permitted to sweep them. And even though he extinguishes several coals at the time of sweeping—behold, it is impossible without this. And just as it is permitted to kindle for the purpose of food preparation—so too it is permitted to extinguish for the purpose of food preparation. And behold, this is like one who places meat upon coals, and so they practiced. Nevertheless, there is a difference between sweeping on a weekday and on Yom Tov, for on a weekday they dip the sweeper, which they call a "pamil-e," in much water and sweep, and on Yom Tov it is certainly forbidden in this manner, for if so, the extinguishing is great in this manner and there is no necessity in this. Rather, they sweep with a dry sweeper, and they sweep very thoroughly. And in this too there is one who extinguishes, but it is impossible without this. Nevertheless, if the oven is large, and he sweeps part of it and it is sufficient for him there for the bread that he needs to bake, and he only fears lest the bread touch the place that he did not sweep and the bread will be singed—he should not sweep more, for certainly if he sweeps at one time—he sweeps it all in the manner of sweeping. But if he swept part of it and stopped—he should not sweep more afterward when he has enough space. And even though there is a bit of a need in this lest the bread touch as I have written, nevertheless, regarding extinguishing we do not say "mitchok," for behold, extinguishing was not permitted at all on Yom Tov except in that which is a necessity (this is the intention of the Magen Avraham, subsection 8).

And one should not ask: If so, why was meat on the coals permitted? Behold, one can roast on a spit in the air, such that there would be no extinguishing at all. For it can be said: The Torah did not restrict for us the manner of our eating, and the choice is in our hands to eat according to our will, and there are those who prefer meat on the coals more. And so it appears explicitly from Rashi and from the Rambam, that meat on the coals is a complete extinguishing, but the Torah permitted it. However, there are some of our teachers who wrote that meat on the coals is not a complete extinguishing, because after the extinguishing it will ignite immediately (the Ramban in the Milchamot, and the Ran in the second chapter). And their intention is not that if it were a complete extinguishing it would be forbidden when it is impossible in another manner like with raking; for this is no logic at all, for if so, how could we bake on Yom Tov? Rather, they spoke regarding roasting, for it is possible on a spit and the like. (And so it is explained explicitly in their words at the end of the second chapter, and this is the wording of the Ran: But Rashi… we are not exacting to say it is possible to roast it in another manner… Thus far his words. But according to the version of the Rif we are exacting, and so he wrote in the Milchamot and this is his wording: For behold, it is possible to roast without extinguishing, see there.) (And the difficulty of the Magen Avraham in subsection 9 is answered, and his difficulty is wondrous. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

And know that there is one who wrote with this wording in siman 502, section 1, in the Hagah: It implies that even for the purpose of eating, specifically at the time one is preparing the food it is permitted to extinguish, and not before then (Magen Avraham, end of subsection 8). And his intention is regarding what our teacher, the Rema, wrote there, that it is permitted to cover the fire with a vessel or prepared dust if he does not extinguish it, see there. But in a case where he extinguishes it—it is forbidden, because it is not at the time of the preparation of the food. But in my humble opinion, these are puzzling words. For there, if it pertained to the food in the oven—it certainly would be permitted. However, there the covering is in order that the fire should be maintained for a long time, as is proven from what he concludes there, that specifically for the sake of the first day of Yom Tov, but for the sake of the second day of Yom Tov—it is forbidden, see there. Behold, it is explicit that his intention is for a later time, and in this, extinguishing was certainly not permitted, for at a later time he can light other wood. But when the extinguishing is for the purpose of ochel nefesh—it is simple that it is permitted even if not at the time of the preparation of the food, like clearing an oven before baking. And such is the primary ruling in halacha.

In the time of the Shas, when the ovens were small and the bread would stick to the side of the oven, there were other laws regarding the law of raking. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4: An oven into which clay plaster fell—if it is possible to bake and roast in it without raking, and the bread or the roast will not be singed, it is forbidden to rake it, because he is moving it unnecessarily. However, it is permitted to lay down the fire and the ash within it so that it will be smooth and not touch the bread at all, even though if it were to touch it, it would not be enough to singe it. But if there is enough in the plaster that fell into it to singe the bread or the roast if it were to touch them, even though without raking it would be possible to bake and roast in it, since it would be singed, it is permitted to rake it, as it is considered moving for a necessity. And specifically in their ovens, where they would stick the bread around them, and he only needs to rake them from the plaster that fell into it. But our ovens... Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words: To flatten the fire and the ash is permitted in any case, even if the bread on the side will not be scorched, because fire and ash are permitted for handling on Yom Tov. And this refers to when the ash is hot and is like fire (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). And when it has cooled, it is forbidden to flatten it, as it is muktzeh. And when it becomes hot again, its permission returns (ibid.). And when there is dust there, it is forbidden to flatten it as it is muktzeh (ibid.). But regarding plaster that fell into the oven, it depends on if there is no spoilage to the bread at all, meaning that it is possible to bake and to roast on the spit without scraping, and also no scorching would occur to them by their touching the plaster, for then it is forbidden to scrape it. But if by touching it will be scorched, even though the essence of the baking or the roasting is possible even without scraping, and also it is not certain that the plaster will touch them—nevertheless it is permitted to scrape it, because it is likely that it will touch them and be scorched, and it is permitted because of ochel nefesh. (And the Taz, subsection 5, explained the words of the Tur in another manner. And the words of the Beit Yosef are clear regarding the law, see there.)

It was their practice to smear oil on a new oven or stove in order to polish them, and it is forbidden to do so on Yom Tov because it is repairing a vessel. And similarly, it was their practice to rub them with a cloth in order to polish them, and it is forbidden on Yom Tov because it is repairing a vessel. And it was their practice after the first heating to place cold within them, meaning cold water, in order to strengthen them, and it is forbidden on Yom Tov for the reason that has been explained. However, the first heating is permitted on Yom Tov, because this is not considered the completion of the labor until he tempers it with cold, and this we have forbidden him. However, if they were heated excessively, and it is necessary to temper them with cold in order to bake in them, for without this it is impossible to bake as the bread would be scorched—it is permitted to temper them with cold, meaning to dip the brooms in cold water, and they sweep the oven with them even though he extinguishes directly, since it is impossible to bake at all without this. And even though through this the oven is strengthened, and it is a repair of a vessel, and it is similar to the tempering of stones which is forbidden later in siman 508—nevertheless here it is permitted, since this occurred during the process of preparing the baking. Furthermore: it is not certain that they will be strengthened in this manner. (And see Magen Avraham, subsection 11, who explained regarding this that they are not similar to one another.)

And if he already raked, but only small coals remained—it is forbidden to soak the broom in water and rake them, for it is possible without this (ibid. subsection 12). And so we wrote in section 8 regarding our ovens, that it is permitted to rake them, but without soaking in water. And so too the broom, after they finished raking the oven—it is forbidden to immerse it in water so that it will not burn (ibid.), for there is no need of ochel nefesh in this, but merely a loss that the broom will burn. And because of this, extinguishing was not permitted, and even though he will not have anything with which to rake further, since this time he finished the raking, it is forbidden.

It has already been explained in siman 503 that it is permitted to bake a full oven of bread, even though one only needs one loaf, because this loaf bakes better when the oven is full of bread. And some say this is specifically when one intends to improve this loaf, but otherwise it is forbidden (Beit Yosef in the name of the Ra'ah). And this does not appear so from the words of the poskim (Beit Yosef). And it appears that regarding cooking it is certainly not so, since it is a single exertion. But bread, where every loaf is an exertion unto itself—it is proper to be stringent (Magen Avraham subsection 13).

However, this permission applies only to their ovens which were small, and they would stick the bread to their walls, and because it was full there was no room for its heat to dissipate, and therefore the bread would bake well when the oven was full. But this is not the case with our ovens which are large, and there is not such a great benefit in filling them with bread. Therefore, it is forbidden to bake more than what is necessary. However, one does not need to be exacting in this, for it is impossible to be exacting. And there are those who wish to permit this even in our ovens, but it is not the primary view. And all the more so that ha'aramah is forbidden with bread, and it is not similar to a cooked dish which involves only a single exertion.

It is permitted to seal the opening of the oven on Yom Tov with clay and mire that is on the bank of the river, for the clay is already kneaded; for kneading is forbidden on Yom Tov, and one must prepare it from the eve of Yom Tov. And this means: either he should soften it slightly from the eve of Yom Tov, or he should make a mark in it and detach it to one side, as if it stands by itself, and this is its designation. Clay that is in the street does not require an action, but rather that he should have it in mind from the eve of Yom Tov (Magen Avraham, subsection 15). And even though it is forbidden to knead clay on Yom Tov, and only to soften it is permitted, nevertheless it is permitted to knead ash on Yom Tov, for it is not subject to kneading. And even according to those who hold that there is kneading regarding ash, as I wrote in siman 321, section 18, since this is for the purpose of okhel nefesh to preserve its heat—it is permitted. And why is it forbidden with clay? Because it appears as if he is repairing for the purpose of building (ibid., subsection 16). However, the Tur wrote that according to Ri, the author of the Tosafot—it is forbidden unless he placed water on the ash from the eve of Yom Tov. And according to our teacher Tam, even in this manner it is forbidden, and it is only permitted to place it on the opening of the oven without kneading. And so we are accustomed to forbid kneading even with ash, for it is a doubt of a Torah prohibition. And I do not know, for even if we judge it as okhel nefesh—behold, he could have done it from the eve of Yom Tov. Furthermore: this is certainly the category of "preparations for okhel nefesh." (The Gaon Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote that from Ketubot 7a it is proven that intercourse is a slight necessity, and perforce we say regarding extinguishing "since," see there. And in my humble opinion, this is not like every slight necessity, see there. And examine carefully and you will find it light.)