Siman 509

It has already been explained that the preliminaries of food preparation which could not have been done on the eve of Yom Tov—it is permitted to do them on Yom Tov. For this reason, we permitted in siman 507 to scrape out the oven when the plaster fell, see there. Similarly, a spit upon which one roasts meat, if its point broke on Yom Tov in a manner that it is not fit to roast with—it is permitted to repair it. But if it became slightly bent, and it is still fit to roast with—it is forbidden to repair it, even if he can repair it by hand without a tool. Similarly, if he can borrow from his neighbor—he shall not repair it on Yom Tov, even when it is impossible to roast with it (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And if it broke on the eve of Yom Tov, and he knew of this, and he had time to repair it, even if he forgot and did not repair it—it is forbidden to repair it in any case. But if he did not know that it broke, or if there was no time to repair it—its law is like that which broke on Yom Tov (ibid., subsection 2). Similarly, if it broke on the first day of Yom Tov—it is forbidden to repair it on the second day of Yom Tov, for regarding this matter the first day of Yom Tov is considered like a weekday, even though we are experts in the fixing of the month (ibid.). And even though it was forbidden to repair it on the first day of Yom Tov, such as if it broke after the meal, nevertheless regarding the second day of Yom Tov this is like that which broke on the eve of Yom Tov, which is forbidden to repair on Yom Tov.

And even though according to the essential law it is so, that when it was not possible to prepare it from the eve of the Yom Tov, it is permitted to prepare it on Yom Tov, nevertheless, one does not instruct the public so, in order that they should not come to repair it also when it was broken from the eve of the Yom Tov. For so our sages, of blessed memory, said (28b): It is the halacha, but one does not instruct so. However, the Rambam in the fourth chapter and the Tur did not cite this, except regarding a whetstone which will be explained. And they hold that only regarding this law of a knife to sharpen it did our sages, of blessed memory, say so, because the sharpening of a knife appears more like a weekday activity, and not regarding other laws. But our teacher, the Rema, in section 1 wrote this also regarding a spit and regarding all preparatory acts, for such is the opinion of some of the poskim. And it appears from their words that to the public one does not instruct, but to an individual the instructor may instruct, for if not so, he should have said "and one should not instruct so to others." And even though the language of the Gemara is "and one does not instruct so" – it implies to them that only to the public one does not instruct. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book in siman 514 that it is not specifically to the public, for the same law applies to an individual, that one does not instruct, see there.

However, we have already written in siman 495, section 22, that regarding the primary laws of machshirei ochel nefesh, we have not found a clear matter among the poskim; for the Rambam forbids in all the laws except for the scraping of an oven, and so it is explained from the Rif. And we explained there in section 25 that because "one does not instruct thus"—he ruled in all of them to forbid, except for that which pertains to the ochel nefesh itself, such as the scraping of an oven, see there. And similarly wrote the Ramban regarding the approach of the Rif (brought in the Bach in this siman). This is the wording of the Ramban: That even though the halacha is like Rava—they did not rely on him completely, and matters that are the primary machshirim of the body of the food, such as the scraping of an oven—the halacha is so and one instructs thus where it will certainly be scorched… and matters that are not the primary machshirei ochel nefesh but rather they are needed, such as extinguishing so that the house will not be filled with smoke, and extinguishing a fire in the house, or extinguishing a lamp for the sake of intimacy—they are completely forbidden both to instruct and to perform an action with them specifically. And matters that are machshirei ochel nefesh but are not necessary, such as a knife that became dull, where it is possible by borrowing since they are common to everyone—it is permitted by means of a shinui… except that one does not instruct because they are common… Thus far his words. And the Ran wrote that such is the reasoning of the Rashba and the Semag, and such is the opinion of the Rambam (Bach ibid.). And we explained there in section 25 the opinion of the Rambam, see there.

But the Tur followed the approach of his father, the Rosh, that the halacha follows Rav Yosef and we instruct accordingly, except in two matters where we do not instruct according to Rav Yosef: regarding the sharpening of a knife, and regarding the extinguishing of a lamp for the purpose of intimacy. Therefore, he wrote here regarding a spit that broke, if it is not fit for roasting – it is permitted to repair it. And regarding a knife that was nicked, he wrote that it is permitted to sharpen it on a whetstone of wood, or against another knife, and we instruct accordingly. But on a whetstone of stone, even though it is permitted to sharpen with it – we do not instruct to do so. And if it is to remove its grease – even with one of stone we instruct to do so. And in siman 514, regarding the extinguishing of a log, he ruled that if he does not extinguish it the pot will become smoky – it is permitted to extinguish it, and only for intimacy is it forbidden to extinguish completely, see there. And his reason is simple: for regarding the sharpening of a knife they said in the Gemara that we do not instruct accordingly. And regarding intimacy his reason is: that this is called "possible to do from the eve of Yom Tov," for he should not have placed a lamp in a place where he needs it for intimacy. Furthermore: for behold he can move it to another room. And even though in the Gemara it asks regarding this law (22a) when he does not have another room, and the prohibition to extinguish is according to the Rabbanan and not according to Rav Yosef, see there – nevertheless, the Tur holds that since regarding a knife which is for matters of eating they said we do not instruct accordingly, all the more so intimacy which is not a matter of eating, that we do not rule accordingly. And therefore he ruled for prohibition.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, followed the approach of the Rambam, and ruled in all of them to forbid. Therefore, he wrote in this siman, section 1: A spit that was bent, even though one is able to straighten it by hand – one may not repair it. Thus far his words; behold, he ruled entirely to forbid. And in section 2 he wrote: A spit that one desires to roast with, and it was excessively long – it is forbidden to cut it, and not to burn it. Thus far his words. And even though it is permitted to burn a wick into two in siman 514 – there it appears like one lighting two candles. But here it is forbidden due to the repair of a vessel (Mordechai). And there is one who wrote that it must be said that it deals with a case where it was possible to do it from yesterday (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). That is to say: that if it was not possible from yesterday – it is permitted. But it seems to me that it is not so, for according to the approach of the Rambam all preparatory acts are forbidden, as I have written. And if so, even when one was not able to do it from yesterday – it is forbidden.

He further wrote: One may not sharpen a knife on its whetstone. However, one may sharpen it on wood, or earthenware, or a stone. But one does not instruct the public so, so that they do not come to sharpen them on a whetstone. In what case are these words said? When it can cut with difficulty, or if it became nicked. But if it cannot cut at all – one may not sharpen it even on wood, lest he come to sharpen it on a whetstone. Thus far his words, and this is from the words of the Rambam. And not like the Tur, who permits instructing so regarding wood, and regarding a stone whetstone it is permitted but one does not instruct so as I wrote in section 4, and on another knife its law is like on wood (ibid. subsection 5). And just as one does not instruct the public so – so too one should not do so in front of many people, unless he can evade and say that he only intends to remove the grease. And with a whetstone – even to remove the grease one does not instruct (ibid. subsection 6 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo and Bach).

And in siman 514 he ruled that it is forbidden to extinguish the log, even though it is impossible to save the pot in any other way, see there. And also for a use—it is forbidden. And this is all according to the method of the Rambam. But the words of our teacher, the Rema, are perplexing, for he follows the method of the Tur, and ruled there regarding the extinguishing of the log that if it is impossible to save the pot in any other way—it is permitted to extinguish, see there. And in this siman in section 1 regarding a spit that was flattened, he ruled that if he cannot roast with it, and it broke on Yom Tov—it is permitted to repair it, see there. And this is like the Tur. And even though he added to say that one does not instruct the public so, and in the Tur he did not mention this—he followed in this the method of Rabbeinu Yerucham, that in this too it is the halacha but one does not instruct so. And this is not a contradiction to the method of the Tur, of course.

But according to this it is difficult: for if so, why did he not provide a gloss in section 2 regarding the law of sharpening the knife, that with wood it is completely permitted, and with a whetstone it is permitted but we do not instruct so, according to the words of the Tur? And it appears to me regarding his reasoning that with a whetstone he did not follow the approach of the Tur, because regarding a whetstone, even though throughout the entire sugya (28a) it is explained that according to Rava Yosef it is permitted to sharpen the knife with a whetstone, nevertheless at the end of the sugya it is proven that even according to Rav Yosef it is forbidden. For behold, afterwards it forbids showing a knife to a sage on Yom Tov, as I wrote in siman 498. And according to the Rambam the reason is lest the sage tell him that it is blemished, and he will go and sharpen it, as I wrote there. And if it should enter your mind that according to Rav Yosef it is permitted—what of it if he sharpens it? And if it is because we do not instruct so, behold we are not instructing him, but rather he does it on his own, and behold it is permitted to do so since the halacha is like Rav Yosef. Rather, it is certainly forbidden even according to Rav Yosef. And this reasoning was written by the Ran, of blessed memory, in the sugya there, see there. And the conclusion of the halacha regarding a knife is that there is no permission to instruct. Only to remove its grease—it is permitted to pass it over a stone, and not in order to sharpen it, for even with wood we do not instruct to permit. But if he does it on his own—it is permitted. And with a whetstone we protest against doing so. And therefore the women who pass the knife to sharpen it a bit on the table or on the oven—we do not protest against them, for behold this is permitted even according to the Rambam. It is only that we do not instruct so, and we do not instruct them, and when they do it on their own—it is permitted and one does not need to protest against them. (And we mentioned the reasoning of the Ran in siman 495 at the end of section 25, see there.)

Birds that are stuffed with meat and eggs and require sewing, and similarly stuffed intestines that require sewing at their ends—it is permitted to sew them on Yom Tov, as this is not a permanent sewing and is a necessity for ochel nefesh. However, to prepare the thread is forbidden on Yom Tov, for this is a preparatory act that could have been done yesterday, and it is forbidden according to all opinions. Therefore, even to insert it into a needle is not proper on Yom Tov, for there is a concern lest one cut the thread, and it is forbidden to cut the thread on Yom Tov and to tie it at its end in the manner done in sewing. There is one who wrote that if one did not insert the thread on Erev Yom Tov, it is forbidden to insert it on Yom Tov (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). This is an excessive stringency, for there is no prohibition in this at all. It appears in my humble opinion that it is permitted if one did not insert the thread from Erev Yom Tov, and one should be careful not to cut the thread remaining after the sewing. And so they are accustomed to burn the remaining thread after they have sewn with it. In truth, there is no difference between cutting and burning, and according to the letter of the law, it is even permitted to cut the thread remaining from the sewing, for it was impossible to do it from Erev Yom Tov, and it is like absolute ochel nefesh. Rather, the women are accustomed to burning and not cutting, perhaps so that there will be a change from a weekday. That which we forbade cutting the thread—this is before the sewing, which could have been done yesterday. But that which is after the sewing is permitted by law (see Magen Avraham, subsection 9). It is permitted to cut on Yom Tov the binding of kids and roasted birds, and sewn threads that are in the foods. Similarly, they may burn a wick or a rag with which they tie the bird, as this is a true necessity of ochel nefesh and it was not possible to do it beforehand, only at the time of eating or at the time of cooking. A needle that became bent—one should not straighten it, and its law is like the law of a spit that was explained in section 1.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: It is permitted to perform libun on Yom Tov on iron vessels in which they baked cheese flaon, and after the libun they may bake a meat pasty in them. This is provided that when it undergoes libun, they place it upon the food immediately. However, if it has absorbed from nevelah or the like – it is forbidden to perform libun on it even to bake a permitted item in it. Thus far his words, and the reason is because with the absorption of a permitted substance – a light libun where straw is burnt upon it from the outside is sufficient, as I have written above in siman 451 and in Yoreh Deah siman 121. And it is not evident that he is doing so to render it kosher, and it is like preparing it for cooking. Therefore, he required that immediately after the libun it be placed upon the food, so that it should appear that he is occupied only with the business of cooking. But that which has absorbed from nevelah – requires a strong libun, so that sparks fly from it, as I have written there, and it is evident to all that this is not for the sake of cooking but for the sake of rendering it kosher. And another reason appears to me: that when it is of a permitted substance it is permitted to be moved, and at every single moment he can cook the previous permitted substance in it, but he desires a different food. And the libun is no worse than a mere cleaning when one wants to clean the vessel, which is not the case when the vessel is treif, for even though it is possible that it is permitted to be moved as it is fit to place a cold item in it, nevertheless when it is heated a little – it is not fit for anything, and therefore libun is forbidden in its case. (And the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 11, that from this there is proof that it is permitted to render kosher from meat to milk and from milk to meat. Not like that which is common in the mouths of people that it is forbidden, for the reason that if so a person would have only one vessel and would perform hagalah on it constantly and would come to err, see there. And in truth it is a wonderous thing: is it within our power to decree decrees from our own minds? Furthermore: in Shabbat 16b, regarding old impurity where the sages decreed something similar to this, they said it was because of the fence of the purification water or other reasons, see there. But otherwise, it is completely permitted.)

And likewise, it is forbidden to perform hagalah on a vessel on Yom Tov when it is treif, just as it is forbidden to perform libun. And I saw one who wrote that if one can use the water of the hagalah for some purpose, such as when one performs hagalah via pouring, or if there is sixty times the volume in the water against the forbidden substance—that it is permitted to perform hagalah (Radbaz Part 3 Siman 402). And it is a correct reasoning. And likewise, if the vessel is not ben yomo—the water is permitted. However, regarding the core of the prohibition that our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote concerning libun and hagalah, the prohibition is because this is not ochhel nefesh but rather machshirei ochel nefesh (Mordechai at the end of Avodah Zarah), and if so, if they became treif yesterday—it is certainly forbidden, for it was within his power since yesterday to kasher it. And even if it became treif on Yom Tov, if he has another pot, it is also forbidden. But if he does not have another pot—behold, it is machshirei ochel nefesh that could not have been done on the eve of Yom Tov. And even according to the opinion of the Rambam that was explained, it is only that we do not instruct so, but an individual who does so for himself—it is permitted. And all the more so according to the opinion of the Tur that was explained (so it appears in my humble opinion).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that it is permitted to glow a spit that was used to roast meat that was not salted, and one wishes to roast with it again on Yom Tov. Thus far his words, and this is provided that it was made treif today, such that it was not possible to do it on the eve of Yom Tov (Darkhei Moshe). Furthermore, this does not appear to be as much of a repair as the kashering of a pan (Magen Avraham subsection 12), because according to the essential law it does not require glowing at all, for "as it absorbs, so it expels," as I have written in Yoreh Deah siman 76. According to this, even if he could have done it on the eve of Yom Tov—it is permitted (ibid.). And one may not pierce a new hole in a barrel on Yom Tov. But if it was not possible to do it on the eve of Yom Tov—it is permitted (ibid. subsection 13), yet we do not instruct so. And to immerse a new vessel on Yom Tov—its law is like on Shabbat, and it is explained above in siman 323. Similarly, the washing of vessels and the scrubbing of vessels on Yom Tov is like on Shabbat, and it is explained there.

The Rambam wrote in the fourth chapter, law 17: A vessel that became tamei on the eve of a Yom Tov – one may not immerse it on Yom Tov, a decree lest one delay it in its impurity. But if he needed to immerse the water within it – he may immerse the vessel with its water, and he need not be concerned. Thus far his words, meaning: that he must purify the tamei water by means of hashakah to the water of a mikveh, for this is like sowing which nullifies the impurity. And this is certainly permitted, for it is actual ochel nefesh. And along with this, he also immerses the vessel, since they were performed in a single action.

A vessel that was tahor for terumah, but for kodesh is tamei due to the stringency of kodesh—it is permitted to immerse it for kodesh on Yom Tov, because this is not a complete fixing, for it is already tahor and they only established an elevation regarding kodashim. And so too regarding the other elevations that kodashim has over terumah, and terumah over chullin, as is explained in Chagigah (chapter two and chapter three)—it is permitted to immerse them on Yom Tov for the reason that has been explained. And it appears to me that this is regarding a rabbinic tumah, which does not require sunset. But if it requires sunset—it is obvious that it is forbidden to immerse it on Yom Tov, since it is not fit until the evening—it is a labor that is not for the need of Yom Tov. (And see Tosafot Chagigah 21a, the heading beginning "HaOnen," see there carefully, and examine closely and you will find it easy. And see Tosafot Beitzah 18a).

The Rambam wrote (ibid.): A vessel that became tamei on Yom Tov—one may immerse it on Yom Tov. If the vessel became tamei through tamei liquids, which are a vellad hatumah, on the eve of Yom Tov—one may immerse it on Yom Tov, because it is tahor according to the Torah. And one may draw water with a tamei bucket, and it becomes tahor on its own. And a niddah who has no clothes—she may practice artifice and immerse in her clothes. Thus far his words. It is clear from his words that if it became tamei on Yom Tov, even by an av hatumah—it is permitted to immerse, and so it is implied in the Gemara there. And even though an av hatumah certainly requires sunset, and if so it is a labor that is not for the need of Yom Tov—it must be said that he holds like what Rashi wrote in Beitzah there (s.v. "be-vellad"), because it is fit to be used for chullin which do not require sunset. However, the Tosafot raised a difficulty there: that for chullin they do not require immersion, see there. And it seems to me that the intention is for ma'aser, which does not require sunset but does require immersion, as we learned in Negaim chapter fourteen (mishnah 3). And we derive this in Yevamot (74b) from verses regarding a person, and presumably the same law applies to vessels. And according to this, there is no need to say what I wrote in the previous section that it deals with a rabbinic tumah, for even with a Torah tumah it can be so. (See Sha'agat Aryeh siman 56, who wrote at length regarding the laws of immersion of vessels on Shabbat and Yom Tov, and concludes with a prohibition, see there.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 7 that it is permitted to move muktzeh for the purpose of ochel nefesh and the joy of Yom Tov. Thus far his words. And it is true that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote this in three places in Beitzah (8a) regarding moving the ash of the stove, which is removed to bake the pastida; and also regarding scraping out an oven and stove (28b); and also regarding a house full of fruit that was breached, where one takes from the place of the breach and moves the muktzeh stones (31b); and so wrote the Mordechai. But in truth, the matters are astonishing: for the primary instances of muktzeh are on Yom Tov and regarding ochel nefesh, such as when one designated black [birds] and found white ones, and an egg born on Yom Tov according to the one who holds that the reason is because of muktzeh, and fallen fruit and fish caught on Yom Tov. And the primary muktzeh is on Yom Tov, and according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, it is more stringent than Shabbat. And there is one who wrote that for what is greatly needed—they did not decree muktzeh (Yam Shel Shlomo chapter three, siman 21). And these are astonishing words: as if fish and birds are not a great need (Magen Avraham subsection 15)? And there is one who distinguished between eating and moving (ibid.). And this too is astonishing, for they explicitly forbade moving an egg and birds that were not prepared. And they said further things regarding this, and they were not accepted by the heart (see there in the Magen Avraham and in the HaGra"z section 16).

And in my humble opinion, a completely different intention is hidden here. For certainly regarding a food item that is muktzeh—the sages forbade moving it as well, as it is taught (Beitzah 3b): "An egg that was laid on Yom Tov—one may not move it..." It is only if there is no muktzeh in the food item itself, but through the use of the food item one will encounter some muktzeh that obstructs the food, such as the ash of the stove which does not allow for the baking of the pashtida; or the plaster that fell into the oven which does not allow for the baking of the bread; or the muktzeh stones that do not allow for the taking of the fruits—for this the sages did not obstruct, such that because of the muktzeh the joy of Yom Tov would be nullified, since in the essence of the food there is no muktzeh. And similarly, when he has nothing with which to cover the blood except for muktzeh—it is forbidden for him to slaughter, for this is like muktzeh in the essence of the eating since he is obligated in covering, and it is impossible for him to slaughter without covering. However, if he already slaughtered—it is permitted to cover with it as I wrote in siman 498, so as not to nullify the positive commandment of covering the blood; and the prohibition that was done, was done. And similarly, it is forbidden to cook and to kindle with muktzeh wood, for since the food cannot be made into food without muktzeh—it is like muktzeh in the food itself. This is not the case with plaster that fell, or the ash of the stove, or the muktzeh stones—they have no connection to the preparation of the food, but rather they obstruct reaching the food. Therefore, we are not concerned with the muktzeh, because of the joy of Yom Tov. (And with this, everything that they questioned on this matter is settled well, and the words of the Tosafot, the Mordechai, and the Rema are settled well.)