Siman 512

It is written: "But that which every person must eat—that alone may be prepared for you." And this "for you" is superfluous, and we derive: "for you"—and not for a non-Jew, for the labor of Yom Tov was not permitted for the sake of a non-Jew. Therefore, it is forbidden to cook or to bake for the sake of a non-Jew. Nevertheless, one does not receive lashes, because we say: since if guests were to happen upon him—it would be fit for him, as the Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 15. And why do we not say "since it was permitted for a need—it was also permitted not for a need"? According to the approach of the Rambam, this is not a question at all, for he holds that we only say "mmitoch" regarding carrying and kindling, as I wrote there. And similarly according to the approach of the Tosafot, who require some slight need for an Israelite—it is also not difficult. And even according to the approach of Rashi, who says "mmitoch" even for no need at all, nevertheless, when one acts explicitly for the sake of a non-Jew, which the Torah explicitly forbade—it is not applicable to say "mmitoch." And so it is regarding one who bakes on Yom Tov for a weekday, as I wrote in siman 495, section 18, see there.

And for this reason, our sages, of blessed memory, said (21b): One may invite a non-Jew on Shabbat, but one may not invite him on Yom Tov, as a decree lest he increase for his sake. For on Shabbat it is permitted to invite him to his table, as it is not relevant to say that he will perform melacha for his sake. But on Yom Tov, when he is accustomed to baking and cooking, there is a concern lest he increase some food item for his sake. And the Rosh, of blessed memory, inferred from the language "one may invite," that this is because when he invites him, he is presumably an honorable man and he desires to honor him, and therefore we fear lest he increase for his sake. But his manservant and maidservant, and similarly a messenger sent to him, and similarly when the non-Jew comes on his own—they are permitted to eat with him. And we do not fear lest he increase for his sake, since he did not invite them and does not desire to honor them, we do not fear a transgression.

This is the wording of the Rambam in the first chapter, law 13: One may not invite... but if the non-Jew came on his own—he may eat with them what they are eating, for they have already prepared it. Thus far his words. And the Tur challenged him, for it does not seem correct, as even if they already prepared it—nevertheless there is reason to fear lest he increase for his sake, if he is important and worthy of such. Rather, he must say to him: If what we have prepared for ourselves will suffice for you—come and eat. Thus far his words, and indeed so it is in the Gemara there. However, the Rambam holds that his saying this does not add or subtract, for what benefit is there that he will not add for his sake if he says it, and what will be lacking if he does not say it? And the essence of the permission is that since he did not invite him—we do not fear that he will increase for his sake, for the non-Jew will not be resentful that he did not increase for his sake, since he did not invite him and did not know that he would come. And that which we find in the Gemara, that they said to him "if it will suffice for you..."—this is from the perspective of appeasement and proper conduct, to say to him and to ask forgiveness from him for not honoring him properly (and so wrote the Taz, subsection 4).

And specifically to invite him to his home is forbidden. However, to send to the non-Jew to his home is permitted, for in this we do not fear that he will increase for his sake, since he is not here and he is not obligated according to etiquette to honor him. And the sending should be through a non-Jew if it is a place where on Shabbat it is forbidden to carry. And even though carrying out was permitted entirely on Yom Tov—this is all for the need of an Israelite (ibid. subsection 3). And if it is a place where carrying is permitted—it is permitted to send even through an Israelite, for there is no prohibition of invitation in this (ibid.). And if because of exertion—the Torah did not forbid this exertion on Yom Tov, for even on Shabbat it is permitted to give food to any person, and to go and deliver the food to him. And even in a place where carrying is forbidden, if it is not a complete reshut harabim—it is permitted to send on Yom Tov through an Israelite (Magen Avraham subsection 2). And see what I wrote in section 11.

There is one who says that this which is forbidden to invite him on Yom Tov, this is before he has prepared all the needs of the meal. But after he has prepared, and it is close to the meal – it is permitted to invite him (ibid. in the name of the Tanya). However, this matter is only found when it was not in his mind previously to invite him, for if it was in his mind – it is obvious that it is forbidden, as there is a concern that he will increase for his sake. And this matter is not common, for whichever way you look at it: if he invites him before the meal – how is it possible that an hour before his mind was not upon him? Rather, it deals with a case where the non-Jew came to him close to the meal, for then he requests of him and invites him, and from the beginning his mind was not upon him at all. (And with this the words of the Magen Avraham there are understood, see there. And the Machatzit HaShekel and the Pri Megadim found difficulty with his words, and according to what I have written it works out well. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And it must be understood regarding this that we permitted his manservant and maidservant to eat with him – how did we permit it? For behold, one must necessarily increase on their behalf. And if we say that in the same pot it is permitted to increase, because it cooks well when the pot is full, as I wrote in siman 503 – if so, let us also permit inviting a non-Jew, and he will increase for him in the same pot. However, the truth is that with an invitation we fear lest he increase for him in another pot, because since he wishes to honor him – he will make him other delicacies. But with his manservant and maidservant – we do not fear this. And this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 1 that it is permitted to increase for his manservant and maidservant in the same pot in which he cooks for himself. But for other non-Jews – in any case it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And his intention is like our words. (And behold, in the Beit Yosef and Darkhei Moshe they raised a difficulty that there is one who permits increasing for a non-Jew in the same pot, and there is one who forbids. And see Magen Avraham subsection 3, and Taz subsection 5. And according to what I wrote both are true, for certainly it is permitted. Nevertheless, it is forbidden lest he increase in another pot. And this is with an invitation, but not with his manservant and maidservant. And also the intention of the Magen Avraham is so. And what he wrote here regarding the reasoning of "it is possible to appease them," see there – in my humble opinion it is not relevant here. And see in the Taz subsection 4, who decides that when he comes on his own, and he gives him to eat – it is permitted, but inviting him when he comes – it is forbidden, see there. And this is when he comes a long time before the preparation of the meal. But close to the meal – it is permitted, as I wrote in the previous section. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

The Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 14: Dough that is half belonging to an Israelite and half belonging to a non-Jew—it is forbidden to bake it, because he is able to divide the dough. The members of the troop, who gave flour to an Israelite to make bread for them on Yom Tov: If when giving from it a piece of bread to a child they are not fastidious—it is permitted to bake it for them on Yom Tov, for every single piece of bread is fit for a child. Thus far his words, and so it is in the Gemara (21a). And Rashi explained that these two laws contradict one another, for since it is possible to divide them—it is forbidden. And the Tosafot wrote that they do not contradict, for regarding dough that is half belonging to an Israelite—he can certainly divide it before baking, but regarding that of the members of the troop where the flour is theirs—it is impossible for the Israelite to divide it before baking, for they will not give it to him. And only after the baking, when he gives to a child, they are not fastidious. And it turns out that he is forced to bake all the bread, and it is permitted because of the portion that the Israelite eats. And this is also the opinion of the Rambam, for he wrote both laws. And according to this reasoning wrote the Ran and the Maggid Mishneh, see there.

However, in the Gemara there at the end of the sugya it says: And it disagrees with the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said: One may not invite a non-Jew on Yom Tov, lest he increase [the cooking] for his sake. Rashi and the Rif explained that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees with the law of the soldiers that has been explained. Therefore, the Tur actually ruled regarding the soldiers to prohibit, see there. The Rambam ruled according to both laws, and the Ra'avad also agreed with him, for in truth this is not a comparison: for inviting a non-Jew is similar to dough that is half-owned by an Israelite, which he could have divided beforehand, and similarly when inviting he is able to cook his own portion, which is not the case with the soldiers, as I have written. And they wrote that the Rambam did not have the version in the Gemara "And it disagrees with the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi," or that he had that version but explained it with a different explanation, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote there. And there are some of our teachers who wrote that the Rif also admits to this, but he explains that with the soldiers the Israelite could have taken [his portion] even before the baking (Ran ibid.). According to this, they do not disagree in the law. But the Tur did not hold thus, as he wrote that there is a dispute in this, see there. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2 ruled without qualification like the Rambam, and such is the halacha.

There is one who says that this which we permitted to give to male and female servants when one fills that same pot—this is regarding cooking. However, regarding bread—it is forbidden to increase the bread for them in the oven, for each one is a labor unto itself (Magen Avraham, subsection 3, in the name of the Yam Shel Shlomo). And certainly it is so, for it was explained in a similar case in siman 503 that there is a distinction between cooking and baking for this reason; see there. And one may only feed them from the remainder of the bread that he baked for himself. However, it has already been explained there that for the most part, we also bake from the eve of Yom Tov. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that an Israelite who bakes in the oven of a non-Jew, and must give him one bread in exchange for this—he should not designate one before baking that he will give him this bread, for if so, he bakes this bread for him. Rather, he should bake without specification, and give him one of them afterwards. Thus far his words, and it is simple.

It is forbidden to bake or cook for the sake of an animal on Yom Tov, as it is written, "for you" – and not for an animal. Thus ruled the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, and most of the poskim. Therefore, even though there are those who ruled like the one who permits in the Gemara (the Me'or and the Ra'avyah, as the Tur wrote) – the halacha is not so. Consequently, one must warn the women that they should not heat hot water on Yom Tov for the sake of the animal. This prohibition has been greatly breached due to their lack of knowledge, as we have seen and heard. Therefore, one must warn them. They are able to act with permission, namely, that they should heat water for the purpose of washing dishes, and from this water they may give to the animals. It is permitted to increase the amount for the sake of the animals in this pot in which one cooked for oneself, and there is no difference whether one has something to give to his animal or does not have, for in all manners it is permitted to increase in that same pot.

And just as it is forbidden to cook for the sake of an animal, so too it is forbidden to carry for its sake by way of a public domain. However, by way of a karmelit it is permitted, for we are not stringent regarding a rabbinic carrying since on Yom Tov carrying was permitted entirely, as I have written several times. And likewise it is forbidden to knead bran for birds, except by means of a shinui. But it is permitted to carry food and place it before them, for even on Shabbat those whose sustenance is upon you are permitted. And specifically when it is fit for their consumption. But if it is not fit—it is forbidden, for it is muktzeh; even though he can make them fit, nevertheless according to what they are—they are muktzeh. And there are those who are stringent even when they can eat it through difficulty (see Magen Avraham subsection 5). And it is not similar to a karmelit which we permitted, for regarding carrying they were lenient, as I have written. (And the difficulty raised by the Taz subsection 8—requires further study, and see Eliyah Rabbah.)