Siman 518

It has already been explained in siman 495 that regarding carrying we say: "Since it was permitted for the sake of food preparation – it was also permitted for that which is not for its sake." And the reason for the matter we explained there with the help of Heaven. Therefore, regarding carrying we do not descend, as with all other labors of Yom Tov, to forbid a matter that one could have done on the eve of Yom Tov, as the Rambam wrote in the first chapter, law 6, and this is his wording: And for this reason they did not forbid carrying on Yom Tov. And even though every act of carrying is a labor that can be done on the eve of Yom Tov, why did they not forbid it? In order to increase the joy of Yom Tov. And he may carry to and fro whatever he wishes, and fulfill his needs, and not be as if his hands were bound. Thus far his words.

And behold, according to the system of Rashi (Yevamot 12a), we say "since carrying was permitted for a need, it was also permitted for no need." That is to say: even without any need at all. And so it is implied from the Rambam. And regarding things that were forbidden in the Gemara, they explained the reason is due to weekday activities, as the Rambam explained in the fifth chapter regarding large burdens, and walking with poles, and the moving of ladders, see there. However, the systems of our teachers the Tosafists, and the Rosh, and most of the poskim are that we require a slight need: even if it is not a need for eating and drinking, nevertheless there is in this some need for Yom Tov. But for no need at all—it is forbidden in a place where it is forbidden to move objects on Shabbat.

This is the wording of the Tur: Any carrying that has some necessity, even if it is not for his own need but for the need of a mitzvah—such as a minor to circumcise him, a sefer Torah to read from it, and a lulav to fulfill the obligation with it—is permitted. And just as it is permitted to carry out, so it is permitted to return it. And likewise, if he needs to go to the synagogue, or needs to stroll for the joy of Yom Tov, and he cannot leave a minor in the house alone—he may carry him out with him. And likewise a key with which he locked the foods, which he is afraid to leave in the house—he may carry it with him… And likewise all needs of adornment he may carry out in order to adorn himself with it on Yom Tov. But a thing that has neither the need of eating nor the need of adornment, such as a key with which he locks vessels, and the like, which has no necessity at all—it is forbidden to carry out on Yom Tov. Thus far his words. And this matter, that a key of vessels is forbidden, is explicitly stated in the Yerushalmi, first chapter, halacha 7; see there.

The Rosh brought a responsum of the Geonim in the first chapter (siman 18) that carrying not for the purpose of eating and not for the purpose of adornment, such as those women who go out with keys tied to their belts—they act not according to the law, and it is forbidden to do so. And so they ruled the halacha in the two academies. Thus far his words. And according to this, one must wonder about our teacher, the Rema, who wrote in section 1 that vessels that he needs a little, or that he fears lest they be stolen, or other loss—it is permitted. Thus far his words. And how did he permit in a case of "lest they be stolen"? For behold, the Yerushalmi and the Geonim forbid carrying a key of vessels. And they have already wondered about him regarding this (Taz subsection 1, and Magen Avraham subsection 2 in the name of the Yam Shel Shlomo). However, to the contrary, one should be astonished: since we say regarding carrying "mitoch," and we only require a slight need, why is it not a slight need when he fears lest they be stolen? And that which the Geonim said, that anything that is not for the purpose of eating or the purpose of adornment is forbidden, from where do we have this to say so? And furthermore, it is difficult to me from the Tosefta (first chapter) where it is taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that one may bring full vessels for the purpose of empty ones to fill them. Regarding what did they disagree? Regarding empty ones not for a need, for Beit Shammai forbid and Beit Hillel permit. Thus far his words. And since Beit Hillel permit empty ones not for a need, and granted that we should say the intention is that there is some slight need, nevertheless, it is certainly not for the purpose of eating, for in this Beit Shammai do not disagree. Rather, it is certainly in a case such as "lest they be stolen," or another matter that is not for the purpose of eating or adornment, which certainly does not apply to vessels. And despite all this, Beit Hillel permitted.

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the truth is like the words of our teacher, the Rema. The Yerushalmi and the Geonim do not contradict his words, for behold, it is known that the Yerushalmi frequently revolves around the words of the Tosefta, and in the Tosefta there it is taught: A person may go out with a key that is on his finger to the reshuta d'rabim, and he need not be concerned. And one must understand why it says "that is on his finger"? Rather, this is its explanation: that even though he carries it on his finger and everyone sees, nevertheless, this is not like a weekday activity. And regarding this, the Yerushalmi says specifically with a key for food, and not with a key for vessels; that is to say: not because of the essence of the carrying, for this is permitted if he is concerned about leaving it in his house due to theft and the like. Rather, the prohibition is to carry in his hands in public, for this is like a weekday activity to those who see. And the proof is from the Yerushalmi there, which asks: But was not Rabbi Abbahu sitting and teaching, and the key to the palace was in his hand? And it answers that food was there, see there. And it says that Rabbi Abbahu was holding the key in his hand, and this is the primary prohibition. And the words of the Geonim also indicate this, as they wrote that those women who go out with keys tied to their belts act unlawfully... and they were particular about what is tied to their belts, for everyone sees and it is a weekday activity. And according to this, the Tosefta regarding empty vessels works well. For Beit Hillel permit carrying them even in public, even if his intention is not to fill them but for another need – nevertheless, this is not a weekday activity, for the observer will say that his intention is to fill them, and it is a Yom Tov need, and therefore it is permitted. And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are firm and established. (And it appears to me that therefore the Shas in 12a mentions "stones," for with stones there is no need at all, as theft is not relevant to them. But anything where there is a concern of theft – it is permitted, provided that it does not appear like a weekday activity. And according to this, the Tosefta and the Yerushalmi and the Geonim will not contradict the system of Rashi and the Rambam that it is permitted entirely without a need. Rather, they are dealing with a case of a weekday activity, but otherwise – it is entirely permitted. Examine and you will find it simple.) (That which the Magen Avraham elaborated on at the beginning of this siman regarding the matter of "mitoch" – we have already explained in siman 495 with the help of Heaven. And that which he questioned from the beginning of Pesachim against the Maggid Mishneh – it is not a difficulty at all, as the Korban Netanel wrote in the first chapter, letter 89, that Rabbi Akiva perforce does not hold of the derivation of the Maggid Mishneh, see there. And his second question is also answered. And that which he wrote that also regarding cooking the Gemara says there "mitoch" – we have already explained there that we do not have the version "cooking," see there for the reasoning. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And according to this, according to the approach of our teacher, the Rema, it is permitted to carry in the reshut harabim on Yom Tov any item for which there is any need whatsoever, such as carrying the key to money or to vessels because he is afraid they might be stolen. However, according to the approach of the great Acharonim—it is forbidden. But the world customarily practices leniency, and according to our words, they have a correct foundation. However, an item for which there is a Yom Tov need, such as tallitot, siddurim, machzorim, and other books—it is obvious that it is permitted to carry them to the beit knesset, and also to take them back to his home. And even though he does not need them in his home—they permitted the end because of the beginning, for if not so, he would not take them at all to the beit knesset (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). And if he is able to hide them in the beit knesset so they will not be stolen from there—it is better to leave them in the beit knesset (ibid.). And to carry a baby is permitted even for a stroll. And anything that possesses beauty, or an ornament, or a need, such as a schnupf-tuechel to wipe the nose with—it is obvious that it is permitted.

And there is one who wrote in this wording: And I have seen that when they go out to stroll outside the city – they remove the knives for which there is no longer such a need today, as they are no longer accustomed to eating. But in the city outside the eruv, there is not such a concern (ibid. in the name of the Yam Shel Shlomo). And his intention is to distinguish between a karmelit and a courtyard or an alleyway that are not joined by an eruv, for a karmelit is more stringent. And there is one who rejected this, for certainly with knives they are permitted all day, as even after eating, if a fruit happens to come his way – he will cut it with it. And also there is no distinction between a karmelit and that which is not joined by an eruv, for both this and that are a karmelit (Taz, subsection 2).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is permitted to play with a ball even in the public domain, even though it is nothing more than a mere stroll. Thus far his words. And there are those who complain about this, for this is not joy or a stroll except for children and not for adults (ibid. and Magen Avraham subsection 4 in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo). And in truth, this is not a complaint, for since it is beloved to him according to his lowly mind—how can we prevent him? He further wrote that if he placed an eruv—it is permitted to carry and take out anything that has the status of a vessel, even though they are not for the need of the day at all. Thus far his words, for Yom Tov is no better than Shabbat. But without an eruv, even from courtyard to courtyard—it is forbidden if not for any need at all (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And his intention is not to place eruvei chatzerot on Yom Tov, for one does not establish eruvei chatzerot on Yom Tov as I wrote in siman 528. Rather, his intention is that if he placed an eruv for the Shabbats, and automatically it is effective also for Yom Tov. And it would be proper for every God-fearing person to place an eruv on Yom Tov just as on Shabbat, except that one should not change the custom. Nevertheless, it is correct when placing an eruv on Erev Pesach for the entire year—he should include Yom Tov in it as well and say "the Shabbats and Yamim Tovim of the entire year" (Taz ibid. in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo).

Stones and pebbles and the like—it is forbidden to carry them out on Yom Tov, and one is lashed for them. They are also forbidden in handling due to muktzeh. And so too, it is forbidden to carry out anything for the sake of a non-Jew, and so too, it is forbidden to carry out for a weekday need; just as it is forbidden to cook for the sake of a non-Jew and for a weekday need—so too is carrying. And it is forbidden by the Torah, and one is lashed for them, for even though regarding cooking one is not lashed because of the reasoning of "ho'il" (since if guests were to arrive), regarding carrying this is not applicable. And so too for the sake of an animal it is forbidden to carry out, and one is lashed if he carried out to a reshut harabim. And so too to a karmelit and to a courtyard that is not joined by an eruv—it is forbidden to carry out for the sake of all these. And so too from the first day of Yom Tov to the next, even on Rosh Hashanah, for regarding a leniency we do not say they are one sanctity, as I wrote in siman 503. But from Yom Tov to Shabbat, when he has placed an eruv tavshilin—it is permitted to carry out, just as it is permitted to cook and to bake.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that even though it is forbidden for an Israelite to take out any item for the needs of a non-Jew, nevertheless, it is permitted to send it to him by means of a non-Jew, such as when one must return a pledge to a violent non-Jew or the like. Thus far his words. And the Levush explained that this is specifically by means of another non-Jew and not to the person himself; see there. And there is one who disagrees with him, for the intention is that it not be by means of an Israelite, but to the person himself is permitted just as it is by means of another non-Jew (Eliyah Rabbah subsection 10). And it appears to me that the primary view is like the words of the Levush. For behold, regarding the matter of Shabbat in siman 325, they wrote that it is permitted to give an item to a violent non-Jew, or for the sake of the ways of peace, even though he will take it out of his house, provided only that he does not give it hand to hand; see there. And to exchange a pledge is permitted by way of a garment; see there. And it implies that this is even if he is not violent. But not by way of a garment—it is forbidden; see there. And it appears that even with a violent person it is forbidden not by way of a garment, because it appears like business dealings, as I have written there. And for this reason he says that on Yom Tov they permitted even with a pledge to a violent person, only that he should not give it to the person himself, because it appears like business dealings. But he may send it to him by means of another non-Jew, for in this it does not appear so much like business dealings, and therefore they were lenient on Yom Tov. (And also his objection to the Olat Shabbat is not correct; see there.)

It has already been explained at the end of siman 509 that it is permitted to handle muktzeh for the purpose of food preparation, if there is no muktzeh in the food itself. Therefore, it is permitted to take an ordinary piece of wood that is not designated as a spit, and is also not fit for fuel, to roast meat with it. After the roasting, it is forbidden to handle it because it is not a vessel; rather, one slips it out and places it in a corner so that it will not cause injury, even if there is no meat on it at all. And specifically by way of slipping it out, which is handling from the side. But not with complete handling, even though according to the letter of the law it would be permitted even with complete handling because of the prevention of public injury. And this is for the sake of a distinction, so that they will know that it is muktzeh but was permitted for the purpose of roasting (see Taz, subsection 3).

The Rambam wrote in the fifth chapter, law 4: One may not carry a dovecote ladder from dovecote to dovecote in the public domain, lest they say he is carrying it to repair his roof. But in a private domain one may carry it, for even though in every place where the sages prohibited something due to appearances—it is prohibited even in the innermost chambers—here they permitted it for the sake of the joy of Yom Tov. Thus far his words. And according to the opinion of the Ra'avad, it is permitted even in the public domain. But a full-sized ladder, such as an attic ladder—even to tilt it is prohibited, as the Rambam wrote in the twenty-sixth chapter of Shabbat. And the same law applies to Yom Tov. And the Tur wrote like the Ra'avad, and this is his wording: It is permitted to move the ladder from dovecote to dovecote even in the public domain. And these words apply to a small ladder, such as a dovecote ladder. But a large one, such as an attic ladder—it is prohibited to move it even in the house. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 wrote like the Tur, because according to the Rambam the explanation of the sugya (9a) is forced, see there. However, he omitted that point of "even in the house," and perhaps he holds that in the house it is permitted with a small house ladder. (And see Magen Avraham, subsection 7, that one who is lenient with a house ladder in the house—has lost nothing.)

An animal that died on Yom Tov, if it was in danger from the eve of Yom Tov—it is not muktzeh, for it was prepared for this. And it is permitted to give it on Yom Tov to dogs. And if they cannot eat it without cutting—one may cut it for them, as I wrote in siman 324, that it is permitted to prepare food before an animal on Shabbat, and certainly on Yom Tov. And if it was not in danger from the eve of Yom Tov—it is forbidden because it is muktzeh. And this is according to the Rif and the Rambam, who hold that there is muktzeh on Yom Tov. And according to those who hold that there is no muktzeh on Yom Tov—it is permitted even when it was not in danger. And in siman 495 this was explained, see there. And it is permitted to remove a vessel of excrement and to return it on Yom Tov just as on Shabbat, as is explained above in siman 308.

The sages taught in the Mishnah (30a): One may begin with a heap of straw, but not with wood in a muktzeh. And it is explained in the Gemara: both according to Rava Shimon who does not hold of muktzeh, and according to Rabbi Yehuda who does hold of muktzeh. According to Rabbi Shimon, this is the explanation: One may begin to kindle with a heap of straw, which is a store of straw designated for animals, even though it was not designated for kindling. But not with wood in a muktzeh, and not with ordinary wood, but rather wood designated for building, such as cedars and the like, for it is muktzeh due to monetary loss, regarding which even Rabbi Shimon admits. And according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is explained thus: One may begin with a heap of straw, meaning straw that has rotted and decayed, and is fit only for kindling. And it is not even fit for kneading clay, such as if it contains thorns, and it is designated only for kindling. But not with wood placed in storage, which he set aside for the winter days, for it is muktzeh because he did not prepare them. And everything for Yom Tov requires preparation. And straw designated for animals that is not placed in storage is permitted even according to Rabbi Yehuda, for one may kindle with vessels (Magen Avraham subsection 10). And specifically when the straw is dry and fit for kindling. But when it is damp, even though it is fit for a large fire, it is forbidden to move it, for a large fire is not common (ibid.). And it is not similar to damp wood that we permitted in siman 502, for wood is designated for kindling. However, it seems to me that if the majority of the straw is dry and a minority is damp, they are nullified by the majority and it is permitted to kindle with them. (And according to this, that which was said regarding wood works well, see there. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

The Tur wrote: One who makes a sukkah on Shavuot for shade—it is forbidden to take wood from it on Yom Tov, even if it was unstable and fell. And Rabbi Shimon permits in the case of an unstable one that fell. And if after he completed its walls and its sechach he leaned additional bundles against it and did not attach them there, or if he threw them further upon the sechach—it is permitted to take it according to everyone. And if he made a condition to take from it on Yom Tov, and it fell—it is permitted even according to the first Tanna, even from the primary sechach. But regarding the sukkah of the festival—a condition is not effective. Thus far his words, and his words require explanation.

And this is its explanation: Even one who makes a sukkah merely for shade, not for the sake of the mitzvah of sukkah, and it takes the case of Shavuot which is a time of heat, and he makes a sukkah for shade—it is forbidden to take wood from it, whether from the walls or from the roof, because of dismantling a tent. And even if he did not join them together with nails, since he leaned them for a tent—it constitutes dismantling. And even if it was shaky from the eve of Yom Tov, such that his mind was on its falling, nevertheless, since it was set aside during twilight—it is set aside for the entire day. And Rabbi Shimon permits it, as he does not hold of muktzah. But in a case where it was not shaky, even Rabbi Shimon admits: since his mind was not on this—it is like dried figs and raisins. And if after he prepared it, he leaned bundles against it without joining them—the law of a tent does not apply to them, and it is permitted to take them even according to Rabbi Yehuda. And this is specifically when his intention was not to thicken the tent, for if his intention was to make it thick even after its preparation—they are nullified to the tent, and there is in them the issue of dismantling a structure (Taz, subsection 6). And there is one who says that after its preparation, even if he intended to thicken it—it is not nullified to the structure (Rashal). And the main point is like the first opinion. And some say further: that specifically a bundle of reeds that he bound is not nullified to the walls, but reeds that he did not bind—are nullified, and it is dismantling a tent even if he leaned them after its preparation (Bach). And before its preparation, even if he bound them—they are nullified. And on the roof they are never nullified when he bound them, for it is not the way to place sechach in a bundle, and certainly he placed them only to dry them (ibid.). And there is one who disagrees regarding the walls, and holds that even without binding them—they are not nullified after its preparation (Taz ibid., and so it is implied in the Beit Yosef). And this is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: One may take wood leaning against the walls of the sukkah and kindle fire with them. Thus far his words, meaning: that he leaned them after the preparation of the sukkah, and even if he did not bind them, and even though he leaned them to thicken it (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). And some disagree regarding thickening it, as I have written. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And the same law applies if he threw bundles onto the sechach, for they are not nullified relative to the sechach. And if his intention is to kindle them—it is permitted to take them from there. Thus far his words, meaning: that bundles on the roof even before its preparation—are not nullified, as I have written. But without bundles—they are nullified. And that which he wrote "if his intention is to kindle them"—his intention was to exclude if his intention was not to kindle them. But in an ordinary case—they stand for kindling (and so it is implied from Magen Avraham, subsection 13, see there carefully).

The Tur further says that a condition is effective when he stipulated on the eve of the Yom Tov that if it falls—it is permitted to take from it when it falls. The opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is that the condition is only according to Rava Shimon, and it is effective even for a sturdy structure, since he sits and anticipates when it will fall. Therefore, when it fell—it is permitted to take from it. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, a condition is not effective even for a shaky structure, for perforce since it was set aside during twilight—it was set aside for the entire day. Therefore, he did not bring this law in the Shulchan Aruch, because he ruled in siman 495 like Rabbi Yehuda that there is muktzeh on Yom Tov. And some say that for a sturdy structure even according to Rabbi Shimon a condition is not effective, and for a shaky structure it is effective even according to Rabbi Yehuda (Ba'al HaMaor). And it appears to me that this is the opinion of the Tur as well, for if not so, why did he bring this law at all? And it is true that he is as one in doubt regarding muktzeh on Yom Tov whether the halacha is like Rabbi Yehuda or like Rabbi Shimon, and he brought both opinions in siman 495 and did not decide, and so too in all places. Nevertheless, regarding "since it was set aside during twilight"—we hold like Rabbi Yehuda even on Shabbat, as I wrote in siman 308, and all the more so on Yom Tov which is more stringent regarding the matter of muktzeh. But if a condition is effective for Rabbi Yehuda in a shaky structure, it is well—he brought the entire law for the sake of this law (and the difficulty of the Magen Avraham against the Tur there is resolved well). And regarding the sukkah of the festival during the festival—a condition is not effective, for perforce it was set aside for its mitzvah all the days of the festival. And even if it fell during Chol HaMoed—they are forbidden until after the festival because of muktzeh due to a mitzvah. (See Tosafot Shabbat 22a, starting with the words "Sukkah".)

The Tur wrote: A house that is not plastered with clay, but rather bricks arranged one upon the other, and it is full of fruit, and it was breached on Yom Tov—it is permitted to take from them from the place of the breach. And we do not say they are muktzeh, since there is only a rabbinic prohibition in their breaching, he did not remove his mind from them. But if it was built as a complete building—even Rabbi Shimon admits that it is forbidden to take from the place of the breach. Thus far his words. But the Rambam in the second chapter wrote: A house that is full of prepared fruit and was breached—one may take from the place of the breach. Thus far his words, and it implies that even in a complete building it is not muktzeh. And the Ramban, of blessed memory, explained this: that since the muktzeh is not in the essence of the fruit, and they are not considered by their being placed there as a base for a forbidden thing, therefore it is not muktzeh even in a complete house. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, holds like the Tur, that only in a shaky house is it permitted. And in the Shulchan Aruch they ruled like the Rambam, that even in a complete house it is permitted, and therefore they wrote simply "a house." And according to this, one who has turnips hidden in a pit, and a non-Jew came and opened them on Shabbat or Yom Tov—it is permitted to cook the turnips on Yom Tov and on Shabbat to eat them, if he did not do so for the sake of the Israelite (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). And so too fruit that were outside the techum, and a non-Jew brought them on Shabbat and Yom Tov—they are permitted (Taz, subsection 7). And if he brought them for the sake of an Israelite—they are forbidden to the one for whom they were brought, as I wrote in siman 515.