Laws of Resting on Yom Tov, Chapter 2 (Auto Translated)

Laws of Resting on Yom Tov, Chapter 2 — Muktzeh and Nolad

Introduction to the Chapter

A good, a good month. Laws of Resting on Yom Tov, second chapter. The first chapter was an introductory chapter, where the Rambam said precisely everything that one may do, in a general way, everything that one may do on Shabbos is forbidden on Yom Tov, except for melachos of ochel nefesh (food preparation). And the Rambam enumerated the one thing in which Yom Tov is stricter, that there is also the prohibition of muktzeh and nolad. Nolad exists on Shabbos, it’s only on Yom Tov. And now, the second chapter is more or less an expansion on the prohibition that is specific to Yom Tov, the prohibition of muktzeh, which the Rambam said, because Yom Tov is more lenient than Shabbos, the Sages added the prohibition of muktzeh.

Before we learn the chapter we want to praise those who support us, those who make the flour for the Torah, our dear friend the pious Rabbi Yoel Leiby Wetzberger. And all the other listeners of the shiur who enable us to continue and to proceed, may the Almighty help you all. So.

Law 1: A Chick Born on Yom Tov — Forbidden Because of Muktzeh

The Rambam says as follows: A chick that was born on Yom Tov is forbidden because of muktzeh. The Rambam said earlier, muktzeh means something that is separated from a person’s mind, something that a person didn’t think about. That is to say, on Yom Tov one may occupy oneself with food, but this is only food that he had ready, that he knew when Yom Tov arrived that from this food he will cook. But not so food that was lying for commerce for example, or a chicken that he held for… he wanted the chicken to remain alive and give an egg, he didn’t think to slaughter it, he may not slaughter it. It’s muktzeh.

But we’re speaking even if it wasn’t with what’s called, a chick was born, a young bird was born on Yom Tov, it came out of its egg on Yom Tov, right? It’s nolad that the egg is… it’s nolad, but it’s not nolad a… nolad speaks of an egg, an egg itself, it came out of the egg on Yom Tov, it’s forbidden, it’s muktzeh. Yes, a chick that was already born on Yom Tov, forbidden, it’s already muktzeh, because when Yom Tov arrived he didn’t think about eating the bird, about slaughtering the bird, because the bird isn’t fit for eating. No, he didn’t think about it, yes.

A Calf Born on Yom Tov — Prepared Through Its Mother

But a calf that was born on Yom Tov is already different. A calf that was born on Yom Tov is as follows: its mother was, if the mother, the cow, was standing for eating, then the calf is also permitted. Why? Because it was prepared through its mother. The calf was a fetus in its mother’s womb, and the person thought that the cow was ready to eat. The calf is also like a part of it, that is to say it’s prepared through its mother. And if he had slaughtered its mother, this one that’s in her womb would be permitted on Yom Tov, if he would have slaughtered the mother cow, and he would have found inside that it’s a ben pekuah (fetus found in slaughtered animal), or it would have been born then. It would have been permitted on Yom Tov. As a ben pekuah it would have been permitted, as a ben pekuah it would have been prepared, he could have eaten it, because it’s part of its mother, it was flesh of the mother.

Now it became separate, different from an egg which is not at all fit for eating. An egg that just came out, you can’t do anything with it. A calf one could have eaten. What he means to say is that muktzeh doesn’t mean something that he didn’t think about for eating, because perhaps he also didn’t think about the newly born calf, but it was fit for eating. He did think about it, because he thought about its mother. Its mother was standing for eating, and it’s part of its mother. It’s not different from its mother. It’s not worse than its mother, because it became today… it’s a part of the mother, yes. Yes.

Law 2: Animals That Go Out and Graze Outside the Techum

Now we’re going to learn about various, I mean the whole chapter is about animals, I have a large portion of it here. Now we’re going to learn about various types of animals, which animals are called prepared for slaughter or prepared for eating.

The Rambam says, animals that go out and graze outside the techum (Sabbath boundary), that go out and they pasture outside the techum, but at night they return, and come and sleep within the techum, at night they return near the house and they sleep there. So the person knows that the animal will be there, he doesn’t see the animal during the day, the animal wanders around, but he knows that the animal comes home, this is called prepared, therefore we may go, one may go seek out the animal, and slaughter it on Yom Tov, because this is called prepared.

But the animals that graze and sleep outside the techum, that are the whole time outside the techum, even if they came on Yom Tov and came on Yom Tov, we don’t slaughter them, because they were already muktzeh, because it’s muktzeh, because he didn’t know that he would have them. When he thought what am I going to eat on Yom Tov, he didn’t think about these animals, because the animals aren’t here. And the minds of the city people are not on them, the person who lives in the city, it’s outside the techum, he can’t go seek out the animal. They already learned that the techum is relevant on Yom Tov, it wasn’t, this is called muktzeh.

Novel Point: Muktzeh is Objective, Not Subjective

Here, according to your novel interpretation that you innovated, it’s not understood. Why for example the fact that it’s outside the techum? Therefore it came in on Yom Tov, it’s not prepared, it’s not prepared, it’s not prepared, it’s outside the techum. Okay, because you thought, I mean to say, I want to say let’s say clearly in that case, if a person will think, “If tomorrow it comes within the techum, then I want to eat,” it won’t help, understand? Because it must be truly prepared, that’s what I think. Someone will have better proofs, can see more details in the gemaras and commentators, perhaps we’re not speaking to the point. I’m just saying from what it looks like.

Law 3: A Consecrated Animal That Developed a Blemish on Yom Tov

And similarly, the Rambam says such a law: A consecrated animal that developed a blemish on Yom Tov. An animal that is consecrated, an animal for example that he consecrated, as long as it’s consecrated he didn’t think that he would be able to slaughter the animal, because one may not eat it, it’s holy, he will have to bring it as a sacrifice. But it happened that a blemish developed on Yom Tov, on Yom Tov a blemish occurred, and once a blemish occurred one may indeed eat it, one must bring another animal instead of it or whatever, the animal one will no longer bring for the sanctuary. But since the blemish occurred on Yom Tov, it’s still muktzeh. Why? Was his mind on it from erev Yom Tov? Since on erev Yom Tov he didn’t think that he would be able to eat it, because there wasn’t yet any blemish. And to cause a blemish with one’s hands one may not. So he couldn’t think that he would have this. Therefore it’s muktzeh, it’s forbidden to slaughter it on Yom Tov.

It’s Forbidden to Examine Blemishes of Consecrated Animals on Yom Tov

Therefore, says the Rambam, an interesting law comes out as follows: It’s forbidden to examine blemishes of consecrated animals on Yom Tov. One may not, about this there’s a law that one may not examine. There’s a law that if a Jew has an animal that has a blemish, a posek (halachic decisor) must rule on it. Blemishes is not such a simple law. I remember in the gemara that Rav was for a long time, I don’t remember the amount of time, learning the laws of blemishes. So, one goes to a rabbi who should rule. If it’s a blemish that must be examined, such a blemish that is borderline, it’s a doubt whether it’s a blemish, one may not examine on Yom Tov. Why? The decree is as follows: We already learned that such an animal that a blemish occurred on Yom Tov is muktzeh. So I’m afraid, a decree lest the sage permit it with its blemish, the sage will permit it and say, “Yes, this is called a blemish”, and this one will come to slaughter it on that day. The person won’t know the law that since erev Yom Tov…

The point here is as follows, here we’re speaking even not necessarily when the blemish occurred on Yom Tov, even if it occurred on erev Yom Tov, but the determination that this is called a blemish, the determination of the ruling by the sage that this is called a blemish, occurred on Yom Tov. On erev Yom Tov he didn’t know. I don’t know if this is called not prepared because of this, but the case is, in his mind it was muktzeh from his knowledge, because it’s an animal that isn’t permitted. You’ll soon see the next law that it’s not correct.

But I mean that the reason, the sage who may not look at a blemish, he speaks because often the blemish did occur on Yom Tov. He doesn’t know whether it occurred on Yom Tov or erev Yom Tov. Because look at the next law. Okay, let’s see.

Seeing the Blemish on Erev Yom Tov — Permitted Tomorrow to Permit

But he may see the blemish on erev Yom Tov. If there’s already a blemish on erev Yom Tov, the sage may examine the blemish on erev Yom Tov, and he can also decide. He can also study it, take out all the responsa books, and study during Yom Tov. And tomorrow, tomorrow he can decide whether it’s permitted or forbidden, the main point is permitted. Tomorrow he may indeed permit it, because since he already saw the blemish on erev Yom Tov, here it makes sense, because the person already thought that the question is already, the animal is not fully muktzeh from his knowledge. He knew that the judge must still determine it, but it wasn’t muktzeh from his knowledge.

I don’t know, I don’t know. When the judge didn’t yet think about it on erev Yom Tov, it was still muktzeh from his knowledge. I mean that this is a simple way of learning it. When the judge already examined it, already, the person already thinks that it’s very possible that the ruling will come back that it’s kosher. I don’t see what’s the necessity to make this novel interpretation, that if you don’t know if it’s a blemish it’s kosher. But what they learned is that if the blemish was born on Yom Tov it’s a problem.

Now, it’s said that since often when the rabbi comes on Yom Tov he doesn’t know that it was born on Yom Tov, often it was born on Yom Tov, and then he will come to slaughter on the day. The prohibition believes in the rabbi, what happens with the person? A new prohibition, a new prohibition, a new prohibition. The person can say to the person, this already happened yesterday. It turns out it wouldn’t have helped. Not everything one will tell me. Decrees go on when the rabbi is called, when one calls, calls him on Yom Tov, often it’s a case that occurred on Yom Tov. So the rabbi says, I don’t come on Yom Tov. On Yom Tov he doesn’t come.

On the contrary, from the next law I learn the opposite, if it was already, he looked on Yom Tov, it’s not a prohibition. That which if the animal already had the blemish, although the person didn’t know if it’s a blemish, it could be that it’s a passing blemish, it could be that it’s not called a blemish that permits, it is indeed permitted, because the animal was permitted even though the person didn’t know. One doesn’t need to add, I don’t see any necessity, one can think, but I don’t see necessity, I don’t see necessity, why? It seems to me a bit smoother, because everything goes with prepared. One only looks at the main thing which is the word prepared. Prepared means that you didn’t yet think, and it wasn’t yet prepared with you. But the topic here isn’t what one intended. There’s almost no prepared that you intended. It’s always what is truly prepared, or what you… there are distinctions, if you designate for eating, something that a person can choose, but I haven’t yet found any single prepared that depends on what you mean.

Okay, very good. Wait, so, the Rambam says such a law.

Law 4: A Firstborn Born with Its Blemish

And if he transgressed, a piece, a firstborn that was born, a piece. Ah, I’m sorry, I’m not. We just learned about an animal of consecration. Now another thing. A person had an animal that gave birth to a firstborn, a great joy, and a firstborn of an animal one must give, a firstborn and ma’aser and Pesach are kodashim kalim (sacrifices of lesser sanctity), one must give it to the kohen.

But if it was born with a blemish, one may eat it. The owners may eat it? Yes, it goes out to ordinary status. Yes, since it was born with a blemish, immediately when it was born it turned out that it doesn’t have the sanctity of a firstborn, so behold this is prepared, so it is indeed prepared.

But still it’s forbidden. Behold this is prepared, but we don’t examine it on Yom Tov. If the blemish isn’t a certain blemish, and one must make the examination, there is indeed the law that one doesn’t make any examination of blemishes on Yom Tov. But if the judge didn’t follow, and saw its blemish, he did indeed examine on Yom Tov, and examined it, and he made the examinations, he made the investigation who permitted it with effort, after the fact it does indeed help, behold this one slaughters and eats.

Novel Point: Why Does the Rambam Bring a Separate Law of Firstborn?

Ah, you see the thing. Clear. Why does he make a new case of firstborn? Why does he say it already earlier about the Temple? It’s a new innovation that born with its blemish is called prepared.

It could be that it was born with a blemish on Yom Tov incidentally. Perhaps it was born on Yom Tov, but it was never not prepared. One doesn’t know. No, prepared through its mother. I said earlier that when there’s an animal that is born and the mother was fit to eat, it’s through its mother.

But he didn’t know that it would be born with a blemish or without a blemish. If it would have been born without a blemish, it would still have been forbidden, because that’s a distinction in the tractate. But if it was born with a blemish, so too one may not examine it initially.

But if he transgressed, it’s simple, it turns out that immediately when it was born there was already a blemish that disqualifies it apparently, therefore after the fact one slaughters and eats because it’s only called prepared. Although the person didn’t know anything before Yom Tov. So such a thing.

Law: A Firstborn That Fell into a Pit — One Makes Provisions for It in Its Place

The Rambam says, a firstborn, we were talking about the firstborn, it’s muktzeh. What happens if such an animal is muktzeh? It’s in a loss, a situation of loss.

A firstborn that fell into a pit. Such an honest thing about this we learned in the laws of Shabbos. A firstborn that fell into a pit, and a firstborn that fell into a pit, he may not, the animal is muktzeh, he may not go and pull out the animal.

What may one indeed do? One makes provisions for it in its place. He should make provisions for the firstborn, he should bring it food in the pit. For it’s not proper to bring it up, because it’s not fit for slaughter on Yom Tov. It’s not fit for slaughter on Yom Tov, therefore it’s called muktzeh, he may not pull it up.

But this yes, one may indeed make provisions for it in its place. This is a permission. One might have thought that I’m called troubling for muktzeh or what? One may because it’s pain to living creatures. It will starve. No, the next thing he says it continues. Okay, let’s see. So, the Rambam says, that… no, I don’t know if… he doesn’t say clearly. Or about perhaps, or about pain to living creatures, not certain.

Law: It and Its Offspring That Fell into a Pit — Because of Pain to Living Creatures They Permitted Circumventing

Translation

Further, oso v’es beno (an animal and its offspring). There is a prohibition in the Torah that one may not slaughter an animal together with the offspring of that animal, oso v’es beno, on the same day. So certainly one of them is not fit; one can slaughter one of them.

What happens with oso v’es beno shenaflu l’vor (an animal and its offspring that fell into a pit)? A person might have thought that you may only pull out one. But there is a chiddush (novel ruling) from the Chachamim that one may indeed take out both. Ma’aleh es harishon (he brings up the first one), he does a trick. He takes up the first animal that he finds, he pulls it out al menas lishochto (with the intention to slaughter it), but he doesn’t slaughter it yet, he still holds it. Because if he had slaughtered it, he would no longer be permitted to take out the next one. He keeps it alive. U’merameh (and he uses a stratagem), and he makes a trick, he makes a ruse, and he says, “Ah, you know what? I prefer the second one.” He may only slaughter one of the two. He takes up the first one and says, “Ah, I like the other one better.” U’ma’aleh es hasheni al menas lishochto (and he brings up the second one with the intention to slaughter it). Afterwards he can actually choose, lishchot es eizeh mehem sheyirtze (to slaughter whichever of them he wishes).

Question: How may one use a stratagem on Yom Tov?

Ah, how may one use a stratagem? We learned earlier that on Yom Tov the Chachamim were very strict with stratagems. Which stratagem did we learn earlier? If one makes a stratagem of cooking more for guests or such a thing, then it is forbidden b’dieved (after the fact).

But here they indeed permitted making a stratagem. Why? Mishum tza’ar ba’alei chayim hitiru l’harameh (because of animal suffering they permitted using a stratagem). Because of tza’ar ba’alei chayim the Chachamim indeed permitted making, as long as it’s not an open, gross muktze, in this case the heter, the trick of a stratagem, the Chachamim permitted.

There is the sign s”l, also in hilchos Shabbos we see that there are heterim to save an animal from a place of tza’ar ba’alei chayim, things that generally one may not climb a tree, or one may not exert oneself, one may be mevatel kelim mehechnam (nullify vessels from their designated use), one may bring cushions and blankets into the pit. Tza’ar ba’alei chayim is a different matter.

Okay, one must know that this is the same thing. It’s interesting that because of tza’ar ba’alei chayim one is going to slaughter it, yes? Okay, slaughtering is lo nivra ela l’shem shechita (it was only created for the purpose of slaughter), but lying in the pit crushed… That is, one of them one is going to slaughter, right? But it’s because of the suffering of the second one, as it were.

Distinction between Shabbos and Yom Tov

And also the suffering of this, it’s presumably the slaughtering is not necessarily a suffering, l’chach nivra’o (for this it was created), but lying in suffering is l’chora a suffering. It’s interesting. In hilchos Shabbos one doesn’t speak of slaughtering, one speaks of throwing in things so that it should be able to… That is the difference. There one doesn’t speak that one is going to slaughter, so one must find other solutions.

On Yom Tov one can slaughter, so as it were you have a reason that it’s permissible with stratagems, because one can slaughter it. On Shabbos it’s simply forbidden to keep animals together, right? On Yom Tov it’s not forbidden because one can slaughter it. But one can slaughter both, so comes in all this…

But on the way to killing still means… There is the law that a person who is given a punishment, one gives him frankincense to calm the tza’ar ba’alei chayim. He’s going to die, but in the meantime he shouldn’t have any suffering.

Law: Beheimas Chulin Shenafla Min Hagag — Shochtin V’tivadek

Beheimas chulin shenafla min hagag (a non-consecrated animal that fell from the roof), such a law. An animal that is chulin, it’s grazing, but it fell from the roof. Now the question is whether it became treifa, whether the internal organs became treifa. So one can’t now… Is it now perhaps not fit for slaughter, not fit for eating, because if one will slaughter it and one will see broken bones, broken organs, it will be treifa, v’harei tzricha bedika (and behold it requires examination).

So the law is that one may indeed slaughter, shochtin oso b’Yom Tov (one slaughters it on Yom Tov). One doesn’t say that it’s a doubtful muktze, because on the side that one won’t be able to eat the meat, one may not slaughter it. And one may indeed slaughter it v’tivadek (and it should be examined). Why? Because efshar shetimatzei kesheira v’se’achel (perhaps it will be found kosher and eaten). The heter to be involved because of ochel nefesh is not only when it’s certain that one will be able to eat it, but even when there is such a chance.

Connection to Laws of Treifos

If this is built on such an honest law, that if it’s possible to eat from it a little, one may… Ah, by mesukenes (a dangerously ill animal). But here he sees, this is l’chora built on some law in hilchos treifos, that an animal shenafla min hagag, one may… That is, usually treifos one doesn’t examine, only those that are common. The Raya examines according to what it says in hilchos treifos. Not every treifa must one examine.

But it fell from a roof, so there’s an obligation that one must examine it. So you would have thought that it becomes some new, greater concern of doubt, about which one says no. That if he examines, and on the side, so you say, one can slaughter it even on the side that it could be that it won’t be. Because perhaps it will be ochel nefesh. Right.

Custom: Don’t Slaughter Animals on Yom Tov

Yes. He brings, it’s interesting that the Shulchan Aruch HaRav says that the custom is in general, don’t slaughter animals on Yom Tov at all, because one is indeed concerned shema yimatzei treifa (lest it be found treifa). It’s interesting. Because there are other shitos, it seems they are stringent on this law. They say that no, one must indeed. If the treifa is common… On the contrary, it was said clearly that one may indeed slaughter, because it’s fresher, it’s better when one slaughtered it on that day. Yes, one may… Interesting, right. But perhaps because of the question of treifa it’s a new question. Yes.

L’chora, the word of ochel nefesh is not that a person should now be under pressure that every dumpling will be eaten. One cooks with breadth. It was so clear, even if it remains over one may. It’s true. But I really don’t know. It’s a funny doubt. What does the Ra’avad want on the spot? No, the Ra’avad is here on the previous nothing. I want to go further.

Reason: Why One May Not Examine Mumin on Yom Tov

The Rav there called up the law that we don’t trust the examination of bedikas mumin on Yom Tov, because shema mishum simchas Yom Tov he will seek to overlook. No, he’s speaking of the reasons why one may not examine mumin on Yom Tov.

Law 5: Birds — Muchan and Muktze

Now, further, what is muktze and what is muchan? The Rambam says thus: Avazin v’sarnegolin (geese and chickens)… Now we were learning about birds. It goes like all sorts of animals, beheimos, birds, then fish, and then things.

Avazin v’sarnegolin. Ducks and chickens and birds shebabayis (that are in the house), unlike the dovecote that we learned, that is muktze. These things are indeed muchanim, einan tzrichin zimun (they don’t require designation), he doesn’t need to prepare before Shabbos, automatically they’re already called designated.

But yonei shovach (doves of the dovecote), but birds that run around in the dovecotes, in the special little houses that one builds in the courtyard, or yonei aliya (doves of the attic) birds that fly around higher than the house, in the attic, or tziporim shema’asin kinim (birds that make nests), that make nests u’vatfichin (and in the tafichin). What a tafiach is I don’t know. Teficha is some such thing. There is a thing called a teficha. It’s certainly a thing, the question is what kind of thing. Something is a clay vessel, it’s a certain vessel that one prepares for birds to make eggs there. But the word is not so that one should use it, but it’s some other reason. It’s not muchan for eating, it’s that they should lay eggs, it’s a nest, shekiknu, when one prepares that they should make eggs. One doesn’t eat directly from there, that is the difference.

If b’vira (in a building), or where they make nests in the bira, in a migdal (tower), shura teiva u’migdal (a row, box and tower). Bira is a building, bira means a building, not a tower. Bira always means a building, and in a large place. One doesn’t mean having a small building, or a building made for birds. No, perhaps in the building there is… somewhere they made. I don’t know, bira usually means a large building. So I remember, bira is… “Re’eh bira dolekes (see a burning palace)” means a palace, yes, a palace, a large building. Also in hilchos tzida they were bira.

Yes, but in any case, these things are not made for eating, but made so that… One must still have them, they should still live, they should make more and more eggs. It’s muktze, because he didn’t think of eating them.

Method of Designation

But there is a way between his mind, and yes, he can take from them. Tzarich l’zamen b’erev (he must designate on the eve), he must be mezamen them, invite them, and on the eve say, I want to invite you, I will eat you tomorrow. V’lomar elu v’elu ani notel (and to say these and these I am taking), he must be specific. He can’t say, all yonei shovach, perhaps I will take from them. It doesn’t help. He must say, he must be a specific designation. He must say elu v’elu ani notel (these and these I am taking).

But v’eino tzarich l’na’ane’a (and he doesn’t need to wave), he doesn’t need really… He doesn’t need to make a whole ceremony of really designating. It’s such a thing like perhaps similar to what one learned by sukka, by ta’aseh v’lo min ha’asuy, with this one doesn’t lift it up. Prepare. So one doesn’t need to prepare it with hands, but it’s also not enough just I cast a glance.

Specificity of Designation

V’lo yomar elu v’elu ani notel (and he should not say these and these I am taking) — he must be specific. He can’t say “all yonei shovach perhaps I will take from them” — it doesn’t help. He must say, he must be a specific designation, he must say elu v’elu ani notel (these and these I am taking).

Aval eino tzarich l’zamen (but he doesn’t need to designate) — he doesn’t need really… to make the poor happy, he doesn’t need to make a whole ceremony of really designating. It’s such a thing like perhaps similar to what one learned by sukka, by ta’aseh v’lo min ha’asuy, with this one lifts it up as it were. Prepare. No no no, one doesn’t need to prepare it with hands, but it’s also not enough just I cast myself a glance and say, ah, I’m going to take them. No, he must say elu v’elu, these I want.

Questions in Designation

Now, once we’ve learned the law that there must be designation, questions begin, as is the best tradition of Chazal, that when there is a… one can always find interesting questions.

Shchorim Al Levanim — Doubtful Muchan

What happens? It’s common with this, but the… What happens if he was mezamen elu v’elu, but he was mezamen shchorim al levanim (black ones on white ones)? That means, he has dovecotes where black birds turn around, and there are white ones. He finds the next day, that where he thought of the black ones are lying white ones, or white ones in place of black ones, so it’s simple that he wasn’t mezamen them. They’re other birds that he was mezamen. It doesn’t help. One doesn’t say that he was mezamen five of the fifty birds. It doesn’t work that way. It must be the specific ones, and they are all forbidden, because the ones he was mezamen aren’t there.

Shani omer, shema osam shezimen parchu lahem (I say differently, perhaps those he designated flew away). One doesn’t say that they simply changed their place. One can only say thus, one can say that they’re the same black ones and white ones as yesterday, only they… they’re playing games with the person. They grabbed themselves, they switched their bench, their beds, to fool the guide, and they’re the same. No, one doesn’t say so. One says, one is concerned shema. Perhaps, he says doubt, it has for me the rule of doubt. One makes shema osam shezimen parchu lahem v’elu acherim hen (perhaps those he designated flew away and these are others). Kol safek muchan asur (any doubt of muchan is forbidden).

Muktze, that is still muktze. Muchan means when it’s really muchan. But when it’s a doubtful muchan, it’s not certain that it’s muchan, it’s still called muktze.

Interesting, although the entire prohibition is derabbanan, I thought, there’s no safeka d’rabbanan. But that doesn’t mean muchan. Muchan means when it’s really muchan, but when it’s only doubtful muchan…

I don’t know the reality so well, because when… when he was mezamen all of them it’s not the question, or when there’s a sign it’s not the question. He has a badge, and it could be others. I understand, the birds, one raises the birds there a bit, it’s perhaps organized, it’s not something completely unorganized. One can usually find which it is.

As they learned, this is also, we’re all accustomed that one can say which I will find. This is such a question of breira. Why can’t one say there that that’s what he meant? I don’t know if one can. Yes, he says that there are certain ones that are more muchan, it’s already old, he wants there one raises, when it becomes three one slaughters it, or whatever. It seems from all these cases that it must be very direct, and that it’s normal, and one looks which are ready, which one wants, and one looks which they want.

Zimen Shnayim U’matza Shlosha / Shlosha U’matza Shnayim

The same thing, zimen shnayim (he designated two), he invited two, he was mezamen that he’s going to take the two birds, and when he comes to it u’matza (and he finds), he will find in the dovecote shlosha (three). So one would have thought that he can take two of the three, but no, also hakol asur (all are forbidden) all are forbidden. For the same reason, because it’s a doubt, perhaps they’re new, perhaps the two flew away and three new ones came.

But conversely, if shlosha matza shnayim (three he finds two) it’s indeed more simple, that one of them simply flew away, and one doesn’t say that all three flew away and two new ones came.

Law 6: Zimen Mitoch Haken U’matza Lifnei Haken

What happens zimen mitoch haken (he designated from within the nest)? He made designation, he prepared which birds to take in the nest. U’matza lifnei haken (and he finds before the nest), he sees them not sitting on the nest, but next to the nest. So im ein sham ken ela hu (if there is no nest there but this one), if this is the only nest, v’einam yecholim lifroch (and they cannot fly). There isn’t any other nest in the area. And they can’t… and they’re birds that don’t fly. Afilu yesh sham ken acher b’keren zavis b’soch chamishim ama (even if there is another nest in a corner within fifty amos). Ken acher, another one, somewhere. Another one but far away. But they’re not enough, can’t fly so far. The birds are, let’s say, baby birds or what. And so, there’s a possibility, perhaps they… Chickens, they can’t fly, yes? Right, chicken shop for him.

One doesn’t say that perhaps they ran with crutches and measured and ran around. One doesn’t say so, but one says that it’s indeed the same, because since they don’t fly so easily, one says that this is she’eino medadeh ela k’neged kino (that it only hops opposite its nest). When chickens need to jump, they don’t jump far, they jump only k’neged kino. One says that this is indeed the ones he prepared, it simply changed the place a bit.

She’eino medadeh medadeh medadeh, the dancing of the birds, of the chicks dancing around their nest, they don’t go even around. Also crabs a secret when Chassidim dance, one means that they’re good children. Now we don’t want to be lengthy on this. No, but the chick is terribly limited, he dances but not around, just in front, over fifty amos, he’s very limited.

Thus far laws of birds.

Law 7: Designation of Fish — In Large and Small Pools

Now one goes to learn about designation of fish. So, a person was mezamen fish. So, dagim shebivrarim gedolim (fish that are in large pools) — a biver is a pool, yes? Let’s say such a pool where one cultivates fish. V’chen chaya v’of shebivrarim gedolim (and likewise animals and birds that are in large pools), or animals and birds that have large gates, such stalls, such special places for them. So, kol she’hen mechusar tzida ad she’omrim (all that are lacking capture until they say) — we’re speaking here of a biver gadol, a large one. If it’s still lacking capture, in hilchos tzida we said such a kind of thought. Even if they’re lying here in a certain place, he sees them all, but if he still needs to bring a vessel to catch the fish from what’s in the pool, ad she’omrim “hava metzuda v’nitzudenu” (until they say “bring a trap and we’ll catch it”) — what will we do? Bring a new catcher, a new fish-catcher, we’ll catch it. Harei elu muktze, v’ein tzadin osam b’Yom Tov (behold these are muktze, and one doesn’t trap them on Yom Tov), one may not.

That is muktze. That means, a law of tzida isn’t here, one may do tzida on Yom Tov for ochel nefesh. But what then? This is called muktze, because it wasn’t muchan for him. V’im tzadan (and if he trapped), if he transgressed and indeed trapped, lo yochlum (he may not eat them), one may not eat them because of muktze.

Aval kol she’einan tzrichin tzida (but all that don’t require trapping), if however the pool isn’t so large and he can simply give a grab with his hands, harei elu muchanim, v’tzadin osam b’Yom Tov v’ochlin osam (behold these are muchanim, and one traps them on Yom Tov and eats them), because tzida is permitted on Yom Tov for the need of ochel nefesh.

Chaya Shekinna B’pardes — Small Offspring

And he says, v’chen chaya shekinna b’pardes hasamuch la’ir (and likewise an animal that nested in an orchard adjacent to the city) — an animal that is… Interesting, one says “kinna,” because “kinna” is usually for birds. But an animal that settled in the orchard adjacent to the city, so, veladoseha k’she’hen ketanim she’einan tzrichin tzida einan tzrichin zimun (its offspring when they are small that don’t require trapping don’t require designation). There’s an animal that has little children there, we’re speaking presumably, I don’t know, a deer, let’s say. The large one can run away, but the small ones, even if it’s in the orchard adjacent to the city, it’s not in his domain, but since it’s easy to find them, einan tzrichin zimun (they don’t require designation), adaata d’hachi, one thinks of them that this is what he’s going to use tomorrow.

Law 8: Traps That Were Spread on Erev Yom Tov

This is chunk 3 of 5 of a Yiddish shiur on Jewish law. I need to translate it to English, maintaining the conversational lecture style, transliterating Hebrew/Aramaic terms, and keeping the structure intact.

Let me go through this carefully, section by section:

1. First section discusses traps (metzudot) set before yom tov for animals, birds, and fish

2. Discussion of blocking water channels (sotem emet hamayim) vs traps

3. Laws about a house full of prepared fruits that becomes breached (nifchat)

4. Laws about muktzeh in the seventh year (shemita)

5. Laws about a non-Jew who brings a gift on yom tov

6. Laws about wood that fell from a palm tree on yom tov

7. Laws about piles of straw and storage of wood

I need to maintain the conversational back-and-forth, the questions and answers, and the natural flow of the shiur.

Very good, next. Traps for animals, birds and fish that one spread on erev yom tov. We learned in the laws of Shabbat that one may set up a trap erev Shabbat so that they should be caught while it is still day. Someone set up traps on erev yom tov, and now he doesn’t know when they were caught, whether they were caught erev yom tov, in which case it is mukhan, or they were caught on yom tov, in which case it is muktzeh. So the halacha is, one must be stringent not to take from them on yom tov, unless he knows that they were caught erev yom tov. Just as we learned with the same principle, that something which is doubtfully mukhan is not considered mukhan, mukhan means that it is completely mukhan.

Blocking the Water Channel — Distinction Between a Trap and a Water Channel

One who blocks a water channel, someone blocks a water channel, because that is his way of catching the fish from it. He blocks a water channel, so that everything should remain stuck, so it shouldn’t go away, so it should remain with the fish. And the next morning he arose and found fish in it, one might have thought that it’s the same question, he doesn’t know for certain when it became stuck. But no, the halacha is that one may indeed. The next morning he arose and found fish in it — they indeed permit it. Why? They were caught erev yom tov.

When one blocked the water channel, does that mean all of them are already caught? Yes, because it’s simple. Because a trap is a trap. One places a trap in the forest, and an animal goes, its foot gets caught on it, or whatever. The water channel, it’s not a net that he placed in the water channel. He blocked a water channel, it goes into his domain, the water channel. Somewhere he made a stop, all the fish that are after the stop are stuck, they cannot go back. He prepared, he didn’t know where they are, he didn’t see them, but they were already caught in the water channel. And there was already a way that he doesn’t need any new traps to take from the water channel. It’s simple because they’re already caught, nothing happened on yom tov itself.

Halacha 9: A House Full of Prepared Fruits — That Became Breached

The Rambam says as follows: A house that is full of prepared fruits, a house that is full of prepared fruits, as long as the house is closed, the beit. Beit means simply, I don’t know, a large box, a room, a warehouse where one keeps storage where one keeps fruits. As long as the storage is whole, one doesn’t open it on yom tov. It was made for merchandise or I don’t know. If it’s for merchandise it would be forbidden. It must be that it’s not for merchandise, but the closedness is somehow a problem. Perhaps it’s not mukhan, because it’s closed. But if it became breached on yom tov, someone came and opened the beit, opened the box, then one takes from the place of the breach, one may take from the place where it’s open, because that is considered mukhan.

Discussion: What Does “Nifchat” Mean?

Does nifchat mean erev yom tov? No, even on yom tov, that is the chiddush.

What does the breach accomplish? That is the chiddush, the chiddush that the storage of the house doesn’t make it muktzeh. That is what the breach accomplishes? One may simply, one may open it also? One cannot, practically. What, does one need tools for that? Yes, perhaps one may, I don’t know. Simply not. Someone broke it, a wind came and it broke, I don’t know. Perhaps breaking is a question of soter. But simply soter is not permitted for ochel nefesh. They learned, I mean, it depends what was learned earlier we didn’t see. My master teacher soter, aha. Right, but the point is that what is simply closed, that doesn’t make it not mukhan. That is the point apparently. That means, you might have said that simply closed is a problem? No, simply closed is a technical problem. One needs to know whether one may eat it on yom tov, whether a non-Jew can open it, I don’t know, but what happened that it became breached, it is permitted. Makes sense. Yes.

One Who Stands Over Muktzeh in the Seventh Year

In the seventh year, yes, one who stands over muktzeh on erev yom tov in the seventh year. What happens in such a case? In the seventh year, shemita. Shemita is everything, a person may eat from the fruits, as if it’s hefker. So therefore one who stands over things that are muktzeh erev yom tov in the seventh year, since all the fruits are hefker. So it doesn’t help that it’s hefker. Also for our purposes, he must mark it, he must make a sign, he will make a mark, a sign, and say “from here until here I will take”. That means, he must make even more preparation than usual. It could be that this is actually the point, because it’s hefker and anybody can grab it.

If it’s not shemita, then what? One must also tithe, so he says. But one may not tithe on yom tov, it will be a problem. But shevi’it, so he brings from Rashi, I mean I don’t remember, that shevi’it, normally one doesn’t need enough to make, it’s the opposite, the first thing is not enough to make summer, why? One must tithe, one won’t be able to eat anyway on yom tov. The handling doesn’t help that it’s in the field, the handling one must actually prepare it and must tithe it. But shevi’it which is hefker is exempt from tithing, so therefore, it should be much easier, it should be good. No, he must mark it, he must make a sign, and say “from here until here I will take”. And if he didn’t mark, he may not take, because if he didn’t mark means it’s not mukhan. That’s how it looks, right.

Interesting, the Rama hasn’t yet told us the basic halacha that one may not tithe on yom tov, and that if one hasn’t tithed it is not ra’uy. But, okay. Regarding Shabbat he told us, regarding Shabbat, here it’s speaking of yom tov, and the like. Right. Yes, okay. Yes, let’s see such a halacha, an interesting halacha.

—

Halacha 10: A Non-Jew Who Brought a Gift

Speaker 1:

Now we’re going to learn further another type of not mukhan that came from… a non-Jew brought it. The question is from where it comes, whether it’s outside the techum, or there was a prohibition. It’s not mukhan, it wasn’t mukhan. So thus, a non-Jew who brought a gift, he brought a present. What is this language “teshura”? Do you find it in other places, or a gift? Simply, I don’t know. A non-Jew brings a gift to a Jew on yom tov. The non-Jew knows that one may not cook for a non-Jew, he brings, he brings with him. So thus, now the question is whether the teshura, the gift that he brought, is considered mukhan or not. So one must be concerned. So if there is from that species still attached to the ground, if he brings for example grapes, and on that yom tov most grapes are still attached, it’s still, I don’t know, let’s say he brings on Pesach when it’s still before the time of harvest, he brings grapes, yes? So if there is from that species still attached to the ground, I must fear that the non-Jew tore it off on yom tov, and it wasn’t mukhan.

On the same thing, he brought animals, birds and fish, which perhaps he caught them on yom tov, perhaps they were caught on that day, not a type that is very difficult. It comes from far away, I know, whatever. Then, in all these things, these are forbidden until evening, because it’s not mukhan. And not only that, but also on motzaei, one goes with the same laws as in the laws of Shabbat, that one must wait on yom tov the time it takes to make them. When a non-Jew did a melacha for a Jew, ah, he may not benefit from the melacha. That is the point, there was an order or permission for the Jew. One must wait motzaei yom tov the time it takes to make them. Even hadas, even if the non-Jew brought things to smell, he brought hadassim. Similarly. One may not smell them. One may not smell them until evening until one waits the time it takes to make them. Including a chiddush in it, one barely uses the hadas when one smells it. What does it mean even such a small benefit as smelling one also may not?

But if there is none of that species still attached, if the fruits are already generally cut at such a time, or he brought animals, birds and fish, oh excuse me, or its appearance proves about it that perhaps yesterday they were uprooted and caught, one sees on the meat that it’s not so fresh, or that it was already caught some time ago. So thus, if he brought them within the techum, both it is mukhan and the non-Jew didn’t do any melacha for the Jew, but if he brought them from outside the techum then indeed, it’s no longer a problem of muktzeh, but it’s still a problem that the non-Jew did a melacha for a Jew, that this is forbidden to him, so this is forbidden for the Jew for whom he did the melacha. But if he brought for this Jew from outside the techum it is permitted to another Jew. This has to do with the halacha in the laws of Shabbat also, right? Another Jew is not forbidden what was done for the Jew, if I remember in the laws of Shabbat also the same halacha?

Discussion: Whether the Distinction of “Permitted to Another Jew” Is Only by Techum or by All Melachot

Speaker 2:

Do you remember? Not clear.

Speaker 1:

Also it’s forbidden to him. The “to him” goes back to all the halachot, that means. If I don’t remember, I don’t remember. So is this specifically on techum or on all things? I don’t remember. I don’t remember. But the Lechem Mishneh says here, by techum he didn’t say so clearly as… ah, he says that this is only… what was stated in the laws of Shabbat chapter 5 in that area? Amira l’akum?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

Speaker 1:

A non-Jew who did melacha for a Jew, lo yehane, and it’s permitted to another Jew. Ah, for example, it was stated by chillul Shabbat that another Jew may eat. Perhaps is this a thing for a met? I don’t remember that another Jew may.

Speaker 2:

Why?

Speaker 1:

But do you remember that one may not?

Speaker 2:

I haven’t seen, I remember everything speaks of that Jew.

Speaker 1:

So I don’t know, I think that perhaps all halachot are such that another Jew may. He says that only techum perhaps is permitted, but I don’t remember. Because the Rambam should have made the distinction here within the same matter itself. He doesn’t say until one waits the time it takes to make them, so there he should have said for the Jew, whereas another may indeed? It seems that only regarding techum does he make the distinction. Here he says, but for this Jew, from outside the techum it is permitted to another Jew, for another Jew it is indeed permitted.

Speaker 2:

Does he mean here for another Jew who is indeed within his techum?

Speaker 1:

That’s not what he means. For the Jew who is outside his techum, it’s… what shelo katzru won’t be a distinction. I hear, I don’t know. Okay, se’if 11, yes?

Speaker 2:

Yes.

—

Halacha 11: Wood That Fell from a Palm Tree on Yom Tov

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, wood that fell from a palm tree on yom tov – wood that was attached to the palm tree, to the date palm on yom tov, fell off. It is forbidden to burn it, one may not light it. On yom tov we do light fire, but this one may not light because one may not benefit from it, because it is nolad. Why is it nolad? Because until now it was an attached tree which one may not cut down. But here one sees that the Rambam according to his approach that one may not transgress for a moment. Wait a minute, one wouldn’t have been allowed to cut it, kotzer, because one could have done it erev yom tov. Why wouldn’t one have been allowed to cut it?

Speaker 2:

They learned explicitly in chapter 1 that one may not. Something that one could have done a day before, yes.

Speaker 1:

Therefore it has now become… no, no, one could have cut it rabbinically. They learned clearly that this is not called hachana for ochel nefesh. For whatever reasons, the Rav there didn’t understand why.

Speaker 2:

Ah, in kotzer indeed, in kotzer indeed, in kotzer indeed. One may not cut, yes.

Speaker 1:

Therefore now, when it fell off, it has now become nolad. Now it has become available. Just like an egg that was in the chicken, it wasn’t an egg that was available. It has now become available. That’s what available means.

But if they fell into the oven, if it fell directly from the palm tree, it fell into the oven, here indeed the Sages were lenient. What is the solution? One cannot light the oven as it is, even though it fell in, but there is indeed a solution, one adds to them wood, one should make it so it should be nullified in the majority, one should add more wood that is not nolad, kosher wood, prepared properly, but when it’s mixed one can light it.

Chiddush: The Distinction Between an Egg That Was Born and Wood That Fell

Speaker 1:

It’s so interesting, because we learned that an egg that was born on yom tov that became mixed with other eggs, all of them are forbidden, because there is davar she’yesh lo matirin. Actually interesting. So apparently according to this calculation one should also have said here that it should forbid also the other pieces of wood. But it seems that one wasn’t so stringent. I saw someone who said that since one benefits from it when it’s already burning, and when… this is always the interesting thing, that wood that burns, one benefits when the wood is no longer wood. The benefit from it is already when the wood… the benefit from it is already when the wood is already ash, one already benefits when it becomes ash. Therefore one was lenient here differently than one was lenient with the usual davar she’yesh lo matirin. Actually interesting.

Speaker 2:

Perhaps it’s not really nolad, perhaps it is indeed more like muktzeh. He says nolad.

Speaker 1:

I have mercy, I can say… it also has to do with the fact that it fell into the oven. It fell in.

Speaker 2:

Why would you want to say that he should take it out? One may not be metattel.

Speaker 1:

I have from the side of it’s also a problem. Such a type of tiltul one would have been allowed. It would have been because of its body, it would have been a type of tiltul that… it’s a tiltul so that one should be able to use the oven. It would have been a type of tiltul apparently that one would have been allowed, for its use from its place. But it seems that it’s a leniency. Why is the leniency? Whether because, as you say, because he did nothing, unlike an egg that was born that got mixed? Or the point, because the benefit from it is when the wood already burns. Already. Okay.

Speaker 2:

Further, “a pile of straw and a storage of…” could be another thing. Could be that by the egg it’s davar she’yesh lo matirin, because the egg is whole. Wait for motzaei yom tov. Here, what davar she’yesh lo matirin is it? The oven is stuck with it. It’s lying in the oven.

Speaker 1:

As you say, you perhaps won’t take it out?

Speaker 2:

I believe that you would indeed have been allowed to take it out. Because even on Shabbat one would have been allowed to take it out. What would have been… okay, that’s the question. Yes.

—

Halacha 11 (Continued): A Pile of Straw and a Storage of Wood

Speaker 1:

Further, a “pile of straw”, a bundle of straw, “and a storage of wood”, or a large pile of wood, the situation is that because it’s lying like a large pile, not to use now, not to use on yom tov, but it’s lying piled up for later. “One does not begin with them on yom tov”, one doesn’t begin to use from that pile, because it’s not mukhan, it’s lying perhaps for merchandise? He doesn’t say clearly that the word is for merchandise. “Unless he prepared it on erev”, but however he prepared it on erev that he should use it, then it’s already muktzeh. He doesn’t say when it’s lying for merchandise. The very fact that it’s lying in a large pile shows that it’s not divided into small groups. That means, when someone has a huge pile,

Halacha: Straw Mixed with Thorns – Prepared for Burning

Speaker 1:

What he uses he already puts in a smaller pile, so it should be ready to use. So he must prepare it on erev, which is not muktzeh.

He says further, and if the straw was mixed with thorns, if the straw is however mixed with thorns, and in such a case one cannot let the animals… it’s not lying there to sell or for the animals to use it later, because it’s mixed with thorns. So then it is only fit for fire, it’s only fit to burn. So this is mukhan, such a type of pile indeed means that it’s already lying there that one should take from there wood to burn.

I don’t know how good the reality is, because it seems that a large pile that is fit for animals, it’s not divided for the animals that the animals should now begin to eat from it, because it’s a large pile. But on the other hand, if the pile is such a thing that it’s with thorns, it is indeed something that one takes from it for wood.

Halacha: One Does Not Split Wood from a Pile of Beams

Speaker 1:

They don’t split wood from a pile of beams

They don’t split wood from a pile of beams. Tzibur, we can better understand the word tzibur with a beis, mitzibur, a large heap, a large pile of beams. To take down from it a bit of wood to burn, one still needs to break it, one still needs to be mevakei’a, take a hammer and break off pieces. So it is muktzeh, because it’s not lying ready to heat with, it’s lying in a large pile just like the piece before it. It is muktzeh.

Law: A beam that broke on Yom Tov – nolad

Speaker 1:

And not from a beam that broke on Yom Tov. What happens if a person has a beam in his house, and it broke on Yom Tov? Then it is forbidden for another use because it is nolad, because until now it was, as we had, nolad means when it became changed from one type, it wasn’t available for a use, because a person doesn’t go take a beam that’s still lying whole in his house and use it for a sukkah, and now it became available, when it broke it’s like nolad.

And similarly vessels that broke on Yom Tov, the same thing, we don’t heat with them because they are nolad.

Innovation: The definition of nolad regarding use

Speaker 1:

It’s interesting, the vessel itself was permitted when it was a whole vessel, but for heating it’s called nolad. It’s interesting, one must understand the clear definition of nolad. When it changes from one use to the second, regarding that use it’s called nolad.

Discussion: Nolad on Yom Tov versus Shabbos

Speaker 2:

Yes, it’s a bit interesting, because we had, I mean, by the laws of Shabbos that if something broke, it needs to be ra’uy me’ein melachto or even melachah acheres is enough. Now regarding it becoming muktzeh on Shabbos, but this is a Yom Tov muktzeh, right? On Shabbos there is no nolad. Nolad also isn’t.

Speaker 1:

Perhaps we’re also speaking of such a type of nolad, when he says nolad he means muktzeh, he doesn’t mean that this is nolad. One of the nolados is eseh Shabbos. Your innovation is novel. But the work of what was born on Yom Tov is eseh Shabbos, because is Yom Tov Shabbos after Shabbos after Yom Tov. But I don’t know if that’s… he uses the language of because it is nolad, or he can use the language of because it is muktzeh.

Speaker 2:

That’s what I’m saying, it’s not muktzeh.

Speaker 1:

But he explicitly said because it is muktzeh, because when it was a vessel it was permitted. Now it became nolad for the new type of use. Just nolad.

Law: Heating with whole vessels

Speaker 1:

He says, but one may heat with whole vessels, a person can indeed heat with a whole, he can take a whole wooden spoon and put it in the oven, or with vessels that broke before Yom Tov, because then it is indeed prepared, that were prepared for another work from before. The whole vessel was indeed fit to use as a vessel, one may change the use. From a drum to a watering trough, that one may do.

Right, but if it now became wood, it’s a new wood. Where does the wood come from? It became on Yom Tov. A born thing, on Yom Tov it broke, but only when it broke before Yom Tov. Whole one may indeed use it, one may change the use of a thing.

Law: Nut and almond shells – similar case

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says further, similar to this a similar law, one may heat with shells of almonds that were eaten before Yom Tov. A person ate nuts before Yom Tov, and the shells remained there, we heat with the shells on Yom Tov, because it was already prepared before Yom Tov to use for heating.

But if they were eaten on Yom Tov, until now it was a shomer l’pri, it wasn’t firewood, now it’s like nolad, now it became available for heating, so we don’t heat with the shells, one may not heat, one may not use it for burning.

Innovation: The Rambam as a textual scholar – there are versions

Speaker 1:

And here the Rambam says an interesting thing, that there is another version that says exactly the opposite. There are versions, he had two versions in the Gemara. They say that the Rambam was a textual scholar, yes? The Rambam had more than one Gemara. A textual scholar is a person who doesn’t hold by learning, he looks at something inside. The Rambam wanted to know the law, and he had two Gemaras, one was like this, one was like that. He wanted to know what the truth is, so he brought both.

It’s very interesting, because he doesn’t just rule, the Rambam had to be decisive. He says, okay, let’s see. He says, there are versions in the Gemara that say exactly the opposite, that if they were eaten before, that nuts that were eaten before Yom Tov, we don’t heat with the shells, one may not use the shells, because they were set aside. Because it was, apparently it was like muktzeh mechamas gufo, it was… huktzah means muktzeh, not muktzeh mechamas gufo. Huktzah, muktzeh.

Discussion: What does “huktzah” mean?

Speaker 2:

You keep saying words from the laws of carrying. I understand, but what does the word huktzah mean? Huktzah why? It was just shells.

Speaker 1:

Very good, but it wasn’t prepared. It was already a piece of wood, but not wood that’s prepared to burn, to be heated with. Unlike the opposite, yes, and if they were eaten on Yom Tov, then indeed we heat, because they were prepared on top of the food, because the whole nut itself is prepared, so the shells are also prepared.

The law actually holds opposite from the reasoning, it holds more like you wanted to say. A thing that’s already prepared for another use, you can’t say that it’s muktzeh. Understand?

Discussion: Contradiction between the version and the previous law

Speaker 1:

Apparently, the version should also contradict the law of vessels. But the version doesn’t match with the previous law. There is a vessel, it was already a vessel. Now the vessel is being used. How can it become worse because it broke? It’s actually strange. There actually is a version that shouldn’t be.

Speaker 2:

He wanted us to be stringent, because both are a concern. He wanted us to say that it’s a rabbinic doubt, and one can learn to be lenient.

Speaker 1:

He was a pious Jew, he knew that we’re going to learn and we won’t understand the law, he was going to say it’s half. He says, you know what, there’s a version that holds like you? It’s the divine inspiration of the Rambam. He knew, until the end of all generations Yoel Lashon will come, and the previous law will be difficult for him.

I don’t know, it’s interesting. Sometimes it happens that the Rambam leaves it so open, but it’s interesting. In this case it’s interesting that he doesn’t rule on it. Yes. I brought here that I found another place where the Rambam z”l brings two versions. And perhaps there are other places, but I found here another one.

Discussion: Whether one must be stringent on both sides

Speaker 2:

What do you say that one must be stringent? One must know. What was the law then? Doubtful preparation is forbidden, one must apparently be stringent. Both cases one must be stringent, or perhaps both cases will be a rabbinic doubt where one can be lenient.

Speaker 1:

Is there a law that doubtful preparation… I don’t know if it’s the same thing.

Speaker 2:

You mean regarding nullification, because there is what there is to permit. Ah, doubtful preparation, ah. Let’s learn first, right? It should be truly prepared.

Speaker 1:

But I don’t know if that’s the same thing, because this is a doubt in the Gemara, not a doubt about how each person prepared.

Speaker 2:

Right, here the question is whether prepared on top of the food, whether it’s called prepared. It’s not doubtful preparation. Doubtful preparation means one doesn’t know if the person thought about it.

Speaker 1:

Okay, fine. Right, I don’t know what that means.

Discussion: The Ra’avad’s objection – “I never heard in the world”

Speaker 2:

What does it mean, which Rambam wants to rule like which Rambam? What does the person say here on the side, does he know?

Speaker 1:

Because the Ra’avad immediately disagrees, he says that he doesn’t know of such a version. I never heard in the world, that’s strange. He looks in the Maggid Mishneh, he sees immediately, he says the Mishnah, I didn’t hear, I didn’t see. That means the Ra’avad who didn’t hear.

Speaker 2:

You heard.

Speaker 1:

The Ra’avad apparently means to say that he nullifies that version. The version that the Rambam had another version is not a good version. That’s apparently what he means.

Speaker 2:

Yes, I agree. I’m just saying that his language “I didn’t hear,” he means “I don’t hold so.” He means to say, not as you want. It doesn’t make sense, but it’s to be seen presumably. Yes, he said something.

The Maggid Mishneh: “And our teacher z”l saw the version and wrote it”

Speaker 1:

Says the holy Maggid Mishneh, “And the Ra’avad z”l wrote, but we don’t say to one who didn’t see the new moon ‘may it be in your mouth,’ but to one who saw the new moon, and our teacher z”l saw the version and wrote it”. What does the Ra’avad want? It doesn’t say he didn’t see it. The Ra’avad means to rule, the Ra’avad rules like the first version.

Speaker 2:

Simply you’re right. But I just want to see…

Speaker 1:

“In truth the first seems primary, and so it appears in our books”. Ah, this is an interesting thing. Here you see that the Maggid Mishneh says, “and so it appears in our books”, that it’s implied, the Maggid Mishneh was implied from the Rambam’s language that the Rambam means to rule like the first version. And they also had such reasoning, because the previous law only matches with the first version.

Innovation: “Similar to this” as a hint from the Rambam

Speaker 1:

And in general, it can be like a principle that when the Rambam brings later he means… Also the word “similar to this” is perhaps a… it can be “similar to this” the Rambam means a bit of a subtle hint. He begins with the law of one who shells almonds, he begins “similar to this”. This is a “similar to this” like… that the shelling of almonds only matches the first version with the previous law of “they don’t split.”

Speaker 2:

Ah, right. So certainly that it should… in the “similar to this” lies hidden a hint from the Rambam’s hint that this takes the correct version… it’s certain. That means, ah, you’re right. According to the “there are versions” the Rambam means a hint that his laws have a problem also with the previous law of “they don’t split.”

Speaker 1:

I mean that it’s simple that the “there are versions” actually hold that the previous law must according to the version be different. So it comes out, if it’s “similar to this”… That means, apparently the “similar to this” goes back to all of them.

Speaker 2:

No, perhaps the version only stands here, but…

Speaker 1:

You’re right, I don’t know if that version… That still wasn’t enough for the Rambam to rule that the first version is correct. It seems it’s still strange. Perhaps he wants to leave it, it still doesn’t match so well. One can think the opposite.

Speaker 2:

Okay, let’s go further. But very good, but you say that it’s clear that “similar to this” is the same law.

Speaker 1:

Okay, another…

Law 13: Wet thorns — muktzeh because they’re not fit for heating

Speaker 1:

So it comes out, if it’s “similar to this”, this is all… perhaps the versions only stand here, but… That still wasn’t enough for the Rambam to rule that the first version is correct. It seems it’s still strange. Perhaps the versions still don’t match so well. One can think the opposite.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Speaker 1:

Let’s go further. But very good, but you say that it’s clear that “similar to this” is the same law.

Speaker 2:

Okay, another type of thing that’s next.

Speaker 1:

A kotz means a small piece of wood. A thorn, yes. But wood is only used for heating when it’s dry. It catches fire enough, but when it’s still wet and still moist, fresh green that still has moisture in it, one doesn’t use it for heating. It’s wet thorns, pieces in it that are still wet, it is muktzeh, means muktzeh because it’s not fit for heating, it’s not fit for heating. Therefore, a person will think that for heating one may not, one can use it for another use. But therefore it’s forbidden for him to make it like a spit, to roast meat on it. He wants to use it for something else, he wants to use it like a skewer to stick the meat in and hold the meat on it to roast meat, one also may not use it.

That means, to roast meat specifically yes, it’s simple, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t need to be so dry.

Speaker 2:

Ah, the opposite, because he doesn’t want it to be burned with the Torah.

Speaker 1:

But he may not, because it’s not prepared, it’s prepared because he didn’t think. It seems that wood, primarily one thinks of it for heating. If perhaps he would have wanted to think of a spit, then it would indeed have been prepared, but generally, wood one thinks of for heating. And the wood, when he saw it, he didn’t think that this is fit for something else. And similarly everything similar to this. That something whose use of it is not the… is something so rare that one should use it for the use, it’s not the usual use, it’s not called prepared.

Speaker 2:

Okay.

Speaker 1:

This thing presumably will turn on the details, for example, there are two days of Yom Tov, and if on the second day it will no longer be so wet, apparently he perhaps indeed thought about it for the second day. I’m just saying what one needs… what does it take one day to dry out?

Speaker 2:

True.

Speaker 1:

Fine, further.

Law 14: Wood adjacent to sukkah walls — prepared because his mind is on them

Speaker 1:

The Rambam says thus: We take wood that’s adjacent to sukkah walls. A person makes, one of the holidays is Sukkos, he built a sukkah, and next to the sukkah — we see it many times in tractate Sukkah that not everything was built so perfectly as today, many pieces of wood were taken — there is also wood that’s not exactly part of the wall, it’s adjacent to the sukkah walls. The wall already stands well enough, and there are more pieces of wood that lean against it. One may take and light with them.

Why? It seems that it’s lying there, it’s lying for its use, so he perhaps indeed thought about it. Two things: first of all, it’s permitted, it’s prepared, because before he indeed placed it there. Perhaps not before he placed it, but he prepared it.

Speaker 2:

Yes, yes, certainly, look at the continuation. Look at the continuation.

Speaker 1:

“But not”, he placed it there, before he brought wood.

Speaker 2:

Eh, on the other hand, it’s not contradictory, so he brings from the Gemara.

Speaker 1:

But it’s still adjacent, it’s not part of the sukkah. It’s next to the wall, but the wall stands without it. Not just contradictory, it would also have been muktzeh because of mitzvah. We have a law that one may not take things down from the sukkah on Yom Tov.

Speaker 2:

Okay?

Wood from the field — muktzeh even if gathered

Speaker 1:

But what may one not? But we don’t bring wood from the field. One may not take just random wood from the field, even what’s not in the sukkah, what’s not adjacent to the sukkah walls, even if one gathered it already before Yom Tov, even if it’s lying in piles from before Yom Tov, only if it was prepared.

Interesting, “gathered them” means that it’s already piled up ready to use, but it seems that it’s lying in the field, it’s lying far. Ah, what he prepared, what he brought to the house, what lies by the sukkah walls. It can be that what’s adjacent to the sukkah walls, not that he thought to heat with it, so he would have thought, but it’s lying there and his mind is on it, that it’s lying there, that if he’ll need it he’ll be able to use it. But what lies in the field, even if it’s in a way perhaps more because it’s lying already gathered, not more, even if it’s lying gathered, but his mind is not on it because it’s lying far.

But we gather in the field that’s before him and light there. He means to say that the distinction is not between field versus house, the distinction is whether it’s close to him or far from him.

Speaker 2:

Yes, that’s what he presumably means, right?

Speaker 1:

But also gathering means that he scratches just, it’s not gathered, even if it’s not gathered. It’s not gathered, but it’s lying in front of him. What lies close, his mind is on it.

Gathered in a private domain — conditions for prepared

And further, we bring from what’s gathered in a private domain. What lies piled together in a private domain, one may indeed take, because that’s not like in a field. He says, even if it was enclosed not for dwelling, even if the private domain is not the dwelling where he lives, it’s just I know in his yard and in his area there is some private domain. And they learned for example in the laws of Shabbos that not open to a dwelling makes a difference, it’s not a private domain for Shabbos. A person perhaps thought that in honor of this it also won’t mean that the wood is fit to… or is prepared to use, but this is indeed prepared to use, because it’s gathered in a private domain, unlike when it’s gathered in a field.

Translation

But provided that it has an opening, that the private domain is a normal private domain with a door, so that his mind is on it that people go in there and use the place. Whereas if it’s a private domain that isn’t used because it doesn’t have a door, then the wood from it wouldn’t be called mukhan. And the same thing is and it should be within the Shabbat boundary, because if it’s not within the Shabbat boundary then it’s also not mukhan. Even though on Yom Tov… ah, one may not go outside the boundary on Yom Tov, but and outside of these it is muktzeh. Either because it’s not within the Shabbat boundary, or because it doesn’t have a door, the wood from it is muktzeh.

Law 15: Reeds and Vine Branches — Muktzeh Because the Wind Scatters Them

Speaker 1: All the reeds and all the vine branches, leaves from little trees that a person has in his field, even if they were gathered in a karpeif, even if it’s lying in a pile, in his karpeif, in his yard, in his backyard, we learned that when a person has something in his private domain, gathered is permitted, that was regarding wood, but regarding leaves the law is not so. Why? Because since the wind scatters them, when it’s lying there, even if it’s lying gathered, but we know that the wind will scatter it, behold it’s like scattered and forbidden, we view it as if it’s scattered. But we’re really talking about a situation when there is wind. It’s the kind of thing that doesn’t stay put, it’s constantly moving back and forth, it’s not something that stays in place. Therefore, even though it’s lying there right now, it doesn’t help. But the preparation was, seemingly it still doesn’t make it mukhan, because the preparation was that he knows why. But there is a solution, when he placed something heavy to hold it so it shouldn’t blow away, and it’s simply mukhan.

Law 16: An Animal That Died on Yom Tov

Speaker 1: Further, more laws of muktzeh are as follows: An animal that died on Yom Tov. The animal that died on Yom Tov, now it’s a nevelah, the animal. So the question is whether one may use it for dogs. We learned yesterday that one may not cook for dogs, but one may indeed do some use for animals that are in his courtyard. What? Not any cooking or cutting. And seemingly, dogs are an animal that one has an obligation to support. So if it was dangerously ill on erev Yom Tov, if the animal was already sick on erev Yom Tov, then yes it’s called mukhan, he already thought that it’s very possible that it will die and he’ll give it to eat, so behold he may cut it up for dogs. And if not, if the animal suddenly died, it wasn’t dangerously ill, then since his mind was not on it, he didn’t think about using the animal as food for the dogs. So behold it is muktzeh, just like all the other muktzeh items, it became a new use with the animal, so he may not move it from its place, he may not move it, he may not cut it up for the dogs, because the dogs had to figure out on their own to eat from it.

Further, a consecrated animal that died, an animal of consecrated items that when it dies one may not give it to the dogs, yes? And terumah that became impure, also the same thing, that one must burn it and not give it to the dogs, also he may not move it from its place, because it’s not fit for anything. That means even if the animal was dangerously ill, there was no intention to give it to the dogs, therefore it’s muktzeh.

Law 17: Fish and Birds and Wild Animals That Are Muktzeh

Speaker 1: Further, fish and birds and wild animals that are muktzeh. Fish and birds and wild animals are muktzeh, as we learned at the beginning of this chapter, when it’s muktzeh, when there was no intention regarding it. It was, let’s say, still in a large trap here. So the law is, one may not give them to drink on Yom Tov, one may not give them to drink on Yom Tov, and one may not place food before them, one may also not give them food, lest he come to take from them. It’s not that he’ll give them to eat, but a concern that when he’ll place before them, he’ll also exert himself and he’ll take it, he’ll use it, he’ll eat it. Again, the fish that one may not eat, there’s a concern that if he goes to give them drink, he’ll also take from them and eat from them. Interesting.

Speaker 2: Could it be that one needs to have as if the fish will die? Isn’t it the solution of a loss or what?

Speaker 1: They’ll figure it out, they won’t die. That’s not the point. One shouldn’t go attend to them, because they’re swimming around there. Don’t attend to them, that’s the word.

General Rule: Forbidden to Move It

Speaker 1: Yes. He says, and anything that is forbidden to eat or use on Yom Tov because it is muktzeh, things that one may not eat or use on Yom Tov, it’s not only forbidden to use, like for example wood for kindling is not only forbidden to place in the oven, but it’s also forbidden to move any such thing, because it’s not fit for eating means it’s already forbidden in moving. And they already saw this essentially once with the egg, I don’t want to know the word forbidden to move. Okay.

Law 18: Dirt and Ash — Laws of Mukhan

Speaker 1: Now one can see regarding dirt. Essentially this whole chapter is a list of other objects, other kinds of things, creations, which are mukhan and when not. Yes, which are muktzeh or mukhan.

One who brings in dirt on erev Yom Tov, when someone brings dirt into the house on erev Yom Tov, we had this law also on Shabbat, if he designated for it a corner in his courtyard, he set aside a corner where it lies. I mean people used to use dirt for… these kinds of floors. There are floors where we learned later on Shabbat where one would sweep a floor that is paved. A floor that is sand, one would simply spread fresh sand, so that it should look good, so one shouldn’t see the crumbs, one shouldn’t see dirt. It’s not instead of a floor, but it’s perhaps unnecessary. I don’t know, I don’t know. But placing sand on the floor one may not, correct. Why? Making level holes. That’s properly making level holes.

Speaker 2: You have a complete doubt of the seventh year, I don’t understand.

Speaker 1: No, one presumably places a very thin layer.

Speaker 2: Are you familiar with the idea of…

Law 18 (Continued): Dirt and Ash — Mukhan and Nolad

Speaker 1: There are floors where we learned later on Shabbat, where one would sweep a floor that is paved. A floor that is sand, one would simply spread fresh sand, so that it should look good so one shouldn’t see the crumbs, one shouldn’t see dirt. Not instead of what, there is such a thing. I just want to explain what it should be. But placing sand on the floor one may not. It’s properly a complete prohibition.

Speaker 2: Here it’s not a complete prohibition.

Speaker 1: I don’t understand. No, one presumably places a very thin layer. One uses up, one places, one doesn’t know what one uses, one covers with the slaughtered head, it’s discussed in tractate Beitzah.

Speaker 2: Covering the blood.

Speaker 1: Ah, okay. I don’t know if that’s called a complete prohibition, but that’s not the topic here. One places a thin layer, and one finished eating, there’s a layer, there’s a layer, one crumbles on top.

Discussion: Where Does the Idea of Sand Come From?

Speaker 2: How did you get the idea that one places sand?

Speaker 1: I remember such a thing. I need to think from where I remember such a thing. Okay.

The Rambam’s Language: Prepared Dirt

If he designated it for this purpose behold it is mukhan and permitted to move it and do with it all his needs. Just do with what one has to do with the sand. I remember that in the Gemara it talks about covering the blood. He said covering filth, or he has such… And permitted to move it and do with it all his needs. And so, ash that was prepared on erev Yom Tov…

Speaker 2: There is such a thing. Dirt and ash are two ingredients that are approximately the same thing, yes?

Explanation: Covering the Blood with Ash

Speaker 1: I mean from covering the blood itself you see that this is… covering the blood is not something novel. No, covering the blood is that blood shouldn’t lie on the floor openly. For the blood is the soul, cover it. Because that was the order of how one would cover things with ash. That’s what I think.

And so, ash that was prepared on erev Yom Tov… because one already made ash. That means a person puts in, he makes a fire in order to have ash. No, it could be that it came from the oven, no difference. Ash is called mukhan, yes, it’s mukhan because on erev Shabbat he already thought to use it for his needs.

Ash That Was Made on Yom Tov — Nolad

But that was made on Yom Tov, ash that was created on Yom Tov from things that one cooked on Yom Tov, is as follows: as long as it is hot enough to roast an egg in it, as long as it’s still hot, and it’s the practice that one uses it to cook an egg in it, that it’s hot enough, it is permitted to move, it’s still fire. It’s still called like a kitchen item that one uses for cooking, it’s still permitted to move, it’s still mukhan.

But if not, it’s already not mukhan for use as coals, as hot ash, but what then? It now becomes a new thing, it becomes ash that one uses for other things. So that’s called nolad, as we learned that something from which a new use was created is called nolad, it is forbidden to move it because of nolad.

Explanation: Why Is This Nolad?

So this is not just a new use, it’s also a new object. There was no ash, there was wood. No, it was hot, it was already ash, but it was hot, and it was as, one used it as coals, as things to burn.

Speaker 2: No, but I’m saying it was already permitted in moving after being wood, when it was hot ash.

A Spade Stuck — One Who Had a Spade Stuck on Erev Yom Tov

What Is a Deker?

Speaker 1: One who had a spade stuck on erev Yom Tov. Someone has a spade stuck… deker means a shovel, I think? Yes, an axe to dig with it. Deker, kardom, are the same letters, I don’t know. No, a deker is a deker, and a kardom is a kardom. A kardom is a hoe and a deker is a shovel I remembered.

No, he brings from the Rambam’s commentary on the Mishnah. Deker, says the Rambam in the commentary on the Mishnah, an axe to dig with it. So, unfortunately, I don’t agree. A deker is a deker, and a kardom is a kardom. Why would one say the same thing? The Mishnah calls it, there’s another way how one used to call a deker. A deker is a shovel, because a kardom is a hoe. Two different things? No, it says an axe to dig with it one always uses. Yes. It’s certainly a different thing.

The Situation: Spade Stuck in Sand

Okay, if someone has a pile of… someone has a pile of sand, and in it lies the spade. It’s already sand that one knows, one has already shown that this is sand to use. Through the fact that the spade lies there, it’s clear that this is sand that lies as a pile of sand. It’s only now on erev Yom Tov, it’s already stuck in the sand on erev Yom Tov.

And he removed it on Yom Tov, he took out on Yom Tov, he pulled out the spade from there. It was stuck in the ground, a shovel. Now you still need to lift the shovel to take out the sand, so one should be able to take. Taking out the sand from the ground you can’t take. And on Yom Tov he took it out. It was stuck on erev Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov he gave a lift to the shovel.

And He Brought Up Dirt — What Came Up?

When he took out the shovel “and he brought up dirt,” there is… I mean as if there are different types of sand. We’re not talking about soft sand, we’re talking about such dirt… wait, we’ll already see that it depends. Okay, ah. That’s what it depends on, but the situation is simple. No, how is it “brought up dirt”, when it’s hard sand, and as long as it’s not fit for its purpose. But once there was a spade in it, it became soft, the place became soft. “Brought up dirt.”

No, say what does the word “brought up dirt” mean? I don’t understand from it, “brought up dirt,” one lifted up a piece of clump of sand. When he took out the spade a piece of sand came with it. Yes, what is a shovel, a spade is a shovel. Okay. So that’s why it was made.

If That Dirt Was Loose — Soft Sand

“If that dirt was loose,” if the sand is soft, loose, the word tachuch is the sandy word. I think it means moist, if I remember. Tachuch, the name is tachuch. Yes, tachuch means loose, like. Loose, yes. Loose dirt. “Behold he may cover with it, and move it.” Because that means the sand is mukhan because it was already mukhan. When it was stuck in, he already showed with this that it’s already the piece of sand from a clump of dirt.

But If He Brought Up a Clump of Dirt — He May Not Crush

If it didn’t bring up crumbs of dirt, but it brought a clump of dirt, it’s clear that it wasn’t mukhan with this on Yom Tov. That means the spade wasn’t a sign, ah, not as mukhan. It’s mukhan in service. If however he brought up a clump of dirt, and you now want to use it. He now wants to use the sand. One needs to use the shovel, but in order to use the shovel one needs to break it up. He still needs to break it up. “Behold he may not crush it on Yom Tov,” he shouldn’t crumble it on Yom Tov.

Discussion: Why Not Crush? Grinding or Mukhan?

He says regarding grinding. I mean perhaps he could have said it’s not mine. I don’t mean if it’s actually grinding, like it’s a prohibited labor of grinding. Perhaps it’s a category of grinding.

Yes, I also think that perhaps we’re talking here as mukhan, because this shows that the stuck spade wasn’t yet enough mukhan. When it’s loose sand, and all that’s missing is digging out with the spade. You’ve already done all the work, but… but perhaps not, because the spade is only like a sign. It’s not clear that it has to do with the inquiry that I claimed that preparation is an act.

I mean to say, do you understand what I’m saying? He placed there a stick. Clearly, the area of sand is already sand, it’s not part of the dirt of the ground, it’s sand. But I see that everyone says it’s a question of grinding.

Question: Digging — How Could One Remove the Spade?

But I don’t understand one thing: removing the spade from the… they removed it. How could one do the removing? Wasn’t that a problem of digging? Or we’re talking here “one who walks on dirt.” It’s clear that it’s still sand that’s still not mukhan. Digging comes in.

Digging is when one is fixing with this the ground, or one has something there… one may not dig a hole on Yom Tov. He’s not digging a hole, he’s taking sand. But he makes a hole with this when he takes it out, yes? You see “one who walks on dirt.” You don’t know, will you plow or dig?

Answer: Labor Not Needed for Its Own Sake

Okay, it seems not. He talks precisely about this, but it’s a question of labor not needed for its own sake. I think the Rambam holds that one is liable. It’s certain that this is a classic labor not needed for its own sake. He doesn’t need the hole, he only needs the spade, the sand.

Discussion: When He Removed — After the Fact or Initially?

Perhaps it could be that he actually may not initially. He talks about when he removed. He didn’t know the law, when he removed. Because the when he removed is something such… that’s what he did.

So he says, Rav Blumen said that the Lechem Mishneh says actually that one may not remove, because it’s a question of digging, as you say. But it’s very interesting what this means.

Yes, but to say that he may now use it after he transgressed a prohibition? Yes, that’s not a problem. But the question is why wouldn’t the Rambam say that one may not? It’s very misleading.

No. In some places it seems he may. Perhaps because it’s already stuck, it’s already not digging. Because it’s already stuck, it’s already lying buried. Half the work was already done. I don’t know. Very good.

—

Conclusion

Anyway, until here chapter 2. Until here chapter 2 of the Laws of Resting on Yom Tov.