1. A chick that is hatched on a holiday is forbidden [to be handled], because it is muktzeh.¹Since one could not know whether the chick would be hatched on the holiday itself or not, there is no way one could designate it as food. Hence, it falls into the category of muktzeh. Indeed, even the more lenient opinions that allow muktzeh to be used on a holiday forbid slaughtering such a chick, since before it was hatched it was not useful for any purpose whatsoever (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 513:19; Mishnah Berurah 513:36). [A different rule applies,] however, when a calf is born on a holiday: If its mother was designated to be eaten, the calf is also permitted,²This applies only when we know that the calf has undergone a full period of gestation. If not, it is forbidden to be slaughtered on the day it was born (Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 4:4). for it is considered to be designated, because of its mother. If its mother had been slaughtered [on a holiday], the calf in her womb would also have been permitted [to be eaten] on the holiday, even though it had not been born.³For the slaughter of the mother also causes the calf to be permitted (Ibid. 5:13-14).

2. When animals graze beyond the [2000-cubit] limits granted to a city, but return and spend the night inside the city, they may be designated [for our use on the holiday]. We may take these [animals] and slaughter them on a holiday.

When, by contrast, they both graze and spend the night⁴The Rambam is employing the wording of the Mishnah, Beitzah 5:6. In his Commentary on the Mishnah (based on Beitzah 40a), the Rambam explains that this refers to animals that graze outside the city limits from the spring until the beginning of the rainy season. This interpretation also changes the definition of animals that "return and spend the night inside the city," to refer to those that return to the city occasionally. These definitions are reflected in the decisions of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 498:5 and the Mishnah Berurah 498:12,14. beyond the [2000-cubit] limits granted to a city, we may not slaughter them on a holiday if they come to the city on that day. They are muktzeh, and the attention of the inhabitants of the city is not focused on them.

3. Similarly, when a consecrated animal⁵This refers to a firstborn animal, which is consecrated by birth. Alternatively, the intent is the tenth animal after a herd has been tithed. These animals may not be offered as a sacrifice, because the Temple is destroyed. The law is that the firstborn must be given to a priest, who may not slaughter it until it acquires a permanent blemish. The tithed animal may be kept by its owner, who may slaughter it after it acquires a blemish. The designation of a blemish as permanent or not must be made by a sage trained in this field. became blemished on a holiday, since one did not intend to eat the animal on the previous day, it may not be slaughtered on a holiday.

For this reason, it is forbidden to inspect the blemishes of a consecrated animal on a holiday.⁶The Rambam maintains that even if the animal had acquired the blemish before the holiday, it must be inspected before the holiday, and not on the holiday itself (Maggid Mishneh). [This is] a decree, [instituted] lest the sage consider the blemish [permanent] and hence permit [the animal to be used for mundane purposes], and its owner will slaughter it immediately. When, however, a sage has inspected a blemish on the day prior to the holiday, he may [render a decision] on the holiday, permitting or forbidding [its use].

4. When [on the day of a holiday] a firstborn animal is born with a blemish, it is considered as if it were prepared [to be slaughtered].⁷For until birth, the animal could have been eaten by slaughtering its mother. Nevertheless, [the blemish] may not be inspected on the holiday.⁸The animal may not be checked by an experienced sage to see whether the blemish is permanent or not. This restriction is an extension of the Rabbinic safeguard mentioned in the previous halachah. If, however, one transgressed and had the blemish checked, and [the sage ruled that] the animal is permitted to be slaughtered, one is permitted to slaughter it and partake of its meat.

When a firstborn animal falls into a cistern [on a holiday], one should give it the [necessary] nourishment while in the cistern. One is not allowed to pull it out, because it is not fit to be slaughtered on the holiday.⁹As such, moving the animal is forbidden. Therefore, the only alternative is to wait until the conclusion of the holiday and in the interim, to feed the animal while it is in the cistern.

[The following rules apply when] a cow and its calf both fall into a cistern [on a holiday]:¹⁰As Leviticus 22:28 states, it is forbidden to slaughter both these animals on the same day. Thus, it would seem that we could take only one out of the cistern, and the other would be considered muktzeh. We may take one out with the intent of slaughtering it, and then refrain from slaughtering it. One may then act with guile, and take the other out with the intent of slaughtering it, and then slaughter either of them that one desires.¹¹From the wording chosen by the Rambam, it appears that it is necessary to slaughter one of the animals. The Maggid Mishneh cites a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Beitzah 3:4), from which one might infer that this is not necessary, but he cites the opinion of the Rashba, who recommends slaughtering one of the animals. We are permitted to act with guile, because of the suffering the animal endures.¹²See Hilchot Shabbat 21:9-10 for other examples of leniencies granted by our Sages in consideration of the suffering endured by an animal. See also the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 3:4), which states that consideration of the suffering endured by an animal is a Scriptural obligation.

An unconsecrated animal that fell from a roof and stood for an entire day¹³Although this phrase appears in the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah, we have placed it in brackets, because a) it is omitted from many authoritative manuscripts and early printings, and b) it does not fit the Rambam's statements regarding the subject in Hilchot Shechitah 9:19.

One might justify the inclusion of the bracketed phrase by explaining that according to the Rambam, the possibility that the animal may not be kosher does not disqualify its slaughter on the festival. Nevertheless, the prevailing opinion (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 498:8) is that we are allowed to slaughter an animal on a festival only when it is likely to be kosher. requires inspection [before we are allowed to partake of it].¹⁴See Hilchot Shechitah 9:9,17, where the Rambam states that an animal that falls from a roof and is unable to walk afterwards must be inspected after it was slaughtered to see whether any of its vital inner organs were crushed. Nevertheless, it may be slaughtered on a holiday and then inspected, for the possibility exists that it is kosher, and then its [meat] could be eaten.

5. [All] ducks, chickens, and doves [kept] in one's home are considered to be prepared [to be slaughtered], and need not be designated. Doves [kept in] a dovecote, [wild] doves that nest in one's loft, and [other] fowl that nest in basins,¹⁵In the Talmudic era, basins were built into the facades of homes for doves to nest. on buildings, or in orchards, are considered muktzeh.¹⁶The Maggid Mishneh states that there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis regarding whether this law refers to large doves that are able to fly, or to small doves that are unable to do so.

The more stringent view maintains that since the doves are able to fly away, they must be snared, and this labor is forbidden. The more lenient view maintains that since the doves have nested in these places, great effort is not required to snare them, and this is permitted on a holiday. From the Rambam's wording, it appears that he subscribes to the more lenient view. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 497:9) follows the more stringent opinion.

[To slaughter them on a holiday,] it is necessary on the previous day to designate them and say, "I will take these and these." There is no need actually to shake [the nest or the doves].

6. [The following rules apply when] one designated both black and white doves, and on the following day found the white doves in the place of the black ones and the black ones in the place of the white ones. It is forbidden to take them, because it is possible that [the doves that were designated] flew away and these are others. [Therefore, we follow the principle:] Whenever there is a doubt whether [doves] have been designated or not, they are forbidden.¹⁷As a rationale for this stringency, the Maggid Mishneh explains that the doves will be permitted for eating on the following day with no restrictions. Therefore, we are required to wait until then to partake of them, as explained in Chapter 1, Halachah 20.

If he designated two and found three, they are all forbidden.¹⁸In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Beitzah 1:3), the Rambam explains two reasons for this restriction:

a) It is possible that this entire group is made up of new doves that came from afar;

b) Even if two of the doves were the ones designated on the previous day, the entire group is forbidden because they were joined by a third dove who is not distinguished from them.If he designated three and found two, they are permitted. If he designated doves inside the nest, but found them in front of the nest, he is permitted to take them, provided that these were the only doves in the nest, and they are unable to fly. Although there is another nest within fifty cubits¹⁹It is an accepted principle that doves will not waddle further than 50 cubits. Even within these 50 cubits, they will not walk on a diagonal. at a diagonal, these doves are permitted, for doves that waddle, waddle only in a straight line to their nests.

7. [The following rules apply to] fish in large ponds,²⁰The Ra'avad explains that this restriction also applies to fish in small ponds. Since fish cannot always be seen easily and are difficult to snare even in a small pond, greater stringency is applied with regard to them. His opinion is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 497:1). beasts and fowl in large pens, and any other beast that has to be snared to the point where it is necessary to say, "Bring a net so that we can snare it": [Such a living creature] is considered muktzeh and may not be snared on a holiday.²¹It would appear that the reason that snaring is forbidden is not the fact that it is one of the 39 forbidden labors, for it is necessary for the preparation of food. Rather, it is forbidden as a result of the Rabbinic prohibition against muktzeh (Meiri, P'nei Yehoshua, Beitzah 23b). If it is snared, it may not be eaten.

[By contrast,] every [living creature that can be snared] without a net is considered to be designated. It may be snared on a holiday and we may partake of it.

Similarly, when a wild beast establishes its home in an orchard near a city,²²This leniency does not apply when the animals make their home more than 70 cubits beyond the city limits (Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.:8), for then a person would not be likely to have these animals in mind for his holiday meals. its small offspring that do not require [effort to] capture need not be designated, because one has in mind [to take] them [for food for the holiday].

8. Although on the day before a holiday a [hunter] set snares for a beast, fowl, or for fish, on the holiday itself he should not take the living creatures that were captured unless he knows that they were captured before the holiday.²³This ruling depends on the principle mentioned in Halachah 6, that whenever there is doubt whether or not an article had been designated for use on a holiday, it is forbidden.

When a person makes a dam in a water conduit²⁴As explained by the Ramah (Orach Chayim 497:5), Shulchan Aruch HaRav 497:1 and the Mishnah Berurah 497:14, this refers to a narrow waterway that has been dammed at both ends. Hence, there is no difficulty in catching the fish, and they can be considered to be designated before the commencement of the holiday. on the day before the holiday, and gets up early the next morning and finds fish there, they are permitted. They were already trapped before the commencement of the holiday. [Hence,] they are considered to be designated [to be eaten].

9. When a [closed] building was filled with produce that had been designated [for use] and was opened [by natural forces on a holiday], one is permitted to take [produce] from the opening.²⁵We do not say that since the building was closed before the commencement of the holiday, the produce is no longer considered designated for use. There are authorities (Rashba, Rabbenu Asher) who follow a more stringent view, and maintain that the produce is permitted only when it appeared that the building would open. Nevertheless, according to the Rambam (as well as Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi and the Ramban), the fact that it is located in a closed building does not alter the status of the produce. When, as in the instance described, it is possible to take it, doing so is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 518:9) quotes the Rambam's ruling.

A person who stands and surveys fruit set out to dry on the day prior to a holiday²⁶The Mishnah (Beitzah 4:7) mentions this instance with regard to the Sabbath. Since the Rambam maintains that the prohibitions against muktzeh do not apply on the Sabbath, he cites these laws with regard to the holidays. in the Sabbatical year,²⁷The Sabbatical year is mentioned because there is no obligation to tithe in that year. In other years, the produce would not be considered to be designated for use until it had been tithed, and it is not customary to tithe fruit that has been set out to dry until it is fully dried. (See the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah, loc. cit.) when all the produce is ownerless, must make a mark and say, "I will take [the produce] from here to here." If he did not make a mark,²⁸I.e., the person must make a mark on the ground to designate the area from which he desires to take produce. In Halachah 5, the Rambam does not require a person to perform a deed while designating doves to be eaten (thus negating the opinion of the School of Shammai). In this instance, however, since people do not generally eat fruit left out to dry until it is completely dry, it is necessary for him to perform a deed to clarify his intent. The Ramah (495:4) differs and does not require that a deed be performed even in this instance. he may not take [the produce].

10. [The following rules apply] when a gentile brings a present²⁹The same laws apply with regard to gentile merchants who desire to sell produce or other types of food on a holiday. [of food] for a Jew on a holiday: If some of the type of produce that he brings is still attached to the ground³⁰When this type of produce is still growing in the ground, there is the possibility that the gentile harvested it on the holiday itself. [in the fields], or if he brought an animal, fowl, or fish that could possibly have been snared on the day [of the holiday], they are forbidden³¹There are two reasons why these foods are prohibited: a) because a Jew may not have a gentile perform forbidden labors on the Jew's behalf on a holiday,

b) because the food he brings is muktzeh. until the evening.³²There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if, in the diaspora, an object that became forbidden for these reasons on the first day of a holiday is permitted to be used on the second day or not. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 515:1) allows it to be used on the second day of the holiday after one waits enough time to perform the forbidden labor. The Ramah requires the person for whom the gentile brought the produce to wait until after the conclusion of the holiday. In times of need, however, he enables the produce to be used by the person's guests on the second day. [Moreover, one must wait] enough time for it to have been possible to perform [the forbidden activity after the conclusion of the holiday].³³This safeguard ensures that one will derive no benefit at all from the gentile's activity, nor ask him to perform such a labor again. Even [if the gentile brings] a myrtle or the like, one should not smell its fragrance until the evening, after waiting the time necessary [to pick it].

If none of the type of produce that he brings remains attached to the ground, or it is clear from the form [of the produce] that it was picked on the previous day, or it is clear from the form [of the fish or the animal] that they were caught on the previous day, they are permitted, provided they were brought from within [the city's 2000-cubit] limit. If they were brought from outside [the city's 2000-cubit] limit, they are forbidden.

Food that was brought from outside [the city's 2000-cubit] limit for one Jew is permitted to be eaten by another.³⁴Although such food is also forbidden to all the members of the household of the person for whom it was brought.

11. When branches fall from a palm tree on a holiday, it is forbidden to use them as firewood, because of the prohibition of nolad. If, however, they fell [directly] into an oven, one may add a larger quantity of wood prepared [for kindling], and may kindle them.³⁵Beitzah 4b explains that the restrictions applying to an entity that will become permitted at a later date do not apply with regard to this wood, since the benefit one receives from the wood comes after it has been consumed by the flames. It is permitted to add the larger quantity of permitted wood because we are allowed to nullify the existence of a prohibited entity if the prohibition is Rabbinic in origin. (See also Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 15:26.)

Rabbenu Nissim states that this leniency is granted only when there is also some permitted wood in the oven. If not, one may not nullify the prohibited wood. His opinion is quoted by the Shulchan Aruch HaRav 507:3 and the Mishnah Berurah 507:7).

One may not begin taking from a pile of straw or a storage pile of wood³⁶This refers to straw or wood that has been set aside to be sold. [on a holiday] unless one prepared to do so on the previous day, for they are muktzeh. If the straw is mixed with thorns it is permitted, for its only [possible] use is for kindling.

12. It is forbidden to chop wood that had been placed in a pile of beams, for it is muktzeh.³⁷This refers to wood that has been set aside to be used for construction (Rashi, Beitzah 31b). Nor may one [chop wood] from a beam that broke on a holiday, because it is nolad.³⁸Before the holiday the beam was part of a building, and only on the holiday itself did the possibility of its being used for other purposes arise. Therefore, it is considered to be nolad.Similarly, utensils that broke on a holiday may not be used for kindling,³⁹If, however, it is still possible to use the pieces to perform the task originally performed with the utensil, the pieces are still permitted to be used for kindling or for any other purpose (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 501:11; Mishnah Berurah 501:29). because they are nolad.⁴⁰Although the utensil existed beforehand, no one considered using it for kindling while it was intact. Only when it became broken was it considered to be fit for kindling. Hence, it is considered to be nolad.

However, one may use utensils that are intact⁴¹If a person desires to use an intact utensil for kindling, there is no difficulty. Since the utensil is intact, carrying it is permitted. or utensils that were broken before the commencement of a holiday for kindling, for they were prepared to be used for purposes [other than that for which they were originally suitable] before the holiday.

Similarly, when nuts or almonds were eaten before the commencement of a holiday, their shells may be used for kindling on the holiday. If, however, they were eaten on the holiday, their shells may not be used for kindling.⁴²Because the possibility of using them for kindling arose only on the holiday, they are considered to be nolad.

There are, however, versions [of the Talmud] that read: If they were eaten before nightfall, we may not use their shells for kindling, because they have become muktzeh.⁴³For it is uncommon to use nut shells for any material purpose. See Hilchot Shabbat 25:6,12. If, by contrast, they were eaten on the holiday, they may be used for kindling, because they are considered to be designated for use, because of the food [they contained].⁴⁴The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 501:7) quotes the former version as halachah.

13. A freshly-cut thorny [branch] is muktzeh, because it is not fit for kindling.⁴⁵Wood is not fit for kindling until it dries out. (See Chapter 4, Halachah 11.) Therefore, one may not use it as a spit for roasting meat. The same applies in all similar situations.

14. We may take wood that is placed next to the walls⁴⁶We may not, however, take wood that is used for the walls themselves, for by doing so we would be destroying a building (Beitzah 30b). of a hut⁴⁷We have translated the term sukkah as hut, because this law applies throughout the year, not only to the sukkot constructed on the holiday of that name. (See Kessef Mishneh; Mishnah Berurah 518:38.) to use for kindling, but we may not bring it from the field, even if it had been collected there on the day before [the holiday].⁴⁸From the Rambam's mention of this law in the chapter dealing with the subject of muktzeh, it would appear that he considers muktzeh as the rationale for this restriction as well. Other authorities have offered other rationales; among them, that collecting wood in the field is forbidden because it is a mundane activity unfit for the sacred atmosphere of the holidays. Alternatively, it resembles the forbidden labor of me'amer, collecting sheaves (Mishnah Berurah 501:11). One may, however, collect wood lying before him in the field and kindle it there.⁴⁹Several later authorities (Rav Shlomo Luria; Shulchan Aruch HaRav 501:7) are more stringent, and rule that since it is usual to collect wood from a field, doing so on a holiday bears too close a resemblance to the forbidden labor of me'amer. Hence, this leniency is allowed only in an open courtyard.

One may also bring [wood] that was stored in a private domain, even one that was not enclosed for the purpose of human habitation, provided it has a fence with a gate, and is located within the Sabbath limits. If even one of these conditions is not met,⁵⁰I.e., it is forbidden if the wood is scattered in a courtyard, or the courtyard is beyond the Sabbath limits or lacks a fence with a gate. [the wood] is muktzeh.

15. Although the leaves of reeds or vines have been collected in an enclosure, since they can be dispersed by the wind it is considered as if they have already been dispersed, and [using them] is forbidden.⁵¹In this instance as well, it appears that the Rambam considers this restriction as an outgrowth of the prohibition against muktzeh. Since it is possible that they will become dispersed, one does not rely on their remaining in their place.

Other authorities explain that the restriction is a safeguard against performing the forbidden labor of me'amer. (See Mishnah Berurah 501:18,20.) If, however, one placed a heavy utensil over them before the holiday, they are permitted [to be used].⁵²Even if they are dispersed. By placing the heavy utensil upon them, the person indicated his intent that the leaves be used for kindling. This leniency is not accepted by the authorities who explain that the restriction is a safeguard against performing the forbidden labor of me'amer.

16. [The following rules apply when] an animal dies on a holiday: If it was very ill on the day before the holiday, one may cut it up [and feed it] to the dogs.⁵³I.e., since it was ill, the person considered the likelihood that it would die. Even before the holiday began, he had it in mind to feed the carcass to his dogs. If not, since he had not had it in mind, it is muktzeh and should not be moved.

When a consecrated animal dies⁵⁴A consecrated animal that dies may not be used for any mundane purposes; its corpse must be buried. Therefore, even if it was sick on the day before the holiday, it may not be moved on the holiday (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah 3:5). or terumah becomes impure [on a holiday],⁵⁵Terumah that becomes impure must be given to a priest, who can use it for kindling or feed it to his animals. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to perform either of these activities on a holiday. Hence, the impure terumah may not be used that day, and thus becomes muktzeh (Rashi, Beitzah 27b). it may not be moved.

17. Fish, fowl, and beasts that are muktzeh may not be given water on a holiday, nor is it permitted to place food before them.⁵⁶This applies even to living creatures for which the person is required to provide food. The restriction involves placing the food directly before the animals. It is permitted to place it far from the usual place, for this departure from the norm will remind one not to pick up the animals (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 497:5; Mishnah Berurah 497:5). [This is a safeguard instituted] lest one come and take them.⁵⁷For this reason, this prohibition does not apply to feeding non-kosher animals (Maggid Mishneh).

Any [objects or living creatures] that are forbidden to be eaten or used on a holiday because they are muktzeh are also forbidden to be carried.

18. When a person brings earth into his domain on the day before a holiday, it is considered to be prepared for use, provided that he designates a corner of his courtyard as its place. It may then be carried and used for all his needs.⁵⁸As mentioned in the first halachah of the following chapter, earth was necessary for covering the blood of fowl and wild beasts that were slaughtered. In Talmudic times, when the homes had earthen floors, earth was also used to cover spills, excrement, and other filth. Since the earth was not flattened, we do not say that the person brought it in to use as part on the floor. Instead, we allow him to use it for other purposes (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 498:17).

Similarly, ash that [came from fuel] burned on the previous day is considered to be prepared for use. If it [came from fuel] burned on the holiday itself, it is permitted for use as long as it is warm enough to cook an egg, for it is still considered to be fire. If it is not [that warm], carrying it is forbidden, because it is nolad.⁵⁹The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:15) states that, after the fact (בדבעיד), if one has already slaughtered a fowl or beast, it is preferable to use even cold ash, rather than negate the mitzvah of covering the blood.

[The following rules apply when] a person has an iron shaft implanted in the ground before the holiday, and he pulls it out⁶⁰The Rambam's statements should not be interpreted as license to, in fact, implant a shaft in the ground and pull it out on the holiday. The Rambam (as is his source, the Mishnah, Beitzah 1:2) is speaking after the fact (בדבעיד) - i.e., the person has already uprooted the earth and is questioning whether or not he may use it. This ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:14).on the holiday, uprooting earth: If the earth is powdery,⁶¹If the earth is powdery, uprooting it from the ground is not considered to be digging a hole (Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, Beitzah 1:2). This powdery earth can - in contrast to clods of earth - be used to cover the blood. it may be used to cover [any spills], and it may be carried for that purpose. If, however, the person raised up a clod of earth, it may not be crumbled on the holiday.⁶²Crumbling the earth is a derivative of the forbidden labor of grinding.