Siman 533

The Rabbis taught (Moed Katan 12b): One may grind in the moed for the needs of the moed. But not for the needs of after the moed – it is forbidden. And if one ground for the needs of the moed, and there remained a surplus even for after the moed – it is permitted. One may chop wood in the moed for the needs of the moed. But not for the needs of after the moed – it is forbidden. And if one chopped and there remained a surplus – it is permitted. One may brew beer in the moed for the needs of the moed. But not for the needs of after the moed – it is forbidden. And if one brewed and there remained a surplus – it is permitted, provided that he does not practice deception.

And it appears in my humble opinion that this is its explanation: For behold, a matter of loss which they permitted on the Moed—this is specifically when he did not intentionally delay his work for the Moed, meaning that he was unable to repair it before the Moed. But if he intentionally delayed his work for the Moed, when he could have done it beforehand—it is forbidden, as will be explained in siman 538. And it comes to teach us that regarding matters of eating and drinking it is not so, for even if he intentionally delayed the grinding for the Moed when he could have done it before—it is permitted. And this is what the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote: "Even if he intentionally delayed his work for the Moed... and not for the need of the Moed it is forbidden"—even in matters of eating and drinking, unless he ground and had leftovers. And afterwards it comes to teach us that even the chopping of wood which is not for eating, since with them one prepares the food—it is also permitted for the need of the Moed, even if he intentionally delayed his work for the Moed. And afterwards it comes to teach us that even the brewing of beer from dates or from barley, in which there is great exertion and it is the way to prepare them for a long time, nevertheless since it is for drinking—it is permitted, even if he intentionally delayed his work for the Moed.

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 1: However, one does not need to be exact, but rather acts with generosity, and if there is a surplus—there is a surplus. But one may not practice deception, to grind or to make beer in excess intentionally. Or if he has old flour or beer—he may not practice deception to make other [flour or beer], saying "I want from this." But if he has bread—it is permitted to grind for bread, for warm bread is preferable. And the same law applies to beer: if the new is preferable—it is permitted without deception. Thus far his words. And if he practiced deception—it is permitted to eat it and to drink it (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). For one should not be so stringent regarding deception, as even on Yom Tov there are instances where deception is permitted, as I have written in siman 503, and all the more so on Chol HaMoed. But without deception, when one performed any of these not for the sake of the Moed—it is forbidden even post facto. And one should not ask: if so, how do all the mill owners among us grind on the Moed? And likewise all the beer makers? For it can be said that this is from the laws of commerce that will be explained in siman 539. And whenever there is a financial loss—it is permitted, as I have written there. And among us it is a financial loss, for he pays rent for the mills, and maintains employees on hire, and pays for every day. And the Gemara is speaking of grinding and beer that each person makes for himself.

And know that the Rambam in the seventh chapter wrote that even though he has old [wine], he may practice ha'aramah and drink from the new, for this ha'aramah is not evident to the observer. And so too regarding anything similar to this. Thus far his words. And the Ra'avad and other poskim raised an objection against him, for behold, in the Gemara there, there is a dispute regarding this, and the one who permits is a single individual; see there. And there is one who answered that specifically regarding this ha'aramah he permits, which is to drink from the new. But regarding absolute ha'aramah, to act for the sake of a weekday and say "I am acting for the sake of the Moed"—it is forbidden. And the dispute is in such a case (Bach). And although there is reason to distinguish in this way, yet the Shas compares them to one another. And there is one who answered because in Shabbat (139b) it asks from a baraita regarding practicing ha'aramah against the one who says there that it is forbidden to practice ha'aramah. And it answers because this ha'aramah is not evident; see there. Consequently, such is the halacha (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And I say that even in the sugya in its place, it works out well. For behold, the Shas brought two baraitot there: in one we learned anonymously that it is permitted to practice ha'aramah, and in one that it is forbidden to practice ha'aramah. And it answers that it is a dispute of Tannaim; see there. And it turns out that the baraita that permits is anonymous like the words of the individual who says we practice ha'aramah, and the baraita that forbids is anonymous like the words of those who forbid. And since there are conflicting baraitot, we follow the lenient view in rabbinic matters. Furthermore: since even regarding Shabbat we established above in siman 303 that we practice ha'aramah to fasten [a cloak] over a nut in order to take it out on Shabbat to a karmelit—all the more so that we practice ha'aramah on Chol HaMoed regarding a rabbinic prohibition. And in my humble opinion, from this there is clear proof for the Rambam. (Also the opinion of the Magen Avraham there is to rule like the Rambam. And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 2; see there.)

And even to perform labor for the purpose of covering food items with them—this too is permitted on Chol HaMoed. As we say there: Rav Yehuda permitted uprooting flax, and this refers to uprooting flax in order to cover food items according to the explanation of Rashi. And the Rambam explains that this is for women for adornment, to rub on the face. And even though for this one does not need the entire stalk but only the seed, nevertheless it is permitted to uproot it all for the sake of the seed, as it is impossible otherwise. And so we have learned from his words that even for the sake of adornment—it is permitted to perform labor on Chol HaMoed. And so he permitted uprooting hops, to place them in beer for the needs of the Moed. And I do not know the novelty in this. And he permitted uprooting sesame on Chol HaMoed, even though most of them are not fit for eating until they dry, and in the meantime the Moed will pass—nevertheless there are in them some seeds that have dried and are fit to eat immediately. And for the sake of the few seeds—he may uproot the entire stalk.

And similarly, fruits that have ripened slightly and are eaten with difficulty—it is permitted to gather them in order to eat them. And we do not say that it is not the way of people to eat thus, because there are many who do eat thus. Furthermore, if he gathered them and ate them and left some over, and he fears lest they become wormy if he does not pickle them to remove the moisture from them, as is the way of fruits that are not fully ripened—it is permitted to pickle them. However, it is forbidden to gather them initially in order to pickle them for after the Yom Tov, for complete melakha was not permitted for after the Moed, even if he will not obtain this after the Moed. But to purchase them and pickle them—it is permitted if he will not obtain them after the Moed, since there is no complete melakha here.

And so, a person may catch fish on Chol HaMoed, as much as he is able to catch, and he may salt all of them on Chol HaMoed, because it is possible that he will eat from them during the Moed. And even though they require remaining in the salt for several days, yet if he squeezes them with his hand many times until they soften—they will be fit for eating on Chol HaMoed. And even though he catches at the outset more than what he needs for Chol HaMoed, and regarding grinding we prohibited in such a case—catching is not similar to grinding, for fish are not equal to one another, and he needs many so that he can select whichever he desires for Chol HaMoed. And the salting is permitted for all of them, because this is not a complete melakhah, because there is no tanning of foodstuffs (Magen Avraham subsection 7). And it is permitted to catch them even in public, because it is evident to all that fish are needed for Chol HaMoed. And even if they were accustomed not to catch—they are permitted to retract from their custom, because they diminish the joy of Yom Tov (ibid. subsection 8). But all the melakhot that are done for the needs of the Moed, if the homeowner does them for himself—he is permitted to do them even in public. And if craftsmen do them—they shall do them in private. How so? The hunters of beasts and birds, and the grinders and the grape-harvesters who harvest to sell in the market, for if they do so in public it would be a desecration of the Moed. However, regarding fish—everyone knows that fish are needed for the entire city for Yom Tov, and there is no desecration in this. And there are those who are concerned even regarding fish (ibid. subsection 10). And in my humble opinion, it appears that everyone agrees regarding fish (and this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, in section 5). However, to dig a pond so that the water will flow out and the fish will remain—this is certainly forbidden (ibid.), for one does not do so for the needs of Yom Tov alone. And so, to milk animals even many of them, where everyone sees that they are not for the needs of Yom Tov—it is permitted. For this is a matter of financial loss, for if he does not milk them—the milk will be spoiled within them. And furthermore: because of the suffering of living creatures, for it is for this reason they permitted telling a non-Jew to milk on Shabbat.