Siman 538

One who gathered his olives and placed them in the olive press before the Moed, and turned them in a manner that they will be ruined if he does not press them immediately; or if his wine is in the pit and he needs to press it, and an accident occurred such that he was unable to press them before the Moed—he presses his olives and grapes in his usual manner, and places them into barrels and seals them, and performs everything necessary for them in their usual manner without change. This is provided that he does not intentionally delay his work for the Moed; that is to say: for example, if he knew at the time of commencement that it would be impossible for him to finish before the Moed, for in such a case it is certainly forbidden. Rather, the permission is in one of two ways: either he intended to leave them entirely until after the Moed, and afterward something new arose such that they would be ruined if he left them; or he had sufficient time to finish them before the Moed, and therefore he began, and a cause occurred in the middle and they remained until the Moed—in this case they permitted finishing them on the Moed because of a loss. And so too if he forgot about them before the Moed, or was lazy and thought he would do them after the Moed—these also are called an accident, for forgetfulness and laziness are of the nature of human beings.

And one should not ask: Why regarding shaving did we not permit in siman 531 even if he was under duress before the festival, except for those matters that the sages permitted as I wrote there, yet here we permit through duress, and even the duress of forgetfulness or of laziness? For the matter is as follows: there it is only temporary physical discomfort, and they upheld their words. But here where there is monetary loss—the Torah has pity on the money of Israel, and they established it according to the law that since he was under duress, it is by law that it should be permitted to complete them.

The Rambam wrote in the eighth chapter, law 14: One may coat a barrel with pitch so that the wine does not spoil. And one may coat a bottle with pitch because it does not involve exertion. And one may seal the mouth of a barrel of beer so that it does not spoil. Thus far his words, and this refers to the stopper. And one may repair the stopper in its usual manner without a change, and so they ruled in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 1. And even though in the Gemara (12a) there is one who permits coating a barrel with pitch but not a bottle, and there is one who permits a bottle but not a barrel, see there, how did they rule according to both of them leniently? It seems to me because afterwards it says there in the Gemara that the one who forbade it—only forbade it initially, see there. And in all the laws of Chol HaMoed we find that a matter of loss is permitted, and any matter that is not an exertion is permitted. Therefore, they ruled in both cases leniently (see Magen Avraham, subsection 1, who remained in a state of "it requires further study").

And all the more so regarding our barrels—it is permitted to repair the hoops, which are called "reifen," and the staves. For this is certainly a matter of financial loss, as if he does not repair them, all the liquid will leak out. And similarly, one may remove his flax from the soaking pit. And know that all of these: the pitching, the repair of the hoops, and the removal of the flax—this is all provided that he did not intentionally delay his work for the Moed, meaning that he did not know they required repair. But if he knew, and was able to repair them before the Moed, or to remove the flax before the Moed, and intentionally left them until the Moed—it is forbidden even though it is a matter of financial loss, and the sages penalized him. And it is necessary to penalize him, for if not so, everyone would leave their work for the time of the Moed, and the law of the prohibition of work on Chol HaMoed would be completely uprooted. And it will be explained in section 7.

It is permitted to bring in fruits because of thieves, if they are not in a guarded location. However, one should do so in private, such as bringing them in at night. But if it is a matter where there is more publicity at night than during the day, such as if one needs to bring them in with torches and noise—one should bring them in during the day, for a matter of loss is permitted even if one must do the act in actual public. And this is regarding Chol HaMoed. But on Yom Tov—it is forbidden, for we have learned in a Mishnah: One may drop fruits through a hatchway on Yom Tov, but through a window it is forbidden, as I wrote in siman 521. And all the more so to bring them in. And what should one do? He should station a guard, or bring them in by means of a non-Jew.

It is forbidden to transport one's property from city to city, except in a case of a loss. For anything from city to city constitutes publicity, and it is like melacha. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: If one had figs spread out in a field to dry, and he fears the rain—it is permitted to cover them with straw, even a thick covering. Thus far his words. And the covering is permitted even on Shabbat and Yom Tov, as I have written in siman 338 and siman 521, but the novelty here is regarding a thick covering, which is similar to building. And he further wrote: One who has merchandise that will spoil if he does not turn it over—it is permitted to turn it over on Chol HaMoed. Thus far his words. And it is certain that turning over merchandise was not permitted on Shabbat and Yom Tov. And if he requires this—he should do it by means of a non-Jew, for a shevut d'shevut is permitted even on Shabbat and Yom Tov in a case of loss.

One who intentionally delays his work and leaves it for the Moed, and performs it during the Moed—beit din seizes it from him and declares it ownerless for all. For the declaration of ownerless property by a beit din is ownerless. And if he performs the work of others such that it is impossible to penalize him, such as a tailor or a scribe who performs the work of others—we separate him and lash him. And if he performed his own work and died—they do not penalize his son after him, and it is permitted for his son to perform it if it is a lost matter. But regarding a matter that is not a lost matter, when he performed it and died—they penalized his son after him, according to the one who holds that the work of Chol HaMoed is prohibited by Torah law (Magen Avraham and see Turei Zahav). And it is like one who performed work on Shabbat, which is forbidden to him and his household forever, as I wrote in siman 318 regarding one who cooks on Shabbat. And according to the one who holds that the work of Chol HaMoed is prohibited by Rabbinic law—they did not penalize his son after him, even in a matter that is not a lost matter. And there are those who say that according to all opinions, they did not penalize his son after him (see Beit Yosef).