Siman 540

Building—it is completely forbidden, even any amount, and even for the needs of the Moed, for he should have built prior to the Moed. And even if he has no place to dwell. And there is room to doubt if his dwelling burned down during the Moed, and he is able to build during the Moed and enter it during the Moed, whether it is permitted like any matter of loss when he was unable to do it prior to the Moed, for it is permitted to do it during the Moed. And here too: even though this is not a matter of loss—it should be considered like a need of the Moed, since he has no place of dwelling. Or perhaps: for complete building, because the matter is publicized and involves great exertion—it is forbidden even in such a case, like a water channel in siman 537. And so it appears primary that it is forbidden. And there is proof from that which will be explained, that in a place of danger it is permitted to build in his usual manner. And it implies that only in danger did they permit it, and not in any other matter.

And if the fence of his garden or the wall of his courtyard between him and his fellow was breached during the Moed – they permitted him to build it as an unskilled act, not as a skilled act. And an unskilled act is not considered construction. How so? He places stones one upon the other and does not plaster with mortar, or wood one upon the other in this manner, or he fences it with reeds and rushes and the like. And we learned in a Mishnah (11a): One may make a parapet for a roof or a balcony as an unskilled act, but not as a skilled act. And it appears to me that regarding the breach of his garden fence or his courtyard wall, where they permitted an unskilled act – this is when it was breached on Yom Tov or before Yom Tov, and he was unable to repair it before Yom Tov. For if he was able to repair it – even this they did not permit. And so the language of the Mishnah (6b) implies: And one may cover a breach during the Moed, meaning that it was breached during the Moed. But regarding a parapet, it was taught without qualification: One may make a parapet, even if he was able to make it beforehand, because it is a matter of a mitzvah, and at every moment he violates "do not place blood in your house." And there is a measure of danger in this, and only that an unskilled act is sufficient (so it appears in my humble opinion).

And that which they only permitted a fence via the act of a layman—this is in the category of a garden or a courtyard wall between him and his fellow, where the damage of the breach is not so great, as there is no concern there for thieves. Therefore, the act of a layman suffices. But a courtyard wall adjacent to the public domain that fell, where the damage is very great as thieves may enter (Rashi 7a), and the act of a layman will not suffice for this—he builds the wall in his usual manner, for you have no greater davar ha'aved than this. And even if we say that building a house even in such a case is forbidden due to the great exertion as I have written, nevertheless, building a wall is not like building a house. And a wall that is leaning and about to fall, if there is no concern of danger, such as if it is possible to support it until after the Moed—it is forbidden to demolish it, and certainly to build it. But when there is a concern of danger—one is obligated to demolish it, and afterwards it is permitted to build it in his usual manner via the act of a craftsman. And even if it only leans toward a courtyard or an alleyway—it is permitted, for they permitted the end because of the beginning, for if you do not permit him to build it in his usual manner—he will refrain and not demolish, and it will lead to danger. And so too regarding other matters where there is reason to fear danger—he builds and demolishes in his usual manner. And it appears to me that a garden wall is not a place of danger, as it is not a place where the public walks, and the owner of the garden can be careful not to walk there until after the Moed.

It is permitted to remove a mound on a roof, even though it is a complete melakhah, since it is not an exertion, and only plowing is forbidden (Magen Avraham subsection 5). And cracks in a roof – it is permitted to seal them with the hand or the foot, but not with a professional tool. And there is one who permits setting up a ladder and plastering his roof with clay for the needs of the Moed, for this is not the work of a craftsman but rather the act of a layman, as is proven in Bava Metzia (101b), see there (Taz subsection 1). But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not mention this. And it appears in my humble opinion that it is forbidden, because there is great exertion in this. And the proof is from that which we learned in the Mishnah (11a): one may rub the cracks, as has been explained. And for the most part, one rubs them with clay, as is proven from the fact that the Mishnah concludes "and one may roll them with a roller," and this is upon the clay as is known. And as we learned at the beginning of the second chapter of Makkot (7a): he was rolling with a roller, and Rashi and Tosafot explained that they would plaster their roofs with clay, and they moved the roller to level it, see there. And only the rubbing of cracks was permitted, and not the plastering of the entire roof.

We further learned there in the Mishnah: The pivot, which is the foot of the door; and the socket, which is the hole in the threshold; and the beam, which is above the entrance upon which the door turns (Rashi); and the lock; and the key that broke—one may repair them on the Moed, provided that he does not intentionally delay his work for the Moed. This applies whether they are of wood or whether they are of iron. And even if they broke on the eve of the Yom Tov, he may repair them without a change, because this is a great loss, for if he leaves the entrance open and the doors broken, he will end up losing everything in the house. Therefore, they permitted it even if they broke before the Moed, provided that he does not intentionally delay his work for the Moed. This means that it was not possible for him to repair them before the Moed, and not that he intentionally left them until the Moed. For if he intentionally left them, it is completely forbidden. Similarly, it is permitted to fix the doorframe with nails when there is a concern of thieves. And if not, it is forbidden, and so too anything similar to this (Magen Avraham, subsection 6).

And it is permitted to build a feeding trough for an animal to eat from via an unskilled act. For anything that is not for the purpose of food for humans, even if it is for the purpose of the Moed—a skilled act is forbidden, except in a case of financial loss (ibid. subsection 7). And likewise, it is permitted to build a bench to sit or sleep upon via an unskilled act. And a board to which one attaches legs like our benches is considered an unskilled act and is permitted (ibid. subsection 8). And one may pick millstones, and one may open an aperture for them in the center of the millstones, and one may set them up. And one may build the water channel of the millstones. And one may trim the "donkey" of the millstones, meaning that this is what the "donkey" of the millstone wheel is called. Because all these things, even if one repaired them before the Moed, they become damaged and require repair at all times. And likewise, it is permitted to sharpen a knife on the Moed, for this is neither a labor nor a burden. And a knife that broke on the Moed, and one needs another—it is permitted to make it on the Moed. And even if it broke beforehand, if he did not intentionally delay his work for the Moed, it is permitted (Taz subsection 5). And even if he can borrow a knife—it is permitted for him to make one (Magen Avraham subsection 10), for he is not comfortable with the property of others. And if he has another knife—it is forbidden for him to make a new knife on the Moed.

An oven and a stove that it is possible for them to dry and one may bake in them during the Moed—one may make them. And if not—one may not make them, for it is forbidden to toil for after the Moed. And the same law applies to the making of pots and stew-pots—it is permitted when they will be fit for the Moed. And if the weather is cold—it is permitted to make a winter-house oven to warm oneself with it when he can warm himself during the Moed (ibid. subsection 9). And the Rambam in chapter eight and the Shulchan Aruch section 7 wrote that in either case one may build upon the clay shard of an oven, and upon the stove their tapila. Thus far their words. "Tapila" refers to that which the oven or the stove stands upon, as is explained from the fifth chapter of Kelim (Mishnah 7). And from their wording it implies that their intention is regarding the tapila that is around the oven and the stove, which is to say plastering with clay so that it preserves its heat (Taz subsection 3 and Bach). For this too is called tapila, as Rashi explained in Shabbat (125a, starting with the words "They placed it"). And also in Kelim there, there is something similar to this. But it is a wonder, for it implies that this is permitted even if he will not bake during the Moed, and how can we permit toil for after the Moed (Taz subsection 3)? And it appears to me that this is its explanation: "In either case" means: whether he is able to bake without the tapila, or whether he is unable to bake without the tapila—he may make the tapila, for even if he can bake without this—nevertheless with the tapila it will be better for baking. But in the oven they bake during the Moed such that it is not spoiled at all, and it does not refer back to the first clause.