Siman 542

Even labors that are permitted to be performed on Chol HaMoed that were explained previously—they are only permitted by himself, or by others who do not take a wage for the labor. But for a wage—it is forbidden, for the receiving of a wage on the Moed is like a weekday activity. However, if he does not give him a fixed wage, but rather he eats with him as his wage—it is not called a weekday activity, because on a weekday the custom is not for such a wage. And a matter of loss is permitted for him to perform even for a fixed wage, if it is impossible for him in another manner. For example, if he himself cannot perform it, and without a fixed wage he will not find anyone who will perform it—there is no prohibition upon him in this. However, this person who takes the fixed wage—he has not done well. (So it appears to my humble opinion to interpret what our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that for a matter of loss a fixed wage is permitted, that this refers to the giver. But the worker, when he has what to eat—what difference is there for him between a matter of loss and that which is not a matter of loss? But from the Taz at the end of the previous siman it does not imply so, and also from the wording of our teacher, the Rema, it does not appear so. Therefore, one must say that since the labor is permitted—the wage is also permitted by the law. And it requires further study. And the Eliyah Rabbah in the previous siman, subsection 7, disagrees entirely with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, and the poskim who forbid taking a wage, and he brings a proof from page 12a regarding the bakers of the house of Rabban Gamliel, see there. And I do not recognize his proof. And also from the Rivash, siman 226, it is explained that only a poor person who does not have what to eat is permitted to take a wage, and not another. See there, and be precise and you will find it easy.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: Any melacha is permitted to be performed by a worker who has nothing to eat, so that he may earn a wage and profit. Thus far his words. And since this melacha was permitted to him because he has nothing to eat – it is permitted for him even to take much in this melacha, but not in another melacha (Taz). And we do not require him to sell his house or his service vessels (ibid.). And there is one who says that if he only has bread and water – it is called having what to eat (Magen Avraham). And specifically regarding merchandise and the writing of tefillin was it permitted to him in order to provide for the needs of Yom Tov with abundance, and not in actual melacha (ibid.). And there is one who disagrees in this (Eliyah Rabbah) and such is the primary view, for so it is explained in the Yerushalmi (ibid., and I did not find this). And it appears to my humble opinion that even though all melachot were permitted by a worker who has nothing to eat, nevertheless, in a melacha that involves publicity – it is forbidden. And so too to shave or to cut hair – it is forbidden, for since the reason for the prohibition is so that they should not enter the festival while they are unkempt, if so, when you permit it by a worker who has nothing to eat – the concern returns to its place. And one cannot say that this is not common and he will not rely on this, for certainly poverty is common, as the Rosh and the Ran wrote in Nedarim (64b) in the name of the Yerushalmi, see there.