Siman 545

Writing on the Moed is like all other labors, for anything that is not for the need of the Moed or a matter of loss is forbidden. And even though it is not similar to all other labors, as it does not involve great exertion and is done in private, nevertheless it is a labor. Therefore, one may not correct even a single letter in a Sefer Torah when there is no need to read from it on the Moed. And even though it is forbidden to keep a scroll that is not corrected, nevertheless, since it is not for the need of the Moed, it is forbidden to repair it, for writing in a Sefer Torah is certainly a professional craft. Therefore, there is one who says that if there is an extra letter and it is necessary to erase it, it is permitted to erase on Chol HaMoed, for erasing is not a professional craft, and a Sefer Torah is considered like the needs of the public, and is permitted through an unskilled act even if not for the need of the Moed, as I wrote in the previous siman (Sha'arei Teshuva in the name of the Pama). And if the erasure is in the middle of a word, and through this he will need to extend the preceding or following letter so that there will not be a break in the middle of the word, it appears that if there is a professional craft in this extension, it is forbidden. And if not, it is permitted (as mentioned above). And similarly, a small repair is permitted.

And this is when they have another sefer Torah. However, if they need this sefer Torah to read from it on the Moed – he is permitted to correct it on the Moed, and it is an obligation to correct it in order to read from it in public. And even if he could have corrected it before the festival, for this is a public need for which skilled labor is permitted even if he intentionally delayed his work for the Moed, as I wrote in the previous siman. And there is reason to doubt if they have another sefer Torah, but the custom is to read the Maftir on Yom Tov from another sefer Torah, and similarly on Chol HaMoed Pesach they read the fourth portion from another sefer Torah, whether it is permitted to repair it on Chol HaMoed. And it appears from the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, who wrote that if they do not have a kosher sefer Torah to read... – it implies that if there is only one kosher sefer Torah, it is forbidden. And it is better to roll the kosher sefer Torah from place to place than to repair the other one on Chol HaMoed.

It appears to me that those who follow the custom where, before every reading, the sofer checks every parsha that they need to read from the next day—and it is a beautiful custom—that it is permitted even on the Moed. And if he finds in it that it requires some correction, he may correct it, even if there is another sefer Torah, because that one would also require checking, and perhaps it also requires correction, just as this one requires correction even though it was presumed to be kosher. Therefore, it is permitted to correct it if he finds in it matters that require correction.

And it is not specifically a sefer Torah, for the same law applies to other books: Scripture, Mishnah, Gemara, and poskim, for if one needs to study from them during the Moed—it is permitted to correct them during the Moed, as it is a davar ha'aved. That is to say: if he does not correct it, the study from it will be difficult, and he will not study. And you have no greater davar ha'aved than this (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And this is when the correction hinders the study. But regarding ordinary errors found in books that do not hinder the study—it would seem that it is forbidden to correct them during the Moed. However, it is not so, for it is known that this matter is very common, and if we do not correct it now, the matter will leave his heart, and the error will remain in its place. And this is certainly like a davar ha'aved, and therefore it is permitted to repair it (Taz, subsection 3). And all the more so for us, where we correct in our script which is ma'aseh hedyot as will be explained, for only Ashurit script is called ma'aseh uman—it is simple that it is permitted to correct.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: And if they have no sefer Torah at all, if it is possible to write it in its entirety during Chol HaMoed by means of many scribes—they should write it, for it is a necessity of the Moed to read from the Torah in a tzibur during the Moed. Thus far his words. And the same law applies to other books for studying from them. And even though he could have written it before the Moed, nevertheless it is permitted, for regarding the needs of the many it is permitted even if one intentionally delayed his work for the Moed, as I have written. And from all that has been explained, it is explained that writing a sefer Torah that is not for the necessity of the Moed, such as when there is another sefer Torah—is forbidden. And if so, one must protest against an individual who writes a sefer Torah and performs the completion on Chol HaMoed. And it is a complete prohibition, for at the time of the completion the scribe finishes the writing of the sefer Torah. And behold, there is no necessity for this sefer Torah for the Yom Tov, as there are others. And the world does not know of this prohibition, and they think this is a mitzvah and the joy of the Moed, but it is a complete transgression.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that for the needs of the public, some forbid anything that is not for the need of the Moed, and some permit it. And they are accustomed to be lenient with our script, which is not professional craftsmanship. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: behold, it has already been explained in the previous siman that for the needs of the public there are two leniencies: the first is that the work of a layman is permitted even if it is not for the need of the Moed, and the second is that professional craftsmanship is permitted for the need of the Moed even if he intentionally deferred his work to the Moed. But anything that is not for the need of the Moed—professional craftsmanship is forbidden. According to this, a community that needs to write some document, behold, if it is for the need of the Moed, such as proclamations or regulations and leadership matters—it is obvious that it is permitted. But if they need to send a document to a rabbi or to a cantor or to other appointments, where the matter will be for after the Moed, therefore some forbid it, for writing is professional craftsmanship, and anything that is not for the need of the Moed is forbidden. And some permit it, for all matters of the public are called "the need of the Moed" in such a case, because after the Moed it is impossible to gather everyone, and the matter will be nullified. And the custom is to be lenient with our script, which is not professional craftsmanship, and it is permitted for the needs of the public even if they are not for the need of the Moed. And even this is not clear, that our script is called "the work of a layman," but they are accustomed to this leniency. And so is the simple custom to be lenient, and especially in this time when it is known that Chol HaMoed is a time of gathering for everyone. And if not on Chol HaMoed—they would never accomplish any communal improvement.

The Tur wrote that it is forbidden to write tefillin and mezuzot for others for a wage. But for himself, or for others for free, or even for a wage in order to have his expenses more comfortably for the joy of Yom Tov—it is permitted even if he has what to eat. For if he does not have what to eat—any labor is also permitted. And specifically tefillin and mezuzot because of the mitzvah, for even on Chol HaMoed one must don tefillin and recite a blessing over them. But other books—it is forbidden, whether for free or for a wage, if he has what to eat. And it is permitted to spin tekhelet for his tzitzit, whether by hand or with a spindle, but for others it is forbidden. Thus far his words. It is explained from his words that anything that is not needed on the Moed—is completely forbidden. And even for another who needs this on the Moed, for whom it is permitted to write—nevertheless, it is forbidden to take a wage from him, and he is obligated to write for him for free. And if he does not desire to do it for free, the one who needs the tefillin or the mezuzah shall give him a wage, and he has committed a transgression. And one who does not have what to eat—it is like all other labors, for it is permitted for him to write them even for one who does not need them on the Moed, because he needs to eat. And it is more lenient than other labors, for regarding writing it is permitted even if he has what to eat but wants to spend on the joy of Yom Tov, because writing is more lenient than other labors for the reason we wrote in section 1. And the opinion of the Rambam in chapter seven, law 13, is not so; rather, writing is like all other labors, and there is no permission except for one who does not have what to eat.

And all this is according to the opinion of the Tur that Chol HaMoed is obligated in tefillin, as I wrote in siman 31. Therefore, he interprets that which we learned in the Mishnah (18b), "A person may write tefillin and mezuzot for himself" — this is when he needs them during the festival, because he does not have tefillin and a mezuzah. According to this, they are similar to other labors, in that anything not for the need of the festival is forbidden to do. But the poskim who hold that one should not don tefillin on Chol HaMoed as I wrote there, perforce they must interpret that which we learned in the Mishnah that he may write for himself — this is when he needs them after the festival, and nevertheless they permitted him to write, because they are matters of mitzvah and are not similar to other labors. And one should not ask: if so, why did they forbid the writing of books? For it can be said that they only permitted a matter of mitzvah involving a personal obligation like tefillin and mezuzah, for if he does not fulfill the mitzvah, he violates a positive commandment. This is not the case regarding the writing of books. Therefore, tekhelet is also not similar to them, because with tzitzit there is also no personal obligation, and if he does not wear a four-cornered garment, he is not obligated in tzitzit. This is not the case regarding tefillin and mezuzah, which are an obligation. Therefore, the Tur also did not permit tekhelet for others for the reason I have written (and so wrote the Bach).

And regarding that which we learned in Techelet (19a): "and he spins upon his thigh" – some say it is because a deviation is required. However, from the Rambam and the Tur it does not appear that a deviation is required, and that which it teaches "upon his thigh" is to instruct that it is forbidden to spin with a wheel, for it is a very loud matter and there is a degradation of the Moed (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: And if he wrote them in order to wear them during the Moed – it is permitted in any manner. And only the writing is forbidden, but their assembly is permitted. Thus far his words. And according to the arrangement of his wording, it implies his intention is that to wear them during the Moed – it is permitted even for a wage. And this is the opinion of the Semag, and likewise in the Tosafot according to their explanation of the Yerushalmi, see there. And this is not like the opinion of the Tur that we wrote. And that which he wrote that only the writing is forbidden but their assembly is permitted – this is from the words of the Tosafot there, who wrote regarding the fact that the Mishnah only speaks about the writing of the tefillin and the spinning of the tekhelet, and not about their assembly, they wrote in this wording: And perhaps there is no prohibition except in writing and spinning. Thus far their words. And the reason is because it is a necessity of a mitzvah, and there is not so much exertion in them as there is in writing and spinning (Levush). And even though they wrote the language of "perhaps," he took this as the halacha because it appears so from the wording of the Mishnah. And nevertheless, it appears to me that this is only the making of tzitzit, and the inserting of the parshiot into the batim and their sewing, and to cut the straps and insert them into the tefillin – is permitted. But the making of the batim themselves – is more exertion than the writing of the parshiot, and is forbidden (and the assembly is only for the need of the Moed).

And know that all that has been explained as permitted regarding tefillin and tzitzit according to the opinions that have been explained—some say that this is specifically when he did not intentionally delay his work for the Moed (Hagahot Ashri ibid.), as with all labors. And some say that since they are a matter of mitzvah—it is permitted even if he intentionally delayed his work for the Moed (Beit Yosef), and a matter of mitzvah should not be inferior in this regard to the needs of the public. However, it is certainly true that if they are not for the Moed itself, and he intentionally delayed his work—he has no permission unless he literally has nothing to eat. But for the enjoyment of the Yom Tov—it is forbidden in such a case even according to those who permit for enjoyment (Magen Avraham subsection 10).

It is stated in the Tosefta that it is permitted to calculate one's accounts and expenditures and to write. The Rambam wrote the reason is because in these writings one is not careful in the perfection of the script, and it is like the work of a layman. The Rashba wrote the reason is because it is a matter of financial loss, meaning that perhaps he will forget and lose his money. There is a practical legal difference between these reasons: for according to the Rambam it is only permitted for the needs of the Moed, for when it is not for the needs of the Moed—even the work of a layman is forbidden, as I wrote in the previous siman. But according to the Rashba it is permitted even when not for the needs of the Moed, according to the law of a matter of financial loss. And in our writing which is not Ashurit—one may rely to be lenient like the opinion of the Rashba (Taz subsection 6). However, if it is certainly not a matter of financial loss—it is forbidden if it is not for the needs of the Moed (Magen Avraham subsection 11). And likewise, if his accounts are already written, but he wishes to organize them—it is forbidden, for certainly this is neither a matter of financial loss nor for the needs of the Moed (ibid.). Furthermore: for most often in organizing one produces beautiful script, and it is like the work of a craftsman. And even according to what we hold that our script is the work of a layman, nevertheless, in a fine and clean organization in the manner that managers do in commercial houses—certainly it is not far from the work of a craftsman. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 4 that the documents written when lending on pledges—it is permitted. Thus far his words. For this is certainly also a matter of financial loss, if he does not write as a reminder how much he lent, and to whom he lent. And also this is not the work of a craftsman. And it is also possible that this is called "needs of the Moed," for perhaps the borrower borrowed for the needs of Yom Tov. (And according to this, even according to the Rokeach brought by the Taz there, that the writing of pledges requires a slight change, and see the Taz for his reason in this. But if this is for the needs of Yom Tov—it is obvious that it does not require a change, as the Taz himself wrote, see there. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

We learned in the Mishnah (18b) that letters of reshut—it is permitted to write them during the Moed. Rashi explained that reshut refers to authority, as in "do not become known to the reshut," meaning government orders. However, in the Yerushalmi it is explained as greetings, meaning letters of peace from a man to his fellow. And so the Rif and the Rambam explained, and so the Tosafot wrote. And this is what the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 5, that it is permitted to write a letter of greeting that a person sends to his friend, and even regarding matters of business that are not a loss. Thus far his words. That is to say: even regarding that which is not a loss. And they are called "letters of reshut" because there is no mitzvah or obligation in them, but rather they are optional. And the reason for the permission is because all of these are the work of a layman, as people are not meticulous to write them perfectly (Levush). And according to this, it must be said that it is called a necessity of the festival, for if not so, even in such a case it would be forbidden, as I have written. Now, regarding a letter of peace—it can be said that it is a necessity of the Moed, so that the recipient of the letter will have pleasure on the Yom Tov. And so too regarding business, the recipient will have pleasure in his knowledge. But according to this, there is no permission unless it reaches the recipient during the Moed, but after the Moed—it would be forbidden. And why did not one of the poskim mention this? And also, people are not meticulous in this, unless we say that the writer also has pleasure in this, and it is a necessity of the Moed. And it requires further study. Therefore, it seems more correct to say that regarding writing in which there is no exertion, and it is also done in private—they were not meticulous that there must be a necessity of the festival as in other labors. And this too the poskim did not mention. (And the Ra'avad wrote the reason: that perhaps after the Moed he will not find someone through whom to send the letter, see there. And nowadays, when there is a fixed post office in every place—this reason is not applicable.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this, and this is his wording: And there are those who forbid greeting with "shalom." And the custom is to be stringent, to change even in our writing, which is mashita writing. Thus far his words; so it must be said. And that which he wrote, that there are those who forbid greeting with "shalom," his intention is also regarding business that is not a loss (and it is like etc.). For in a loss—it is obvious that it does not require a change. (And this is the intention of the Magen Avraham in subsection 20, and as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote. And not like the Taz, subsection 10, who wondered about him in this.) And the reason of those who forbid: for they were concerned for the explanation of Rashi. And even according to the Yerushalmi, there is much to stammer about, as I wrote in the previous section. Therefore, the custom is by means of a change. And even though in other melachot it is not permitted even by means of a change when it is not for the need of the Moed and also not a matter of loss, nevertheless, in writing they were lenient for the reasons we explained. And what is called a "change"? That they write on a slant. And even though a change pertains to the script itself, nevertheless, since according to the essential law it is permitted, and also the writing is in our script—this change is sufficient (Magen Avraham subsection 21). Therefore, that which is forbidden to write—it is forbidden by law, even with a slant, for this is not a change at all (ibid.). And there are those who say that our script is not called script at all regarding Chol HaMoed (ibid. in the name of the Bach), and upon this the world relies and they write without any change. And there are those who write the first line with a slant, and this is nothing (and so wrote the Taz there).

The sages taught in the Mishnah (18b): And these may be written on the Moed: betrothals of women, bills of divorce, and receipts, wills, gifts, and prozbulin, documents of appraisal and documents of sustenance, documents of chalitzah and refusals, and documents of arbitration, decrees of the beit din... "Betrothals of women" – this refers to a document of erusin, for even though it is forbidden to marry a woman on the Moed as will be explained in the next siman, nevertheless, it is permitted to betroth, lest another precede him (Gemara ibid.). And consequently, it is necessary to write a document of kiddushin when he betroths her with a document, or even when he betroths her with money, nevertheless, they require documents of evidence that he betrothed her. And included in this are also documents of pesikta, which is "how much are you giving to your daughter...", and this is like our engagement agreements, for this too is permitted on the Moed lest another precede him. And "bills of divorce" – the Yerushalmi asks: Is this not a source of sorrow? And it answers: Since they have resolved to divorce – it is not a source of sorrow. And this too is necessary on the Moed, so that he does not go to distant places and she remains an agunah. "And receipts" – this refers to all matters of receipts, whether from the payment of a debt or a ketubah. And if he does not give the receipt – this one will not give the money, and it is like a davar ha'aved.

And "daitiki" – is a gift of a shekhiv mera. And "matanah" – is a gift of a healthy person. And there is a necessity to write them on the moed: the shekhiv mera lest he die and the gift be nullified, and the healthy person lest he retract, and it is found that it is like a davar ha'aved. "And pruzbul" – so that the lender will lend to him, and without a pruzbul he will not want to lend to him, and it is like a davar ha'aved. And "igrot shum" – where they appraised the assets of the borrower for the lender. "And igrot mazon" – where he accepted upon himself to provide sustenance for his wife's daughter, or where they sold land for the sustenance of the wife and the daughters. And "shetarei chalitzah and mi'unin" – as is known in Yevamot. "And shetarei birurin" – meaning that which this one chooses one for himself, and that one chooses one for himself. And "gezerot beit din" – meaning the rulings of the beit din. And there are many of these that it is possible to leave until after the moed. And the reason for the permission is because there is a concern lest the witnesses or the beit din die, or go to a country across the sea, and it is like a davar ha'aved (Tosafot ibid.). And also: that all of these are like needs of the public, for every matter that is done by a beit din is like the needs of the public (see Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham subsection 17). And the Rambam gave a reason: because in all of these they are not meticulous in their writing, and it is like the work of a layman, see there. However, regarding a get – it is obvious that they are meticulous in its writing, but this is because of the enactment for agunot. And we have learned from this that it is permitted to divorce and to perform chalitzah on Chol HaMoed.

One may not write promissory notes on the Moed, for he can write them after the Moed. However, if the lender does not trust him and will not give him the money without a promissory note, and the borrower needs the money—it is permitted to write. So too, if the scribe writes for a fee and has nothing to eat—it is permitted to write. And even if the borrower does not need the money for the needs of the Yom Tov but rather for his business, and he fears that after the Moed he will not obtain the loan—it is considered a matter of loss, and it is permitted. And such is the common custom, and all the more so with our script which is a layman's act (see Magen Avraham subsection 23). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that it is permitted to write a ketubah on the Moed, and some forbid. Thus far his words. And this is when he married on the eve of the festival, or when he will marry after the festival and then there will be no scribe in the city. And the reason of those who forbid—is because it is like a promissory note. But since they have also practiced leniency regarding promissory notes—all the more so regarding a ketubah. And now it is not common at all to write the ketubah other than at the time of the chuppah. Therefore, nowadays it seems to me that it is forbidden. However, an addition to the ketubah seems to me to be permitted to write on Chol HaMoed, for this is for the benefit of the woman, as perhaps the husband will retract it by after the Moed, and it is like a matter of loss (and so wrote the Magen Avraham subsection 18).

And he further wrote in section 6 that it is permitted to write a bill of sale on the moed. However, one may not write a deed of sharecropping or contracting that he accepted before the moed. Thus far his words. And it appears to me that this is the explanation: that a bill of sale can occur on the moed, for a standard bill of sale is for houses and lands, and it is permitted to sell them on the moed when they are for the need of the moed, as I wrote in siman 539. Therefore, it is permitted to also write the bill of sale, if one of them does not desire to conclude without the writing of the bill of sale. But sharecropping and contracting—it is certainly forbidden on the moed, for there is no need of the moed in this, as is understood, and he accepted it before the moed. Therefore, it is forbidden to write on the moed. (And with this, that which the Taz wondered about in subsection 11 is settled well. And see Magen Avraham subsection 24, and examine closely and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: All things that are permitted to be written are permitted even without a change. And anything that is forbidden to be written is forbidden to be written even by means of a change. Thus far his words, and this refers to a change in the quill or by slanting the lines. However, a change in the letters themselves is permitted (Taz, subsection 12). And in our script, it is possible that even this is not necessary (ibid.). And on a wax tablet it is permitted to write, because it is not a permanent script. And among us, this does not exist at all. However, it is possible that writing on tablets even with ink is not considered writing at all (Magen Avraham, subsection 25), because it is a poor script and without order. And so too with the types of markings that a businessman has, which they mark only for mere memory—likewise the script is not elegant. And in our script and not in a beautiful order—it is possible that it is permitted. And so they practiced.

To ask a question regarding the law of our Torah and to provide a response is permitted, a mitzvah, and an obligation, for you have no greater "davar ha'aved" than this. Similarly, novellae of Torah—it is permitted and a mitzvah to write them on Chol HaMoed, for if he does not write them, he will forget, and it is a "davar ha'aved." Furthermore: if he writes these, he will be able to innovate other novellae. And it is not relevant to say that he should leave them for after the Moed, for after the Moed there will be others (Taz, subsection 13). And the Bach, of blessed memory, wrote his compositions on Chol HaMoed (ibid.). Similarly, if he heard a novella from another, he may write it so that he does not forget. Similarly, if he saw a new book in manuscript, it is permitted to copy it if it will not be in his possession after the Moed to copy it. Similarly, it is permitted to copy a question and response, for all of this is called a "davar ha'aved."

And for everything that it is permitted to write—it is permitted to mend the quill, and to make ink if it is necessary for this, and to cut the paper, and everything that is necessary for its writing (Magen Avraham, subsection 26). However, it is forbidden to prepare a notebook to write upon after the Moed (ibid.), for this he certainly can do after the Moed. But if he will write in it a little during Chol HaMoed—it is permitted for him to prepare the entire notebook, for as long as he does not prepare it all—he cannot write even this small amount.

And one may adjudicate during the moed, whether monetary laws, or capital laws or lashes. And one may punish one who does not obey the law. And it is permitted to lodge a complaint regarding one's debts during Chol HaMoed. However, one does not summon to a beit din against his will during Chol HaMoed, as I wrote in Choshen Mishpat siman 5, see there.