Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

This halachah is based on the principle discussed in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, which states: “When a person irrigates [such land], he should not draw water and irrigate [the land, using water] from a pool or rain water, for this involves strenuous activity. He may, however, irrigate it [using water] from a spring.” In all the instances mentioned in this halachah, the water is free-flowing. Hence, there is no need to fear that the person will draw the water using buckets.

If, however, an irrigation ditch does not pass through these pools, it is forbidden to use their water during Chol HaMo’ed, for the person will have to refill them by bringing water from a far-removed place. The strenuous activity this involves is not appropriate for the festive spirit of Chol HaMo’ed.
The Kessef Mishneh. explains that this applies even when the pool has enough water in it so that one would not have to draw water by hand throughout Chol HaMo’ed. This stringency was instituted to allow for a uniform ruling.

Or sold to be eaten by others (Ritba; Mishnah Berurah 537:14).

Since the preparation of food for the celebration of the festival is involved, this is permitted even though it involves strenuous effort (Maggid Mishneh).

As mentioned in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, it is permitted to irrigate parched land during Chol HaMo’ed, because excessive effort is not involved. In this instance, however, excessive effort is involved. Therefore, it is forbidden to draw water for vegetables. If, however, the vegetables are necessary for use during the holiday, this activity is permitted (Maggid Mishneh).

As the Rambam continues to explain [see also Rashi (Mo’ed Katan 4b)], this refers to the ditches becoming filled with silt and debris.

The Hebrew word for irrigation ditch המא also means “cubit.” A cubit is six handbreadths high. The fact that the ditch is a handbreadth deep is significant enough to enable the person to be allowed to dig it to its full depth.

This question is left unresolved by Mo’ed Katan (loc. cit.). Although the Nimukei Yosef and others differ with the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 537:6) follows the Rambam’s ruling.

For trees, like parched land, require irrigation.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling, maintaining that it reflects a minority opinion among the Sages. The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.:7), however, follows the Rambam’s decision.

Since it has been watered already, irrigating it further does not require very strenuous activity.

The Kessef Mishneh cites this as an expression of a principle of greater scope: Even when the failure to perform a labor will result in significant loss, labor that involves strenuous activity is not performed during Chol HaMo’ed.

Compare to the laws pertaining to cisterns and the like constructed on behalf of the public, as described in Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

For drinking water.

Even when the person needs to dig a well because he lacks drinking water and would prefer to take water from a private well rather than carry water from a distant place. Needless to say, if the person has no water whatsoever to drink, he may dig a well during Chol HaMo’ed.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo’ed Katan 1:6). The Ra’avad and Rabbenu Asher interpret the Hebrew term as referring to a pit similar to a grave, and hence forbid digging it unless a person has already died.

I.e., the individuals who were given permission to do laundry. (See Chapter 7, Halachah 17.)

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo’ed Katan 1:4).

Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi, Rabbenu Asher, and others allow one to snare mice in the ordinary manner in this instance as well. In his Kessef Mishneh and Beit Yosef (Orach Chayim 537), Rav Yosef Karo explains that the difference between these two rulings depends on a difference of opinion regarding the correct version of the text of Mo’ed Katan 6b. Although he quotes both views in his ShulchanAruch (Orach Chayim 537:13), it appears that Rav Karo favors the more lenient ruling.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo’ed Katan 1:4, based on Mo’ed Katan 7a), the Rambam explains that this means that one may pile the stones one on top of the other, without placing mortar between them. One is not allowed to build it in an ordinary manner, because building involves professional craftsmanship, and there is not a possibility of great loss should others enter one’s garden (Mishnah Berurah 440:1-2).

Note the Be’ur Halachah, which cites the Ritba’s commentary interpreting this as referring to a guardrail on a roof upon which people do not frequently walk. If the roof is used frequently, one should construct a guardrail and fulfill the mitzvah of the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:8). The Be’ur Halachah notes, however, that none of the other commentaries make such a distinction.

A wall to one’s courtyard protects one’s house against thieves. Therefore, building it is considered necessary to prevent a loss and is permitted during Chol HaMo’ed.

The Ramban states that this leniency is permitted only when one constructs the bench as would an amateur; it is forbidden to build it in a professional manner. This conception is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 540:6).

Our translation is based on Rav Kappach’s edition of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Mo’edKatan 1:10). Rashi (Mo’edKatan 11a), Rav David Arameah and the Mishnah Berurah 540:11 interpret the He, brew term as referring to an attachment for the hinge.

Even if doing so involves professional craftsmanship.

Chapter 7, Halachah 3.

The restrictions mentioned in this halachah stem from the fact that it is speaking about digging a grave for a person before his death. When the person has already died, there are no restrictions at all, as stated in Chapter 7, Halachah 15. The Ma’aseh Rokeach explains that the present halachah is speaking about a place where the cemetery is located on rocky terrain, and digging or building a grave takes several days.

The Radbaz (in his gloss on Hilchot Eivel) explains that this is a disgrace to the deceased.

For a person’s soul takes comfort in being buried together with his ancestors (Jerusalem Talmud, Mo’ed Katan 2:4).

See Hilchot Eivel 14:15; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 363:1. In the latter source, other reasons why one may disinter a corpse are also mentioned, including a) to re-inter it in Eretz Yisrael, b) because water might destroy it, or c) because it was buried initially with the intent that it be moved.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 2:4), the Rambam explains that foul-smelling material was applied to saplings so that insects would stay away from them.

These activities are forbidden because they involve strenuous activity (Mishnah Berurah 537:35).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sh’vi’it 2:5), the Rambam explains that oil would be applied to trees and their fruit so that they would ripen more quickly. For this reason, this is permitted during Chol HaMo’ed, for it enables one to have fruit for the festival.

Our translation follows the interpretation of Rashi (Mo’ed Katan 12b), who explains that it was common to cover figs and dates with flax while they were being dried.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 8.

Or they are brought by a gentile shepherd (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 537:14).

The intent is that it is forbidden to hire even a gentile shepherd.

In this way, manure will be deposited throughout the entire field and not only in one portion.

Since the shepherd is not hired with the specific intent of working during Chol HaMo’ed, but rather Chol HaMo’ed is included within a responsibility of a greater scope (הַבְלָעָה), this is permitted.

Based on the wording of the Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit.), the Mishnah Berurah 537:49 states that it is forbidden to hire a shepherd for this purpose during Chol HaMo’ed. (See also the Kessef Mishneh, where Rav Yosef Karo explains that the Rambam’s interpretation of Mo’ed Katan 12a differs from that of Rashi and the other Ashkenazic authorities.)

But one may not remove it unless a large amount accumulates (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 535:3).

In this and the following instances, the permitted intent involves preparing food for oneself or one’s beast that may be used during the festival. The forbidden intent involves performing a task that is not necessary for the festival and which will not necessarily lead to a loss if it is not performed.

And then he will catch them for use during the festival.

See Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 2:5-8, where the Rambam illustrates how the person’s deeds reveal his intent. For example, when a person reוnoves both thin twigs and larger logs, it is obvious that he desires to clean his field. If he removes only larger logs, we may assume that his intent is to gather firewood. If he opens a dam, but does not leave a place for water to flow out, he intends to water his field. lf he also opens an outlet for the water, we may assume that his intent is to catch fish.

Which were made of clay.

Even if this involves professional activity, it is permitted, because it will enable a person to cook his food for the festival (Mishnah Berurah 540:18).

This upper layer serves as insulation and maintains the oven’s heat. It will serve this purpose even if it does not dry during the festival (Mishnah Berurah 540:20).

In the Talmudic era, the beds resembled hammocks. This is permitted only when one’s intent is to use the bed during the festival (Mishnah Berurah 541:4)

For the mill can produce flour that is necessary for the festival.

For we are allowed to perform labor during Chol HaMo’ed to prevent the occurrence of a loss.

Because of rain or dew.

For a garment often becomes stiff after it is laundered. (See Hilchot Shabbat 22:17.)

Unless the donkey’s nails are trimmed, they will cause it pain, and prevent it from working to its capacity (Mishnah Berurah 540:25).

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 540:5) specifies that the stall must be built without professional expertise.

The Mishnah Berurah 536:6 states that although we may not take an active role in the mating process, we may put a male and a female animal in the same corral and allow them to mate.

Although these activities are forbidden on the Sabbath (Hilchot Shabbat, Chapter 21). Moreover, one may perform any labors necessary to prepare drugs or medicines during Chol HaMo’ed. (Mishnah Berurah 532:5).

The Ra’avad (based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Mo’ed Katan 2:4) states that one may move from a rented apartment into one’s own home during Chol HaMo’ed, even if the rented apartment is more pleasant than one’s own home, because it is comfortable for a person to dwell in his own home. The Maggid Mishneh states that the Rambam does not mention this ruling because it conflicts with the statements of the Babylonian Talmud. Generally, when there is a difference of opinion between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, the rulings of the former are followed. The Ramah (loc. cit.:1) mentions that if one lives in a dangerous neighborhood, one may move during Chol HaMo’ed. The Mishnah Berurah 535:7 states that leniency may also be granted to allow a person to move from a non-Jewish neighborhood to a Jewish one.

This prohibition applies even when the articles were finished before the commencement of the festival. The Mishnah Berurah 534:16 mentions two reasons for this prohibition: a) because bringing these articles involves strenuous effort, b) because an observer might think that the person intended that they be repaired during Chol HaMo’ed.

The Mishnah Berurah 534:17 explains that we may pay the craftsman whether or not he has food to eat. He interprets the wording as meaning that even when he has nothing to eat, and it is therefore necessary to pay him, we may not take the article from him.

The Mishnah Berurah 534:18 explains that although he is permitted to work during Chol HaMo’ed, it is forbidden to carry the articles in public view because of the impression that it might create.

Here also the intent is not the labors forbidden on Sabbaths and holidays, but rather involvement in tasks that are not for the sake of the festival.

This refers to minchah k’tanah, nine and a half seasonal hours after sunrise (3:30 PM on a day when the sun rises at 6 AM and sets at 6 PM).

See Hilchot Shabbat 5:19-20.

This punishment is administered for violating a Rabbinic commandment, while the prohibition against doing work on these days is considered merely a custom.

As reflected in Chapter 1, Halachah 22, being placed under a ban of ostracism is a more severe punishment that receiving stripes for rebelliousness.

“It is not appropriate that a person should be involved in his everyday tasks while his sacrifice is being offered” (Jerusalem Talmud, Pesachim 4:1).
Although at present the Temple is destroyed and it is impossible to bring the Paschal sacrifice, the original decree is still in force and it is forbidden to perform labor at this time (Maggid Mishneh).

Note Tosafot (Pesachim 50a) and the Tzalach, who consider the fourteenth of Nisan to be a holiday established by the Torah itself.

As explained in Halachah 21.

During the night [until sunrise], however, there are no restrictions against performing labor (Pesachim 2b, 55a).

The Ramah (Orach Chayim 468:3) states that the Ashkenazic custom is not to perform labor before noon on this day. Nevertheless, subsequent authorities have not accepted this as a universal ruling, and maintain that everything is dependent on local custom.

The Rambam’s ruling is based on his interpretation of the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:7) as applying in a place where it is customary to perform labor on the fourteenth. Others (the Ra’avad and Rabbenu Asher) interpret the Mishnah as applying in a place where it is customary not to perform labor on the fourteenth.
This interpretation leads to a more lenient ruling: In a place where it is customary to perform labor, all labor may be performed on the fourteenth of Nisan. ln a place where it is not customary to perform labor, any labor that was begun before the fourteenth and is intended for the sake of the holiday may be completed before dawn. The three labors mentioned may be begun on the fourteenth of Nisan if they are performed for the sake of the holiday, provided they can be completed before noon. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 468:5) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, while the Ramah follows the more lenient approach.

Where people will see his actions.

I.e., people will see him departing from the local custom, and when he explains the reason for his actions an argument may arise.

This leniency applies provided he intends to return to his original locale.

In this instance as well, the ruling applies to a person who intends to return to his original locale. If he does not intend to return, he is not bound by the stringencies observed there (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:9).

This is a general principle applying not only on the fourteenth of Nisan, but to the entire year, provided the person intends to settle permanently in the city.
This principle does not, however, apply in most contemporary Jewish communities, because they were settled by people with different customs, and a fixed practice was never adopted for the city at large. Accordingly, in such an instance, a person should follow the customs of his ancestral home (Orach Mishpat, Responsum 17).

There are many idle people in the public thoroughfare who do not perform labor. The visitor should conduct himself like one of these individuals and not like a person who refrains from performing labor because of a prohibition (Pesachim 51 b).

These are also principles whose scope extends beyond the particular laws of the fourteenth of Nisan (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:14; Mishnah Berurah 468:22). Shulchan Aruch HaRav goes further and explains that if it is impossible for the person not to perform work without calling attention to his actions, he should perform the work, because maintaining peaceful social relations overrides the importance of preserving the customs of one’s native land.

Compare to Halachah 16.

Compare to Halachah 11.

Before three days have passed, the eggs would still be eaten by a person who is not fastidious about his food. Therefore, leniency is not granted (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 468:19; Mishnah Berurah 468:34).

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (loc. cit.) interprets the Rambam’s decision as forbidding the placing a chicken on eggs at the outset on the fourteenth of Nisan. The Mishnah Berurah, 468:36, however, mentions opinions that advise leniency in a case of need.