Eruvin 102a — the Talmud in English

When they disagree: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

when it cannot be taken by its binding,

when the rope is thin, so that if one comes to move it by means of that rope, it immediately breaks.

For the one who says

Rabbi Yosei

holds: since it has a glostera at its end, the status of a utensil applies to it,

and it is apparent to everyone that he places it there only temporarily, therefore it does not appear as building.

And the one who says

Rabbi Eliezer

holds: since it cannot be taken by its binding, no!

Since the rope is so thin, it is as though it is not bound at all, and it is not recognizable that it is designated for locking the door.

And although it has a glostera, it appears to be building on Shabbat through locking with it.

Mishna:

A dragging neger,

a bolt bound to the door but not suspended in the air, for the rope is long and therefore the neger drags along the ground, and it does not appear to be bound -

one locks with it in the Temple.

For the prohibition against locking with it is merely a shevut by rabbinic ordinance. Since it is bound to the door and designated for this purpose, it is not actual building; rather, it appears as building because it drags along the ground. Therefore it is permitted to lock with it in the Temple, for shevut does not apply in the Temple, since the Sages did not decree there.

But one does not

lock with it

in the country!

For outside the Temple one does not lock with it, since, as stated, the matter is forbidden as shevut.

And

And the neger

that is lying

on the ground, which is not bound to the door at all -

here and here,

both in the Temple and in the country,

it is forbidden

to lock with it, for this is actual building.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

the

lying -

it is permitted in the Temple.

Since even if it is not bound at all, its prohibition is only because it appears as building, since it was prepared for this from before the day, and this is not actual building.

And therefore it is permitted in the Temple.

And the dragging one

is permitted even

in the country.

Since, as it is bound, although it is not suspended, it does not appear as building.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Which is the dragging neger with which one locks

with it

in the Temple but not in the country?

Any one that is bound and suspended,

except that it is not completely suspended in the air,

and one of its ends reaches the ground.

Rabbi Yehuda says: This one

that is bound -

is permitted even in the country!

Rather, which is the neger with which one locks in the Temple but not in the country?

Any one that is neither bound nor suspended

to the door,

and one pulls it out, and

when he removes it from the hole in the threshold, he

places it

on the ground

in a corner.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda concerning a dragging one,

that it is permitted even in the country.

But concerning the matter in which Rabbi Yehuda permits even a lying one, in the Temple, the halakha is not according to him.

For the lying neger, which is not bound at all, constitutes actual building through locking with it, by Torah law, like other beams and pegs that one drives into a wall.

For one who builds any amount is liable by Torah law. And a labor forbidden by Torah law was not permitted in the Temple [apart from the offering of the daily offerings, additional offerings, and other communal sacrifices, which override Shabbat by scriptural decree].

Rava said: And this is so when

the neger

is bound to the door

itself; only then is it considered bound, because then it is clearly recognizable that it serves for locking the door. But if it is bound to the doorpost or to the door bolt, it is not considered bound.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so?

But Rabbi Tavla happened to come to Meḥoza [

the name of a city]

and saw

he saw

that

neger

which was suspended from the door bolt,

from the door bolt, and they were locking with it on Shabbat,

and he said nothing to them!

And we answer:

That one -

could be taken by its binding.

It was bound with a strong rope, in which case it is effective even when bound to the bolt.

And what Rava said, that it is specifically when bound to the door itself, applies when the rope is thin.

Rav Avya happened to come to Nehardea. He saw that

a man was tying with a reed,

he tied the neger with grass.

He said

to him:

Do not lock with this!

This is forbidden for locking, since tying with a reed is not considered binding at all.

Rabbi Zeira asked: What is the law of a nikmaz?

Until now, it has been speaking of a neger that enters only into the hole of the threshold. Rabbi Zeira wonders what the law is when that hole becomes larger and the neger penetrates to the ground.

Rav Yosef said: What is there for him to ask

Rabbi Zeira? Is it that

he has not heard that which was taught: If it slips out,

meaning that the rope with which the neger is bound breaks,

it is forbidden

to lock with it.

A nikmaz is permitted.

And Rabbi Yehuda said: A nikmaz, even though it has not slipped out,

but it is bound,

is forbidden.

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda concerning a nikmaz

that it is forbidden.

And we explain:

And what is the reason

why is a nikmaz forbidden?

Abaye said: Because it appears as building.

Since it enters the ground, it appears as building.

Rav Naḥumi bar Zekharya asked Abaye: If one made a handle for it,

meaning that he attached a handle to the neger, and it appears like a hammer -

what is the law?

Will it be permitted to lock with it even when it is not bound at all, since it is evident to everyone that it is a utensil?

He said to him

Abaye:

Are you speaking of a pestle?!

If it appears like a hammer with which one pounds grain and spices, certainly it is permitted to lock with it, because it is not customary to leave a utensil inside a building and designate it there, and consequently it does not appear as building.

It was stated: Rabbi Naḥumi bar Adda said: If one made a handle for it, it is permitted.

That beam

a beam

which was in the house of Rav Pedaṭ, which ten people would lift,

which was very heavy, so that ten people had to lift it,

and they placed it against the door,

they would lean it against the door at night in order to close it.

And he did not say to them

Rav Pedaṭ

anything.

For

he said,

he reasoned -

the status of a utensil applies to it!

For despite its heaviness, the designation of utensil was not nullified from it, since it is fit to sit upon, and it is not muktze, and it is permitted to move it.

That mortar

a large stone mortar

which was

in the house of Mar Shmuel, which held an adriva,

which contained half a kor.

Mar Shmuel permitted placing it against the door.

For

he said,

he reasoned -

the status of a utensil applies to it!

Rami bar Yeḥezkel sent to Rav Amram: Let the master tell us those excellent matters that you told us in the name of Rav Asi concerning the arches of a boat,

which are arches made on a boat from side to side, separated from one another by approximately half a cubit, over which they spread cloths and mats to protect against cold and rain.

Rav Amram sent to him

Rav Amram:

This is what Rav Asi said:

These arches of a boat, when they contain a handbreadth

in the width of each arch, for it already has the designation of a tent through this [for the measure of a tent is at least a handbreadth].

Alternatively,

even

they do not contain a handbreadth,

but

there is not between

arch

this and

arch

this three

handbreadths, for we say lavud, and it is as though they are all joined together.

On the morrow

on Shabbat -

he brings a mat and spreads it over them.

What is the reason?

He is adding to a temporary tent.

For there is already a tent here from before Shabbat, and he is merely adding to it; and it too is temporary, not made to remain this way permanently,

and it is entirely proper!

For making a temporary tent is forbidden only by rabbinic ordinance, and they forbade it only when one makes a tent from the outset; but when the tent already exists and he merely adds to it, it is permitted.

Those rams

rams

that Rav Huna had, which during the day required shade,

in the summer, they needed shade during the daytime,

and at night required air,

and at night they needed cool air. And on weekdays they were accustomed to spread a mat over them during the day and remove it at night.

Rav Huna came

Rav Huna

before Rav,

to ask how to act with the mat on Shabbat.

Rav said to him:

On the eve of Shabbat, toward evening, when you come to remove the mat, do not remove it entirely from the roof. Rather,

go, roll up the mat,

roll it up and leave it rolled up on the roof,

and leave a handbreadth in it,

leave one handbreadth spread out, so that the designation of a tent will apply to it.

And

and on the morrow, spread it out,

spread out the mat,

for he is adding to a temporary tent, and it is entirely proper.

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: A curtain

spread opposite the entrance for privacy -

it is permitted to spread it,

to spread it,

and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat,

and there is no issue of building in this.

For the curtain is not fixed there, but its manner is to be hung and removed, and it is merely like a door, which it is permitted to open and close on Shabbat.

A bridegroom’s canopy

which is made so that from the two ends of the bed, in its middle, a post extends on each side, and a pole is placed upon them, over which they spread a sheet that descends on a slope to this side and that side. [In contrast to an ordinary canopy, in which a sheet is spread over four posts extending from the four corners of the bed] -

it is permitted to dismantle it and spread it on Shabbat.

For it is not called a tent, since the width of its roof is less than a handbreadth.

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: We said

that it is permitted,

only

when

there is not a handbreadth in its roof.

But

if

there is a handbreadth in its roof -

it is forbidden.

And even when there is not a handbreadth in its roof, we said

that it is permitted,

only

when

within less than three

handbreadths

adjacent to the roof there is a handbreadth.

For the slope is very steep, so that even at a distance of three handbreadths below the roof there is still not a width of a handbreadth between the two walls of the canopy.

But

when

within less than three adjacent to the roof there is

a width of

a handbreadth

between the two walls,

it is forbidden

to spread it and dismantle it on Shabbat, for we say lavud, and it is as though those three handbreadths are closed, and there is here a roof with a width of a handbreadth, which is the measure of a tent.