Eruvin 102a (קב.) — the Talmud in English

Where they disagree:

is in a case where it cannot be removed by its cord,

when the cord is thin, so that if one attempted to move it by means of that cord, it would immediately break.

For

Rabbi Yosei

held: Since it has a glostera at its end, it has the status of a utensil,

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

And

Rabbi Eliezer

held: Since it cannot be removed by its cord, no!

Since the cord is so thin, it is as though it is not tied at all, and it is not recognizable that it is intended for locking the door.

And despite the fact that it has a glostera, it appears to be building on Shabbat when he locks the door with it.

Mishna:

A dragging bolt,

a bolt tied to the door but not suspended in the air, because the cord is long and consequently the bolt drags along the ground, and it does not appear to be tied —

one may lock with it in the Temple.

Because the prohibition against locking with it is only a rabbinic shevut, since once it is tied to the door and designated for this purpose, it is not actual building; rather, it appears to be building because it drags along the ground. Therefore, one may lock with it in the Temple, where shevut does not apply, as the Sages did not issue their decree there.

But one may not

lock with it

in the rest of the country!

Outside the Temple, one may not lock with it, since, as stated, the matter is prohibited as a shevut.

And

the bolt

placed

on the ground, which is not tied to the door at all—

in both places,

both in the Temple and in the rest of the country,

it is forbidden

to lock with it, as this constitutes actual building.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

The bolt

placed—

is permitted in the Temple.

Since even if it is not tied at all, its prohibition is only because it appears to be building, as it was prepared for this purpose before Shabbat, and this is not actual building,

and therefore it is permitted in the Temple.

And the dragging bolt

is permitted even

in the rest of the country,

because since it is tied, although it is not suspended, it does not appear to be building.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: Which is the dragging bolt with which one may lock

in the Temple but not in the rest of the country?

Any bolt that is tied and suspended,

but is not entirely suspended in the air,

and one of its ends reaches the ground.

Rabbi Yehuda says: This,

which is tied—

is permitted even in the rest of the country!

Rather, which is the bolt with which one may lock in the Temple but not in the rest of the country?

Any bolt that is neither tied nor suspended

to the door,

and he removes it, and

when he takes it out of the hole in the threshold, he

places it

on the ground

in a corner.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a dragging bolt,

as it is permitted even in the rest of the country.

But with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling that even the bolt placed on the ground is permitted in the Temple, the halakha is not in accordance with him.

Because when the bolt is placed on the ground and is not tied at all, locking with it constitutes actual building, by Torah law, like other bolts and pegs driven into a wall.

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

Rava said: And this is so when

the bolt

is tied to the door

itself; only then is it considered tied, because then it is clearly recognizable that it serves to lock the door. But if it is tied to the doorpost or to the door’s bolt, it is not considered tied.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

But Rabbi Tavla happened to come to Mehoza [

the name of a city]

and saw

a

certain

bolt

that was suspended from the crossbar of the door,

the door’s bolt, and they would lock with it on Shabbat,

and he said nothing to them at all!

And we answer:

That—

could be removed by its cord.

It was tied with a strong cord, in which case it is effective even when tied to the door’s bolt.

And what Rava said, that it must specifically be tied to the door itself, applies when the cord is thin.

Rav Avya happened to come to Nehardea. He saw a certain

man who was tying it with grass,

tying the bolt with grass.

He said

to him:

Do not lock with this!

It is forbidden to lock with it, because tying with grass is not considered tying at all.

Rabbi Zeira raised a dilemma: What is the ruling in the case of a bolt that has pierced through?

Until now, the discussion concerned a bolt that enters only the hole in the threshold. Rabbi Zeira was uncertain about the law when that hole became enlarged and the bolt pierced all the way through to the ground.

Rav Yosef said: What need is there for Rabbi Zeira to raise this dilemma?

What,

did he not hear that which was taught in a beraita: If it slipped out,

meaning that the cord with which the bolt was tied broke,

it is forbidden

to lock with it.

If it pierced through, it is permitted.

And Rabbi Yehuda said: If it pierced through, even though it did not slip out,

but remains tied,

it is forbidden.

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a bolt that pierced through,

which is forbidden.

And we explain:

And what is the reason

that it is forbidden when it pierced through?

Abaye said: Because it appears to be building.

Since it enters the ground, it appears to be building.

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

attaching a handle to the bolt, so that it looks like a hammer—

what is the ruling?

Would it be permitted to lock with it even when it is not tied 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 pestle with which grain and spices are pounded, it is certainly permitted to lock with it, because it is not customary to leave a utensil inside a structure and nullify it there; consequently, it does not appear to be building.

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

There was a certain beam

a beam

that was in Rav Pappa’s house, which required ten people to lift it,

as it was extremely heavy, so that ten people were needed to raise it,

and they placed it against the door,

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

And

Rav Pappa

said nothing to them at all.

Because when he

said

he reasoned:

It has the status of a utensil!

For despite its weight, it had not lost the status of a utensil, since it was fit to sit upon, and it was not muktzeh and could be moved.

There was a certain large stone mortar

a large stone mortar

that was

in Mar Shmuel’s house, which held an adriva,

meaning that it held half a kor.

Mar Shmuel permitted them to place it against the door.

Because when he

said

he reasoned:

It has the status of a utensil!

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

which are arches constructed across the boat from side to side, approximately half an amah apart, over which garments and mats are spread to provide protection from the cold and rain.

Rav Amram sent to him

Rav Amram:

This is what Rav Asi said:

These arches of a boat, when they have a handbreadth

in width across each arch, in which case they already have the status of a tent [as the measure of a tent is at least a handbreadth].

Alternatively,

even

when they do not have a handbreadth,

but

between

one arch

and

another arch

there are not three

handbreadths, as we apply the principle of lavud, and it is as though they are all joined together.

On the following day,

on Shabbat—

one 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; moreover, it is temporary, as it is not intended to remain that way permanently,

and it is entirely permitted!

Since making a temporary tent is prohibited only by rabbinic law, and they prohibited it only when one makes a tent initially; but when the tent already exists and one merely adds to it, it is permitted.

There were certain rams

rams

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

in the summer, as they needed shade during the daytime,

and at night required air,

as at night they needed cool air. During the week, 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 deal with the mat on Shabbat.

He said to him:

On Friday afternoon, when you come to remove the mat, do not remove it completely from the roof. Rather,

go, roll up the mat,

roll it up and leave it rolled on the roof,

and leave a handbreadth of it,

leave one handbreadth spread out so that it has the status of a tent.

And

on the following day, spread it out,

spread out the mat,

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

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: A curtain

spread across an entrance for privacy—

it is permitted to spread it,

to spread it out,

and it is permitted to take it down on Shabbat,

and there is no violation of building in this.

Because the curtain is not fixed there, but it is customary to hang it and remove it, and it is merely like a door, which one may open and close on Shabbat.

A bridal canopy

constructed with a post extending from each of the two ends of the bed, with a rod resting on them, over which a sheet is spread that slopes down on either side. [Unlike an ordinary canopy, in which a sheet is spread over four posts extending from the four corners of the bed]—

it is permitted to take it down and spread it on Shabbat.

Because it is not considered a tent, as 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 not a handbreadth.

That is, 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 sides of the canopy.

But

when

within less than three handbreadths adjacent to the roof there is

a width of

a handbreadth

between the two sides,

it is forbidden

to spread it or take it down on Shabbat, because we apply lavud, and it is as though those three handbreadths are closed; thus, there is a roof one handbreadth wide here, which is the measure of a tent.