Eruvin 102b — the Talmud in English

And when there is not a handbreadth within less than three [handbreadths] adjacent to the roof, we likewise said it

that it is permitted,

only when there is no ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page position")

a handbreadth in its slope.

For each side of the sheet does not become distant by a handbreadth from the middle, even at its edge. That is, the width between the two sides below is less than two handbreadths, in which case each side is not considered a roof but only a wall.

But

if

there is a handbreadth in its slope,

so that each side becomes distant to a distance of a handbreadth from the middle, then that sloping diagonal is considered a tent.

For

the slopes of tents—

are like tents!

For a sloping tent, too, is called a tent. [

Rashi says that apparently it is difficult: what kind of bed is this whose width is not even two handbreadths? Therefore, he explained that the discussion concerns a wide bed, from whose two ends many poles extend, one low and beside it one high; and on each pole at its head there is a reed extending to the pole at its foot. He spreads small canopies over the reeds, which do not reach down below, and their slope is less than a handbreadth; and around the bed he spreads a large sheet for walls].

And Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said: A sayina—

a felt hat that has a brim—

is permitted,

it is permitted to wear it on Shabbat.

And we raise an objection:

But was it not taught: It is forbidden?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This one is where it has a handbreadth,

in the width of the brim; in that case it is forbidden to wear it because it is like a tent.

That one,

which is permitted, is where

it does not have a handbreadth,

in the width of its brim, since it is not a tent.

And we raise an objection:

If that is so, if a person extends a handbreadth of his cloak,

a person whose cloak projects forward from his head by a handbreadth—

is this also forbidden

because of a tent!?

Rather, it is not difficult:

The prohibition is not because of a tent; rather, we are concerned that the hat may fall from his head in the public domain, and he may come to carry it four cubits.

This one,

which is taught as permitted,

is where it is secured,

for the hat is tied with a strap beneath his neck, and there is no concern that it will fall.

That one,

which is forbidden,

is where it is not secured,

for it is liable to fall.

Mishna:

One may replace the lower hinge-pin

of the door of a chest or cabinet that has come out of its hole,

in the Temple,

for as long as the upper one has not come out, it is easy to replace it. And there is no labor of building here; rather, it is forbidden because of a shevut, as follows, and a shevut does not apply in the Temple.

But not in the rest of the country,

because the Sages decreed lest he hammer it in forcefully, in such a manner that it could no longer come out from there, which would be the Torah labor of striking with a hammer.

And

the hinge-pin came out

the upper one,

so that the entire door falls—

in both places it is forbidden,

whether in the Temple or in the rest of the country, it is forbidden to replace it, because this is actual building, and a Torah labor was not permitted even in the Temple.

And this tanna holds that there is building and dismantling in vessels.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The upper one

it is permitted to replace

in the Temple,

for its prohibition is only rabbinic, since there is no building in vessels [Bartenura].

And the lower one

is permitted even

in the rest of the country,

for with the lower one there is no concern that he might hammer it in [Tiferet Yisrael].

Gemara:

The Sages taught: The hinge-pin of the door

of

a cabinet, a chest, or a tower—

in the Temple, one may replace it [

in a case where it is necessary for the Temple service, for example, where there was salt, frankincense, or incense inside the cabinet, and it is impossible to open the door until the hinge-pin is replaced].

In the rest of the country, one may press it in!

Only if it has not yet come entirely out of the hole in the threshold, but has begun to come out, is it permitted to push it back into its place.

All this applies to the lower hinge-pin. But

the upper one—

in both places one may not replace it,

for this is actual building.

And the fact that it is forbidden to replace the lower hinge-pin in the rest of the country is because of

a decree lest he hammer it in

forcefully when replacing it.

And if he hammered it in, he is liable for a sin-offering.

And the hinge-pin of the door

of a cistern and of a pit [

a pit built on the ground]

and of a gallery—

one may not replace

even the lower hinge-pin.

And if he replaced it—

he is liable for a sin-offering!

For in a structure attached to the ground, it is considered “building” even with any small act of building.

Mishna:

One may replace a bandage in the Temple.

A priest who had a wound on his hand and placed a bandage over it on the eve of Shabbat—that is, a dressing upon which there was ointment—and on Shabbat he needed to serve in the Temple, and had to remove the bandage from his hand so that the bandage would not intervene between his hand and the service and invalidate the service: they permitted him to replace the bandage after the service. For if they did not permit him to replace it, there would be concern that he might refrain and not perform the service, so that he would not have to remove the bandage. [

And it is explained in tractate Beitza 11b that this is one of three matters that the Sages permitted, “their end because of their beginning”].

But not in the rest of the country.

For an ordinary person, it is forbidden to replace a bandage, because of a decree lest he spread the bandage in order to smooth the hollows in it, and he will thereby violate the labor of smoothing, which is a principal labor.

If at the outset,

where the bandage had not been on his hand since the eve of Shabbat, and he came to place the bandage on it initially on Shabbat—

in both places it is forbidden.

For it is forbidden even for a priest in the Temple. And it is not applicable to say here, “There is no shevut in the Temple,” since this is not a need of the Temple, but rather the need of the priest himself.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: A bandage that came off,

that fell off by itself,

from upon a wound—

one may replace it

it

on Shabbat

even in the rest of the country. For it is an uncommon matter for the bandage to fall, and the Sages did not decree concerning it.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If it fell completely from the hand, he may not replace it.

But if it merely

slipped,

the bandage slipped from the wound

downward,

and remained on the hand,

he presses it

and replaces it

upward

onto the wound.

And if it slipped

upward—

he presses it downward.

And he uncovers part of the bandage, and wipes the mouth of the wound, and again uncovers part of the bandage

at the other end,

and wipes the mouth of the wound [

but he should not remove it completely, for then he will not be able to replace it].

But he should not wipe the bandage itself, because he would be spreading it

in order to smooth the hollows in the bandage.

And if he spread it—

he is liable for a sin-offering

because of smoothing.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda

that it is forbidden to replace a bandage, even when it fell by itself.

Rav Hisda said: They taught

that the first tanna permits replacing a bandage that fell by itself

only when it came off

and fell

onto a vessel,

onto a pillow or cushion.

But when it came off

and fell

onto the ground—

according to everyone it is forbidden

to replace it, since it is as though he is placing it initially on the wound.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I was standing before

Father.

And

his

bandage

fell onto the pillow

at the head of his bed,

and he was replacing it

replacing it onto the wound.

And

I said to him,

I said to him: Is it that

Master does not accept that which Rav Hisda said:

The dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda is specifically

when it came off onto a vessel, but when it came off onto the ground,

according to everyone

it is forbidden.

It follows, then, that Rabbi Yehuda forbids replacing it even when it came off onto a vessel.

And Shmuel said that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And how did you replace the bandage, since although it fell onto the pillow, it is forbidden to replace it!?

He said to me,

Father:

I have not heard

this statement of Rav Hisda.

That is, I do not hold it!

Rather, I hold that they disagree only when it fell onto the ground; but when it fell onto a vessel, this is merely like slipping, and according to everyone it is permitted.

And therefore, it was permitted for me to replace the bandage that fell onto the pillow.

Mishna:

One may tie a string in the Temple.

For the Levites would play a violin in the Temple at the time of offering the sacrifices, and if a string broke on the violin, it was permitted to tie it on Shabbat, even with a permanent knot, which is forbidden by Torah law.

For according to the tanna of the Mishna, the requirements of a mitzva that cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, such as here, where the string broke today, override Shabbat.

But not in the rest of the country.

For there it is forbidden to tie a string that broke on a violin, since it is a principal labor.

And if at the outset,

where he came to tie initially a new string on the violin, one that had never been there—

in both places it is forbidden,

and it is forbidden even in the Temple, since he could have done this on the eve of Shabbat.

Gemara:

And we raise a contradiction

from that which was taught:

A violin string that broke

in the Temple—

he would not tie it, but would make a loop knot,

for he would make only a loop knot, which is not forbidden on Shabbat.

And this is difficult against the Mishna, which permits even tying the string!

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

This one,

the beraita,

is the Rabbis.

And this one,

the Mishna,

is Rabbi Eliezer.

And we explain:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The requirements of a

mitzva override Shabbat,

for with a mitzva that overrides Shabbat, such as circumcision, not only the mitzva itself overrides [Shabbat], but also the preparation of the means necessary for the mitzva overrides Shabbat; here too,

he ties

the string.

For the offering of the sacrifice overrides Shabbat, and repairing the violin on which they play the song for the sacrifice is among the requirements of the sacrifice.

According to the Rabbis, who say:

the requirements of a mitzva

do not override

Shabbat, here too,

he makes a loop knot

only, since repairing the violin is merely among the requirements of the sacrifice, and not the sacrifice itself.

And we raise an objection:

If

the Mishna

is Rabbi Eliezer

—if so,

even initially also

it should be permitted to make a violin on Shabbat.

For Rabbi Eliezer permits, with circumcision, making even requirements that could be made on the eve of Shabbat—for example, chopping wood to make charcoal from it, in order to make a knife for circumcision.

But the Mishna teaches that initially it is forbidden?

And we answer:

Rather, it is not difficult:

This one,

the Mishna,

is Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that making a loop knot is included in tying, which is forbidden by Torah law on Shabbat. And since he holds like Rabbi Eliezer that the requirements of a mitzva override Shabbat, he may even tie the string, since there is no difference between tying and making a loop knot.

And this one,

the beraita,

is the Rabbis,

who hold that making a loop knot is not included in tying, and it is permitted to make a loop knot on Shabbat. Therefore, although the requirements of a mitzva override Shabbat, nevertheless it is forbidden to tie the string, since it is possible to repair it by making a loop knot, which does not involve desecration of Shabbat [according to Maharsha].

But it still remains difficult:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

of the Mishna—

according to whom

does he proceed?