Shabbat 138a — the Talmud in English

Rather, Abaye said: It is rabbinic,

suspending the strainer does not involve the prohibition of shevut concerning making a temporary tent, but it is prohibited rabbinically on account of “weekday activity”

so that he should not do as he does on weekdays,

when he suspends a strainer in order to strain regularly, a great deal at once.

Abaye was collecting [

he was gathering]

and enumerating

the

stringencies of the beraita [

groups of laws of the beraitot], according to the order of their liability, exemption, and permission,

and he taught

thus:

a.

The gud [a sewn hide with straps by which it is hung on pegs. Travelers put wine in it and stretch it out and hang it on pegs so that the wind passes beneath the wine and cools it], and it is a temporary tent .

is a sewn leather skin with straps by which it is suspended from pegs. Passersby place wine in it and stretch and suspend it on pegs so that the wind passes beneath the wine and cools it, and it is a temporary tent

And the wine strainer

that we learned in our Mishna .

A canopy

that is a kind of tent spread over the bed above and along the bed's four sides , and people usually lower it after using the bed; therefore, it is a temporary tent.

And the galin chair [a chair from a place called Galin, which comes apart, and whose parts are assembled when one wishes to use it],

and assembling it raises the concern that one might fit the parts together tightly and thereby become liable to bring a sin-offering because of the prohibited labor of completing an object.

All these

one may not set up, but if one did set them up—

one is exempt, but it is prohibited.

b.

Permanent tents—

one may not set them up, but if one did set them up—

one is liable to bring a sin-offering .

.

c.

But a bed

that folds, with all its parts connected, and when one wishes to lie on it, it is necessary only to arrange the legs on which the bed stands.

And a folding chair

that is a collapsible chair.

And an asla

that resembles a folding chair, with an opening, and is used as a toilet.

All these

may be set up initially .

We learned in the Mishna:

“And one may not place [wine] into a suspended strainer on Shabbat.”

They raised a question:

If one transgressed and

strained wine, what

is his status?

Rav Kahana said: If one strained wine—

he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Rav Sheshet challenged this: Is there such a thing [do we find such a case]

where opinions are divided so sharply,

with the Sages requiring a sin-offering, while Rabbi Eliezer permits the act initially ?

?

Rav Yosef challenged this: Why not?

Indeed,

we find this concerning a woman who goes out into the public domain on Shabbat wearing a

golden city [a design of a city made of gold],

[the image of a city made of gold],

with Rabbi Meir requiring a sin-offering, while

if

Rabbi Eliezer permits the act initially.

And we explain:

What is this case?

As it was taught in a beraita: “A woman may not go out wearing a golden city,”

because it is heavy and is worn only to display wealth , and it is not an ornament but a burden,

but if she went out—

she is liable to bring a sin-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: “She may not go out”

even though it is an ornament, because there is concern that she might remove it to show it to someone and carry it four cubits,

but if she went out—

she is exempt.

Rabbi Eliezer says: A woman may go out wearing a golden city initially,

because only an important woman ordinarily goes out wearing a golden city, and an important woman will not remove the ornament to show it to others.

Abaye said to him: Do you think that Rabbi Eliezer is disputing Rabbi Meir,

to disagree with him,

saying: “She is liable to bring a sin-offering”?

Rabbi Eliezer

is disputing the Sages, who say: “She is exempt, but it is prohibited.” And he said to them: “It is permitted initially” .

.

Although we do not find a case in which there is such an extreme dispute between the tannaim, Rav Kahana's statement that, according to the Sages, one who strains wine is liable to bring a sin-offering was not rejected .

They raised a question: If one places wine sediment into a strainer on Shabbat so that the wine will be filtered—

because of which prohibited labor must he be warned ?

?

Rabba said:

Certainly, the labor of straining is a derivative of the labor of sifting , but one is liable for it also

because of selecting .

.

Rabbi Zeira said:

One may warn him only

because of sifting.

Rabba said: My view is more reasonable

because straining resembles selecting, since

the usual method of selecting is—

one takes the food and leaves the refuse ;

,

in the act of filtering, he

takes the food and leaves the refuse.

Rabbi Zeira said: My view is more reasonable

because straining more closely resembles sifting, since

the usual method of sifting is—

the refuse is above and the food below,

whereas one who selects takes the kernels and leaves the clumps below .

Rami bar Yechezkel taught: A doubled cloak—

one may not set it up

by placing it over four poles so that it forms a roof above and walls at the sides, to provide protection from the sun.

But if one did so—

one is exempt, but it is prohibited .

A string or cord was wrapped around it

in order that through them it would be easy to spread it, and it had been placed on the posts from the eve of Shabbat —

it is permitted to incline it initially

on Shabbat, because the Sages considered the presence of the string or cord on the tallit as the beginning of a tent, and spreading it is an addition to a temporary tent, which is permitted .

Rav Kahana asked Rav: A canopy—

what is

the ruling concerning inclining it on Shabbat?

He said to him: Even

the setting up of a

bed,

with regard to which there is more room to be lenient—

is prohibited.

Rav Kahana asked him:

A bed—what is the ruling?

Is setting up a bed prohibited in every manner?

He said to him: Even a canopy is permitted

at times, and certainly not every bed is prohibited.

He asked him:

A canopy and a bed—what is the ruling?

Is their law equal, so that in a case in which the canopy is prohibited, the bed is also prohibited, and in a case in which the bed is permitted, the canopy is also permitted?

He said to him:

There is a distinction between them:

a canopy is prohibited, and a bed is permitted .

And we explain:

And it is not difficult.

That which he said: Even a bed is prohibited—

with a bed

like that of the Karmanaeans,

which they regularly dismantle and assemble.

That which he said to him: Even a canopy is permitted—

like that of Rami bar Yehezkel,

and when one wrapped a string around it.

That which he said:

A canopy is prohibited and a bed is permitted—

like ours,

where no string is wrapped around the canopies, and the bed does not come apart.

Rav Yosef said: I saw the canopies of the house of Rav Huna: at night they were spread out, and in the morning they were thrown down, [I saw the canopies in the house of Rav Huna, which at night were spread out and in the morning were thrown to the ground, because they had a string or cord] ,

and just as Rav Huna permitted dismantling them, so he also permitted inclining them.

The Master said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: A curtain—it is permitted to incline it

and it is permitted to dismantle it,

because the law of a tent applies only to something made in the manner of a roof .