Shabbat 138b — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya:

Since the Sages did not prohibit making partitions, therefore

the bridegrooms’ canopy,

which has no roof, but only its partitions sloping above from the middle of the bed toward its sides—

it is permitted to incline it, and it is permitted to dismantle it.

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

if

the

upper ends of the two partitions are close to one another, and

there is not in its roof

of the canopy

a handbreadth, but there is a handbreadth in its roof—

it has the measure of a tent and

is prohibited.

And

also,

when there is not in its roof

itself

a handbreadth, likewise we said

that it is permitted

only when there is not, within three

handbreadths adjacent to its roof, a width of a handbreadth; and at the place where the two partitions move apart from one another by the measure of a handbreadth, there is already a distance of three handbreadths from the roof.

But if, within three adjacent to its roof,

there is a width of

a handbreadth—

it is prohibited,

because it is considered that the canopy has a roof of a handbreadth by the law of lavud. For one can lower the upper slope to the place where there is a handbreadth between the partitions, and thus there is an unsloped roof with a width of a handbreadth.

And we said

that the bridegrooms’ canopy is permitted

only

in a place

where in the slope

of each of the partitions there is not

a handbreadth,

and the entire canopy shelters over less than two handbreadths, and one does not make it for protection, but for adornment.

But if in the slope

of one of the partitions there is

a handbreadth—

it is not considered a partition but a tent, since there is beneath it air of a handbreadth, for the halakha is that

the slopes of tents are considered like tents.

And we said

that it is permitted

only when it does not descend from the bed

[so that the covering does not descend around the bed to beneath the surface of the bed

a handbreadth.]

But if it descends from the bed a handbreadth—

it is prohibited,

and although there is no prohibition in making partitions, here the principal prohibition is not on account of the partitions, but on account of the bed, which is a tent; and regarding a bed, the Sages prohibited it on account of a tent only on condition that there are partitions there, because the bed is not made to protect what is beneath it.

And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: This siyana

[a felt hat] that has wide brims,

is permitted

[it is permitted] to wear it on Shabbat, and there is no concern regarding its brims on account of making a tent.

And we raise a contradiction:

But it was stated: A siyana—

is prohibited

to wear it on Shabbat!

And we answer:

It is not difficult; this

that it is prohibited to wear it

is when there is in it

in its brims the measure of a tent, which is

a handbreadth. This

that it is permitted to wear it

is when there is not in it a handbreadth.

And we ask:

But if so, if he extends a handbreadth with a cloak

[if he extends the tallit beyond his head by a handbreadth],

is it likewise prohibited

on account of making a tent on Shabbat?! And we retract and say:

Rather,

wearing a garment or a hat does not involve making a tent; and if there is a reason to prohibit wearing a hat with brims on Shabbat, this is only in the public domain, out of concern that the wind may blow it from his head and he will come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Therefore, on account of this,

it is not difficult

the contradiction concerning wearing the hat with the brims, because

this

that it is permitted to wear it concerns a hat

that is fastened

to his head, so that there is no concern that the wind will carry it away, whereas

this

that it is prohibited to wear it concerns a hat

that is not fastened.

Rami bar Yehezkel sent to Rav Huna: Tell

us, my dear

[tell us, my dear,]

those excellent matters

[those praiseworthy matters]

that you told us in the name of Rav, two

[of which two were]

in

the laws of

Shabbat and one in

the subject of

Torah.

He sent to him:

a.

That which was taught: A gud in a sack

[a waterskin with straps] placed on one of the poles upon which it is regularly hung—

it is permitted to incline it

on Shabbat,

since it was prepared from before Shabbat for hanging, and hanging it is considered an addition to a permitted temporary tent.

Regarding this,

Rav said: We learned

this permission

only with two people,

who do not stretch it very tightly.

But with one person,

who stretches it tightly—

it is prohibited.

Abaye said: And a canopy

that they wish to bring stretched as it is and incline it over the bed,

even with ten people it is prohibited

to incline it, because it is wide and

it is impossible that it not be stretched somewhat

[it is impossible that it not be stretched slightly more than it was stretched] when they incline it.

b.

The other

matter that I said in the name of Rav in the laws of Shabbat—

what is it?

For it was taught: A stove from which one of its legs has fallen

[its feet]—

it is permitted to move it

for the sake of its use or its place, according to the law of an implement whose designated use is prohibited. If

two

of its feet have fallen,

it is prohibited

to move it at all, because the designation of an implement has been removed from it, since it can stand only on the two remaining legs.

Rav said:

Even if one leg fell from it,

one also is prohibited

to move it at all—not on account of muktze, but one must decree

a decree lest he fasten

its leg tightly when he comes to return it, and he will become liable on account of building.

C. Its subject is

Torah:

For Rav said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten from Israel. As it is stated: “The Lord will make your plagues extraordinary” (

Deuteronomy 28:59).

As for this “making extraordinary,” I do not know what its subject is

its subject?

When it says: “Therefore, behold, I shall continue to make this people extraordinary, extraordinarily,

and the wisdom of its wise men shall perish and the understanding of its intelligent men shall be concealed” (Isaiah 29:14),

You must say: “making extraordinary”—

this is the Torah

that will be forgotten from them , for it is their wisdom and their understanding.

The Sages taught: When our Rabbis entered the vineyard

in Yavneh, they said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten from Israel.

As it is stated: “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord God, when I shall send a famine in the land—not a famine for bread and not a thirst for water, but to hear the words of the Lord” (

Amos 8:11).

And it is written: “And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall roam to seek the word of the Lord, but they shall not find it” (

Amos 8:12).

In these verses, “the word of the Lord” is written once in the singular, and “the words of the Lord” once in the plural; it follows that there are three types of words that will be forgotten . And these are they:

A.

the word of the Lord—

this is halakha,

as it is written: “to declare to you the word of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 5:5).

B.

the word of the Lord—

this is the End,

as it is written: “And in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, to complete the word of the Lord from the mouth of Jeremiah” ( Ezra 1:1).

C.

the word of the Lord—

this is prophecy,

as it is written: “The word of the Lord that came to Hosea” (Hosea 1:1).

And what is the meaning of “they shall roam to seek the word of the Lord,”

which implies that they will go around from place to place within one city?

They said: A woman is destined to take a loaf of teruma and go around the synagogues and the study halls, to know whether it is impure or whether it is pure, and there will be no one who understands

to answer her even such a question, which concerns everyday matters .

And we inquire about it: How is it possible that in the study halls they would not know

whether it is pure or whether it is impure,

for the Written Torah is written before them, and

it is explicitly written in it

that a loaf receives impurity, as it is stated:

“From every food that may be eaten … it shall become impure” (

Leviticus 11:34).

And we answer:

Rather,

her question is—

to know whether

the loaf that became impure from an impure oven

is first

with regard to impurity,

or whether it is second

with regard to impurity,

and there is no one who understands

to answer her.

And we raise an objection:

This too

is an explicit halakha in

the Mishna,

and it is inconceivable that the Mishna should be forgotten .

As we learned: If a creeping creature is found in an oven—

the bread inside it

is

second with regard to impurity,

because

the oven

that became impure from the creeping creature is

first

[first with regard to impurity], and it makes the bread inside it second with regard to impurity.

And we answer:

They were uncertain

about the understanding of the law and its source, and they did not know how to answer

this

difficulty that Rav Adda raised, as Rava answered .

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava:

Why is the bread in the oven only second with regard to impurity? Is not an ordinary oven made of earthenware, and its law is that it becomes impure when the creeping creature is in its airspace even when it did not touch it? And since this is so,

we should regard this oven as though it were full of impurity

[we should regard the oven as though it were full of impurity],

and the bread should be first

as though it had touched the creeping creature itself!

He said to him,

Rava:

We do not say, “We should regard this oven as though it were full of impurity,”

and this is demonstrated by the law that the beraita expounded from the verse.

For it was taught: Could it be that all the vessels—

that are found inside an earthenware vessel in whose airspace there is a creeping creature—

become impure through the airspace of an earthenware vessel?

The verse says: “Everything that is inside it shall become impure … from every food that may be eaten.” (

Leviticus 11:33–34) Only

foodstuffs become impure through the airspace of an earthenware vessel, but vessels do not become impure through the airspace of an earthenware vessel.

The Torah teaches two things here:

A. An earthenware vessel receives impurity through its airspace and renders others impure through its airspace, but it is not full of impurity; for if it were so, why did a wooden or metal vessel that is found inside the earthenware vessel not become impure? Is it not susceptible to impurity from its outside?

B. A vessel becomes impure only from a primary source of impurity and not from a first degree; therefore, the vessels that are found inside the earthenware vessel do not receive impurity from it.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: Heaven forbid that the Torah should be forgotten from Israel,

and even the Oral Torah will not be forgotten,

as it is stated: “For it shall not be forgotten from the mouth of his offspring” (

Deuteronomy 31:21).