Shabbat 138b (קלח:) — the Talmud in English

And Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya:

Since the Sages did not prohibit making partitions,

a bridal canopy

that has no roof, but whose partitions slope upward from the middle of the bed toward its sides—

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

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

only

when

the upper ends of the two partitions are close to each other, and

there is not in its roof

of the canopy

a handbreadth; but if there is a handbreadth in its roof

it has the measure of a tent and

it is prohibited.

And

also,

even when there is not in its roof

itself

a handbreadth, we said

that it is permitted

only when there is not, within three handbreadths

of the roof, a width of one handbreadth; and at the point where the two partitions have moved one handbreadth apart from each other, there is already a distance of three handbreadths from the roof.

But if, within three handbreadths of the roof, there is

a width of

one handbreadth—

it is prohibited,

because the canopy is considered to have a roof of one handbreadth by the principle of lavud. For the upper slope can be lowered to the point where there is a handbreadth between the partitions, and thus there is an unsloped roof one handbreadth wide.

And we said

that a bridal 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 provides shade over an area of less than two handbreadths, and it is not made 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 a handbreadth of air beneath it, for the halakha is that

the slopes of tents are considered 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

by a handbreadth.

But when it descends from the bed by a handbreadth—

it is prohibited,

even though there is no prohibition in making partitions. Here, however, the principal prohibition is not because of the partitions, but because the bed is a tent; and concerning a bed, the Sages prohibited it on account of a tent only when there are partitions, because the bed is not made to protect what is beneath it.

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

[a felt hat] with a broad brim

is permitted

[it is permitted] to wear it on Shabbat, and there is no concern that its brim constitutes the making of a tent.

And we raise a contradiction:

But it was stated: A siana—

is prohibited

to wear it on Shabbat!

And we answer:

It is not difficult; this

one, which is prohibited to wear, is

when it has

in its brim the measure of a tent, which is

a handbreadth. This

one, which is permitted to wear, is

when it does not have a handbreadth.

And we are astonished:

If so, when one extends a handbreadth of his cloak

[when he extends the cloak a handbreadth beyond his head],

is it likewise prohibited

because of making a tent on Shabbat? We then retract this and say:

Rather,

wearing a garment or hat does not constitute the making of a tent. If there is a reason to prohibit wearing a broad-brimmed hat on Shabbat, it is only in the public domain, out of concern that the wind may blow it off his head and he will come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Therefore, because of this,

the contradiction

concerning wearing a broad-brimmed hat

this

case in which it is permitted to wear it is a hat

that is fastened

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

this

case in which it is prohibited to wear it is a hat

that is not fastened.

Rami bar Yehezkel sent to Rav Huna: Tell

us, my dear

[tell us, my beloved,]

those excellent matters

[those praiseworthy teachings]

that you told us in the name of Rav—two

[of which two were]

in

the laws of

Shabbat, and one in

a matter pertaining to

Torah.

He sent to him:

1.

As it was taught: A gud in a kisna

[a skin flask with straps], resting on one of the posts from which it is regularly hung,

may be spread

on Shabbat,

because it was prepared before Shabbat for hanging, and hanging it is considered adding to a temporary tent, which is permitted.

Regarding this,

Rav said: We taught

that this is permitted

only with two people,

who do not stretch it tightly.

But with one person,

who stretches it tightly,

it is prohibited.

Abaye said: But a canopy

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

even with ten people it is prohibited

to spread it, because it is broad and

it is impossible for it not to be stretched somewhat

[it is impossible for it not to become slightly more stretched than it had been] when they spread it.

2.

The other

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

what is it?

As it was taught: If one of the legs of a stove is dislodged

[its legs],

it may be moved

for the sake of its use or its place, like an implement whose primary use is for a prohibited activity. If

two

of its legs are dislodged,

it is prohibited

to move it at all, because it has lost the status of an implement, since it cannot stand on only the two remaining legs.

Rav said:

Even if only one leg has been dislodged,

one as well is prohibited

to move it at all—not because of muktze, but because a decree must be made,

lest one drive it in

firmly when he comes to replace its leg and become liable for building.

c. Its subject is

Torah:

For Rav said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten by Israel, as it is stated: “The Lord will make your plagues extraordinary” (

Deuteronomy 28:59).

“Extraordinary”—I do not know what this means—

what is its subject?

When it says: “Therefore, behold, I will again perform extraordinary deeds with this people, extraordinary and wondrous,

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

You must say: “extraordinary”—

this is the Torah

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

The Sages taught: When our Sages entered the vineyard

in Yavne, they said: The Torah is destined to be forgotten by Israel.

As it is stated: “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord God, when I will send a famine upon the land—not a famine for bread, nor 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 about 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. Thus, there are three types of matters that will be forgotten. They are:

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 fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by 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 about to seek the word of the Lord”

which implies that they will go from place to place within a single city?

They said: A woman is destined to take a loaf of teruma and go around to the synagogues and batei-midrash, to find out whether it is impure or pure, and no one will understand

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

And we raise a difficulty: How is it possible that in the batei-midrash they did not know

whether it was pure or whether it was impure,

when the Written Torah was before them, and

it is explicitly written in it

that a loaf is susceptible to impurity, as it is stated:

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

Leviticus 11:34).

And we answer:

Rather,

her question was

to know whether

the loaf that had become impure through an impure oven was

first-degree

in terms of impurity

or whether it was second-degree

in terms of impurity,

and no one understood

how to answer her.

And we raise an objection:

This too

is an explicit halakha in

the Mishna,

and it cannot be entertained that the Mishna would be forgotten.

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

the bread inside it

is

second-degree in terms of impurity,

because

the oven

that became impure through the creeping creature is

first-degree

[a first-degree source of impurity], and it renders the bread inside it second-degree in terms of 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 raised by Rav Adda, in the manner that Rava answered it.

For Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava:

Why is the bread in the oven only second-degree in terms of impurity? Is not an ordinary oven made of earthenware, and is it not rendered impure when a creeping creature is inside its airspace even if it does not touch it? Since that is so,

we should regard this oven as though it were filled with impurity

[we should consider the oven as though it were filled with impurity],

and the bread should be first-degree

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 filled with impurity,”

and this is demonstrated by the law derived by the beraita from the verse.

As it was taught: Could it be that all vessels

that are found inside an earthenware vessel containing a creeping creature in its airspace

become impure through the airspace of an earthenware vessel?

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

Leviticus 11:33–34.) Only

food becomes impure through the airspace of an earthenware vessel; vessels do not become impure through the airspace of an earthenware vessel.

The Torah teaches two matters here:

a. An earthenware vessel becomes impure through its airspace and renders others impure through its airspace, but it is not filled with impurity. For if it were so, why would a wooden or metal vessel found inside the earthenware vessel not become impure, when it is susceptible to impurity through its outer surface?

b. A vessel becomes impure only through a primary source of impurity, and not through a first-degree source of impurity. Therefore, vessels found inside an earthenware vessel do not receive impurity from it.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Heaven forbid that the Torah should be forgotten by 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).