ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous dafEruvin 102
(a) A bolt that is tied but that is dragging on the floor - is only Asur
mi'de'Rabbanan, because it looks like Binyan, and it is permitted in the
Mikdash because 'Ein Shevus ba'Mikdash'.
(b) We are talking about a bolt that is straight - that does not have a
thick rounded edge.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah holds that even using a bolt that is *not* tied does not
constitute real Binyan; it only *resembles* Binyan, and is therefore
permitted in the Beis Hamikdash.
(d) He also holds that Nagar ha'Nigrar does not even resemble Binyan
(since one end is suspended); consequently, it is even permitted outside
the Beis Hamikdash.
(a) Rav Yehudah quoting Shmuel, rules like Rebbi Yehudah by Nagar
(b) We rule like Rebbi Yehudah by Nagar ha'Nigrar - provided it is tied to
the actual door itself, and not just to the door-post.
(c) Until now, we have been speaking of a bolt that was tied with a weak
string that would have broken had they picked it up whilst it was tied to
the bolt; Rav Tivla, said nothing about a Nagar ha'Nigrar that was tied to
the door-*post*, because the string was strong.
(a) Rav Ivya stopped that man in Neherda'a from using a bolt that he was
tying with a reed - because a reed is so weak that it is as if the bolt
was not tied.
(b) Rav Yehudah maintains - that if a bolt penetrates the actual floor,
it is similar to building, and is forbidden.
(c) If one fixes a handle to the bolt - the Halachah does indeed change:
the bolt may be used even if it penetrates the actual floor.
(d) One is permitted to use an enormous beam or a mortar to lean against
the door on Shabbos - because they are fit to use (the former to sit on);
it is also common to use them for this purpose - see Tosfos DH 'Hahu'.
(a) Rav Asi permitted draping covers over the large hoops that stretched
from wall to wall on a boat - provided that, either the width of each hoop
was a Tefach, or they were less than three Tefachim apart (because, either
way, there would already be an Ohel there when Shabbos entered, and adding
a temporary Ohel to an existing one is permitted.
(b) Rav permitted Rav Huna to drape the pens on Shabbos - by covering them
partially (even as little as a Tefach) before Shabbos, and it would be
permitted to add to the Ohel on Shabbos.
(a) Rav quoting Rebbi Chiya permitted putting up and taking down ...
1. ... a veil by the door - for purposes of modesty - because it was not
left there permanently, but was constantly being put up and taken down.
(b) The canopy may also not reach a width of one Tefach within three
Tefachim from the top, nor may the slope on either side reach a width (to
make a total width of two Tefachim) by the time it reaches the bed.
2. ... a 'Chasan's canopy' - because it did not have a roof of a Tefach
(it came to a virtual point on top).
(c) This does not mean that the bed is less than two Tefachim wide -
because such a bed would be useless. We are speaking when there are a
series of such canopies stretching across the bed, each one two Tefachim
(a) The Gemara initially thought that one may not wear a fur hat if it
extends a Tefach or more beyond ones head - because putting it on
constitutes making an Ohel, and is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.
(b) In that case, asks the Gemara, one should also be forbidden to allow
part of any garment to extend one Tefach beyond one's head?
(c) The Gemara therefore concludes that it is a loose-fitting hat that is
forbidden, and one that is not tied in such a way that a wind will not
blow it off. Otherwise it is forbidden, perhaps the wind will blow it off,
and he will forget about Shabbos and carry it. (See Tosfos, DH Ha
deMihadek who conclude from our Sugya, that a stiff felt hat is forbidden
because of Ohel.)
(a) The Tana Kama permits returning a lower-hinge of the door of a
cupboard that came out of its socket - in the Beis Hamikdash, but not
elsewhere - because one may come to use tools to fix it properly.
(b) It is forbidden to return an upper-hinge that came out of its socket,
even in the Beis-Hamikdash - since, when the top hinge comes out, the
whole door comes loose, and returning it, is Binyan d'Oraysa, which is
forbidden even in the Beis Hamikdash.
(c) A box or a cupboard etc. in the Beis Hamikdash might contain salt,
frankincense or incense.
(d) It is forbidden to return the hinge of the door of a pit, and
enclosure or a room - because they are attached to the ground, and are
therefore considered Binyan.
(a) Returning a plaster (a sort of balm) is prohibited on Shabbos because
it might entail rubbing smooth the soft surface of the plaster;
consequently, Chazal forbade it.
(b) They nevertheless permitted a Kohen serving in the Beis-Hamikdash to
return his plaster, because, since the Kohen removed it in the first
instance in order to perform the Avodah, and we are afraid that, unless we
permit him to return it, he will opt not to remove the plaster and not to
do the Avodah. Consequently, we permit him to return the plaster, to
encourage him to remove it in the first place, in order to do the Avodah.
Note: The decree of 'Shechikas Samemanim' - Chazal's basic motive for
forbidding cures on Shabbos - does not apply to re-placing a plaster,
which was already on when Shabbos entered (See Tosfos DH 'Machzirin').
(c) Putting on a plaster initially on Shabbos - is forbidden even in the
Beis Hamikdash, since the Kohen is doing it, not for the sake of the
Avodah, but for his own convenience, and *that*, Chazal did not permit.
(d) The Chachamim permit returning a plaster that fell off, back to its
place - because it is unusual for a plaster to fall off by itself, and
whenever something is unusual, Chazal did not issue a decree.
(a) The Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah, who does not permit returning a
plaster which fell off to be returned; however, he does permit pushing a
plaster which slipped from the wound, back into place.
(b) Rav Ashi returned a plaster that fell on to a cushion, on Shabbos -
because he did not agree with Rav Chisda, who claimed that if the plaster
fell on *the floor*, even the Rabbanan agree that returning it is
prohibited, and their dispute is when it fell on to *an object*. In *his*
opinion, they argue when the plaster fell on to the floor, but if it fell
on to an object, even Rebbi Yehudah concedes that one may return it - and
the Halachah is like him, as we just stated.
(a) To clean the wound on Shabbos - one lifts each corner of the plaster,
and cleans the wound underneath.
(b) One should not however, clean the plaster, since that entails
(a) Rebbi Eliezer holds 'Machshirei Mitzvah (even she'Efshar La'asosan
me'Erev Shabbos) Dochin Shabbos'?
(b) If the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Eliezer, then why does the Tana
of our Mishnah permit only *repairing* the string (if it broke *on
Shabbos*), but not *making* any part of the instrument initially?
(c) We then try to establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah - (who
holds on the one hand, like Rebbi Eliezer, but on the other, that tying a
bow on Shabbos is Asur just like tying a knot (therefore he disagrees with
the Rabbanan, who permit tying the harp-string with a bow, but not with a
knot - *He* forbids both.
(a) The Rabbanan in the Beraisa say that a Ben Levi, whose harp-string
broke (on Shabbos), is permitted to repair it by tying it with a knot on
Shabbos; in other words, they hold 'Machshirei Mitzvah, she'I Efshar
La'asosan me'Erev Shabbos, Dochin Shabbos'.
(b) Rebbi Shimon holds that they must repair it by tying a bow, and not a
(c) 'Meshalshel mi'Lema'alah, ve'Korech mi'Lematah' (of Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar) - means that he can repair the harp by unwinding the strings that
are wound round tightly the little pegs, and extending them. And this will
at least produces a sound, which it will not do, if one ties a knot in it,
like the Chachamim say.
(d) The Rabbanan prefer that one ties a knot rather than unwind the
string, since the latter is more similar to making a new harp, which they
forbid, but which they are afraid, one will now deduce is permitted.
(a) Alternatively, even the Beraisa (which permits only to repair the harp
by tying a *bow*, but not a *knot*) could go like the Rabbanan - because
it is speaking when the string snapped at one of the *ends*, in which
case, a bow will suffice without interfering with the tone of that string;
whereas our Mishnah speaks when the string snapped in the *middle*, where
a knot is necessary to produce a proper note.
(b) 'Ha ve'Ha be'Emtza, Mar Savar Gazrinan, u'Mar Savar Lo Gazrinan' -
simply means that the Beraisa could even be speaking when the string broke
in the middle; nevertheless, this Tana holds that, even though a bow will
interfere with the tone of the string, Chazal decreed a string that broke
in the middle, because of one that broke at the side, where a bow is
adequate; whereas the Tana of our Mishnah holds that Chazal did not decree
one because of the other.