(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 138



(a) A Gud is a large leather flask used by travelers for wine or milk. Upon setting up camp, they would fill it with wine or milk, and stretch its very wide mouth, which was attached to straps. They would then tie it to posts, allowing the wind to blow underneath it and keep its contents cool.

(b) Someone who sets up ...

1. ... a Gud, a strainer, a canopy (which has a Tefach Ohel on top - see Hagahos ha'Gra) or a portable chair - on Shabbos, is Patur Aval Asur - because he has made a temporary Ohel. The Gud, the strainer and the canopy are all Asur because they constitute making an Ohel Arai; the portable chair is Asur because, although there is nothing intrinsically wrong with putting a chair together loosely, Chazal forbade doing so, because one may just come to put it together firmly - which is forbidden because of Makeh ba'Patish (see also Tosfos DH 'Kisei Galin').
2. ... a standing-bed, a folding-chair, or a folding-chair with a hole in the middle for relieving oneself - has done nothing wrong, because he did not even make a temporary Ohel, he only turned down the bed, or unfolded a folded chair.
(c) One is Chayav for making an Ohel Keva.
(a) Were the Chachamim to hold that one is *Chayav* for straining wine from its dregs on Shabbos, then, asks Rav Sheshes, how could Rebbi Eliezer permit it Lechatchilah. What about the principle that Tana'im do not hold extreme opinions - (i.e. if one holds Chayav or Mutar, the other will inevitably hold Patur Aval Asur)?

(b) Rav Yosef queries the above principle; after all, he argues, Rebbi Eliezer, allows a woman to go out with a Jerusalem of gold, even though, in Rebbi Meir's opinion, she is Chayeves Chatas.

(c) This is no Kashya, answers the Gemara. Why should we assume that Rebbi Eliezer comes to argue with Rebbi Meir (who renders Chayav a woman who goes out with a Jerusalem of Gold; perhaps he comes to argus with the Rabbanan, who hold that she is only Patur Aval Asur.

(a) What is Borer? argues Rabah, if not taking the food and leaving the waste, which is precisely what is being performed here, when one strains the wine from its dregs.

(b) Rebbi Zeira argues. In his opinion, straining wine is not Borer but Meraked, because, like Meraked, it is the waste which remains on top, unlike Borer, where usually the opposite is the case.

(c) Their Machlokes is, that, whereas, according to Rabah, straining incorporates Borer, as well as Meraked, whereas in Rebbi Zeira's opinion, it is not related to Borer, only to Meraked.

(a) A 'Talis Kefulah' - is a large cloth that one spreads on four poles to create a roof under which one sleeps, and the four sides hang down towards the ground to make four walls which prevent the sun from shining on the sleeper.

(b) One is not Chayav for spreading it on Shabbos, but Patur Aval Asur.

(c) If it had a piece of string attached to it from before Shabbos and is already in place on the canopy, Rami bar Yechezkel permits spreading it on Shabbos.

(d) When Rav ...

1. ... forbade even a bed, he was referring to the portable beds which one takes apart and puts together as the need arises (like the portable chairs discussed above - in 1b. 1.).
2. ... permitted even a canopy - he was referring to the case of Rami bar Yechezkel - when a piece of string was tied to it before Shabbos entered.
3. ... forbade a canopy but permitted a bed - he was referring to a canopy which had no string attached, and to a bed that was standing upright, and all he had to do was to lower it to the ground (like we learnt above in 1b. 2.).
(a) One may put up a curtain on Shabbos (provided it does not come to permit something that would otherwise have been forbidden - such as Tashmish or carrying) - she'Ein Ohel Ela she'Asuy ke'Ein *Gag*'.

(b) A Chasan's canopy, which is not made to sleep under, is draped over *two* poles (which explains why it is so narrow), whereas other canopies are draped over *four*.

(c) One may set up a Chasan's canopy - provided it does not have a roof of one Tefach wide; neither does it reach the width of a Tefach within three Tefachim from the top; nor does it billow out to the width of one Tefach (which is known as 'Shipu'ei Ohalim'; nor may the draped curtain fall to more than one Tefach below the top of the bed, since that would constitute a wall, and to make an Ohel plus walls is Asur.




(a) If one is Chayav for donning a hat a Tefach wide, then why should one not also be Chayav for getting dressed, when, in the process, one sometimes spreads out the garment that one is putting on to extend to beyond a Tefach from one's head.

(b) Rav Sheshes Brei de'Rav Idi, concludes the Gemara, does not differentiate between a hat that is a Tefach wide or less, what he forbids however, is a hat that does not sit firmly on his head - not because of Ohel, but because the wind might blow it off, and he will come to carry it in the street. Other Rishonim omit the word 'Ela' from the Gemara's final answer; what the Gemara is therefore saying is that if the Tefach wide hat is of a stiff quality, then it is forbidden to wear it because of Ohel (see Tosfos DH 'Ha de'Mehadek').

(a) The Gemara on Amud Aleph forbids spreading a leather bottle from scratch - including lacing the straps, whereas our Gemara, which permits it, speaking about spreading it if its straps were already laced.

(b) It is only when two people are spreading it that it is permitted to spread the Gud, because two people have difficulty in spreading it properly; but one person, who can (by first attaching one side to a hook, and then stretching the other side), and who is bound therefore, to make an Ohel, is forbidden.

(c) Even ten people are forbidden to put up a canopy, since they are bound to make an Ohel in the process of putting it up.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, a metal oven with one leg broken off is still usable as it is, and therefore it is not Muktzah, whereas if two legs are broken off, the oven, which can no longer stand, is no more usable, and is therefore Muktzah.

(b) Rav maintains that even if an oven with only one leg broken off, is Muktzah, despite the fact that it can be used - because of the suspicion that one may then go on to fix it properly (and will be Chayav for building).

(c) We see from the Pasuk "Lachen, Hineni Yosif Lehafli es ha'Am ha'Zeh Haflei va'Fele ... ve'Avdah Chochmas Chachamav" - that the expression 'Hafle' refers to the Chachamim forgetting their learning, and it is in that context that Rav explains the Pasuk "ve'Hifla Hashem es Makoscha" - meaning that there will come a time when Torah will be forgotten.

(a) The Rabbanan of Kerem be'Yavneh knew that the time would come when Torah would be forgotten - because the Pasul in Amos speaks of 'a hunger and a thirst, not for bread and water, but to hear the word of Hashem'.

(b) "D'var Hashem" (in the Pasuk in Amos) incorporates Halachah, the date when Moshiach will come and prophecy.

(c) The Halachah that they will seek in vain cannot be whether 'the Terumah loaf (that was lying inside an earthenware oven which became Tamei) can become Tamei or not - because the Torah explicitly writes "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel", from which we learn that food does become Tamei. The written Torah is there for all to see, so why should this be a Safek to them.

(a) The Safek will be whether the Terumah loaf is a Rishon le'Tum'ah or a Sheni; whether we consider the inside of the oven as if it was full of Tum'ah - as if the air of the oven was part of the oven - in which case the food that is inside the oven (which now touched an Av ha'Tum'ah) is a Rishon - like the oven itself; or whether the food inside the oven becomes Tamei, not because it touched the Tum'ah together with the oven, but because it touched the air of the oven (which is a Rishon), to become a Sheni.

(b) According to the first side of the Sha'aleh, there is no logical reason why vessels should not also become Tamei, since they too, touched the Av ha'Tum'ah, and an Av ha'Tum'ah renders anything that touches it, Tamei. Consequently, since the Beraisa learns from "mi'Kol ha'Ochel Asher Ye'achel" that only *food* becomes Tamei in an earthenware oven, and not vessels, it must be from the air that the food becomes a Sheni, and the Torah is teaching us that food becomes Tamei from the air of an earthenware vessel, but not vessels.

(c) He explains the Pasuk "Yeshotetu ... ve'Lo Yimtze'u" to mean that one will not be able to find clear Halachah together with learning (without Machlokes) in one place.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,