Talmud - Eruvin 102b עירובין ק״ב ב׳

its incline does not extend a handbreadth from the center to each side. However, if its incline extends a handbreadth from the center to the side, the halakha is that the inclines of tents are considered like tents, and it is therefore prohibited to suspend them.

And Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: With regard to a stiff felt hat [sayna], it is permitted to wear it on Shabbat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that wearing this hat is prohibited? The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This baraita, which prohibits wearing a felt hat, is referring to a case where the hat extends a handbreadth from the person’s head and is therefore regarded as a tent; whereas that statement by Rav Sheisha, who permits doing so, is referring to a case where it does not extend a handbreadth from one’s head.

The Gemara is surprised at this answer: But if that is so, one who pulled his cloak a handbreadth beyond his head, is it also prohibited for him to do so? This is unreasonable, as it is an article of clothing, not a tent.

Rather, the previous explanation must be rejected, as the issue with regard to a felt hat is not whether it is considered a tent, but whether there is concern that one might come to carry it in the public domain if it falls from his head. This is not difficult; this statement of Rav Sheisha, which permits it, is referring to a case where the hat fits snugly on his head. There is no concern lest the hat fall and one will come to carry it; therefore it is permitted to wear it. Conversely, that baraita, which prohibits wearing this hat, is referring to a case where it does not fit snugly on his head. It is therefore liable to fall, and one might come to carry it in the public domain.

MISHNA: One may restore the lower hinge pin of the door of a carriage, box, or cupboard that becomes dislocated to its place on Shabbat in the Temple, as this action is prohibited by rabbinic decree, which is not in effect in the Temple; but it may not be restored to its place in the rest of the country. And restoring the upper hinge pin is prohibited in both places, as this is considered building, a labor prohibited by Torah law, which applies everywhere. Rabbi Yehuda says: Restoring the upper hinge pin to its place is permitted in the Temple, while one may restore the lower one to its place even in the rest of the country.

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita: With regard to the lower hinge pin of the door of a carriage, box, or cupboard, one may restore it to its place in the Temple; in the rest of the country one may only push it back into place, provided that it did not come out of its socket entirely. As for the upper hinge, one may not restore it in either place. This is prohibited as a preventive measure, lest one come to bang it in forcefully, thereby performing an actual labor prohibited by Torah law. And if he actually banged it in, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, as his action is considered building.

With regard to the hinge pin of the door of a pit, cistern, or an extension to a building, one may not restore it to its place at all. And if one restored it to its place, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The above distinction applies only to movable utensils, whereas anything attached to the ground may certainly not be fixed in place, as this is regarded as prohibited building.

MISHNA: One may return to its place a bandage that became detached from a wound on Shabbat in the Temple. In the Temple, this is not prohibited as a preventive measure, lest one come to spread the ointment and thereby perform the prohibited labor of smoothing. However, one may not return a bandage to its place in the rest of the country. If one sought to apply the bandage for the first time to an untreated wound on Shabbat, it is prohibited in both places.

GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita: With regard to a bandage that became detached from a wound, one may return it to its place on Shabbat in all cases. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it slipped downward, one may push it upward; if it slipped upward, one may push it downward. One may also uncover part of the bandage and clean the opening of the wound on one side, and then uncover another part of the bandage on the other side and clean the opening of the wound on that side.

However, one may not clean the bandage itself, because that would involve spreading the ointment, which is a subcategory of the prohibited labor of smoothing, and if one spread the ointment he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Actually restoring a bandage that was completely detached from the wound is prohibited in all cases.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Ḥisda said: The Sages taught that it is permitted to restore the bandage to the wound only where it became detached and fell onto a utensil, in which case one may immediately pick it up and replace it. However, if it became detached and fell onto the ground, everyone agrees it is prohibited, as this is considered as though one were bandaging the wound for the first time.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I was standing before Father, and his bandage fell onto a pillow and he replaced it. I said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold that which Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute is restricted to a case where the bandage became detached and fell onto a utensil, but if it became detached and fell onto the ground, everyone agrees that it is prohibited; and furthermore, Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that it is prohibited to replace even a bandage that fell onto a utensil?

He said to me: I did not hear this teaching; that is to say, I do not agree with Rav Ḥisda’s interpretation that the dispute is only in a case where the bandage fell onto a utensil. Rather, they disagree even if it fell onto the ground, and the halakha is that the bandage may be restored to the wound.

MISHNA: One may tie up on Shabbat a string [nima] that came loose from a harp used in the Temple, but not in the rest of the country. And tying the string to the harp for the first time is prohibited both here and there.

GEMARA: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If a harp string broke, one would not tie it up with a knot, but fashion a bow. This teaching indicates that tying up a harp string is prohibited even in the Temple. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult; this baraita, which prohibits tying, was taught in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

The Gemara clarifies this answer: According to Rabbi Eliezer, who said that the preparations that enable the performance of a mitzva override the prohibitions of Shabbat, one may tie even the broken harp string, as this is for the purpose of the mitzva of accompanying the Temple service with music. However, according to the Rabbis, who say that preparations for a mitzva do not override Shabbat prohibitions, one may only fashion a bow.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If in fact the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits facilitating performance of a mitzva even when it involves desecration of Shabbat, even in a case where the string did not break and one is tying it for the first time, this too should be permitted, as he is acting for the purpose of a mitzva.

Rather, the Gemara provides a different resolution of the contradiction: It is not difficult. This, the mishna that permits tying the broken string, was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that making a bow is considered tying, and there is no difference between the two actions; and that, the baraita that prohibits it, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who rule that fashioning a bow is not prohibited by Torah law, and therefore it is permitted to fashion a bow.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with whose opinion did he express his view?

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Eruvin 102b discusses whether a felt hat counts as a tent-like covering on Shabbat and examines concerns about it falling and being carried in public.