Siman 315

Just as building is a primary category of labor, so too the making of a tent is a derivative of building, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 10, law 13: "One who makes a permanent tent—this is a derivative of a builder and he is liable... One who demolishes a permanent tent—this is a derivative of a demolisher and he is liable, provided that he intends to improve." Thus far his words. We have already explained this in siman 313, section 3; see there. The liability from the Torah is specifically for a permanent tent, and by rabbinic decree they forbade even a temporary tent, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 22, law 27, and this is his wording: "One who makes a permanent tent—is liable on account of building. Therefore, one may not make a temporary tent in the first instance, nor may one demolish a temporary tent, as a decree lest one make or demolish a permanent tent; and if one made or demolished a temporary tent—he is exempt. And it is permitted to add to a temporary tent on Shabbat. How so?" etc. Thus far his words. This is the generality of the laws of a tent. And one should not ask: since the making of a tent is a derivative of building, and their liability is equal in stoning and a sin offering, if so, why is one liable for building in any amount at all, as written in siman 313, while regarding a tent we require specifically a permanent tent, and a temporary tent is not like building in any amount? However, this is not a question, for building, even in any amount, at least has the name of building upon it, as it endures for a long time; this is not the case for a tent, for when it is not permanent it only endures for a short while, and the name of a tent is not upon it. And even though we brought there from the Yerushalmi that even building for a short while is building, see there, nevertheless, it must at least be fit to endure for many days, only that he made it for a short while; this is not the case for a temporary tent, which is not fit to endure at all.

The Tur wrote: "It is forbidden to make even a temporary ohel on Shabbat and Yom Tov. Rashi explained that there is no prohibition of making an ohel except regarding a roof and not regarding partitions, and Rabbeinu Tam explained that regarding a partition as well, if one made it for the permissibility of a sukkah or for the permissibility of carrying – it is forbidden, but if he only makes it for privacy - it is permitted." Thus far his words. And one should not also ask, since it is a derivative of building, why ohel is different from building, for building is obviously applicable also to partitions and in every manner. For it can be said that the name ohel indicates that it tents over the person; if so, this is only regarding a roof, for partitions do not tent over the person, and a sign for this matter is the impurity of an ohel regarding a corpse as is known, and this is the opinion of Rashi. However, Rabbeinu Tam holds that even regarding partitions when there is a benefit for some matter of a mitzvah – it automatically is like tenting over the person, meaning that this ohel is effective for a certain matter, for the ohel of a roof provides the benefit of protecting the person, and here too it protects the person for some matter when it is also from the side. But when there is no benefit except for mere privacy – there is no benefit in it, and therefore it does not tent, meaning that the name ohel does not apply to it, and see in section 18.

Most of the poskim agreed with Rabbeinu Tam, and such is the opinion of the Rambam and the Ra'avad in chapter 4 of Sukkah, law 16, see there; therefore, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, brought in section 1 only this opinion. And it appears to me that this which is permitted regarding a mechitzah when it is for mere modesty—this is when it is temporary, even if it stands firm without swaying, or even for permanence if it does not stand without swaying, for these are included in an addition to a temporary ohel and it is permitted, as was written in siman 313. But when it stands for permanence and without swaying—it constitutes an addition to a permanent ohel and is forbidden (and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham in subsection 1, see there and examine carefully).

It is explained in the Mordechai in the chapter "Kira" that it is permitted to make a partition between men and women during the time of the sermon, see there (Taz subsection 1), meaning even if the partition stands without movement, because it is only temporary. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that therefore it is permitted to hang a curtain before the doorway, even though it is fixed there, thus far his words, meaning because it always moves and also does not hinder those who go and return through there. But in a case such as this where it would stand as a partition and without movement – it is forbidden, for this is an addition to a permanent tent (Magen Avraham ibid.). And so too it is permitted to hang a parokhet before the holy ark, even though it is permanent and it is a mitzvah for the honor of the Torah, and it is possible to compare this to the partitions of a sukkah and an eruv – nevertheless it is permitted, since before the parokhet there are doors, and it is not considered a partition at all, provided that he is careful not to make a tent with a roof of a tefach. And so too it is permitted to make a partition against the sun or against the cold or for the sake of the wind so that it does not blow, according to the details that have been explained, and so too before candles so that the wind does not extinguish them and similar to these.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: "But it is forbidden to make a partition in front of the light of a candle in order to engage in marital relations, and similarly in front of books in order to engage in relations or to relieve oneself, unless there was a tefach from while it was still day, for then it is permitted to add to it on Shabbat." Thus far his words. And the reason is that since this partition permits the relations or the relieving of oneself—it is like the partitions of a sukkah or an eruv. And even though on Yom Tov the Shas says explicitly in Beitzah (22a) that it is permitted to make a partition, this is because on Yom Tov labors for food preparation were permitted, and behold, even regarding extinguishing a candle there is a doubt there if it was not permitted on Yom Tov. And even though in the conclusion they forbade it—nevertheless, they did not forbid a light partition, which is not the case on Shabbat (and the difficulty of the Darchei Moshe brought by the Magen Avraham in subsection 3 is settled). And to cover the books with two covers—it is obvious that it is permitted on Shabbat, and similarly if a partition of less than ten tefachim is sufficient to cover the candle or the books—it is also permitted, for less than ten is like a mere covering (Magen Avraham ibid.), as less than ten is not considered a partition. And similarly, if there was a partition protruding from the side a tefach wide—it is permitted to hang a sheet upon it, for this is like an addition to a temporary tent and is permitted (ibid.).

Since it has been explained that an addition to a temporary ohel is permitted, and it is called an addition when there is already an ohel of a tefach in width upon which it is permitted to add, therefore, in small boats where it was their custom to set up hoops called "reifen," which are thin pieces of wood that are bent and made like a semi-circle, and they stick one end into the right side of the boat and the second end into the left side, and they do this with several pieces of wood and spread a mat over all of them to serve as shade. And if they want to do so on Shabbat, if one of the pieces of wood has a width of a tefach, or even if it does not have a width of a tefach but they stand near each other, each piece to its fellow, within less than three tefachim, which are like lavud and are considered as one and it results that there is a width of a tefach—it is permitted to spread a mat over them on Shabbat, for it is an addition to a temporary ohel. But when none of them has a width of a tefach and they are distant from one another by three tefachim—it is forbidden to spread a mat over them on Shabbat, for the making of a temporary ohel is forbidden. And so too regarding a baby's crib where they set up hoops and spread a sheet—it is also thus. And so too if they never remove the spread mat from above but rather roll it into a circle until its end, and when they need shade they spread the roll over its entirety, if they left a tefach spread aside from the roll—it is permitted on Shabbat to spread it, for it is an addition, and if not—it is forbidden. And the roll does not enter into the calculation of the tefach, for the roll is not an ohel, as is understood (see Taz, subsection 3).

The general rule of an ohel: that anything which does not require the space beneath it is not called an ohel, for the name ohel applies to that which overspreads what is beneath it. Therefore, it is permitted to place one book here and one book there and one book on top of them, even though there is a space of a tefach; and similarly, a table of four legs that does not have a board on top of it—it is permitted to place a board on top of it on Shabbat and this is not like an ohel, because he does not require the space beneath it. And that which will be explained, that regarding a bed there is the law of ohel, is because he requires the air beneath it to place there under the bed shoes and sandals. And regarding a table there is yet another permit, for we hold regarding a temporary ohel that there is no ohel without partitions, for over what does it overspread since there are no partitions? And even though a mat is forbidden without partitions as will be explained, this is because it is a significant matter and also his primary intent is for shade, which is not the case with a table which is a temporary ohel, it is not so without partitions (Magen Avraham subsection 7 in the name of the Rosh). And there is one who says that in truth it is one matter, which is that the conditions of an ohel require that they use the space beneath it, and consequently when there are no partitions, they do not use the space beneath it (Turei Zahav subsection 4 in the name of the Ran, see there). And the partitions must reach the ground (ibid.), and it requires four partitions, but nevertheless with two partitions one opposite the other and they use the space beneath it—it is an ohel (ibid.), but without partitions at all—it is not called usage. And only regarding a mat that we wrote that it is a great usage, in that case there is no need for partitions, and when there are four partitions, it is consequently certainly fit for some usage. Therefore, regarding a table when it has four sides that reach to the ground—it is forbidden to place the board upon it on Shabbat (ibid.), if there was not in it a space of a tefach of an ohel spread from while it was yet day (and the opinion of the Rashba is that the main point depends only on whether he requires the usage beneath it).

The making of an ohel is primarily to make the walls first, and afterward to spread the roof over the walls. But when one makes the roof first and afterward stands the walls under the roof—it is not called an ohel. And the reason seems to me to be that since an ohel is a derivative of building, and just as in building it is impossible to make the roof before the walls or the foundations of the walls, so too regarding an ohel, if one makes the roof beforehand and brings the walls under it—it is not named an ohel. Therefore, a bed that they stand up from pieces—it is forbidden to place the legs first, when they have walls reaching to the ground, and afterward to place the boards upon them for a covering. Rather, they should hold the boards first in the air, and afterward they should bring the legs under them. And a bed that has no walls like our beds—it is permitted in any manner, and so too regarding a table is the law, as we explained in the previous section.

Therefore, a bed made of frames that does not have boards but is rather closed with ropes upon which they place the bedding, if there are three tefachim between one rope and another—it is forbidden to place bedding upon it on Shabbat due to making a tent, and likewise it is forbidden to remove the bottom bedding from it on Shabbat because he is demolishing a tent. And how shall he act? He should place there a pillow or a bolster or a sheet with a width of a tefach while it is still day, and afterward he is able to spread the bedding on Shabbat as he wishes, for it is an addition to a temporary tent as I have written. Only he must be careful to spread it while the pillow is upon it, for if he removes the pillow from it—behold, he has demolished a tent, and also afterward it will be forbidden to spread it as I have written. And if there are not three tefachim between one netting and another—it is permitted in all manners, for we say lavud, and behold there is a roof here made while it was still day.

A chair made of joints, and when one wishes to sit upon it one opens it and the leather opens, and when one removes it one closes it and the leather folds—it is permitted to open it and close it ab initio, for there is no concern of an ohel in this, since it was all made as one, and this is merely for sitting and not for stretching an ohel. And so too our iron beds—one may open them and close them, for this is not like the manner of making an ohel, first the walls and afterwards the roof in the manner of building, and particularly since they have no walls at all. And so too it is permitted to set up the chuppah and to remove it, and so too the board near the wall in the beit knesset—it is permitted to set it up and to remove it (Magen Avraham, subsection 8). And there are those who are concerned about spreading a tablecloth over the table when the edges of the cloth hang from the table down to the ground, because of making an ohel, and it is an error. First, since there is a board on the table and the cloth on the table does not have the status of an ohel, consequently even for that which hangs down there is no status of an ohel; and furthermore, for it has already been explained that when one does not need the space beneath it, it is not called an ohel (Turei Zahav, subsection 7). And so too it is permitted to spread a cloth over the shtender in the beit knesset for this reason, even though the edges of the cloth hang from the sides, and one who is stringent in this is only among the wonderous.

When arranging barrels one on top of the other, one on top of two, he should hold the upper one in his hand and arrange the lower ones beneath it. However, he should not arrange the lower ones first and place the upper one upon them, so that it should not be like an ohel when he needs the air beneath it, and presumably he needs the air so that they do not become moldy (ibid. subsection 5). And it is obvious that to open and close the smoke vent in our ovens with the metal tool called a yushka—there is no concern of ohel in this, since there are no partitions around it, and furthermore, since it is already mostly covered and is nothing more than an addition to a temporary ohel. And only at a time when there is fire in the oven is it forbidden due to lighting a fire and extinguishing, but not due to ohel. (And regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 7 that it is forbidden to close the stoves with a thick garment, see there, it appears that in his days it was in a different manner than it is by us, and reflect on this.)

And there is a great question regarding this, for according to what has been explained regarding the conditions of an ohel, that it specifically requires partitions and that there must be a need for the use beneath the ohel, if so, what is that which was explained in siman 301, section 109 according to the method of Rabbeinu Tam, that a hat that extends a tefach from the brim is an ohel and it is forbidden to wear it on Shabbat because of making an ohel? And so wrote the Rambam at the end of chapter 22, and this is his wording: "A hat... and if he extended from the garment... it is forbidden, because he is making a temporary ohel." Thus far his words. But there are no partitions beneath it here, and there is also no need for the use beneath it. However, the Rosh, of blessed memory, in the fourth chapter of Beitzah (siman 11) explained to us that something which a person intends to make for an ohel, meaning for shade, does not require all these conditions; since its initial making is for an ohel, it is forbidden, see there. And this is also the intention of the Rambam there, who wrote: "A hat that they make for the head and it has a surrounding brim, which makes shade like an ohel, etc." see there. And it is found according to this that when one makes it to shelter from the sun or from rain, it does not require all these conditions, and these conditions apply to other matters where it becomes an ohel automatically, and we have already mentioned this in section 7. And also the parasol that they call "regenshires" is a complete ohel, and it is forbidden to carry it on Shabbat even in a courtyard, since it is made only to protect and to shelter from the sun or the rain, as is written there in section 113, see there.

A sloped tent is considered a complete tent, for the slopes of tents are like tents, and one is liable for making a tent and it is like building. This is specifically when there is a width of a tefach at its top, or even if there is not a tefach at its head but within less than three tefachim near its head there is a width of a tefach, such as a parasol. But when there is not a width of a tefach at its top or within less than three tefachim near its top—behold, one is exempt according to Torah law but it is forbidden by rabbinic law, according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam. And this is specifically when he did not prepare it for this while it was still day, but if he prepared it for this—there is not even a rabbinic prohibition, and therefore the sages said (138a) that a grooms' canopy that does not have a tefach at its top nor a tefach within less than three near the top, since it is prepared for this—it is permitted to spread it and it is permitted to dismantle it, and this is on the condition that it does not hang down more than a tefach over the bed. And even though with our beds when the sheets hang down a lot we do not concern ourselves with it, and similarly cloths that are on the table for which the name "tent" is not applicable, since the top was already there as I wrote, nevertheless regarding a grooms' canopy, since it is spread only for shade and as a tent—the bed is considered like a top, since the bed stands in the middle of the canopy. But our beds were not made for shade or as a tent, and the laws of a tent are not present here, since the top was already made as I wrote. And there is one who says that any sloped tent that does not have a tefach at its top or within less than three—is permitted ab initio as with a canopy (see Magen Avraham subsection 11), and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 8 did not bring this opinion, and therefore we hold according to the first opinion. And know that for the condition that there not be a width of a tefach at its top or within less than three near its top, another condition is needed, and that is that after the slope ends it does not descend a tefach vertically without a slope, for if not so, the entire slope is like a top, and the tefach that descends vertically is like walls (see Taz subsection 8).

A mishmeret that is hung over a vessel to place dregs in it to strain them, and its opening is stretched to every side—it is considered an ohel, and it is forbidden to incline it and stretch it if it was not hanging with the dregs from while it was still day. And even though it has already been explained that a roof without partitions is not an ohel, and therefore it is permitted to hang a jug on a peg, nevertheless regarding a mishmeret they forbade it by rabbinic decree, so that one should not act in the manner that he acts during the weekday (Gemara 138a), in order not to treat the Shabbat with contempt. And specifically dregs they forbade to place in it, but one may hang it to place fruit or other things in it, and likewise to strain there wine and clear water which are permitted to be strained on Shabbat, for there is no contempt in this as there is with dregs.

A doubled tallit—meaning that one folds it and places it over a pole, such that half of it hangs from the pole on this side and half on the pole on that side, and its two ends reach the ground, and a person enters to sleep there between its two ends to protect himself from the sun, for the garment is spread over him like a tent to be under the shade—it is forbidden to hang it on Shabbat. Even though its roof does not have a handbreadth, nor within less than three handbreadths adjacent to it, since his primary intent is for shade, it constitutes a tent. However, if it was hanging on the pole from the eve of Shabbat and he had preparation for this, it is permitted to extend it and it is permitted to dismantle it, as we explained regarding a bridegrooms' canopy; for this is only like an addition to a temporary tent if it was hanging from the eve of Shabbat. Consequently, it is also permitted to dismantle it, for wherever there is no prohibition regarding building, there is no prohibition regarding dismantling. And if it has a roof a handbreadth wide, or within less than three handbreadths adjacent to the roof, even if it was hanging from the eve of Shabbat, it is forbidden to extend it, for this is a complete tent; unless there was a tent a handbreadth wide from above while it was still day, for then it is also nothing more than an addition to a temporary tent. Similarly, regarding a parokhet, the law of a tent does not apply at all, and its law was already explained in section 4, and it is even more lenient than a doubled tallit.

One who spreads a parokhet or the like on Shabbat must be careful not to create an ohel at the time he spreads it. That is to say, it is the way of the parokhet that while one is engaged in hanging it, it folds slightly across its width, and if it folds a tefach, there is an ohel in this. And even though in the Gemara (138b) it challenges a similar case with a rhetorical question, and this is what is stated there: "If so, if one extended his cloak a tefach, would he also be liable?", meaning when one wraps his tallit over his head and the tallit extends from his head for a span of a tefach, would we also say that it is an ohel, see there. However, it is not comparable, for with his cloak he is not engaged in the making of an ohel, therefore it is nothing. This is not the case with a parokhet, for he is engaged in the making of an ohel, namely to provide shade before the Sefer Torah, except that by the letter of the law there is no prohibition of ohel for the reasons that have been explained. Therefore, if it folds a tefach across its width, it would have the law of an ohel, and consequently, if it is a large parokhet, one man should not hang it, for it will certainly fold a tefach, but rather two should hang it, for with two, when this one holds one end and that one holds the other end, they are able to hang it in a manner that it will not fold. And for this reason, there are those who are careful not to hang the parokhet on Shabbat (Magen Avraham, subsection 19).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: "And if there was a canopy that has a roof—one may not stretch it even ten [handbreadths], for it is impossible that it should not rise slightly from the ground and form a temporary tent." Thus far his words. This is the wording of the Rambam at the end of chapter 22. And his intention is for a canopy that has a roof a handbreadth wide, for if not so, there is no tent in this. And how is the roof recognizable? For example, that it is sewn like a rim all around from above with a width of a handbreadth, and by this the roof is recognizable (see Magen Avraham, subsection 20, and it appears that this is his intention). However, the phrasing "that it should not rise slightly from the ground" is not understood at all, and the essence of the matter is not understood. Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion that the letter mem of "from the ground" is an error, and thus it should say: "that it should not rise slightly upon the ground." And this is its explanation: for it has already been explained that a canopy that does not have a handbreadth may be spread, but when it has a handbreadth it is forbidden to spread it. And here we are not dealing with spreading it, but rather on the contrary, with stretching it like a parokhet, for in this there is no prohibition since he makes it like a parokhet, and it is like a curtain. However, due to its great size, it must necessarily fold slightly upon the ground and it will be a tent, and this is the phrasing "that it should rise," meaning that it should fold.

A garment that one spreads over the mouth of a barrel to cover it when there are liquids there—one should not spread it over the entirety of it because of ohel, but rather he should leave a small part of it revealed, for in this manner it does not appear like an ohel. And if it is difficult: why is it forbidden over the entirety of it, for has it not already been explained that a roof without partitions is not an ohel? However, it has been explained that in a place where his intent is for an ohel, partitions are not required, and here his intent is like an ohel, to shade over the wine that is there so that nothing falls into it. Therefore, when he leaves a small part revealed, there is no benefit in this, and thus it is not an ohel. And therefore it is also not similar to the cover of a pot where we are not concerned because of ohel, for a pot is the way of its cooking, and it is small in quantity and does not appear like an ohel. But the kova is very large and appears like an ohel, and we are dealing with a large barrel similar to a kova. And specifically when it is not full of wine until the top but rather is lacking a tefach in height, for ohel is relevant to a space of a tefach, but when there is no space of a tefach, ohel is not relevant, for less than a tefach is not an ohel. And this is regarding the prohibition of ohel, but there is a concern of another prohibition because of squeezing, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 320, see there.