it is in a case where it cannot be picked up by its rope, as it is too thin to bear the weight of the bolt. As this Sage, Rabbi Yosei, maintains: Since it has a knob at its end, it has the status of a vessel, and one is therefore permitted to secure the door with it. And this Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, maintains: Since it cannot be picked up by its rope, no, it is not considered a proper vessel merely because of the knob, and consequently, its use is prohibited on Shabbat.

MISHNA: With regard to a bolt that is attached to the door, but owing to the length of the rope, it does not hang from the door but drags along the ground, one may lock a door with it in the Temple on Shabbat, as this is prohibited only by rabbinic decree, issued to enhance the character of Shabbat as a day of rest, and rabbinic decrees are not in effect in the Temple. However, one may not lock a door with this bolt in the country outside the Temple.

And with regard to one that is not tied at all but rests entirely on the ground, it is prohibited in both places, in and outside the Temple, as the use of this bolt is considered building. Rabbi Yehuda says: One that rests entirely on the ground is permitted in the Temple, and one that drags along the ground is permitted even in the rest of the country.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: Which is the bolt that drags along the ground with which one may lock a door on Shabbat in the Temple but not in the rest of the country? Any that is tied to the door and suspended from it, while one end of the bolt reaches the ground. Rabbi Yehuda says: This type of bolt is permitted even in the rest of the country. Rather, which is the bolt with which one may lock a door in the Temple but not in the rest of the country? Any that is neither tied to the door nor suspended from it, but which one removes after use and places in a corner.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a bolt that is dragged. It is permitted to use this bolt on Shabbat even outside the Temple, but it is prohibited to use a bolt that rests on the ground, even in the Temple.

Rava said: And that is the case only if the bolt is tied to the door itself. The Gemara is surprised by this ruling: Is that really so? But didn’t Rabbi Tavla happen to come to Meḥoza and he saw a certain bolt that was suspended from the side of the door, and he did not say anything to the people there with regard to a prohibition? The Gemara rejects this contention: That bolt was one that could be picked up by its rope. Everyone agrees that a bolt of this kind may be used for locking a door on Shabbat even if it is not tied to the door itself.

The Gemara relates that Rav Avya once happened to come to Neharde’a and saw a certain person tying a bolt to a door with a reed. He said: This door may not be locked on Shabbat, as the bolt is not adequately fastened to it.

Rabbi Zeira raised the following dilemma: If the bolt was pressed into the ground through a hole in the threshold, what is the halakha? Is the use of this bolt considered building? Rav Yosef said: What is Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma? Has he not heard that which was taught in the Tosefta: If the bolt was altogether detached from the rope to which it had been tied, it is prohibited; but if it was pressed into the ground, it is permitted; and Rabbi Yehuda said: If it was pressed into the ground, even though it was not entirely detached from its rope, it is prohibited?

And Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to a bolt that was pressed into the ground. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages prohibited the use of a bolt that was pressed into the ground? Abaye said: They prohibited its use because it appears like building, as the bolt enters all the way into the ground.

Rav Neḥumei bar Zekharya raised a dilemma before Abaye: If one produced a handle for the bolt in order to hold it, but it was not tied to the door, what is the halakha? Abaye said to him: A pestle, you say? If it has a handle it is a proper utensil, which may be freely used according to all opinions. This teaching was stated also in the form of a direct statement: Rav Neḥumei bar Adda said: If he produced a handle for the bolt, it is permitted.

The Gemara relates that there was a certain cross beam in the house of Rabbi Pedat that was so heavy it took ten people to lift it, and they would place it against the door at night in order to secure it. And Rabbi Pedat did not say anything to them with regard to a possible prohibition. He said: I permit it because it has the status of a utensil. It appears like a utensil and it serves a distinct purpose; therefore, it may be used on Shabbat.

The Gemara further relates that there was a certain mortar in the house of Mar Shmuel that had a capacity of an adriva, which is equal to half a kor. Mar Shmuel permitted them to place it against the door to secure it. He said: It falls into the halakhic category of a utensil, and it may therefore be used to secure the door, as this is not regarded as building.

Rami bar Yeḥezkel sent a request to Rav Amram: Let the Master tell us some of those outstanding matters that you told us in the name of Rav Asi with regard to the arches of a boat upon which mats are draped as protection against the elements. Rav Amram sent back to him that Rav Asi said as follows: With regard to the arches of a boat, when they are a handbreadth wide, or even if they are not a handbreadth wide but there is less than three handbreadths between them, in which case the intervening space is regarded as filled in based on the principle of lavud, on the following day, i.e., on Shabbat, one may bring a mat and spread it over them.

What is the reason for this leniency? The reason is that this is considered adding to a temporary tent, and therefore one may well spread a mat over the arches. They themselves constitute a tent. Therefore, one who spreads a mat over them is merely adding to the temporary tent.

The Gemara further relates that Rav Huna had certain rams that required shade during the day and required air at night. He therefore sought a way for the pen to be covered by day but not at night, even on Shabbat. He came before Rav to seek his advice.

Rav said to him: Go, roll up the mats [budeya] that were spread out there for shade, but leave one handbreadth covered. On the following day, unroll the entire mat, which is considered adding to a temporary tent and which is permitted.

Rav said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: With regard to a curtain put up for privacy, one is permitted to spread it out, and one is also permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat. As it is not a tent but merely a temporary wall, akin to a door, one does not violate a prohibition if it is not fixed firmly in place.

With regard to a bridal canopy, a curtain that is suspended over a bed and inclines outward in both directions, it is permitted both to dismantle it and to spread it on Shabbat. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: We said that this is permitted only where the curtain extends over the bed and falls on both sides in such a manner that the top of the curtain, the apex of the canopy, is less than a handbreadth wide. However, if its top is a handbreadth wide, i.e., if the curtain does not rise to a sharp point but extends horizontally for a handbreadth, after which it falls to the side, this handbreadth is regarded as a tent and is therefore prohibited.

And even where its horizontal top is not a handbreadth wide, we said this leniency only if its width is less than a handbreadth within three handbreadths from its top. However, if its width is a handbreadth within three handbreadths from its top, this handbreadth is considered a tent and it is therefore prohibited to spread it on Shabbat.

And even where it is less than a handbreadth wide within three handbreadths of its top, we said this leniency only where