this is just as it is with regard to the case of a bed designated exclusively for vessels, as it is taught in a baraita: If the bed in a mourner’s house was a bed designated for vessels and not for sleeping, one need not overturn it. The same is true with regard to the bed of fortune. Since it is not for sleeping, one need not overturn it.

Rather, if defining a dargash as a bed of fortune is difficult, this is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A mourner need not overturn a dargash; rather, he loosens the loops that connect the straps that support the bedding to the bedframe, and it collapses on its own. And if a dargash is a bed of fortune, does it have loops [karvitin]? When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: I asked one of the Sages about the meaning of dargash, and Rav Taḥalifa, from the West, was his name, who frequented the tanners’ market. And he said to me: What is a dargash? It is a leather bed.

It was stated: Which is a bed and which is a dargash? Rabbi Yirmeya said: In a bed, one fastens the supporting straps over the bedframe; in a dargash, one fastens the straps through holes in the bedframe itself. The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna in tractate Kelim (16:1): With regard to wooden vessels, from when are they considered finished vessels and susceptible to ritual impurity? A bed and a crib are susceptible from when he smooths them with the skin of a fish. And the objection is: If in a bed the straps are fastened over the bedframe, why do I need smoothing with the skin of a fish? The wood of the bedframe is obscured from view.

Rather, with regard to both this, a bed, and that, a dargash, one fastens the straps through holes in the bedframes themselves, and the difference between them is: In a bed, the straps are inserted and extracted through holes in the bedframe; in a dargash, the straps are inserted and extracted through loops attached to the bedframe, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that one loosens the loops and the bedding falls on its own.

Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: With regard to a bed whose two posts [nakliteha] protrude, rendering its overturning impossible, he stands it on its side, and that is sufficient for him. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to the overturning of a dargash.

MISHNA: For one who vows that the city is forbidden to him, it is permitted to enter the Shabbat boundary of that city, the two-thousand-cubit area surrounding the city, and it is prohibited to enter its outskirts, the seventy-cubit area adjacent to the city. However, for one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to enter only from the doorstop and inward.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the legal status of the outskirts of a city are like that of the city itself? Rabbi Yoḥanan said that it is as the verse states: “And it came to pass when Joshua was in Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked” (Joshua 5:13). What is the meaning of “in Jericho”? If we say that it means in Jericho proper, isn’t it written: “And Jericho was completely shut” (Joshua 6:1)? Rather, learn from here that Joshua was in the outskirts of the city. And although he was in the outskirts, the verse states that he was in Jericho.

The Gemara asks: Say that the legal status of one located even in the Shabbat boundary of a city is like that of one inside the town itself, and perhaps although Joshua was merely within the Shabbat boundary, the verse characterizes him as being in Jericho. The Gemara rejects this: Isn’t it written with regard to the boundary of a city: “And you shall measure outside the city…two thousand cubits” (Numbers 35:5)? This indicates that the boundary of a city is considered outside the town and not part of the city itself.

§ We learned in the mishna: For one who vows that a house is forbidden to him, it is prohibited to enter only from the doorstop and inward. The Gemara infers: However, from the doorstop outward, no, it is permitted to enter. Rav Mari raised an objection based on a verse written with regard to leprosy: “And the priest shall go out from the house to the entrance of the house, and he shall quarantine the house” (Leviticus 14:38). And the question was raised in the halakhic midrash: One might have thought that the priest may go to his house and quarantine the leprous house that he examined from there. Therefore, the verse states: “To the entrance of the house” (Leviticus 14:38). If he may go only to the entrance of the house, one might have thought that he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine the house from there. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall go out from the house,” indicating that he may not quarantine the house until he goes out from the entire house.

How so? Ab initio, the priest stands outside, alongside the door jamb, and quarantines the house. And from where is it derived that if he went to his house and quarantined the house, or stood beneath the lintel and quarantined the house, that his quarantine is an effective quarantine after the fact? The verse states: “And he shall quarantine the house” (Leviticus 14:38), which means in any case. Apparently, the legal status of the area beneath the lintel is identical to the status inside the house, even if it is beyond the doorstop. The Gemara answers: It is different with regard to a leprous house, as it is written: “And the priest shall go out from the house,” indicating that he cannot quarantine the house until he goes out from the entire house.