We are at siman (section) 315, and we are up to 11 in the Aruch Hashulchan (Set Table). “When they arrange one barrel on top of another,” one on top of two. You have two here, and you set one over them, making an ohel (tent). He says to hold the upper one in your hand and arrange the lower one underneath it. In other words, hold the top one first, and then set up the lower ones in a shinui (change in manner). This applies when you need the air underneath. You presumably need the air to circulate so the wine, or whatever is inside, does not spoil. If you do not need the space underneath, why should it matter?
He also says that opening and closing the smoke flap on our ovens, with the metal instrument called a yuska, does not involve ohel. There are no partitions around it, and the top is already mostly covered; you are only opening a small part. You are adding to an existing temporary tent, so it is only an addition to a temporary tent. It is forbidden only when there is a fire in the oven, because of kindling and extinguishing. Obviously, if there is a fire and you cover it, you are extinguishing it; that is not the issue we are discussing.
There is a major question here, based on what we explained about the conditions for ohel: it needs mechitzot (partitions), and there must be a use for the space beneath it. If so, what about what is explained in siman 311, se’if 40, in the gloss, according to the view of Rivam: when a hat extends a handbreadth from its edges, it is considered an ohel, and it is forbidden to wear on Shabbat because that would be making an ohel? The Rambam (Maimonides) writes similarly at the end of chapter 22: “A hat, if its fabric extends outward, is forbidden, because he is making an ohel over…”
His question is: are there not any partitions here? What is the answer? The rule we have said many times is that if you need what is underneath, it is forbidden even without partitions. When did we say that partitions are a problem? Partitions are a problem even when you do not need what is underneath. But here, with the brim of a hat, or a baby stroller, the partitions are not needed if you need the ohel for what is underneath. Still, in this case, there are no partitions underneath it, and there is no need for use of the space beneath it. That is his question. Presumably, with a hat, you are only doing it to protect yourself from the sun. But if the rule is that you need what is underneath, then with a hat you do not need what is underneath; you only need to block what is above you. Someone could say, “Aren’t you underneath it? You want the shade on you.”
But the Rosh (Rabbi Asher ben Yechiel), in chapter 4 of Beitzah, explained that anything a person intends to make as an ohel—that is, for tzel (shade)—does not need all these conditions. Here is a different rule: once you are doing it for shade, that is enough. That is the greatest kind of ohel. The other conditions do not apply when you are doing it for shade. “Since the beginning of its making is for an ohel, it is forbidden.” The Rambam also intended this when he wrote about a hat made for the head, with a surrounding brim that makes shade like an ohel. He went out of his way to say that it makes shade.
It follows that when something is made to protect from the sun or rain, it does not need all those conditions. Those conditions apply to other cases where something becomes an ohel incidentally. This was also explained in se’if 7. A parasol is a complete ohel, and it is forbidden to carry it on Shabbat, even in a courtyard, since it was made only for protection. It does not matter whether it has walls, or whether you eat or sleep underneath it. It was made for shade and protection. Open the Shulchan Aruch (Set Table), siman 315, se’if 6.
It says: when arranging barrels one on top of another, hold the upper one and arrange the lower one underneath it. What does that accomplish? You still have partitions, and you still need the air underneath so it can circulate. The answer seems to be that a shinui when making a temporary ohel is a permitted way to do it. That is the only explanation we can give here. The Mishnah Berurah (Clarified Mishnah) says in se’if katan 29 that one should not arrange the lower ones first and then put the upper one on top. That would be like making an ohel, with the upper one as a roof over partitions. Although he needs the air between them so the food will not spoil, he must arrange them with a shinui. It is like an ohel, but only “like” an ohel; he changed the manner of doing it.
Now, an ohel meshupa (a pitched roof) is a complete ohel, says the Aruch Hashulchan. What does that mean? Sloping tents are considered tents, and one is liable for making an ohel; it is like building. It does not have to have a flat roof. Even a pitched roof, such as a tepee, can be forbidden, provided there is a tefach (handbreadth) somewhere. Specifically, if there is a handbreadth of width at the top—or if there is no handbreadth at the top but there is one within three handbreadths of the top—it is forbidden. Even if there is no handbreadth at the top, a handbreadth within three handbreadths of it makes it forbidden.
But if there is no handbreadth at the top, nor a handbreadth within three handbreadths of the top, it is exempt from Torah liability, but rabbinically forbidden, according to the Rif (Rabbi Isaac Alfasi) and the Rambam. This is specifically when it was not prepared for that purpose before the day began. If it was prepared for that purpose, there is not even a rabbinic prohibition. That is why they said, “Baruch ezer,” and this about a bridal canopy that has no tefach (handbreadth) at its roof, nor a tefach within three tefachim (handbreadths) of the roof. Since it is made for this purpose, it is permitted to put it up and take it down, provided it does not hang down a tefach over the bed. The speaker compares its very narrow shape to the picture in the Sukkah (booth) book.
We do not have a problem when our bedsheets hang down a lot, and the same is true of tablecloths. They do not have the status of an ohel, since the roof was already there. A tablecloth can hang over the sides of the table; the table is already there, and you are not making an ohel. The hanging part is not an ohel either. But with the bridal canopy, if it hangs down over the sides of the bed, that can be a problem. In that case, the canopy is spread only for shade and as a tent, and the bed is considered a roof because it stands in the middle of the canopy. Our beds, by contrast, were not made for shade or as a tent, and there is no resemblance to an ohel, since the roof is connected and already in place. Those beds were different from ours; they had a roof, and the canopy was made for shade and covering.
There is someone who says that every ohel meshupa without a handbreadth at the roof, or with the phrase “begibul tefach tefach,” is permitted from the outset, as with a bridal canopy. The Beit Yosef (House of Joseph) in se’if 8 did not bring di’eved. Therefore, we follow the first view. There is another condition: after the slope ends, it must not descend vertically by a handbreadth without a slope. Otherwise, the entire slope is considered a roof and the vertical handbreadth is considered partitions. When it is all sloping, the whole thing is considered a roof, so there is no handbreadth-wide roof. But if it slopes and then comes straight down, you have a roof and partitions. That is a bigger problem, even without a handbreadth at the roof.
Let us see how Maran understood this case. Se’if 8 says: every sloping ohel without a handbreadth at its roof, and without a handbreadth of width within three handbreadths of the roof, is a temporary ohel; one who makes it on Shabbat is exempt. The Mishnah Berurah explains that “every ohel” means even if it was made to last for several days. Nevertheless, since it has no handbreadth at the top, it is considered only a temporary ohel. The same law applies if the roof is flat: one is not liable mechattato unless it is a handbreadth wide. Without that, it is not considered an ohel. The reason the text mentions a sloping ohel is that it also teaches the case where there is no handbreadth within three handbreadths of the roof. If there is a handbreadth at the roof, it is considered a permanent ohel and one is liable.
A handbreadth is significant in the laws of ritual impurity. Specifically, this is when it was made to be permanent. If it was temporary, such as spreading a mat over four posts, then even if the roof is several handbreadths wide, its prohibition is only rabbinic. The Mishnah Berurah explains that “exempt” means exempt from a sin-offering, but it is rabbinically forbidden, as a decree lest one make a permanent ohel.
The Bi’ur Halachah (Explanation of the Law) says that this is according to the Rif and the Rambam. According to Rashi and the Rosh, since there is no handbreadth at the roof, it is not considered an ohel at all, and it is permitted from the outset. But Maran is stringent: even if there is no handbreadth at the roof, it is forbidden. To be precise, if there is a handbreadth at the roof and it is permanent, it is forbidden by Torah law. The novelty here is that Maran holds that even without a handbreadth at the roof, it is forbidden according to the Rif and the Rambam; Rashi and the Rosh permit it.
“Exempt” means that if someone did it on Shabbat, he is exempt, but forbidden. The Shulchan Aruch states the view of the Rif and the Rambam, and this is also the view of Rabbeinu Chananel. So do we have a case like this? An umbrella is clearly more than a handbreadth wide. A tepee has a slope, and it has a handbreadth. So are children allowed to take a couple of chairs and throw a tablecloth or quilt over them on Shabbat, then go underneath and make a little tepee? Even if they put a stick across it, that is certainly a handbreadth. According to Maran, that is a problem. The novelty, I think, is that the Rosh and Tosafot (Tosafists)—or Rashi and the others—permit it without a handbreadth.
What about the earlier case, where it was prepared before Shabbat? That was about the bridal canopy. Perhaps if it is made for that purpose, it becomes like a traskal, even though the person is putting it together. We will see another case. The Aruch Hashulchan’s se’if 7 is about a bookcase. Its general rule about ohel is that if you do not need the chalal (space) underneath, it is not called an ohel. The name ohel means that it covers what is underneath. Therefore, it is permitted to place one book here, another book there, and another book on top, even if there is a handbreadth of space. I could pile books like this on Shabbat. I do not need the air underneath them; they happen to end up arranged that way. It looks like an ohel, but it is not an ohel.
Maran says in se’if 7 that it is permitted to place one book here, another there, and another on top, since one does not need the air underneath them. The Mishnah Berurah adds that this is specifically when you need to learn from both books, or when the lower book was already there. Otherwise, even if you want to raise the upper book in order to learn from it, there is disrespect to the lower book, and it is forbidden even on a weekday.
That is the question: may I take a book and put it underneath the one I am learning from, using it as a prop or a lectern? Or was the lower book already there, and I am now learning and placing another book on top? The Mishnah Berurah says that, apart from the issue of ohel, there is a separate problem of disrespect for the books. It is allowed when you need to learn from both, or when the lower book was already there. Otherwise, even on a weekday, it is forbidden to use the lower book just to raise the upper one.
The Mishnah Berurah, in se’if katan 28, says that a Gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot may not be placed on Tanach (Hebrew Bible). That is forbidden. The rules about Tanach go the other way, even if you are learning from the books beside it. But the Magen Avraham, in siman 154, tends to permit placing books on top of one another. He brings proof from this case that it is permitted even when you do not intend to learn from all of them. The question is whether this applies to all sacred books; not every book in the case is necessarily a sacred book. The objection is that perhaps the case is one where you need the space occupied by the books and put them one on top of another for that need, or where you learned from one book, set it aside, learned from another, and then placed one on top of them. Nevertheless, the discussion concludes that our practice appears to follow the Magen Avraham. The Yalkut Yosef says it is proper to be stringent like the Taz. So, according to that view, one should not take a book out of its place just to use it as a prop; it is different if it was already there.
The Mishnah Berurah, in se’if katan 31, continues: for this same reason, it is permitted to spread a tablecloth over a table, even if its edges hang down the sides and almost reach the ground. There is no ohel, because you do not need the air under the table. Also, what is on the table is not an ohel, since there is no space between it and the table, and what hangs down from it is permitted as well. Once what is on the table is not an ohel, what hangs down is not an ohel either.
There is no space under the tablecloth on top of the table. A blanket over a person is not automatically an ohel; there has to be a handbreadth of space. Someone points out that the Mishnah Berurah’s se’if katan 22 says there are authorities who disagree and that this is also the view of Maran Shulchan Aruch. The discussion there concerns the sides of a box and a bed. The Taz writes that a bed is ordinarily used for the space underneath it, such as for putting shoes there. Therefore, it is forbidden even if it has only two sides, because two sides can be considered an ohel with partitions. Regarding a table, there are authorities who are lenient about placing the top board on it even when it has four covered partitions, since one presumably does not need the space underneath it, unless that space is normally used. The wording of the Shulchan Aruch may imply that one should be stringent if the table has partitions, so it is proper to take the Taz’s view into account and hold the board in the air.
Still, the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, which mentions the legs of the table, seems to imply that if the table had partitions, one should be stringent. The Mishnah Berurah therefore says it is proper to be concerned for the Taz’s view: hold the board in the air, and cover underneath it with the legs, since the legs are not called partitions. I do not see why that would mean that a tablecloth hanging down the sides is forbidden. The Ben Ish Chai was not stringent about putting a tablecloth on Shabbat. Perhaps the concern is when it hangs down all four sides to the ground and someone uses the space beneath it to store things. But that is not what we are doing when we put a tablecloth on a table.
The text says that the decree against a temporary ohel, even where there are no partitions underneath, applies specifically when one needs the space underneath. If one does not intend to make a covering over what is underneath, it is permitted. Therefore, with a bed or table whose partitions are not attached to boards, and where the boards are normally arranged on the supports, it is permitted to arrange them on Shabbat, even though the boards cover the space underneath, because that space is not needed. They are not made for sitting underneath or putting something underneath, but only to serve what is on top.
That is when the partitions do not reach the ground. But if they reach the ground, like the sides of a box, or come within three handbreadths of the ground, which makes them subject to the rule of lavud, it is forbidden to arrange the boards that serve as the bed or table on top of them. Then there is a roof and partitions, even if you do not need the space underneath. I accept that distinction, but that is not a tablecloth: the roof of the table was already there. The tablecloth lies flat on it; where is the ohel in the tablecloth?
The Mishnah Berurah is nevertheless lenient about a tablecloth. It explicitly says that it is permitted to spread a cloth over the table, with its edges hanging down on every side, even if they come close to the ground, because you do not need the air beneath the table. The key is that what lies on the table is not an ohel, since there is no space between it and the table. Perhaps he is discussing a case where something is elevated, or where there is already a space on the table that the cloth covers, and then the cloth hangs down. That could create a roof with walls. But that is not our ordinary table. Therefore, the practical ruling is that one may put a tablecloth on the table.
We should distinguish that from a case where someone puts boards together to make a table: that is permitted because there are no partitions and he needs only what is on top. If there are partitions at the sides that reach the ground, or come within three handbreadths of it, that is a problem, because then there is a roof and partitions even though the space underneath is not needed. But a tablecloth laid flat on an existing table is different. The Mishnah Berurah says there is no space between the cloth and the table, so it is not an ohel.
Someone asks whether the curtains of the Mishkan (Tabernacle) are relevant. One of them was called an ohel; which one? The top one. The phrase says, le'ohel al haMishkan (as a covering over the Tabernacle). It is a covering for the Mishkan. I do not know whether that is a law of ohel, but the comparison is being made to the tablecloth.
Now let us go to se’if 9, the famous case of a meshameret (a filter). The Aruch Hashulchan discusses shemarim (the dregs of the wine) being strained. You take a cloth and stretch it over a vessel to use it as a filter. The question is whether that makes an ohel. Even though a roof without partitions is not an ohel, and you can hang a barrel on a peg, the strainer is rabbinically forbidden, and one should not do it in the weekday manner. This sounds less like an ohel issue and more like a restriction against doing an ordinary weekday activity on Shabbat, so as not to treat Shabbat disrespectfully.
You may stretch it out for fruit, or strain wine or clear water, which is not a problem of borer (sorting) and is not disrespectful. This sounds like a special rule about wine dregs, not a general ohel issue. The Mishnah Berurah, in se’if katan 37, describes it as a kind of sack, called “lugin, zak,” wide and open above, closed and pointed below. You put the pointed end into the vessel and wrap the wide upper edge around its opening. It ends up as a roof for the vessel, like an ohel, and is rabbinically forbidden. But hanging the strainer flat over a peg, with no vessel underneath, is permitted; it is not even considered a temporary ohel. It is also permitted to hang a vessel on a peg.
Now se’if 10, a folded tallit (prayer shawl). The Aruch Hashulchan describes folding it over a pole, with its ends reaching the ground, so that a person can go underneath and sit protected from the sun. It is forbidden to hang it that way on Shabbat, even though there is no handbreadth at the roof and none within three handbreadths of it, because the main intention is shade. Here the issue is that it is for shade. In the case of a hat, we discussed a handbreadth; here, even without one, making it for shade makes it forbidden.
But if it was hanging on the pole from before Shabbat and had been prepared for this, it is permitted to spread it and take it down. The point is that putting it on the pole on Shabbat is the problem. This is like the bridal canopy: if it was already there, it is permitted to open and close it. It is only an addition to a temporary ohel when it was hanging there before Shabbat. It is therefore also permitted to take it down, since when there is no prohibition in building, there is no prohibition in taking it apart. If it has a roof a handbreadth wide, however, it is a complete ohel, and it is forbidden to spread it even if it was hanging there before Shabbat, unless it had already been opened a handbreadth before Shabbat.
The rule, then, is that if it is made for shade, you cannot put it on the poles on Shabbat, even if it is less than a handbreadth. If it was on the poles before Shabbat and has no handbreadth, there is no problem. If it does have a handbreadth, it must have been opened by at least a handbreadth before Shabbat; then you can add to it on Shabbat. The Shulchan Aruch says that a folded tallit with strings hanging from it, which was hanging there from before Shabbat, may be spread and taken down, and the same applies to the parochet (the curtain).
The Mishnah Berurah explains that the folded tallit was placed over a rod between two walls, with its two ends hanging down to the ground. A person goes between them and sits in the shade. It would have been forbidden to do this on Shabbat; it is an ohel arai, and one is exempt but forbidden. But if, when the tallit was folded and resting on the rod before Shabbat, it had strings that could be used to spread it out, it is permitted to spread it along the rod on Shabbat. Since it is easy to pull it using the strings, it is as if the tallit had already been spread a handbreadth before Shabbat. It is then only adding to a temporary ohel, which is permitted.
The Magen Avraham says this refers to a case where, after it is spread, the roof is not a handbreadth wide. If it were a handbreadth wide, the strings would not help. This case is about spreading a tallit across a rod on Shabbat. It is not necessarily an ohel underneath; it is being spread to block the sun and make shade. The Mishnah Berurah says that the same applies to a parochet, and includes a curtain in front of a doorway. The Magen Avraham explains that “the same applies” is not exact: in this case it is permitted even without strings, because an ohel must be made in the form of a roof. A parochet is not a roof.
The Gemara says that a folded tallit should not be spread, and if one did so, he is exempt but forbidden. If a string or cord was wrapped around it, it is permitted to spread it from the outset. Rashi explains that it was folded over a pole and had a cord attached so that it could be pulled open. The Rambam, however, writes that a folded tallit with strings hanging from it before Shabbat may be spread and taken down. Perhaps he holds that it is enough for the tallit to be tied with strings; they do not have to be made specifically for pulling it open. The Shulchan Aruch relies here on the Rambam’s wording and does not follow Rashi.
The question is whether the strings must have been made for this purpose, or whether it is enough that there are strings on it. It sounds like Maran is lenient. This is a different case: perhaps you are not really making an ohel, but creating a vertical divider. Why would that be called an ohel? A parochet is a wall-like item. We will look at the case in Menuchat Ahavah (Rest of Love).
Menuchat Ahavah says it is permitted to hang a parochet on the ark on Shabbat, but one must take care not to make an ohel a handbreadth wide while hanging it. Therefore, if the parochet is large, two people should hang it, not one person. Terumat Hadeshen (Ashes of the Offering) wrote that it is permitted to hang a parochet on the ark on Shabbat. At first glance, a parochet that is regularly hung there should be forbidden because of making an ohel. But one can say that the parochet in front of the ark is different: the ark already has a door, and the parochet is there only for modesty. It therefore does not have the status of a permanent partition, and it is permitted.
Terumat Hadeshen concluded that people are concerned about the prohibition, and a synagogue attendant told him that one of the great authorities did not want to permit it; therefore, he refrained from permitting it. But Maran, in the Beit Yosef, wrote that nowadays everyone practices leniently in this matter, and we have not seen anyone protest. That is also implied by what he wrote in the Shulchan Aruch, se’if 12. Hanging a parochet is a separate law from the folded tallit. The question in the tallit case is whether it was already on a pole and whether strings let you open it. In the parochet case, perhaps a single person holding it makes a handbreadth-wide roof as he hangs it, whereas two people holding it from both sides avoid that.
We also saw se’if 11, the bridal canopy that has no handbreadth at its roof, nor a handbreadth within three handbreadths of it. Since it is made for this purpose, it may be spread and taken down, as long as it does not hang down a handbreadth over the bed. The Mishnah Berurah describes a pole at the head of the bed, higher than the bed, another pole at the foot, and a crossbar with a large curtain spread over it. It is prepared for this purpose before the day begins, so it is permitted even if there were no strings wrapped around it before Shabbat. The novelty is that even without strings, if it is designated for opening and closing, it is permitted. If it is not prepared that way, it is forbidden.
If it hangs down a handbreadth over the bed vertically after the slope ends, that is a problem: the sloping part is considered a roof, and the handbreadth hanging vertically is a partition. If it is all sloping like a tepee, it is different. The Mishnah Berurah also says it is permitted to spread a net over a chicken coop to prevent birds from entering, because the openings are greater than the solid parts. There is no prohibition of making an ohel. What about nets on children’s strollers to keep mosquitoes away? It depends whether the openings are indeed greater than the solid parts; I do not know about those particular nets.
As a practical ruling, did anything come out today beyond putting a tablecloth on the table? Not too much. Some days we get more practical rulings than others. We are up to se’if 12. I am going to Montreal in a few hours and will be back Wednesday morning. We are almost done with this section; we have covered its cases. I was in Lakewood a couple of weeks ago and thought I would see him, but I did not. I wanted to tell him we are using his book.
There is one more case: putting foil on something. If you think what is inside is a handbreadth of space, you are covering it. Why would you say that about a strainer? I will ask; I do not know. A strainer also has holes. That will be a good discussion. If you say it about a net, why not about a strainer? What you are saying is that it is a matter of ohel. We have not reached that yet in the Shulchan Aruch; it is going to be a major topic: can you put foil on something? Another topic is taking a drawer out and putting it back in. What is the problem with that? Chas veshalom (God forbid)—wait.