sheshet

If one was standing praying on the Sabbath; he forgot about the Sabbath and prayed for weekday. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagree, one says he cuts the benediction short and the other says, he finishes the benediction. All agree that he finishes “Gracious Giver of knowledge”. This follows Rebbi, since Rebbi said: I wonder why they eliminated “Gracious Giver of knowledge” on Sabbath; if there is no knowledge, from where comes prayer? Rebbi Isaac said: Knowledge is great because it is in the middle between two mentions of divine names as it is said (1Samuel 2:3): “Certainly, a God of knowledge is the Eternal”. Some want to understand from here (Prov.2:5): “Then you will understand the fear of the Eternal and the knowledge of God you will find.”

Three who ate together and one wants to leave, Rav said he should recite the first benediction, then he may leave. What is the first benediction? In the Yeshivah of Rav they said, the benediction of invitation. Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rav Jeremiah: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rav Ḥanan in the name of Rav: that is “He Who feeds all.” Rav Sheshet objected, but a baraita disagrees: “Two, three are obliged to recite Grace.” If you want to say the benediction of invitation is the first one, one should state “four.” They found stated “four.” If you want to say this is “He Who feeds all”, it is difficult. If you want to say that it is “He Who is good and does good”, you cannot do that, there is a difference because Rav Huna said that “He Who is good and does good” was fixed after permission was received to bury the slain of Betar, “He Who is good” because the dead did not decompose and “He Who does good” that they could be buried. Rav Huna said, you may explain it following Rebbi Ismael since Rebbi Ismael said, “He Who is good and does good” is an obligation from the Torah as it is written (Deut.8:10): You will eat and be satiated, then you must praise, that is the benediction of invitation; the Eternal, your God, that is “He Who feeds all”; for the Land, that is the benediction over the Land; the good one, that is the benediction “builder of Jerusalem” [and so it says (Deut. 3:25) “this good mountain and the Lebanon”]; that He gave you, that is “He Who is good and does good”.

Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A person may free his ṭevel with one seah of ṭevel. How does he do it? He brings one seah of ṭevel and declares it to be Second (Tithe), redeems it, and returns to make it heave of the tithe for any other place. Ulla descended there and said this in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but they united against him. Rav Sheshet objected, does not a Mishnah contradict: “If there were before him two baskets full of figs.” And we have stated about this: “He takes from the second basket two figs and two tenths, and a tenth of a tenth.” Why can he not take two figs, declare them to be Second (Tithe), redeem them, and return to make them heave of the tithe for any other place? Rebbi Mana said, is not the Second Tithe in the first basket containing First Tithe of the second basket? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, there it is ṭevel for the First and Second. But here, Second Tithe that was put in order after First, can you return and make it First?

“How much does he have to give to the workers? Up to one third.” Rav Ḥuna and Rav Sheshet: One of them says, a third of the wages, the other says, a third of the value.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit, as we have stated: “Whether he gives it after thirty days or after ten years.” Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge, but the other said, if he writes him a prozbol.

Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abin: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. There, we have stated: “If he put it in a tree, higher than ten hand-breadths it is not an eruv, lower than ten hand-breadths it is an eruv.” Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, make an eruv for me! But here, he says I shall tithe for you. This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall make an eruv for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says tithe for me, he has to be with him.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said: The elder Rebbi Ḥiyya stated two contradictory things, that ṭevel is counted with profane food and that every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave. This is difficult; if ṭevel is counted with profane food why should it disable profane food from becoming heave? That means, it is counted with heave! Rebbi Jonah said, we also have stated both statements! We have stated there: “If tithe food was prepared with a fluid and a ṭevul yom or unwashed hands touched it, one still may in purity take heave of the tithe from it because it is of the third degree.” This implies that ṭevel is counted with profane food. But every doubt invalidates heave and disables profane food from becoming heave, as we have stated there: “If a doubt of impurity arose before it was rolled it may be processed in impurity but after it was rolled it must be processed in purity.” Rav Sheshet said, this follows Rebbi Aqiba, since Rebbi Aqiba said, he should make it in impurity and not make it single qab. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is the opinion of everybody that in a case of doubt he should make single qabim. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abun objected before Rebbi Zeïra, did we not state: “This applies also to other kinds”? Can you say she should make single qabim in cases of doubt? Rebbi Zabida said, I asked that. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: It is the law that a person may make his ṭevel impure by biblical standards as it is written (Num. 18:8): “I put on you the watch over my heaves.” Heave has to be watched, ṭevel does not have to be watched. How do I confirm (Num. 18:28): “You should give from it the Eternal’s heave to Aaron the priest?” You have to give it to Aaron in his quality of priest, but here, since you cannot give it to a Cohen in his quality of priest, you may make it impure.

If this is the case, also movables? As we have stated: What is the difference between real estate and movables? Only that real estate is given to the people of the watch but movables to any Cohen. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rav Sheshet: (Deut. 18:1) “The gifts to the Eternal and His inheritance they shall eat.” Since the gifts are for the people of the watch, so is the inheritance.

Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders. It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust? That is Rebbi Zeˋira, as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated there: “Its undercarriage, if it can be separated it is not connected to it, will not be measured with it, does not protect in a tent with a corpse; one may not drag it on the Sabbath if it contains coins.” And it was stated for this, if there were coins on it but they fell off, it may be dragged. Rav Sheshet said, this is Rebbi Sineon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, “if it burned out it is permitted to move it.” They said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he forgot. You cannot do this, as we have stated there: “if it cannot be separated it is connected to it, will be measured with it, does protect in a tent with a corpse; one may drag it on the Sabbath even though it contains coins.” Can you say about this, it is according to everybody, if he forgot?

Rebbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rebbi Lia in the name of Rebbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

“A spade or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a spinning top to stick into something.” Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Abbahu permitted me to apply eye salve on the Sabbath. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet: The Mishnah implies this, “a sewing needle to remove a thorn,” since what would be the difference between this and a thorn? Rebbi Abba asked before Rebbi Mana, may one compound it on a holiday? He told him, it is not food.

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥasdai: Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father and disagrees with his father. The argument of his father, about an individual more than two bet se’ah. And disagrees with his father, about a caravan less than two bet se’ah Did we not hear that Rebbi Jehudah said, an individual for more than two bet se’ah needs woof and warp? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Aḥa the Tanna, Rebbi Ḥanin, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Sheshet: Just as they differ here so they are differing about kilaim. And in Kilaim not even if it is a bet rova?

Rav Sheshet in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: It is permitted to move ṭevel which has a condition on it. How does he do it? He puts his eyes on a small part and eats the remainder. And it was stated: The House of Shammai say, one does not use Second Tithe as eruv in Jerusalem. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this you are saying about eruv of courtyards. But for an eruv of domains, a villager who deposits his eruv at Jerusalem can go there and eat it.

Paragraph. “If somebody sends his eruv through a deaf-and-dumb or insane person, or a minor,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, he has to be with him. There Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Sheshet, Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abun: If somebody says to another I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. And here, you say so? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, here about an adult, there about a minor. Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Ḥinena, you may even say in both cases we deal with an adult or in both cases we deal with a minor. There, when he says, I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. But here, he says make an eruv for me! This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that, if he says I shall tithe for you, he does not have to be with him. That learns from this, if he says make an eruv for me, he has to be with him.

Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him, for it is said, only in image a man wanders. It is written many a man professes good will, this is the rest of mankind; but where will you find one you can trust, that is Rebbi Ze`ira. As Rebbi Ze`ira said, should we take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind? Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Bar Petaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rebbi Ze`ira said to Rebbi Assi, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Rebbi Jacob bar Abbaya, Rav Sheshet in the name of the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya: There is no bundle with less than twenty-five. Ḥinena bar Shelemia in the name of Rav: If he cut for roofing it has no handles. If he cut as roofing and then intended it as food it follows his thought. If he cut for food and then intended it as roofing? Others say, only if the straw is more than the food and the handles. Rav follows the others. Where do we hold? If he cut for roofing but it became prepared and he said, after they will have fulfilled the commandment I shall bring them back to the threshing floor, do they need preparation a second time or are they already prepared?

Bar Qappara said, they are eleven cubits high. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “their heads bent on the altar.” Rebbi Ze`ira sent asking Rebbi Daniel ben Rav Qatina, did you hear from your father that it needs a benediction, is taken alone, and has a minimum? Rebbi Ayvi bar Nagari came in the name of Rav Huna and said with reason that it needs a benediction and is taken alone. Whether it has a minimum I did not hear. There, they are saying Rav Sheshet and Rav Naḥman bar Jacob. One says, three leafed branches. But the other said, even one branch.

Who permits? Did we not state, if one of the excommunicators died one may not permit him? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch. But if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal: It happened that one of the excommunicators died and they did not permit him. Did not Rebbi Joshua ben Levi say, this you are saying in the absence of a Patriarch, but if there is a Patriarch, the Patriarch permits? What Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said is confirmed if he did not reform. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rav Sheshet: At Usha they voted not to excommunicate an ordained rabbi. This parallels what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: One does not strip an ordained rabbi who is guilty of something of his title but tells him, respect yourself and sit in your house. Rebbi Jacob bat Abbay in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: One treats an ordained rabbi who forgot his learning by an act of God with the holiness of the Ark. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Excommunication by an ordained rabbi who excommunicated for his personal benefit is no excommunication.

Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Sheshet: There, one stated: The words of Rebbi Simeon are that both are forbidden. This is difficult. If “bespeaking” acquires, are not both permitted? This is a question of acquiring not by “bespeaking” but by candidacy. This is difficult. If candidacy acquires, both are permitted. If candidacy does not acquire, the first one is forbidden but the second permitted. Maybe candidacy for Rebbi Simeon is like “bespeaking” for the rabbis. Just as the rabbis say, “bespeaking” acquires but leaves a remainder, so Rebbi Simeon says, candidacy acquires but leaves a remainder. This is difficult. That aspect which is acquired by candidacy implies a prohibition of an equal part of the co-wife, that part which is not acquired by candidacy implies permission of an equal aspect of the co-wife! Shammai said, is this kind of argument applicable to incest prohibitions? What does he mean? As Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, the aspect acquired in any sister-in-law which is not totally inside [the family] is considered to be under the incest prohibition and an incest prohibition frees her co-wife.

“If somebody who works his wife’s property has the intention of divorcing her and goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. If somebody who works the property of prisoners heard that they prepare to return, goes and takes from the ground, he is quick and is rewarded. These are properties of prisoners: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he heard that they died, and he went to work the inheritance. But property of abandoning persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of abandoning persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, he did not hear that they died, but he went to work the inheritance. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I heard that there is no difference between prisoners and abandoning persons. But property of broken persons one takes out of their hands. These are properties of smashed persons: In any case where his father, brother, or any person from whom he might inherit, went overseas, and his whereabouts are not known.” Samuel says, the prisoner is one who left involuntarily. If he had left voluntarily he would have given him instructions. The abandoning person is one who left voluntarily. You should know that he had the intention of keeping [the relative] off his property since he left voluntarily and did not give him instructions. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Movables do not fall under the rules of smashed people. RebbiJacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Jehudah: Standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested are movables. Rav Sheshet asked: Those date palms of Babylonia which do not need grafting, is it not reasonable that we should treat them like standing grain ready to be harvested and grapes ready to be harvested?

HALAKHAH: “If two people mutually produced promissory notes of one on the other,” etc. If one borrowed a mina from the other, but the other borrowed from him 200 [zuz]. Rav Huna said, Rav Naḥman bar Jacob and Rab Sheshet disagree. One says, one counts one mina against the other mina, but the other says, each one collects the amount of his note. He who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, learns it from tame oxen who injured one another, where half of the excess damage is paid. He who says, each one collects the amount of his note, learns it from the Sages and Admon. Can the Sages and Admon not agree that one counts one mina against the other mina? Because we have stated: Admon says: “If I owed you, how come you borrowed from me?” Therefore it was necessary to say, each one collects the amount of his note. If the holder of the note of 200 forgave a mina, but the holder of the note of a mina did not forgive. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, then what he forgave he cannot collect but what was not forgiven he can collect. If the note for 200 was written in a document but the loan for a mina was not written. For him who says, one counts one mina against the other mina, already one mina against the other mina was counted. But for him who says, each one collects the amount of his note, the holder of the written note can collect but the recipient of the oral promise cannot collect.

Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: Money can be non-designated, no animal can be non-designated. Rav Sheshet said, it was stated thus: “I might think that one could not satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with an animal which he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he cannot shave for his nezirut with his father’s animal; but he could satisfy his obligation with his father’s sacrifice, with money he dedicated, whether from a minor sin for a major sin, or from a major sin for a minor sin, or from a minor sin for a minor sin, or from a major sin for a major sin, since he can shave on money for his nezirut, any time it is not designated, but not if it is designated. The verse says, ‘his sacrifice’, he can only satisfy his obligation with his sacrifice, not with his father’s sacrifice.” Talking about money, one mentions “not designated”.

But only if it is intermittent. Shall we write a bill of divorce for your wife? And he says, yes. For your mother, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your daughter, and he says, no. For your wife? And he says, yes. For your sister, and he says, no. Is it the same for testimony? Rebbi Abbahu came in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is the same for testimony, since a person may testify while sitting. The same holds for vows. Rav Sheshet stated: Just as one checks three times for bills of divorce, so one checks for inheritance, commercial transactions, and gifts.

There, we have stated: “If they started, one does not interrupt.” What is the start of bathing? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: When he opened his belt. Rav said, when he took off his shoe. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi used to hear the lesson of his grandson every Friday. Once he forgot and went bathing in the public baths of Tiberias; he was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s shoulder. He remembered and left the public bath. He said, so it was: Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said, he had taken off [his clothes]. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, did our teacher not teach us, “if they started, one does not interrupt”? He said to him, Ḥiyya my son, is that unimportant in your eyes? For anyone who hears the lesson from his grandson is as if he heard it from Mount Sinai. What is the reason? “ You shall make them known to you sons and grandsons,” etc., “the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb.” Like the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb. Rebbi Ḥizqiah bar Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise take either the very first or the very last [source]. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? “Only in image a man wanders.” “Many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust?” That is Rebbi Ze‘ira, as Rebbi Ze‘ira said, we do take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. And Rebbi Ze‘ira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah, that you quote in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Aḥawa said it in his name.

Rav Sheshet objected: Does not the Mishnah disagree? “You married me preliminarily but he says, I did not marry you preliminarily; he is permitted her relatives but she is forbidden his relatives.” They said, so did it happen: Simeon bar Abba brought a bill of divorce and delivered it in front of one witness. The case came before Rebbi Joḥanan, who said, a single witness in marital matters is nothing. Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Assi in the name of Assi say: a single witness in marital matters is nothing? Rav said, one who performs a preliminary marriage in front of a single witness did not do anything. Samuel said, he who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped, but the preliminary marriage holds. Mar Uqba in the name of Samuel said three things: He who performs a preliminary marriage without prior negotiation is whipped; one who sleeps with his betrothed in his father-in-law’s house is whipped; one who insults the court bailiff is whipped.

It was stated: “If somebody robbed to feed his children, whether adult or underage, they are not liable to pay. If they inherited from him, both adult and underage are liable to pay. Symmachos says, the adults are liable, the underaged are not liable. If they said, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end, they are not liable.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected: Think of it, if they inherited real estate, they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Hamnuna objected: Think of it, if it was a notorious robbery; they are not able to say, we do not know whether our father accounted for it at the end. Rav Sheshet objected: For the underaged the court will argue. What can you say? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if they argue, we do not know, etc., we know that our father was in dispute with you on this account, but we do not know how it was resolved.

Untarred jugs, Rebbi Assi said, they are forbidden, Rebbi Immi said, they are permitted. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Assi questioned: do we say that a tankard does not absorb? Rebbi Abba said, Rav Sheshet asked, could we say that a vessel for urine does not absorb?

HALAKHAH: “Gentiles’ grape kernels and skins,” etc. Rav Sheshet in the name of Rav: Moist they are forbidden even for usufruct; dry they are permitted even to eat. But did we not state, “it does not become libation wine until it descends into the cistern”? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Judah: The Mishnah is about one who lowers them into the cistern.

Rav said, a pedestal is not annulled. Therefore its appurtenances are annulled. The opinions of Rav seem inconsistent. There Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rav, if the procession was using another way, and here he says so? There if he burned incense, here if he did not burn incense. And even if you are saying, in both cases if he burned incense, Rav follows his opinion since Rav said, if one casts a cup for idolatry it is immediately forbidden.

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was found standing,” etc. Rab Sheshet in the name of Rav: Only if he has a lien on this particular cistern. But if he has no lien on this particular cistern, it is the way of creditors to stand near wine presses and threshing floors. They wanted to say, he who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, even outside his outstretched arms. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet, just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be so: He who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, only outside his outstretched arms.

HALAKHAH: “A Non-Jew who was found standing,” etc. Rab Sheshet in the name of Rav: Only if he has a lien on this particular cistern. But if he has no lien on this particular cistern, it is the way of creditors to stand near wine presses and threshing floors. They wanted to say, he who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, even outside his outstretched arms. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet, just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be so: He who says, only if he has a lien on this particular cistern, within his outstretched arms, but he who says, even if he has no lien on this particular cistern, only outside his outstretched arms.

HALAKHAH: “f he was eating with him,” etc. They wanted to say, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” out of the reach of his outstretched arms. But did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rav Sheshet, just as they gave outstretched arms for purity so they gave it for libation wine? But it must be the following. He who said, “anything on the table is forbidden,” within reach of his outstretched arms; “on the Delphic table is permitted,” only if out of the reach of his outstretched arms.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav: If somebody gives a loan to a person on condition that the Sabbatical not remit it, the Sabbatical does not remit it, as we have stated: “to return them after ten years instead of returning them after thirty days”. Are there ten years without a Sabbatical? Rebbi Huna said, Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet disagreed. One of them said, if the loan was given on a pledge; but the other said, if he writes him a prozbul.

Rab Sheshet said : The merit of listening to a funeral oration lies in raising [the voice in lamentation].

Rab Sheshet used to turn his face [away from the Scroll] and study, saying, "We with ours, they with theirs."

When Rab Sheshet bowed, he did so like a twig ; but when he returned to the erect position, he did so like a snake.

Rab Sheshet quoted the following in objection ; Between the sections one may greet out of respect and return a salutation !

[Raba] remained silent ; so he asked him : Hast thou heard anything on this point ? He replied : Thus said Rab Sheshet: [Kawwanah is demanded of workmen] only if they stop their work to read it.

But lo, there is a teaching: [Such men are to say] an abstract of the Eighteen Benedictions! Rab Sheshet said : There is no contradiction ; the first being Rabban Gamaliel's view, the latter R. Joshua's.

Rab Sheshet, when observing a fast, used to add at the conclusion of his prayer : Lord of the universe ! It is revealed before Thee that when the Sanctuary was in existence, a man sinned and brought an offering, of which they sacrificed only the fat and the blood, and atonement was made for him. But now, I observe a fast, and my fat and blood are diminished. May it be Thy will, that my fat and blood which have been diminished may be accounted as though I had offered them before Thee upon the altar, and do Thou favour me.

But for how long [must one be able to contain himself before venturing to say the Tefillah]? Rab Sheshet said : [Sufficient time to enable one to walk] a Parsah. There are some who make [this statement of Rab Zebid] a part of the Baraita [quoted above ; thus :] Of what does this speak? Of a case where a man is unable to contain himself; but if he is able to contain himself, his Tefillah is valid. But for how long [must one be able to contain himself before venturing to say the Tefillah]? Rab Zebid said : [Sufficient time to enable one to walk] a Parsah.

Our Rabbis have taught: When one is about to enter a privy, he should divest himself of the Tefillin at a [minimum] distance of four cubits and then enter, Rab Aha b. Rab Huna said in the name of Rab Sheshet: This teaching applies only to a regular privy, but with an occasional one, he may divest himself [of the Tefillin] and at once proceed to relieve himself; and when he comes out, he walks a distance of four cubits and relays them, because he has [by his use thereof] made it a regular privy.

Raba said in the name of Rab Sheshet : The Halakah is not in accord with the above Baraita because it emanates from Bet Shammai; for if it emanated from Bet Hillel, since one is allowed to enter a regular privy [holding the Tefillin], how much more so a chance one!

Quite so; [therefore the quoted statement must refer to] the Tefillin, and the refutation of Raba in the name of Rab Sheshet remains unanswered.

R. Isaac said : A handbreadth of a woman [if exposed] is nakedness. For what purpose? Is it a question of gazing upon her? Behold Rab Sheshet said : Why do the Scriptures enumerate the female ornaments worn outside together with those worn under the garments ? This is to tell thee that whoever gazes upon the little finger of a woman is as though he had gazed at her nakedness !

Rab Hisda said : The calf of a woman's leg is to be regarded as nakedness; as it is said, "Uncover the leg, pass through the rivers" (Is. xlvii. 2) and it continues, "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen" (Is. xlvii. 3). Samuel said : A woman's voice is to be regarded as nakedness ; as it is said, "For sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely" (Cant. ii. 14). ab Sheshet said: A woman's hair is to be regarded as nakedness; as it is said, "Thy hair is as a flock of goats" (ibid. iv. 1).

Rab Sheshet was asked : How is it with a foul odour which has no [material] cause? He replied : Come and behold the mats in the school of Rab, on which some are sleeping while others are studying. But this refers only to words of Torah, not to the reading of the Shema'. And even of words of Torah this is not said except [when the bad odour is caused] by another ; but if he himself is the cause, he must not [even study until the odour has passed off].

When should he offer this prayer ? R. Jacob said in the name of Rab Hisda : From the time he sets forth on his journey. And how long? R. Jacob said in the name of Rab Hisda: The distance of a Parsah. And how should he offer it ? Rab Hisda said : Standing ; Rab Sheshet said : Even while journeying.

Rab Hisda and Rab Sheshet were once on a journey together. Rab Hisda stood up and offered the prayer. Rab Sheshet said to his attendant, "What is Rab Hisda doing?" He replied, "He is standing and praying." He said to him, "Raise also me up and I too will pray ; for if thou canst be good, do not allow thyself to be called evil."

Rab Hisda and Rab Sheshet were once on a journey together. Rab Hisda stood up and offered the prayer. Rab Sheshet said to his attendant, "What is Rab Hisda doing?" He replied, "He is standing and praying." He said to him, "Raise also me up and I too will pray ; for if thou canst be good, do not allow thyself to be called evil."

Rab Aha b. Rab Huna said in the name of Rab Sheshet : That is what people say : "He whose stomach is full increaseth deeds of evil" ; as it is said, "When they were fed, they became full, they were filled, and their heart was exalted ; therefore have they forgotten Me" (Hosea xiii. 6). Rab Nahman said : [It may be learnt] from this passage : "Then thy heart be lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God" (Deut. viii. 14) ; and the Rabbis said from the following: "And they shall have eaten their fill, and waxen fat, and turned unto other gods " (ibid. xxxi. 20) ;

And though a serpent is wound round his heel, he must not interrupt. Rab Sheshet said : This teaching applies only to a serpent, but if it be a scorpion he may interrupt.

Rab Hisda asked Rab Sheshet : If a man erred [and omitted the Habdalah] in both, how is it ? He replied : If he erred in both, he must start again.

Rab Sheshet quoted in objection : From where does the latter begin ? From the commencement of the benediction where the other erred ! This is a refutation of Rab Huna ;

Raba bent the knee at the beginning and end of the "Thanksgiving," The Rabbis asked him, "Why has the master acted so?" He replied, "I saw Rab Nahman bend the knee, and I saw Rab Sheshet do it.

Over pepper, Rab Sheshet said: [The benediction is] "...By Whose word all things exist" ; Raba said : None at all [is required]. Raba is consistent with his opinion [expressed elsewhere] ; for he has said : If one chews pepper-corns on the Day of Atonement he is free [from guilt]; if he chews ginger on the Day of Atonement he is likewise free.

But there is a teaching: After partaking thereof no benediction is required ! Rab Sheshet said : There is no contradiction : one being the opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, the other of the Rabbis. For there is a teaching : This is the general rule — Any food which belongs to the seven species, Rabban Gamaliel says : Three benedictions [are required after partaking thereof], whereas the Rabbis say : One benediction which is an abstract of three.

How is it then in this matter? Rab Sheshet said : Over Habis, although it does not contain pieces of bread the size of an olive, he blesses "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth." Raba said : This is only so if it has the semblance of bread.

Rab declared: [If one broke the bread and pronounced the benediction, and before eating handed a piece to another saying,] "Take it, the benediction has been made; take it, the benediction has been made ! " it is unnecessary for him to pronounce it again [before partaking of the bread]. [But if before eating he says,] "Bring salt, bring the relish," he must repeat the benediction. R. Johanan declared that even if he said, "Bring salt, bring the relish," he likewise need not repeat the benediction. [Should he, however, say,] "Mix food for the oxen ! Mix food for the oxen !" the benediction must be repeated. Rab Sheshet declared that even if he said "Mix food for the oxen," he also need not repeat the benediction. For Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: A man must not eat his meal before giving food to his cattle ; as it is said, "And I will give grass in thy fields for thy cattle" and then "thou shalt eat and be satisfied" (Deut. xi. 15).

It has been reported : If they set before them figs and grapes in the middle of a meal, Rab Huna declared that they require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. Similarly said Rab Nahman : They require a benediction before partaking thereof but not after. But Rab Sheshet said : They require a benediction both before and after, because there is nothing which requires a benediction before partaking thereof which does not require one after it, bread offered as a dessert being alone excepted. This is at variance with the statement of R. Hiyya who said : [The benediction over] bread exempts all other articles of food, and that over wine exempts all other kinds of beverage [from the necessity of another benediction].

Rab said : He is exempt [from repeating the benediction] ; but Rab Kahana said : He is not. Rab Nahman said: He is exempt; but Rab Sheshet said : He is not. Rab Huna, Rab Judah and all the pupils of Rab say : He is not. Raba quoted against Rab Nahman : If wine is set for them in the course of the meal, each one says the benediction for himself ; after the meal, one may say it for all! He replied : This is what he means to say, If no wine was set for them in the course of the meal, only after it, then one may say the benediction for all.

Rab Mesharsheya said : Over the garden-narcissus the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant woods," but over the wild narcissus "...Who createst fragrant herbs." Rab Sheshet said : Over violets the benediction is "...Who createst fragrant herbs." Mar Zotra said : He who smells the citron or quince should say "Blessed be He Who setteth a beautiful fragrance in fruits."

He should not go out into the street perfumed. R. Abha b. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan : This refers to a place where people are suspected of pederasty. Rab Sheshet said : They mean only with his garment [perfumed], but on his body [it is permitted] because it removes [the odour of] perspiration. Rab Pappa said : [To perfume] his hair is like [perfuming] his garment; but some declare that it is like [perfuming] his body.

Rab Nahman said: Until "We will bless"; but Rab Sheshet said: Until "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord,] Who givest food unto all."

No ; Rab Nahman reconciles [the two conflicting versions] according to his opinion, and so does Rab Sheshet.

Rab Sheshet reconciles them according to his opinion — Everybody agrees that [the Zimmun benediction extends] until "Who givest food unto all" ; that is quite right for him who said "Two or three," but he who said "Three or four" is of the opinion that "Who art kind and dealest kindly" is ordained by the Torah.

The Exilarch said to Rab Sheshet, "Although you are old Rabbis, the Persians are more expert than you in the etiquette of a meal. When there are two couches, the more important guest reclines first and the other above him ; when there are three, the chief guest reclines in the centre, the next important above him and the third below him."

Rab Sheshet said to him, "But should the chief guest wish to converse with him [who is above him], he would have to straighten himself and sit up to do so!" The Exilarch replied, "It is otherwise with the Persians, because he would communicate with him by gesture."

[Rab Sheshet asked the Exilarch], "With whom do [the Persians] commence to wash previous to the meal ?" He replied, "With the chief guest."

Rab Sheshet said [to the Exilarch] : I know a teaching, viz. : What is the procedure of reclining ? When there are two couches, the more important person reclines first, and the other below him. When there are three couches, the chief person reclines first, the next important above him, and the third below him. They begin the washing previous to the meal with the chief guest. As for the washing at the conclusion of the meal, when there are five, they commence with the chief guest; but when there are a hundred they commence with the person of least importance until they reach the last five, and then they commence with the principal guest. To whom the water after the meal returns, [the privilege of saying] Grace likewise returns.

R. Ammi said : Two and the Sabbath may be reckoned together for Zimmun. Rab Nahman asked him : Is the Sabbath a man! But, said R. Ammi, two disciples of the wise who sharpen [their minds] one against the other with the study of Halakah may be reckoned together [for Zimmun]. Rab Hisda declared : For instance, I and Rab Sheshet. Rab Sheshet declared : For instance, I and Rab Hisda.

R. Ammi said : Two and the Sabbath may be reckoned together for Zimmun. Rab Nahman asked him : Is the Sabbath a man! But, said R. Ammi, two disciples of the wise who sharpen [their minds] one against the other with the study of Halakah may be reckoned together [for Zimmun]. Rab Hisda declared : For instance, I and Rab Sheshet. Rab Sheshet declared : For instance, I and Rab Hisda.

Rab Sheshet said : If one opens with "Have mercy... upon Israel Thy people," he concludes with "Who savest Israel" ; if one opens with "Have mercy... upon Jerusalem Thy city," he concludes with "Who...rebuildest Jerusalem." Rab Nahman said: Even if one opens with "Have mercy... upon Israel Thy people," he should conclude with "Who... rebuildest Jerusalem"; because it is said, "The Lord doth build up Jerusalem, He gathereth together the dispersed of Israel" (Ps. cxlvii. 2) — when "doth the Lord build up Jerusalem"? At the time that "He gathereth together the dispersed of Israel."

R. Zera said to Rab Hisda, "Let the master come and teach." He replied, "[The regulations concerning] Grace after meals have I not learnt, so shall I teach !" R. Zera asked him, "How is that?" He replied, "When I visited the house of the Exilarch and said the Grace after meals, Rab Sheshet stretched his neck over me like a serpent." "But why ?" "Because I made no reference to the Covenant, the Torah or the Kingship." "And why didst thou not mention them?" "In accord with the statement of Rab Hananel in the name of Rab, viz. : If one has not referred to the Covenant, the Torah and the Kingship, he has complied with the requirements of the law — 'the Covenant' because it does not apply to women ; 'the Tordh and the Kingship' because they apply neither to women nor slaves." "And thou didst abandon all these Tannaim and Amoraim and act according to the view of Rab!"

"Crowning" — Rab Judah used to crown it with disciples. Rab Hisda used to crown it with small cups. R. Hanan said : And with undiluted [wine]. Rab Sheshet said : Until the benediction of "the land."

A Tanna taught in the presence of Rab Sheshet ; Who dreams of a serpent, his sustenance will be provided him ; if it bit him, his sustenance will be doubled for him ; if he killed it, his sustenance is lost. Rab Sheshet said to him : [When he dreams of killing the serpent], how much more likely is it that his sustenance will be doubled ! But it is not so ; and it was Rab Sheshet who dreamt that he saw a serpent and killed it.

A Tanna taught in the presence of Rab Sheshet ; Who dreams of a serpent, his sustenance will be provided him ; if it bit him, his sustenance will be doubled for him ; if he killed it, his sustenance is lost. Rab Sheshet said to him : [When he dreams of killing the serpent], how much more likely is it that his sustenance will be doubled ! But it is not so ; and it was Rab Sheshet who dreamt that he saw a serpent and killed it.

A Tanna taught in the presence of Rab Sheshet ; Who dreams of a serpent, his sustenance will be provided him ; if it bit him, his sustenance will be doubled for him ; if he killed it, his sustenance is lost. Rab Sheshet said to him : [When he dreams of killing the serpent], how much more likely is it that his sustenance will be doubled ! But it is not so ; and it was Rab Sheshet who dreamt that he saw a serpent and killed it.

Rab Sheshet was blind. Everybody went to greet a king, and Rab Sheshet arose and went with them. A certain Min met him and said, "Pitchers [go] to the river, where [go] the potsherds?" He replied, "Come, see how I know things better than thou." The first troop of soldiers passed by, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming yet." A second troop passed, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming." A third troop passed, and while there was silence, Rab Sheshet said to him, "Now certainly the king is coming."

Rab Sheshet was blind. Everybody went to greet a king, and Rab Sheshet arose and went with them. A certain Min met him and said, "Pitchers [go] to the river, where [go] the potsherds?" He replied, "Come, see how I know things better than thou." The first troop of soldiers passed by, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming yet." A second troop passed, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming." A third troop passed, and while there was silence, Rab Sheshet said to him, "Now certainly the king is coming."

Rab Sheshet was blind. Everybody went to greet a king, and Rab Sheshet arose and went with them. A certain Min met him and said, "Pitchers [go] to the river, where [go] the potsherds?" He replied, "Come, see how I know things better than thou." The first troop of soldiers passed by, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming yet." A second troop passed, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming." A third troop passed, and while there was silence, Rab Sheshet said to him, "Now certainly the king is coming."

Rab Sheshet was blind. Everybody went to greet a king, and Rab Sheshet arose and went with them. A certain Min met him and said, "Pitchers [go] to the river, where [go] the potsherds?" He replied, "Come, see how I know things better than thou." The first troop of soldiers passed by, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming yet." A second troop passed, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming." A third troop passed, and while there was silence, Rab Sheshet said to him, "Now certainly the king is coming."

Rab Sheshet was blind. Everybody went to greet a king, and Rab Sheshet arose and went with them. A certain Min met him and said, "Pitchers [go] to the river, where [go] the potsherds?" He replied, "Come, see how I know things better than thou." The first troop of soldiers passed by, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming yet." A second troop passed, and when a shout arose, the Min said to him, "Now the king is coming." Rab Sheshet answered, "He is not coming." A third troop passed, and while there was silence, Rab Sheshet said to him, "Now certainly the king is coming."

When the king arrived, Rab Sheshet began and uttered the benediction for him. The Min said to him, "For one whom thou seest not thou dost pronounce a benediction!" And what happened to that Min? Some say that his associates put his eyes out ; others declare that Rab Sheshet set his eyes upon him and he became a heap of bones.

When the king arrived, Rab Sheshet began and uttered the benediction for him. The Min said to him, "For one whom thou seest not thou dost pronounce a benediction!" And what happened to that Min? Some say that his associates put his eyes out ; others declare that Rab Sheshet set his eyes upon him and he became a heap of bones.

How is it to be concluded? Rab said, "[Blessed art Thou, O Lord,] Who healest the sick." Samuel said: Does Abba regard the whole world as sick? Nay, [the conclusion of the benediction should be : "Blessed...] Who healest all flesh." Rab Sheshet said : [It should conclude : "Blessed...] Who doest wondrously." Rab Pappa said : Let us therefore say both : "Who healest all flesh and doest wondrously."

R. Sheshet objected: And [if one buys] from what is ownerless, [may he buy] three meals and no more? But there is a contradiction: Rue, asparagus, fenugreek, coriander of the mountains, water-parsley and meadow-eruca are always exempt from tithe and may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical Year, since the like of these is not guarded.

What is its minimum measure? R. Nahman said: Three fresh twigs with leaves. But R. Sheshet said: Even one leaf and one twig. One leaf and one twig! Could you really think such a thing? Rather say: Even one leaf on one twig.

“And the Lord showed me four craftsmen” (Zechariah 2:3). Who are these ‘four craftsmen’? R. Hana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Shimon Hasida: The Messiah the son of David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous Priest. R. Sheshet objected: If so, was it correct to write, “These are the horns which scattered Judah,” whereas these come to restore them.

Raba says: after having once begun mentioning it, one should not stop. So also said R. Sheshet. Rab, too, reversed his opinion, for R. Hananel said in the name of Rab: Beginning with the New Year's day, one should count twenty-one days, in the same way as one counts ten days from New Year to the Day of Atonement, and then begin mentioning the rain, but once having begun, one should not stop. And this is the law.

Resh Laḳish said: He is called pious, for it is said (Prov., 11. 17): "The merciful man doeth good to his own soul." R. Jeremiah b. 'Abba said in the name of Resh Laḳish, a scholar is not allowed to impose fasts upon himself, because it makes him lessen his heavenly work. R. Sheshet said, if a student takes upon himself such a fast, his meal should be given to the dogs.

R. Sheshet was told that some scholars came to the fast-meeting with their shoes on. R. Sheshet became angry and said: Who knows if they have not also indulged in eating?

R. Sheshet was told that some scholars came to the fast-meeting with their shoes on. R. Sheshet became angry and said: Who knows if they have not also indulged in eating?

R. Isaac, with the permission of his father R. Judah, delivered the following discourse: An individual who has taken upon himself a fast must recite the prayer provided for fasts. Where does he insert it? Between the benediction ending with "Redeemer" and that ending with "Healer" (of Israel). R. Isaac objected: Is an individual entitled to insert a benediction for himself? He should rather, said R. Isaac, include it in the benediction ending with the words: "Who hearest prayer." The same opinion was given also by R. Sheshet. An objection was raised to this view from the following Baraita: There is no difference between an individual and a community, except that the former recites eighteen benedictions, while the latter recites nineteen. Now what is meant by "individual" and "community"? Is "individual" to be understood literally and "community" in the sense of representative of the community? If so, the benedictions here spoken of would not be nineteen, but twenty-four! Consequently by "individual" can be meant only one who takes upon himself a fast which is known as a "private fast," while by "community" is meant an individual who takes upon himself a "public fast," and yet the Baraita reads: "except that the former recites eighteen benedictions and the latter nineteen," which proves that an individual may insert a benediction for himself! Answer: No, by "community" is no doubt meant its representative, but (as to your objection that in this case twenty-four benedictions are recited, it must be understood that) the Baraita has reference to the first three public fasts, during which the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three first and the three intermediary public fasts, except that during the former work is allowed, while during the latter it is prohibited," from which you must infer that with regard to the number of benedictions they are alike!? Answer: The author of this Baraita mentioned one difference and omitted the other. Is there anything else that he omitted, so that we may be justified in assuming that he omitted this difference? I will say this, then: The teacher of the Baraita was concerned only in pointing out a difference regarding things prohibited on fast days, but did not care to mention a difference in the number of benedictions recited. If you prefer, I may also say that the number of benedictions is not increased to twenty-four even during the intermediary public fasts. Is this true? Is it not stated in a Baraita: "There is no difference between the three intermediary and the seven (last) public fasts except that during the latter the alarm is sounded and the shops are closed," which proves that with regard to the twenty-four benedictions both groups of fasts are alike? If, however, you should say that here, too, the author of the Baraita mentions one difference and omits the other, what will you do, then, with the explicit words of the Baraita, saying that "there is no difference between them except"? Answer: Do you mean to say that the phrase "there is no difference" is to be taken literally?

One Baraita teaches: Pregnant or nursing women must fast during the first three days, but not during the last seven days; another Baraita teaches that they must fast during the last but not during the first, while a third Baraita teaches, they need not fast either during the first or the last! Said R. Sheshet, take it that the intermediary fast days are meant, which will harmonize all three Baraitot.

What has been decided in this matter? R. Naḥman said, in such a case the prayer for rain may be inserted in the "Blessing of the Years," but R. Sheshet said, it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer," and the law is that it must be included in "Who hearest Prayer."

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

During the week in which the ninth of Ab falls one should not cut one's hair or wash (one's clothes). Said R. Naḥman, this applies only to washing for immediate wear, but it is allowed to wash the clothes in order to lay them aside (for future wear). R. Sheshet, however, said, even to wash and lay aside is also forbidden. Said R. Sheshet, you can derive it from the fact that (during the week preceding the ninth of Ab) the fullers of the house of Rab were idle. R. Hamnuna raised an objection from the following sentence of the Mishnah: On Thursday it is allowed (to wash clothes) in honor of the Sabbath. Now what is the supposed purpose of the washing to which the Mishnah here refers? Will you say that it refers to washing for immediate wear? What has washing for such purpose to do with the honoring of the Sabbath? The Mishnah can thus mean only washing for the purpose of putting aside (for a later time), and yet the reason given for its permission is that it is Thursday, when the washing is done in honor of the next Sabbath, but in the preceding days of the week it would not be allowed! You may nevertheless say that the Mishnah refers to washing for immediate wear, but has in view one who possesses only one shirt, which interpretation is in keeping with what was said by R. Asi in the name of R. Johanan, namely, that one who possesses only one shirt is allowed to wash it on the Half-festivals.

Hence it is written . . . ” And Mordecai returned to the king’s gate”. (Esther 6:12) R. Sheshet said: This indicates that he returned to his sackcloth and fasting. “But Haman hastened to his house, mourning and his head covered”; mourning for his daughter, and with his head covered on account of what had happened to him.