shirt

Hence they turned aside to that sycamore which is now called Matarea, and the Lord Jesus brought forth in Matarea a fountain in which the Lady Mary washed His shirt. And from the sweat of the Lord Jesus which she sprinkled there, balsam was produced in that region.

There were in the same city two women, wives of one man, each having a son ill with fever. The one was called Mary, and her son's name was Cleopas. She rose and took up her son, and went to the Lady Mary, the mother of Jesus, and offering her a beautiful mantle, said: O my Lady Mary, accept this mantle, and for it give me one small bandage. Mary did so, and the mother of Cleopas went away, and made a shirt of it, and put it on her son. So he was cured of his disease; but the son of her rival died. Hence there sprung up hatred between them; and as they did the house-work week about, and as it was the turn of Mary the mother of Cleopas, she heated the oven to bake bread; and going away to bring the lump that she had kneaded, she left her son Cleopas beside the oven. Her rival seeing him alone — and the oven was very hot with the fire blazing under it — seized him and threw him into the oven, and took herself off. Mary coming back, and seeing her son Cleopas lying in the oven laughing, and the oven quite cold, as if no fire had ever come near it, knew that her rival had thrown him into the fire. She drew him out, therefore, and took him to the Lady Mary, and told her of what had happened to him. And she said: Keep silence, and tell nobody of the affair; for I am afraid for you if you divulge it. After this her rival went to the well to draw water; and seeing Cleopas playing beside the well, and nobody near, she seized him and threw him into the well, and went home herself. And some men who had gone to the well for water saw the boy sitting on the surface of the water; and so they went down and drew him out. And they were seized with a great admiration of that boy, and praised God. Then came his mother, and took him up, and went weeping to the Lady Mary, and said: O my lady, see what my rival has done to my son, and how she has thrown him into the well; she will be sure to destroy him some day or other. The Lady Mary said to her: God will avenge you upon her. Thereafter, when her rival went to the well to draw water, her feet got entangled in the rope, and she fell into the well. Some men came to draw her out, but they found her skull fractured and her bones broken. Thus she died a miserable death, and in her came to pass that saying: They have dug a well deep, but have fallen into the pit which they had prepared.

Then the angel began before them to work out the skins, after the manner of one who prepares a shirt. And he took the thorns and stuck them into the skins, before their eyes.

And when he was going another time to the damsel, he lit upon a swarm of bees making their combs in the breast of that lion; and taking three honey-combs away, he gave them, together with the rest of his presents, to the damsel. Now the people of Timhath, out of a dread of the young man's strength, gave him during the time of the wedding-feast [for he then feasted them all] thirty of the most stout of their youth, in pretense to be his companions, but in reality to be a guard upon him, that he might not attempt to give them any disturbance. Now as they were drinking merrily and playing, Samson said, as was usual at such times, "Come, if I propose you a riddle, and you can expound it in these seven days' time, I will give you every one a linen shirt and a garment, as the reward of your wisdom." So they being very ambitious to obtain the glory of wisdom, together with the gains, desired him to propose his riddle. He, "That a devourer produced sweet food out of itself, though itself were very disagreeable." And when they were not able, in three days' time, to find out the meaning of the riddle, they desired the damsel to discover it by the means of her husband, and tell it them; and they threatened to burn her if she did not tell it them. So when the damsel entreated Samson to tell it her, he at first refused to do it; but when she lay hard at him, and fell into tears, and made his refusal to tell it a sign of his unkindness to her, he informed her of his slaughter of a lion, and how he found bees in his breast, and carried away three honey-combs, and brought them to her. Thus he, suspecting nothing of deceit, informed her of all, and she revealed it to those that desired to know it. Then on the seventh day, whereon they were to expound the riddle proposed to them, they met together before sun-setting, and said, "Nothing is more disagreeable than a lion to those that light on it, and nothing is sweeter than honey to those that make use of it." To which Samson made this rejoinder: "Nothing is more deceitful than a woman for such was the person that discovered my interpretation to you." Accordingly he gave them the presents he had promised them, making such Askelonites as met him upon the road his prey, who were themselves Philistines also. But he divorced this his wife; and the girl despised his anger, and was married to his companion, who made the former match between them.

If one carries something out, whether with his right or with his left hand, in his lap or on his shoulder, he is liable, because this the way of the carrying of the children of Kohat (Numbers 7:9). In a backhanded manner, with his foot, in his mouth, with his elbow, in his ear, in his hair, in his belt with its opening downwards, between his belt and his shirt, in the hem of his shirt, in his shoes or sandals, he is not liable, because he has not carried [it] out as people [generally] carry out.

If one carries something out, whether with his right or with his left hand, in his lap or on his shoulder, he is liable, because this the way of the carrying of the children of Kohat (Numbers 7:9). In a backhanded manner, with his foot, in his mouth, with his elbow, in his ear, in his hair, in his belt with its opening downwards, between his belt and his shirt, in the hem of his shirt, in his shoes or sandals, he is not liable, because he has not carried [it] out as people [generally] carry out.

If one derived a perutah's worth of benefit from a sacred thing, he is guilty of sacrilege even though he did not lessen its value, the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the sages say: Anything that can deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it only after it has suffered deterioration. And anything that does not deteriorate [through use], the law of sacrilege applies to it as soon as he made use of it. How is this so? If [a woman] puts a necklace round her neck or a ring on her finger, or if she drank from a golden cup, she is liable to the law of sacrilege as soon as she made use of it [to the value of a perutah]. But if one puts on a shirt or covers oneself with a cloak, or if one chopped [wood] with an axe, he is subject to the law of sacrilege only if [those objects] have suffered deterioration. If one sheared a hatat while it was alive, he is not liable for sacrilege unless he has diminished its value. If when dead, he is liable as soon as he made use of it.

If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”

If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”

If he gave him two perutahs and said, “Bring me for them an etrog,” and he brought for one perutah an etrog and for the other a pomegranate, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege for he could say, “I wanted a large etrog and you brought me a small and bad one.” If he gave him a golden denar and said to him, “Bring me a shirt,” and he brought him for three [silver selas] a shirt and for the other three a cloak, both are guilty of sacrilege. Rabbi Judah says: the employer is not guilty of sacrilege, for he can argue, “I wanted a large shirt and you brought me a small and bad one.”

Worn-out pieces of a sifter or a sieve that were adapted for use as a seat: Rabbi Akiva rules that they are susceptible to uncleanness, But the sages rule that they are not susceptible unless their rough ends were cut off. A child's stool that has legs, even though it is less than a handbreadth high, is susceptible to uncleanness. A child's shirt: Rabbi Eliezer rules it is susceptible to uncleanness at any size. But the sages rule: it is susceptible only if it is of the prescribed size, and it is measured when doubled over.

A porter's pad is susceptible to midras uncleanness. A wine filter is not susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. An old woman's hair-net is susceptible to uncleanness as a seat. A prostitute's shirt which is woven like a net is not susceptible to uncleanness. A garment made of fishing net is not susceptible to uncleanness, but one made of its bag is susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: if a garment is made out of a fishing net but is made double it is susceptible to uncleanness.

The fringe strings of a sheet, a scarf, a head-wrap and a felt cap [are regarded as connected] up to a length of six fingerbreadths; Those of an undergarment up to ten [fingerbreadths]. The fringes of a thick wool cloak, a veil, a shirt, or a light cloak [are regarded as connected] up to a length of three fingerbreadths. The fringes of an old woman's head-wrap, of Arabian face wraps, of Cilician goat's-hair clothing, of a money-belt, of a turban or of a curtain are regarded as connected whatever their length may be.

Three woolen pillow-covers, six linen ones, three sheets, twelve handkerchiefs, two pant-sleeves, one shirt, one cloak, or one winter-cloak, can be regarded as connected in respect of both uncleanness and sprinkling. If they exceed this number they are regarded as connected in respect of uncleanness but not in respect of sprinkling. Rabbi Yose says: not even in respect of uncleanness.

One who winds [a thread] from one coil to another, or from one spool to another, or from the upper beam to the lower beam, and so also in the case of the two sides of a shirt, if a nega appears on the one, the other remains clean. If it appears on the shedded woof or on the standing warp, they become susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: the warp may contract uncleanness only if it is closely ordered.

[If a nega] appeared on the standing warp, the already woven cloth remains clean. If it appeared on the already woven cloth, the standing warp remains clean. If it appeared on a sheet, he must also burn the fringes. If it appeared on the fringes the sheet remains clean. A shirt on which a nega appeared affords protection to its hems, even though they are of purple wool.

If a dead sheretz was found in an alley it causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, "I examined this alley and there was no sheretz in it," or to such time as it was last swept. So also a bloodstain found on a garment causes uncleanness retrospectively to such time as one can say, "I examined this shirt and there was no stain on it" or to such time as it was last washed. And it conveys uncleanness whether it is wet or dry. Rabbi Shimon says: if it is dry it causes uncleanness retrospectively, but if it is wet it causes uncleanness only to a time when it could still have been wet.

If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean. If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean. On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides she remains clean. If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean. If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean. If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about. And the same law applies to a pallium.

If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either. If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean. If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.

If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either. If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean. If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose says, 18 garments.” And they are these: The burnus, arm cover, and money belt, and felt cap, and a kafia, and a linen tunic, and a woolen shirt, and two felt stockings, two garters, and two breeches, two shoes, and the hat on his head, and the belt on his hips, and shawls on his arms.

Why in white clothing? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, like the service up high so is the service down below. As up high, a man in their midst clothed in linen, so down below a holy linen shirt he shall wear.

MISHNAH: The High Priest officiates in eight garments and the common priest in four, in shirt, trousers, turban, and belt. The High Priest in addition wears breastplate, vest, coat, and diadem. In these one asks Urim and Tummim, but one does not ask for common people, only for a king, or the Court, or one on whom rest the needs of the public.

Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim There are those who want to say,] for spillers of blood, as you are saying, they dipped the shirt in blood. The trousers were atoning for uncovering nakedness, as you are saying, make for them linen trousers to cover the fleshof nakedness. The turban was atoning for haughtiness, as you are saying, he put the turban on his head. The belt was atoning for [thieves; but some are saying, for] the crooked ones. Rebbi Levi said, it was 32 cubits and he wound it around on both sides. The breast plate was atoning for those who bend the law, as you are saying, you shall make a breast-plate of judgment. The vest was atoning for idol worshippers, as you are saying, without vest and household-gods. The coat. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Jonathan of Bet-Guvrin: For two things there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them. These are those: one who spreads slander, and the involuntary homicide. For him who spreads slander there was no atonement, but the Torah fixed atonement for them, the bells of the coat: it shall be on Aaron in service, and its sound be heard. The sound may come to atone for the sound. For the involuntary manslaughter there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them, the death of the High Priest. He shall dwell there until the High Priest’s death

Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim There are those who want to say,] for spillers of blood, as you are saying, they dipped the shirt in blood. The trousers were atoning for uncovering nakedness, as you are saying, make for them linen trousers to cover the fleshof nakedness. The turban was atoning for haughtiness, as you are saying, he put the turban on his head. The belt was atoning for [thieves; but some are saying, for] the crooked ones. Rebbi Levi said, it was 32 cubits and he wound it around on both sides. The breast plate was atoning for those who bend the law, as you are saying, you shall make a breast-plate of judgment. The vest was atoning for idol worshippers, as you are saying, without vest and household-gods. The coat. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Jonathan of Bet-Guvrin: For two things there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them. These are those: one who spreads slander, and the involuntary homicide. For him who spreads slander there was no atonement, but the Torah fixed atonement for them, the bells of the coat: it shall be on Aaron in service, and its sound be heard. The sound may come to atone for the sound. For the involuntary manslaughter there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them, the death of the High Priest. He shall dwell there until the High Priest’s death

Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim There are those who want to say,] for spillers of blood, as you are saying, they dipped the shirt in blood. The trousers were atoning for uncovering nakedness, as you are saying, make for them linen trousers to cover the fleshof nakedness. The turban was atoning for haughtiness, as you are saying, he put the turban on his head. The belt was atoning for [thieves; but some are saying, for] the crooked ones. Rebbi Levi said, it was 32 cubits and he wound it around on both sides. The breast plate was atoning for those who bend the law, as you are saying, you shall make a breast-plate of judgment. The vest was atoning for idol worshippers, as you are saying, without vest and household-gods. The coat. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Jonathan of Bet-Guvrin: For two things there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them. These are those: one who spreads slander, and the involuntary homicide. For him who spreads slander there was no atonement, but the Torah fixed atonement for them, the bells of the coat: it shall be on Aaron in service, and its sound be heard. The sound may come to atone for the sound. For the involuntary manslaughter there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them, the death of the High Priest. He shall dwell there until the High Priest’s death

R. Ishmael b. Elisha said : Three things Suriel, the Prince of the Presence, related to me: Do not take thy shirt in the morning from the hand of the attendant and put it on; do not let thy hands be washed by one who has not washed his own ; and do not return the cup of asparagus-beverage except to him who handed it to thee, because a band of demons (another version : a company of angels of destruction) lies in wait for a man, saying, "When will he commit one of these acts and be trapped ?"

R. Joshua b. Levi said : Three things did the Angel of Death tell me : Do not take thy shirt in the morning from the hand of the attendant and put it on ; do not let thy hands be washed by him who has not washed his own; and do not stand before women when they return from being with a dead person, because I leap and go before them with my sword in my hand, and I have permission to destroy.

Minyamin, the servant of R. Ashi, had his shirt soaked in water, and he spread it out on their Sukkah. R. Ashi said to him, ‘Remove it, lest they say that it is permissible to use as a covering something which is susceptible to impurity. ‘But can they not see that it is wet?’ ‘I mean [the first answered] when it is dry.'

Ravina raised an objection against R. Ashi: [It has been taught]: If a man has a sela [gained through selling the produce of] the Sabbatical Year, and wishes to purchase with it a shirt, what should he do? Let him go to his regular shopkeeper and say to him, ‘Give me a sela worth of fruit’ and give it to him. Then he tells him, ‘Behold this fruit is given [back]] to you as a gift’, and [the shopkeeper] answers him, ‘And here is a gift for you of a sela.' And then he may purchase with it whatsoever he desires. Now here, surely, the sela is a secondary produce, and yet it teaches [that it may be redeemed only] by way of sale, and not by way of exchange?

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.