stays

The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays.

The throne had six steps, and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays.

And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on each side of the sitting place, and two lions standing by the stays:

And there were six steps to the throne, with a footstool of gold, which were fastened to the throne, and stays on each side of the sitting place, and two lions standing by the stays:

O my son! while a shoe stays on thy foot, walk with it on the thorns, and make a road for thy son, and for thy household and thy children, and make thy ship taut before she goes on the sea and its waves and sinks and cannot he saved.

O my child! the thigh of a frog in thy hand is better than a goose in the pot of thy neighbour; and a sheep near thee is better than an ox far away; and a sparrow in thy hand is better than a thousand sparrows flying; and poverty which gathers is better than the scattering of much provision; and a living fox is better than a dead lion; and a pound of wool is better than a pound of wealth, I mean of gold and silver; for the gold and the silver are hidden and covered up in the earth, and are not seen; but the wool stays in the markets and it is seen, and it is a beauty to him who wears it.

That crosswise was bound fast with skillful stays.

They may not give a poor person wandering from place to place less than a loaf worth a pundion at a time when four seahs [of wheat cost] one sela. If he spends the night [at a place], they must give him the cost of what he needs for the night. If he stays over Shabbat they must give him enough food for three meals. He who has the money for two meals, he may not take anything from the charity dish. And if he has enough money for fourteen meals, he may not take any support from the communal fund. The communal fund is collected by two and distributed by three people.

A man divorces his wife and then stays with her over night in an inn: Bet Shammai says: she does not require from him a second get, But Beth Hillel say she does require a second get from him. When is this so? When she was divorced after marriage. And [Beth Hillel] agrees that if she is divorced after betrothal, she does not require a second get from him, because he would not [yet] take liberties with her. If a man marries a [divorced] woman through a “bald” get, she must leave both husbands and all the above-mentioned consequences apply to her.

May a Cohen defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gedilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me that which Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will cause him to be flogged!

Rebbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment. When Rebbi Judah ben Pazi was weak he supported his head and stood behind a pillar. Rebbi Eleazar went outside.

MISHNAH: One does not give to the poor who is travelling from one place to another less than a loaf that costs a dupondius at a time when four seah cost a sela‘. If he stays overnight, one provides him with a bed for sleeping. If he stays over the Sabbath, one gives him food for three meals. He who has food for two meals should not take from the tamḥui, if for fourteen meals, he should not take from the charity chest. The chest is collected by two people and distributed by three.

MISHNAH: One does not give to the poor who is travelling from one place to another less than a loaf that costs a dupondius at a time when four seah cost a sela‘. If he stays overnight, one provides him with a bed for sleeping. If he stays over the Sabbath, one gives him food for three meals. He who has food for two meals should not take from the tamḥui, if for fourteen meals, he should not take from the charity chest. The chest is collected by two people and distributed by three.

Rebbi Zeïra said, once the new growth is the majority it is permitted; Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi both say it is forbidden. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi, as it was stated: “This is the rule Rebbi Simeon proclaimed in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and new grain, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, and orlah, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted. They objected: but there is the Sabbatical that admits no act to permit it and the Sages did not fix a limit! He said to them, no. When you mention the Sabbatical, its produce is forbidden in the minutest amount only after it must be destroyed, but for food if it can be tasted.” What do they do with it? Rebbi Hila and Rebbi Immi explain it in mixtures, but as far as growing plants are concerned, this is more severe since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Zeïra as we have stated (Terumot 9:4): “A growth from heave is heave but the growth from its growth is profane. But the growth from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heave of the tithe, dema‘, and First Fruits is profane.” We have stated on this: “When is this true? If the seed disappears. But if the seed does not disappear even growth from growth is forbidden.” How does Rebbi Zeïra deal with this? He explains it that the sanctity of the Sabbatical applies when it must be destroyed, but for food once the new growth is the majority it is permitted.

The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The mad dancer does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.

The signs of an insane: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is a choleric person, and he who destroys what one gives to him is a cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these is reasonable only for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The mad dancer does not exhibit any of these signs. What is a mad dancer? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. He said, this is the mad dancer described by the Sages.

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there, all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave.”

Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun [said it] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah stays with his opinion, the rabbis stay with their opinion, as we have stated: “Olives which somebody crushed with impure hands are not prepared, to let them soak up salt they are prepared, to know whether they contain sap they are not prepared; Rebbi Jehudah says they are prepared.” The rabbis say, he checks their sap. Rebbi Jehudah says, he checks their body. Here, the rabbis say he polishes with their sap, Rebbi Jehudah says, he polishes with what he has.

MISHNAH: If somebody brings fruits from Galilee to Judea or if he is on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, he may eat until he reaches his destination; the same holds for the return journey. Rebbi Meїr says, until he reaches the place where he stays for the Sabbath. Peddlers who make the tour of villages may eat until they come to the place where they will stay for the night. Rebbi Jehudah says, the first house is his house.

Everybody agrees that staying overnight does not induce ṭevel. What is the difference between staying overnight and staying during the Sabbath? A person happens to stay overnight, nobody happens to stay during the Sabbath. A person will stay anywhere overnight, nobody stays everywhere during the Sabbath.

There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden” It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

Can they whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed: If somebody ground and mixed piggul and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another. Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden. If one made five doughs from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rebbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if a holiday is next to a Sabbath either before or after, a person may make two eruvin and say: my first eruv shall be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my first eruv but on the second like the people of my town. My eruv for the first [day], but the second like the people of my town; the second [day], but the first like the people of my town.. But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side or one does not make an eruv at all; one makes an eruv for both days or one does not make an eruv at all. What should he do? He brings it on the first day, stays there when it gets dark, takes it and goes home, On the second day he brings it, stays there when it gets dark, eats it and goes home. It turns out that he profits from his going and his eruv. If it is eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first but is not an eruv for the second. Rebbi Eliezer told them, you agree with me that they are two kinds if sanctities.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, if a holiday is next to a Sabbath either before or after, a person may make two eruvin and say: my first eruv shall be to the East and the second to the West, the first to the West and the second to the East, my first eruv but on the second like the people of my town. My eruv for the first [day], but the second like the people of my town; the second [day], but the first like the people of my town.. But the Sages say, either one makes an eruv to one side or one does not make an eruv at all; one makes an eruv for both days or one does not make an eruv at all. What should he do? He brings it on the first day, stays there when it gets dark, takes it and goes home, On the second day he brings it, stays there when it gets dark, eats it and goes home. It turns out that he profits from his going and his eruv. If it is eaten on the first day, it is an eruv for the first but is not an eruv for the second. Rebbi Eliezer told them, you agree with me that they are two kinds if sanctities.

MISHNAH: He who finds tefillin brings them in pair by pair; Rabban Gamliel says, two by two. When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones he is not liable. If he found them in heaps or bundles he stays there until it becomes dark and then brings them, but in times of danger he covers them and goes away.

There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, [the dough] is forbidden. But if barley grains fell into a cistern of water, even though they made it stink, [the water] is permitted. It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice [of the apple]. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted according to everybody. Rebbi Yose stays with his opinion; just as he says there, its cooking is not clearly cooking, so he says here, its souring is not clearly souring.

“A fire burn, I could think if it stays moist, the verse says, if the burn was healed. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar; until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.” And here he says so? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted, the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable. But here what do you have?

HALAKHAH: It is written, a fruit of the splendor tree, a tree whose fruit is splendor and its wood is splendor. Which one is that? This is the etrog. If you would say, the pomegranate, its (wood) [fruit] is splendor but its (fruit) [wood] is not splendor. If you would say, the carob, its wood is splendor but its fruit is not splendor. Which one is it? The etrog. Hadar; Rebbi Levi said, for it stays on its tree from one year to the next. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, Aquila translated הדָר by ‘ύδωρ ; a tree which grows on the water. “Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: You shall take for yourselves . . a fruit of the splendor tree, a tree whose fruit is splendor and its wood is splendor; the smell of its fruit is the smell of its wood, the smell of its wood is the smell of its fruit; its fruit looks like its wood, its wood looks like its fruit. Which one is it? The etrog.”

Where are burned oxen and burned goats burned? On a grave. Since we have stated, the only difference between a public altar and a private altar was the Pesaḥ sacrifice? So in the Mishnah: The only difference between a public altar and a private altar was the Pesaḥ sacrifice exclusively; not following Rebbi Jehudah, since Rebbi Jehudah said, purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on the public altar, no purification sacrifice and Pesaḥ for the individual on a private altar. It was stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, anything the community sacrifices at the Tent of Meeting in the desert it sacrifices at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal. What is the difference between the Tent of Meeting in the desert and the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal? At the Tent of Meeting in the desert was no permission of a private altar; at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal was permission of a private altar. His altar may be on his roof, but he may sacrifice there only elevation and well-being sacrifices. But the Sages are saying, everything which community or private person sacrifice at the Tent of Meeting in the desert they sacrifice at the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal.” What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? Do not do at Gilgal everything which we are doing here today. What may you do there? Anything straight-forward. What is that? That are elevation and well-being sacrifices. What is the rabbis’ reason? At a place where any man may do what is right in his eyes. Do not do everything which we are doing here today. What may you do there? Anything straight-forward. What is that? That are elevation and well-being sacrifices. Rebbi Jehudah says, the individual was warned and the individual was permitted. He was warned, and his private altar is on his roof, and he is permitted elevation and well-being sacrifices. The rabbis are saying, also community and individuals were warned. The community was comprehensively permitted. The individual stays in his prohibition.

Overturning the beds sometimes is for six, five, four, three {days}. On Friday, six. On Friday before sundown, five. A holiday after the Sabbath, four. The two days of New Year, three. A student of Rebbi Mana instructed a relative of the Patriarch: after he uprights it he does not have to overturn again. How many days did he do it? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: He did it for two days. Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Isaac: three. Rebbi Ḥinena bar Pappus instructed to overturn it even for one day; but he saw in his dream because you rebelled. It was stated: One who stays in an inn does not have to overturn, so they should not say that he is a sorcerer.

“This is the rule Rebbi Simeon declared in the name of Rebbi Joshua: For everything that may become permitted through some action, such as ṭevel, Second Tithe, donations to the Temple, and “new grain”, the Sages did not fix any limits, but a kind with its own is forbidden in the minutest amount, a kind with a different kind if it can be tasted. But for everything that cannot become permitted through any action, such as heave, ḥallah, orlah, and kilaim in a vineyard, the Sages did fix as limit both a kind with itself or with a different kind if it can be tasted.” How do you treat vows? As referring to something that can become permitted or to something that cannot become permitted? It seems reasonable that we treat them as referring to things that can become permitted, as we have stated there “for the Elder uproots the vow from the start.” They said, he only uproots for the future. Certainly a Mishnah treats it as referring to something that cannot become permitted, as we have stated there: “The growth from heave is heave; the growth from their growth is profane. But the growths from ṭevel, First Tithe, aftergrowth of the Sabbatical, heaves from outside the Land, dema‘, and First Fruits are profane as are growths from their growths. Growths from dedicated [seeds] and Second Tithe become profane; one redeems them corresponding to the time of sowing.” We have stated on this: When has this been said? Anything whose seeds disappear. But in produce whose seeds do not disappear, the growth from their growth is forbidden. There is a restriction on growth, as Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion of kilaim in a vineyard, taken out of the ground and replanted, stays forbidden even if it grows enormously because growth of something forbidden cannot neutralize the prohibition. But another Mishnah treats it as something that can become permitted, as we have stated there: “For if somebody vowed not to have a certain thing and it became mixed with something else, if it can be tasted it is forbidden.” This explains that it was mixed with another kind, following the rules of something that can become permitted.

HALAKHAH: It is written: “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut,” from the day he brings his sacrifices, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, from the time of his shaving. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Hoshaia, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Where do they disagree? If he shaved on the seventh and brought his sacrifices on the eighth. But if he shaved on the eighth and brought his sacrifices on the same day, everybody agrees on the day he brings his sacrifices. Rebbi Yose said, that is, if he immersed himself on the seventh. But if he immersed himself on the eighth, the eighth takes the place of the seventh and the seventh of the eighth; he counts only from that “seventh”. If he became impure and impure again, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that statement follows Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah, but following Rebbi this person still stays in impure nezirut. Rebbi Hila said, where do they disagree? To count nezirut in purity. “He has to vow to the Eternal the days of his nezirut and bring.” Rebbi said, until he actually brought. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, even if he was enabled to bring the sacrifice for impurity. Everybody agrees that he brings a sacrifice for impurity. It was stated thus: If he became impure on the seventh, and again impure on the eighth, he brings a sacrifice for each occurrence. In Rebbi Ze‘ira’s opinion, following Rebbi the first sacrifice is superseded and he brings the second; following Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah it was not superseded. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, everybody agrees that nothing is superseded and he brings another.

May a (High) Priest defile himself for the lifting of hands? Gabilah, the brother of Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A Cohen defiles himself for the lifting of hands. Rebbi Aḥa heard it and said: I never told him anything. On second thoughts he said, maybe he heard from me what Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Every Cohen who stays in the synagogue and does not lift his hands transgresses a positive commandment, and he wanted to say that a positive commandment supersedes a negative commandment. I never told him anything. Bring him in and I will flog him!

HALAKHAH: “If somebody had an attack of seizures”, etc. The symptoms of an insane person: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is [a choleric person], and he who destroys what one gives to him is a Cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these symptoms is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these by itself is reasonable for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The one attacked by seizures does not exhibit any of these signs. What is one attacked by seizures? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. This is the cordiacus described by the Sages.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody had an attack of seizures”, etc. The symptoms of an insane person: One who goes out in the night, stays overnight in a graveyard, tears his clothing, and destroys what one gives to him. Rebbi Huna said, only if all of that is in him since otherwise I say that one who goes out in the night is a man-dog; he who stays overnight in a graveyard burns incense to spirits, he who tears up his clothing is [a choleric person], and he who destroys what one gives to him is a Cynic. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these symptoms is proof. Rebbi Abun said, what Rebbi Joḥanan said, even only one of these by itself is reasonable for him who destroys what one gives to him; even the greatest idiot does not destroy all one gives to him. The one attacked by seizures does not exhibit any of these signs. What is one attacked by seizures? Rebbi Yose said, a decrepit one. There came a case before Rebbi Yose of a weaver who, when one gave him red on black he was exerting himself, black on red he was exerting himself. This is the cordiacus described by the Sages.

HALAKHAH: “Somebody borrowed a cow,” etc. What is the status of the night in between? Some say, usually cows rest at their owners’, and this one, because it is leased to him, stays overnight and is as if loaned to him; he is liable. But some say, usually cows do not rest at their owners’, and this one is as if being leased to him; he is not liable.

MISHNAH: If the Court gave an instruction; then they realized that they erred and reversed themselves; whether they brought their atonement or they did not bring their atonement, another person went and acted on their instructions, Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable, but Rebbi Eliezer says, it is in doubt. What is the doubt? If he remained at home, he is liable; if he went overseas he is not liable. Rebbi Aqiba said, I agree in this case that he is closer to not being liable than being liable. Ben Azzai asked him, what is the difference between him and the one staying at home? For one who stays at home might be informed but the other one could not be informed.

There is no contradiction ; the latter refers to one who stays and strains, the other to one who stays long but does not strain.

There is no contradiction ; the latter refers to one who stays and strains, the other to one who stays long but does not strain.

but he did not heed them. Towards evening he was picking up chips of wood and, on his way home, carried the chips on one shoulder and his cloak on the other. The whole way long he did not put on his shoes, but when he had to cross the water he put them on. When he came across thorns and shrubs he lifted up his garments, and when he reached the city, his wife came to meet him bedecked with her finery. When he arrived at the door of his house, he let her enter first, then he followed. He sat down to eat, but did not invite the scholars to join him. Distributing cakes to the children, he gave to the older child one and to the younger two. Turning to his wife, he said: "I know that these scholars came to see me on account of rain; let us go up to the roof and pray; the Holy One, blessed be He, will, perhaps, accept our prayer and there will be rain." When on the roof, he stood praying in one corner and she in another. The clouds appeared first over the corner where his wife stood. He came down and asked the scholars: "Why did the Rabbis come?" "The Rabbis sent us to the Master, that you might pray for rain to come," they replied. Said he: "Blessed be the Lord who put you beyond the need of Abba Hilkiah's prayer!" They, however, replied: "We know well that this rain is come through you, but be that as it may, we should like you to explain to us those actions of yours that greatly surprised us: Why, when we greeted you, did you not heed us?" "I hired myself out for the day, so I thought I had no right to interrupt my work." "Why did you carry the chips of wood on one shoulder and your cloak on the other?" "It is a borrowed garment," he said, "and it was loaned to me for the purpose of wearing, but not for the purpose of placing wood on it." "Why did you not put on your shoes the entire way," the scholars continued, "but when you had to cross the water you put them on?" "Because the entire way," he replied, "I could see (what I was stepping on), in the water I could not see." "Why did you lift up your garments when you came upon thorns and shrubs?" "Because the one (a scratch on the body) heals up, the other (a rent in the garment) does not heal up." "Why did your wife come to meet you so well dressed?" "In order that I should not cast an eye upon another woman." "Why did your wife enter the house first and you after her?" "Because ye are not known to me". "Why did you not invite us to eat with you?" "Because there was not enough food and I did not want to get your thanks for nothing." "Why did you give one cake to the older child and two to the younger?" "The older one stays at home, while the younger goes to school." "Why did the clouds appear first over the corner where your wife was standing?" "Because the woman is usually in the house, and the good she does is direct. (Or it may be because there were some highwaymen living in my neighborhood; I prayed that they should die, while she prayed that they should improve their ways)."