wearing

But this last is only meant when he is not carrying a load ; should he, however, be carrying a load, there is no objection. It is only meant when there is no other entrance ; but should there be another entrance, there is no objection. It is further only meant when he is not riding upon an ass ; but should he be riding upon an ass, there is no objection. It is likewise only meant when he is not wearing Tefillin ; but if he is wearing Tefillin, there is no objection.

Raba said : Expectoration is allowed in a Synagogue, because it is analogous to [the wearing of] a shoe — just as [the wearing of] a shoe is prohibited on the Temple Mount but is permitted in a Synagogue, so is expectoration forbidden on the Temple Mount but permitted in a Synagogue.

Raba said : Expectoration is allowed in a Synagogue, because it is analogous to [the wearing of] a shoe — just as [the wearing of] a shoe is prohibited on the Temple Mount but is permitted in a Synagogue, so is expectoration forbidden on the Temple Mount but permitted in a Synagogue.

and I say that with reference to the Temple Mount where [the wearing of] a shoe is forbidden, let one derive [the prohibition against expectoration] from a shoe; but with reference to the Synagogue where one is permitted [to wear] shoes, instead of deriving permission [to expectorate, by analogy] from a shoe, let him derive a prohibition [against expectoration, by analogy] from the short cut !

But, answered Raba : [The Synagogue] is analogous to his own house — as a man is concerned about anybody using his house as a short cut but is not concerned about expectoration or [the wearing of] shoes, so also with the Synagogue, as a short cut it is prohibited, but expectoration and [the wearing of] shoes are allowed.

But, answered Raba : [The Synagogue] is analogous to his own house — as a man is concerned about anybody using his house as a short cut but is not concerned about expectoration or [the wearing of] shoes, so also with the Synagogue, as a short cut it is prohibited, but expectoration and [the wearing of] shoes are allowed.

If, however, he was wearing his clothes and had his sandals unclean immediately, but they remain clean, unless he stayed as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf of wheat bread and not of barley bread, while in a reclining posture and eating with some condiment.

Abaye said to him But what about that which has been taught, "A man may sleep casually while wearing his , but not set regular, let us be concerned lest he fall fast asleep? R. Joseph b. R. Ila'i said: his refers to a person who entrusts his sleep to others.

Our Rabbis taught: If he forgot and had sexual intercourse while wearing his tefillin he should not [remove them] by holding either the strap or the capsule until he wash his hands to take them off, since hands are busy.

Mar bar Amemar said to R. Ashi: My father used to recite his prayers [while holding the lulav]. They objected: One should not hold his tefillin in his hand or a Torah scroll in his bosom and pray, nor should he urinate [while wearing them], or doze or sleep.

6. If these fast days are over and the community's prayer has not been answered, the court orders three more fasts for the community. On the days preceding these fasts one may eat and drink until sunset only, and on the fast days proper, work, bathing, anointing oneself, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden. The bath-houses must be closed. If these fast days, too, are over and the community has not been answered, the court orders seven additional fasts for the community, making in all thirteen fasts. In what respect are these (seven) fasts more rigorous than the (three) immediately preceding ones? In that on these the alarm must be sounded and the shops must be closed. On the fasts falling on a Monday, the doors of the shops may be slightly opened toward nightfall, while on Thursdays they may be kept open all day for the sake of the approaching Sabbath.

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

Shall we say that R. Ḥisda's view is supported by the following Baraita: "All those bound to take an immersion, immerse as usual even on the Ninth of Ab or on the Day of Atonement"? What kind of immersion is here intended? It cannot be in warm water, for such water is drawn. The Baraita means therefore immersion in cold water and yet it permits it only to those "bound to take an immersion," while all other people are excluded! Said R. Ḥama b. R. Ḳeṭina, the Baraita has reference to the hot springs of Tiberias. If so, how will you understand the following statement that was made with relation to the above Baraita: "R. Ḥanina, the Segan of the priests, said, the house of our God is worth that one should give up for its sake one bath in a year"? If, as you say, the Baraita permits immersion in cold water, they could immerse in cold water (and would not have to give it up even once a year). Said R. Papa, R. Ḥanina refers to a place where there is no cold water (for bathing). Come and hear: "When it was said that bathing on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the whole body, but washing the face, hands, and feet is allowed; when it was said that work on a fast day is forbidden, it was said only with regard to the day, but during the preceding night it is allowed; and when it was said that wearing shoes is forbidden, it was said only with reference to the city, but on the road it is allowed. How is it done? When one comes on the road, he puts his shoes on, but as soon as he reaches the city, he must take them off. Thou wilt find the same law applied also to an excommunicated person and to a mourner." Now, does not the last statement (that the same law applies also to mourners) cover all three points (bathing, working, and wearing shoes)? No, it refers only to the latter two.

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)."

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

Our Rabbis have taught: All the laws that apply to a mourner apply also to the ninth of Ab; on that day eating, drinking, bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden; it is also forbidden to read in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, or to study the Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, Halakot and Haggadot; one may read, however, parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, and study parts of the Mishnah etc., which he was not used to study before; one may read also the Book of Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; the children are not free from school; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, one is not allowed to read even parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, nor to study parts of the Mishnah which he was not used to study before, but he may read the Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; and the children are free from school; the reason for the prohibition (of study) is that it is said (Ps., 19. 9): "The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart."

If he was wearing shatnez all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't wear shatnez", "Don't wear shatnez", and he nevertheless wore shatnez, then he is liable for each every [warning].

Chananya ben Chachinai said also one who is wearing shatnez. They responded that is not from [the same action]. He said back also a Nazir is not from [the same action].

GEMARA: (Rav Bibi asked in the name of Rebbi Yosi, Is wearing considered literally wearing or is it) even if he just took in ant out his hand from his sleeve? Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka demonstrated by inserting [his hand] and removing [it]. Rav Ashi said that even if one only waited the amount of time in which he could have undressed and redressed, he would be liable.

GEMARA: (Rav Bibi asked in the name of Rebbi Yosi, Is wearing considered literally wearing or is it) even if he just took in ant out his hand from his sleeve? Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka demonstrated by inserting [his hand] and removing [it]. Rav Ashi said that even if one only waited the amount of time in which he could have undressed and redressed, he would be liable.