Shabbat

and the same applies to a wine vat.  The scholars propounded: What of a karmelith? — Abaye said: It is precisely the same. Raba said: That itself  is only a preventive measure:  are we to arise and enact a preventive measure  to safeguard  another preventive measure! Abaye said, Whence do I say it? Because it is taught, and the same applies to a wine vat. Now what is this wine vat? If private ground, it has [already] been taught: if public ground, it has [also] been taught. Hence it must surely refer to a karmelith. Raba said: 'And the same applies to a wine vat' is [stated] in reference to tithes; and R. Shesheth said likewise, 'And the same applies to a wine vat' refers to tithes. For we learnt: One may drink [wine] over the vat in [a dilution of] both hot or cold [water], and is exempt [from tithing]: this is R. Meir's view. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok holds him liable. But the Sages maintain: For a hot [dilution] he is liable; for a cold one he is exempt, because the rest is returned. We learnt: A TAILOR MUST NOT GO OUT WITH HIS NEEDLE NEAR NIGHTFALL, LEST HE FORGET HIMSELF AND GO OUT. Surely that means that it is stuck in his garment? — No: it means that he holds it in his hand.  Come and hear: A tailor must not go out with a needle sticking in his garment. Surely that refers to the eve of Sabbath? — No; that was taught with reference to the Sabbath. But it was taught, A tailor must not go out with a needle sticking in his garment on the eve of the Sabbath just before sunset? — The author of that is R. Judah, who maintained, An artisan is liable [for carrying out an object] in the manner of his trade.  For it was taught: A tailor must not go out with a needle stuck in his garment, nor a carpenter with a chip behind his ear,  nor a [wool] corder with the cord in his ear, nor a weaver with the cotton  in his ear, nor a dyer with a [colour] sample round his neck, nor a money-changer with a denar  in his ear; and if he does go forth, he is not liable, though it is forbidden: this is R. Meir's view.  R. Judah said: An artisan is liable [for carrying out an object] in the manner of his trade, but all other people are exempt. One [Baraitha] taught: A zab must not go out with his pouch;  yet if he goes out he is not liable, though it is forbidden. And another taught: A zab must not go out with his pouch, and if he goes out he is liable to a sin-offering!-Said R. Joseph, There is no difficulty: the former is R. Meir; the latter R. Judah. Abaye said to him. When have you heard R. Meir [to give this ruling], in respect to something which it is not natural [to carry thus]; but have you heard him in respect to something which demands that mode [of carrying]? For should you not say so, then if an unskilled worker hollows out a measure from a log on the Sabbath, would he indeed be exempt on R. Meir's view?  Rather, said R. Hamnuna, there is no difficulty; the one refers to a zab who has had two attacks,  the other to a zab who has had three attacks.  Now, why does a zab of two attacks differ in that he is liable? [Presumably] because he requires it for examination!  But then a zab of three attacks also requires it for counting?  It holds good only for that very day.  Yet still he needs it to prevent the soiling of his garments? — Said R. Zera, This agrees with the following Tanna, who maintains, The prevention of soiling has no [positive] importance.  For we learnt: If one overturns a basin on a wall, in order that the basin be washed [by the rain], it falls within [the terms of], 'and if it [water] be put [etc.]'; if in order