יג והא מיבעי ליה כדי שלא יטנפו כליו א"ר זירא האי תנא הוא דאמר כל אצולי טינוף לא קא חשיב דתנן הכופה קערה על הכותל אם בשביל שתודח הקער' הרי זה בכי יותן אם בשביל
13 nor a [wool] corder with the cord in his ear, nor a weaver with the cotton<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Krauss in T.A. 1. p. 249 and p. 281 a.l. translates: a small distaff, carried behind the ear as an indication of a man's trade. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> in his ear, nor a dyer with a [colour] sample round his neck, nor a money-changer with a <i>denar</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A coin. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> in his ear; and if he does go forth, he is not liable, though it is forbidden: this is R. Meir's view.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He regards these as unnatural ways of carrying, whereas Scripture prohibits only the natural mode of any particular form of labour. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> 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 <i>zab</i> must not go out with his pouch;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To receive his discharge. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> yet if he goes out he is not liable, though it is forbidden. And another taught: A <i>zab</i> 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 <i>log</i> on the Sabbath, would he indeed be exempt on R. Meir's view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he did not do it in a professional manner? Surely not, for if so only a skilled worker will be liable for doing something of his own trade. Hence it must be that a person is liable for doing any labour in the manner natural to himself, and the same applies to a zab and his pouch. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Rather, said R. Hamnuna, there is no difficulty; the one refers to a <i>zab</i> who has had two attacks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sights'-of discharge. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> the other to a <i>zab</i> who has had three attacks.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a zab has had three attacks be must bring a sacrifice (Lev. XV, 13-15). Consequently, after two attacks he needs this pouch to see whether he has a third (which otherwise may pass unknown to him), and since he needs it that is the natural way for him to carry it, and therefore he is liable. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Now, why does a <i>zab</i> of two attacks differ in that he is liable? [Presumably] because he requires it for examination!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in last note. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> But then a <i>zab</i> of three attacks also requires it for counting?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After he ceases to discharge he must count seven consecutive days of cleanness, i.e., in which there is no discharge (ibid.): a single attack during this period necessitates counting afresh from the following day. Hence he too needs this pouch for that period. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> It holds good only for that very day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is not liable only if he had the third attack on that Sabbath itself; he does not need the pouch then, as in any case he commences counting only on the next day. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when a thing is done not for its own sake but to prevent something from being soiled, it is not regarded as a positive act and involves no liability. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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