Shabbat 143b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

A barrel that broke

on Shabbat,

one may rescue from it food for three meals.

But more than this, the Sages decreed that one may not rescue. Since a person is agitated over his property, we are concerned lest he bring a vessel through the public domain.

And he is permitted to rescue food for three meals, even in several vessels. For if it is in one vessel, he may rescue as much as he wants, as is stated above [Shabbat 120a].

And

also

he may say to guests, “Come and rescue for yourselves”

from this barrel food for three meals. For each and every one is permitted to rescue this amount.

And he is permitted to rescue from it,

provided that he does not absorb

the wine with a sponge, in order to return and drip it into another vessel. This is a decree, lest he squeeze the wine from the sponge, and it would be mefarek, which is a derivative of dash.

2.

One may not squeeze

on Shabbat

the fruits,

in order to extract liquids from them. For squeezing is forbidden on account of mefarek, that is, a derivative of dash.

And if they came out

the liquids from the fruits

by themselves, they are forbidden

for drinking on that Shabbat. This is a decree lest he come to squeeze with his hands.

Rabbi Judah says: If

the fruits were gathered

for

the purpose of

eating, what comes out of them

on Shabbat by itself—

is permitted.

Because he does not want what is flowing from them, since they are not designated for this. Therefore, there is no concern in their case lest he squeeze them initially.

And if

the fruits are designated

for

the purpose of

liquids

that flow from them—the liquid

is forbidden.

For since he wants the liquid that comes out, we decree lest he squeeze.

And just as there is the prohibition of mefarek in squeezing fruits, so too it is forbidden on account of mefarek to crush honeycombs on Shabbat in order to extract the honey from them. Therefore, even honey that flowed out by itself is forbidden, as a decree lest he crush them.

And even

honeycombs that

already

crushed before Shabbat, and their honey came out

on Shabbat

by themselves—

they are

forbidden.

And although they were already crushed before Shabbat, and there is no longer a way to squeeze them, and there is no concern lest he squeeze them—in any event, we decree on account of honeycombs that are not crushed.

And Rabbi Elazar permits.

For there is no concern lest he crush them. And he did not decree on account of combs that are not crushed.

Gemara:

A tanna:

A barrel that broke, and he came to rescue from it food for three meals,

he may not absorb

its wine in a sponge, by placing the sponge

in the wine

and returning and dripping it into a vessel. This is a decree lest he squeeze it.

And

if it is one of oil,

he may not

dab, that is, insert his hands

into the oil,

so that the oil will adhere to them, and return and wipe them on the rim of the vessel into it.

And the reason for the prohibition is so that he

will not do

on Shabbat

as he does on a weekday .

For all weekday-like activities are forbidden on Shabbat.

The Sages taught:

If

his fruits became scattered in the courtyard,

he

gathers them one by one [

little by little]

and eats .

But he may not

gather

into the basket, and not into

the large basket .

In order

that he will not do

on Shabbat

as he does on a weekday .

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not squeeze the fruits

and so on. Rabbi Judah says: If they are for eating, it is permitted.

Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: Rabbi Judah would concede to the Sages

in the case of

olives and grapes.

For even when they were gathered for eating and not for liquids, the liquid that comes out of them is likewise forbidden.

What is the reason?—

For

since

the majority of them

are for squeezing,

therefore even with those that are not designated for this, he

sets his mind

on the liquid that comes out of them, and wants it.

And Ulla said

in the name of

Rav: Rabbi Judah disagreed

with the Sages

even regarding olives and grapes.

For if they are designated for eating, he does not want the liquid that comes out of them, and there is no concern in their case lest he squeeze them .

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

Rabbi Judah and the Sages disagree both regarding other fruits and regarding olives and grapes [like Rav] .

And the halakha is according to Rabbi Judah regarding other fruits. And the halakha is not according to Rabbi Judah regarding olives and grapes,

but according to the Sages. Since the majority of them are designated for squeezing, he always wants the liquid that comes out of them, and there is concern in their case lest he squeeze them.

Rabbah said, Rav Judah said, Shmuel said: Rabbi Judah would concede to the Sages regarding olives and grapes. And the Sages concede to Rabbi Judah regarding other fruits

that are designated for eating, that the liquid that comes out of them by itself is permitted. Since ordinarily they are not designated for squeezing, if they were gathered for eating, there is no concern in their case of squeezing.

Rabbi Jeremiah said to Rabbi Abba:

If so,

but in what do they disagree?

You said that regarding olives and grapes everyone forbids, and regarding other fruits everyone permits.

He said to him

Rabbi Abba:

When

you examine it,

you will find

in what they disagree.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak

explained it:

It is reasonable that they disagree regarding strawberries and pomegranates.

For there are people who bring them in for liquids, and there are those who gather them for eating. And the Sages hold that since they are also designated for squeezing, he wants the liquid that comes out of them, even where he did not bring them in for this purpose.

For it was taught: Olives from which

[liquid] flowed

oil flowed

by itself on Shabbat ,

and grapes from which wine flowed

by itself—and

he brought them in

those olives and grapes

whether for eating

and

whether for liquids—

the oil and wine

that comes out of them is forbidden.

Because the majority of them are designated for squeezing.

Strawberries from which water flowed

by themselves,

and pomegranates from which wine flowed

by itself [pomegranate juice is also called “wine” because they have sharpness]—if

he brought them in

[for strawberries and pomegranates]

for eating,

the liquid

that comes out of them is permitted.

For since they are not designated for liquids, he does not want the liquid flowing from them, and he will not come to squeeze them.

And if he brought them in

for liquids, or if he brought them in

for

ordinary use

[without specifying in his mind what he would do with them], the liquid

that comes out of them is forbidden.

For he wants the liquid, and we are concerned lest he come to squeeze them—

the words of Rabbi Judah.

And the Sages say: Whether

he brought the strawberries and pomegranates

for eating,

and

whether

he brought them

for liquids,

the liquid

that comes out of them is forbidden.

For since they are also designated for squeezing, he wants the liquid that comes out, even if he did not bring them in for this purpose.

Thus, they disagree regarding strawberries and pomegranates that he brought in for eating. But regarding other fruits, for which no one brings them in for liquids, the Sages concede to him.

We learned in a beraita: Strawberries and pomegranates that he brought in for ordinary use—the liquid that comes out of them is forbidden—the words of Rabbi Judah.

And we raise an objection:

And

does

Rabbi Judah hold

that when he brings them in

ordinarily

as well it is

forbidden?

But we hold as established: Foods do not contract impurity unless they were made susceptible to impurity through liquids falling upon them.

But we learned: A woman’s milk causes impurity

[makes susceptible], whether it came out from her

willingly

[with her consent],

and

whether it came out from her

unwillingly.

And the reason is explained nearby.

But

the milk

of

an animal does not cause impurity

[make susceptible]

unless

it came out

willingly

of the owner. And in any event it is not considered a liquid to make foods susceptible.

And likewise it does not contract impurity through the impurity of liquids if a creeping animal touched it.

Rabbi Akiva said:

But is it not

a kal va-chomer: Just as a woman’s milk, which is designated only for infants,

it is

impure whether willingly or unwillingly—

animal milk, which

is

designated both for infants and for adults, is it not certainly the case that it should be impure whether willingly or unwillingly?

And it has the status of a liquid more than a woman’s milk.

They said to him

the Sages: It is not a kal va-chomer. For

if a woman’s milk is impure

when it came out

unwillingly,

this is only because

that

also

blood

that comes out

from her wound

[her leg or her hand]

is impure

[makes susceptible]. Since it has the status of a liquid. And as we expound [Niddah 55b] from the verse, “the blood of the slain he shall drink,” that the blood of a slain person is called a liquid. And even blood that comes out of the body of a living person is like “the blood of the slain.” For the blood itself is like a dead thing after it has separated from the body. What difference is there between killing the whole and killing a part?

And since a woman’s blood is considered a liquid even when it comes out unwillingly [for ordinary blood from her body comes out unwillingly], so too her milk that came out unwillingly is considered a liquid, because its source is the blood. And as it is stated, “blood is transformed and becomes milk.”