Shabbat 143b (קמג:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

A barrel that broke

on Shabbat,

one may save from it food for three meals.

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

He may save food for three meals even in several vessels. For if he uses a single vessel, he may save as much as he wishes, as stated above [120a].

And

he may also

say to guests, “Come and save for yourselves”

food for three meals from this barrel, since each person is permitted to save this amount.

And he may save from it,

provided that he does not absorb it

with a sponge, intending to return and drip it into another vessel. This is a decree lest he squeeze the wine from the sponge, which would constitute “extracting,” a derivative of “threshing.”

2.

One may not squeeze

on Shabbat

the fruits

in order to extract liquids from them. Squeezing is prohibited as “extracting,” that is, a derivative of “threshing.”

And if

the liquids came out of the fruit

by themselves, they are prohibited

for drinking on that Shabbat, as a decree lest one come to squeeze them by hand.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If

the fruits had been gathered

for

the purpose of

eating, what comes out of them

on Shabbat by itself is

permitted.

Since he does not desire the liquid that flows from them, for they are not designated for that purpose, there is therefore no concern that he may squeeze them initially.

And if

the fruits are designated

for

the purpose of

the liquids

that flow from them, the liquid is

prohibited.

Since he desires the liquid that emerges, we decree that he may come to squeeze them.

Just as extracting is prohibited when squeezing fruits, so too it is prohibited as “extracting” to crush honeycombs on Shabbat in order to extract the honey from them. Therefore, even honey that flowed out by itself is prohibited as a decree lest one crush the honeycombs.

And even

honeycombs that

had already

been crushed before Shabbat, and their honey came out

on Shabbat

by itself—

they are

prohibited.

Although they had already been crushed before Shabbat, so that there is no longer a customary way to squeeze them and there is no concern that one may squeeze them, nevertheless we decree this because of honeycombs that have not been crushed.

And Rabbi Elazar permits.

There is indeed no concern that one may crush them, and he does not decree because of honeycombs that have not been crushed.

Gemara:

A tanna taught:

If a barrel broke and one came to save food for three meals from it,

he may not absorb

its wine in a sponge by placing the sponge

in the wine

and then returning to drip it into a vessel, as a decree lest he squeeze it.

And

if it is a barrel of oil,

he may not

dabble and insert his hands

into the oil

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

The reason for the prohibition is so

that he should not perform

on Shabbat

as he performs on a weekday , since all weekday-like activities are prohibited on Shabbat.

For all weekday-like activities are forbidden on Shabbat.

The Sages taught:

If

one’s fruits were scattered in the courtyard,

he may

gather them little by little

[a small amount at a time]

and eat them .

But he may not

gather them

into a basket, nor into

a large basket ,

in order

that he should not perform

on Shabbat

as he performs on a weekday .

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not squeeze the fruits

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Rabbi Yehuda agreed with the Sages

regarding

with regard to olives and grapes.

Even when they were gathered for eating and not for liquids, the liquid that emerges from them is nevertheless prohibited.

What is the reason?—

Because

Since

most of them

are for squeezing,

even with regard to those that are not designated for that purpose,

he sets his mind

on the liquid that emerges from them and desires it.

And Ulla said

in the name of

Rav: Rabbi Yehuda differed

with the Sages

even with regard to olives and grapes.

If they are designated for eating, he does not desire the liquid that emerges from them, and there is no concern that he may squeeze them .

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages disagree both with regard to other fruits and with regard to olives and grapes [like Rav] .

And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits. But the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to olives and grapes,

but rather in accordance with the Sages. Since most of them are designated for squeezing, one always desires the liquid that emerges from them, and there is concern that he may squeeze them.

Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda agreed with the Sages with regard to olives and grapes. And the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits

that are designated for eating, that the liquid that emerges from them by itself is permitted. Since they are not ordinarily designated for squeezing, if they were gathered for eating, there is no concern that they will be squeezed.

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abba:

If so,

in what do they disagree?

You said that with regard to olives and grapes everyone agrees that it is prohibited, and with regard to other fruits everyone agrees that it is permitted.

He said to him

Rabbi Abba:

When you

examine it,

you will find

what they disagree about.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said

and explained it:

It stands to reason that they disagree with regard to strawberries and pomegranates.

Some people place them aside for their liquids, while others gather them for eating. The Sages maintain that since they are also designated for squeezing, one desires the liquid that emerges from them even when he did not place them there for that purpose.

As it was taught: Olives from which

[oil]

oil flowed

by itself on Shabbat ,

and grapes from which wine flowed

by itself—

and one had placed them

those olives and grapes

both for eating

and

both for liquids—

the oil and wine

that emerge from them are prohibited,

because most of them are designated for squeezing.

Strawberries from which water flowed

by itself,

and pomegranates from which wine flowed

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

he placed them

[the strawberries and pomegranates]

for eating,

the liquid

that emerges from them is permitted.

Since they are not designated for liquids, he does not desire the liquid that flows from them and will not come to squeeze them.

And if he placed them

for liquids, or if he placed them

for

an unspecified purpose

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

that emerges from them is prohibited.

For he desires the liquid, and we are concerned that he may come to squeeze them—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And the Sages say: Whether

he placed the strawberries and pomegranates

for eating,

and

whether

he placed them

for liquids,

the liquid

that emerges from them is prohibited.

Since they are also designated for squeezing, he desires the liquid that emerges, even if he did not place them there for that purpose.

It follows that they disagree with regard to strawberries and pomegranates that were placed aside for eating. But with regard to other fruits, which no one places aside for liquids, the Sages agree with Rabbi Yehuda.

We learned in a beraita: Strawberries and pomegranates that one placed aside for an unspecified purpose—the liquid that emerges from them is prohibited—these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And we raise an objection:

And

does

Rabbi Yehuda maintain

that when one places them

without specification

it is also

prohibited?

But we have established: Food does not become susceptible to ritual impurity unless it was rendered susceptible by liquids falling upon it.

And we learned: A woman’s milk renders susceptible

[and renders susceptible to impurity] whether it emerged from her

willingly

[with her consent],

and

whether it emerged from her

unwillingly.

The reason is explained shortly.

But

the milk of

the

animal does not render susceptible

[and does not render susceptible to impurity]

unless

it emerged

willingly

of the owner. In any event, it is not considered a liquid capable of rendering food susceptible.

Likewise, it does not become impure with the ritual impurity of liquids if a creeping creature touches it.

Rabbi Akiva said:

But is this not a

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

is

impure whether willingly or unwillingly—

animal milk, which

is

designated both for infants and for adults, should it not logically be impure whether willingly or unwillingly?

It has the status of a liquid even more than woman’s milk.

The Sages said to him: It is not a kal va-chomer. For

if a woman’s milk is impure

when it emerges

unwillingly,

unwillingly, this is only because

that is only because

even

also

blood

that emerges

from her wound

[her leg or hand]

is impure

[and renders susceptible to impurity]. This is because it has the status of a liquid. As we expounded [Niddah 55b] from the verse “he shall drink the blood of the slain,” the blood of the slain is called a liquid. Blood that emerges from the body of a living person is likewise like “the blood of the slain,” since the blood itself is like a dead thing once it has separated from the body. What difference is there between killing the whole and killing a part?

Since a woman’s blood is considered a liquid even when it emerges unwillingly [for ordinary blood from her body emerges unwillingly], her milk that emerges unwillingly is likewise considered a liquid, because its source is the blood. As it is stated: “Blood is transformed and becomes milk.”