Shabbat 144b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: We have found this [principle] here:

For it was taught: One may squeeze

on Shabbat

wild plums ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

and unripe figs and hawthorns,

[types of fruit that are not designated for squeezing] in order to extract their liquid and drink it. Since this is not their usual manner, there is no issue here of the labor of “threshing.”

But one may not

squeeze

on

Shabbat

pomegranates.

Because this is their usual manner.

And

as we found concerning the people

of the household of Manshia bar Menachem, who would squeeze

pomegranates on weekdays.

It follows that other fruits whose manner is not to be squeezed are permitted on Shabbat.

And we reject this:

And from where [do you know] that

this

beraita is according to the Rabbis?

Perhaps it is according to Rabbi Judah.

And perhaps the Rabbis prohibit even [squeezing] other fruits.

And we answer:

And

this even

may also be

this beraita according to

Rabbi Judah,

nevertheless it is possible to prove from it [the ruling] for the Rabbis.

Say that you have heard Rabbi Judah

permitting [in the case of] other fruits with regard to liquids

that came out

of them

by themselves

—you have heard him say so. But that one may squeeze

ab initio

other fruits on Shabbat—

have you heard him

say this?

Rather, what can you say? Since

these fruits

are not fit for squeezing,

it is permitted

even

to squeeze them

ab initio.

And concerning squeezing ab initio, we do not find that the Rabbis dispute Rabbi Judah. And if so,

even say

that it is according to

the Rabbis: Since they are not fit for squeezing,

it is permitted to squeeze them

even ab initio.

And

learn from this

that this beraita, which permits squeezing wild plums, unripe figs, and hawthorns ab initio, is also

according to the Rabbis.

And we conclude:

Learn from this.

We learned in a beraita:

Those of the household of Manshia bar Menachem would squeeze pomegranates.

Rav Nahman said: The halakha is like those of the household of Manshia bar Menachem.

Since their practice was to squeeze pomegranates on weekdays, it is forbidden to squeeze them on Shabbat.

Rava said to Rav Nahman: Was Manshia ben Menachem a tannei,

that you should say that the halakha is according to him? Was he not mentioned only to bring proof from him to the words of the tannei, that the manner of pomegranates is to be squeezed?

And if you would say

that this is what Rav Nahman meant:

The halakha is according to this tannei who holds

it

like those of the household of Manshia ben Menachem,

that the manner of pomegranates is to be squeezed, and therefore they are forbidden on Shabbat—this too is difficult.

For

and

if

because he holds like Manshia ben Menachem, is the halakha according to him?

Are the household of

Manshia ben Menachem the majority of the world,

so that because of them we should say that the manner of pomegranates is to be squeezed?

And we answer:

No.

For we have already found that because of several people who practice a particular matter, that matter is considered the way of the world.

And

as we learned:

It is forbidden to maintain mixed species in a vineyard, even when the crops grew there by themselves. And if he maintained them, the crops became consecrated under the law of mixed species, and they are forbidden for benefit.

And

one who maintains thorns in a vineyard—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He consecrates

the crops, and they become forbidden for benefit.

And the Sages say: He does not consecrate

through the prohibition of mixed species

unless it is something such as which people maintain.

That is, specifically something which is customary to maintain in that place.

And Rabbi Hanina said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer?—

For in Arabia they maintain field thorns for

the purpose of feeding

their camels.

And since in one place it is customary to maintain them, they are mixed species everywhere.

It follows that because of one place where they consider them important, they become an important matter everywhere. Here too, since those of the household of Manshia bar Menachem squeeze pomegranates, they are considered fit for squeezing everywhere.

And we reject this:

Is it comparable?

But these are not similar to one another. Since

“Arabia”

is a place

— and it suffices that thorns are considered important in a particular place to prohibit them everywhere, because the importance accorded by the public is importance. But

here,

in the case of Manshia bar Menachem, because of one man we should not say that pomegranates are considered fit for squeezing,

because his opinion is disregarded

of Manshia

by every person.

For the majority of the world does not have the practice of squeezing pomegranates.

And we answer:

Rather, this matter—that one does not squeeze pomegranates on Shabbat—

is

for this is the reason, as [stated by] Rav Hisda.

For Rav Hisda said: If one squeezed chard and placed it

for its liquid

in a ritual bath,

they

disqualify the ritual bath by changing its appearance.

For all liquids disqualify a ritual bath if the appearance of the water changes because of them.

However, they disqualify the ritual bath only when they are liquids possessing the importance of a liquid.

But

this chard

is not fit for squeezing,

and its liquid is not considered a liquid. If so, why does it disqualify [the ritual bath] by changing its appearance?

Rather, what can you say? Since he rendered it important

by squeezing it,

it became a liquid.

And for this reason it disqualifies the ritual bath.

And

here too

with pomegranates:

since

he squeezed them,

he rendered them important, and

therefore

they became a liquid,

and it is forbidden to squeeze them on Shabbat.

And this is how Rav Nahman explains the earlier beraita: In truth, every fruit is forbidden to squeeze on Shabbat if one squeezes it for the liquid that comes out of it. And it is permitted to squeeze wild plums, unripe figs, and hawthorns only when one squeezes them in order to sweeten the fruit, and not for the sake of the liquid.

But with pomegranates it is forbidden to squeeze them in any manner. Since those of the household of Manshia would squeeze pomegranates on weekdays for the sake of the liquid, it is forbidden to squeeze them on Shabbat even in order to sweeten them. Since there is one person who squeezes them for the sake of a liquid, if we permit squeezing them to sweeten them, he may come to do so for the sake of a liquid. But with wild plums and hawthorns there is nothing to fear. For no person squeezes them for the sake of the liquid.

Rav Pappa said:

It cannot be proved from Rav Hisda that because he rendered it important, it is considered a liquid. Rather, the reason that chard liquid disqualifies the ritual bath is

because it is something from which one does not make a ritual bath ab initio

[for its first forty seah].

And anything from which one does not make a ritual bath ab initio

is

what disqualifies a ritual bath by changing its appearance.

It is not necessary that it have the status of a liquid.

We learned there: If

[into the ritual bath]

wine or vinegar

or

olive refuse-liquid

[olive liquid]

fell into it and changed its appearance,

the water of the ritual bath—the ritual bath is

disqualified.

And it was initially understood that only a liquid disqualifies by changing the appearance.

And we inquire about it:

Who

is this

tannei

who holds

that “olive refuse-liquid” is a liquid,

and disqualifies the ritual bath?

Abaye said: It is Rabbi Yaakov

who holds this.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yaakov says: Olive refuse-liquid is considered a liquid.

However, there are three types of olive refuse-liquid. A. Olive refuse-liquid that emerges from the olives at first, when they are loaded into the ma'atan to warm and ripen. This refuse-liquid is clear like water. B. Refuse-liquid that flows from the olives after they have stood for several days and pressed against one another. This refuse-liquid somewhat resembles oil. C. Refuse-liquid that flows from the olive refuse after its oil has been squeezed out.

And when Rabbi Yaakov says that olive refuse-liquid is a liquid, this applies only to the second type of refuse-liquid, which emerges after the olives have stood for several days. But refuse-liquid that emerges at first is not a liquid.

And for what reason did they say that olive refuse-liquid that emerges at first

is not a liquid, and it is

pure

from becoming impure with the impurity of liquids?—

Because

the owner

does not desire its continued existence.

And it was already explained above that anything which is not according to a person’s will is not considered a liquid.

Rabbi Shimon says: Olive refuse-liquid is not considered a liquid,

except for the refuse-liquid that emerges from the olive refuse after it has been squeezed in the olive press.

And for what reason did they say that olive refuse-liquid that emerges from the press

[a kind of woven basket into which the olive refuse is placed after it has been squeezed]

makes the olive press impure?—

Because it is impossible for

this refuse-liquid

without

there being in it

traces of

[drops of]

oil

that remained in the olive refuse.

And we inquire about it:

What is the difference between them

between Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon? But concerning refuse-liquid that emerges at first, Rabbi Yaakov agrees that it is pure; and concerning refuse-liquid that emerges from the olive-press basket, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is impure.

And we answer:

There is a difference between them:

refuse-liquid

that comes after the pressing

[after the olives have stood for several days and begun to warm]. For according to Rabbi Yaakov, it is considered a liquid because it is close to becoming oil. But according to Rabbi Shimon, it is not a liquid.

Rava said:

The tannei of the Mishna may also hold like Rabbi Shimon, that olive refuse-liquid is not considered a liquid. And even so, it disqualifies the ritual bath

because it is something from which one does not make a ritual bath.

And anything from which one does not make a ritual bath at the outset

disqualifies the ritual bath by changing its appearance,

as Rav Pappa said above.

Rav Judah said in the name of Samuel: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes into a pot

of cooked food, in order to improve it. For it is evident that he is not squeezing it for the sake of a liquid, but for the sake of improving the cooked food. In this manner it is not considered “separating.” For the manner of “separating” is only when one separates a liquid from food. But here it is like separating food from food, since the liquid emerging from the food [the grapes] is absorbed into the cooked food and becomes food again.

But one may not

squeeze a cluster of grapes

into a bowl

that has no cooked food in it. For a liquid found in a bowl is sometimes intended as a liquid. And although a person does not drink from the bowl, nevertheless it is not evident that he is doing it for the sake of the cooked food. It is therefore like separating a liquid from food.

Rav Hisda said: From the words of our master

[Samuel]

we learn

that

a person may milk a goat into a pot,

but not into a bowl.

For milking too is forbidden because of separating. Rather, and this is a derivative of “threshing,” when he milks into a pot, it is like separating food from food. And this is not “separating,” as explained.

And we deduce precisely: from what Shmuel said, "one squeezes into the pot",

evidently he holds that a liquid

destined to

come

into

food is food.

Rami bar Hama objects:

we learned:

a zav who milks the goat—the milk is impure. For the zav renders impure everything through his shifting of it. And here too, he shifts the stream of milk and renders it impure through this. And we do not find a distinction between whether he milks into a pot or into a bowl.

For a zav renders impure anything that he shifts. Here too, he shifts the stream of milk and thereby renders it impure. We find no distinction between whether he milks into a pot or into a bowl.

And if you say, "a liquid that comes to food is food",

it follows that when he milks into the pot, the milk is considered food. If so, why is it impure? Does it not have the law of food impurity? And food does not become susceptible to impurity until it has been rendered fit through liquids. And

by what was

this milk rendered fit?

And we answer: although it is food, it nevertheless becomes impure. For it was rendered fit through liquids. And

as Rabbi Yohanan said.

For we learned: if a menstruating woman had milk drip from her breasts and it fell into the airspace of an oven, the oven is impure. For the milk became impure through her contact with it, and renders the oven impure.

And we raise a difficulty: by what was it rendered fit? Since it stands for the infant’s consumption, it is considered food, and requires being rendered fit.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: it was rendered fit

by the drop

that is first,

which is soiled at the opening of the breast.

And the status of this drop is that of a liquid. For it does not stand for the infant’s consumption.

And here too,

even when he milks the goat into the pot, and the principal part of the milk is food, nevertheless it was rendered fit to receive impurity through

the drop

that is first,

which is soiled at the opening of the breast,

which is considered a liquid.