Shabbat 144b (קמד:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: We find such a case here:

as it was taught:

on Shabbat one may squeeze

unripe figs

quinces and azaroles,

[fruit species that are not ordinarily designated for squeezing] to extract their liquid and drink it. Since this is not their normal manner of use, it does not constitute the labor of “threshing” .

But one may not

squeeze

on

Shabbat

pomegranates,

because squeezing them is their normal manner of use.

And

as we find concerning the people

of the household of Manasseh bar Menahem, who would squeeze

pomegranates on weekdays.

It follows that other fruits that are not ordinarily squeezed are permitted on Shabbat.

And we reject this:

But from where do we know that

this beraita follows the opinion of

the Rabbis?

Perhaps it follows the opinion of Rabbi Judah.

Perhaps the Rabbis prohibit squeezing even other fruits.

And we answer:

And

even

if you should say

that this beraita follows the opinion of

Rabbi Judah,

it can still be used to establish the position of the Rabbis.

Granted that you have heard Rabbi Judah

permit, with regard to other fruits, the liquids

that emerged

from them

on their own;

but have you heard him permit squeezing

ab initio

other fruits on Shabbat?

Have you heard him

say this?

Rather, what must you say? Since

these fruits

are not fit for squeezing,

it is permitted

even

to squeeze them

ab initio.

And with regard to squeezing ab initio, we do not find that the Rabbis dispute Rabbi Judah. Therefore,

even if you say

that it follows the opinion of

the Rabbis, since they are not fit for squeezing,

it is permitted to squeeze them

even ab initio.

And

conclude from this

that this beraita, which permits squeezing unripe figs, quinces, and azaroles ab initio, also

follows the opinion of the Rabbis.

And we conclude:

Conclude from this.

We learned in a beraita:

The people of the household of Manasseh bar Menahem would squeeze pomegranates.

Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the practice of the household of Manasseh bar Menahem.

Since they customarily squeezed pomegranates on weekdays, it is prohibited to squeeze them on Shabbat.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Was Manasseh bar Menahem a tanna,

that you should say that the halakha follows him? He was mentioned only to provide proof from his practice for the statement of the tanna that pomegranates are ordinarily squeezed.

And if you would say

that this is what Rav Naḥman meant:

The halakha is in accordance with this tanna, who holds

that

the practice of the household of Manasseh bar Menahem

shows that pomegranates are ordinarily squeezed, and therefore they are prohibited on Shabbat—this too is difficult.

For

does

the fact that

he holds like Manasseh bar Menahem make the halakha follow him?

Was the household of

Manasseh bar Menahem the majority of the world’s inhabitants,

so that on their account we should say that pomegranates are ordinarily squeezed?

And we answer:

No.

For we have already found that when several people practice a particular custom, that practice is considered the normal practice of the world.

And

as we learned:

It is prohibited to maintain diverse kinds in a vineyard, even when the plants grew there on their own. If one maintained them, the plants became sanctified under the law of diverse kinds and became prohibited for benefit.

And

one who maintains thorns in a vineyard—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He sanctifies

the plants, and they become prohibited for benefit.

And the Sages say: He does not sanctify

them through the prohibition of diverse kinds

unless they are something that people ordinarily maintain.

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

And Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion?—

Because in Arabia they maintain thorns of the fields for

the purpose of feeding

their camels. Since in one place it is customary to maintain them, they are considered diverse kinds everywhere.

It follows that because the people in one place consider them significant, they become something significant everywhere. Here too, since the household of Manasseh bar Menahem squeezes pomegranates, pomegranates are considered fit for squeezing everywhere.

And we reject this:

Is that necessarily so?

The two cases are not comparable.

The reason is that

“Arabia”

is a region

. It is sufficient that thorns are considered significant in a particular place to prohibit them everywhere, because the significance assigned by a large group is genuine significance . But

here, in the case of Manasseh bar Menahem, we should not say that pomegranates are considered fit for squeezing because of one individual,

since

his opinion is disregarded

that of Manasseh

by everyone else. For the majority of people do not ordinarily squeeze pomegranates.

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

And we answer:

Rather,

the reason that pomegranates may not be squeezed on Shabbat

is as stated by Rav Ḥisda.

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

for its liquid

in a ritual bath,

it

disqualifies the ritual bath by changing its appearance.

All liquids disqualify a ritual bath if they cause the appearance of the water to change.

However, only liquids that possess the significance of a beverage disqualify a ritual bath.

But

this chard

is not fit for squeezing,

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

Rather, what must you say? Since it was rendered significant

by the fact that he squeezed it,

it becomes a beverage.

Therefore it disqualifies the ritual bath.

And

here too,

with regard to pomegranates:

since

he squeezed them,

he rendered them significant, and

therefore

they become a beverage,

and it is prohibited to squeeze them on Shabbat.

And this is how Rav Naḥman explains the earlier beraita: In general, every fruit is prohibited to squeeze on Shabbat when one squeezes it for the sake of the liquid that emerges from it. The permission to squeeze unripe figs, quinces, and azaroles applies only when one squeezes them in order to sweeten the fruit, and not for the sake of the liquid .

But pomegranates are prohibited to squeeze in every manner. Since the household of Manasseh squeezed pomegranates on weekdays for their liquid, it is prohibited to squeeze them on Shabbat even in order to sweeten them. Since there is at least one person who squeezes them for the sake of their liquid, if we permit squeezing them to sweeten them, one may come to squeeze them for their liquid. With unripe figs and azaroles, however, there is no such concern, since no one squeezes them for their liquid.

Rav Pappa said:

The ruling of Rav Ḥisda cannot prove that the liquid is considered a beverage because the fruit was rendered significant. Rather, the reason that the liquid of chard disqualifies a ritual bath is

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

[for its initial forty seahs].

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

is

disqualifying to a ritual bath by changing its appearance.

It is not necessary for it to have the status of a beverage.

We learned there: If

[into the ritual bath]

wine or vinegar

or

olive lees

[olive liquid]

fell into it and changed its appearance,

the ritual bath water—the ritual bath is

disqualified.

It was initially assumed that only a beverage disqualifies a ritual bath by changing its appearance.

And we raised a question:

Who

is this

tanna

who holds

that “olive lees” are a beverage

and disqualify the ritual bath?

Abaye said: It is Rabbi Yaakov,

who holds this opinion.

As it was taught: Rabbi Yaakov says: Olive lees are considered a beverage.

There are, however, three types of olive lees. First, the liquid that initially emerges from the olives, when they are loaded into the ma'atan to warm and ripen. This liquid is clear like water. Second, the liquid that flows from the olives after they have stood for several days and pressed against one another. This liquid somewhat resembles oil. Third, the liquid that flows from the olive pulp after its oil has been pressed out.

When Rabbi Yaakov says that olive lees are a beverage, he is referring only to the second type, which emerges after the olives have stood for several days. But the liquid that emerges initially is not a beverage.

And why did they say that the liquid initially emerging

from the olives is not a beverage, and that it is

pure

from contracting the ritual impurity of liquids?—

Because

the owner

does not want it to remain.

As was already explained above, anything that does not emerge according to one’s desire is not considered a beverage.

Rabbi Shimon says: Olive lees are not considered a beverage,

except for the liquid that emerges from the olive pulp after the olives have been pressed in the oil press.

And why did they say that the liquid emerging from the press basket

[a type of woven basket into which the olive pulp is placed after its oil has been pressed]

makes the oil press impure?—

Because it is impossible for it

to contain this liquid

without

there being in it

traces of

[drops of]

oil

that remained in the olive pulp.

And we raised a question:

What is the practical difference between them,

Rabbi Yaakov and Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Yaakov agrees that the liquid that emerges initially is pure, while Rabbi Shimon agrees that the liquid emerging from the oil press is impure.

And we answer:

There is a difference between them with regard to the liquid

that

comes after the olives have begun to ferment

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

Rava said:

The tanna of the Mishna may also hold like Rabbi Shimon, that olive lees are not a beverage. Nevertheless, they disqualify the ritual bath

because they are something from which one does not make a ritual bath.

And anything from which one does not make a ritual bath initially

disqualifies the ritual bath by changing its appearance,

as Rav Pappa said above.

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

of cooked food in order to improve it . It is evident that he is not squeezing it for the sake of a beverage, but to improve the cooked food. In this manner it is not considered “threshing,” because “threshing” applies only when one separates a liquid from food. Here, however, it is like separating food from food, since the liquid emerging from the food [the grapes] is absorbed into the cooked dish and again becomes food .

But one may not

squeeze a cluster of grapes

into a bowl

that contains no cooked food. Liquid found in a bowl may sometimes be intended as a beverage. Although people do not drink directly from a bowl, it is nevertheless not evident that he is doing this for the sake of the cooked food. It is therefore like separating a beverage from food .

Rav Ḥisda said: From the words of Rabbeinu

[Shmuel]

we learn

that

a person may milk a goat into a pot,

but not into a bowl.

Milking too is prohibited because of separating . Rather, it is a derivative of “threshing” when he milks into a pot, it is like separating food from food . It is not “separating,” as explained .

And we infer: Since Shmuel says, “he squeezes into the pot,”

it is evident that he holds that a liquid

destined to

come into

food

is food.

Rami bar Hama raised an objection:

We learned:

A zav who milks a goat—the milk is impure.

For a zav imparts impurity to everything he moves. Here too, he moves the stream of milk and thereby renders it impure. And we find no distinction between whether he milks into a pot or into a bowl.

And if you say, “A liquid that comes into food is food

,” then when he milks into the pot, the milk is considered food. If so, why is it impure? It is subject to the laws of impurity of food, and food does not become susceptible to impurity until it has been prepared through liquids. And

with what was

this milk prepared?

And we answer: Even though it is food, it can become impure, for it was prepared through liquids. And

as Rabbi Yohanan said.

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

And we raised a difficulty: With what was it prepared? Since it is intended for a baby’s consumption, it is considered food and requires preparation.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: It was prepared

by the drop

that came first,

the one soiled on the nipple.

For this drop has the status of a liquid, since it is not intended for the baby’s consumption.

Here too,

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

the drop

that came first,

the one soiled on the nipple,

which has the status of a liquid.