Shabbat 145a — the Talmud in English

Ravina raised an objection: A person impure through contact with a corpse who presses olives and grapes;

if in the olives and grapes there is the measure

of exactly an egg-bulk

and no more, the liquid that emerges from them is

pure.

And this is speaking when the impure person does not touch the liquid. And although he renders the olives impure through his touch, they do not render the liquid that emerges from them impure through contact. For once the first drop began to emerge, the olives became less than the measure of an egg-bulk, since that drop was lacking from them. And food does not render others impure if it does not contain the measure of an egg-bulk.

This—

if in the olives and grapes there is

more than an egg-bulk—

the liquid that emerges

from them is impure.

Because there is still an egg-bulk in them, even after the first drop emerged from them. And they therefore render the liquid that emerges from them impure.

And

it is difficult:

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

then even the bodies of the olives and grapes did not become impure. For

with what were they rendered susceptible

? For the liquid that emerges from them is not considered a liquid to render them susceptible, since it comes to food.

He

Ravina

raised the objection, and he resolved it:

In what are we dealing here?

With one who presses

olives and grapes

into a bowl

and not into a pot. For the liquid does not come to food, and it has the law of a liquid. Therefore it renders the olives susceptible, and it then becomes impure through them.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This matter that we say, that a liquid that comes to food is food,

as

a dispute of

the tannaim

it was taught.

For we learned: A baker

who smooths

the surface of his loaves

with grapes

that he presses upon them,

has not rendered susceptible

the loaf through the grape liquid to receive impurity. And this is speaking of bread that had not yet been rendered susceptible, such as bread kneaded with fruit juice, which does not render susceptible.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It has been rendered susceptible

the loaf through this.

Is it not that they disagree about this?

One

the first tanna

holds: A liquid that comes to food is food.

Therefore the grape juice does not render it susceptible, since he pressed it for the sake of the bread, and it is considered like food.

And one

Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

A liquid that comes to food

is not food.

Therefore the grape juice is considered a liquid, and it renders the loaf susceptible [and the grapes themselves were also rendered susceptible through this].

Rav Pappa said:

It is not so. Rather,

everyone

holds

that a liquid that comes to food is not food.

And here they disagree concerning a liquid destined to be lost.

For that grape liquid with which he smooths the bread is destined to be lost, since the fire draws it up and burns it.

One

Rabbi Yehuda

holds:

A liquid destined to be lost

is a liquid,

and it renders the bread susceptible.

And one

the first tanna

holds: It is not a liquid,

and it does not render it susceptible.

And they disagree according to the dispute of these tannaim

that is, they disagree according to the following beraita.

For it was taught: One who splits olives

crushing them in order to soften them

with defiled hands

impure

has rendered susceptible

the olives through the liquid that emerges from them, and they became impure through the hands. And this is like a liquid that comes by the owner’s will, because he is pleased that this liquid should be on the olives, since through this they increase in flavor.

And if he splits the olives in order

to pickle them

to salt them

with salt

and he needs to soften them so that the salt will adhere to them,

they have not been rendered susceptible

the olives through the liquid that emerges from them. Because he does not intend to remove the liquid from them. And liquids render susceptible only when they have been detached or when they have been placed upon food with the owner’s will. And if he splits them in order

to know whether

already

his olives have reached

the completion of their ripening and are fit

to harvest

them,

or not—

he has not rendered

the olives susceptible through this.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He has rendered them susceptible.

Is it not that they disagree about this?

For one

Rabbi Yehuda

holds: A liquid destined to be lost is a liquid.

And here too, although this liquid is destined to be lost [for he extracts it only in order to examine his olives], it renders them susceptible.

And one

the first tanna

holds:

A liquid that comes to be lost

is not a liquid.

Therefore it does not render the grapes susceptible.

And likewise in our Mishna, concerning “one who smooths with grapes,” the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda disagree in this matter.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

That dispute is not the same as the dispute of this beraita.

For

these tannaim

who disagree concerning splitting olives certainly

disagree concerning a liquid destined to be lost,

whether it is considered a liquid or not, as we said. But

those tannaim

who disagree in the Mishna concerning smoothing with grapes do not disagree about this. For they do not go to waste, but stand for polishing the bread with them. Rather,

they disagree concerning a liquid intended for polishing it.

The first tanna holds that even if “a liquid that comes to food is not food,” this is only when the liquid comes to soak the food with it, or when he dips the bread in it, for he gives it the status of a liquid. But where it comes to polish the bread with it, it leaves the status of a liquid and is considered food.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that even a liquid intended to polish the food with it is a liquid.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Hiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: A person may press a cluster of grapes into a pot, but not into a bowl.

For with regard to a pot, it is evident that he does it for the purpose of improving the cooked dish. And it is like separating food from food, and there is no prohibition of separating in it. But into a bowl, since the liquid does not stand for the needs of the food, it is like separating liquid from food, and it is separating.

And

it is permitted to press

a fish

in order

to

bring out from it its

brine, even into a bowl.

Because the fish brine is not important as a liquid but as food. It follows that he is separating food from food, which is not separating, as we said.

Rav Dimi was sitting and reciting this teaching.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi: You, in the name of Rav, teach

this teaching.

And

therefore

nothing is difficult for you

at all.

But

we, in the name of Shmuel, teach it

this teaching.

And

because of this

it is difficult for us,

for

did Shmuel say

that it is permitted to press

a fish for its brine even into a bowl?

And it was stated: Pickled vegetables

raw vegetables pickled in wine and vinegar

that he pressed—

Rav said:

To press them

for

the purpose of eating

their bodies

of the pickled vegetables

is permitted.

Since he does not need the liquid, it is not separating.

But if he pressed them

for

the purpose of drinking

their liquids,

he is

exempt

from a sin-offering. For the Torah-level obligation of separating exists only with a liquid that grew inside the fruit, analogous to threshing, through which one separates from the grain the chaff that grew with it. But with pickled vegetables, the wine and vinegar absorbed in them did not grow with them.

But it is prohibited

to press them rabbinically for the sake of their liquids, as a decree because of pressing olives and grapes.

And cooked vegetables

cooked vegetables

whether

to press them

for

the purpose of eating

their bodies

or

whether

for the purpose of drinking

their liquids, is permitted.

Because their liquids are not considered liquids, but are food. And it is like separating food from food, for this is not separating.”

And Shmuel said: Both pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables—

for their bodies, it is permitted.

Because it is not for the purpose of liquid.

But for their liquids, one is exempt but it is prohibited.

For even the liquid of cooked vegetables is considered a liquid and not food. And it follows that he is separating food from liquid, which is prohibited rabbinically, as a decree because of pressing olives and grapes.

Evidently Shmuel holds that it is prohibited to press a fish for its brine into a bowl. For pressing a fish for its brine is analogous to cooked vegetables, since the fish brine too was cooked with it, just as Shmuel prohibited this with cooked vegetables. And if so, it is difficult for me, since we teach it according to Shmuel, that it is permitted to press a fish for its brine even into a bowl.

He said to him

Rav Dimi:

By the life of God

an expression of an oath

“My eyes saw and not a stranger,”

for Rav recited this teaching concerning “a fish for its brine,” and not Shmuel. For

I heard this teaching from the mouth of Rabbi Yirmeya

this teaching.

And Rabbi Yirmeya

heard it

from Rabbi Zeira. And Rabbi Zeira

heard it

from Rav Hiyya bar Ashi. And Rav Hiyya bar Ashi

heard it

from Rav.

And according to Rav it is well. For he too says that with regard to cooked vegetables pressing is permitted, both for their bodies and for their liquids, because their liquids are not liquids but food.

The substance of the matter: Pickled vegetables that he pressed—

Rav said: For their bodies, it is permitted. But for their liquids, one is exempt but it is prohibited. And cooked vegetables—

both for their bodies and for their liquids, it is permitted.

And Shmuel said: Both this and that

pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables

—

for their bodies, it is permitted. But for their liquids, one is exempt but it is prohibited.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Both pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables—

for their bodies, it is permitted.

Because he does not do it for the sake of the liquid. But if he pressed them

for their liquids, it is a Torah-level separation,

“separating,” and he is

liable

for a sin-offering.

For in this Rabbi Yohanan agrees with Shmuel, that the liquid of cooked vegetables is considered a liquid and not food.

And he disagrees with Rav and Shmuel, and holds that even when the liquid comes from outside and did not grow inside the fruit, it is also a Torah-level separation.

He raised an objection:

It was taught:

One may press pickled vegetables on Shabbat for the needs of Shabbat. But not for the

needs of

the conclusion of Shabbat.

Because it is prohibited to prepare from Shabbat for an ordinary weekday.

And olives and grapes he may not press,

even for the needs of Shabbat,

and if he pressed, he is liable for a sin-offering.

In any event, it teaches that one may press pickled vegetables for the needs of Shabbat, and it does not distinguish between for their bodies and for their liquids. And this is

difficult for Rav. And this is

difficult for Shmuel. And this is

difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, since all of them agree that pickled vegetables are prohibited to press for the sake of their liquids.

And we answer:

Rav resolves it according to his method. Shmuel resolves it according to his method. And

and

Rabbi Yohanan resolves it according to his method.

And he proceeds to explain.

Rav resolves it according to his method:

This is what it says:

One may press pickled vegetables on Shabbat for the needs of Shabbat, but not for the conclusion of Shabbat. In what case is this said?

When he presses them

for

the purpose of eating

their bodies. But

for the purpose of

their liquids, one is exempt but it is prohibited.

And cooked vegetables, both for

the purpose of

their bodies and both for

the purpose of

their liquids, it is permitted

to press them initially.

And olives and grapes he may not press, and if he pressed them he is liable for a sin-offering.

And Shmuel resolves it according to his method:

This is what it says:

One may press pickled vegetables on Shabbat for the needs of Shabbat. And the same law applies to cooked vegetables.

In what case is this said,

when he presses them

for their bodies. But for their liquids, one is exempt but it is prohibited.

And olives and grapes he may not press. And if he pressed, he is liable for a sin-offering.

And Rabbi Yohanan resolves it according to his method:

This is what it says:

One may press pickled vegetables for the needs of Shabbat, but not for the conclusion of Shabbat. Both pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables.

In what case is this said,

when he presses them

for their bodies. But for

the purpose of

their liquids he may not press them. And if he pressed, he has become like one who pressed olives and grapes, and he is liable for a sin-offering.

For Rabbi Yohanan does not distinguish between pressing a liquid that grew with the fruit and a liquid that came from outside.

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: By Torah law, one is not liable

on Shabbat for separating

except for crushing olives and grapes alone.

But for pressing other fruits, he is not liable by Torah law, since this is not their usual manner. Their prohibition is only rabbinic.

And likewise the school of Menashya taught: By Torah law, one is not liable except for crushing olives and grapes alone.

And likewise the school of Menashya taught: An indirect witness is not fit for testimony. For if he heard testimony from others outside the court, he cannot come and testify about it in court.