Shabbat 145a (קמה.) — the Talmud in English

Ravina raised an objection: A person impure through contact with the dead who pressed olives and grapes;

if the olives and grapes contain

exactly the volume of an egg

and no more, the liquid that emerges from them is

pure.

And this is speaking of a case where the impure person does not touch the liquid. Although he renders the olives impure through his contact with them, they do not render the liquid that emerges from them impure through contact. Since the first drop has begun to emerge, the olives have been reduced below the volume of an egg, for that drop is lacking from them. And food cannot render other food impure unless it contains the volume of an egg.

This

if the olives and grapes contain

more than the volume of an egg,

the liquid that emerges

from them is impure.

Because they still contain the volume of an egg even after the first drop has emerged from them; and therefore they render the liquid that emerges from them impure.

And

the difficulty is:

if you say that a liquid that comes for the sake of food is considered food,

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

with what were they rendered susceptible

to impurity? The liquid that emerges from them is not considered a liquid that can render them susceptible, since it comes for the sake of food.

He

Ravina]

raised the objection, and he himself resolved it:

What are we dealing with here?

With one who squeezes

olives and grapes

into a bowl,

and not into a pot. For when the liquid is not coming for the sake of food, it has the status of a liquid. Therefore, it renders the olives susceptible to impurity, and they subsequently render it impure.

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This statement that a liquid that comes for the sake of food is considered food

is

a dispute between

tannaim

that was taught.

As we learned in the Mishna: A baker

who smooths

the surface of his loaves

with grapes

that he squeezes over them,

has not rendered

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: He has rendered it susceptible

through this.

Is it not that they disagree about this?

One [the

first tanna]

holds: A liquid that comes for the sake of food is considered food.

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

And the other [Rabbi

Yehuda]

holds:

A liquid that comes for the sake of food

is not food.

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

Rav Pappa said:

That is not so. Rather,

everyone

holds that

a liquid that comes for the sake of food is not food.

And here they disagree with regard to a liquid destined to be lost.

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

The one [Rabbi

Yehuda]

holds:

A liquid destined to be lost

is a liquid,

and it renders the bread susceptible.

And the other [the

first tanna]

holds: It is not a liquid,

and it does not render it susceptible.

And they disagree in accordance with the dispute between these tannaim

who dispute in the following beraita.

As it was taught: One who crushes olives

squeezing them in order to soften them]

with impure hands

impure],

has rendered

the olives susceptible through the liquid that emerges from them, and they became impure through the hands. This is like a liquid that comes willingly, since he wants this liquid to remain on the olives; as a result, they acquire more flavor.

But if he crushes the olives in order

to salt them [to

salt them]

with salt

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

they have not been rendered susceptible

through the liquid that emerges from them, because he does not intend to extract the liquid from them. Liquids render food susceptible only when they have been detached or placed upon food with the owner’s consent. And if he crushes them in order

to determine whether

they have already

reached the ripeness of his olives

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:

The one [Rabbi

Yehuda]

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

And here too, although this liquid is destined to be lost [since he extracts it only to test his olives], it renders the olives susceptible.

And the other [the

first tanna]

holds:

A liquid destined 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 on this point.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

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

For

these tannaim

who dispute concerning crushing olives certainly

disagree with regard to a liquid destined to be lost,

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

those tannaim

who dispute in the Mishna concerning smoothing with grapes do not disagree on this point, since the liquid is not destined to be lost; rather, it is designated to polish the bread. Rather,

they disagree with regard to a liquid designated to polish it.

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

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

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes into a pot, but not into a bowl.

For when squeezing into a pot, it is evident that he is doing so for the purpose of improving the dish. It is therefore like separating food from food, and there is no prohibition of “extracting” in this. But when squeezing into a bowl, where the liquid is not intended for the food, it is like separating liquid from food, and this is “extracting.”

And

it is permitted to squeeze

a fish

in order

to

extract from it

its brine, even into a bowl.

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

Rav Dimi was sitting and reciting this halakhic statement.

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

as this halakhic statement.

And

therefore,

nothing is difficult for you

at all.

But

we teach it in the name of Shmuel

as this halakhic statement.

And

for this reason

it is difficult for us:

Is it true that

Shmuel said

that it is permitted to squeeze

a fish for its brine even into a bowl?

And it was stated:

Pickled vegetables

fresh vegetables pickled in wine and vinegar]

Rav said:

Squeezing them

for

the purpose of eating

the vegetables themselves

is

permitted.

Since he does not need the liquid, this is not “extracting.”

But if he squeezed them

for

the purpose of drinking

their liquids,

he is

exempt

from a sin-offering, because the Torah prohibition of “extracting” applies only to liquid that grows within the fruit, analogous to threshing, in which one separates the chaff that grew together with the grain. In contrast, in the case of pickled vegetables, the wine and vinegar absorbed in them did not grow together with them.

But it is prohibited

to squeeze them for their liquids by rabbinic decree, lest one come to squeeze olives and grapes.

And cooked vegetables

cooked vegetables],

whether

one squeezes them

for

the purpose of eating

themselves

or

whether

for the purpose of drinking

their liquids, it is permitted.

Because their liquids are not considered liquids but food. This is like separating food from food, and it is not “extracting.”

And Shmuel said: Both pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables—

for the vegetables themselves, it is permitted.

Because it is not for the purpose of obtaining 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. It follows that one is separating food from liquid, which is prohibited rabbinically, lest one come to squeeze olives and grapes.

Evidently, Shmuel holds that it is prohibited to squeeze a fish for its brine into a bowl, since squeezing a fish for its brine is analogous to squeezing cooked vegetables. The fish brine was also cooked together with it, just as in the case of cooked vegetables, which Shmuel prohibits. If so, this is difficult for me, since we teach the statement according to Shmuel, that it is permitted to squeeze a fish for its brine even into a bowl.

He said to him,

Rav Dimi:

By God [a

form of oath],

“My eyes saw, and no stranger”—

Rav, not Shmuel, stated this halakhic ruling concerning “a fish for its brine.” For

I heard this halakhic statement from Rabbi Yirmeya’s mouth

as this halakhic statement.

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, this is well understood, since he too says that cooked vegetables may be squeezed, both for the vegetables themselves and for their liquids, because their liquids are not liquids but food.

The substance of the matter: Pickled vegetables that one squeezed—

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

whether for the vegetables themselves or for their liquids, it is permitted.

And Shmuel said: Both this and that

pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables]—

for the vegetables themselves, it is permitted; but for their liquids, one is exempt but it is prohibited.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables—

Rabbi Yohanan said: Both pickled vegetables and cooked vegetables—

for the vegetables themselves, it is permitted.

Because he is not acting for the sake of the liquid. But if he squeezed them

for their liquids, it is a Torah prohibition of “extracting,”

and he is

liable

to bring a sin-offering.

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

And he disagrees with Rav and Shmuel, holding that even when the liquid comes from outside and did not grow within the fruit, it is nevertheless a Torah prohibition of “extracting.”

The objection:

It was taught:

One may squeeze 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 on Shabbat for a weekday.

And one may not squeeze olives and grapes,

even for the needs of Shabbat,

and if one squeezed them, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

In any event, it teaches that one may squeeze pickled vegetables for the needs of Shabbat, without distinguishing between squeezing them for the vegetables themselves and squeezing them for their liquids. This

is difficult for Rav. And this

is difficult for Shmuel. And this

is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan, since all of them agree that it is prohibited to squeeze pickled vegetables for their liquids.

And we answer:

Rav explains it according to his reasoning; Shmuel explains it according to his reasoning;

and

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains it according to his reasoning.

And each proceeds to explain the beraita.

Rav explains it according to his reasoning:

This is what it means:

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

When one squeezes them

for

the purpose of eating

the vegetables themselves. But

for their

liquids, one is exempt but it is prohibited.

And cooked vegetables, whether for

the purpose of eating

themselves or whether for

the purpose of obtaining

their liquids, it is permitted

to squeeze them ab initio.

And one may not squeeze olives and grapes, and if one squeezed them, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And Shmuel explains it according to his reasoning:

This is what it means:

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

In what case is this said?

When one squeezes them

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

And one may not squeeze olives and grapes, and if one squeezed them, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan explains it according to his reasoning:

This is what it means:

One may squeeze 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 one squeezes them

for

the purpose of eating

themselves. But for their liquids, one may not squeeze them; and if one squeezed them, he has done the equivalent of squeezing olives and grapes and is liable to bring a sin-offering.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan does not distinguish between squeezing liquid that grew together with the fruit and liquid that came from outside.

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: By Torah law, one is not liable

on Shabbat for “extracting”

except for crushing olives and grapes alone.

But for squeezing other fruits, one is not liable by Torah law, since squeezing them 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: A witness who testifies on the basis of another witness is not valid for testimony. If he heard testimony from others outside the court, he cannot come and testify about it in court.