Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 28, 2020 | ז׳ באב תש״פ

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 144

Today’s daf is sponsored by Deborah Aschheim Weiss in memory of her beloved mother, Edith Aschheim z”l on her  37th yartzeit. She loved yiddishkeit and learning despite the limitations on her childhood Jewish education due to WWII. And by Aviva Drazin in memory of Rabbi Joshua Shmidman z”l on his 15th Yahrzeit. His ways were דרכי נועם, and he led, taught and inspired his Kehila in Montreal with a love of Torah, Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael. יהי זכרו ברוך.  And by Lesley Nadel for Don Nadel, her husband, best friend and chavruta to wish him a very happy birthday and many more happy and healthy years.

Does Rabbi Yehuda really hold that if one had no particular intent regarding pomegranates or mulberries, then they would be treated as if you planned to juice it and liquids seeping out of it would be forbidden?  The question comes from a mishna regarding whether or not there is a difference between humans and animal regarding the need for intent for the breast milk to come out in order for it to be considered a liquid to create susceptibility to impurity, there is a claim that the rabbis make regarding a basket of olives and grapes and there it seems that if one had no intention for using it for liquids or solid, it would be considered designated for solids. The gemara provides two possible answers. From where does Raba know that the rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda about other fruits that are not meant for juicing – that one is allowed to drink liquids that seep out of it? A braita is brought to prove it and in that braita the family of Menashia is mentioned who often made pomegranate juice and the law was decided based on their practice. How could be make a law based on a unique practice? The gemara attempts to answer that question. If one squeezes onto a solid, it is allowed as it is considered a solid, but if one squeezes onto a liquid, it is considered a liquid. The gemara questions this.

 

שלא לרצון שדם מגפתה טהור אמר להן מחמיר אני בחלב מבדם שהחולב לרפואה טמא והמקיז לרפואה טהור אמרו לו סלי זיתים וענבים יוכיחו שהמשקין היוצאין מהן לרצון טמאין שלא לרצון טהורים

if it was expressed unintentionally, as the blood of its wound is ritually pure, meaning that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Akiva said to them: I am more stringent with regard to milk than with regard to blood, as if one milks an animal for medicinal purposes, the milk renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and if one lets blood for medicinal purposes, the status of the blood is not that of a liquid and is ritually pure, in the sense that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. They said to him: The case of baskets of olives and grapes will prove that there is a difference between liquids that emerge of his own volition and those that do not, as liquid that seeps from them volitionally renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. However, liquid that seeps from them unvolitionally is ritually pure, i.e., it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Apparently, liquid renders food susceptible to ritual impurity only if it emerged of its own volition.

מאי לאו לרצון דניחא ליה שלא לרצון בסתמא ומה זיתים וענבים דבני סחיטה נינהו שלא לרצון ולא כלום תותים ורמונים דלאו בני סחיטה נינהו לא כל שכן

The Gemara analyzes the terms of that mishna: What, is it not true that the term volitionally is referring to a situation where one is pleased with the emergence of liquids, and the term unvolitionally is referring to an indeterminate situation, where he expressed no preference? This leads to a conclusion with regard to our original topic of discussion. Just as in the case of olives and grapes, which are primarily designated for squeezing in order to extract oil and wine respectively, if liquid leaked from them unvolitionally, in the sense that one did not intend for the liquid to emerge, it has no significance and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity; in the case of mulberries and pomegranates, which are not typically designated for squeezing, is it not all the more so that liquid that seeps from them unvolitionally does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity?

לא לרצון בסתמא שלא לרצון דגלי אדעתיה דאמר לא ניחא לי ואיבעית אימא שאני סלי זיתים וענבים כיון דלאיבוד קיימי מעיקרא אפקורי מפקרי להו

The Gemara refutes this argument: No, the term volitionally is referring even to a situation where one’s preference is indeterminate, and the term unvolitionally is referring to a situation where one revealed his mind-set explicitly and said: I am not pleased if liquid emerges. And if you wish, say instead that baskets of olives and grapes are different; since the liquid that leaks from them stands to be lost, one renounces it from the outset. No proof can be cited from this mishna. Generally speaking, however, the legal status of liquids that are not designated to be lost from the outset is that of liquids, even if one did not express pleasure with their emergence.

אשכחן רבי יהודה דמודי לרבנן בזיתים ובענבים רבנן דמודו ליה לרבי יהודה בשאר פירות מנלן דתניא סוחטין

We have found in the baraita cited above that Rabbi Yehuda conceded to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes, that liquid that seeps from them on its own on Shabbat, both volitionally and unvolitionally, is prohibited during Shabbat. From where do we conclude that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits and distinguish between fruits designated for eating and those designated for juicing? As it was taught in a baraita: One may squeeze

בפגעין ובפרישין ובעוזרדין אבל לא ברמונים ושל בית מנשיא בר מנחם היו סוחטין ברמונים

plums and quinces and crab apples. However, one may not squeeze pomegranates, because they are typically squeezed for their juice, as people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates during the week. Apparently, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to fruits other than pomegranates and mulberries.

וממאי דרבנן היא דילמא רבי יהודה היא ותהוי נמי רבי יהודה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה יצאו מעצמן סוחטין לכתחילה מי שמעת ליה אלא מאי אית לך למימר כיון דלאו בני סחיטה נינהו אפילו לכתחילה אפילו תימא רבנן כיון דלאו בני סחיטה נינהו אפילו לכתחילה שמע מינה רבנן היא שמע מינה

The Gemara objects: And from where is it ascertained that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: And let this baraita also be the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: Say that you heard that according to Rabbi Yehuda, juice that seeped out on its own is permitted; did you hear that squeezing it is permitted ab initio? Rather, what have you to say? Since they are not fruits that are generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. That being the case, even if you say the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the same reasoning applies: Since they are not generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. Even the Rabbis would permit squeezing fruits such as plums, quinces, and crab apples. Since the baraita does not permit squeezing pomegranates, learn from it that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it.

של בית מנשיא בר מנחם היו סוחטין ברמונים אמר רב נחמן הלכה כשל בית מנשיא בר מנחם

It was taught in the baraita cited above that people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates on weekdays. This indicates that it is typical for people to squeeze pomegranates, and therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem. In other words, squeezing pomegranates is considered typical, and therefore it is prohibited on Shabbat.

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן מנשיא בן מנחם תנא הוא וכי תימא הלכה כי האי תנא דסבר לה כשל מנשיא בן מנחם ומשום דסבר כמנשיא בן מנחם הלכה כמותו מנשיא בן מנחם הוי רובא דעלמא

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is Menashya ben Menaḥem a tanna that you say the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? And if you say that Rav Naḥman meant that the halakha is in accordance with this tanna, who held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, there is still room to ask: Does it make sense that because he held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Does Menashya ben Menaḥem constitute the majority of the world? Since most people do not squeeze pomegranates, the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem should be irrelevant relative to the typical practice of others.

אין דתנן המקיים קוצים בכרם רבי אליעזר אומר קדש וחכמים אומרים אינו מקדש אלא דבר שכמוהו מקיימין ואמר רבי חנינא מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר שכן בערביא מקיימין קוצי שדות לגמליהם

Rav Naḥman answered: Yes, in cases of this kind, halakhic rulings are based even on practices that are not universal, as we learned in a mishna that addresses the prohibition of diverse kinds, particularly forbidden food crops in a vineyard. With regard to one who maintains thorns in a vineyard, Rabbi Eliezer says: He rendered the crops a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard. And the Rabbis say: Only a crop that people typically maintain renders a vineyard forbidden. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Because in Arabia they maintain the thorns of the fields to feed them to their camels. There, thorns are treated as a bona fide crop. According to this opinion, since thorns are maintained in one place, they are considered to be significant everywhere. The same reasoning applies to the issue of juicing pomegranates.

מידי איריא דערביא אתרא הכא בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם

The Gemara rejects this answer: Is this comparable? Arabia is a place, and a custom practiced in an entire country is significant. Here, with regard to the practice of the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem, who was an individual, his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men.

אלא היינו טעמא כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא תרדין שסחטן ונתנן במקוה פוסלין את המקוה בשינוי מראה והא לאו בני סחיטה נינהו אלא מאי אית לך למימר כיון דאחשבינהו הוה להו משקה הכא נמי כיון דאחשבינהו הוה להו משקה

Rather, this is the reason for Rav Naḥman’s statement: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: In the case of beets that one squeezed and then placed their juice in a ritual bath, the juice invalidates the ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance. Any liquid that causes the water of a ritual bath to change color invalidates the ritual bath. Rav Ḥisda elaborated: Aren’t beets typically not designated for squeezing? Rather, what have you to say? Since he ascribed it significance, it is considered a liquid. Here, too, with regard to pomegranates, since he ascribed it significance, it is considered a liquid. Even if one person ascribes significance to a liquid, it assumes for him the status of a liquid and is prohibited on Shabbat.

רב פפא אמר משום דהוי דבר שאין עושין ממנו מקוה לכתחילה וכל דבר שאין עושין ממנו מקוה לכתחילה פוסל את המקוה בשינוי מראה

Rav Pappa said that the reason Rav Ḥisda ruled that beet juice invalidates the ritual bath is because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, and there is a principle: Anything with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, i.e., anything other than water, snow, or ice, invalidates the ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance, even if it does not have the legal status of a liquid.

תנן התם נפל לתוכו יין או חומץ ומוחל ושינה מראיו פסול מאן תנא דמוחל משקה הוא אמר אביי רבי יעקב היא דתניא רבי יעקב אומר מוחל הרי הוא כמשקה ומה טעם אמרו מוחל היוצא בתחלה טהור לפי שאינו רוצה בקיומו

We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Mikvaot: If wine or vinegar or olive discharge, i.e., the liquid that comes from olives but is not oil, fell into a ritual bath and changed its appearance, the ritual bath is invalid. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that olive discharge is considered liquid? Abaye said: It is Rabbi Ya’akov, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ya’akov says: The legal status of olive discharge is like that of a liquid. And what is the reason the Sages said that olive discharge that emerges at the outset, before one begins to press the olives for their oil, is ritually pure, meaning that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? It is not because the olive discharge is not considered a liquid but because he does not want its existence; the owner would prefer that the olive discharge not yet emerge and instead emerge together with and mix with the oil.

רבי שמעון אומר מוחל אינו כמשקה ומה טעם אמרו מוחל היוצא מעיקול בית הבד טמא לפי שאי אפשר לו בלא ציחצוחי שמן

Rabbi Shimon says: The legal status of olive discharge is not like that of a liquid. And what is the reason the Sages said that the olive sap that emerges from the bale of the olive press after the olives were pressed is capable of rendering foods susceptible to become ritually impure? Because it is impossible that it will not contain drops of oil that come with it from the olives.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתי בתר איצצתא רבא אמר משום דהוי דבר שאין עושין הימנו מקוה ופוסל את המקוה בשינוי מראה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? They both agree that olive discharge that emerges at the outset is incapable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity and that olive discharge that emerges from the bale of the olive press is capable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to olive discharge that comes after extensive pressing; according to Rabbi Ya’akov, it is considered a liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and according to Rabbi Shimon, it is not a liquid and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Rava said: The reason that olive discharge invalidates a ritual bath is not because it is a liquid, but rather, because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, and it therefore invalidates a ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל סוחט אדם אשכול של ענבים לתוך הקדרה אבל לא לתוך הקערה אמר רב חסדא מדברי רבינו נלמד חולב אדם עז לתוך הקדרה אבל לא לתוך הקערה אלמא קסבר משקה הבא לאוכל אוכל הוא

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes on Shabbat into a pot with food in it, and it is not considered squeezing a liquid but rather adding one food to another; however, he may not squeeze the liquid into an empty bowl. Rav Ḥisda said: From the statement of our Rabbi, Shmuel, we learn that one may milk a goat into a pot of food on Shabbat, because it is not considered to be the manner of squeezing that is prohibited as a subcategory of the labor of threshing; however, one may not do so into an empty bowl. The Gemara deduces: Apparently, he holds that liquid that comes into food is not considered liquid, but rather, it is food.

מתיב רמי בר חמא זב שחולב את העז החלב טמא ואי אמרת משקה הבא לאוכלין אוכל הוא במאי איתכשר

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection from the following mishna: In the case of a zav who milks a goat, the milk is ritually impure whether or not the zav actually touched it, as a zav renders items ritually impure simply by moving them, or being moved by them, even without direct contact. And if you say that liquid that comes directly into food is food and not liquid, in the case of one who milked directly into a pot of food, the milk should be considered food. The halakha is that food cannot become ritually impure unless it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with a liquid. With what liquid was this milk rendered susceptible to ritual impurity?

כדאמר רבי יוחנן בטיפה המלוכלכת על פי הדד הכא נמי בטיפה המלוכלכת על פי הדד

The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in a different context, that a particular statement is referring to the first drop, which is smeared on the top of the teat in order to moisten it and facilitate nursing or milking, here too, it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the drop which is smeared on the top of the teat. This drop was not intended to fall into the pot of food and is therefore considered a liquid and renders the food susceptible to ritual impurity.

מתיב רבינא טמא מת שסחט זיתים וענבים

Ravina raised an objection based on what we learned in another mishna: In the case of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse who squeezed olives or grapes

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shabbat 144

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 144

שלא לרצון שדם מגפתה טהור אמר להן מחמיר אני בחלב מבדם שהחולב לרפואה טמא והמקיז לרפואה טהור אמרו לו סלי זיתים וענבים יוכיחו שהמשקין היוצאין מהן לרצון טמאין שלא לרצון טהורים

if it was expressed unintentionally, as the blood of its wound is ritually pure, meaning that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Akiva said to them: I am more stringent with regard to milk than with regard to blood, as if one milks an animal for medicinal purposes, the milk renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and if one lets blood for medicinal purposes, the status of the blood is not that of a liquid and is ritually pure, in the sense that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. They said to him: The case of baskets of olives and grapes will prove that there is a difference between liquids that emerge of his own volition and those that do not, as liquid that seeps from them volitionally renders food susceptible to ritual impurity. However, liquid that seeps from them unvolitionally is ritually pure, i.e., it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Apparently, liquid renders food susceptible to ritual impurity only if it emerged of its own volition.

מאי לאו לרצון דניחא ליה שלא לרצון בסתמא ומה זיתים וענבים דבני סחיטה נינהו שלא לרצון ולא כלום תותים ורמונים דלאו בני סחיטה נינהו לא כל שכן

The Gemara analyzes the terms of that mishna: What, is it not true that the term volitionally is referring to a situation where one is pleased with the emergence of liquids, and the term unvolitionally is referring to an indeterminate situation, where he expressed no preference? This leads to a conclusion with regard to our original topic of discussion. Just as in the case of olives and grapes, which are primarily designated for squeezing in order to extract oil and wine respectively, if liquid leaked from them unvolitionally, in the sense that one did not intend for the liquid to emerge, it has no significance and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity; in the case of mulberries and pomegranates, which are not typically designated for squeezing, is it not all the more so that liquid that seeps from them unvolitionally does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity?

לא לרצון בסתמא שלא לרצון דגלי אדעתיה דאמר לא ניחא לי ואיבעית אימא שאני סלי זיתים וענבים כיון דלאיבוד קיימי מעיקרא אפקורי מפקרי להו

The Gemara refutes this argument: No, the term volitionally is referring even to a situation where one’s preference is indeterminate, and the term unvolitionally is referring to a situation where one revealed his mind-set explicitly and said: I am not pleased if liquid emerges. And if you wish, say instead that baskets of olives and grapes are different; since the liquid that leaks from them stands to be lost, one renounces it from the outset. No proof can be cited from this mishna. Generally speaking, however, the legal status of liquids that are not designated to be lost from the outset is that of liquids, even if one did not express pleasure with their emergence.

אשכחן רבי יהודה דמודי לרבנן בזיתים ובענבים רבנן דמודו ליה לרבי יהודה בשאר פירות מנלן דתניא סוחטין

We have found in the baraita cited above that Rabbi Yehuda conceded to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes, that liquid that seeps from them on its own on Shabbat, both volitionally and unvolitionally, is prohibited during Shabbat. From where do we conclude that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits and distinguish between fruits designated for eating and those designated for juicing? As it was taught in a baraita: One may squeeze

בפגעין ובפרישין ובעוזרדין אבל לא ברמונים ושל בית מנשיא בר מנחם היו סוחטין ברמונים

plums and quinces and crab apples. However, one may not squeeze pomegranates, because they are typically squeezed for their juice, as people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates during the week. Apparently, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to fruits other than pomegranates and mulberries.

וממאי דרבנן היא דילמא רבי יהודה היא ותהוי נמי רבי יהודה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה יצאו מעצמן סוחטין לכתחילה מי שמעת ליה אלא מאי אית לך למימר כיון דלאו בני סחיטה נינהו אפילו לכתחילה אפילו תימא רבנן כיון דלאו בני סחיטה נינהו אפילו לכתחילה שמע מינה רבנן היא שמע מינה

The Gemara objects: And from where is it ascertained that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: And let this baraita also be the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: Say that you heard that according to Rabbi Yehuda, juice that seeped out on its own is permitted; did you hear that squeezing it is permitted ab initio? Rather, what have you to say? Since they are not fruits that are generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. That being the case, even if you say the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the same reasoning applies: Since they are not generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. Even the Rabbis would permit squeezing fruits such as plums, quinces, and crab apples. Since the baraita does not permit squeezing pomegranates, learn from it that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it.

של בית מנשיא בר מנחם היו סוחטין ברמונים אמר רב נחמן הלכה כשל בית מנשיא בר מנחם

It was taught in the baraita cited above that people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates on weekdays. This indicates that it is typical for people to squeeze pomegranates, and therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem. In other words, squeezing pomegranates is considered typical, and therefore it is prohibited on Shabbat.

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן מנשיא בן מנחם תנא הוא וכי תימא הלכה כי האי תנא דסבר לה כשל מנשיא בן מנחם ומשום דסבר כמנשיא בן מנחם הלכה כמותו מנשיא בן מנחם הוי רובא דעלמא

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is Menashya ben Menaḥem a tanna that you say the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? And if you say that Rav Naḥman meant that the halakha is in accordance with this tanna, who held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, there is still room to ask: Does it make sense that because he held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Does Menashya ben Menaḥem constitute the majority of the world? Since most people do not squeeze pomegranates, the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem should be irrelevant relative to the typical practice of others.

אין דתנן המקיים קוצים בכרם רבי אליעזר אומר קדש וחכמים אומרים אינו מקדש אלא דבר שכמוהו מקיימין ואמר רבי חנינא מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר שכן בערביא מקיימין קוצי שדות לגמליהם

Rav Naḥman answered: Yes, in cases of this kind, halakhic rulings are based even on practices that are not universal, as we learned in a mishna that addresses the prohibition of diverse kinds, particularly forbidden food crops in a vineyard. With regard to one who maintains thorns in a vineyard, Rabbi Eliezer says: He rendered the crops a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard. And the Rabbis say: Only a crop that people typically maintain renders a vineyard forbidden. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Because in Arabia they maintain the thorns of the fields to feed them to their camels. There, thorns are treated as a bona fide crop. According to this opinion, since thorns are maintained in one place, they are considered to be significant everywhere. The same reasoning applies to the issue of juicing pomegranates.

מידי איריא דערביא אתרא הכא בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם

The Gemara rejects this answer: Is this comparable? Arabia is a place, and a custom practiced in an entire country is significant. Here, with regard to the practice of the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem, who was an individual, his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men.

אלא היינו טעמא כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא תרדין שסחטן ונתנן במקוה פוסלין את המקוה בשינוי מראה והא לאו בני סחיטה נינהו אלא מאי אית לך למימר כיון דאחשבינהו הוה להו משקה הכא נמי כיון דאחשבינהו הוה להו משקה

Rather, this is the reason for Rav Naḥman’s statement: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: In the case of beets that one squeezed and then placed their juice in a ritual bath, the juice invalidates the ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance. Any liquid that causes the water of a ritual bath to change color invalidates the ritual bath. Rav Ḥisda elaborated: Aren’t beets typically not designated for squeezing? Rather, what have you to say? Since he ascribed it significance, it is considered a liquid. Here, too, with regard to pomegranates, since he ascribed it significance, it is considered a liquid. Even if one person ascribes significance to a liquid, it assumes for him the status of a liquid and is prohibited on Shabbat.

רב פפא אמר משום דהוי דבר שאין עושין ממנו מקוה לכתחילה וכל דבר שאין עושין ממנו מקוה לכתחילה פוסל את המקוה בשינוי מראה

Rav Pappa said that the reason Rav Ḥisda ruled that beet juice invalidates the ritual bath is because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, and there is a principle: Anything with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, i.e., anything other than water, snow, or ice, invalidates the ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance, even if it does not have the legal status of a liquid.

תנן התם נפל לתוכו יין או חומץ ומוחל ושינה מראיו פסול מאן תנא דמוחל משקה הוא אמר אביי רבי יעקב היא דתניא רבי יעקב אומר מוחל הרי הוא כמשקה ומה טעם אמרו מוחל היוצא בתחלה טהור לפי שאינו רוצה בקיומו

We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Mikvaot: If wine or vinegar or olive discharge, i.e., the liquid that comes from olives but is not oil, fell into a ritual bath and changed its appearance, the ritual bath is invalid. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that olive discharge is considered liquid? Abaye said: It is Rabbi Ya’akov, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ya’akov says: The legal status of olive discharge is like that of a liquid. And what is the reason the Sages said that olive discharge that emerges at the outset, before one begins to press the olives for their oil, is ritually pure, meaning that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? It is not because the olive discharge is not considered a liquid but because he does not want its existence; the owner would prefer that the olive discharge not yet emerge and instead emerge together with and mix with the oil.

רבי שמעון אומר מוחל אינו כמשקה ומה טעם אמרו מוחל היוצא מעיקול בית הבד טמא לפי שאי אפשר לו בלא ציחצוחי שמן

Rabbi Shimon says: The legal status of olive discharge is not like that of a liquid. And what is the reason the Sages said that the olive sap that emerges from the bale of the olive press after the olives were pressed is capable of rendering foods susceptible to become ritually impure? Because it is impossible that it will not contain drops of oil that come with it from the olives.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתי בתר איצצתא רבא אמר משום דהוי דבר שאין עושין הימנו מקוה ופוסל את המקוה בשינוי מראה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? They both agree that olive discharge that emerges at the outset is incapable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity and that olive discharge that emerges from the bale of the olive press is capable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to olive discharge that comes after extensive pressing; according to Rabbi Ya’akov, it is considered a liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and according to Rabbi Shimon, it is not a liquid and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Rava said: The reason that olive discharge invalidates a ritual bath is not because it is a liquid, but rather, because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, and it therefore invalidates a ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל סוחט אדם אשכול של ענבים לתוך הקדרה אבל לא לתוך הקערה אמר רב חסדא מדברי רבינו נלמד חולב אדם עז לתוך הקדרה אבל לא לתוך הקערה אלמא קסבר משקה הבא לאוכל אוכל הוא

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes on Shabbat into a pot with food in it, and it is not considered squeezing a liquid but rather adding one food to another; however, he may not squeeze the liquid into an empty bowl. Rav Ḥisda said: From the statement of our Rabbi, Shmuel, we learn that one may milk a goat into a pot of food on Shabbat, because it is not considered to be the manner of squeezing that is prohibited as a subcategory of the labor of threshing; however, one may not do so into an empty bowl. The Gemara deduces: Apparently, he holds that liquid that comes into food is not considered liquid, but rather, it is food.

מתיב רמי בר חמא זב שחולב את העז החלב טמא ואי אמרת משקה הבא לאוכלין אוכל הוא במאי איתכשר

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection from the following mishna: In the case of a zav who milks a goat, the milk is ritually impure whether or not the zav actually touched it, as a zav renders items ritually impure simply by moving them, or being moved by them, even without direct contact. And if you say that liquid that comes directly into food is food and not liquid, in the case of one who milked directly into a pot of food, the milk should be considered food. The halakha is that food cannot become ritually impure unless it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with a liquid. With what liquid was this milk rendered susceptible to ritual impurity?

כדאמר רבי יוחנן בטיפה המלוכלכת על פי הדד הכא נמי בטיפה המלוכלכת על פי הדד

The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in a different context, that a particular statement is referring to the first drop, which is smeared on the top of the teat in order to moisten it and facilitate nursing or milking, here too, it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the drop which is smeared on the top of the teat. This drop was not intended to fall into the pot of food and is therefore considered a liquid and renders the food susceptible to ritual impurity.

מתיב רבינא טמא מת שסחט זיתים וענבים

Ravina raised an objection based on what we learned in another mishna: In the case of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse who squeezed olives or grapes

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top