Shabbat 145
כְּבֵיצָה מְכֻוֶּונֶת — טָהוֹר. הָא יוֹתֵר מִכְּבֵיצָה — טָמֵא, וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ ״מַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא לְאוֹכֶל — אוֹכֶל הוּא״, בְּמַאי אִיתַּכְשַׁר? הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: בְּסוֹחֵט לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה.
in the exact amount of an egg-bulk, the liquid is ritually pure. Even though the ritually impure individual touched the food, less than an egg-bulk of food cannot become ritually impure. Once the first drop of liquid is squeezed out, less than an egg-bulk of food remains, and it cannot render the liquid impure. By inference, if he squeezed more than an egg-bulk, the liquid is ritually impure. And if you say that liquid that comes into food is considered food, in what manner was this liquid rendered susceptible to ritual impurity? He raised the objection and he resolved it: It is referring to a case where one squeezes into an empty bowl, in which case the juice is considered a liquid.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: כְּתַנָּאֵי. הַמַּחֲלִיק בַּעֲנָבִים — לֹא הוּכְשַׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר מַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא לְאוֹכֶל — אוֹכֶל הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר לָאו אוֹכֶל הוּא.
Rabbi Yirmeya said: The question of whether liquid squeezed directly from one food into another is considered liquid or food is parallel to the following dispute between tanna’im. We learned in a mishna: In the case of one who smooths bread before baking it by squeezing grapes onto it, the bread was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehuda says: It was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. What, do they not disagree about this? One Sage held that liquid that comes into food is food, and therefore it cannot render bread susceptible to ritual impurity, and one Sage held that it is not food but rather a liquid, and therefore it renders the bread susceptible to ritual impurity.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא לְאוֹכֶל לָאו אוֹכֶל הוּא, וְהָכָא בְּמַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא לְאִיבּוּד קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר מַשְׁקֶה הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר לָאו מַשְׁקֶה הוּא. וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְפַצֵּעַ בְּזֵיתִים בְּיָדַיִם מְסוֹאָבוֹת — הוּכְשַׁר. לְסוֹפְתָן בְּמֶלַח — לֹא הוּכְשַׁר.
Rav Pappa said that the disputes are not necessarily parallel; it can be explained that everyone agrees that liquid that comes into food is not food, and here they disagree with regard to liquid that goes to waste, as the liquid that dripped onto the bread eventually evaporates due to the heat of the oven. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, held that it is nonetheless a liquid and therefore can render the bread susceptible to ritual impurity, and one Sage held that it is not a liquid. And they disagree in the dispute between these tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one who cuts olives with soiled, i.e., ritually impure, hands, the olives are rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through the liquid that comes from them, and his hands render the olives ritually impure. If he cut them in order to dip them in salt, the olives are not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, because if that liquid emerged from the olives against the owner’s will, the liquid cannot render food susceptible to ritual impurity.
לֵידַע אִם הִגִּיעוּ זֵיתָיו לִמְסוֹק אִם לָאו — לֹא הוּכְשַׁר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הוּכְשַׁר. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מַשְׁקֶה הָעוֹמֵד לְאִיבּוּד — מַשְׁקֶה הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר לָאו מַשְׁקֶה הוּא.
If he was cutting in order to ascertain whether his olives have reached the stage of ripeness at which they are fit to be harvested or not, they are not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Yehuda said: They are rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. What, do they not disagree with regard to this? One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, held that liquid that emerges when one tests the olives but which stands to go to waste, is liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity; and one Sage held that it is not liquid and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי בְּמַשְׁקֶה הָעוֹמֵד לְאִיבּוּד פְּלִיגִי, וְהָנָךְ תַּנָּאֵי בְּמַשְׁקֶה הָעוֹמֵד לְצַחְצְחוֹ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The last two disputes are not necessarily parallel. These tanna’im, who disagreed with regard to olives, disagreed with regard to liquid that stands to go to waste, and those tanna’im, who disagreed with regard to the liquid on the bread, disagreed with regard to liquid that stands to be used to shine it.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: סוֹחֵט אָדָם אֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁל עֲנָבִים לְתוֹךְ הַקְּדֵרָה, אֲבָל לֹא לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה. וְדָג לְצִירוֹ אֲפִילּוּ לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה.
Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes into a pot with food in it on Shabbat, because liquid that is squeezed directly into food is considered food rather than liquid; however, one may not do so into a bowl that is empty or that contains liquid. And squeezing a fish for its brine is permitted even into a bowl.
יָתֵיב רַב דִּימִי וְקָאָמַר לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי: אַתּוּן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב מַתְנִיתוּן וְלָא קַשְׁיָא לְכוּ, אֲנַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל מַתְנִינַן לַהּ, וְקַשְׁיָא לַן: מִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל דָּג לְצִירוֹ אֲפִילּוּ לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה? וְהָאִיתְּמַר: כְּבָשִׁים שֶׁסְּחָטָן, אָמַר רַב: לְגוּפָן — מוּתָּר, לְמֵימֵיהֶן — פָּטוּר, אֲבָל אָסוּר.
Rav Dimi sat and stated this halakha. Abaye said to Rav Dimi: You teach this halakha in the name of Rav and it is not difficult for you; we teach it in the name of Shmuel and it is difficult for us for the following reason: Did Shmuel say that it is permitted to squeeze a fish for its brine even into a bowl? Wasn’t it stated that there was a dispute with regard to pickled vegetables that one squeezed? Rav said: If he wants to squeeze them because he needs the vegetables themselves without the liquid, it is permitted to do so even ab initio on Shabbat. And if he squeezes them because he needs their liquid, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio.
וּשְׁלָקוֹת בֵּין לְגוּפָן בֵּין לְמֵימֵיהֶן — מוּתָּר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֶחָד כְּבָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שְׁלָקוֹת, לְגוּפָן — מוּתָּר, לְמֵימֵיהֶן — פָּטוּר, אֲבָל אָסוּר.
And with regard to boiled vegetables, whether he needs the vegetables themselves without their liquid or whether he wants to squeeze the vegetables for their liquids, it is permitted to squeeze them on Shabbat. And Shmuel said: With regard to both pickled vegetables and boiled vegetables, if he squeezes them for the vegetables themselves, it is permitted, and if he squeezes them for their liquids, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. Apparently, squeezing fish for its brine falls into the category of squeezing boiled items for their liquid, which according to Shmuel is prohibited. As such, Shmuel’s two statements appear contradictory.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָאֱלֹהִים! ״עֵינַי רָאוּ וְלֹא זָר (כָּלוּ כִלְיוֹתַי בְּחֵקִי וְגוֹ׳)״ — מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה שְׁמִיעַ לִי, וְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה מֵרַבִּי זֵירָא, וְרַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי, וְרַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי מֵרַב.
He said to him: You can certainly rely on my version of this statement. To underscore his point, he uttered the oath-like expression: By God! and applied the verse: “Whom I shall see for myself; my eyes have seen it, and not another’s” (Job 19:27). I heard this tradition from the mouth of Rabbi Yirmeya, and Rabbi Yirmeya heard it from Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Zeira heard it from Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi heard it from Rav, and each transmitter of this tradition is a reliable source.
גּוּפָא. כְּבָשִׁים שֶׁסְּחָטָן, אָמַר רַב: לְגוּפָן — מוּתָּר, לְמֵימֵיהֶן — פָּטוּר, אֲבָל אָסוּר. וּשְׁלָקוֹת, בֵּין לְגוּפָן בֵּין לְמֵימֵיהֶן — מוּתָּר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה, לְגוּפָן — מוּתָּר, לְמֵימֵיהֶן — פָּטוּר, אֲבָל אָסוּר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד כְּבָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שְׁלָקוֹת, לְגוּפָן — מוּתָּר, לְמֵימֵיהֶן — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
Apropos the topic of squeezing pickled vegetables, the Gemara addresses the matter itself. We learned that with regard to pickled vegetables that one squeezed, Rav said that if he squeezes them for themselves, it is permitted, and if he squeezes them for their liquids he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio; and with regard to boiled vegetables, if he squeezes them both for themselves and for their liquids it is permitted. And Shmuel said: With regard to both this, pickled vegetables, and that, boiled vegetables, squeezing for the vegetables themselves without liquid is permitted; squeezing them for their liquids, one is exempt, but it is prohibited to do so ab initio. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to both pickled vegetables and boiled vegetables, if one squeezes them for the vegetables themselves it is permitted; if one squeezes them for their liquids, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having performed a labor prohibited by Torah law.
מֵיתִיבִי: סוֹחֲטִין כְּבָשִׁים בְּשַׁבָּת לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת, אֲבָל לֹא לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת. וְזֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים לֹא יִסְחוֹט, וְאִם סָחַט — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. קַשְׁיָא לְרַב, קַשְׁיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, קַשְׁיָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, שְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ.
The Gemara raises an objection based on that which was taught in a baraita: One may squeeze pickled vegetables on Shabbat for the purpose of using them on Shabbat but not for the conclusion of Shabbat. And one may not squeeze olives and grapes at all on Shabbat, and if one squeezed them unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Apparently, it is permitted to squeeze pickled vegetables ab initio on Shabbat for any purpose, even for their juice, and if so, it is difficult according to the opinion of Rav, it is difficult according to the opinion of Shmuel, and it is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, which all assert that squeezing pickled vegetables for their juice is prohibited on some level. The Gemara responds that Rav interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, Shmuel interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning, and Rabbi Yoḥanan interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning. The Gemara proceeds to elucidate how the baraita is explained according to each opinion.
רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: סוֹחֲטִין כְּבָשִׁים בְּשַׁבָּת לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת, אֲבָל לֹא לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לְגוּפָן, אֲבָל לְמֵימֵיהֶן פָּטוּר, אֲבָל אָסוּר. וּשְׁלָקוֹת בֵּין לְגוּפָן בֵּין לְמֵימֵיהֶן — מוּתָּר. וְזֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים — לֹא יִסְחוֹט, וְאִם סְחָטָן — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
Rav interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning by emending the baraita and adding to it: One may squeeze pickled vegetables on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat, but not for the conclusion of Shabbat. In what case is this statement said? When one squeezes the vegetables for themselves; however, if one squeezes them for their liquid, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, but it is prohibited to do so. And with regard to boiled vegetables, whether one squeezes them for themselves or whether he does so for their liquid, it is permitted. And with regard to olives and grapes, one may not squeeze them at all, and if one squeezed them unwittingly he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
שְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: סוֹחֲטִין כְּבָשִׁים בְּשַׁבָּת לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת, הוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁלָקוֹת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לְגוּפָן, אֲבָל לְמֵימֵיהֶן — פָּטוּר, אֲבָל אָסוּר. וְזֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים לֹא יִסְחוֹט, וְאִם סָחַט — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
Shmuel interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning by emending the baraita and adding to it: One may squeeze pickled vegetables on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat, and the same is true for boiled vegetables. In what case is this statement said? When one squeezes them for themselves; however, if he squeezes them for their liquids, he is not liable to bring a sin-offering, but it is prohibited to do so. And with regard to olives and grapes, one may not squeeze them at all, and if one squeezed them unwittingly, he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: סוֹחֲטִין כְּבָשִׁים לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת אֲבָל לֹא לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, אֶחָד כְּבָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שְׁלָקוֹת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לְגוּפָן, אֲבָל לְמֵימֵיהֶן — לֹא יִסְחוֹט, וְאִם סָחַט — נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁסָּחַט זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים, וְחַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan also interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning by emending the baraita and adding to it: One may squeeze pickled vegetables for the purpose of Shabbat but not for the conclusion of Shabbat, and that ruling applies both to pickled vegetables and to boiled vegetables. In what case is this statement said? When one squeezes them for themselves, but if he does so for their liquids, one may not squeeze them, and if one squeezed them unwittingly, he becomes like one who squeezed olives or grapes, and he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה — אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל דְּרִיסַת זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים בִּלְבַד. וְכֵן תָּנֵי דְּבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל דְּרִיסַת זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים בִּלְבַד. וְאֵין עֵד מִפִּי עֵד כָּשֵׁר
Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: By Torah law, one is only liable for stomping on olives and grapes, and all other prohibitions related to squeezing or juicing are rabbinic decrees and protective measures. And similarly, it was taught in the school of Menashe: By Torah law, one is only liable for stomping on olives and grapes. And it was taught in the school of Menashe: And testimony of one witness based solely on what he learned from the mouth of another witness, i.e., hearsay testimony, is valid
אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה בִּלְבָד.
only for testimony that a woman’s husband died, enabling her to remarry. Only in that case can a ruling rely on hearsay testimony, and that is specifically so the woman will be allowed to remarry.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עֵד מִפִּי עֵד לְעֵדוּת בְּכוֹר, מַהוּ? רַב (אַמֵּי) [אִתַּי] אָסַר, וְרַב אַסִּי שָׁרֵי.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages about a related matter: With regard to hearsay testimony in testimony permitting a priest to eat a firstborn animal, what is the halakha? After the destruction of the Temple, the Sages decreed that if a priest has the firstborn offspring of a kosher animal and it becomes blemished, he must bring witnesses to testify that he did not cause the blemish. Priests were suspected of violating the prohibition against inflicting a wound on firstborn animals to enable them to eat the animals. The question here pertains to a case in which there is no one available who can testify that he saw firsthand how the animal was blemished, but there is someone who heard from an eyewitness how the blemish was caused. Rav Ami prohibited accepting hearsay testimony in this case, and Rav Asi permitted doing so.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַמֵּי לְרַב אַסִּי: וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשְּׁיָא: אֵין עֵד מִפִּי עֵד כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא לְעֵדוּת אִשָּׁה בִּלְבָד! אֵימָא: לְעֵדוּת שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה כְּשֵׁרָה לָהּ בִּלְבָד. רַב יֵימַר אַכְשַׁר עֵד מִפִּי עֵד לִבְכוֹר. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ מָרִימָר: יֵימַר שָׁרֵי בּוּכְרָא. וְהִלְכְתָא עֵד מִפִּי עֵד כָּשֵׁר לִבְכוֹר.
Rav Ami said to Rav Asi: Didn’t the school of Menashya teach that hearsay testimony is only valid in testimony enabling a woman to remarry, indicating that it is not accepted in the case of a firstborn animal? Rav Asi answered: Emend the previously cited ruling and say: Hearsay testimony is only valid in testimony for which the testimony of a woman is valid. A woman’s testimony is accepted with regard to the death of a man, enabling his wife to remarry, and it is also accepted with regard to a firstborn animal. Rav Yeimar deemed hearsay testimony valid in permitting the slaughter of a firstborn animal that developed a blemish. Mareimar called him: Yeimar who permits the firstborn; Mareimar was of the opinion that testimony of that kind is invalid and cannot provide the basis to allow the animal to be slaughtered. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that hearsay testimony is valid with regard to a firstborn animal.
חַלּוֹת דְּבַשׁ. כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁרִיסְּקָן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, וְיָצְאוּ מֵעַצְמָן — אֲסוּרִין. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּירִין.
We learned in the mishna that according to Rabbi Eliezer, honey that flows on its own from honeycombs is permitted on Shabbat. When Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a baraita with him: With regard to olives and grapes that one crushed before Shabbat and their juices seeped out on their own on Shabbat, the juices are prohibited for use on Shabbat; and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit using them.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: גַּבְרָא יַתִּירָא אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: טוּבָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאִי מִמַּתְנִיתִין הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָתָם הוּא — דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא אוּכְלָא וּלְבַסּוֹף אוּכְלָא, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא אוּכְלָא וּלְבַסּוֹף מַשְׁקֶה — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Rav Yosef said rhetorically: Did he merely come to teach us an additional person? This opinion already appears in the mishna in the name of Rabbi Elazar. Did Rav Hoshaya cite the baraita merely to add the name of Rabbi Shimon? Abaye said to him: He is teaching us a great deal, as if we learned this matter from the mishna alone, I would have said: It is there that it is permitted, because initially it was food and ultimately it remained food, since it is possible to assert that the honey that seeped is a food rather than a liquid. However, here, with regard to olives and grapes, which initially were food and ultimately became liquid, say that it is not permitted even according to Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, he is teaching us that Rabbi Elazar rules leniently even in the case of olives and grapes.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל שֶׁבָּא בְּחַמִּין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — שׁוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחַמִּין בְּשַׁבָּת. וְכׇל שֶׁלֹּא בָּא בְּחַמִּין מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — מְדִיחִין אוֹתוֹ בְּחַמִּין בַּשַּׁבָּת, חוּץ מִן הַמָּלִיחַ הַיָּשָׁן וְדָגִים מְלוּחִין קְטַנִּים וְקוֹלְיָיס הָאִיסְפְּנִין, שֶׁהַדָּחָתָן זוֹ הִיא גְּמַר מְלַאכְתָּן.
MISHNA: Any salted food item that was already placed in hot water, i.e., cooked, before Shabbat, one may soak it in hot water even on Shabbat. And anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat but may not soak it, with the exception of old salted fish and small salted fish and the kolyas ha’ispanin fish, for which rinsing with hot water itself is completion of the prohibited labor of cooking.
גְּמָ׳ כְּגוֹן מַאי? אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: כְּגוֹן תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. וְאָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: זִימְנָא חֲדָא אִיקְּלַעִית לְהָתָם, וְאוֹכְלַן מִינֵּיהּ, וְאִי לָא רַבִּי אַבָּא דְּאַשְׁקְיַין חַמְרָא בַּר תְּלָתָא טַרְפֵי — אִיתְּנַסִי.
GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that an item that was cooked before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: In what case would soaking in hot water be required after the item was already cooked? Rav Safra said: In the case of the chicken of Rabbi Abba, which for medical reasons was cooked so thoroughly that it completely dissolved. And Rav Safra said: One time I happened to come there and he fed me chicken prepared that way, and if not for the fact that Rabbi Abba gave me three-leaf-, i.e., year, old wine to drink, I would have been forced to vomit.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן רָיֵיק מִכּוּתָח דְּבַבְלָאֵי. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וְלִירוֹק אֲנַן מִתַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אַבָּא. וְעוֹד, אָמַר רַב גַּזָּא: זִימְנָא חֲדָא אִיקְּלַעִית לְהָתָם, וַעֲבַדִית כּוּתָח דְּבַבְלָאֵי, שְׁאִילוּ מִינֵּיהּ כׇּל בְּרִיחֵי מַעְרְבָא.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan would spit from the thought of Babylonian kutaḥ, because he found it so disgusting. Rav Yosef said: Then we should spit from the thought of Rabbi Abba’s chicken, which is even more disgusting to people from Babylonia. And furthermore, Rav Gaza said: On one occasion I happened to come there, to Eretz Yisrael, and I prepared Babylonian kutaḥ, and all of the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, asked me for it. Apparently, not everyone in Eretz Yisrael found it disgusting.
כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא בָּא בְּחַמִּין וְכוּ׳. הֵדִיחַ מַאי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֵדִיחַ — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת. אָמַר מָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: חוּץ מִמָּלִיחַ יָשָׁן וְקוֹלְיָיס הָאִיסְפְּנִין, שֶׁהֲדָחָתָן זוֹ הִיא גְּמַר מְלַאכְתָּן. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
We learned in the mishna: Anything that was not cooked in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat except for salted fish and kolyas ha’ispanin. The Gemara asks: If one unwittingly rinsed it, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said: If one rinsed these foods, he is liable to bring a sin-offering for having performed the prohibited labor of cooking. Mar, son of Ravina, said: We, too, have also learned this ruling in the mishna, which states: Except for old salted fish and kolyas ha’ispanin, rinsing itself is completion of their prohibited labor of cooking. One who rinses these items is considered to have performed a prohibited labor. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that this is the ruling.
יָתֵיב רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא וְרַבִּי אַסִּי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי אַסִּי: מִפְּנֵי מָה עוֹפוֹת שֶׁבְּבָבֶל שְׁמֵנִים? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלָךְ לְמִדְבַּר עַזָּה וְאַרְאֵךְ שְׁמֵנִים מֵהֶן. מִפְּנֵי מָה מוֹעֲדִים שֶׁבְּבָבֶל שְׂמֵחִים? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן עֲנִיִּים. מִפְּנֵי מָה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁבְּבָבֶל מְצוּיָּינִין? לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּנֵי תוֹרָה. מִפְּנֵי מָה גּוֹיִם מְזוֹהָמִים? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹכְלִין שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים.
Apropos relations between the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi were sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Yoḥanan was sitting and dozing. In the meantime the two of them conversed. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Asi: For what reason are the fowl in Babylonia fatter than those in Eretz Yisrael? He said to him: This is not at all the case; go to the desert of Gaza in Eretz Yisrael, and I will show you fowl that are fatter than them. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba then asked: For what reason are Festivals in Babylonia more joyous than those in Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Asi answered him: Because in Babylonia they are poor, and it is only on Festivals that they have a lot to eat, which causes them to rejoice. Rabbi Ḥiyya then asked: For what reason are Torah scholars in Babylonia distinguished by their special rabbinic garb? Rabbi Asi answered: Because they are not well-versed in Torah. If they would not distinguish themselves by dressing differently, they would not be respected for their Torah knowledge. He then asked: For what reason are gentiles ethically contaminated? He answered: Because they eat abominable creatures and crawling things, and that causes bad character traits.
אִיתְּעַר בְּהוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: דַּרְדְּקֵי! לֹא כָּךְ אָמַרְתִּי לָכֶם: ״אֱמוֹר לַחׇכְמָה אֲחוֹתִי אָתְּ״ — אִם בָּרוּר לְךָ הַדָּבָר כַּאֲחוֹתְךָ שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לְךָ — אוֹמְרֵהוּ, וְאִם לָאו — לֹא תֹּאמְרֵהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וְלֵימָא לַן מָר אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן? מִפְּנֵי מָה עוֹפוֹת שֶׁבְּבָבֶל שְׁמֵנִים — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא גָּלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שַׁאֲנַן מוֹאָב מִנְּעוּרָיו וְשֹׁקֵט הוּא אֶל שְׁמָרָיו וּבַגּוֹלָה לֹא הָלָךְ״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan woke up due to their discussion and said to them: You children, did I not tell you this, that the verse “Say to wisdom: You are my sister, and call understanding your kin” (Proverbs 7:4) means that if the matter is as clear to you as the fact that your sister is forbidden to you, say it, and if not, do not say it; and these explanations that you offered are unfounded. They said to him: Then will the Master tell us the answers to some of them? He said to them: Why are the fowl in Babylonia fatter than those in Eretz Yisrael? Because they were not exiled, as it says: “Moab has been at ease since his youth and he has settled on his lees, and he was not emptied from vessel to vessel and did not go into captivity; therefore his taste remained in him and his scent did not change” (Jeremiah 48:11). Apparently, one who is not exiled retains his strength.
וְהָכָא מְנָלַן דִּגְלוֹ? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֲמִשִּׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם שָׁנָה לֹא עָבַר אִישׁ בִּיהוּדָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל הֶהָרִים אֶשָּׂא בְכִי וָנֶהִי וְגוֹ׳ מֵעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד בְּהֵמָה נָדְדוּ הָלָכוּ״, ״בְּהֵמָה״ בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא חַמְשִׁין וְתַרְתֵּין הָווּ.
And here in Eretz Yisrael, from where do we derive that even the animals and birds were exiled? As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that no person passed through the land of Judea for fifty-two years, as it is stated: “I will raise crying and wailing for the mountains and a lamentation for the pastures of the wilderness, for they have been burned, with no person passing through, and they do not hear the voice of the cattle, from the bird of the heavens to the beast [behema, spelled beit, heh, mem, heh], all have fled and gone” (Jeremiah 9:9). Behema has a numerical value of fifty-two, alluding to the fact that no one passed through for fifty-two years. From the verse cited in this baraita, it is clear that even the animals and birds were exiled, as it states: “All have fled and gone.”
אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כּוּלָּן חָזְרוּ, חוּץ מִקּוֹלְיָיס הָאִיסְפְּנִין, דַּאֲמַר רַב: הָנֵי מִדְרֵי דְבָבֶל מְהַדְּרִי מַיָּא לְעֵין עֵיטָם. וְהַאי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא שָׁרִיר שִׁדְרֵיהּ לָא מָצֵי סָלֵיק.
Rabbi Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They all returned except for the kolyas ha’ispanin, as Rav said: Those inclines of Babylonia return the water through underground watercourses to the spring of Eitam in Eretz Yisrael, and the fish also returned through these watercourses. And this fish, the kolyas, because its spine is not strong, it could not ascend these watercourses and did not return to Eretz Yisrael.
מִפְּנֵי מָה מוֹעֲדִים שֶׁבְּבָבֶל שְׂמֵחִים? — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בְּאוֹתָהּ קְלָלָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִשְׁבַּתִּי כׇּל מְשׂוֹשָׂהּ חַגָּהּ חׇדְשָׁהּ וְשַׁבַּתָּהּ וְכֹל מוֹעֲדָהּ״. וּכְתִיב: ״חׇדְשֵׁיכֶם וּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם שָׂנְאָה נַפְשִׁי הָיוּ עָלַי לָטוֹרַח״. מַאי ״הָיוּ עָלַי לָטוֹרַח״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: לֹא דַּיָּין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁחוֹטְאִין לְפָנַי, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּטְרִיחִין אוֹתִי לֵידַע אֵיזוֹ גְּזֵירָה קָשָׁה אָבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן! אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אֵין לְךָ כׇּל רֶגֶל וָרֶגֶל שֶׁלֹּא בָּאתָה בּוֹלֶשֶׁת לְצִיפּוֹרִי. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֵין לְךָ כׇּל רֶגֶל וָרֶגֶל שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לִטְבֶרְיָה אַגְמוֹן וְקֹמְטוֹן וּבַעַל זְמוֹרָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan continued to answer the questions of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi: For what reason are the Festivals in Babylonia more joyous than those in Eretz Yisrael? Because they were not included in that curse with which Eretz Yisrael was cursed, as it is written: “And I will cause all of her happiness to cease, her Festival, her New Moon, and her Shabbat and all her Festivals” (Hosea 2:13). And it is also written: “My soul hates your New Moons and your Festivals; they are a burden to Me; I am weary to bear them” (Isaiah 1:14). What is the meaning of the phrase: “They are a burden to me”? Rabbi Elazar said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Is it not enough for the Jewish people that they sin before Me, that they also burden Me to know which harsh decree I will bring upon them? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Because of this curse, there is not a single Festival on which troops did not come to Tzippori to conduct searches or to collect taxes. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: There is not a single Festival on which an egmon and a kamton and a branch bearer, Roman officials, did not come to Tiberias to collect taxes, thereby disrupting the festive celebrations.
מִפְּנֵי מָה תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁבְּבָבֶל מְצוּיָּינִין? — לְפִי שֶׁאֵינָן בְּנֵי מְקוֹמָן. דְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: בְּמָתָא שְׁמַאי, בְּלָא מָתָא — תּוֹתְבַאי. ״הַבָּאִים יַשְׁרֵשׁ יַעֲקֹב יָצִיץ וּפָרַח יִשְׂרָאֵל״. תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁבְּבָבֶל, שֶׁעוֹשִׂין צִיצִין וּפְרָחִים לַתּוֹרָה.
For what reason are the Torah scholars in Babylonia distinguished by special garb? Because they are not native to that place and therefore require special dress to distinguish themselves, as people say in the folk expression: In my own city, I am honored for my name; in a place that is not my own city, I am honored for my clothing. The Gemara then praised the Sages of Babylonia by interpreting the verse “In days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom” (Isaiah 27:6). Rav Yosef taught: These are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who add buds and blossoms to the Torah.
מִפְּנֵי מָה גּוֹיִם מְזוֹהָמִין? — שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדוּ עַל הַר סִינַי. שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה
Rabbi Yoḥanan then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when
