Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

July 29, 2020 | 讞壮 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

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 145

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Margie Zweibel l鈥檌lui nishmat Chami Tzvi ben Yosef Binyamin z鈥漧. And by Aviva Baumser in honor of Deborah Aschheim in honor of your mother Edith Aschheim & all the hard work & Torah dedication you have been doing in her & her husband’s name. Kol HaKavod!!!

The gemara delves into the concept of liquids that are squeezed onto a solid are considered food. Is that a subject of debate among tannaim? Fish brine is considered food and not a liquid and therefore can bbe squeezed on Shabbat. Was this said by Rav or Shmuel? If by Shmuel, it contradicts something he says elsewhere. Can one accept hearsay evidence? Only for testimony for a woman that her husband died in order to prevent her from being an aguna and allowing her to remarry. If one cooked an item before Shabbat, one can soak it in hot water on Shabbat, but if not, one can only pour hot water on it on Shabbat. However, there are some salted fish that are prepared by pouring hot water on them and therefore one cannot do that on Shabbat. The gemara discusses some foods that they ate in Babylonia and others that were eaten in Israel that were considered disgusting by those from the other locale. The gemara relates the tension between the rabbis in Babylonia and Israel in a story of rabbis from Israel who were speaking in a derogatory manner about the Babylonians but were then reprimanded by Rabbi Yochanan.

讻讘讬爪讛 诪讻讜讜谞转 讟讛讜专 讛讗 讬讜转专 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘诪讗讬 讗讬转讻砖专 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘住讜讞讟 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪讞诇讬拽 讘注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗


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鈥檌m. 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.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讬讘讜讚 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪驻爪注 讘讝讬转讬诐 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讛讜讻砖专 诇住讜驻转谉 讘诪诇讞 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专


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鈥檌m, 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鈥檚 will, the liquid cannot render food susceptible to ritual impurity.


诇讬讚注 讗诐 讛讙讬注讜 讝讬转讬讜 诇诪住讜拽 讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪砖拽讛 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗讬讘讜讚 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讘诪砖拽讛 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗讬讘讜讚 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛谞讱 转谞讗讬 讘诪砖拽讛 讛注讜诪讚 诇爪讞爪讞讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The last two disputes are not necessarily parallel. These tanna鈥檌m, who disagreed with regard to olives, disagreed with regard to liquid that stands to go to waste, and those tanna鈥檌m, who disagreed with regard to the liquid on the bread, disagreed with regard to liquid that stands to be used to shine it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 住讜讞讟 讗讚诐 讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 诇转讜讱 讛拽讚专讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛 讜讚讙 诇爪讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛


Rabbi Zeira said that Rav 岣yya 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.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗转讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪转谞讬转讜谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讻讜 讗谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讙 诇爪讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛 讜讛讗讬转诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 砖住讞讟谉 讗诪专 专讘 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专


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鈥檛 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.


讜砖诇拽讜转 讘讬谉 诇讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇拽讜转 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专


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鈥檚 two statements appear contradictory.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 注讬谞讬 专讗讜 讜诇讗 讝专 (讻诇讜 讻诇讬讜转讬 讘讞拽讬 讜讙讜壮) 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诪专讘:


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: 鈥淲hom I shall see for myself; my eyes have seen it, and not another鈥檚鈥 (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 岣yya bar Ashi, and Rav 岣yya bar Ashi heard it from Rav, and each transmitter of this tradition is a reliable source.


讙讜驻讗 讻讘砖讬诐 砖住讞讟谉 讗诪专 专讘 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜砖诇拽讜转 讘讬谉 诇讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇拽讜转 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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 Yo岣nan 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讜讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛


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 Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning. The Gemara proceeds to elucidate how the baraita is explained according to each opinion.


专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讜驻谉 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜砖诇拽讜转 讘讬谉 诇讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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.


砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖诇拽讜转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讜驻谉 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗讞讚 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇拽讜转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讜驻谉 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖住讞讟 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讚专讬住转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讚专讬住转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬谉 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专


Rav 岣yya 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


讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚


only for testimony that a woman鈥檚 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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 诇注讚讜转 讘讻讜专 诪讛讜 专讘 讗诪讬 讗住讬专 讜专讘 讗住讬 砖专讬


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗诪讬 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讬讗 讗讬谉 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚 讗讬诪讗 诇注讚讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛 讘诇讘讚 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗讻砖专 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 诇讘讻讜专 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诪专讬诪专 讬讬诪专 砖专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 诇讘讻讜专:


Rav Ami said to Rav Asi: Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.


讞诇讜转 讚讘砖: 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖专讬住拽谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专讬谉


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鈥檃, 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讘专讗 讬转讬专讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟讜讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讜讻诇讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪砖拽讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 砖讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讚讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪诇讬讞 讛讬砖谉 (讜讚讙讬诐 诪诇讜讞讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐) 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 砖讛讚讞转谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转谉:


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鈥檌spanin fish, for which rinsing with hot water itself is completion of the prohibited labor of cooking.


讙诪壮 讻讙讜谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讗讬拽诇注讬转 诇讛转诐 讜讗讜讻诇谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗砖拽讬讬谉 讞诪专讗 讘专 转诇转讗 讟专驻讬 讗讬转谞住讬


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.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讬讬拽 诪讻讜转讞 讚讘讘诇讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇讬专讜拽 讗谞谉 诪转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘 讙讝讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讗讬拽诇注讬转 诇讛转诐 讜注讘讚讬转 讻讜转讞 讚讘讘诇讗讬 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘专讬讞讬 诪注专讘讗:


The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan would spit from the thought of Babylonian kuta岣, because he found it so disgusting. Rav Yosef said: Then we should spit from the thought of Rabbi Abba鈥檚 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 kuta岣, and all of the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, asked me for it. Apparently, not everyone in Eretz Yisrael found it disgusting.


讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 讛讚讬讞 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讚讬讞 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讞讜抓 诪诪诇讬讞 讬砖谉 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 砖讛讚讞转谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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鈥檌spanin. 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鈥檌spanin, 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.


讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 诇诪讚讘专 注讝讛 讜讗专讗讱 砖诪谞讬诐 诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪讜注讚讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪讞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 注谞讬讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 诪爪讜讬讬谞讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讙讜讬诐 诪讝讜讛诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐


Apropos relations between the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia, the Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi were sitting before Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan was sitting and dozing. In the meantime the two of them conversed. Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.


讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专转讬 诇讻诐 讗诪讜专 诇讞讻诪讛 讗讞讜转讬 讗转 讗诐 讘专讜专 诇讱 讛讚讘专 讻讗讞讜转讱 砖讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讱 讗讜诪专讛讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 转讗诪专讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 诇谉 诪专 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪谞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讙诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讗谞谉 诪讜讗讘 诪谞注讜专讬讜 讜砖拽讟 讛讜讗 讗诇 砖诪专讬讜 讜讘讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讛诇讱


Rabbi Yo岣nan woke up due to their discussion and said to them: You children, did I not tell you this, that the verse 鈥淪ay to wisdom: You are my sister, and call understanding your kin鈥 (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: 鈥淢oab 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鈥 (Jeremiah 48:11). Apparently, one who is not exiled retains his strength.


讜讛讻讗 诪谞诇谉 讚讙诇讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 砖谞讛 诇讗 注讘专 讗讬砖 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讛讛专讬诐 讗砖讗 讘讻讬 讜谞讛讬 讜讙讜壮 诪注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 讜注讚 讘讛诪讛 谞讚讚讜 讛诇讻讜 讘讛诪讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 讞诪砖讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讛讜讜


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: 鈥淚 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎ll have fled and gone.鈥


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讝专讜 讞讜抓 诪拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛谞讬 诪讚专讬 讚讘讘诇 诪讛讚专讬 诪讬讗 诇注讬谉 注讬讟诐 讜讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖专讬专 砖讚专讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 住诇讬拽


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They all returned except for the kolyas ha鈥檌spanin, 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.


诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪讜注讚讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪讞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 讘讗讜转讛 拽诇诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛砖讘转讬 讻诇 诪砖讜砖讛 讞讙讛 讞讚砖讛 讜砖讘转讛 讜讻诇 诪讜注讚讛 讜讻转讬讘 讞讚砖讬讻诐 讜诪讜注讚讬讻诐 砖谞讗讛 谞驻砖讬 讛讬讜 注诇讬 诇讟讜专讞 诪讗讬 讛讬讜 注诇讬 诇讟讜专讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讗 讚讬讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讞讜讟讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诪讟专讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讬 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讜 讙讝讬专讛 拽砖讛 讗讘讬讗 注诇讬讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 专讙诇 讜专讙诇 砖诇讗 讘讗转讛 讘讜诇砖转 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 专讙诇 讜专讙诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇讟讘专讬讛 讗讙诪讜谉 讜拽诪讟讜谉 讜讘注诇 讝诪讜专讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan continued to answer the questions of Rabbi 岣yya 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: 鈥淎nd I will cause all of her happiness to cease, her Festival, her New Moon, and her Shabbat and all her Festivals鈥 (Hosea 2:13). And it is also written: 鈥淢y soul hates your New Moons and your Festivals; they are a burden to Me; I am weary to bear them鈥 (Isaiah 1:14). What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淭hey are a burden to me鈥? 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 Yitz岣k 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 岣nina 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.


诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 诪爪讜讬讬谞讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 诪拽讜诪谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘诪转讗 砖诪讗讬 讘诇讗 诪转讗 转讜转讘讗讬 讛讘讗讬诐 讬砖专砖 讬注拽讘 讬爪讬抓 讜驻专讞 讬砖专讗诇 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 砖注讜砖讬谉 爪讬爪讬谉 讜驻专讞讬诐 诇转讜专讛


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 鈥淚n days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom鈥 (Isaiah 27:6). Rav Yosef taught: These are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who add buds and blossoms to the Torah.


诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讙讜讬诐 诪讝讜讛诪讬谉 砖诇讗 注诪讚讜 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 砖讘砖注讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when


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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time – Shabbat 145-151

Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages. This...

Shabbat 145

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 145

讻讘讬爪讛 诪讻讜讜谞转 讟讛讜专 讛讗 讬讜转专 诪讻讘讬爪讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讘诪讗讬 讗讬转讻砖专 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘住讜讞讟 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛


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.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪讞诇讬拽 讘注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗


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鈥檌m. 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.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讜讻诇 诇讗讜 讗讜讻诇 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讗 讘诪砖拽讛 讛讘讗 诇讗讬讘讜讚 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪驻爪注 讘讝讬转讬诐 讘讬讚讬诐 诪住讜讗讘讜转 讛讜讻砖专 诇住讜驻转谉 讘诪诇讞 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专


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鈥檌m, 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鈥檚 will, the liquid cannot render food susceptible to ritual impurity.


诇讬讚注 讗诐 讛讙讬注讜 讝讬转讬讜 诇诪住讜拽 讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讻砖专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讜讻砖专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪砖拽讛 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗讬讘讜讚 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪砖拽讛 讛讜讗


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.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讘诪砖拽讛 讛注讜诪讚 诇讗讬讘讜讚 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛谞讱 转谞讗讬 讘诪砖拽讛 讛注讜诪讚 诇爪讞爪讞讜 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The last two disputes are not necessarily parallel. These tanna鈥檌m, who disagreed with regard to olives, disagreed with regard to liquid that stands to go to waste, and those tanna鈥檌m, who disagreed with regard to the liquid on the bread, disagreed with regard to liquid that stands to be used to shine it.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 住讜讞讟 讗讚诐 讗砖讻讜诇 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 诇转讜讱 讛拽讚专讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛 讜讚讙 诇爪讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛


Rabbi Zeira said that Rav 岣yya 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.


讬转讬讘 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜拽讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗转讜谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪转谞讬转讜谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讻讜 讗谞谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛 讜拽砖讬讗 诇谉 诪讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讙 诇爪讬专讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇转讜讱 讛拽注专讛 讜讛讗讬转诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 砖住讞讟谉 讗诪专 专讘 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专


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鈥檛 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.


讜砖诇拽讜转 讘讬谉 诇讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇拽讜转 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专


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鈥檚 two statements appear contradictory.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 注讬谞讬 专讗讜 讜诇讗 讝专 (讻诇讜 讻诇讬讜转讬 讘讞拽讬 讜讙讜壮) 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 砖诪讬注 诇讬 讜专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讜专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 诪专讘:


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: 鈥淲hom I shall see for myself; my eyes have seen it, and not another鈥檚鈥 (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 岣yya bar Ashi, and Rav 岣yya bar Ashi heard it from Rav, and each transmitter of this tradition is a reliable source.


讙讜驻讗 讻讘砖讬诐 砖住讞讟谉 讗诪专 专讘 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜砖诇拽讜转 讘讬谉 诇讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讞讚 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇拽讜转 诇讙讜驻谉 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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 Yo岣nan 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讜讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛


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 Yo岣nan, 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 Yo岣nan interprets the baraita according to his line of reasoning. The Gemara proceeds to elucidate how the baraita is explained according to each opinion.


专讘 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讜驻谉 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜砖诇拽讜转 讘讬谉 诇讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诪讜转专 讜讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟谉 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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.


砖诪讜讗诇 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 讘砖讘转 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇砖诇拽讜转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讜驻谉 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗讘诇 讗住讜专 讜讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


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.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪转专抓 诇讟注诪讬讛 住讜讞讟讬谉 讻讘砖讬诐 诇爪讜专讱 讛砖讘转 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘转 讗讞讚 讻讘砖讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇拽讜转 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讙讜驻谉 讗讘诇 诇诪讬诪讬讛谉 诇讗 讬住讞讜讟 讜讗诐 住讞讟 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖住讞讟 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转


And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讚专讬住转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讚专讬住转 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜讗讬谉 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专


Rav 岣yya 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


讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚


only for testimony that a woman鈥檚 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.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 诇注讚讜转 讘讻讜专 诪讛讜 专讘 讗诪讬 讗住讬专 讜专讘 讗住讬 砖专讬


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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗诪讬 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讬讗 讗讬谉 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 讗诇讗 诇注讚讜转 讗砖讛 讘诇讘讚 讗讬诪讗 诇注讚讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讻砖专讛 诇讛 讘诇讘讚 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗讻砖专 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 诇讘讻讜专 拽专讬 注诇讬讛 诪专讬诪专 讬讬诪专 砖专讬 讘讜讻专讗 讜讛诇讻转讗 注讚 诪驻讬 注讚 讻砖专 诇讘讻讜专:


Rav Ami said to Rav Asi: Didn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.


讞诇讜转 讚讘砖: 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗转讗 讜讗讬讬转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 讘讬讚讬讛 讝讬转讬诐 讜注谞讘讬诐 砖专讬住拽谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜讬爪讗讜 诪注爪诪谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专讬谉


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鈥檃, 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讙讘专讗 讬转讬专讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讟讜讘讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 讗讜讻诇讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讘住讜祝 诪砖拽讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉:


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 砖讜专讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 诪注专讘 砖讘转 诪讚讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讘砖讘转 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪诇讬讞 讛讬砖谉 (讜讚讙讬诐 诪诇讜讞讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐) 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 砖讛讚讞转谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转谉:


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鈥檌spanin fish, for which rinsing with hot water itself is completion of the prohibited labor of cooking.


讙诪壮 讻讙讜谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讻讙讜谉 转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讗讬拽诇注讬转 诇讛转诐 讜讗讜讻诇谉 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚讗砖拽讬讬谉 讞诪专讗 讘专 转诇转讗 讟专驻讬 讗讬转谞住讬


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.


专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讬讬拽 诪讻讜转讞 讚讘讘诇讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诇讬专讜拽 讗谞谉 诪转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜注讜讚 讗诪专 专讘 讙讝讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讗讬拽诇注讬转 诇讛转诐 讜注讘讚讬转 讻讜转讞 讚讘讘诇讗讬 砖讗讬诇讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讻诇 讘专讬讞讬 诪注专讘讗:


The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yo岣nan would spit from the thought of Babylonian kuta岣, because he found it so disgusting. Rav Yosef said: Then we should spit from the thought of Rabbi Abba鈥檚 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 kuta岣, and all of the sick people of the West, Eretz Yisrael, asked me for it. Apparently, not everyone in Eretz Yisrael found it disgusting.


讻诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讻讜壮: 讛讚讬讞 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讚讬讞 讞讬讬讘 讞讟讗转 讗诪专 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讞讜抓 诪诪诇讬讞 讬砖谉 讜拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 砖讛讚讞转谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


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鈥檌spanin. 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鈥檌spanin, 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.


讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 诇专讘讬 讗住讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪谞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讱 诇诪讚讘专 注讝讛 讜讗专讗讱 砖诪谞讬诐 诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪讜注讚讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪讞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 注谞讬讬诐 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 诪爪讜讬讬谞讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 转讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讙讜讬诐 诪讝讜讛诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讜讻诇讬谉 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐


Apropos relations between the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia, the Gemara relates: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi were sitting before Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan was sitting and dozing. In the meantime the two of them conversed. Rabbi 岣yya 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 岣yya 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 岣yya 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.


讗讬转注专 讘讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚专讚拽讬 诇讗 讻讱 讗诪专转讬 诇讻诐 讗诪讜专 诇讞讻诪讛 讗讞讜转讬 讗转 讗诐 讘专讜专 诇讱 讛讚讘专 讻讗讞讜转讱 砖讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讱 讗讜诪专讛讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诇讗 转讗诪专讛讜 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 诇谉 诪专 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪谞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讙诇讜 砖谞讗诪专 砖讗谞谉 诪讜讗讘 诪谞注讜专讬讜 讜砖拽讟 讛讜讗 讗诇 砖诪专讬讜 讜讘讙讜诇讛 诇讗 讛诇讱


Rabbi Yo岣nan woke up due to their discussion and said to them: You children, did I not tell you this, that the verse 鈥淪ay to wisdom: You are my sister, and call understanding your kin鈥 (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: 鈥淢oab 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鈥 (Jeremiah 48:11). Apparently, one who is not exiled retains his strength.


讜讛讻讗 诪谞诇谉 讚讙诇讜 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讜砖转讬诐 砖谞讛 诇讗 注讘专 讗讬砖 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讛讛专讬诐 讗砖讗 讘讻讬 讜谞讛讬 讜讙讜壮 诪注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 讜注讚 讘讛诪讛 谞讚讚讜 讛诇讻讜 讘讛诪讛 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 讞诪砖讬谉 讜转专转讬谉 讛讜讜


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: 鈥淚 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎ll have fled and gone.鈥


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜诇谉 讞讝专讜 讞讜抓 诪拽讜诇讬讬住 讛讗讬住驻谞讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛谞讬 诪讚专讬 讚讘讘诇 诪讛讚专讬 诪讬讗 诇注讬谉 注讬讟诐 讜讛讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖专讬专 砖讚专讬讛 诇讗 诪爪讬 住诇讬拽


Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They all returned except for the kolyas ha鈥檌spanin, 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.


诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诪讜注讚讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 砖诪讞讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 讘讗讜转讛 拽诇诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛砖讘转讬 讻诇 诪砖讜砖讛 讞讙讛 讞讚砖讛 讜砖讘转讛 讜讻诇 诪讜注讚讛 讜讻转讬讘 讞讚砖讬讻诐 讜诪讜注讚讬讻诐 砖谞讗讛 谞驻砖讬 讛讬讜 注诇讬 诇讟讜专讞 诪讗讬 讛讬讜 注诇讬 诇讟讜专讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诇讗 讚讬讬谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 砖讞讜讟讗讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讗诇讗 砖诪讟专讬讞讬谉 讗讜转讬 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讜 讙讝讬专讛 拽砖讛 讗讘讬讗 注诇讬讛谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 专讙诇 讜专讙诇 砖诇讗 讘讗转讛 讘讜诇砖转 诇爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 专讙诇 讜专讙诇 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇讟讘专讬讛 讗讙诪讜谉 讜拽诪讟讜谉 讜讘注诇 讝诪讜专讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan continued to answer the questions of Rabbi 岣yya 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: 鈥淎nd I will cause all of her happiness to cease, her Festival, her New Moon, and her Shabbat and all her Festivals鈥 (Hosea 2:13). And it is also written: 鈥淢y soul hates your New Moons and your Festivals; they are a burden to Me; I am weary to bear them鈥 (Isaiah 1:14). What is the meaning of the phrase: 鈥淭hey are a burden to me鈥? 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 Yitz岣k 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 岣nina 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.


诪驻谞讬 诪讛 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 诪爪讜讬讬谞讬谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞谉 讘谞讬 诪拽讜诪谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘诪转讗 砖诪讗讬 讘诇讗 诪转讗 转讜转讘讗讬 讛讘讗讬诐 讬砖专砖 讬注拽讘 讬爪讬抓 讜驻专讞 讬砖专讗诇 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诇讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讘讘讘诇 砖注讜砖讬谉 爪讬爪讬谉 讜驻专讞讬诐 诇转讜专讛


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 鈥淚n days to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom鈥 (Isaiah 27:6). Rav Yosef taught: These are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who add buds and blossoms to the Torah.


诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讙讜讬诐 诪讝讜讛诪讬谉 砖诇讗 注诪讚讜 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 砖讘砖注讛


Rabbi Yo岣nan then explained to them: Why are gentiles ethically contaminated? It is because they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when


Scroll To Top