Shabbat 288:1

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

plums, quinces and sorb-apples,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because their juice is not normally expressed, and therefore that is not akin to threshing, which is the reason of the prohibition in the case of other fruits. ');">¹</span> but not pomegranates, and [indeed] the household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On weekdays, which shows that pomegranates are intended for this. ');">²</span>

וממאי דרבנן היא דילמא ר' יהודה היא ותהוי נמי ר' יהודה אימר דשמעת ליה לר' 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 ש"מ רבנן היא ש"מ

And how do you know that this is the [ruling of] the Rabbis: perhaps it is R. Judah['s view]? — Even granted that it is R. Judah['s]: when have you heard R. Judah [to permit the juice], when it exudes of itself: have you heard him [to rule that] we may express it at the very outset?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. ');">³</span> But what you must answer is since they are not intended for pressing, [it is permitted] even at the outset; consequently even if it is assumed to be the ruling of the Rabbis, since they are not intended for pressing [it is permitted] at the very outset. Hence it follows that this [agrees with] the Rabbis [too].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same logic holds good on their view too. ');">⁴</span>

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

This proves it. 'The household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.' R. Nahman said: The <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with the household of Menasia b. Menahem. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Was then Menasia b. Menahem a Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of course not. The practice of this household is merely quoted, but he himself could give no ruling. ');">⁵</span>

א"ל 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

And should you say [that you mean], The <i>halachah</i> is as this Tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forbids with pomegranates. ');">⁶</span> because he agrees with the [practice of] Menasia b. Menahem: just because he agrees with Menasia b. Menahem, the <i>halachah</i> is as he! Does Menasia b. Menahem represent the majority of people?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the halachah should be decided by his practice. ');">⁷</span>

אין דתנן המקיים קוצים בכרם ר"א אומר קדש וחכ"א אינו מקדש אלא דבר שכמוהו מקיימין וא"ר חנינא מ"ט דרבי אליעזר שכן בערביא מקיימין קוצי שדות לגמליהם

Yes. For we learnt: If one maintains thorns in a vineyard, — R. Eleazar said: They are forbidden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sanctified'. Viz., the grapes, on account of the mixture of plants; Deut. XXII, 9. ');">⁸</span> but the Sages maintained: Only that the like of which is [normally] kept<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a plant which is wanted and valuable, which excludes thorns. ');">⁹</span>

מידי איריא דערביא אתרא הכא בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם

creates an interdict. Now R. Hanina said: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Because in Arabia the thorns of fields are kept for the camels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus Arabian practice decides the law, and the same is true here. ');">¹⁰</span> How compare! Arabia is a [whole] region, but here his practice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mind'. ');">¹¹</span>

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 ה"נ כיון דאחשבינהו הוה להו משקה

counts as nought in relation to that of all [other] people! — Rather this is the reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Nahman's ruling that one may not press pomegranate.. ');">¹²</span> as R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: If beets are expressed and [the juice] poured into a mikweh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹³</span>

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

it renders the mikweh unfit on account of changed appearance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water is stained red and no longer looks like water. ');">¹⁴</span> But these are not normally expressed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence their juice should be of no account. ');">¹⁵</span>

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

What you must then answer is that since he assigned value thereto,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the juices. ');">¹⁶</span> it ranks as liquid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which can invalidate a mikweh. ');">¹⁷</span>

ר"ש אומר מוחל אינו כמשקה ומה טעם אמרו מוחל היוצא מעיקול בית הבד טמא לפי שאי אפשר לו בלא ציחצוחי שמן

so here too, since one assigns a value thereto, it ranks as a liquid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the juice of pomegranates. Rashi: R. Nahman accordingly explains the Baraitha thus: — One may squeeze plums, etc., not for their juice, since this would automatically give the juice a value of its own as a liquid, which in turn prohibits squeezing, but in order to improve the taste of the fruit. But not pomegranates. even to improve the fruit, for since some, as the house of Menasia b. Menahem, squeeze it for the sake of the juice, should you permit the former the latter too may be done. This does not apply to plums etc. which no-one squeezes for the sake of their juice. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Papa said: The reason is that it is something wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place, and everything wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place renders a mikweh unfit through changed appearance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet no value is assigned thereto and the juice is not a liquid. ');">¹⁹</span>

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

We learnt elsewhere: If wine, vinegar, or secretion [of olives]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A fluid given off by olives before the actual oil is expressed. It is in fact a kind of diluted oil. ');">²⁰</span> falls therein [a mikweh] and changes its appearance, it is unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mik. VII, 4. ');">²¹</span>

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

Which Tanna holds that secretion [of olives] is a liquid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To invalidate a mikweh. ');">²²</span> — Said Abaye, It is R. Jacob. For it was taught, R. Jacob said: The secretion is as a liquid, and why did they [the Sages] rule, The secretion which exudes at the beginning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the olives are first loaded in the press, but before they are actually pressed. ');">²³</span>

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

is clean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not render food insusceptible to defilement; v. p. 45, n. 1. ');">²⁴</span> Because one does not desire to keep it. R. Simeon said: Secretion is not as a liquid, and why did they rule, The secretion that exudes from the bale made up for the press<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast.: a bale of loose texture containing the olive pulp to be pressed. This fluid denotes a further stage than the previous. ');">²⁵</span>

כדאמר ר' יוחנן בטיפה המלוכלכת ע"פ הדד הכא נמי בטיפה המלוכלכת ע"פ הדד

is unclean? Because it cannot but contain particles of diluted oil. Wherein do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both admit that the first fluid is clean, while that which oozes from the olive pulp is unclean, in respect of what do they disagree? ');">²⁶</span> They differ in respect to what oozes after [the olives have been subject to their own] pressure. Raba said: The reason is because it is something whereof a mikweh may not be made, and such renders a mikweh unfit through change of colour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is why the serial fluid makes the mikweh unfit; accordingly that ruling agrees with all. ');">²⁷</span>

מתיב רבינא טמא מת שסחט זיתים וענבים

Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may squeeze out a cluster of grapes into a pot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of food, for obviously the juice will not be drunk separately but is meant to season the food; as such it remains a food, i.e., a solid, itself. ');">²⁸</span> but not into a plate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it may then be drunk separately, notwithstanding that one does not generally drink from a plate. ');">²⁹</span> R. Hisda observed: From our master's words we may learn [that] one may milk a goat into a pot [of food], but not into a plate. This proves that he holds: a liquid that unites with<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes into'. ');">³⁰</span> a [solid] foodstuff is [accounted] a foodstuff. Rami b. Hama objected: If a <i>zab</i> milks a goat, the milk is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A zab defiles everything through hesset (v. p. 395, n. 1); here too he exercises hesset on the milk. ');">³¹</span> But if you say, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, whereby did it become susceptible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To defilement, for no foodstuff can be unclean unless a liquid has previously fallen upon it (v. p. 45, n. 1). — The law is stated generally- which implies that it is so even if he milks it into a pot of food. ');">³²</span> — As R. Johanan said [elsewhere], By the drop [of milk] smeared on the nipple: so here too by the drop smeared on the nipple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The milker smears the first drop around the nipple, to facilitate the flow. This drop of course counts as a liquid, and all the subsequent milk is touched thereby. ');">³³</span> Rabina objected: If a person unclean through a corpse squeezes out olives or grapes