Shabbat 289

כביצה מכוונת טהור הא יותר מכביצה טמא ואי אמרת משקה הבא לאוכל אוכל הוא במאי איתכשר הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה בסוחט לתוך הקערה

exactly as much as an egg [in quantity] it is clean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This person defiles food, and in turn the food, if not less than the size of an egg in quantity, defiles liquids. Here the man does not touch the expressed juice. Now from the very first drop that issues the residue is less than the necessary minimum, and therefore it cannot defile the liquid that follows. V. Toh. III, 3; v. Pes., Sonc. ed., p. 153, n. 2. ');">¹</span>

א"ר ירמיה כתנאי המחליק בענבים לא הוכשר רבי יהודה אומר הוכשר מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי מ"ס משקה הבא לאוכל אוכל הוא ומ"ס לאו אוכל הוא

Hence if more than an egg [in quantity] it [the juice] is unclean; but if you say, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, whereby did it become susceptible? He raised the objection and he himself answered it: It refers to squeezing out into a plate.

אמר רב פפא דכולי עלמא משקה הבא לאוכל לאו אוכל הוא והכא במשקה הבא לאיבוד קמיפלגי מר סבר משקה הוא ומ"ס לאו משקה הוא ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא המפצע בזיתים בידים מסואבות הוכשר לסופתן במלח לא הוכשר

R. Jeremiah said, This is dependent on Tannaim: If one smooths [the surface of dough] with grapes [grape juice], it does not become susceptible [to defilement];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably the flour was kneaded with eggs, which do not render it susceptible, and the first Tanna teaches that the grape juice does not do so either. ');">²</span>

לידע אם הגיעו זיתיו למסוק אם לאו לא הוכשר רבי יהודה אומר הוכשר מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמ"ס משקה העומד לאיבוד משקה הוא ומ"ס לאו משקה הוא

R. Judah maintained: It is made susceptible, Do they not differ in this: one Master holds, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, while the other Master holds that it is not a foodstuff? — Said R. Papa. All hold, A liquid that unites with a foodstuff is not a foodstuff,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So cur, edd., which Rashi and Tosaf. support. Wilna Gaon states that the reading of the Geonim, as well as that of Alfasi, is: is a foodstuff. ');">³</span>

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע הני תנאי במשקה העומד לאיבוד פליגי והנך תנאי במשקה העומד לצחצחו קמיפלגי

but here they differ in respect of a liquid that will eventually be destroyed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the heat of the oven will dry it up. ');">⁴</span>

א"ר זירא אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב סוחט אדם אשכול של ענבים לתוך הקדרה אבל לא לתוך הקערה ודג לצירו אפילו לתוך הקערה

one Master holds, It is [accounted] a liquid; while the other Master holds, It is not a liquid. And [they differ] in the [same] controversy as that of these Tannaim. For it was taught: If one splits olives<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: to soften them. ');">⁵</span>

יתיב רב דימי וקאמר לה להא שמעתא א"ל אביי לרב דימי אתון משמיה דרב מתניתון ולא קשיא לכו אנן משמיה דשמואל מתנינן לה וקשיא לן מי אמר שמואל דג לצירו אפי' לתוך הקערה והאיתמר כבשים שסחטן אמר רב לגופן מותר למימיהן פטור אבל אסור

with unclean hands, they are rendered susceptible;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To defilement through the liquid that oozes out because he is pleased with it, since the olives are softened thereby, v. p. 45, nn. 1, 4. ');">⁶</span>

ושלקות בין לגופן בין למימיהן מותר ושמואל אמר אחד כבשים ואחד שלקות לגופן מותר למימיהן פטור אבל אסור

if in order to salt them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When very hard they cannot take salt, and therefore he desires to soften them slightly, but not so much that the juice oozes out; hence he is not pleased therewith. ');">⁷</span>

א"ל האלהים (איוב יט, כז) עיני ראו ולא זר (כלו כליותי בחקי וגו') מפומיה דר' ירמיה שמיע לי ור' ירמיה מר' זירא ור' זירא מרב חייא בר אשי ורב חייא בר אשי מרב:

they are not rendered susceptible; if in order to know whether the olives are ripe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'have arrived'. ');">⁸</span>

גופא כבשים שסחטן אמר רב לגופן מותר למימיהן פטור אבל אסור ושלקות בין לגופן בין למימיהן מותר ושמואל אמר אחד זה ואחד זה לגופן מותר למימיהן פטור אבל אסור רבי יוחנן אמר אחד כבשים ואחד שלקות לגופן מותר למימיהן חייב חטאת

for gathering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether they are soft enough for the oil to be easily expressed. ');">⁹</span>

מיתיבי סוחטין כבשים בשבת לצורך השבת אבל לא למוצ"ש וזיתים וענבים לא יסחוט ואם סחט חייב חטאת קשיא לרב קשיא לשמואל קשיא לר' יוחנן רב מתרץ לטעמיה שמואל מתרץ לטעמיה ר' יוחנן מתרץ לטעמיה

or not, they do not become susceptible; R. Judah said: They do become susceptible. Now, surely they differ in this, viz., one Master holds: A liquid that stands to be destroyed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The liquid which oozes out of course is lost. ');">¹⁰</span>

רב מתרץ לטעמיה סוחטין כבשים בשבת לצורך השבת אבל לא למוצ"ש בד"א לגופן אבל למימיהן פטור אבל אסור ושלקות בין לגופן בין למימיהן מותר וזיתים וענבים לא יסחוט ואם סחטן חייב חטאת

is [accounted] a liquid, while the other Master holds that it is not a liquid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly do the Tannaim of the former Baraitha differ on the same question. ');">¹¹</span>

שמואל מתרץ לטעמיה סוחטין כבשים בשבת לצורך השבת הוא הדין לשלקות בד"א לגופן אבל למימיהן פטור אבל אסור וזיתים וענבים לא יסחוט ואם סחט חייב חטאת

— Said R. Huna the son of R. Joshua: These [latter] Tannaim [indeed] differ in respect of a liquid that stands to be destroyed, while the former Tannaim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who discuss the smoothing of dough. ');">¹²</span>

ר' יוחנן מתרץ לטעמיה סוחטין כבשים לצורך השבת אבל לא למוצ"ש אחד כבשים ואחד שלקות בד"א לגופן אבל למימיהן לא יסחוט ואם סחט נעשה כמי שסחט זיתים וענבים וחייב חטאת

differ in respect of liquid whose purpose is to polish [the dough].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the question of waste does not enter here, because this liquid serves a definite purpose. giving the dough a brighter colour. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב דבר תורה אינו חייב אלא על דריסת זיתים וענבים בלבד וכן תני דבי מנשה דבר תורה אינו חייב אלא על דריסת זיתים וענבים בלבד ואין עד מפי עד כשר

R. Zera said in R. Hiyya b. Ashi's name in Rab's name: A man may squeeze a bunch of grapes into a pot [of food], but not into a plate; but [one may squeeze] a fish for its brine even into a plate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is a foodstuff, not a drink, and the squeezing merely separate. its composite parts, viz., the brine from the flesh. ');">¹⁴</span> Now, R. Dimi sat and stated this ruling. Said Abaye to R. Dimi, You recite it in Rab's name, hence it presents no difficulty to you; [but] we recite it in Samuel's name, so it presents a difficulty to us. Did Samuel say, '[One may squeeze] a fish for its brine even into a plate'? Surely it was stated: If one presses out [pickled] preserves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., raw vegetables, preserved or pickled in wine or vinegar. ');">¹⁵</span> — Rab said: If for their own sake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he wishes to eat them, and they bear too much moisture at present. ');">¹⁶</span> it is permitted; if for their fluid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He actually wishes to drink its fluid. ');">¹⁷</span> he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. While Samuel ruled: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now the squeezing of boiled preserves is like that of a fish for its brine. Thus Samuel is self-contradictory. ');">¹⁸</span> — By God! replied he, 'Mine eyes have beheld, and not a stranger':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job XIX, 27. That Rab is the authority for the reported ruling. ');">¹⁹</span> I heard it from R. Jeremiah's mouth, and R. Jeremiah from R. Zera, and R. Zera from R. Hiyya b. Ashi, and R. Hiyya b. Ashi from Rab. To turn to [the main] text: 'If one presses out [pickled] preserves, — Rab said: If for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. While Samuel ruled: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden. R. Johanan said: Both with [pickled] and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is liable to a sin-offering'. An objection is raised: One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath; but one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does, he is liable to a sin-offering: this is a difficulty according to Rab, Samuel, and R. Johanan? — Rab reconciles it with his view, Samuel with his, and R. Johanan with his. 'Rab reconciles it with his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath. When is this said? when it is [done] for their own sake; but if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden; while [as for] boiled preserves, whether [done] for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted. But one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does he is liable to a sin-offering. 'Samuel explains it according to his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves on the Sabbath for the requirements of the Sabbath, [and] the same applies to boiled preserves. When is this said? When it is for their own sakes; but if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden. And one must not express olives and grapes, and if he does, he is liable to a sin-offering. 'R. Johanan explains it according to his view': One may squeeze [pickled] preserves for the requirements of the Sabbath, but not against the termination of the Sabbath. This applies to both [pickled] and boiled preserves. When is that said? When it is for their own sake; but he must not squeeze them for their fluid, and if he does, it is as though he squeezed olives and grapes, and he is liable to a sin-offering. R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: By the words of the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentateuchal law. ');">²⁰</span> one is culpable for the treading out of olives and grapes alone. And the School of Menasseh taught likewise: By the words of the Torah one is culpable for the treading out of olives and grapes alone. And a witness [attesting] what he heard from<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the mouth'. ');">²¹</span> another witness is valid