Shabbat 143b:1-8שבת קמ״ג ב:א׳-ח׳
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 143b:1-8"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
143bקמ״ג ב

מתני׳ חבית שנשברה מצילין הימנה מזון שלש סעודות ואומר לאחרים באו והצילו לכם ובלבד שלא יספוג אין סוחטין את הפירות להוציא מהן משקין ואם יצאו מעצמן אסורין רבי יהודה אומר אם לאוכלין היוצא מהן מותר ואם למשקין היוצא מהן אסור חלות דבש שריסקן מערב שבת ויצאו מעצמן אסורין ורבי אליעזר מתיר:

MISHNA: From a barrel of wine or oil that broke on Shabbat, one may rescue from it food sufficient for three meals, and one may also say to others: Come and rescue food for yourselves. This applies provided that one does not soak up the wine or oil with a sponge or rag, due to the prohibition of squeezing. One may not squeeze fruits on Shabbat in order to extract liquids from them. And if liquids seeped out on their own, it is prohibited to use them on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the fruits were designated for eating, the liquid that seeps from them on Shabbat is permitted. There is no concern lest one purposely squeeze liquids from fruit that is designated for eating. And if the fruits were originally designated for liquids, the liquids that seep from them on Shabbat are prohibited. In the case of honeycombs that one crushed on Shabbat eve, and honey and wax seeped from them on their own on Shabbat, they are prohibited, and Rabbi Eliezer permits using them.

גמ׳ תנא לא יספוג ביין ולא יטפח בשמן שלא יעשה כדרך שהוא עושה בחול תנו רבנן נתפזרו לו פירות בחצר מלקט על יד על יד ואוכל אבל לא לתוך הסל ולא לתוך הקופה שלא יעשה כדרך שהוא עושה בחול:

GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta: One may not soak up wine and one may not collect oil in his hand, so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one’s fruit was scattered in a courtyard on Shabbat, one may collect them from hand to hand, a little at a time, and eat them immediately. However, one may not collect them into a basket or into a box, so that one will not conduct himself on Shabbat in the manner that he conducts himself during the week.

אין סוחטין את הפירות: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מודה היה רבי יהודה לחכמים בזיתים וענבים מאי טעמא כיון דלסחיטה נינהו יהיב דעתיה ועולא אמר רב חלוק היה רבי יהודה אף בזיתים וענבים ורבי יוחנן אמר הלכה כרבי יהודה בשאר פירות ואין הלכה כרבי יהודה בזיתים וענבים

We learned in the mishna: One may not squeeze fruit on Shabbat, and the liquid that seeps from fruit on its own is prohibited. Rabbi Yehuda, however, distinguishes between fruit that is designated for eating, in which case the liquid that seeps out on its own is permitted, and fruit that is designated for juicing, in which case the liquid that seeps out on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes. Even if they were designated for eating, the liquid that seeps from them on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. What is the reason for this? Since they are generally used for squeezing, one had in mind from the outset that these would serve that purpose as well, even if he designated them for eating. And Ulla said that Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda was in disagreement even with regard to olives and grapes. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits, and the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to olives and grapes.

אמר רבה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מודה היה רבי יהודה לחכמים בזיתים וענבים ומודים חכמים לרבי יהודה בשאר פירות

Rabba said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said as follows: Rabbi Yehuda would concede to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes, and the Rabbis would concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruit.

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי אבא אלא במאי פליגי אמר ליה לכי תשכח אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מסתברא בתותים ורמונים פליגי

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Abba: If it is true that they agree with each other, with regard to what do they disagree? He said to him: When you find it, i.e., examine this matter and you will find areas in which they disagree. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It stands to reason that they disagree with regard to mulberries and pomegranates, which have intermediate status, between olives and grapes, which are always considered designated for juicing, and other fruits, which are not.

דתניא זיתים שמשך מהן שמן וענבים שמשך מהן יין והכניסן בין לאוכל בין למשקין היוצא מהן אסור תותים שמשך מהן מים ורמונים שמשך מהן יין והכניסן לאוכלין היוצא מהן מותר למשקין ולסתם היוצא מהן אסור דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים בין לאוכלין בין למשקין היוצא מהן אסור

As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to olives from which one squeezed oil and grapes from which one squeezed wine before Shabbat (Tosafot), and he subsequently brought them into his house, whether he brought them in for use as food or whether he brought them in for use of their liquids, that which seeps from them on its own on Shabbat is prohibited. However, with regard to mulberries from which one squeezed water, i.e., juice, and pomegranates from which one squeezed wine, i.e., pomegranate juice, and he brought them into the house, if he originally brought them in for use as food, what seeps from them is permitted. And if he brought them in for use of their liquids, and similarly, if he brought them in without specifying his intention, what seeps from them is prohibited. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he brought them into the house for use as food or whether he brought them in for use of their liquids, what seeps from them is prohibited.

וסבר רבי יהודה סתם אסור והתנן חלב האשה מטמא לרצון ושלא לרצון חלב בהמה אינו מטמא אלא לרצון

The Gemara questions this baraita: And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that in the case of undesignated fruit that was not designated for a specific purpose, the liquid that seeps on its own is prohibited? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A woman’s milk is considered a liquid and therefore renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, whether the milk was expressed volitionally and whether it was expressed unvolitionally? On the other hand, milk of an animal only renders food susceptible to ritual impurity if it was milked volitionally but not if it drips out on its own.

אמר רבי עקיבא קל וחומר הוא ומה חלב האשה שאינו מיוחד אלא לקטנים מטמא לרצון ושלא לרצון חלב הבהמה שמיוחד בין לקטנים בין לגדולים אינו דין שיטמא בין לרצון ובין שלא לרצון אמרו לו אם טמא חלב האשה שלא לרצון שדם מגפתה טמא יטמא חלב הבהמה

Rabbi Akiva said: It is an a fortiori inference that this is incorrect: Just as a woman’s milk, which is intended only for young children, is considered a liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity both if the milk is expressed volitionally and if it is expressed unvolitionally, the milk of an animal, which is intended for both young and old, is it not logical that it should render food susceptible to ritual impurity, both if it was expressed volitionally and if it was expressed unvolitionally? They said to him that this a fortiori inference can be refuted in the following way: If a woman’s milk renders food susceptible to ritual impurity even when the milk was expressed unvolitionally, as the status of the blood of her wound is also that of a liquid that renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, that does not mean that the milk of an animal renders food susceptible to ritual impurity