## Shabbat Daf 144b

###### Shabbat 144b:1
[Shabbat 144b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:1)

בִּפְגָעִין וּבִפְרִישִׁין וּבְעוּזְרָדִין, אֲבָל לֹא בְּרִמּוֹנִים, וְשֶׁל בֵּית מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר מְנַחֵם הָיוּ סוֹחֲטִין בְּרִמּוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**plums and quinces and crab apples. However,** one may **not** squeeze **pomegranates,** because they are typically squeezed for their juice, as people **from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates** during the week. Apparently, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to fruits other than pomegranates and mulberries.


###### Shabbat 144b:2
[Shabbat 144b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:2)

וּמִמַּאי דְּרַבָּנַן הִיא, דִּילְמָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא?! וְתֶהֱוֵי נָמֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה יָצְאוּ מֵעַצְמָן, סוֹחֲטִין לְכַתְּחִילָּה מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בְּנֵי סְחִיטָה נִינְהוּ — אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה. אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו בְּנֵי סְחִיטָה נִינְהוּ — אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִילָּה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבָּנַן הִיא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **And from where** is it ascertained that this *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion **of the Rabbis? Perhaps it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** The Gemara answers: **And let** this *baraita* **also be** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda: Say that you heard** that according to **Rabbi Yehuda,** juice that **seeped out on its own** is permitted; **did you hear** that **squeezing** it is permitted ***ab initio*? Rather, what have you to say? Since they are not** fruits that are generally **designated for squeezing,** it is permitted to squeeze them **even *ab initio*.** That being the case, **even if you say** the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** the same reasoning applies: **Since they are not** generally **designated for squeezing,** it is permitted to squeeze them **even *ab initio*.** Even the Rabbis would permit squeezing fruits such as plums, quinces, and crab apples. Since the *baraita* does not permit squeezing pomegranates, **learn from it** that the *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, **learn from it.**


###### Shabbat 144b:3
[Shabbat 144b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:3)

שֶׁל בֵּית מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר מְנַחֵם הָיוּ סוֹחֲטִין בְּרִמּוֹנִים. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּשֶׁל בֵּית מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר מְנַחֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It was taught in the *baraita* cited above that people **from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates** on weekdays. This indicates that it is typical for people to squeeze pomegranates, and therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. **Rav Naḥman said:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the practice of the people **from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem.** In other words, squeezing pomegranates is considered typical, and therefore it is prohibited on Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 144b:4
[Shabbat 144b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: מְנַשְּׁיָא בֶּן מְנַחֵם תַּנָּא הוּא?! וְכִי תֵּימָא הֲלָכָה כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּסָבַר לַהּ כְּשֶׁל מְנַשְּׁיָא בֶּן מְנַחֵם, וּמִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר כִּמְנַשְּׁיָא בֶּן מְנַחֵם הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ? מְנַשְּׁיָא בֶּן מְנַחֵם הָוֵי רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rav Naḥman:** Is **Menashya ben Menaḥem a *tanna*** that you say the *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion? **And if you say** that Rav Naḥman meant that the ***halakha* is in accordance with this *tanna*, who held in accordance with** the practice of the people **from** the house of **Menashya ben Menaḥem,** there is still room to ask: Does it make sense that **because he held in accordance with** the practice of the people from the house of **Menashya ben Menaḥem, the *halakha* is in accordance with his opinion?** Does **Menashya ben Menaḥem** constitute **the majority of the world?** Since most people do not squeeze pomegranates, the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem should be irrelevant relative to the typical practice of others.


###### Shabbat 144b:5
[Shabbat 144b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:5)

אִין, דִּתְנַן: הַמְקַיֵּים קוֹצִים בַּכֶּרֶם, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קִדֵּשׁ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁכָּמוֹהוּ מְקַיְּימִין. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — שֶׁכֵּן בַּעֲרַבְיָא מְקַיְּימִין קוֹצֵי שָׂדוֹת לִגְמַלֵּיהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman answered: **Yes,** in cases of this kind, halakhic rulings are based even on practices that are not universal, **as we learned** in a mishna that addresses the prohibition of diverse kinds, particularly forbidden food crops in a vineyard. With regard to one who **maintains thorns in a vineyard, Rabbi Eliezer says: He rendered** the crops a **forbidden** mixture of food crops in a vineyard. **And the Rabbis say: Only** a crop **that people** typically **maintain renders** a vineyard **forbidden. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the reason for** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer? Because in Arabia they maintain the thorns of the fields** to feed them **to their camels.** There, thorns are treated as a bona fide crop. According to this opinion, since thorns are maintained in one place, they are considered to be significant everywhere. The same reasoning applies to the issue of juicing pomegranates.


###### Shabbat 144b:6
[Shabbat 144b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:6)

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? דַּעֲרַבְיָא אַתְרָא, הָכָא — בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this answer: **Is this comparable? Arabia** is **a place,** and a custom practiced in an entire country is significant. **Here,** with regard to the practice of the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem, who was an individual, **his opinion** is rendered **irrelevant by** the opinions of **all other men.**


###### Shabbat 144b:7
[Shabbat 144b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:7)

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: תְּרָדִין שֶׁסְּחָטָן וּנְתָנָן בְּמִקְוֶה — פּוֹסְלִין אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה בְּשִׁינּוּי מַרְאֶה. וְהָא לָאו בְּנֵי סְחִיטָה נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר — כֵּיוָן דְּאַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ, הָווּ לְהוּ מַשְׁקֶה, הָכָא נָמֵי: כֵּיוָן דְּאַחְשְׁבִינְהוּ, הָווּ לְהוּ מַשְׁקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is the reason** for Rav Naḥman’s statement: It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rav Ḥisda,** as **Rav Ḥisda said:** In the case of **beets that one squeezed and** then **placed** their juice **in a ritual bath,** the juice **invalidates the ritual bath** if it causes a **change of appearance.** Any liquid that causes the water of a ritual bath to change color invalidates the ritual bath. Rav Ḥisda elaborated: **Aren’t** beets typically **not designated for squeezing? Rather, what have you to say? Since he ascribed it significance, it is** considered **a liquid. Here, too,** with regard to pomegranates, **since he ascribed it significance, it is** considered **a liquid.** Even if one person ascribes significance to a liquid, it assumes for him the status of a liquid and is prohibited on Shabbat.


###### Shabbat 144b:8
[Shabbat 144b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:8)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְוֶה לְכַתְּחִילָּה, וְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין מִמֶּנּוּ מִקְוֶה לְכַתְּחִילָּה — פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה בְּשִׁינּוּי מַרְאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said** that the reason Rav Ḥisda ruled that beet juice invalidates the ritual bath is **because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath *ab initio*,** and there is a principle: **Anything with which one may not make a ritual bath *ab initio*,** i.e., anything other than water, snow, or ice, **invalidates the ritual bath** if it causes a **change of appearance,** even if it does not have the legal status of a liquid.


###### Shabbat 144b:9
[Shabbat 144b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:9)

תְּנַן הָתָם: נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ יַיִן אוֹ חוֹמֶץ וּמוֹחַל, וְשִׁינָּה מַרְאָיו — פָּסוּל. מַאן תַּנָּא דְּמוֹחַל מַשְׁקֶה הוּא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מוֹחַל הֲרֵי הוּא כְּמַשְׁקֶה. וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ מוֹחַל הַיּוֹצֵא בַּתְּחִלָּה טָהוֹר — לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה בְּקִיּוּמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **there,** in tractate *Mikvaot*: If **wine or vinegar or** olive **discharge,** i.e., the liquid that comes from olives but is not oil, **fell into** a ritual bath **and changed its appearance,** the ritual bath is **invalid.** The Gemara asks: **Who is the *tanna*** who holds **that** olive **discharge is** considered **liquid? Abaye said: It is Rabbi Ya’akov, as it was taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Ya’akov says:** The legal status of olive **discharge is like** that of **a liquid. And what** is the **reason** the Sages **said that** olive **discharge that emerges at the outset,** before one begins to press the olives for their oil, **is ritually pure,** meaning that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? It is not because the olive discharge is not considered a liquid but **because he does not want its existence;** the owner would prefer that the olive discharge not yet emerge and instead emerge together with and mix with the oil.


###### Shabbat 144b:10
[Shabbat 144b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:10)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מוֹחַל אֵינוֹ כְּמַשְׁקֶה. וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ מוֹחַל הַיּוֹצֵא מֵעִיקּוּל בֵּית הַבַּד טָמֵא — לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹ בְּלֹא צִיחְצוּחֵי שֶׁמֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** The legal status of olive **discharge is not like** that of **a liquid. And what** is the **reason** the Sages **said that the** olive **sap that emerges from the bale of the olive press** after the olives were pressed **is** capable of rendering foods susceptible to become **ritually impure? Because it is impossible** that **it** will **not** contain **drops of oil** that come with it from the olives.


###### Shabbat 144b:11
[Shabbat 144b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:11)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ דְּאָתֵי בָּתַר אִיצְצָתָא. רָבָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין הֵימֶנּוּ מִקְוֶה, וּפוֹסֵל אֶת הַמִּקְוֶה בְּשִׁינּוּי מַרְאֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the practical difference **between them?** They both agree that olive discharge that emerges at the outset is incapable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity and that olive discharge that emerges from the bale of the olive press is capable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: **There is** a practical difference **between them** with regard to olive discharge **that comes after extensive pressing;** according to Rabbi Ya’akov, it is considered a liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and according to Rabbi Shimon, it is not a liquid and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. **Rava said:** The reason that olive discharge invalidates a ritual bath is not because it is a liquid, but rather, **because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath** *ab initio*, **and it** therefore **invalidates a ritual bath** if it causes a **change of appearance.**


###### Shabbat 144b:12
[Shabbat 144b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:12)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: סוֹחֵט אָדָם אֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁל עֲנָבִים לְתוֹךְ הַקְּדֵרָה, אֲבָל לֹא לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מִדִּבְרֵי רַבֵּינוּ נִלְמַד: חוֹלֵב אָדָם עֵז לְתוֹךְ הַקְּדֵרָה, אֲבָל לֹא לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר מַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא לְאוֹכֶל — אוֹכֶל הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes** on Shabbat **into a pot** with food in it, and it is not considered squeezing a liquid but rather adding one food to another; **however,** he may **not** squeeze the liquid **into an** empty **bowl. Rav Ḥisda said: From the statement of our Rabbi,** Shmuel, **we learn** that **one may milk a goat into a pot** of food on Shabbat, because it is not considered to be the manner of squeezing that is prohibited as a subcategory of the labor of threshing; **however,** one may **not** do so **into an** empty **bowl.** The Gemara deduces: **Apparently, he holds** that **liquid that comes into food** is not considered liquid, but rather, **it is food.**


###### Shabbat 144b:13
[Shabbat 144b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:13)

מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: זָב שֶׁחוֹלֵב אֶת הָעֵז — הֶחָלָב טָמֵא. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ מַשְׁקֶה הַבָּא לָאוֹכָלִין אוֹכֶל הוּא, בְּמַאי אִיתַּכְשַׁר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection** from the following mishna: In the case of **a *zav* who milks a goat, the milk is ritually impure** whether or not the *zav* actually touched it, as a *zav* renders items ritually impure simply by moving them, or being moved by them, even without direct contact. **And if you say** that **liquid that comes** directly **into food is food** and not liquid, in the case of one who milked directly into a pot of food, the milk should be considered food. The *halakha* is that food cannot become ritually impure unless it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with a liquid. **With what** liquid was this milk **rendered susceptible** to ritual impurity?


###### Shabbat 144b:14
[Shabbat 144b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:14)

כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּטִיפָּה הַמְלוּכְלֶכֶת עַל פִּי הַדַּד, הָכָא נָמֵי: בְּטִיפָּה הַמְלוּכְלֶכֶת עַל פִּי הַדַּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **As Rabbi Yoḥanan said** in a different context, that a particular statement is referring to **the** first **drop, which is smeared on the top of the teat** in order to moisten it and facilitate nursing or milking, **here too,** it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means **of the drop which is smeared on the top of the teat.** This drop was not intended to fall into the pot of food and is therefore considered a liquid and renders the food susceptible to ritual impurity.


###### Shabbat 144b:15
[Shabbat 144b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144b:15)

מֵתִיב רָבִינָא: טְמֵא מֵת שֶׁסָּחַט זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina raised an objection** based on what we learned in another mishna: In the case of **one who is ritually impure** with impurity imparted by **a corpse who squeezed olives or grapes**