שבת דף קמג

התם כיון דמסרח, דעתיה עילויה מאתמול.

The Gemara answers: There, since the intestines will putrefy as time passes, they are on his mind from yesterday. Since Shabbat eve, he has had in mind to feed them to the cat.

הכי נמי מסתברא דרבא כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה, דדרש רבא: אשה לא תכנס לבית העצים ליטול מהן אוד. ואוד שנשבר — אסור להסיקו ביום טוב,

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rava taught: A woman may not enter the wood storehouse to take a wooden poker to stoke a fire on a Festival. And with regard to a poker that broke, it is prohibited to kindle a fire with it on a Festival, as one may kindle a fire on a Festival with vessels that may be moved, but one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels that broke during the Festival. They are set-aside and prohibited. Conclude from it that Rava ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the halakhot of set-aside.

לפי שמסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים. שמע מינה.

מתני׳ בית שמאי אומרים: מעבירין מעל השלחן עצמות וקליפין. ובית הלל אומרים: מסלק את הטבלא כולה ומנערה.

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may clear bones and shells left from the Shabbat meal from the table with his hand. And Beit Hillel say: One may remove the entire board [tavla] that is the table surface and shake the bones and shells off of it, but he may not lift them with his hand because they are set-aside and may not be moved.

מעבירין מלפני השלחן פירורין פחות מכזית, ושער של אפונין ושער עדשים, מפני שהוא מאכל בהמה.

One may clear bread crumbs from the table, even if they are less than an olive-bulk, and pea and lentil pods. Even though it is not fit for human consumption, it may be moved because it is animal fodder.

ספוג, אם יש לו עור בית אחיזה — מקנחין בו, ואם לאו — אין מקנחין בו. וחכמים אומרים: בין כך ובין כך ניטל בשבת, ואינו מקבל טומאה.

With regard to a sponge, if it has leather as a handle, one may wipe the table with it, and if not, one may not wipe the table with it lest he come to squeeze liquid from it. And the Rabbis say: Both this, a dry sponge with a handle, and that, one without a handle, may be moved on Shabbat and it does not become ritually impure. A sponge is not among the substances that can become ritually impure, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic decree.

גמ׳ אמר רב נחמן: אנו אין לנו אלא: בית שמאי כרבי יהודה, ובית הלל כרבי שמעון.

GEMARA: Rav Naḥman said: Reverse the two opinions, as we have only Beit Shammai in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving set-aside items, and Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who permits doing so.

מעבירין מלפני השלחן פירורין. מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן, דאמר רבי יוחנן: פירורין שאין בהן כזית — אסור לאבדן ביד.

We learned in the mishna: One may clear bread crumbs from the table. The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to crumbs that are less than an olive-bulk, it is prohibited to destroy them by hand in deference to the food.

שער של אפונין. מני? — רבי שמעון היא, דלית ליה מוקצה.

We learned in the mishna: One may clear pea and lentil pods from the table on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is it in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside.

אימא סיפא: ספוג, אם יש לו בית אחיזה — מקנחין בו, ואם לאו אין מקנחין בו. אתאן לרבי יהודה, דאמר: דבר שאין מתכוין — אסור!

Say the latter clause of the mishna: With regard to a sponge, if it has leather as a handle, one may wipe the table with it, and if not, one may not wipe the table with it. We have arrived at the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: An unintentional act is prohibited, as he certainly does not intend to squeeze liquid from the sponge.

בהא אפילו רבי שמעון מודה, דאביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו: מודה רבי שמעון ב״פסיק רישיה ולא ימות״.

The Gemara answers: In that case, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited, as it is Abaye and Rava who both say: Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of: Cut off its head will it not die, i.e., inevitable consequences. When the prohibited outcome that ensues from the unintentional action is inevitable, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is prohibited. Squeezing liquid from a sponge is an inevitable consequence.

הני גרעינין דתמרי ארמייתא שרו לטלטולינהו, הואיל וחזיין אגב אמן. ודפרסייתא — אסור.

With regard to those pits of Aramean dates, which are low quality and occasionally fed to animals, it is permitted to move the pits since they are fit for use due to their origin, i.e., the dates that were prepared as animal feed beforehand. And moving pits of Persian dates is prohibited. Since those dates are high quality and are not prepared for animals, their pits, too, are not prepared for that use.

שמואל מטלטל להו אגב ריפתא. (שרנ״ם שפ״ז סימן.) שמואל לטעמיה, דאמר שמואל: עושה אדם כל צרכו בפת.

The Gemara relates that Shmuel would carry them along with bread. The letters shin, resh, nun, mem, shin, peh, zayin are a mnemonic of the Sages whose opinions are cited below: Shmuel, Rabba, Huna, Ameimar, Sheshet, Pappa, Zekharya. The Gemara comments: Shmuel’s statement is consistent with his reasoning, as Shmuel said: A man may perform all his needs with bread. As long as the bread remains edible, he need not be concerned that he is treating the bread contemptuously.

רבה מטלטל להו אגב לקנא דמיא. רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע עביד להו כגרף של ריעי. אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר: וכי עושין גרף של ריעי לכתחילה?

Rabba would move them along with a pitcher of water. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would render them a chamber pot with excrement. The Sages permitted moving repulsive vessels. Here, too, he would collect all the date pits and then move them out because they were disgusting. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: And may one create a chamber pot with excrement ab initio? Although the Sages permitted moving a container of excrement, they did not permit creating one ab initio so that it would be permitted to move it.

רב ששת זריק להו בלישניה. רב פפא זריק להו אחורי המטה. אמרו עליו על רבי זכריה בן אבקולס שהיה מחזיר פניו אחורי המטה וזורקן.

Rav Sheshet would dispose of the pits with his tongue. Rav Pappa would dispose of them behind the divan on which he sat while eating because he did not want to move them in another manner. They said about Rabbi Zekharya ben Avkolas that he would turn his face toward the back of the divan and dispose of them.

הדרן עלך נוטל אדם את בנו

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.

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.

רבי יהודה אומר: אם לאוכלין — היוצא מהן מותר. ואם למשקין — היוצא מהן אסור. חלות דבש שריסקן מערב שבת, ויצאו מעצמן — אסורין, ורבי אליעזר מתיר.

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,

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.

אבל לא לתוך הסל ולא לתוך הקופה, שלא יעשה כדרך שהוא עושה בחול.

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:

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.

חלוק היה רבי יהודה אף בזיתים וענבים. ורבי יוחנן אמר: הלכה כרבי יהודה בשאר פירות, ואין הלכה כרבי יהודה בזיתים וענבים.

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,

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.

לאוכלין — היוצא מהן מותר, למשקין ולסתם — היוצא מהן אסור, דברי רבי יהודה. וחכמים אומרים: בין לאוכלין בין למשקין — היוצא מהן אסור.

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,

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

אינו דין שיטמא בין לרצון ובין שלא לרצון? אמרו לו: אם טמא חלב האשה שלא לרצון, שדם מגפתה טמא, יטמא חלב הבהמה