Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 143a

There, since they would putrefy,¹  his mind was [set] upon them from the previous day.² 

Logic too indicates that Raba agrees with R. Judah. For Raba lectured: A woman must not enter a wood-shed to take thence a wood poker;³  and if a wood poker is broken [on a Festival], it may not be used as fuel on the Festival, because we may heat with utensils but not with fragments of utensils. This proves it.⁴

MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY REMOVE BONES AND [NUT]SHELLS FROM THE TABLE;⁵  BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MUST TAKE AWAY THE WHOLE BOARD AND SHAKE IT.⁶  ONE MAY REMOVE FROM THE TABLE CRUMBS LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE AND THE PANICLES OF BEANS AND LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS. AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHERN HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT.⁷  [THE SAGES MAINTAIN]:⁸  IN EITHER CASE IT MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH⁹  AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT.¹⁰

GEMARA. R. Nahman said: As for us, we have no other [view] but that Beth Shammai agrees with R. Judah, and Beth Hillel with R. Simeon.¹¹

ONE MAY REMOVE CRUMBS FROM THE TABLE. This supports R. Johanan. For R. Johanan said: Crumbs less than an olive in size may not be wantonly¹²  destroyed.¹³

PANICLES OF BEANS. Who is the authority? [Apparently] R. Simeon, who rejects [the interdict of] mukzeh?¹⁴  Then consider the final clause: AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHERN HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE WITH IT: this agrees with R. Judah, who maintains, That which is unintentional is forbidden?¹⁵  — Here even R. Simeon agrees, for Abaye and Raba both maintained: R. Simeon admits in a case of 'cut off his head but let him not die.'¹⁶

The kernels of Syrian dates¹⁷  may be handled, since they are fit [for cattle] on account of their parent source,¹⁸  but those of Persian [dates] are forbidden.¹⁹  Samuel handled them in virtue of [a piece of] bread.²⁰  (Mnemonic: SHaRNaS SHaPaZ.)²¹  Samuel is consistent with his view, for Samuel said: One may carry out all his requirements with bread.²²  Rabbah handled them in virtue of a bowl [flask] of water. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua made them as a pot of excrements.²³  Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But may we make a pot of excrements at the outset?²⁴  R. Shesheth threw them away [spat them out] with his tongue. R. Papa threw them behind the couch.²⁵  It was said of R. Zechariah b. Eucolos that he would turn his face to the back of the couch and throw them away.

1. If left until the evening after the Festival.
2. Intending them for cats, and therefore they are mukan (q.v. Glos.).
3. For wood in a shed is generally meant for fuel, not to be used as a utensil,
4. That Raba accepts the interdict of mukzeh, in accordance with R. Judah.
5. By hand, though they are not even fit for a dog — dry and hard bones are referred to for Beth Shammai do not accept the interdict of mukzeh.
6. But the bones and nutshells may not be handled, Beth Hillel accepting the interdict of mukzeh.
7. For fear of wringing out the absorbed moisture.
8. This is omitted in some versions.
9. When dry.
10. Being neither a wooden utensil, a garment, a sack, nor metal, and only these can become unclean.
11. R. Judah accepts the interdict of mukzeh; R. Simeon does not. Hence the views ascribed to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel respectively in our Mishnah must be reversed.
12. Lit., 'by hand'.
13. Rashi: since the Mishnah states, ONE MAY REMOVE, implying that they are removed by hand, and must not be thrown away. Tosaf. rejects this deduction: moreover, it appears from Ber. 52b that 'may be destroyed' is the correct reading. Accordingly, Tosaf. reads there: … may be wantonly destroyed, the deduction being from the statement, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS, which may be destroyed.
14. For on Judah's view it is mukzeh, since it was together with the edible portion before the Sabbath when it was not mukan for animals.
15. The unintentional act is that in holding it water is wrung out.
16. V. p. 357, n. 8.
17. These were of an inferior quality and only fit for cattle.
18. Lit., 'their mother'. Sc. the date itself, v. n. 8, the case here being the reverse.
19. Because the dates themselves were fit for human beings.
20. Similar to the cases given supra 142b.
21. V. p. 149, n. 6. SH=SHemuel (Samuel). R=Rabbah; N=R. Huna; S=R. AShi, SH=SHesheth, P=R. Papa; Z=R. Zechariah.
22. Supra 50b.
23. He collected all the kernels in front of him; the quantity made them repulsive and he could treat them as a pot of excrements, which may be removed.
24. Surely not. Thus he disagrees with R. Huna.
25. Upon which he reclined while eating.

CHAPTER XXII

MISHNAH. IF A CASK [OF WINE] IS BROKEN,¹  ONE MAY SAVE THEREOF THE REQUIREMENTS²  FOR THREE MEALS, AND HE [THE OWNER] CAN SAY TO OTHERS, 'COME AND SAVE FOR YOURSELVES', PROVIDED THAT HE DOES NOT SPONGE IT UP.³  FRUIT MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED IN ORDER TO EXPRESS THEIR JUICES:⁴  IF THEY EXUDE OF THEIR OWN ACCORD THEY ARE PROHIBITED. R. JUDAH SAID: IF [THEY STAND] AS EATABLES,⁵  THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PERMITTED; BUT IF FOR LIQUIDS,⁶  THAT WHICH EXUDES FROM THEM IS PROHIBITED. IF HONEYCOMBS ARE CRUSHED ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH AND IT [THE HONEY] EXUDES SPONTANEOUSLY, IT IS FORBIDDEN; BUT R. ELEAZAR⁷  PERMITS IT.

GEMARA. A Tanna taught: One must not sponge up wine nor dab up oil,⁸  so that he should not act as he does during the week.

Our Rabbis taught: If one's produce is scattered in his courtyard, he may collect a little at a time and eat it,⁹  but not into a basket or a tub, so that he should not act as he does during the week.

FRUIT MAY NOT BE SQUEEZED, [etc.]. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Judah agreed with the Sages in respect to olives and grapes. What is the reason? Since they are [normally] for expressing, he puts his mind to them.¹⁰  But 'Ulla said in Rab's name: R. Judah disagreed in respect of olives and grapes too. While R. Johanan said: The halachah is as R. Judah in the case of other produce, but the halachah is not as R. Judah in the case of olives and grapes. Rabbah said in Rab Judah's name in Samuel's name: R. Judah agreed with the Sages in respect of olives and grapes, while the Sages agreed with R. Judah in respect of other produce. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Abba: Then wherein do they differ? When you find it [I will tell you,] he replied.¹¹  R. Nahman b. Isaac said: It is reasonable that they differ in the case of mulberries and pomegranates.¹²  For it was taught: If one draws off oil from olives, or wine from grapes,¹³  and [then] carries them in,¹⁴  whether as eatables or for their liquids, that which exudes from them is forbidden. If one draws fluid out of mulberries or juice¹⁵  out of pomegranates, and [then] carries them in, as eatables, that which exudes from them is permitted; [if he carries them in] for their liquid or without specifying [their purpose], that which exudes from them is forbidden: the words of R. Judah. But the Sages maintain: Whether for eating or for drinking, that which exudes from them is forbidden.

Now, does R. Judah hold that if it [the purpose] is unspecified, it [the exuding liquid] is forbidden? But surely we learnt: A woman's milk defiles,¹⁶  [whether it flows] with or without [the woman's] desire; a cow's milk defiles only [when it flows] with [its owner's] desire.¹⁷  Said R. Akiba, It [the reverse] follows a minori: if woman's milk, which is set apart for infants only, defiles [whether it flows] with or without [her] desire, then cow's milk, which is set apart for both infants and adults, surely defiles [whether it flows] with or without [the owner's] desire.¹⁸  [Said they to him]: If a woman's milk is unclean¹⁹  without [her] desire, that may be because the blood of her wound is unclean;²⁰  shall cow's milk be unclean

1. On the Sabbath.
2. Lit., 'food'.
3. I.e., he must not absorb the spilt wine in a sponge, lest he wring it out (into a vessel), which is forbidden.
4. This is forbidden under threshing, v. supra 73a.
5. E.g., dates which are intended for eating.
6. E.g., dates intended for honey.
7. This is the reading supra 19b, R. Eleazar b. Shammua' being the Tanna that is meant — Rashi ibid; v. BaH. Cur. edd. R. Eliezer.
8. With his hands, which he then wipes on the edge of a vessel so that the oil runs unto it.
9. This implies that he may collect only what he intends eating there and then. Tosaf. however, favours the deletion of 'and eat it'.
10. If they exude their liquid he does not mind, or is even pleased.
11. Probably: if you think carefully about it you will find the answer yourself.
12. Which were not usually pressed for juice.
13. Ri. (v. Tosaf. a.l.) Rashi translates; if oil oozes out of olives, etc. — of its own accord.
14. To the house for storing. 'Then' is added on the Ri's explanation. Rashi: he had (previously) carried in.
15. Lit., 'wine'.
16. I.e., if it falls on a food-stuff it makes it liable to defilement, cf. p. 45, n. 1, likewise, it is defiled itself if it comes into contact with a dead sherez (q.v. Glos.)- Rashi, Maim. and Asheri in Maksh. VI, 8.
17. Cf. p. 45, n. 1.
18. For the power of rendering food susceptible to uncleanness depends upon whether the fluid is regarded as a liquid or not. Hence since cows milk is more widely used as a liquid than woman's milk, its power in this respect cannot be less than that of the latter.
19. In the same sense as in p. 727, n. 7.
20. Likewise in the same sense; Nid. 55b.