Rif Shabbat 60b {Shabbat 144b continues ... 145a}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
60b

{Shabbat 144b continues}
fruits in order that they express their juice, and if they exuded on their own accord, they are forbidden, and we establish this {statement in the Mishna} as referring to olives and grapes, that whether they are intended for food or drink, they are forbidden, and therefore, this statement of Shmuel can only refer to Yom Tov, and so do we find the Baal Halachot Pesukot who writes "on Yom Tov" and does not write "on Shabbat."

And there is one who says that this statement of Shmuel refers to Shabbat, and he establishes the Mishna as a case where one squeezes into a plate, in which case it is reckoned as liquid, but into a pot, he may squeeze, like Shmuel. And this diyuk of Rav Chisda, that alone refers to Yom Tov, and so does one's thoughts lean. And Rav Chananel z"l's opinion was so, except that he said that the words of Shmuel and Rav Chisda, from whom we derive {daykinan}, the halacha is not like them, and so does he say:

And the halacha is like the answer of Rabbi Yochanan in this Mishna {Shabbat 145a} and we derive from it that a man may squeeze out [pickled] preserves {=raw vegetables, preserved or pickled in wine or vinegar} or boiled preserves for their own sake; but if for their fluid, it is forbidden. And if he squeezed for their fluid, he is reckoned as if he squeezed olives and grapes, and is liable to bring a sin-offering. And there is no distinction, when he squeezed for their fluid, between a pot or a plate, but rather all is forbidden. For squeezing of olives and grapes, whether to a pot or to a plate, he requires {desires} their fluid; and Rabbi Yochanan said that one who squeezes out [pickled] preserves or boiled preserves for their fluid is like one who squeezes out olives and grapes, and is liable to bring a sin-offering.

And from these words it is clear that the halacha is not like Shmuel and not like Rav, who said that "a man may squeeze a bunch of grapes and place them into a pot [of food], but not into a plate."

And there is one who establishes the words of Rav and Shmuel as referring to Yom Tov, from the fact that Rav Chisda carefully analyzes {is medayek} the words of Rav and said that from their words, we may learn that one may milk a goat into a pot [of food], but not into a plate -- in order to establish their {Rav and Shmuel's} words as halacha {somewhere}.

And these words are incorrect, for even on Yom Tov it is forbidden {even} to suckle with one's mouth from an animal, and certainly not to milk, as we learn in perek Cheresh sheNasa Pikachat {Yevamot 114a}: Abba Shaul said: we were accustomed to suckle from a kosher animal {see there for context} on Yom Tov, and we ask on this, Howso? If no danger was involved, it should be forbidden even on Yom Tov. And if danger was involved, [the sucking should be permitted] even on Shabbat as well! And we conclude: No, it is necessary in the case where pain was involved, [Abba Saul] being of the opinion [that sucking] is an act of indirect detaching {milking an animal with one's hands is regarded as direct detaching}. {And so,} Shabbat, which involves a prohibition carrying a penalty of stoning, the Sages decreed. Yom Tov, however, where the prohibition [is only that of] a negative precept, the Rabbis have not instituted any decree.

Behold, that even to suckle from an animal on Yom Tov was not permitted except where there is {alleviation of} pain involved, and certainly to milk {by hand} in a case where there is no pain involved is forbidden.

And we need not go looking for an answer and to take the sugya from its {normal} place. But rather, it is certain that this that it says that one may squeeze into a pot but not into a plate was said regarding Shabbat, and this that Rav Chisda said was regarding Yom Tov, and the halacha is not like him, not on Shabbat and not on Yom Tov. And so have we received from our teachers.

These {preceding} were the words of Rav Chananel זצ"ל, and we have delved into them and have found an answer to it all. First, that this that it states that they did not distinguish in their squeezing for liquids between to a pot and to a plate, but rather all is forbidden -- is not so. For when Rabbi Yochanan said that for their liquids, he is laible to bring a sin-offering, this was stated in the context of the statements of Rav and Shmuel who said that he is exempt, yet it is forbidden. And when Rav and Shmuel stated that for their liquids, he is exempt yet it is forbidden, this was to the plate, but to the pot, no {but rather it is permitted}. Likewise, this that Rabbi Yochanan said that for their liquids, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, is to a plate, but not to a pot. Know this, for Rav and Shmuel are the ones who say that a man may squeeze a cluster {of grapes} into a pot but not into a plate, and they are the ones who say regarding [pickled] preserves or boiled preserves that if for their liquids {he squeezes them} he is exempt yet it is forbidden.

And if the thought emerges that according to the one who says that for liquids it is forbidden, it does not matter whether this is to a pot or to a plate, but he means to say that in all instances it is forbidden -- if so, there is a question {and contradiction} Rav on Rav and Shmuel on Shmuel. But what do you have to say? This statement that if for their liquids it is forbidden they say regarding into a plate, and not into a pot. Likewise, when Rabbi Yochanan stated that if for their liquids, he is liable to a sin-offering, he stated this in terms of into the plate, and not into the pot. And Rabbi Yochanan does not argue on Rav and Shmuel except in terms him being exempt, but it being forbidden vs. liability to bring a sin-offering, but in terms of a plate and a pot, no. For if it were so, let them argue explicitly about a plate and a pot. And from the fact that we do not find their dispute except that it is permitted according to Rav, and that he is exempt {from bringing a sin-offering} yet it is forbidden according to Shmuel, and that he is liable {to bring} a sin-offering according to Rabbi Yochanan, we may deduce from this that they do not argue regarding a plate and a pot.

And furthermore, we do not find that Rabbi Yochanan argues on Rav and Shmuel except regarding [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, but in terms of a cluster of grapes, we do not find that he argues. And one who says that he {Rabbi Yochanan} does argue needs a proof.

And this that it states that squeezing olives and grapes, whether to a pot or to a plate, he needs {and thus is doing it for} its liquid, and this that Rabbi Yochanan says that one who squeezes [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves for their liquids is like one who squeezes olives and grapes, and is liable to {bring} a sin-offering, this is also not a proof, for one who squeezes grapes into a pot which has food, even though he needs their liquid, since he squeezes into a food, he is not like one who squeezes liquids but rather like one who crumbles food into {another} food, which is permitted.

And this that Rabbi Yochanan said regarding one who squeezes [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves for their liquids, that this is like one who squeezes olives and grapes, and he is liable, he only intended by that one who squeezes [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves into a plate is like one who squeezes olives and grapes into a plate, but into a pot, both these and those are permitted, for it is a food and not a liquid.

And in sooth, the halacha is like Shmuel in that a man may squeeze a cluster of grapes into a pot. And Rabbi Yochanan does not deal with squeezing a cluster at all.

And this that it stated that even to suckle from a {clean} animal with his mouth {and not milking with one's hands} on Yom Tov is forbidden, and certainly to milk {with one's hands} -- is it not so that suckling from an animal is more stringent than one who milks into a pot {containing food}? and even though it {suckling with one's mouth} is an act of indirect detaching, for one who suckles with his mouth is like one who squeezes out liquids, and one who milks into a pot is like one who crumbles food, and it is therefore permitted.

And further, this that Rami bar Chama objects, and we resolve his objection, and Ravina, who is later, also objects, and he objects and resolves his own objection; Also Rabbi Yirmiya wishes to establish it as a Tannaitic dispute, and it does not stand unless according to all, a liquid that comes into a food is reckoned a food.