Rif Shabbat 61a {Shabbat 145a continues; digression to Ketubot 60a; Shabbat 145b}

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
61a

{Shabbat 145a continues}
And from all this we learn that the halacha is as Rav and Shmuel. Therefore, the halacha is also like Rav Chisda, in that we learn from him that a man may milk {by hand} a goat on Yom Tov into a pot but not into a plate. And so indeed did we see Rav Hai Gaon z"l {state} as we have ruled, and there is no doubt in this.

We learn in perek Af Al Pi {Ketubot 60a}: They learn {in a brayta}: Rabbi Marinus says: A man suffering from an attack on the chest {angina pectoris?} may suck milk [from a beast] on Shabbat.

What is the reason? — Sucking is an act of unusual unloading {מפרק כלאחר יד הוא} against which, where pain is involved, no preventive measure has been enacted by the Rabbis.

Rav Yosef said: The halacha is as Rabbi Marinus.

They learnt {in a brayta}: Nachum the Galatian stated, If rubbish was collected in a gutter {and thus prevents the proper flow of water} it is permissible to crush it with one's foot quietly on Shabbat, and not be concerned.

What is the reason? — Such repair is carried out in an unusual manner against which, when loss is involved, the Rabbis enacted no preventive measure.

Rav Yosef said: The halacha is as Nachum the Galatian.

And if it troubles you that which we learnt in perek Cheresh sheNasa Pikachat {Yevamot 114a}: Abba Shaul says: we were accustomed to suckle from a kosher animal 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.

For we deduce from there that a man suffering from an attack on the chest is forbidden to suckle from an animal on Shabbat!?

This is no difficulty at all, for this statement was according to Abba Shaul, and the halacha is not like him, for Rav Yosef ruled that the halacha is like Rabbi Marinus, who said that even on Shabbat, in an instance in which pain is involved, the Sages did not decree.

And we have seen that there is one who establishes this opinion of Rabbi Marinus as referring to an instance of pain which involves {mortal} danger, so that he will not face the difficulty of the statement of Abba Shaul. And this answer is not a good one, for if it were so that the case of Rabbi Marinus involves pain which involves {mortal} danger, why deal with unusual unloading {מפרק כלאחר יד}? Even an absolute labor {melacha gemura} in case of danger is permitted!

And furthermore, this that is stated "in case of pain, the Sages did not institute," it should have stated "in case of danger."

And furthermore, this is well by the case of the man {suffering chest pains}, since in that case there is danger. But by the gutter, that they learn that it is repairing in an unusual manner, and in case of loss, the Sages did not institute -- there, what danger is there?

Therefore, this answer is not {a good answer}.

{Shabbat 145a}
Gufa: {return to the gemara briefly cited earlier; i.e., To turn to [the main] text:}
If one presses out [pickled] preserves, Rav said: If for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, nevertheless it is forbidden. But with boiled preserves, whether for their own sake or for their fluid, it is permitted.
And Shmuel said: Both with [pickled] preserves and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is not culpable, yet it is forbidden.
And Rabbi Yochanan said: Both with [pickled] and boiled preserves, if for their own sake, it is permitted; if for their fluid, he is liable to a sin-offering.

And the halacha is not like Rabbi Yochanan in terms of having to bring a sin-offering, for Rav and Shmuel are of one opinion that there is not liability to bring a sin-offering, except by olives and grapes. And Rabbi Yochanan is an individual {against them} and the words of an individual do not {stand} against two. And further, this that the academy of Menashe taught {tna} supports them, for he said: As a Biblical matter, he is not liable except for treading olives and grapes.

And it makes sense to us that the halacha is like Shmuel in this matter, for Rabbi Yochanan maintains like him in terms of it being forbidden, and the only difference of opinion between them is in terms of liability to bring a sin-offering.

Rabbi Chiyya bar Ashi cited Rav: As a Biblical matter, he is not liable except for treading olives and grapes.

And the School of Menasseh taught likewise: As a Biblical matter, he is not liable except for treading olives and grapes. And a witness [attesting] what he heard from another witness is valid only

{Shabbat 145b}
in evidence concerning a woman {that is, to testify that her husband is dead so that she may remarry}.

It was a question to them: What about a witness [attesting] what he heard from another witness in evidence relating to a bechor {=firstborn of an animal, which may not be eaten until it acquires a blemish accidentally}?
Rav Assi {our gemara: Ammi} forbids.
And Rav Ashi permits.

Rav Assi {our gemara: Ammi} said to Rav Ashi: But the School of Menasseh taught: A witness testifying what he heard from another witness is valid in testimony concerning a woman alone?
He {Rav Ashi} said to him: Learn {instead a different girsa}: Only in testimony for which a woman is valid.
{A woman is a valid witness only in certain matters, which includes a firstling's blemish, and in these hearsay too is admissible.}

Like this that they learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Shimon ben Kaposai says: The bechor {firstborn animal} of a Kohen requires two from the marketplace to testify about it {that it acquired a blemish accidentally}. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his son and his daughter.
And specifically his son and his daughter, but his wife, no.
What is the reason?
For his wife is like him own self.

Rav Yemar recognized as fit a witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness in respect to a firstling, [whereupon] Meremar called him {critically} 'Yemar who permits firstlings.'

{Yet,} the halacha is that a witness [testifying] from the mouth of another witness is valid in case of a firstling {bechor}.

To explain, a bechor {firstling} of an animal. That is to say, if a witness who heard from the mouth of another witness comes and says that this blemish which befell this bechor was not at the hands of man, we permit it for consumption immediately because of its blemish, based on his testimony.

"IF HONEYCOMBS ARE CRUSHED {ON EREV SHABBAT HONEY EXUDES ON ITS OWN ON SHABBAT}":
When Rav Oshaya came from Nehardea, he brought with him a brayta: If one crushes olives and grapes on erev Shabbat, and they [their juices] ooze out of themselves {on Shabbat}, they are forbidden; And Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Shimon permit.

And the Baal Halachot rules, citing Rav Tzemach bar Palti the head of the Metivta {academy} like Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Shimon.

MISHNA:
WHATEVER WAS PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE SHABBAT MAY BE STEEPED [AGAIN] IN HOT WATER ON SHABBAT;
BUT WHATEVER WAS NOT PUT INTO HOT WATER BEFORE SHABBAT MAY [ONLY] BE RINSED WITH HOT WATER ON SHABBAT, EXCEPT OLD SALTED [PICKLED] FISH, [SMALL SALTED FISH], AND THE COLIAS OF THE SPANIARDS {= a kind of tunny-fish}, BECAUSE THEIR RINSING COMPLETES THEIR PREPARATION.

Gemara:
"WHATEVER WAS PUT INTO HOT WATER...":
What, for example?
Such as Rabbi Abba's fowl.

In explanation, it {the fowl} was excessively salted