Shabbat

plums, quinces and sorb-apples,  but not pomegranates, and [indeed] the household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.  And how do you know that this is the [ruling of] the Rabbis: perhaps it is R. Judah['s view]? — Even granted that it is R. Judah['s]: when have you heard R. Judah [to permit the juice], when it exudes of itself: have you heard him [to rule that] we may express it at the very outset?  But what you must answer is since they are not intended for pressing, [it is permitted] even at the outset; consequently even if it is assumed to be the ruling of the Rabbis, since they are not intended for pressing [it is permitted] at the very outset. Hence it follows that this [agrees with] the Rabbis [too].  This proves it. 'The household of Menasia b. Menahem used to express pomegranates.' R. Nahman said: The halachah is in accordance with the household of Menasia b. Menahem. Said Raba to R. Nahman: Was then Menasia b. Menahem a Tanna?  And should you say [that you mean], The halachah is as this Tanna  because he agrees with the [practice of] Menasia b. Menahem: just because he agrees with Menasia b. Menahem, the halachah is as he! Does Menasia b. Menahem represent the majority of people?  Yes. For we learnt: If one maintains thorns in a vineyard, — R. Eleazar said: They are forbidden;  but the Sages maintained: Only that the like of which is [normally] kept  creates an interdict. Now R. Hanina said: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Because in Arabia the thorns of fields are kept for the camels.  How compare! Arabia is a [whole] region, but here his practice  counts as nought in relation to that of all [other] people! — Rather this is the reason,  as R. Hisda. For R. Hisda said: If beets are expressed and [the juice] poured into a mikweh,  it renders the mikweh unfit on account of changed appearance.  But these are not normally expressed?  What you must then answer is that since he assigned value thereto,  it ranks as liquid;  so here too, since one assigns a value thereto, it ranks as a liquid.  R. Papa said: The reason is that it is something wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place, and everything wherewith a mikweh may not be made in the first place renders a mikweh unfit through changed appearance. We learnt elsewhere: If wine, vinegar, or secretion [of olives]  falls therein [a mikweh] and changes its appearance, it is unfit.  Which Tanna holds that secretion [of olives] is a liquid?  — Said Abaye, It is R. Jacob. For it was taught, R. Jacob said: The secretion is as a liquid, and why did they [the Sages] rule, The secretion which exudes at the beginning  is clean?  Because one does not desire to keep it. R. Simeon said: Secretion is not as a liquid, and why did they rule, The secretion that exudes from the bale made up for the press  is unclean? Because it cannot but contain particles of diluted oil. Wherein do they differ?  They differ in respect to what oozes after [the olives have been subject to their own] pressure. Raba said: The reason is because it is something whereof a mikweh may not be made, and such renders a mikweh unfit through change of colour. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: One may squeeze out a cluster of grapes into a pot,  but not into a plate.  R. Hisda observed: From our master's words we may learn [that] one may milk a goat into a pot [of food], but not into a plate. This proves that he holds: a liquid that unites with  a [solid] foodstuff is [accounted] a foodstuff. Rami b. Hama objected: If a zab milks a goat, the milk is unclean.  But if you say, A liquid that unites with a [solid] foodstuff is a foodstuff, whereby did it become susceptible?  — As R. Johanan said [elsewhere], By the drop [of milk] smeared on the nipple: so here too by the drop smeared on the nipple.  Rabina objected: If a person unclean through a corpse squeezes out olives or grapes