(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 144


QUESTION: Rebbi Akiva maintains that the milk of both a woman and an animal are Machshir even though nobody planned to drink them. The Chachamim maintain that the milk of a woman is Machshir without intent, but the milk of an animal is Machshir only when one intended to drink it.

The Chachamim prove that liquids from an animal are less able to be Machshir from the fact that the blood of an animal cannot be Machshir (except for Dam Shechitah) whereas the blood of a person is Machshir. Rebbi Akiva retorts that no proof can be adduced from blood, since milk -- even animal milk --has a greater ability to be Machshir than does blood. He proves this from the Halachah that if someone milks an animal for Refu'ah, the milk is Tamei, whereas if one lets out blood from an animal for Refu'ah, the blood is Tahor.

Rashi and the Rishonim explain that Rebbi Akiva means to say that milk of an animal is Machshir while an animal's blood is not. Why, then, did Rebbi Akiva have to mention that milk "that is drawn out for Refu'ah" is Machshir? Animal milk *in general* is Machshir, while animal blood is not -- what difference does it make whether or not it was for Refu'ah!


(a) TOSFOS (DH Machmir) says that indeed, Rebbi Akiva did not have to mention that the milk was drawn out for Refu'ah. Any milk will be Machshir for Tum'ah.

(b) The TOSFOS YOM TOV (cited in the Bach #1) explains that this Gemara apparently supports the opinion of the RASH (at the end of Machshirin, iterated by the VILNA GAON in his comment [printed in the back of the Vilna Shas] on Mishnayos Machshirin 6:5) who writes that when a person specifically intends to drink (or otherwise use) animal's blood, the blood is Machshir. Accordingly, Rebbi Akiva has to mention that animal's milk is capable of being Machshir when the animal is *not* being milked in order to use its milk but to make the animal comfortable, whereas blood of an animal that was *not* earmarked for drinking (e.g. blood that was let from an animal to improve its health) is not Machshir. Both blood *and* milk are Machshir if they were set aside for drinking.

(It is not clear why, according to the Rash, milk will be Machshir even when it was taken from the animal to relieve its pain.)

(c) Others suggest that the Rebbi Akiva mentions milk that is milked for medicinal purposes in order to accent his point. *Even* such milk can be Machshir, although milk is not normally used for such purposes, while animal blood is not Machshir *even* if it is let in order to be used for medicinal purposes -- although blood is normally used *only* for such purposes (CHAZON NACHUM, see also MISHNAH ACHARONAH)


QUESTION: The Beraisa says that one may squeeze the juice out of prunes, quinces and crab-apples, but not out of pomegranates, because the people of the house of Menashya ben Menachem squeeze pomegranates for the use of the juice. The Gemara wonders, how can the conduct of just a few individuals establish for everyone that pomegranates are normally squeezed for their juice? Rav Chisda explains that when a person intends to use the pomegranate juice, he lends significance to the juice and thus he is Chayav.

If so, one should also not be allowed to squeeze out the juice of prunes and the other fruits mentioned in the Beraisa! Furthermore, how does Rav Chisda explain what the family of Menashya ben Menachem has to do with the prohibition to squeeze pomegranates?


(a) RASHI and TOSFOS (DH Hachi Garsinan) explain that Rav Chisda learns the Beraisa differently than it was originally understood. The fruits in the Beraisa are being squeezed not for their juice, but in order to sweeten the fruits. Those types of fruits that are *never* squeezed for their juices, may be crushed to sweeten them on Shabbos. The Rabanan were not concerned that if allowed to squeeze the fruit to sweeten it one might come to squeeze it for its juice, so nobody normally squeezes it for its juice. Pomegranates, however, may not be squeezed to sweeten the fruit. Since there are a few individuals who squeeze it for its juice, the Rabanan were afraid that if permitted to squeeze it to sweeten it, one might squeeze it for its juice.

(b) The RITVA questions Rashi's explanation. According to Rashi, the Gemara should have *specified* that the Beraisa is now talking about squeezing the fruits in order to sweeten them.

The Ritva therefore explains that the Beraisa is indeed discussing squeezing fruits for their juice. However, since *nobody* normally squeezes prunes, quinces, and crab-apples for their juice, even if one does so, we do not say that his intention gives their juice significance. Rather, we stick to the rule of "Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam." When it comes to squeezing pomegranates, though, since there are at least *some* individuals who do squeeze pomegranates for their juice, Rav Chisda asserts that anyone who does so gives significance to the juice of the pomegranate. Therefore squeezing them for their juice on Shabbos is forbidden.

QUESTION: The Gemara says that it is permitted to milk a goat's milk directly into food on Shabbos. Doing so is not considered to be the Melachah of Mefarek, because milk is considered Ochel (food) when it is in the goat (since it is part of the goat which can be eaten), and it remains Ochel when it is milked into the food and becomes part of the food. The Melachah of Mefarek involves taking an item that was initially Ochel and making it a *Mashkeh* (liquid).

Why is it permitted to use such goat's milk on Shabbos? Even though there is no problem of Mefarek, it should be prohibited because of another reason -- the milk is Nolad (an item that came into being on Shabbos, which is Muktzah)! A goat is Muktzah on Shabbos because it cannot be slaughtered, so the milk that comes out of it should be Muktzah as well, since its state has changed on Shabbos!


(a) TOSFOS (DH Cholev) in the name of RABEINU TAM says that indeed, the milk is not permitted on Shabbos because it is Nolad. The Gemara is referring to milking a goat on *Yom Tov*, when the goat is not Muktzah because it may be slaughtered on Yom Tov (if it was designated for such a purpose).

(b) The RITVA says that this Gemara is only in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, who permits Nolad.

(c) The RITVA suggests another answer. Even Rebbi Yehudah would permit this type of Nolad. Before Shabbos, the person intentionally planned on milking the goat on Shabbos. An object which a person *expected* to arrive on Shabbos is not forbidden. (See Tosfos 44a, DH sheb'Ner, who discusses whether such a stipulation works according to Rebbi Yehudah.)

(d) The RAN (Beitzah 2a) explains that the milk is not considered Nolad and is not Muktzah. Even though the goat was Muktzah, the milk that comes from it is not considered to be a new object just because it went from being forbidden to being permitted. Only its Halachic status changed, and not its physical status; a change in Halachic status does not make an item Nolad. Since the milk was physically in existence when Shabbos entered, it is not Nolad.

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646