Siman 320

Threshing (dash), dyeing (tzoveia), and whitening (melaben) are primary categories of labor (avot melachot). Threshing occurred in the Mishkan, for they would sow the herbs, and it follows that they would thresh them (Tosafot 73a, s.v. 'mifarek', see there). Dyeing occurred since they would dye the tekhelet. In the Yerushalmi of the chapter "Klal Gadol," it says: what dyeing was there in the Mishkan? That they would strike the animal on the skins of rams dyed red, meaning that they would strike the animal with a rod so that the skin would become red, see there. And this is a wondrous thing, that it leaves aside the dyeing of tekhelet and cites such a minor dyeing. It appears that it comes to teach us much, for it says there: "One who reddens a red lip is liable," meaning the lip which is already red and he added redness to it—he is liable, and this is because of dyeing. And from where do we know to say this, for is it not unlike the dyeing of tekhelet, which was a complete dyeing? Therefore it says that they would strike the animal, for even a minor dyeing such as this is considered dyeing. Whitening, where one whitens wool or linen or anything that requires whitening, and it was in the Mishkan in the curtains of fine twisted linen and in the priestly garments. And their measures: Threshing—its measure is like a dried fig (grogrot) within the measure of foods, for there is no threshing except with products of the soil (75a), and so wrote the Rambam in chapter 8, halacha 7.

And the measure of one who dyes and one who bleaches: the Rambam wrote in chapter 9, law 10: "One who bleaches wool or linen or crimson wool and the like, from among those things whose way is to be bleached – is liable. And how much is its measure: enough to spin from it one thread whose length is like the full double width of a sit, which is a length of four tefachim." Thus far his words. And in law 13 he wrote: "One who dyes a thread whose length is four tefachim, or something from which it is possible to spin such a thread – is liable." Thus far his words. That is to say, it is not specifically that they were already made into threads, but even wool and linen that have not yet been spun, if he dyed from them a measure that has the capacity to spin from them such a thread – he is liable. Therefore, he did not write this regarding one who bleaches, for bleaching is only after the spinning, as we learned in the Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter 'Reshit HaGez': 'bleached enough to make from it a small garment.'

And their derivatives: Regarding the derivative of threshing, the Rambam wrote in chapter 8 that extracting is a derivative of threshing, because threshing is the separation of grain from the stalks; therefore, any extractor who separates one thing from another is a derivative of threshing. And it was taught in a Baraita (73a): "One who threshes, one who beats flax, and one who combs—all of them are a single labor." Rashi explained: beating—flax in its stalks; and combing—cotton, where one extracts the seeds from it. And the Aruch explained in the name of the Gaon: beating—where one separates the food from its dust; and rubbing—where one rubs stalks, see there. And the Rambam wrote that one who milks an animal is liable because of extracting, and it must be said that an animal is called "produce of the earth" (see Tosafot 73a, s.v. 'mifarek' and examine it closely). And he wrote that one who causes a wound is liable because of extracting, and this we explained above in siman 316, see there. And similarly regarding the squeezing of fruits, he wrote that one is liable because of extracting, and in this there are many laws and details, and they will be explained in this siman.

And in the Yerushalmi in the chapter "Klal Gadol" it is stated: "One who crushes rice, barley, or chilka is liable on account of dash," meaning that one who pounds rice or barley or chilka in order to remove their husk is liable on account of dash. "A woman when she rubs the heads of wheat is liable on account of dash," and this is that through the rubbing of the hand she rubs the heads of the wheat, and through this their husk is removed. "One who beats flax with a mallet," who strikes the flax so that it emerges from the husk, is liable on account of dash. "One who crushes garlic when he rubs the head is liable on account of dash," and this is that he crushes garlic and removes their heads, and this we explained in the previous siman. "That sikra... when he crushes it with a rod—on account of dash," meaning that it is the soft part that is around the husk in trees, and he crushes it so that it will separate from the husk—he is liable on account of dash.

The derivatives of dyeing: the Rambam wrote in chapter 9, law 14: "One who creates the appearance of a dye—this is a derivative of dyeing and he is liable. How so? For example, one who placed copperas into gallnut water, such that it all becomes black, or one who placed woad into saffron water, such that it all becomes green, and so too anything similar to this." Thus far his words. The Ra'avad disagrees regarding this, and he holds that the creation of the dye is not called dyeing until one dyes something with it; for if not so, the cooking of dyes should also incur liability because of dyeing. The Maggid Mishneh says that in truth, according to the Rambam, it is so, and one is liable for cooking dyes twice: because of cooking and because of dyeing. And so too, one who plasters a wall and makes it white—it appears that this is a derivative of dyeing. And above in siman 303 it was explained that a woman who paints with rouge on her face—it is dyeing, and so too when she spreads dough on her face so that it will redden, and there it was explained in detail; see there.

The Rambam wrote there: That the dyer is not liable until there is a lasting dye. But a dye that is not lasting at all, such as one who passed red lead or ink over iron or copper and dyed it – he is exempt, for you remove it immediately and it dyes nothing, and anything whose work is not lasting on Shabbat – he is exempt. Thus far his words.

We hold that there is no dyeing regarding foods, and therefore it is permitted to put saffron into a cooked dish and one need not be concerned about it on account of dyeing, even if his intention is for the appearance. This is specifically when the intention is to eat it himself, but a merchant who dyes types of foods or types of drinks to show people the beauty of their appearance, it is possible that there is concern on account of dyeing (Pri Megadim at the end of this siman). Therefore, they should be careful not to do so on Shabbat if their intention is to show them to people. There is one who says that one who eats strawberries or other dyed fruits must be careful not to touch a garment or a tablecloth with his dyed hands on account of dyeing, and there are those who permit it since it is by way of soiling (Magen Avraham subsection 24 in the name of the Radbaz). It is proper to be careful in this and one should not be lenient (ibid.), for certainly regarding laundering it is not applicable when it is by way of soiling, but regarding dyeing, perhaps even by way of soiling it constitutes dyeing. However, regarding that which dyes his hands or is smeared on his face—certainly there is no concern in this, since it is not their way to dye—this is not dyeing. It is not similar to a woman in siman 303, for it is the way of a woman to dye (ibid.). And all the more so there is no concern in that which dyes his bread with the juice of the fruits, for behold there is no dyeing regarding foods. One whose wound is bleeding should be careful not to place a cloth upon it according to the opinion that prohibits dyeing even by way of soiling. And to wipe from a garment some dye that fell upon it, there is one who prohibits (ibid.), for in this he fixes the garment. And there are those who permit (Eliyah Rabbah) and so it appears, for this is not considered fixing.

A derivative of melaben: the Rambam wrote there: One who washes garments—this is a derivative of melaben and he is liable. And one who wrings out a garment until he extracts the water within it—this is washing and he is liable, for wringing is among the needs of washing, just as stirring is among the needs of cooking. And there is no wringing regarding hair, and the same applies to leather, that one is not liable for its wringing. Thus far his words, and more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven. And in the Yerushalmi it says regarding melaben: "One who smokes sulfur over garments," meaning one who fumes sulfur over the garments; "this woman who paints her face with red paint or who paints her spun yarn with red paint" in order to whiten it; "this tailor who places the thread into his mouth," and this refers to the tailor who places the thread into his mouth in order to strengthen it so that it will enter the needle, as is the way of tailors, and the belt-makers who make belts—they are liable on account of melaben. And regarding the belt-makers it also appears that he whitens it with the saliva in his mouth. And know that in all of these, a length of a double sit is required as has been explained, which is a length of four tefachim.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 8: One who squeezes fruits to extract their liquids is liable due to mefarek, and he is not liable until there is the volume of a dried fig in the liquids he squeezed. And one is not liable from the Torah except for the treading of olives and grapes alone, and it is permitted to squeeze a cluster of grapes into food, for liquid that comes into food is considered food, and it is found to be like one who separates food from food. But if he squeezed into a vessel that does not contain food, he is treading and is liable. And one who milks into food or one who sucks with his mouth is exempt, and he is not liable until he milks into a vessel. Thus far his words. And one who milks so that the milk will go to waste is also mefarek.

And in chapter 21, law 12, he wrote: "One who detaches is liable due to threshing, and one who squeezes olives and grapes is liable due to detaching; therefore, it is forbidden to squeeze mulberries and pomegranates, since some people squeeze them like olives and grapes, lest he come to squeeze olives and grapes. But other fruits, such as quinces, apples, and crab apples—it is permitted to squeeze them on Shabbat, because they are not subject to squeezing." Thus far his words. It is found according to the Rambam that regarding the squeezing of fruits there are three categories: regarding olives and grapes—one is liable for a chatat, because the majority of them are designated for squeezing to make oil and wine from them, and this is what the Sages, of blessed memory, said (145a): "By Torah law one is not liable except for the treading of olives and grapes," for fruits specifically designated for liquids are only olives and grapes, as we learned in chapter 11 of Terumot: "All fruits, one may not change them from their natural state regarding terumah and ma'aser sheni, except for olives and grapes alone. One does not receive lashes on account of orlah... and one does not bring bikkurim as liquid except for that which issues from olives and grapes, and it does not contract impurity as liquid... and one does not offer upon the altar except for that which issues from olives and grapes," see there. However, mulberries and pomegranates, since it is the way of people to squeeze them—they are forbidden for squeezing by rabbinic decree, a safeguard on account of olives and grapes; and all other fruits—it is permitted ab initio to squeeze them, because it is not the way to squeeze them at all.

And know that regarding that which they permitted with other fruits to squeeze ab initio, so too ruled the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch section 1. And even though in the gloss of the Semak it is written that other fruits are also forbidden to be squeezed ab initio for the sake of the liquid, and it is only permitted if his intention is for the sweetening of the fruit, and if liquid comes out it is permitted, but ab initio in squeezing for the sake of the liquid—it is forbidden, they did not concern themselves with a solitary opinion in the place of all these authorities. And there are some of the great ones who wrote that the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot is also such, as they wrote (144b): "One may squeeze to sweeten the fruit etc." see there, and therefore they wrote that one should be stringent in this (Bach and Taz subsection 1). And I wonder, for even if it were so that there is a dispute in this, it is only a rabbinic prohibition and we follow the lenient view, and in truth our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already explained in his great work that they did not explain this according to the conclusion, see there. (For they explained according to Rav Nachman, but for the resolution of Rav Papa there, this is not necessary. And regarding what the Bach questioned, how is it different from preserves and boiled vegetables where it is forbidden for their water, I wonder, for if so, it would be a difficulty for the Rif and the Rambam. However, the Rambam was precise in his wording "that are not subject to squeezing," but preserves and boiled vegetables are subject to squeezing, but the law of squeezing does not apply to them. And in truth, if it is the way of that fruit to be squeezed—it is forbidden like mulberries and pomegranates as will be explained, and preserves and boiled vegetables are normally squeezed. And what the Taz wrote regarding the intention of the Rif does not require rejection, as is clear from the words of the Rambam. And regarding what he questioned that according to Rav Papa the question of the Gemara remains, is the house of Menashe the majority of the world, I wonder, is it impossible to resolve without Rabbeinu Chananel that a significant custom does not require the majority of the world, as Tosafot wrote in HaMatzniya 92b regarding the people of Hutzal see there, and this matter is proven in many places as Tosafot wrote in Eruvin 28a see there, and there is proof from mulberries, and delve into it.)

However, if there is a certain place where it is their practice to squeeze a certain fruit to drink its juice - in truth it is forbidden to squeeze there, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1, and this is his wording: "And in a place where they are accustomed to squeeze certain fruits to drink their juice due to thirst or pleasure - its law is like mulberries and pomegranates." Thus far his words. And it is implied from his wording that it is only forbidden in that specific place. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book: That if it becomes known to us that in any place they squeeze a certain fruit - it is forbidden to squeeze them, as we find regarding pomegranates, which are forbidden to be squeezed because of the house of Menashia who were many. Thus far his words. That is to say, that in the Gemara they said that therefore mulberries and pomegranates are forbidden for squeezing because there were places where they squeezed them there, and therefore it is forbidden in all places; see there. And it appears to me that both are true based on the words of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, in [tractate Shabbat, chapter] HaMatznia (92b), that regarding a significant custom, one place drags the entire world after it, but this is not so regarding a custom that is not significant. And this is why they forbade mulberries and pomegranates because there are those who squeeze them, and the fact that the entire world does not squeeze them is because they do not have many of these fruits; but when in all places there are many of this fruit and despite this they do not squeeze - it is not a significant custom, and it is not forbidden except in its place. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, is dealing with fruits that are common in every place, such as apples and the like, for then the prohibition is only in a place where they are accustomed to squeeze them. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is dealing with something similar to mulberries and pomegranates, where in that place there are many, therefore they squeeze them, and if there were many in all places, they would also squeeze them, and therefore they are forbidden in every place. (So it appears in my humble opinion clear, and the Magen Avraham in subsection 1 elaborated on this and leans here and there. And what he wrote that even in a place... their opinion is nullified when the whole world has them and does not squeeze, see there, and his foundation is upon the words of the Tosafot there; however, in truth this is not similar to a poor custom, for behold Rabbeinu Chananel held that even regarding an individual, since he assigned them importance it is a liquid, and all the more so in a place where everyone agrees on this, for among them it is like a liquid. And what he wrote regarding "bernes" [pears] that they make a drink from them in Ashkenaz because they have an abundance, and therefore in every place it is forbidden to squeeze them, certainly it is so, but in our days we have not known of this.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: All this is specifically that squeezing is forbidden, but it is permitted to suck with one's mouth from grapes the liquid that is in them, and all the more so regarding other things. And there are those who forbid sucking with the mouth from grapes and the like. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: Certainly squeezing according to the Torah is only by hand, and not with one's mouth which is the manner of eating; however, nevertheless it should be forbidden by rabbinic decree, just as they forbade sucking from an animal with one's mouth later in siman 328, and only in a case of pain did they not decree as is written there, and what is the difference between this and that? And this is the reasoning of those who forbid. And the first opinion holds that it is not a comparison, for there the sucking is recognizable even with the mouth, as the manner of sucking is also with the mouth, meaning that the sucking is recognizable even with the mouth, just as an infant sucks from its mother's breasts, and therefore they forbade it for a healthy person. This is not the case regarding the sucking of grapes, where the squeezing is not recognizable at all with his mouth, and this is not the manner of squeezing, and therefore it is permitted to suck with his mouth (and this is the intent of the Magen Avraham, subsection 2, and examine it closely). And all the more so regarding other things, such as one who puts meat in broth or bread in wine and sucks the broth or the wine with his mouth, for this is not in the category of squeezing, as even their complete squeezing is permitted according to the Torah, since the liquid is not from their body, and even those who forbid did not forbid regarding them, and they only forbade regarding grapes and not regarding broth and wine and similarly not regarding other fruits. And there is one who is more stringent regarding broth and wine than regarding grapes, because it had the status of liquid previously (the Bach in the name of the Rashal), but the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, is the opposite, and so appears to be the primary view and so the great authorities agreed (Magen Avraham subsection 4 and Eliyah Rabbah subsection 3). And even regarding grapes, one who relies on the first opinion has lost nothing; however, one who wishes to be stringent—let him be stringent regarding grapes, but not regarding broth and wine and not regarding other fruits.

Olives and grapes from which liquids flowed on their own on Shabbat—it is forbidden to drink from them until the conclusion of Shabbat, as a decree lest one intend to and actually squeeze them on Shabbat, and even if the grapes and olives are designated for eating. And mulberries and pomegranates from which liquids emerged on Shabbat: if they are designated for eating—it is permitted, and if they are designated for liquids—it is forbidden lest one squeeze. And even though their squeezing is prohibited by rabbinic law, nevertheless, they decreed regarding those designated for liquids because it is likely that one will squeeze them. And regarding other fruits—it is obvious that it is permitted even according to the opinion of those who are stringent regarding actually squeezing them, and even when they are designated for liquids, for one does not go so far as to decree to such an extent.

And this is regarding whole olives and grapes, but olives and grapes that were crushed from the eve of Shabbat—liquids that exit from them are permitted. And regarding this we do not decree lest one squeeze, for even if one squeezes there is no Torah prohibition, since they were crushed while it was still day, and this has already been explained in siman 252, see there. And not only this, but even if they were not crushed from the eve of Shabbat, but rather they are placed in a vat where there is wine and whole grapes, even though the grapes burst within it on Shabbat and the liquid exiting from them mixes with the wine—they are permitted to be drunk on Shabbat, because all the wine exiting from the grapes is nullified in the wine that is in the vat, which is much more than the wine exiting from the grapes. And even though this is a "thing that has permitters" for the conclusion of Shabbat, and we hold that a "thing that has permitters" is not nullified, this is when the prohibited substance was initially recognizable on its own; we say that this prohibited substance was not nullified. But when the prohibited substance was never recognizable—it is not relevant to say regarding it that a "thing that has permitters" shall not be nullified, and in Yoreh Deah at the end of siman 102 we explained further regarding this, see there. Nevertheless, to initially place grapes into the wine so that they burst—is prohibited on Shabbat. And there is one who permits even placing them initially on Shabbat, and compares this to placing snow in a cup. And it is no comparison at all (Taz, subsection 3), for there, that is the way of drinking them, just as we put sugar into hot water, which is not the case with grapes. And even if one placed the grapes on Shabbat not for the purpose of bursting and they burst—it is also prohibited until the conclusion of Shabbat. (Ibid., and it is a wonder regarding the Magen Avraham, subsection 5, who wrote in the name of the Bach that it is permitted to place them so that they burst, see there, and it is not so in the Bach, but rather as the Taz wrote in his name, see there and examine carefully.)

It is permitted to squeeze a cluster of grapes into a pot that contains cooked food in order to improve the food, for it is considered liquid that comes into food, and it is regarded as food. However, if it does not contain cooked food—it is forbidden, and we have already brought this in section 9 from the words of the Rambam. And even though there are some of our teachers who said that the halacha is not so, for they only permitted this on Yom Tov and not on Shabbat, nevertheless, most of the poskim permitted it even on Shabbat, and so they ruled in the Shulchan Aruch section 4. However, Rabbeinu Tam forbade doing so with grapes that are still boser, for with grapes that have ripened it is like food into food, but boser which is not fit for eating—it is like one who selects food from within waste. And there are those who permit even with boser, and there is one who says that even according to Rabbeinu Tam who forbids with boser, since the prohibition is because of selecting food from waste—it is permitted at the time of eating, as was written in the previous siman (Magen Avraham subsection 4). And there is one who forbids, for this was only permitted by hand, selecting food and eating, and not by placing it into a vessel and afterwards drinking it, for that is actual selecting, just as it was not permitted there with a kanon or a tamchui (Magen Avraham subsection 7).

It has already been explained that regarding other fruits, excluding strawberries and pomegranates, it is permitted to squeeze them. Therefore, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6 that it is permitted to squeeze lemons. And it appears that even according to those who are stringent regarding other fruits as well to squeeze them for their liquid, as was written in section 11, nevertheless regarding lemons there is no concern. For it is never the way of the world to squeeze them for the purpose of their own liquid to drink them by themselves, but rather either for the purpose of dipping food, or into water and other liquids, but not to drink them alone; therefore, they are not subject to the category of squeezing at all. Even those who are stringent regarding other fruits only ruled stringently when one makes liquid from the fruits themselves, similar to grapes, strawberries, and pomegranates. And even though there is one who is stringent regarding liquid that comes into food, and into liquids it is forbidden according to everyone, nevertheless, that which is squeezed from lemons does not have the status of a liquid upon it, and it is like food that comes into liquid. And all the more so it is permitted to suck the lemon with one's mouth and to throw it away after he has sucked it. And so it appears that the same law applies to oranges, for they are like lemons.

And know that seemingly, regarding that which we permitted the squeezing of other fruits, one should ask: granted that squeezing does not apply to them, let them be forbidden due to nolad, like an egg that was laid. The answer to this is that in truth, we have already explained in siman 308, section 6, that the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch ruled even regarding nolad like Rabbi Shimon on Shabbat, who does not hold of nolad except in a case of absolute nolad, as is written there. And behold, even regarding an egg they do not hold of a prohibition of nolad, as is explained from their words later at the beginning of siman 322, where they forbade an egg laid on Shabbat due to a decree regarding a Yom Tov following Shabbat, and due to preparation, and not due to nolad; see there. And this matter was explained by the Tur later in siman 495. However, it requires investigation, for the Tur wrote there that Rabbeinu Tam ruled regarding nolad like Rabbi Yehuda, and nolad is forbidden on Shabbat; yet in section 16 we wrote that Rabbeinu Tam forbids in the case of unripe grapes, and it is explained that with fruit that has ripened—he permits squeezing it into food, and yet it is nolad. But in truth, into food is not nolad, for this is like food within food, and behold, even on Yom Tov it is permitted to do so, and on Yom Tov according to everyone we established that nolad is forbidden. (But as for that which we established at the beginning of [the chapter] Chavit, that Rabbi Yehuda says: 'if for foods, that which emerges from them is permitted,' yet Rabbi Yehuda forbids nolad. And one cannot say that this is not called nolad, for even date pits are called nolad, as we say in the second chapter [page] 29; see there, and all the more so liquid that emerges from fruits. And I found that Tosafot in Eruvin 46a, starting with the words 'Kol,' wrote that liquids in fruit are not considered nolad, since originally they were also food, it is food that has separated; see there. And date pits are worse than them, for the pits are not fit for eating at all, and therefore they are nolad.)

To squeeze pickled items, meaning types of vegetables pickled in water or in vinegar, and similarly to squeeze types of boiled items, like meat boiled in water or a cooked vegetable to squeeze it: if he does not need the liquids that emerge from them but rather for the body of the pickled or boiled item to prepare it for eating—it is completely permitted, for since he does not need that which emerges from them, the name "mefarek" does not apply to this at all. And it is not similar to olives and grapes, or even to strawberries and pomegranates, because the liquid is not from their essence, and it is permitted to squeeze them even into a bowl that does not contain food. But if he needs their liquids—it is forbidden to squeeze them, and they are worse than other fruits which are permitted to be squeezed even for their liquids because the name "liquid" does not apply to them at all, which is not the case for pickled and boiled items which had the name "liquid" upon them previously. Therefore, they are not permitted to be squeezed except into a pot that contains food, for liquid that comes into food is like separating food from food, and even with olives and grapes it is permitted as has been explained, but if it does not contain food—it is forbidden. And our teacher Chananel holds that whenever he needs their liquids—he is liable for a chatat even if he squeezed into a pot that contains food, and he holds that also with olives and grapes it is so, and one who squeezes a cluster into a pot, even if it contains food—is liable for a chatat, for he does not hold of the permission of that which is into food, for this is only on Yom Tov and not on Shabbat, as I wrote in section 16. And most of the poskim disagree with him, as I wrote there. (Our teacher Chananel himself forbids even on Yom Tov, as he rejects that statement of "milking into a pot" as the Tosafot wrote on 145a, beginning with "And Rabbenu Tam," and as the Taz wrote in subsection 6; however, Rabbenu Tam holds that on Yom Tov it is permitted. And with this one can answer the difficulty of the Taz there on the Shulchan Aruch, that in siman 505 they decided like those who permit, because there the opinion of our teacher Chananel is a lone opinion, but on Shabbat it appears that also Rabbenu Tam agreed with him. But there is no proof for this, and on the contrary, regarding a cluster he only forbade unripe grapes, and delve into this.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 8: "One who squeezes a fish for its brine—his law is like one who squeezes preserved or boiled vegetables for their water." Thus far his words. That is to say, a fish that was cooked or soaked in water or other liquids and one squeezes it—his law is like one who squeezes preserved or boiled vegetables; and similarly, a fish that was soaked in salt until it became brine—the law is so. And even though in eating it as it is, it is entirely food, nevertheless, since the liquid came to it from elsewhere, if he squeezes it for its water—it is forbidden, unless it is into a pot that contains food. But for their own sake it is permitted, as with preserved or boiled vegetables.

Snow, hail, and frost—one may not crush them with the hands, meaning to break them into small pieces so that their water flows out, for it would be nolad. However, one may place them into a cup of water or wine and they melt on their own, and he need not be concerned. There are some of our teachers who permit crushing with the hands into the cup, for they hold that the prohibition is lest one squeeze fruits designated for liquids, and since it is mixed with water, they did not decree, and so it is explained from the words of the Rambam in chapter 21, law 13, see there; and he holds that there is no prohibition of nolad in this. But Rashi, Tosafot, the Rosh, and Sefer HaTerumah wrote the reason is because of nolad, and according to this, to crush with the hands is forbidden even into the cup, for at the time of crushing it is nolad (see Magen Avraham, subsection 13).

One must wonder about our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9, who wrote: "Snow and hail, one may not crush them... but he may place them into a cup... and similarly, if he placed them in the sun or opposite a fire and they melted—they are permitted." Thus far his words. Now, since he wrote "but he may place into a cup" and did not write that even to crush by hand into the cup is permitted, one may infer from this that he holds according to the approach of Rashi, that the reason is because of nolad. If so, how did he permit it when he placed them in the sun and they melted? For according to the reason of nolad it is certainly forbidden, as is written in siman 318 regarding fat that congealed when it returns and melts, see there, according to the one who holds it is nolad (and so wrote the Magen Avraham in subsection 14, that according to the reason of nolad it is forbidden). And perhaps that which he wrote "places into the cup," his intention was also by means of crushing, and he adopted the language of the Gemara at the end of the chapter "Bameh Tomnin," but the language of the Rambam is: "one may crush into the cup," see there, and he wrote this intentionally as I have written.

And know that one must ask those who forbid on account of nolad, and similarly above in siman 318, section 32, regarding fat when it melts according to the one who forbids on account of nolad as written there: behold, we explained in section 18 that most of the poskim do not hold of a prohibition of nolad on Shabbat, only Rabbeinu Tam, and the Tur wrote this explicitly later in siman 495. And the answer is either that we say that those who forbid also hold like Rabbeinu Tam, that on Shabbat nolad is forbidden, but it is difficult to say so, for even the Rosh holds regarding that which one may not crush on account of nolad, yet at the beginning of Beitzah it implies that he leans not like Rabbeinu Tam. And also from the words of the Tur there it implies that Rashi holds to permit in the case of nolad, see there, yet Rashi at the end of the chapter "Bameh Tomnin" regarding one may not crush snow explained it on account of nolad. Rather, certainly one must say that we have already written that regarding absolute nolad everyone agrees, for so wrote the Tosafot in Eruvin (46a) that regarding absolute nolad even Rabbi Shimon agrees, and the standard nolad in the Gemara at the beginning of Beitzah is regarding an egg, and in this Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree. Therefore, these opinions hold that the crushing of snow and hail, and similarly the flowing of fat, is called absolute nolad, and it requires further study.

And know, that according to what has been explained, those who drink hot liquids on Shabbat and place the sugar into the cup, and this is permitted just like placing snow and hail into the cup, however, according to this it is forbidden to crush the sugar with a small spoon inside the cup, and the world is not careful in this. And behold, according to the opinion of the poskim in section 21 who permit crushing into the cup—there is no prohibition in this, but according to those who forbid—it appears that it is forbidden. And it is possible that even according to those who forbid, they only forbade when one crushes from the outside and places it into the cup, but inside the cup itself it is permitted, for it is never recognizable on its own, and particularly since sugar is cooked at the outset, and therefore one should not forbid this, and see in siman 321 section 13.

In the winter when the water has frozen—it is permitted to break the ice and take the water from beneath it, and this is not like the crushing of snow, for the water beneath the ice has not frozen. And if it is because of the breaking of the ice, they said something even greater than this: A person may break a barrel to eat dried figs from it. Now, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 11 wrote: "One must be careful in the winter not to wash his hands with water that has snow or hail in it, and if he does wash, he should be careful not to press them between his hands so that he does not crush them." Thus far his words. And with this wording the Tosafot wrote there, and this is their wording: "And water that is freezing and has hail mixed in it—one should not wash, for it is impossible that he will not crush the hail." Thus far their words. And I am in doubt regarding the wording of our teachers, for it implies explicitly that they were only particular about the crushing of snow and hail, and not about the crushing of ice. And perhaps because the ice was previously water, there is in this neither the issue of nolad nor the issue of the decree of squeezing fruits. And this requires deliberation, for seemingly there is nolad in this just as with fat that has solidified in siman 318, section 32, and those who permit there, the reason is because one does not crush it with his hands, see there; but with the hands, it would indeed be nolad. However, the wording of the Shas and the poskim does not imply so, and it requires further study for the law.

One must be careful not to rub his hands with salt, for it dissolves and becomes water. And with our salt, it appears that it does not become water through rubbing, and this requires further study, for if it becomes water—it is forbidden; and regarding sea salt, one should be in doubt according to the doubt we entertained in the previous section regarding ice. A person may trample snow with his feet and need not be concerned, and even though it is unavoidable that through his treading a small amount of snow melts, nevertheless, since this is his way of walking—it is not relevant to forbid this, for if so, we would be confined in our houses all the days of winter, and they did not decree regarding this. And similarly to urinate in the snow, even though it melts by means of the urine, nevertheless, since this is a human need and in the winter days it is nearly impossible to be careful regarding this—therefore they did not decree against this. And the Maharam of Rothenburg permitted urinating in the snow, and nevertheless the Rosh was careful regarding this, since it certainly dissolves and he is performing an action. And we are not careful regarding this, for in our countries in the winter it is full of snow in every single place (the Magen Avraham in subsection 15 forbade breaking the ice in a river or a well, and his words are puzzling as the Tosefet Shabbat wrote).

And know that the prohibition of squeezing is divided into two primary categories: The first is that which has been explained regarding the squeezing of fruits, which is a derivative of extracting, and its primary category is threshing. The second is the squeezing of garments from water and other liquids, which is a derivative of whitening. This is what the Rambam wrote in chapter 8: "One who squeezes fruits is liable on account of extracting," and all the laws have already been explained. And in chapter 9, law 11, he wrote: "One who launders garments—this is a derivative of whitening and he is liable, and one who squeezes the garment until he expresses the water within it—this is laundering and he is liable, etc." Thus far his words. And in chapter 22, law 15, he wrote: "One who launders is liable on account of whitening, and one who squeezes a garment is liable on account of laundering. Therefore, it is forbidden to press a cloth or wool and the like into the mouth of a barrel and the like in order to seal it, lest he come to squeeze. And one may not wipe with a sponge unless it has a handle, so that he will not squeeze. And one may not cover a barrel of water and the like with a garment that is not designated for it, as a decree lest he squeeze." Thus far his words, and more will be explained regarding this.

And our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, also divided the squeezing of a garment into two: for when one squeezes it from water—it is on account of melaben, but when one squeezes it from wine, oil, and other liquids with which garments are not laundered, and on the contrary, they soil it, as the scent remains in the garment—melaben is not applicable to this. And the prohibition is on account of mefarek, for he is extracting the liquid from the garment, like the squeezing of olives and grapes. Therefore, the concern that perhaps he will squeeze is only applicable with water, that he might squeeze it in order to whiten it, but with wine and oil we do not fear that perhaps he will squeeze. And also with wine and oil, when the squeezed liquid goes to waste, mefarek is not applicable to this, and even though it is a pesik reisha, it is a pesik reisha that is not pleasing to him and is permitted (Tosafot Ketubot 6a, s.v. "Hai" and Shabbat 111a, s.v. "Hai").

The Maggid Mishneh wrote in chapter 9, law 11, that the Rashba agreed with their words, and the Ramban disagrees with them. This is the wording of the Ramban: "Thus it is proper to say regarding anyone who squeezes fruits: it is a derivative of mefarek when the liquid is needed, and its measure is like a dried fig, and there is no threshing except with that which grows from the ground, meaning fruits and the like. And one who squeezes a garment—it is a derivative of dyeing in the manner of laundering, and it is also included in everything that cleanses, whether with water or with wine, as we say: 'For eating' and not for soaking and not for laundering (Sukkah 40a, regarding the fruits of the seventh year). And this is provided that the garment is cleansed somewhat by this, and its measure is like the full width of a sit doubled in threads, and in a fabric three by three, like their measures for carrying out, and in this manner the Rambam wrote etc." Thus far his words. And that which he wrote "derivative of dyeing" is not precise, but rather because laundering is a type of dyeing, but it is nothing other than a derivative of laundering (Lechem Mishneh).

And I am astonished at our teacher, the Beit Yosef, for in siman 319, section 10, he wrote that it is forbidden to strain water with cloths due to the prohibition of laundering, but wine and other liquids are permitted, as laundering does not apply to them, and we explained this there in section 29, see there; and this is according to the opinion of the Tosafot and their faction. Yet in this siman, section 15, he wrote: "It is forbidden to spread a cloth over the mouth of a barrel and place upon it the vessel with which one draws, lest he come to perform squeezing. But a garment made to be spread over it is permitted, as he is not concerned with squeezing it" thus far his words. And he should have explained that this is only regarding water, for with wine we are not concerned that he will come to squeeze it according to the opinion of the Tosafot as I wrote, and an unspecified barrel is one of wine. And it is a wonder that the Rambam mentioned specifically one of water, as I wrote his wording at the end of section 27, and his reason is because in the source of the law in the Gemara (48a) the incident involved water, see there. And it must be said that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, was not concerned with this, but his intention was only regarding water.

And in section 16 he wrote: "It is forbidden to tighten stuffing into the mouth of a flask that contains liquids, due to squeezing." Thus far his words. And behold, according to the opinion of the Rambam and the Ramban it is well-settled, since this is due to laundering. But according to the opinion of the Tosafot, it is only when one needs the squeezed liquid, for when it goes to waste it is permitted with wine and oil and all liquids except for water, as I have written. And in section 17 he wrote: "A sponge, one may not wipe with it unless it has a handle, a decree lest one squeeze." Thus far his words, and it is from the wording of the Rambam that we brought in section 27. And for the Rambam it is well-settled, but for the Tosafot it is only with water, or with wine and oil and when one needs the squeezed liquid, as I have written. But even for the Rambam it is difficult, for he himself wrote that regarding an object designated for such—we are not concerned lest one squeeze. And it must be said that with a sponge it is inevitable that one will squeeze, but if it has a handle it is not inevitable that one will squeeze. And the Ra'avad there wrote that when it has a handle, even though it is squeezed—it is like pouring from a flask, see there; that is to say, it is not the manner of squeezing (see Magen Avraham subsection 19).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 18: "A barrel that one plugged with a plug of flax to close a hole in its side through which they draw out the wine, there is one who permits removing it even though it is impossible that he will not squeeze, provided that there is no vessel beneath it; for since he does not benefit from this squeezing, it is a pesik reisha that is not pleasing to him, and it is permitted. And they disagreed with him, and said even though it is not pleasing to him, since it is a pesik reisha—it is forbidden. And the world is accustomed to permit the matter, and one may find merit for them since the faucet is long beyond the tow and the hand does not reach the tow—it is permitted, just as it is with a sponge that has a handle. And because this argument is not strong and there is reason to hesitate regarding it, it is good to guide them that there should be no vessel beneath the barrel at the time they plug the hole." Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matters: For it is stated in the Gemara (111b): "This cloth plug of a vat—it is forbidden to tighten it etc. because it is a pesik reisha," meaning that they wrap a cloth around the faucet, and therefore when they press it into the hole of the barrel, it will necessarily come to squeezing. And behold, according to the opinion of the Ramban and the Rambam the prohibition is simple, since it is because of melaben, but according to the Tosafot and their faction that regarding wine it is because of mefarek, if the wine goes to waste—mefarek is not applicable. And therefore indeed the Aruch wrote in entry "savar" and this is his wording: "This hole is at the top, and therefore the sages forbade tightening it… because of squeezing, for it is pleasing to him that the wine should flow into the jug. But in a hole from the side they did not forbid… since it will go to waste it is not pleasing to him." Thus far his words. And Ri, the author of the Tosafot in Ketubot (6a), disagrees with him, for even though it is not pleasing to him and there is no Torah prohibition here—nevertheless from the rabbinic level it is forbidden, see there, and also the Tur brought this dispute, see there.

The world is accustomed to permit even with a plug in a place where the wine does not go to waste, and they hold that the opinion of the Aruch regarding a pesik reisha that is not pleasing to him applies even when it does not go to waste, and only because it is not pleasing to him—it is not a melakha; and so it implies from Tosafot in several places. And this is certainly a wonder, for in this it is simple that in any event there is a rabbinic prohibition. Therefore, there are those who taught a merit because the plug is long and is similar to a sponge. However, one may hesitate at this, for behold we see that it is squeezed from it, and this is not a comparison to a sponge. Therefore, in any event, it is good to guide them that there should not be a vessel beneath it and that it should go to waste. Therefore, even though in this too the Ri, the author of the Tosafot, disagrees, nevertheless we rely on the Aruch, but without this, even according to the Aruch it is prohibited rabbinically. (And the Ran there also disagrees and holds like the Ri. And behold, from all this it is clarified that the Shulchan Arukh follows the system of the Tosafot, for according to the Rambam it is prohibited in every case as I wrote. And the words of the Taz in subsection 12 require investigation in what he wrote, that the Shulchan Arukh in siman 319 holds that wine is like other liquids, and here he wrote that it whitens, see there, and where did he see this. And if because of section 15, we have already explained it. And as for what he divided between white and red, who forced him to this, are they not two systems, and it appears that he did not set his heart to the system of the Rambam and the Ramban that the Maggid Mishneh brought, and what the Beit Yosef wrote in his great book there, he brought all the opinions, and delve into it.)

We have already written in the name of the Rambam that there is no sakhita regarding hair, and Rashi explained the reason (128b, s.v. "ein," see there) because it is hard and does not absorb. And I am wonderstruck, for there Rava and Rav Yosef hold thus, but Rav Ashi said: "Even if you say there is sakhita regarding hair etc.," and the halakha follows Rav Ashi as he is later. And it must be said that he holds that Rav Ashi says this by way of rejection, and it is also possible that the halakha follows Rava and Rav Yosef as they are many. However, in any event there is a rabbinic prohibition, and therefore those who go to the mikveh on Shabbat morning must be careful not to squeeze the hair.

The Rambam wrote in chapter 22, law 21: "Two ritual baths, one on top of the other—one may remove the plug from between them and kiss them, and return the plug to its place, because he will not come to perform squeezing, for his intent is that the water should exit. And one may plug a gutter with scarves or with any object that is movable so that the water does not overflow onto the food or onto the vessels, but one may not plug the gutter so that the water descends into the pit, lest he squeeze at the time he presses, for the plug is soaked in water." Thus far his words, and it is a Tosefta in chapter 8 of Eruvin. And the explanation of the matters: In the first clause, since he intends for the kissing so that the waters connect, he will perforce close the plug loosely so that there will be a connection of water with water, and also when he wishes to remove it to actually kiss them, he will remove it easily. And conversely in the final clause, where he plugs the gutter so that the water descends, he plugs it very well and the plug is soaked in water and he will squeeze. But the middle clause is difficult, for in order that the water does not overflow, he also closes it well. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book wrote that here too he is not concerned with closing it well, see there, and it is not understood. And it appears to me that the middle clause deals with one who plugs in a dry place so that the water does not overflow to here, and this is why the Rambam concludes in the final clause: 'for the plug is soaked in water,' meaning to say, which is not the case in the middle clause where the plug is in a dry place.