Shabbat 144a — the Talmud in English

And the Sages concluded their words: But why should

animal milk become impure

that came out

unwillingly?

But regarding an animal it is established

that blood

that comes out

from its wound is pure

[does not make susceptible], because it is not considered a liquid, since animal blood is not included in “the blood of the slain.” Therefore, its milk too causes impurity only when it comes out willingly. And specifically in this manner is it considered a liquid, as we derive from what is written, “And she opened the skin of milk and gave him drink” .

He said to them

Rabbi Akiva: Even if animal blood does not make susceptible, its milk makes susceptible even unwillingly. For

I am more stringent with milk

than

with blood.

For

indeed

one who milks

the animal for the purpose of

medical treatment

[so that the milk will not harm it], that milk is

impure.

For it comes out from it willingly.

But

one who bleeds

blood from his animal

for its medical treatment,

the blood is

pure.

And although he extracted it willingly, it is not a liquid.

And since milk is more stringent than blood, and causes impurity willingly, it causes impurity even unwillingly.

[And the fact that a woman’s milk causes impurity even unwillingly is not because “blood is transformed and becomes milk,” as the Sages said. For if so, animal milk should have been pure, just as its blood is pure. Rather, from what is written, “And she opened the skin of milk and gave him drink,” we derive that it is considered a liquid, whether willingly or unwillingly. Therefore, we say the same regarding animal milk, by the kal va-chomer above. Tosafot.]

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Akiva:

Baskets of olives and grapes will prove it,

for a liquid that comes out willingly is not comparable to a liquid that comes out unwillingly.

For

indeed

the liquids that come out of them willingly

of the owners

are impure

with the impurity of liquids if a creeping animal touches them. And they also make foods susceptible. But the liquids that come out of them

unwillingly are pure

from contracting impurity. And they likewise do not make foods susceptible .

And we examine this:

Is it not the case

that what is taught regarding olives and grapes,

“willingly,”

means

that he wants them, and

“unwillingly,”

means

ordinarily,

without specifying whether he wants to use them for food or for liquids?

And we conclude our question:

And just as olives and grapes, which

when held

ordinarily

are fit for squeezing,

and even so, if the liquids came out

“unwillingly,”

but he brought them in ordinarily, they are not considered liquids

at all.

Strawberries and pomegranates, in an unspecified manner

in an unspecified manner,

are not ordinarily fit for squeezing

specifically

?

[but rather they are also intended for eating],

all the more so

that if one brought them in without specifying, and liquids came out of them, they are not considered liquids, and we do not say that after they came out he is pleased with them?

And if so, this is difficult for Rabbi Yehuda, who said above that strawberries and pomegranates which one brought in without specifying: he is pleased with the liquid that comes out of them, and for that reason they are forbidden. For we are concerned lest he come to squeeze them initially.

And one cannot answer that this Mishna follows the method of the Sages against Rabbi Yehuda—for according to the Sages, when brought in without specification it is not considered liquid, and all the more so, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is not liquid. For with regard to when he brought them in for eating, where the Sages considered them liquid, we find that according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not liquid. And all the more so, in a matter which according to the Sages is not liquid, according to Rabbi Yehuda as well it is not liquid.

[And likewise, he could have raised a contradiction from “olives and grapes” against “olives and grapes.” For it was taught about them above that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that even when he brought them in for eating they are forbidden. But it was more forceful for him to raise the difficulty from strawberries and pomegranates. For even though they are not ordinarily fit for squeezing, Rabbi Yehuda says concerning them that when brought in without specification they are forbidden.

And here it says that even olives and grapes, when brought in without specification, are not considered liquids. Rashi]

And we answer:

No

, this is not the interpretation of the Mishna. Rather,

“for willingness”

that it teaches with regard to olives and grapes means

when

he brought them in

without specification

. For even in this manner he is pleased with them, and they are considered liquid. And

“not for willingness”

that it teaches, that they are not considered liquids, means in a case where

he explicitly made his intention known

saying

saying, “I am not pleased

with them.” And in this there is a greater revelation of his intention than with olives and grapes which he brought in for eating, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda concedes that they are considered liquid.

Alternatively:

in truth, an unspecified case is also like “not for willingness.” But

the baskets of olives and grapes are different

, for they are perforated, and the liquid that comes out of them falls to the ground.

Since

the liquids

stand to be lost, he renounces ownership of them

. Therefore, when brought in without specification, he is not pleased with them.

And that which Rabbi Yehuda said above, that with regard to strawberries and pomegranates as well, when brought in without specification, he is pleased with the liquid, deals with a case where they are placed inside other vessels, so that the liquids do not go to waste from them.

And we raise a question concerning what Shmuel said above: “The Sages concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits

we find

in the beraita above that

Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Sages with regard to olives and grapes.

However,

that the Sages concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits

, that if one brought them in for eating, the liquid that comes out of them is permitted,

from where do we know it?