Shabbat 144a (קמד.) — the Talmud in English

And the Sages concluded their statement: But why

should animal milk become impure

when it emerges

unwillingly?

For with regard to an animal we have established

that blood

that emerges

from its wound is pure

[it does not render susceptible], since it is not considered a liquid, because animal blood is not included in “the blood of the slain.” Therefore, its milk likewise becomes impure only when it emerges willingly. Specifically in that case is it considered a liquid, as we derive from the verse, “And she opened the skin of milk and gave him to drink” .

He said to them

Rabbi Akiva: Even if animal blood does not render susceptible, its milk renders susceptible even unwillingly, because

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, since it emerges from it willingly.

For it comes out from it willingly.

But

one who draws

blood from his animal

for its medical treatment,

the blood is

pure.

Even though he extracted it willingly, it is not a liquid.

Since milk is more stringent than blood and becomes impure willingly, it also becomes impure unwillingly.

[The fact that woman’s milk becomes impure even unwillingly is not because “blood is transformed and becomes milk,” as the Sages said. For if so, animal milk should be pure, just as its blood is pure. Rather, from the verse “And she opened the skin of milk and gave him to drink” we derive that it is considered a liquid both willingly and unwillingly. Therefore, we say the same with regard to animal milk, by the kal va-chomer above. Tosafot.]

The Sages said to him

Rabbi Akiva:

Baskets of olives and grapes prove the point,

for there is a difference between a liquid that emerges willingly and a liquid that emerges unwillingly.

For

indeed,

the liquids that emerge from them willingly

of the owners

are impure

with the ritual impurity of liquids if a creeping creature touches them. They also render food susceptible to impurity. But the liquids that emerge from them

unwillingly are pure

from becoming impure, and they likewise do not render food susceptible .

And we inquire concerning this:

Is it not

that which is taught with regard to olives and grapes,

“willingly”,

meaning

that he desires them, and

“unwillingly”,

meaning

without specification,

when he did not specify whether he wished to use them for food or for liquids?

And we conclude our objection:

And just as olives and grapes, which

when left

unspecified

are fit for squeezing,

even so, if the liquids emerge

“unwillingly,”

that is, when he placed them there without specification, they are not considered liquids

at all.

Strawberries and pomegranates, 4

by default

are not ordinarily subject to squeezing

specifically

they are

[but are also intended for eating];

all the more so

that if one brought them in without specifying a purpose and liquid emerged from them, it is not considered liquid, and we do not say that once it emerged, he is pleased with it?

If so, this poses a difficulty for Rabbi Yehuda, who said above that with regard to strawberries and pomegranates that one brought in without specifying a purpose, he is pleased with the liquid that emerges from them, and therefore they are prohibited, as we are concerned that he might come to squeeze them initially.

And it cannot be answered that this Mishna follows the view of the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda—for according to the Sages, when he does not specify a purpose, it is not considered liquid, and all the more so according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not liquid. For in the case where he brought them in for eating, which the Sages considered liquid, we find that according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not liquid. All the more so, in a case where according to the Sages it is not liquid, according to Rabbi Yehuda as well it is not liquid.

[And likewise, he could have raised a contradiction from the ruling concerning “olives and grapes” against the ruling concerning “olives and grapes.” For it was taught above concerning them that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that even when one brought them in for eating, they are prohibited. Rather, it was more forceful for him to raise the difficulty from strawberries and pomegranates, since although they are not ordinarily subject to squeezing, Rabbi Yehuda says concerning them that when one does not specify a purpose, they are prohibited.

And here it says that even olives and grapes, when one does not specify a purpose, are not considered liquid. Rashi.]

And we answer:

No

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

“with consent

” that it teaches with regard to olives and grapes means

when

one brought them in

without specifying a purpose

. Even in such a case, he is pleased with them and they are considered liquid. And

“not with consent

” that it teaches, meaning that they are not considered liquid, refers to a case in which

he explicitly revealed his intention

,

saying, “I am not pleased

with them.” This constitutes a greater indication of his intention than in the case of olives and grapes that he brought in for eating, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda concedes that they are considered liquid.

Alternatively

:

The baskets of olives and grapes are different

, because they are perforated, and the liquid that emerges from them falls to the ground.

Since

the liquids

are destined to go to waste, he renounces ownership of them

. Therefore, when he does not specify a purpose, he is not pleased with them.

And the statement of Rabbi Yehuda above, that with regard to strawberries and pomegranates as well, when one does not specify a purpose, he is pleased with the liquid, is speaking of a case where they are placed inside other vessels, so that the liquids do not go to waste.

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

we find

in the earlier beraita that

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

However,

from where do we know that the Sages concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits

, that if one brought them in for eating, the liquid that emerges from them is permitted?

From where do we know this?