## Shabbat Daf 144a

###### Shabbat 144a:1
[Shabbat 144a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144a:1)

שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן, שֶׁדַּם מַגֵּפָתָהּ טָהוֹר?! אָמַר לָהֶן: מַחְמִיר אֲנִי בֶּחָלָב מִבַּדָּם, שֶׁהַחוֹלֵב לִרְפוּאָה — טָמֵא, וְהַמַּקִּיז לִרְפוּאָה — טָהוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: סַלֵּי זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁהַמַּשְׁקִין הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן לְרָצוֹן — טְמֵאִין, שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן — טְהוֹרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
if it was expressed **unintentionally, as the blood of its wound is ritually pure,** meaning that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Rabbi Akiva **said to them: I am** more **stringent with regard to milk than with regard to blood, as** if **one milks** an animal **for medicinal purposes,** the milk renders food susceptible to **ritual impurity, and** if **one lets** blood **for medicinal purposes,** the status of the blood is not that of a liquid and is **ritually pure,** in the sense that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. **They said to him:** The case of **baskets of olives and grapes will prove** that there is a difference between liquids that emerge of his own volition and those that do not, **as liquid that seeps from them volitionally** renders food susceptible to **ritual impurity.** However, liquid that seeps from them **unvolitionally is ritually pure,** i.e., it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Apparently, liquid renders food susceptible to ritual impurity only if it emerged of its own volition.


###### Shabbat 144a:2
[Shabbat 144a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144a:2)

מַאי לָאו ״לְרָצוֹן״ — דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ, ״שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן״ — בִּסְתָמָא. וּמָה זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים דִּבְנֵי סְחִיטָה נִינְהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן — וְלֹא כְלוּם, תּוּתִים וְרִמּוֹנִים, דְּלָאו בְּנֵי סְחִיטָה נִינְהוּ, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the terms of that mishna: **What, is it not** true that the term **volitionally** is referring to a situation where one **is pleased** with the emergence of liquids, **and** the term **unvolitionally** is referring **to** an **indeterminate** situation, where he expressed no preference? This leads to a conclusion with regard to our original topic of discussion. **Just as** in the case of **olives and grapes, which are** primarily **designated for squeezing** in order to extract oil and wine respectively, if liquid leaked from them **unvolitionally,** in the sense that one did not intend for the liquid to emerge, **it has no** significance and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity; in the case of **mulberries and pomegranates, which are not** typically **designated for squeezing, is it not all the more so** that liquid that seeps from them unvolitionally does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity?


###### Shabbat 144a:3
[Shabbat 144a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144a:3)

לֹא: ״לְרָצוֹן״ — בִּסְתָמָא, ״שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן״ — דְּגַלִּי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ, דְּאָמַר: ״לָא נִיחָא לִי״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁאנֵי סַלֵּי זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים, כֵּיוָן דִּלְאִיבּוּד קָיְימִי, מֵעִיקָּרָא אַפְקוֹרֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **No,** the term **volitionally** is referring even to a situation where one’s preference **is indeterminate,** and the term **unvolitionally** is referring to a situation where **one revealed his mind-set** explicitly and **said: I am not pleased** if liquid emerges. **And if you wish, say** instead that **baskets of olives and grapes are different; since** the liquid that leaks from them **stands to be lost, one renounces it from the outset.** No proof can be cited from this mishna. Generally speaking, however, the legal status of liquids that are not designated to be lost from the outset is that of liquids, even if one did not express pleasure with their emergence.


###### Shabbat 144a:4
[Shabbat 144a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/144a:4)

אַשְׁכְּחַן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּמוֹדֵי לְרַבָּנַן בְּזֵיתִים וּבַעֲנָבִים. רַבָּנַן דְּמוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּשְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: סוֹחֲטִין

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We have found** in the *baraita* cited above that **Rabbi Yehuda conceded to the Rabbis with regard to olives and grapes,** that liquid that seeps from them on its own on Shabbat, both volitionally and unvolitionally, is prohibited during Shabbat. **From where do we** conclude that **the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to other fruits** and distinguish between fruits designated for eating and those designated for juicing? **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **One may squeeze**