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.
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.
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?
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?
לֹא: ״לְרָצוֹן״ — בִּסְתָמָא, ״שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן״ — דְּגַלִּי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ, דְּאָמַר: ״לָא נִיחָא לִי״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁאנֵי סַלֵּי זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים, כֵּיוָן דִּלְאִיבּוּד קָיְימִי, מֵעִיקָּרָא אַפְקוֹרֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ.
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.
אַשְׁכְּחַן רַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּמוֹדֵי לְרַבָּנַן בְּזֵיתִים וּבַעֲנָבִים. רַבָּנַן דְּמוֹדוּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּשְׁאָר פֵּירוֹת מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: סוֹחֲטִין
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