Previous daf

1) We could explain 'she'Lo le'Ratzon' to mean Stam, and still conform with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah - by bearing in mind that we are talking about wickerwork-baskets of olives and grapes, from which the juice drips out and goes to waste. Since that is so, Stam here is *not* considered a liquid (because it is considered 'Lo Nicha Lei'), even though in other cases, it has the Din of Nicha Lei.

2) Even when we establish the Beraisa (which permits squeezing plums, quinces and sorb-apples) like Rebbi Yehudah, since when does Rebbi Yehudah permit actually squeezing fruits for their juices - until now, we have spoken only about permitting the juice that comes out by itself? Consequently, we will have to differentiate between fruit that one tends to squeeze (which Rebbi Yehudah has been speaking about until now), and fruit that one does *not*. In that case, the Beraisa may as well go according to the Rabbanan, and we will apply exactly the same Sevara and permit squeezing the fruit according to them, too.

3)

(a) Why should the Tana forbid squeezing pomegranates because that's what they did in the house of Menasheh bar Menachem? Since when is Menasheh bar Menachem the majority of the world, that we should contend with what he does?

(b) The Arabians are a nation, and are therefore to be contended with (which explains why Rebbi Eliezer forbade thistles in a vineyard because of them). Menasheh bar Menachem, on the other hand, was no more than an individual, and Chazal would hardly issue decrees based on the lifestyle of an individual.

(c) We see from Rav Chisda's Din of squeezed beets - whicht invalidate the Mikvah by changing its appearance (despite the fact that only something that is called a liquid invalidates it), that Machshavah gives something that is not a liquid, the Din of a liquid.

(d) The Tana permits squeezing the other fruits only to sweeten them, but not for their juice (See Rashba and Ritva, who explain the Gemara differently); whereas pomegranates may not be squeezed at all - even to sweeten them (because, since there is one family which tends to squeeze them for their juice, Chazal issued an overall decree forbidding their squeezing for any purpose). This decree does not extend to other fruit, which nobody tended to squeeze for their juice.

5) The Din of three Lugin, which invalidate a Mikvah - is confined to drawn water only, not to fruit-juices, which invalidate through changing the appearance of the water exclusively.

6)

(a) According to Rebbi Ya'akov, who considers juice (of olives and grapes) to have the Din of a liquid, the first oil that emerges is Tahor - because he is not interested in retaining it.

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, who does not consider juice to be a liquid, the juice that emerges after 'Ikul Beis ha'Bad' is Tamei - because, at that stage, a few drops of oil will inevitably come out with it.

(c) The difference between the two explanations - is at the stage after the olives have begun to get squashed (which is somewhere between the two stages): according to Rebbi Ya'akov, it will be Tamei, and according to Rebbi Shimon, Tahor.

(a) In the Gemara's first answer, the author of the Mishnah in Mikva'os, which writes 'Nafal Letochan Yayin, O Chometz O Mohel, ve'Shinah Mar'av, Pasul' - is Rebbi Ya'akov, who considers Mohel to be a liquid (i.e. to have the Din of oil).

(b) Rava maintains like Rav Papa (his Talmid) above (in 4): namely, that anything which cannot validate a Mikvah, will invalidate it, even if it does not have the Din of a liquid. Consequently, Mohel will invalidate the Mikvah even according to Rebbi Shimon, even though it does not have the Din of a liquid.

(a) Shmuel permits squeezing a bunch of grapes into a dish which contains food - because he holds 'Mashkeh ha'Ba le'Ochel, Ochel Hu'. Consequently, it is like separating *food* from food (rather than *liquid* from food) - and it is the way of Sochet to extract *liquid* from solid, not *solid* from solid.

(b) Rav Chisda learns from Shmuel that one may milk a goat into a dish (on Yom-Tov - see Tosfos DH 'Cholev') containing food.

(c) If milk that is milked into a dish of food is considered food, then how can the Mishnah rule that milk which is milked by a Zav is Tamei - without differentiating between whether it is milked into an empty vessel or one which contains food? And in the latter case, how can the milk (which we have just explained has the Din of a food) be Tamei? How did it become Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah?

(d) The Gemara answers that the milk became Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah through the first drop, which the woman needs, not as a food, but to wet the tip of the nipple, making it subsequently easier to extract the milk.

(a) The reason that the Mishnah in Taharos (which rules that if a Tamei Mes squeezed olives or grapes which are exactly a k'Beitzah, the oil remains Tahor) mentions specifically a Tamei Mes - is because, had we been speaking about a Zav, for example, the juice would have been Tamei (even if there was exactly a k'Beitzah), because a Zav is Metamei be'Heset, which means that the juice would become Tamei as soon as it left the fruit, even if he did not touch it.

(b) We can deduce from the Mishnah that - only if it is exactly a k'Beitzah does the milk not become Tamei, but if it is *more* than a k'Beitzah, it *is*.

(c) Since here too, the Gemara assumes that the Mishnah is speaking even when he squeezed the juice into a dish which contains food (since the Tana does not specify into what he squeezed the olives and the grapes).
If so, the same Kashya repeats itself: If the juice is a food, then how did it become Muchshar?

(d) This Beraisa, answers the Gemara, is speaking when he squeezed the olives and the grapes into an empty dish, not one containing food.