Shabbat 145A

כביצה מכוונת ⁠— טהור. הא יותר מכביצה ⁠— טמא, ואי אמרת ״משקה הבא לאוכל ⁠— אוכל הוא״, במאי איתכשר? הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה: בסוחט לתוך הקערה.

in the exact amount of an egg-bulk, the liquid is ritually pure. Even though the ritually impure individual touched the food, less than an egg-bulk of food cannot become ritually impure. Once the first drop of liquid is squeezed out, less than an egg-bulk of food remains, and it cannot render the liquid impure. By inference, if he squeezed more than an egg-bulk, the liquid is ritually impure. And if you say that liquid that comes into food is considered food, in what manner was this liquid rendered susceptible to ritual impurity? He raised the objection and he resolved it: It is referring to a case where one squeezes into an empty bowl, in which case the juice is considered a liquid.

אמר רבי ירמיה: כתנאי. המחליק בענבים ⁠— לא הוכשר. רבי יהודה אומר: הוכשר. מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי: מר סבר משקה הבא לאוכל ⁠— אוכל הוא, ומר סבר לאו אוכל הוא.

R' Yirmeya said: The question of whether liquid squeezed directly from one food into another is considered liquid or food is parallel to the following dispute between tanna’im. We learned in a Mishnah: In the case of one who smooths bread before baking it by squeezing grapes onto it, the bread was not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. R' Yehuda says: It was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity. What, do they not disagree about this? One Sage held that liquid that comes into food is food, and therefore it cannot render bread susceptible to ritual impurity, and one Sage held that it is not food but rather a liquid, and therefore it renders the bread susceptible to ritual impurity.

אמר רב פפא: דכולי עלמא משקה הבא לאוכל לאו אוכל הוא, והכא במשקה הבא לאיבוד קמיפלגי: מר סבר משקה הוא, ומר סבר לאו משקה הוא. ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי, דתניא: המפצע בזיתים בידים מסואבות ⁠— הוכשר. לסופתן במלח ⁠— לא הוכשר.

Rav Pappa said that the disputes are not necessarily parallel; it can be explained that everyone agrees that liquid that comes into food is not food, and here they disagree with regard to liquid that goes to waste, as the liquid that dripped onto the bread eventually evaporates due to the heat of the oven. One Sage, R' Yehuda, held that it is nonetheless a liquid and therefore can render the bread susceptible to ritual impurity, and one Sage held that it is not a liquid. And they disagree in the dispute between these tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: In the case of one who cuts olives with soiled, i.e., ritually impure, hands, the olives are rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through the liquid that comes from them, and his hands render the olives ritually impure. If he cut them in order to dip them in salt, the olives are not rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, because if that liquid emerged from the olives against the owner’s will, the liquid cannot render food susceptible to ritual impurity.