plums and quinces and crab apples. However, one may not squeeze pomegranates, because they are typically squeezed for their juice, as people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates during the week. Apparently, the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to fruits other than pomegranates and mulberries.

The Gemara objects: And from where is it ascertained that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: And let this baraita also be the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: Say that you heard that according to Rabbi Yehuda, juice that seeped out on its own is permitted; did you hear that squeezing it is permitted ab initio? Rather, what have you to say? Since they are not fruits that are generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. That being the case, even if you say the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the same reasoning applies: Since they are not generally designated for squeezing, it is permitted to squeeze them even ab initio. Even the Rabbis would permit squeezing fruits such as plums, quinces, and crab apples. Since the baraita does not permit squeezing pomegranates, learn from it that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it.

It was taught in the baraita cited above that people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem would squeeze pomegranates on weekdays. This indicates that it is typical for people to squeeze pomegranates, and therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem. In other words, squeezing pomegranates is considered typical, and therefore it is prohibited on Shabbat.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is Menashya ben Menaḥem a tanna that you say the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? And if you say that Rav Naḥman meant that the halakha is in accordance with this tanna, who held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, there is still room to ask: Does it make sense that because he held in accordance with the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem, the halakha is in accordance with his opinion? Does Menashya ben Menaḥem constitute the majority of the world? Since most people do not squeeze pomegranates, the practice of the people from the house of Menashya ben Menaḥem should be irrelevant relative to the typical practice of others.

Rav Naḥman answered: Yes, in cases of this kind, halakhic rulings are based even on practices that are not universal, as we learned in a mishna that addresses the prohibition of diverse kinds, particularly forbidden food crops in a vineyard. With regard to one who maintains thorns in a vineyard, Rabbi Eliezer says: He rendered the crops a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard. And the Rabbis say: Only a crop that people typically maintain renders a vineyard forbidden. And Rabbi Ḥanina said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? Because in Arabia they maintain the thorns of the fields to feed them to their camels. There, thorns are treated as a bona fide crop. According to this opinion, since thorns are maintained in one place, they are considered to be significant everywhere. The same reasoning applies to the issue of juicing pomegranates.

The Gemara rejects this answer: Is this comparable? Arabia is a place, and a custom practiced in an entire country is significant. Here, with regard to the practice of the house of Menashya bar Menaḥem, who was an individual, his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men.

Rather, this is the reason for Rav Naḥman’s statement: It is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda said: In the case of beets that one squeezed and then placed their juice in a ritual bath, the juice invalidates the ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance. Any liquid that causes the water of a ritual bath to change color invalidates the ritual bath. Rav Ḥisda elaborated: Aren’t beets typically not designated for squeezing? Rather, what have you to say? Since he ascribed it significance, it is considered a liquid. Here, too, with regard to pomegranates, since he ascribed it significance, it is considered a liquid. Even if one person ascribes significance to a liquid, it assumes for him the status of a liquid and is prohibited on Shabbat.

Rav Pappa said that the reason Rav Ḥisda ruled that beet juice invalidates the ritual bath is because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, and there is a principle: Anything with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, i.e., anything other than water, snow, or ice, invalidates the ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance, even if it does not have the legal status of a liquid.

We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Mikvaot: If wine or vinegar or olive discharge, i.e., the liquid that comes from olives but is not oil, fell into a ritual bath and changed its appearance, the ritual bath is invalid. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that olive discharge is considered liquid? Abaye said: It is Rabbi Ya’akov, as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Ya’akov says: The legal status of olive discharge is like that of a liquid. And what is the reason the Sages said that olive discharge that emerges at the outset, before one begins to press the olives for their oil, is ritually pure, meaning that it does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity? It is not because the olive discharge is not considered a liquid but because he does not want its existence; the owner would prefer that the olive discharge not yet emerge and instead emerge together with and mix with the oil.

Rabbi Shimon says: The legal status of olive discharge is not like that of a liquid. And what is the reason the Sages said that the olive sap that emerges from the bale of the olive press after the olives were pressed is capable of rendering foods susceptible to become ritually impure? Because it is impossible that it will not contain drops of oil that come with it from the olives.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? They both agree that olive discharge that emerges at the outset is incapable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity and that olive discharge that emerges from the bale of the olive press is capable of rendering food susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to olive discharge that comes after extensive pressing; according to Rabbi Ya’akov, it is considered a liquid and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity, and according to Rabbi Shimon, it is not a liquid and does not render food susceptible to ritual impurity. Rava said: The reason that olive discharge invalidates a ritual bath is not because it is a liquid, but rather, because it is something with which one may not make a ritual bath ab initio, and it therefore invalidates a ritual bath if it causes a change of appearance.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A person may squeeze a cluster of grapes on Shabbat into a pot with food in it, and it is not considered squeezing a liquid but rather adding one food to another; however, he may not squeeze the liquid into an empty bowl. Rav Ḥisda said: From the statement of our Rabbi, Shmuel, we learn that one may milk a goat into a pot of food on Shabbat, because it is not considered to be the manner of squeezing that is prohibited as a subcategory of the labor of threshing; however, one may not do so into an empty bowl. The Gemara deduces: Apparently, he holds that liquid that comes into food is not considered liquid, but rather, it is food.

Rami bar Ḥama raised an objection from the following mishna: In the case of a zav who milks a goat, the milk is ritually impure whether or not the zav actually touched it, as a zav renders items ritually impure simply by moving them, or being moved by them, even without direct contact. And if you say that liquid that comes directly into food is food and not liquid, in the case of one who milked directly into a pot of food, the milk should be considered food. The halakha is that food cannot become ritually impure unless it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity through contact with a liquid. With what liquid was this milk rendered susceptible to ritual impurity?

The Gemara answers: As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in a different context, that a particular statement is referring to the first drop, which is smeared on the top of the teat in order to moisten it and facilitate nursing or milking, here too, it is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by means of the drop which is smeared on the top of the teat. This drop was not intended to fall into the pot of food and is therefore considered a liquid and renders the food susceptible to ritual impurity.

Ravina raised an objection based on what we learned in another mishna: In the case of one who is ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse who squeezed olives or grapes