Explanation: Rashi explains that even though the food is impure it does not cause the liquid to become impure, as food does not cause impurity if it is less than the size of an egg.

Observation: This reason is only valid according to the opinion (Pesachim 33b) that liquids are gathered. However, according to the opinion that they are absorbed in the item itself, the liquids are impure on their own since they were touching (i.e. were considered part of) the food.

Observation (cont.): The Gemara answers there that the Mishnah is referring to a case of grapes that never became able to become impure. When do they become impure? They only become impure when they are squeezed, and when they are squeezed they no longer are the minimal amount to become impure. According to Rashi's opinion here this should not make a difference, as immediately when the first drop exits it should become impure since it is part of the food that becomes impure even if it is a minute amount! (This is why Rashi's explanation only works according to the opinion that liquids are considered a separate entity within the grape.)

Observation: Rabeinu Tam's question on Rashi has been explained earlier (91a).

Explanation: Rav Papa could not have said that everyone agrees it is food, as if so what would be the reason of the opinion that it is able to become impure?

Observation: The difficulty that this presents to the opinion of Rav Nachman (17a) who says that they decreed that one should harvest while pure because sometimes a person goes etc. was explained by me earlier (DH "Gozreini").

Explanation #1: Rav is basing himself on his opinion later that according to Torah law one is only liable for pressing olives and grapes.

Explanation #2: Rashi explains that this is because the liquid squeezed out did not originate in the vegetables.

Question: Rebbi has difficulty with this explanation. Why did they decree earlier (141a) that it is forbidden to press stuffing (i.e. cotton, wool) into the mouth (i.e. spout) of a container containing liquid because a person might come to squeeze it out? Even if he will do so he will not transgress a Torah prohibition (according to Rashi as the liquid did not originate in the stuffing)!

Answer: However, it is possible to answer that Rava there (141a) who makes this decree holds like Rebbi Yochanan that one would indeed be liable to bring a Chatas (for such squeezing).

Observation: If someone would squeeze a fish in order to obtain the fish oil in a bowl, Rebbi Yochanan would also say he is liable to offer a Chatas. This is because squeezing a fish for its oil is compared to squeezing cooked vegetables in our Gemara.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara asked a question from Shmuel's statement regarding cooked vegetables on a statement regarding squeezing fish for the fish oil.

Opinion: Rabeinu Chananel explains that the law follows Rebbi Yochanan, as we rule like Rebbi Yochanan over Rav and Shmuel.

Opinion (cont.): We understand from Rebbi Yochanan's statement that it is forbidden for a person to squeeze pickled or cooked vegetables to obtain their liquids, and if he does he is liable to offer a Chatas.

Opinion #1: Rebbi Yochanan does not differentiate between squeezing into food or an empty bowl, rather both actions are forbidden. This teaches us that the law does not follow Shmuel or Rav in their leniency that a person may squeeze a cluster of grapes into a pot of food.

Opinion #2: Some want to say that Rav and Shmuel were only discussing Yom Tov, as Rav Chisda deduces this from Shmuel's statement.

Question: We should not go after these kinds of weak proofs in order to take the Gemara out of context. Rather, it is clear that Rav and Shmuel were speaking regarding Shabbos, and the Halachah is not like them regarding Shabbos and Yom Tov. This is the opinion of Rabeinu Chananel.

Question: Rabeinu Chananel (apparently, see Sfas Emes) deduced that since Rebbi Yochanan does not differentiate between squeezing into food or into an empty bowl, the implication is that one would be liable even for squeezing into food. However, this is not a valid deduction.

Question (cont.): This is because Rav and Shmuel also forbid squeezing pickled vegetables for their juice, despite the fact that they permit squeezing a cluster of grapes into a pot of food.

Observation: Rabeinu Chananel pushed aside those who say that Rav and Shmuel were only discussing Yom Tov, and Rabeinu Tam agrees that this is indeed correct. However, Rav Chisda is indeed discussing Yom Tov, as I explained earlier.

Explanation: This merely an Asmachta, as we would know it was fifty two without the numerical value of the letters as well, as Rashi explains.