It seems that it is allowed.
Sources: apparently it should be permitted for three reasons, the first reason since everything is a kind of fruit and does not connect 2 of Deuteronomy but returns the form of the fruit to a liquid form, and as a kind of Mishka Hazo'a Och C. Noah S. K. 9 Aish And on the second line, HA PJ SKB.
Even though the Gershza took this permission only for crushing fruit, it is explained in the Gershza there that it is allowed to knead fruits in their own juice, and it is also explained in the second thread there and in the AGM Ochh 4d C. until Tohan Ut B. fruit juice It is part of the fruit and does not contain the juice of the fruit itself.
However, there is a great deal of length in the latter regarding this permit issue, Yaoi' in the 20th century of the 20th century, who brought several opinions on the matter of mustard, and in the name of the PMG means a name that is prohibited in the above manner, and they also taught in Tehala to David in the name of the 19th century and the Gershza in the sixth 20 of the report 1992, and I. what he wrote about it in Tehala to David Shem SKKT9, and I. in the Shabbat strike before the work of Lash Shut 8 what he wrote to reject the evidence, but it is explained that the permit is not agreed upon but with the following permits It will be permissible for the OT, the model of the prohibitions will not be interpreted except in a way that produces a kneading as meaning.
The second reason is because it was restricted from the beginning of Yom Huru, who rule similar things to the fact that it is not forbidden to mix them again on Shabbat, see in the second chapter of PG the end of Skid 4 regarding a medicine, and in my revisions in Tera 3. Shacha in Bahl 45 He can with regard to peanut butter and similar to this in Shash" 28 Commentary 24 in the name of the Garshaza, and af that here it would have been taken away from the day before by the hands of Heaven, MM What do I care if it had been taken away by a person or by the hands of Heaven, and rather there is more reason to say that if it had been taken away by the hands of Heaven it is more considered connected And although all the flour had been combined before, the form of the connection was a finished connection and not like a kneading connection, with crumbs of grape juice, the connection until now was the same connection that would form after the shaking of a bottle that is being done now, and on the other hand, Gisa A' Sukkah 13 was taken care of by Heaven I didn't consider binding, and yet for our case there is also a place to say that the definition of Lisha is the sticking together of separate things and what was not separated until now I didn't consider it to be expropriation.
And the third reason for allowing this is because in the end no kneading was created here, neither in a thick night nor in a soft night, ibid. There is no Lisha in it, Efi' of Darbanan, and 22 Olach 12, 13, 8, and see also Shlomo Yehuda 59, note 11 in the name of the Grisha.
And although there is room to discuss and say that the hazu'ah is in such a way that the thing does not exist after the kneading, it turns out that what appears to the eyes does not exist is considered to be kneading, and as he mentioned in the OLC Shem Matrena and as is the prevailing custom in the matrena, Dezil beter tama that there is a lesson for kneading a soft batter As the Chazu'a is there, and all that is not here, this lesson is permitted Afi' from Darbanan.
And regarding whether there is a need for a change in shaking or not (regarding that shaking the vessel is a change according to the Mishnab 3. 11. 22. Here), Yaoi' in the Chazu'a name of the Skat that moist boiled things do not need to be shaken, and in the 15th pz of a thing that is not kneaded at all, in the PMash the name of the Chazua that is not allowed to be kneaded at all.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5696 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5696
