Explanation #1: If so, the reason that the woman's milk is impure is not because it used to be blood and it then became milk. If this would be the case, milk from a woman who is expelling the milk to heal herself should have the same law as blood (drawn to heal)!

Explanation #2: Rebbi says that it did not have to mention expelling milk to heal herself. This is because Rebbi Akiva could have answered the Rabbanan without this (reason given above), since the milk of an animal is impure while its blood is pure. If so, the milk clearly is not impure due to its having once been blood. Rather, it is certainly due to the Pasuk, "And she opened the container of milk." Accordingly, even if the liquid is not wanted it should be impure.

Observation: The Mishnah at the end of Machshirin (6:8) concludes, "No. Just because you say this regarding baskets of olives and grapes that start off as food and end up being liquids, does this mean it applies to milk that both starts off and finishes as a liquid?!"

Explanation: When we discussed a woman's milk being "wanted" or "not wanted" it cannot mean that "not wanted" means not specifically wanted. However, if she specifically did not want the milk it would not cause impurity.

Explanation (cont.): According to the way I explained that blood from a wound causes impurity, even if she says she does not want the blood it still causes impurity. Rather, the implication is that "not wanted" regarding all of these subjects including women, animals, olives, and grapes means whether it is not specifically wanted and whether it is specifically unwanted.

Question: This is difficult. Why is this a question? Perhaps when the Beraisa earlier stated regarding strawberries and pomegranates that are set aside for their juice or without a specific purpose that whatever liquid comes out of them is prohibited, it meant specifically if it was squeezed while our case is when it was not squeezed? This would be why liquid that is "not wanted," meaning (if the juice flowed by itself) without specific intent, would not be considered a liquid.

Observation: The Beraisa in Kerisus (13a) says that they permitted a woman who is impure from touching a dead person to nurse her son, and her son remains pure. The Gemara asks, how can her son be pure? Since he nursed from her, he became impure through the milk! If you will say that the milk was not able to make him impure, the dirty drop on the nipple causes impurity!

Observation (cont.): The Gemara implies that any milk drunk by the baby is considered food, and it would require liquid going onto it to make it impure as this is the food of the baby. The Gemara says that the milk drunk by the child is made able to transmit impurity due to the dirty drop on the nipple, as it is a liquid like all milk since it is not going to be drunk.

Observation (cont.): Rav Nachman answers in the name of Rabah bar Avuhah that the case is where the baby drank strongly (with a lot of suction), causing him to even drink the dirty drop on the nipple (making it into food).

Observation (cont.): Rava says that there are two questions one can ask on this. Firstly, we see the baby's mouth is full of milk (and therefore there must be a drop left on the nipple).

Observation (cont.): Additionally, the area of milk in a woman is like a stream (of her bodily fluids, similar to her spittle, and they therefore cause impurity), as the Mishnah says that the milk of a woman causes impurity whether it is wanted or not. It must be that it is specifically not wanted and regarding this the Mishnah says it is impure! This means that it is considered a stream since it causes impurity even when it is not wanted. Since it is considered a stream in the mouth of the baby it is also considered a liquid just as if it was a regular stream, and it does not require becoming able to cause impurity. This must be the explanation.

Observation (cont.): If you want to say that the reason the Gemara says it is a stream is to teach that it is considered a liquid, why does it have to say, what is "not wanted?" Since it says that if it is wanted it causes impurity, it could have asked that this implies that if it wanted it is considered a liquid, and a woman who nurses her child wants the liquid.

Observation (cont.): [The Gemara continues] Rather, Rava says etc. [The Gemara later asks] According to Rava, is the area of the milk considered a stream that does not need to become able to cause impurity? Doesn't the Mishnah say that if milk dropped from a woman's chest (when she is a Nidah) and fell into the airspace of an oven, the oven is impure? We ask, how did the milk become able to cause impurity? Rebbi Yochanan answers, this is from the dirty drop that is on the nipple.

Question: There is a difficulty according to the Ri. How can the Gemara ask how it became able to cause impurity? Since it requires becoming able to cause impurity, it is apparently considered food. If so, how can food cause the oven to become impure? Food does not cause vessels (like an oven) to become impure!

Answer: The Ri says that this Gemara means as follows when it asks, "How did it become able to become impure?" This is as if to say that not only shouldn't the oven become impure, but even the milk itself should not be impure as it never became able to become impure! Rebbi Yochanan answers that it is due to the dirty drop on the nipple. This means that this dirty drop itself that fell into the oven should make it impure as it is considered a liquid, and liquids cause impurity to vessels as stated earlier (13b).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara now is asking a good question on Rava who holds that even if he says he does not want the milk, the woman's milk is still considered a liquid. It is clear that this Mishnah considers her milk as food!

Answer (cont.): However, according to Rav Nachman in the name of Rabah bar Avuhah this is understandable, as here that he said he does not want it the milk is certainly considered food. The case where the milk dripped from her chest is certainly considered that she does not want it, since she certainly does not want it to fall into the airspace of the oven and go to waste.

Observation: The Gemara (ibid.) continues to ask on Rava from the Beraisa that says that there are nine liquids regarding a Zav/Zavah: sweat, pus, and excrement are pure. Tears, blood from a wound, and a woman's milk cause impurity of liquids with a Revi'is (of them). Spittle, a Zav excretion, and urine are stringently impure even if there is only a small amount of them. If one says that the area of a woman's milk is a stream of her fluids (like spittle), a woman's milk should also cause stringent impurity with a small amount just as her excretion and her spittle!

Question: Rebbi asks, what is the question? It indeed is a stream, and even so it should not cause stringent impurity because we require for the liquid to be like spittle to do so. This is as the Gemara in Nidah (56a) states that just as spittle rolls out and exits but can be swallowed again, so too this only applies to liquids that roll out and exit but can be swallowed again. This excludes a woman's milk which rolls out but cannot be swallowed up again.

Question (cont.): While it is bewildering that it being able to be swallowed again is what causes it to be considered a stream, this is certainly the case (as explicitly stated by this Gemara in Nidah 56a).

Answer: We must say that Rava's opinion that the area of the milk is like a stream and is considered a liquid in the mouth of the baby is due to his original understanding that milk is considered that it can be swallowed up again. He proves this from the Mishnah that says that it is impure if is not wanted, meaning that it specifically is not wanted. It must be considered that it can be swallowed up again, as otherwise it would not cause impurity if he says he does not want it.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara now asks from here that it is not considered to be swallowed up again, implying that the area of the woman cannot be considered a stream.

Observation: The Gemara continues to ask that if this is so, the statement that it is impure when it is not wanted is difficult! The Gemara answers, do you think "not wanted" means specifically not wanted? This is incorrect! "Not wanted" means in general there is no intent, as a baby normally wants milk. However, if the woman specifically stated she did not want the milk, it is pure. The case when the milk fell from her chest into the oven is akin to a case where she specifically did not want it, as she certainly does not want it to go to waste.

Observation (cont.): The case of "not wanted" where there is no intent is when it falls into a bowl and does not go to waste, as the fact that a baby normally likes milk makes it have the status of a liquid. When it is in the mouth of the baby, it is always considered food.

Question #1: The Ri has difficulty with this. Firstly, in our Gemara we conclude the opposite. We say that "wanted" means in general and "not wanted" means explicitly unwanted. The case of olives and grapes is similar to the case of a woman's milk. If this would not be the case, the Chachamim could not say that the case of olives and grapes should prove the law regarding a woman's milk.

Question #1 (cont.): If you will say that the Gemara in Kerisus (ibid.) holds like the second answer of our Gemara that baskets of olives and grapes are different, as since the liquid running out of them is meant to go to waste he declares them ownerless, there is still a difficulty.

Question #1 (cont.): We can similarly say that the case regarding a woman's milk is when it goes to waste. If so, the case is when she explicitly says she does not want it. Yet in the case of a woman's milk it is only impure in general, but not when she explicitly states she does not want it!

Question #2: Rebbi has an additional question. What does the Gemara in Kerisus (ibid.) mean when it says, "Do you think that not wanted means explicitly not wanted?" The Gemara continues to say that if it is not wanted it is pure. Why? The reason why it is impure if it is not wanted is because blood from a wound is considered blood that becomes muddy and is made into milk, as I explained earlier. If so, even if he says he does not want it, it should still be impure!

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked that this is understandable according to Rebbi Eliezer, but what is the explanation according to the Rabbanan? (Why didn't it ask this question?)

Answer: Rather, the Gemara preferred to ask that this is not even understandable according to Rebbi Eliezer.

Observation: The difficulty from the Gemara regarding the people of Hutzel (92b) I explained there (DH "v'Im Timtza Lomar").

Explanation: The Gemara originally thought that squeezing prunes etc. is referring to actual squeezing (for the sake of obtaining the liquid). However, the Gemara currently cannot say this, as it is obviously forbidden. Since he considers the liquid important it is indeed considered a liquid. Rather, squeezing here is Bleitzer, meaning it is a way to make the fruit sweeter as explained by Rashi.

Question: I have a difficulty. He should say that the olive water stated is referring to the juice that comes out of the pressing of the olives, and it is according to everyone. If you will say that since it merely says olive water it implies it refers to any olive water, this is incorrect. It must be that even Rebbi Yaakov is not referring to any olive water, as he admits that the first olive water is pure.

Answer: The olive water that comes out from the press is not called olive water since it is impossible that it does not contain any oil.

Opinion: It appears to Rabeinu Tam that this is specifically regarding Yom Tov when the animal can be eaten that it is considered like food that separated from something else. However, on Shabbos when the animal is not fit to be slaughtered (since it is forbidden to do so), milking is considered threshing. This is because the animal is considered Pesoles and when he milks it, it is as if he is taking the food from the Pesoles. The Bahag also implies this is referring to Yom Tov.

Opinion (cont.): However, the squeezing of olives and grapes that is permitted earlier if it is done into food is even if done on Shabbos, since the cluster of grapes may be eaten on Shabbos.