Question: Even without life-danger also ...

Proof #1: As the Mishnah says in Taharos (Perek 2. Nishnah 3) 'And the Shelishi may be eaten with a dish containing T'rumah' ...

Proof #2: Similarly, in the first Perek of Chulin (Daf 2b) the Gemara asks 'What is the Chidush of permitting a Tamei person to eat Chulin?', even though the Chulin becomes Tamei ...

Reason: Because the prohibition of becoming Tamei is restricted to Kohen and a Nazir with regard to Tum'as Meis and a Yisrael on Yom-Tov.

Answer: It is speaking here where one eats T'rumah afterwards, otherwise, he would even be permitted to eat a Shi'ur.

Question: What is the Kashya - if it is matter of Sakanah, even more ought to be permitted?

Answer: Sometimes she only has T'rumah available?

Clarification: Which became Muchshar via the dirty drop of milk on the tip of the nipple ...

Reason: Which the baby is not going to drink, but which is nevertheless considered a beverage.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara says in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 33b) 'The moment he squeezes it, the Shi'ur is lacking?

Question (cont.): And the Ri explains this in connection with Hechsher, in that less than the Shi'ur is not subject to Hechsher - and here there is not a Shi'ur k'Beitzah of milk in the baby's mouth?

Answer: mi'de'Rabanan, a Shi'ur k'Beitzah is not necessary, whereas the Gemara there is speaking about d'Oraysa.

Clarification: Seeing as he suckled some of her milk, he became Tamei - with Tum'as Geviyah?

Clarification (cont.): 'And if you ask that it was not Muchshar' - despite the fact that milk is a liquid (and liquid does not require Hechsher) ...

Answer: Nevertheless, it has the Din of a liquid that is added to food ...

Reason: Seeing as it designated for the baby, which is why it requires Hechsher ...

Answer (cont.): 'It did become Muchshar with the dirty drop ... ' ...

Clarification (cont.): And the Gemara answers 'bi'Tekifah Achas' - which means that he suckled forcefully, so that no dirty drop remained.

Explanation #1: And since it is a Ma'ayan (See Gilyon, in Shitah Mekubetzes 24) and is Metamei like her spit, it is not logical to say that because it is designated for the baby, it should became a food, and that its status as a liquid should be negated - to say that it it is therefore no longer a Ma'ayan and will not be Metamei, should she become a Zavah, like her spit ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): In that case, why does it require a Hechsher?

Explanation #1 (cont.): And Rava has erred and thinks that, since it gathers and emerges like spit, it is a Ma'ayan, even though it is not re-absorbed.

Source: And from where does Rava know that it is a Ma'ayan? Since the Beraisa states - 'The milk of a woman is Metamei with her will and without it' - in which case it must be a liquid min ha'Torah, and it is a Ma'ayan, like by a Zavah ...

Proof: Because if it was not a Ma'ayan, it would only be Metamei with her will - like the milk of a Beheimah.

Implied Question: And even though it is more stringent than the milk of a Beheimah ...

Answer: Nevertheless, if it was not a Ma'ayan, it would not be Metamei without her will.

Explanation #2: Rashi however, explains that the location of the milk is a Ma'ayan, and that it does not have the status of a food ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Because it is one of the Ma'ayanos of a woman, like her spit and urine - about which the Gemara says later on that it is Metamei a stringent Tum'ah with a Kol she'Hu, like one of her limbs.

Question #1: It is talking here about a Tamei Meis who does not have Ma'ayanos?

Question #2: Moreover, what does he mean when he says 'like one of her limbs', seeing as the limbs of a Nidah are not Metamei?

Question #3: And furthermore, her spit and urine require an independent Pasuk, and are not derived from this S'vara?

Conclusion: Therefore Tosfos explanation would seem to be the correct one.

Question #1: Since it is a liquid min ha'Torah ...

Source: As is implied in Perek Dam ha'Nidah (Nidah, Daf 55b), where it says (in Tehilim 80) 'The tears of one's eye' - based on the Pasuk 'va'Tashkeimo bi'Dema'os Shalish" ; and 'Milk' - on the Pasuk (in Shoftim 4) "And she (Ya'el) opened a flask of milk and gave him (Sisra) to drink" ...

Question (cont.): Why is it not Metamei even with a Kol she'Hu, like other liquids? ...

Proof: As is implied in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 14a), when it says 'There is liquid together with the Basar' - and it is unusual for there to be a Revi'is of water on the meat.

Question #2: And (one can also ask) on the first Perek there (Daf 17b) it says in connection with 'The liquid of Beis ha'Mitbachayim is Tahor' that it is confined to where there is a Revi'is - which is fit to Tovel in it needles and forks, but not less than that? (See Chidushin of the Shitah Mekubetzes).

Proof #2: And (there is also a proof from) Perek Eilu Devarim (B'rachos, 52a) where it says 'One first washes one's hands and then pours out the cup' - in case the the liquid at the back of the cup becomes Tamei on account of one's hands, and then renders the cup Tamei' ...

Proof #2 (cont.): And it is unusual for there to bea Revi'is of liquid on the sides of the cup.

Answer: One must therefore say that this is only mi'de'Rabanan, and that that is why it requires a Revi'is ...

Implied Question: And as for the Pasuk that the Gemara cites ...

Answer: That is merely an Asmachta (See marginal notes of the Ein Mishpat).

Clarification: And he performed the Avodah ...

Clarification (cont.): Because one is not Chayav for entering without performing the Avodah ...

Support: And so it is explicitly stated in the Toras Kohanim.

Question: The Gemara in Kesuvos (Daf 10b) rules that 'Someone who has eaten dates is forbidden to Pasken'?

Answer: That is mi'de'Rabanan; but min ha'Torah, it is specifically wine that is Asur (See Shitah Mekubetzes 27 & marginal notes of Ein Mishpat).

Question: Why does the Tana not list five - i.e. where one swore that he would not eat it and he then did?

Answer: He does not insert cases that are subject to She'eilah.

Implied Question: And although he does include 'Mukdashin', which are subject to She'eilah ...

Answer: That is because now, after they have been Shechted and their blood sprinkled, they are not subject any more.

Implied Question: One cannot answer that it is speaking specifically about a B'chor ...

Answer: Since the Gemara states 'Akdesheih, Migu de'Isosef bah Isur' 'Akdesheih' - and if it would be speaking about a B'chor, it could not say 'Akdesheih' ...

Reason: Because a B'chor is automatically Kadosh when it is born (See Seifer Birchas ha'Zevach).