Commentary for Makhshirin 6:9

המעלה פרותיו לגג מפני הכנימה (he brought his produce onto the roof because of vermin) – worms that grow in the produce. It is the language of (Exodus 8:13): “and vermin came upon [man and beast].”

One who carries his produce up to the roof because of maggots, and dew came down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he intended for this to happen, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. This person carries his produce up to the roof because he hopes that the maggots that got into his produce will go out there. He doesn't intend for the produce to become wet. Therefore, the dew that comes down on it does cause it to be susceptible to impurity. However, if he intentionally brings it up to the roof so that it will get wet, it does cause susceptibility.

אם נתכוין לכך – that he intended that dew should fall upon them.

If a deaf-mute, or a person not of sound senses, or a minor carried it up, although he expected that dew should come down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention. This section is one of the clearest statements with regard to intent found in the entire Mishnah. These three categories of people are understood as not having the mental awareness sufficient for their action to have intent (we have seen this many times throughout the Mishnah). Therefore, we judge their actions by themselves, without resort to assumptions of intent. Since bringing produce up to the roof is not sufficient for it to become susceptible to impurity, the produce remain unsusceptible.

שיש להן מעשה – as for example, if they would pour upon them dew intentionally, they would render it fit [to receive ritual defilement].

המעלה את האגודות (if he takes up on the roof bunches – herbs – which had been lying in the market houses) - of vegetables/greens.

One who carries up to the roof bundles [of vegetables] or cakes of figs or garlic so as to keep them fresh, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Since he carried his vegetables or other such items up to the roof only to let them air out and not so that they would get wet, they do not become susceptible to impurity if dew falls on them.

ואת הקציעות (figs packed) – they crush the figs in a mortar/mortar-shaped cavity and make them like large loaves, and hey are called קציעות/packed figs.

All bundles [of vegetables] in the market places are unclean. Rabbi Judah declares them clean if they are fresh. Rabbi Meir said: Why did they declare them unclean? Only because of liquid from the mouth. The assumption is that the sellers in the marketplace moisten their vegetables to keep them fresh and make them look more appetizing (supermarkets still do this with their mist machines). In the marketplace impure people might touch them. Therefore, when one buys vegetables from the market, one has to assume that they are impure. Rabbi Judah says that sellers don't throw water over fresh vegetables, so they are considered clean because they were never made susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir disagrees as to why they declared bundles of vegetables to be unclean. Bundles come untied and when they do a person uses his mouth to moisten the ties so they can be retied. The assumption is that the person who does this is impure and this moisture from the mouth is what causes them to be defiled. So even fresh ones, ones that have never had water put on them, are impure.

שימתינו (that they may remain fresh) – it is the language of moisture. And similar to it is found in the Gemara in the chapter "לא יחפור"/One should not dig/hollow out (Chapter 2) [Tractate Bava Batra 18a):"מיתנא קשה לכותלים" (the actual term found in the printed editions of the Talmud is דהבלא /vapor) that is difficult for the walls).

All coarse and fine flours of the market places are unclean. The wheat used to make flour is moistened before it is ground up. This moistening causes it to be susceptible to impurity. In the marketplace we have to assume that anyone might have touched the flour, including impure people. Therefore, it must be assumed to be impure. Outside of the marketplace impure people won't necessarily be touching the flour so it remains pure.

אינו בכי יותן – if dew fell upon them.

Crushed wheat, groats, and pearl-barley are unclean everywhere. These crushed grains are frequently touched, unlike flour and fine flour which not as many people will touch. Since people touch them everywhere, not just in the market, they are always considered impure.

כל האגודות – [all the bunches] of greens/vegetables.

של בית השוקים טמאים– because he sellers are accustomed to sprinkle upon them water in order to moisten them and they are made fit to receive ritual defilement, and the hands always handle/touch them. Therefore, they are presumed to be defiled.

מפני משקה הפה – even though that they don’t sprinkle water upon them when they are moist, nevertheless, they regularly put upon them liquid that comes out from the mouth in order to remove the dust that is upon them, and through this they are made fit for [receiving ritual defilement]. But there is a dispute between the first Tanna/teacher and the Rabbi Meir in a place where they do not regularly moisten them with liquid from the mouth; according to Rabbi Meir they are ritually pure, but according the first Tanna/teacher, in every manner they are ritually impure, for even with moist things that they place upon them water. And the Halakha is according to the first Tanna/teacher.

הקמחין והסלתות של בית השוקים טמאים – because they stir/wash the grain in water prior to grinding them and they are made fit [for receiving ritual impurity]. And the hands are always handling/touching them. Therefore, they are presumed to be ritually impure.

החילקה (split grain, grist, grits) - wheat that is pounded and each kernel/stone is divided into two.

טאגיס (mass of groats of wheat, barley) – that each kernel/stone is divided into three parts.

טסגי (pearl barley/barley groats)- each stone/kernel is divided into four parts.

בכל מקום – even not in the house of the market place, for everyone sprinkles water upon them.

חוץ משל מוכרי משקה – because they come in contact with/touch them while the liquid is moist on their hands, but they are not strict on the staining/making palatable by moistening , for their shells (i.e., of the eggs) protect them.

All eggs are presumed to be clean except those of sellers of liquids. But if they sold with them dry produce, they are clean. Eggs sold anywhere are presumed to be clean unless they are sold by sellers who also sell liquids. If the person also sells liquids we can assume that he touched the eggs with wet hands. This would have made them susceptible to impurity. Then when an impure person in the marketplace touched them, they would become defiled. We should note again that defiled eggs can be eaten. The only real relevance would be for a person who only wants to eat pure food. However, if the person who sold liquids sold the eggs near dry food we can assume he would dry his hands off first because he wouldn't want the dry food to get wet. Therefore the eggs can be assumed not to have come into contact with liquid.

ואם היו מוכרים עמהם פירות יבשים – because they dry their hands in order that they do not soil the fruits,, they dry their hands also prior to their touching the eggs.

All fish are presumed unclean. While alive, fish are not susceptible to impurity (this is true of all animals). However, when a fisher kills the fish there is still water on it. This water causes it to be susceptible to impurity. When impure people touch the fish, it becomes impure.

כל הדגים בחזקת טומאה – because they are made susceptible [for ritual defilement] in the water, and that which is impure/unclean and that which is pure/clean touches it.

Rabbi Judah says: pieces of aylatit and Egyptian fish which arrives in a basket, and Spanish tunny, these may be presumed clean. According to Rabbi Judah, these types of fish live long after they have been caught. By the time they die there will be no water left on them. Since they are not again moistened, they were not made susceptible to impurity.

חתיכת האלתות (a piece of a large fish/Iltith)- a species of fish that is regularly sold piece by piece. And there is a place whose name is אלתות/Iltith, and there they hunt it and sell it.

All kinds of brine may be presumed unclean. The brine that comes out of fish is mixed with water. This makes it susceptible to impurity. Since we can assume that an impure person touched it, it is assumed to be impure.

ודג המצרין – a very small fish that they bring from it filled basket in Egypt.

Concerning all these an am ha-aretz may be trusted when he declares them to be clean, except in the case of small fish, since they are usually stored with any am ha-aretz. In all of the cases discussed above, eggs, fish and brine, an am haaretz, a person who doesn't generally observe the laws of purity, is believed to say that the food has not come into contact with water and therefore it has not become susceptible to impurity. The only exception is small fish which, according to the mishnah, are often left with another am haaretz. Since the am haaretz who says they are clean cannot know if the other am haaretz defiled them or got them wet, we can't believe the first am haaretz.

וקולים האספנין (Spanish colias, a kind of tunny fish)- a species of fish whose skin is very soft and they call it אלשביט, and these three species, the water does not make them susceptible [for ritual defilement] like other fish, because they llive a long while after their being hunted, after they are made into food, that is, after their death, we don’t put water upon them, because the water causes loss to them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: clean brine into which water fell in any quantity must be deemed unclean. If there is brine that we know to be clean because there is no water in it and then even the smallest amount of water falls in, that small amount of water makes the brine susceptible. We might have thought that since the brine is also liquid, the small amount of water is nullified. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov teaches that it is not.

כל הציר בחזקת טומאה – for mere brine that upon which water is put and the hands touch them.

ועל כולם – whether eggs [or] whether fruit [or] whether brine, a common, uneducated person is believed to state that they were not made susceptible [to receive ritual defilement].

מפני שמפקידים אותן – for all the fruit they store them with a common, uneducated person, but if he is not trustworthy/reliable, how can they store them? But fish, they do not store with him, therefore, he is not trustworthy/reliable.

ציר טהור – that it is known regarding it that it was not made susceptible [to receive ritual defilement] through liquids.

שנפל לתוכו מים כל שהוא טמא – for any amount of water makes them susceptible [to receive ritual defilement], and once it is made susceptible, its presumption is that it is impure, for the hands handle them. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

שבעה משקין הן- because it is stated regarding ritual impurity of foods (Leviticus 11:34): “As to any food that may be eaten, it shall become impure if it came in contact with water,” I have [established] only water, from where [do I learn] to include wine and [olive] oil, and milk and honey and blood and dew? The inference teaches us (Leviticus 11:34): “as to any liquid that may be drunk/וכל משקה אשר ישתה",” and if "וכל משקה"/as to any liquid, I might think, mulberry juice, pomegranate juice and the rest of all the fruit juices, the inference teaches us, “[if it came in contact with] water;” just as water is particular that it lacks an epithet, even wine and [olive] oil and milk and honey and blood and dew, lack an epithet, excluding mulberry juice and pomegranate juice and the rest of fruit juices that have an epithet, but bees honey lacks an epithet, for it is called merely honey. And further, we learned in the Tosefta of [Tractate] Shabbat in chapter 9 (Halakhot 24-28): From where do we learn [in the Torah] that blood is a liquid? As it states (Numbers 23:24): “And drink the blood of the slain.” From where [in the Torah] do we learn that wine is a liquid? As it states (Deuteronomy 32:14): “And foaming grape-blood was your drink.” From where [in the Torah] do we learn that honey is a liquid? As it states (Deuteronomy 32:13): “He fed him honey from the crag.” From where [in the Bible] do we learn that [olive] oil is a liquid? As it states (Isaiah 25:6): “A banquet of rich viands/liquid oils.” From where [in the Bible] do we learn that milk is a liquid? As it states (Judges 4:19): “She opened a skin of milk and gave him some to drink.” From where [in the Bible] do we learn that dew is a liquid? As it states (Judges 6:38): “He squeezed the fleece and wrong out the dew from the fleece, a bowlful of water.” From where [in the Bible] do we learn that the tears of the eye are a liquid? As it states (Psalms 80:6): “Made them drink great measures of tears.” From where [in the Bible] do we learn that the water of the nose is a liquid? As it states (Jeremiah 9:17): “That our eyes may run with tears, our pupils flow with water.”

Introduction Finally, when we're at last nearing the end of the tractate Makhshirin, the Mishnah lists the liquids that cause susceptibility to impurity. This is the subject of the remainder of the tractate. I should note that there are various midrashim and explanations as to why some liquids cause impurity whereas others do not.

דבש צרעים טהור (hornets’ honey) – that is not considered a liquid, for it doesn’t defile nor does it make susceptible to receive defilement.

There are seven liquids: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bees’ honey. If one of these seven liquids comes into contact with food, it makes the food susceptible to impurity.

ומותר באכילה – that you should not say that since the hornet is the creeping insect of the fowl and it is impure, the honey that comes from it would also be impure, for you might think that I would say that specifically the honey of bees is included by Scripture to be permitted, for it lacks an epithet, but the honey of hornets which has an epithet would not be permitted, it comes to teach us that the honey of hornets is pure and permitted, because of what they said: the honey of bees is permitted because they bring them into their bodies and they don’t furnish it from their bodies, the honey of hornets also brings them into their bodies but does not furnish it from their bodies.

Hornets’ honey does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness and may be eaten. Hornet's honey is not in the same category as bees' honey. Only the latter causes susceptibility. However, any honey is kosher the only kosher food to come from an unkosher animal.

בין גדולים – liquids that come out/exude from the anus/end of the rectum.

Introduction This mishnah deals with sub-categories of the seven arch-categories found above in mishnah four.

בין קטנים – urine.

Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Various liquids emitted from the body are categorized as water.

ודם הקזה לשתיה (letting blood, opening a vein) – the letting of blood [from a vein] that he intended to provide as drink for the animals, and beasts or to the Canaanite [slaves].

Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting for drinking. The blood referred to in mishnah four is the blood that comes out of an animal when it is kosherly slaughtered. The mishnah adds that blood from bloodletting that he intends to give to another animal to drink also causes susceptibility. In all of these cases he wanted or needed the blood to come out of the animal or person. However, blood that simply comes out due to injury is not desirable and therefore does not cause susceptibility.

מי חלב – this is the whey/curdled milk that is separated from the cheese when they curdle the milk and congeal it in rennet, it makes the seeds susceptible [for receiving ritual impurity].

Whey is like milk, Whey, the milky substance left after making cheese, is considered to be like milk and does cause susceptibility.

ומוחל כשמן (and the sap/thin secretion is like oil) – black waters hat come out from the olives.

And the sap of olives is deemed like oil, since it is never free from oil, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: even though it contains no oil. The sap that comes out of olives causes susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says that this is because we can be assured that there is some oil in it. Rabbi Meir says that even if we know that there is no oil in it, it still causes susceptibility because a person wants this sap to come out of his olives.

שאין מוחל יוצא מידי שמן (for the sap is not wholly freed from particles of oil) – and it itself is sap/a thin secretion. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is fruit juice and it is not considered a liquid, but is susceptible [to receive ritual impurity] because of the remnants of oil that are in it.

The blood of a sheretz is like its flesh, it causes uncleanness but does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness, and there is nothing else like it. Blood of a sheretz causes impurity as does the flesh of the sheretz. However, it does not cause susceptibility to impurity. This means that if this blood falls on food that is not yet susceptible, the food remains pure. The blood of a sheretz is unique in that it is the only blood that joins with the flesh to create the minimum measure that causes impurity. In other words, if there is a lentil's worth of flesh and blood there is enough sheretz to cause impurity.

ר' מאיר אומר אע"פ שאין בו שמן – the sap itself is considered a liquid and it is susceptible [to receive ritual impurity] and it defiles. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.

דם השרץ כשבשרו – and combines like the size of a lentil, as it is written regarding the eight reptiles (Leviticus 11:29-30): “The following shall be impure for you [from among the things that swarm on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and great lizards of every variety; the gecko, the land crocodile, the lizard, the sand lizard and the chameleon],” to include its blood that defiles like its flesh, it is able to make the seeds/semen susceptible [to receive ritual defilement], as Scripture teaches (Leviticus 11:29): “The following shall be impure for you” – it is impure, but it does not make the seeds/semen susceptible [to ritual defilement].

ואלו מטמאים ומכשירים – that they themselves are impure liquids and they defile and make susceptible [to receive ritual defilement] as one..

The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The fluids in this mishnah are both impure and they make food susceptible to impurity. Two for the price of one!

זובו של זב – as it is written (Leviticus 15:2): “[When any man has] a discharge [issuing from his member,] he is impure.”

The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A zav is a person with some sort of unnatural genital flow (i.e. not semen and not menstrual blood). If a zav emits the fluids listed here they cause food to become impure immediately, even if it hadn't previously come into contact with water.

ורוקו – (Leviticus 15:8): “If one with a discharge spits [on one who is pure].”

A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Both of these types of blood cause impurity and susceptibility.

ומימי רגליו – (Leviticus 15:3): “The impurity from [his discharge] shall mean the following –“/"וזאת תהיה טומאתו" – [the word] "וזאת"/and this – to includes urine.

Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Eliezer holds that semen does not cause susceptibility. Therefore food will have to first be made susceptible for contact with semen to cause it to be impure.

ורביעית דם מן המת – as it is written (Numbers 19: 13): “Whoever touches a corpse, the body of a person [who has died],”/"כל הנוגע במת בנפש האדם" – “the body of a person is a quarter-log of blood, as it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “it is the blood, as life, [that effects expiation]”/"כי הדם הוא בנפש [יכפר]"(note that there is a slight variant in the way the verse is read from what Bartenura writes: "כי הדם הוא הנפש").

R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah hold that menstrual blood does not cause susceptibility.

ודם נדה – as it is written (Leviticus 15:33): “and concerning her who is in menstrual infirmity”/"והדוה בנדתה" - just as that which flows from her, is impure like her.

Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean. Rabbi Shimon is even more lenient and he holds that even the blood of a corpse doesn't cause susceptibility. The Talmud explains that in all of these cases since the substance is referred to by two words (shikhvat zera is the Hebrew for semen, dam niddah for menstrual blood and dam hamet for blood of a corpse) the fluid doesn't cause susceptibility. Only fluids referred to by one word blood, milk, etc. cause susceptibility.

שכבת זרע אינה מכשרת – that it is not considered a liquid, and it has the epithet.

דם הנדה אינו מכשיר – a thing that a person with abdominal troubles/piles that he also does not make susceptible [to receive ritual impurity].

דם המת אינו מכשיר – that since he died, his blood has left the category of a liquid. But the Halakha is not according to any one of these Tannaim/teachers, but rather, all of them defile and are susceptible [to receive ritual defilement] according to the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah].

ואלו לא מטמאין – even if they departed/left from that which is impure as for example, from the man with a flux (i.e., gonorrhea) and similar to it, as it is written (Leviticus 15:2): "זובו טמא הוא"/”[when any man has] a discharge [from his member], he is impure” (Bartenura’s commentary writes: "בזובו טמא הוא" which does not exist in that form anywhere based upon my examination of a concordance), he and his discharge/flux are impure, but his sweat nor his ill-smelling moisture/secretion nor his excrement are impure.

The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: These liquids don't cause either susceptibility or uncleanness. Some of them are still pretty yucky though.

והליחה סרוחה – that exits from the abscess, and the same law applies with regard to spittle of an ill-smelling secretion/purulent substance [of a man].

Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. Rotten secretion is something like pus. Blood that comes out with pus or with excrement doesn't cause impurity or susceptibility. The rabbis considered a child born at 8 months to be one who would surely die. The child is in a sense considered dead even before he actually dies (remember they had no way to really care for such children). Liquid such as urine and spittle that comes from the child before he dies does not cause impurity or susceptibility, as it would for a viable child. Rabbi Yose says that the blood of such a child does cause impurity.

והראי – filthy matter/excrement, like והרעי/excrement.

[The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. I guess drinking the waters of Tiberias will make you sick. While the water causes susceptibility once it passes through a person's body and comes out the other end (not as urine) even if it simply passed right through him, it doesn't cause susceptibility.

ודם היוצא עמהם – with the moisture/secretion and the excrement.

Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. As we learned in mishnah five, only the blood from slaughtering a clean animal causes susceptibility. Also blood from a bloodletting that he wants to let another animal drink. If he is just bloodletting for healing then it doesn't cause susceptibility.

ומשקה בן שמונה (and the liquid excreted with a stillborn child at eight months) – all the liquid that came out from the non-viable/premature birth of eight months, as for example, his blood, and his spittle and his urine, for a living eight-month-old baby is like a stone.

Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Eliezer holds that all of these liquids do cause susceptibility.

חוץ מדמו – that defiles like the blood of a viable child. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean. Evidently men can occasionally secrete small amounts of milk from their breasts. Rabbi Elazar says that such milk is pure it doesn't cause susceptibility.

אע"פ שיוצאים נקיים – that he discharges them [from his bowels] in the path of the privy that are clear like they were when he drank them, nevertheless they do not make susceptible [to receiving ritual impurity], for they exited through the privy.

ר' אלעזר מאמא באלו – for they are considered liquids, and defile and make susceptible [to receive ritual impurity]. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

חלב הזכר טהור – for it is not considered liquid. And this is the Halakha.

חלב האשה מטמא – makes it fit/susceptible to receive ritual impurity. But if it (i.e., the milk) was defiled or that the woman was impure, it defiles according to the law of impure liquids that the designation/law of liquids has.

Introduction Last mishnah of Makhshirin and the longest! The argument here is over whether cow's milk renders produce susceptible even when its flow wasn't desired.

לרצון – that is milked intentionally.

A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. This section lays down the rule concerning milk from a woman and milk from cattle. The rule is stricter with regard to the former even if she didn't desire its flow, it still causes susceptibility. When it comes to cattle milk (milk from a cow, sheep or goat) it causes susceptibility only if he wanted it.

ושלא לרצון – as for example, milk that drips from her breasts.

Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. The remainder of the mishnah is a long argument between the sages and Rabbi Akiva, who wishes to prove that cattle milk causes susceptibility even when its flow was not desired. He proves his point by saying that there is a kal vehomer argument, one made from by analogizing from the stricter to the more lenient case. Human milk is only for infants and nevertheless it causes susceptibility in all cases. All the more so should cattle milk which is for both human infants and human adults, cause susceptibility in all cases.

שאינו מיוחד אלא לקטנים – that unspecified is not considered all that much

They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? The other rabbis show that the rules governing a human are sometimes stricter than those governing an animal. Blood from a human wound causes susceptibility whereas blood from an animal wound does not. Therefore, there is no "kal" lenient or "homer" stringent when comparing humans to animals. The rules are simply different.

שדם מגיפתה טמא (that the blood flowing from a woman’s wound is impure) – the blood that comes out from her wound is impure, for they are compared to the “blood of the slain”/דם חללים (see Numbers 23:24) which is called liquid, for what difference is it to me killing completely or killing [only] half.

He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Akiva responds by finding saying that the rules governing milk are more stringent than the rules governing blood. One who milks not because someone needs to drink the milk but just to get the milk out for health reasons, the milk does not cause susceptibility. But one who blood lets for health reasons, the blood is clean. Therefore, we should be strict with regard to milk it causes susceptibility even if it was not desired.

שדם מגיפתה טהור – for the blood of an animal is not called “the blood of the slain”, for it is written regarding a human.

They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. The other rabbis resort to another analogy the liquids that flow from grapes and olives while they are still in the basket before they begin to be pressed. Such liquid doesn't cause susceptibility because he doesn't desire it. So too when it comes to cattle, if the milk comes out and is not wanted, it doesn't cause susceptibility.

סלי זיתים וענבים יוכיחו – for one who presses/wrings them (i.e., olives and/or grapes) out for medical purposes it is impure, but nevertheless, with approval/intentionally are impure, but unintentionally, they are ritually pure. Even the milk, even though that one yields milk for medicinal purposes, it is impure, when it is milked unintentionally/without approval, it is law that it would be pure: and when it is not with approval/unintentional, that which comes out from the olives and grapes is not considered liquid until it comes out with approval/intentionally.

He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Of course, Rabbi Akiva has an answer. Olives and grapes are turning from solid food into liquid food and therefore when liquid comes out that he doesn't want, it doesn't cause susceptibility. The same cannot be said with milk which is always a liquid.

Thus far was the argument. That was the end of the historical argument between Rabbi Akiva. In sections 8 and 9, Rabbi Akiva begins to argue with his students, including Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Shimon argues that rainwater should prove that milk renders unclean only when he desires its flow. Rainwater causes susceptibility only when he wanted it to get his food wet. Therefore, cattle milk, which is also a liquid from beginning to start, should do the same.

But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage. Rabbi Akiva points out that since most cattle milk is for human consumption, it is always considered a liquid, even when it wasn't desired. Rain is mostly not for drinking it is for watering the ground and for the trees. Therefore, cattle milk causes susceptibility no matter what. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Makhshirin! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Makhshirin was probably the most obscure topic you could ever imagine what liquids make food susceptible to impurity. I'll admit, it's not the topic you've dreamed about learning. Still there was one thing I found very interesting throughout the whole tractate the role that intent plays in matters of purity and impurity. As we've seen over and over again, things are pure or impure not just based on what happens to them, but based on the intent of the human being who owned the object or who performed the activity. The central halakhah in this tractate is that food is susceptible only if the person wanted it to come into contact with the liquid. Indeed, this opens a window to one of the largest issues in the entire mishnah how human intent actually affects the world. The rabbis believed that humans could affect the world not just by what they did but by their intent while doing it. As always, a hearty yasher koach upon completing the tractate and keep up the good work. Tomorrow we begin Zavim.