The reasoning is that the wisdom behind milk establishing marital prohibition is the child’s nourishment through it. Once the child has been nourished by it, the intended purpose has been achieved. As for the verse, “Mothers shall nurse their children,” it was stated only to explain the mother’s duty to complete nursing. Thus, the correct view is that a woman’s milk establishes marital prohibition, whether it results from pregnancy or otherwise. The milk of a virgin establishes prohibition, as does that of an elderly woman who has no husband and has passed menopause.

His statement, “nor a woman with whom intercourse has taken place”: the apparent meaning of his words is that if a woman with whom intercourse has taken place produces milk, her milk establishes marital prohibition. However, this conflicts with his statement, “nor a pregnant woman,” because once we stipulate that she must be pregnant, pregnancy can only result from intercourse. For this reason, the phrase, “nor a woman with whom intercourse has taken place,” is not found in the relied-upon books of the school. The authoritative position in the school is that the milk must result from pregnancy.

His statement, “Whenever a woman nurses a child,” means: subject to the conditions we have mentioned.

His statement, “he becomes her child with respect to marriage, looking, seclusion, and unmarriageability”: foster-nursing shares with lineage only in these four matters. With respect to marriage, just as a daughter by lineage is forbidden in marriage, so too is a foster daughter. With respect to looking, just as a person may look at his daughter by lineage, he may look at his foster daughter. With respect to seclusion, just as he may be alone with his daughter by lineage, he may be alone with his foster daughter. And with respect to unmarriageability, just as he is an unmarriageable male relative