The first answer:

Leasing land and trees is not a contract for a tangible asset. Rather, it is comparable to leasing land for cultivation. The tangible produce is what the tenant seeks, since he leases the land only to obtain crops; nevertheless, the contract concerns benefits, which are analogous to these tangible yields.

The second answer:

We do not concede that hiring a wet nurse is contrary to analogical reasoning. How could this be said when the only hiring expressly mentioned in the Quran as part of our law is the hiring of a wet nurse, in the words of Allah Most High:

“If they breastfeed for you, give them their payment.”

Those who considered this contrary to analogical reasoning did so only because they mistakenly assumed that a lease could concern benefits alone. That is not the case. Rather, a lease may concern anything that can be obtained while its underlying source remains intact, whether tangible produce or a benefit.

Since a wet nurse’s milk can be obtained while its source remains intact, as can the water accumulated in a well, these may be the subject of a lease just as benefits may. Allah brings these tangible yields into existence successively while their source remains intact, just as He brings benefits into existence successively while their source remains intact. Hence, these underlying assets may be endowed with these yields—both tangible produce and benefits—reserved.

If it is objected:

“This would entail permitting the leasing of an animal in order to drink its milk.”

The reply is:

This question, too, is disputed among the jurists. Crop-sharing can only be justified by evidence