If it is evident that the milk is apparently human milk, it must be allowed.
Sources: The Rama'a Jud C. Susi ruled that human blood and fish blood are permitted by a mixture, and wrote there that the reason for this is that the prohibition is only because of the appearance of the eye, but in the mixture that does not have the appearance of the eye, it is permissible, In the interpretation of the Graha and like this already in the 2nd and the 6th there, and from their language and especially from the language of the above Graha this means that it is agreed that the law of human blood is equal to the blood of fish in the matter that when there is proof that it is not the blood of an animal or a fowl it is permissible, in its language, if so In this way, if it is evident that it is a woman's milk in some way, for example, at the beginning of breastfeeding, there is a special appearance that it is human milk, or in the pumping vessel that it is evident that it is intended for pumping human milk, and in any case, the blood in which it is apparently human blood should be allowed.
And also in the glosses of a large addendum on the Shu'a page where he brought in the name of the guest a message in Sect 5 that if his finger drips blood it is permissible to suck, since it is obvious that the blood came from his finger and when there is proof it is permissible even with human blood Eqd, and it is explained in his words to purify as the above mentioned element.
And since Avraham wrote in the handwriting that the Rama'a was permitted by admixture only in such a way that the blood is not visible, mm does not touch on the way in which there is proof that it is human blood in the admixture, but in the previous section it comes down to that and brought there a phlogta darvuta aysh, And the absolute majority of the opinions that he brought there followed the opinion of the B.I. and the Shachak and the above-mentioned Gra on the grounds of the permit, and also those who took there the opinion of Rashi Dela Yehan Mm. Of those who take the yes in the opinion of Rashi MM Hamanchat Yaakov himself hanged yes in the Plugata Dershii and Tos'), and even if Nima Shahid Avraham himself was afraid of this, MM in fact there is no need to fear the minority in Darbanan against the majority of the rulings of the judges and against the consent of the latter's elders. Y and the Gra and the Shach Derv Govriyahu.
And Yaoi' in the Rama'a Yod Paz 3 Dakhlav almonds in the meat of an animal Aish that they used to put almonds with the milk so that it would not look like meat in the milk, and A'ag Daza Atia Shafir according to the opinion of the Bi and the Shachak and the Gara here MM there is no evidence As far as we are concerned, they have never decreed that a leaf should be redeemed with human blood.
But what must be brought to bear as evidence from the Ramayana for our case is that the placing of the almonds with the almond milk is considered important, and so is fish, therefore also here if the milk is evident to be human milk and human blood is found with it, it is considered 3,2.
And why is it necessary to discuss the prohibition of human flesh? The Rambam and the Ramban differed on whether it is Dauriita or Darbanan, and why is not blood from Darbanan prohibited according to the law of horns and tails and the blood of forbidden animals, and as the latter prohibited the peeling of human skin.
And this is a general difficulty even for things that have been described in the rulings to allow human blood, such as in the ways that have been described,
And to the body of the aforementioned Rambam and Rambam company, since and for this it should be noted that Dharma ruled like Rambam in this and there is a lot of perplexity in this. And the Rashba that everyone believes that there is no prohibition against eating human flesh, and the Rambam has no way of ruling according to the Rambam when all the Rabbis disagree about it, and he will in the PMG on the words of the Rambam there that it is Shafi' to add the opinions of the other Rambam to satisfy a doubt There is no other way that the Rambam ruled as the Rambam and it is a great puzzlement and I did not get to understand it.
And likewise, this should be looked at again in the PMC, in order to add a doubt as to how one shoots the PMG, if one shoots an eagle from a living person, then it is a part of the animal, and if one shoots an eagle from a dead person, then there is a prohibition of enjoyment from Daoriyata as Q There is the Shachak and it includes the prohibition of eating, so what is the most accurate way to add it here for the sake of doubt to consider that there is an opinion here that it is only a prohibition of Durbanan.
And maybe this will be a personal excuse why the Rama did not bring about the division of methods in this since it was discussed in the NPC and above.
And if this excuse is true in the Rama'a, then the puzzling of the 16th verse there, which made it difficult why the Tor and the Bi omitted the opinions on this, and the Shata should be said because it is a prohibition and will never be a prohibition as above, they did not bother to do so. To bring the opinions in this if there is an additional Dauriyta prohibition of human flesh.
And TL 27.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5362 והקישור הישיר של התשובה הוא: shchiche.com/5362
