Explanation: It is forbidden when the entire piece is outside of the sauce, as stated earlier (96).

Explanation (cont.): This is why the amount measured is only the amount of this piece and not counting the amount of the other pieces (in the pot). This is because the milk bubbles on the entire piece.

Explanation (cont.): It does not bubble from piece to piece unless it is stirred or the pot is covered. This is as the Gemara states, if he did not stir it at all, why are all the pieces forbidden? It absorbs, but does not emit!

Question: The Gemara here implies that Abaye derives Ta'am k'Ikar from Basar b'Chalav. In Pesachim (44b) and Nazir (37a), Rebbi Akiva argues with the Rabbanan. One derives Ta'am k'Ikar from "Mishras" while one derives it from having to kasher pots. Abaye is discussing this very discussion, and presumably knew this Beraisa. (How, then, could he argue on both Rebbi Akiva and the Rabbanan by giving a different source for Ta'am k'Ikar?)

Answer: Abaye accepted Rava's question on his opinion, and retracted it. (The Tiferes Yaakov explains Tosfos means that Rava taught the Beraisa to Abaye, and he subsequently retracted his opinion.)

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that both are permitted individually, but when they are mixed they become forbidden.

Implied Question: This reason is not mentioned in Pesachim (44b) and Nazir (37a), as Kilayim is the same (as each type can be planted, but they cannot be planted together). (It is therefore difficult to understand why Rashi makes up his own reason for it being a novelty. See Tiferes Yaakov who defends Rashi.)

Explanation #2: The Gemaros (ibid.) conclude that the novelty of Basar b'Chalav is that if meat soaks all day in milk it is permitted, even though the milk becomes absorbed in the meat. It is absorbed even though it is cold because it is clear, and the meat stays in it (meaning that some of the milk is on the meat even when it is removed from the milk). When the meat is cooked, it becomes forbidden.

Explanation: This just means that Rava pushed aside Abaye's understanding that the source of Ta'am k'Ikar is Basar b'Chalav. However, Ta'am k'Ikar is certainly a Torah law as explained earlier (98b, DH "Rava").

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Rava said this earlier (100b).

Implied Question: This statement is not found there.

Explanation #2: However, this phrase is found in Menachos (23a, see Tosfos DH "Amar") regarding Rebbi Yehudah's statement that a Minchas Kohanim is like a Minchas Kohen Moshiach etc.

Implied Question: Even though Rava earlier (100b) said this according to Rav, the Gemara did not want to ask that there is a contradiction in the position of Rav. (Why isn't this a contradiction that should be asked by the Gemara?)

Answer: This is because we can answer as Abaye answers there that the case is where he first took away (the milk and sauce, see Gemara ibid.). However, the Gemara in Menachos (22a) does not have another reason for Rebbi Yehudah besides for that explained by Rava. This is why our Gemara asks a question from the Gemara in Menachos (23a).

Question: Why don't we ask a question from a statement said by Rebbi Yehudah himself? The Gemara later (108b) says that Rebbi Yehudah said in a Beraisa the same exact statement that Rav said here. It should therefore ask this as a question on Rava's explanation of Rebbi Yehudah!

Answer #1: The Gemara at this point did not know the Beraisa quoted later (108b), just as Rav apparently did not know it. If Rav would have known the Beraisa, he would have merely said that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yehudah (in the Beraisa).

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible to answer that the Beraisa quoting Rebbi Yehudah definitely implies that there is not sixty times more sauce than the non kosher piece of meat. This is apparent from the fact that the Rabbanan say, "until it gives a taste in the sauce and the pieces." This implies that there is not enough sauce to nullify the non kosher meat.

Explanation: This means that b'Dieved if the prohibited item's flavor was taken out of it and it became nullified, even the piece that was originally prohibited is now permitted. However, Lechatchilah one cannot nullify a prohibited item as explained by Rashi.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Shmuel deduced from here that according to the opinion Min b'Mino is not nullified, one needs sixty times more in two different ways. He needs sixty times more sauce to nullify the taste of the Neveilah piece, and sixty times more permitted meat to nullify the sauce that comes out of the Neveilah.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. The Gemara answers that the Torah forbade a goat and not milk. However, we generally say that a piece of meat (cooked with milk) becomes Neveilah according to Rabbinic law, and to nullify it requires sixty times its volume.

Question (cont.): According to Torah law, one only requires sixty times more than the prohibited item that is absorbed in the permitted item. If so, even though the Torah forbade the meat and not the milk, according to Rabbinic law the milk itself is forbidden like other prohibited items, as why should it be different than other prohibitions? All of the milk in the pot should be forbidden!

Opinion #2: Rather, since the milk emitted from the meat only became Neveilah due to the taste of meat mixed in it, it is not intrinsically considered non kosher milk. Rather, it can be nullified amongst the other milk in the pot just like the forbidden taste of the meat (in it) can be nullified. This is not considered Min b'Mino (rather it is milk nullifying meat).

Opinion #2 (cont.): Similarly, sauce emitted from the Neveilah is not considered forbidden water that cannot be nullified in other water. Rather, it is like meat of Neveilah that can be nullified in the water in a pot.

Implied Question: The Gemara says the milk is Neveilah, and concludes so. (Didn't we say it is not intrinsically Neveilah?)

Answer: This is specifically regarding Basar b'Chalav as each (milk and meat) by itself is permitted, and when they are cooked together the Torah treats it (the meat) as Neveilah and (the) milk as if it comes out of a Treifah. This is why a person receives lashes on half a Kzayis of milk that absorbed half a Kzayis of fatty meat.

Answer (cont.): However, water that is emitted from Neveilah is only forbidden due to the taste of the Neveilah mixed with it, and does not combine to make one liable to receive lashes (for half a Kzayis of water and half a Kzayis of Neveilah).

Observation: We can prove from here that spices that absorbed milk or blood and then fell into a pot are nullified with sixty times more permitted item (from the pot), even though they give a strong taste even when they are mixed with one thousand times more food than them. This is because they are not more stringent than the forbidden item that is absorbed in it.

Implied Question: The Gemara said the case is where a Kzayis of meat fell into a big pot. (Why?)

Answer: This is because if it fell into a small amount of milk it would all be considered like meat due to the fattiness of the meat that mixed into the milk, and it would not be nullified.

Question: This is difficult, as this is something that is apparent when it is emitted, as when a vegetable is put into a boiling pot of water it causes the appearance of the water to change. Similarly, fatty meat melts in the water, and the fattiness appears in the sauce.

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Shmuel explains that when the Gemara says it does not emit, it means until it is finished absorbing. However, after it is finished absorbing it starts emitting.

Opinion #1 (cont.): This was also explained by Rabeinu Shmaya. He says that when the Gemara says, "After all, when it stops it starts emitting" it means when it stops absorbing. The Gemara answers that the case is where he took it away before it finished absorbing.

Opinion #1 (cont.): When vessels and bowls were forbidden, and they were therefore kashered in a large pot when the water was boiling, Rabeinu Shmuel would require that they stay in this pot for a long time until they had time to finish absorbing and then fully emit.

Question: This is difficult, as who is expert enough to know how long this is?

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam says that when the Gemara says it absorbs and does not emit, it means that it does not emit what it just absorbed. However, what was absorbed beforehand it emits.

Implied Question: One cannot permit, based on this, to kasher vessels that are Ben Yoman when there is not sixty times more water in order to nullify the prohibited matter in the vessel, and to leave the vessels in the boiling water because the water absorbs the prohibited item in the vessel and does not emit. (Why?)

Answer: This is because one cannot say that clear water absorbs. It does not absorb, but rather the prohibited matter is mixed with the water.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, there is no logic to say that just as he says it absorbs but does not emit what it absorbed, that similarly when it emits it does not absorb what it just absorbed.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, if so, it should be forbidden to kasher two vessels one after the other, as when the first vessel is kashered the water should become prohibited and the second vessel will absorb from the prohibited water. It will certainly not absorb its own emission, but it will absorb what had been emitted from another vessel.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, he does not put the entire first vessel in the water at once. If so, the first part that goes in first emits, and the second part that goes in afterwards absorbs what the first side emitted!

Opinion: It therefore appears that one should not kasher a Ben Yomo vessel when there is not sixty times more water to nullify the prohibited absorption.

Implied Question: The Torah only prohibited a Ben Yomo when it commanded to scald (kasher) the vessels of Midyan. (Doesn't this indicate it was not worried about kashering multiple vessels?)

Answer: They only kashered small vessels inside big ones which contained sixty times more the prohibited absorption in the vessels.

Opinion (cont.): On Erev Pesach before four hours it is permitted to scald a vessel of Chametz even though there is not sixty times more water than Chametz absorption. This is because there are three Nosen Ta'am transfers that are all from permitted items (before four hours when Chametz is still considered a permitted item). The Chametz gave the taste to the walls of the vessel being kashered, the vessels gives its taste to the water, and the water goes back and puts the taste it absorbed in the vessel. The taste is still permitted, as it is still before Pesach.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have asked, this implies that the Rabbanan hold that even if he did not mix at all it absorbs and does not emit!

Answer: In any event, it gives a good answer.