Question: This is difficult. It should say that according to everyone Min b'Mino is not nullified. This is what Rebbi means to say. Rebbi Yehudah's words seem correct to the Chachamim when he originally did not stir, and only stirred afterwards. This is because the Chachamim only argued on him when he stirred from the beginning until the end.

Question (cont.): The Gemara gives a similar answer earlier (12a) in a case regarding a person who lost his goats and chickens. This answer is also found in Bava Basra (9a) regarding a pit and coop and in other places.

Answer: The Gemara only gives this type of answer when it is not possible to answer in a different fashion.

Explanation: Rashi explains that in Kerisus (22a) the Gemara understands it is referring to the heart of a bird that does not have a Kzayis of blood. However, regarding an animal he is liable to receive Kares if he does not tear the heart after it is cooked.

Question: It is impossible to say this, as the Gemara clearly states in Menachos (21a) that one does not transgress if he eats blood that was cooked.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kerisus (22a) indeed says it is discussing the heart of a bird. (How can this be?)

Answer: This is because our Mishnah says that he does not transgress the prohibition in general, meaning whether it is raw (i.e. the heart of a bird) or cooked.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains further that the flesh of the heart is not forbidden as the heart is smooth and it does not absorb. This is as the Gemara says in Pesachim (74b) that the heart is different as it is smooth.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam says that one should not rely on this practically, as the Gemara is merely pushing aside a question with this answer in Pesachim (74b, not saying that this is the law).

Opinion #2 (cont.): The Gemara wanted to extrapolate from the Mishnah that says that one can tear it after it is cooked that we say that just as something absorbs, so too it emits. The Gemara pushes this aside by saying that the heart is different as it is smooth.

Opinion #2 (cont.): However, according to the Gemara's conclusion that we say just as something absorbs so too it emits, we no longer have to say that the heart is smooth and it does not absorb. When the Mishnah says he tears it after it is cooked, it means after it is roasted, as then it is possible to say that just as it absorbs so too it emits, as the blood falls aside. However, when it is cooked in a pot it is forbidden, and we do not say that it is smooth and does not absorb.

Explanation: Rashi explains that it is permitted if he cooked it because the prohibition against slaughtered milk is Rabbinic. Since this milk is absorbed and it never left the utter, there is not even a Rabbinic prohibition.

Explanation (cont.): This implies that Rashi understands the entire discussion regarding utters is when they are roasted. If they are cooked, why is it permitted? The milk goes out when it is cooked, and then is absorbed back into the meat!

Explanation (cont.): Rashi similarly explained this later regarding "give her utter on a spit." The Gemara there asks, "doesn't it say "if he cooked? This implies it is only permitted b'Dieved!"

Explanation (cont.): Rashi there explains that this is certainly regarding roasting since it says it is permitted. If it would be cooked, why is it permitted? The milk goes out and is absorbed again by the meat!

Opinion: Later, after the discussion regarding liver, Rashi explains that we already stated the laws regarding utters earlier. They are that if it is roasted it requires tearing either vertically or horizontally. If he does not tear it, it is permitted as per the first version of Rav's statement, as there is a Beraisa that supports his position. If one wants to cook it, he must tear it vertically and horizontally and smash it against the wall.

Observation: The text in the Gemara earlier (97b) that the utter itself is forbidden when it is not torn and cooked together with other meat is an incorrect text.

Observation (cont.): This is because even if someone would cook it by itself it is forbidden according to Rashi's explanation, as the milk leaves the utter and then is absorbed by its meat.

Observation (cont.): However, even according to Rashi the utter would be permitted if it would be cooked in sixty times more water. This is because the milk that leaves the utter would be nullified by the water. However, where it was cooked together with meat it is forbidden due to the taste of the meat that is absorbed in the milk of the utter.

Observation (cont.): Similarly, there are Sefarim that have the text later that utter cooked in its own milk is permitted if is cooked without any other meat. This can be a correct text according to Rashi's explanation that there is sixty times more water (than milk), as we explained that the milk leaving the utter is nullified in the water.

Question: According to Rashi, perhaps it is forbidden to eat if it was cooked, and is only permitted if it is roasted?

Answer: If so, it should say, "If he didn't tear it, it is permitted" as that would be a novel law. We would automatically assume that is referring to roasting.

Question: On the contrary, deduce the opposite that he does not receive lashes but it is prohibited to eat, as the Gemara deduced earlier! Here we cannot answer that since the second part of the Mishnah wanted to say etc. as we stated earlier in the Gemara.

Answer: Perhaps the Beraisa used this terminology "he does not sin" because the Mishnah used this terminology.

Explanation: This is due to the fact that the Mishnah did not say, "he tears it after it is cooked." We would have said it is referring to roasting, as we do regarding the heart.

Question: What is his logic? If tearing it after cooking helps, why is it permitted without tearing more than before it is cooked when it requires tearing? If tearing does not help, how can we bring a proof to Rav from this Beraisa because it did not say, "he tears it after it is cooked?" Tearing does not help it at all after it is cooked!

Answer: We certainly would think that tearing it after it is cooked helps. When Rav says that he does not transgress anything and it is permitted without tearing if it is cooked, and if it is raw he must tear it, this is because when it is cooked some of the milk has already been emitted. However, if it is raw and it still has most of its milk, it requires tearing.

Explanation: This is because it is smooth and does not absorb even from cooking or roasting, and the Gemara concludes in Pesachim (74b) that just as it absorbs so does it emit. However, it is not enough that an utter is torn even if it is roasted, because the rule "just as it absorbs so does it emit" is only applicable regarding blood, not other prohibitions.

Observation: At the conclusion of the Yotzros composed by Rebbi Eliezer ha'Kalir he writes, "from the blood (He made) the spleen which is full of blood, from the impurity of Nidah (He made) the pure hymen of women, and from a married woman (He made) an Eishes Yefas Toar for a man." He did not comment on what Hash-m made from non Jewish women (that is permitted). Everything he said here was based on the Yerushalmi (the Maharsham explains that the Yerushalmi is of the opinion that a Yefas Toar is only permitted after she converts, which is why Rebbi Eliezer did not say, "from a non Jewish woman he made Yefas Toar").

Explanation: The Aruch explains that this is similar to the word, "Full skins" and it is similar to the term "swollen (i.e. old) Aramites" used in Avodah Zarah (31b). In other words, it means swollen. Here, as well, the utter is like a swollen skin full of milk that was not torn.

Explanation (cont.): Rashi explains that this means "stick on a spit," meaning "give her an utter on a spit."

Explanation: Rashi explains that Rav Nachman holds like the second version of Rav, and that the Beraisa is referring to roasting, as the Pasuk says, "And they cooked (clearly meaning roasting, as it is forbidden to cook) the Pesach (Divrei ha'Yamim 2, 35:13)."

Explanation (cont.): It is not difficult to say this, as we indeed say in Pesachim (74a) that "he tears it after it is cooked" means after it is roasted.

Explanation (cont.): This does not mean that he holds entirely like the second version, as he is even more lenient that the first version that permits this Lechatchilah.

Explanation (cont.): Rather, he holds like the second version's explanation of our Mishnah. Since Rav Nachman permitted roasting Lechatchilah without having to tear it, it must be when the Mishnah said "he tears it" it means if he wants to cook it as stated here. When he says that he if he did not tear it he did not sin, it must be he means he did not sin but it is forbidden to eat since it was cooked.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that the requirement of tearing it vertically and horizontally and smashing it into the wall "in order to cook it" implies in order to cook it with meat. This is apparent from the Beraisa's statement, "If it gives a flavor in the pot. However, for a pot without meat or for roasting, it is permitted Lechatchilah if it is slightly torn."

Opinion (cont.): The reason that they were stringent with the meat is because the taste of the milk goes into the meat and changes the taste of the meat, giving it a taste of Basar b'Chalav. This is why the Chachamim made this decree. When the meat is not with the utter in the pot, even if he did not tear it vertically and horizontally, as long as he tore it a little bit it is permitted.