Opinion: This is because the milk is not physically present in the utter as it was previously.

Implied Question: Even though it is emitted and then absorbed back into the utter, the Chachamim did not decree it is forbidden.

Answer: This is because there is no other meat, and the utter did not change its taste due to absorbing this milk (that had previously been inside it). It will not lead a person to say it is permitted to eat milk and meat. B'dieved it is permitted even if he did not tear it at all.

Opinion: There is no difference between roasting and cooking when there is no other meat present, as there is no other reason to be more lenient regarding roasting. Roasting also causes the milk to drip and fall on the outside of the utter, causing it to become absorbed again (from the outside). We already stated that the rule of "just as it absorbs so too it emits" only applies to blood.

Opinion (cont.): However, a drop of milk that fell on the outside of a roasted piece of meat is unlike the fat of a Neveilah, as even roast does not emit the fat that it absorbed.

Explanation: This is what the Gemara means when it says, "an utter should be torn and its milk taken out." This means that it should be torn vertically and horizontally and smashed against the wall. In the Gemara, Rebbi Elazar says that this is when it is going to be cooked, meaning with other meat, as we have explained (earlier in this Tosfos).

Explanation (cont.): He understands the Mishnah in this fashion because it is stated in a general fashion, implying it is always permitted when it is cooked.

Explanation (cont.): "If he did not tear it" means that he did not tear it as he was supposed to by tearing vertically, horizontally, and smashing it into the wall. Rather, he only tore it slightly. In such a case, "he does not transgress. Rav says this means that it is permitted." This is because he did tear it slightly. If he did not tear it at all and he proceeded to cook it with other meat, it would be forbidden according to Rabbinic law.

Proof: This is as the Gemara stated earlier (97b) that utter is nullified with sixty times more than it, as "slaughtered milk" is forbidden according to Rabbinic law.

Explanation (cont.): "How does he tear it?" refers to the Mishnah. Rebbi Elazar said, "tear for me and I will eat it." This means tear it slightly and I will eat it in a pot without other meat. What is he teaching us? He is teaching that it only requires tearing vertically and horizontally if it is cooked in a pot together with other meat.

Explanation (cont.): Rav Nachman said, "Zeviku Lah Kachli." This means he ordered they cook for Yalta (his wife) utters in a pot without any other meat. "Swollen like skins" means that they do not have to be torn vertically and horizontally, but rather they should be slightly torn. He called them swollen (even though they were slightly torn) because they were not torn vertically and horizontally.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, "didn't we learn in the Mishnah that he must tear it" meaning vertically and horizontally? Sight tearing does not seem to help! The Gemara answers, this is only when the utter is cooked together with other meat.

Explanation (cont.): The Gemara asks, doesn't the Mishnah say that if an utter was cooked in its milk it is permitted? This indicates that it is even forbidden Lechatchilah to cook it in a pot without other meat. The Mishnah does not seem to be discussing cooking with other meat, as it says, "it was cooked in its milk." This implies there is no possibly prohibited item besides it itself, yet Rav Nachman permits this Lechatchilah etc.

Implied Question: The Gemara could have answered that the Mishnah's case is when it was not torn at all (Rav Nachman only permitted it when it is slightly torn). (Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: The Gemara chose to give a better answer.

Question: How can we bring proof from this Beraisa to the first version of Rav? Rav is discussing a case where the utter was in a pot with other meat, whereas the Beraisa is discussing a case where there was no other meat in the pot!

Answer: This is because the second version of Rav says "he does not transgress and it is forbidden" implying whether or not there is other meat in the pot. The Beraisa at least permits when there is no other meat in the pot. Since the Beraisa clearly argues on the second version, the Beraisa is said to be (more) like the first version.

Opinion: Rav Nachman therefore is like the first version which has a Beraisa supporting it. The Halachah follows his opinion.

Observation: According to what we have explained, that the Mishnah is discussing a pot with other meat as it is stated in a general fashion, the first part of the Beraisa that says one tears the utter and takes out the milk is also even with other meat present.

Observation (cont.): It is unlike the statement that one must tear the heart, but if he did not he can do so after he cooked it. This is when there is no other meat in the pot. If there was meat in the pot, the meat becomes Neveilah and forbids the heart. This is because the reasoning that a heart is smooth and therefore does not absorb is not upheld in the conclusion of the Gemara in Pesachim (74b) according to Rabeinu Tam.

Observation: In Bava Basra (87a) Rebbi Elazar asked, "Is there a Tana who taught Meseches Midos to Rav?" They pointed out Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi.

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel asked that Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi was the teacher of Rava, as stated in Yevamos (3a). In Sanhedrin (76a), Rava says that Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi said to me that we derive a Gezeirah Shaveh of "Heinah-Heinah" etc.

Question (cont.): How is it possible that Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi, who was the teacher of Rav, lived for such a long time that he lived until the times of Rava? Rava was only born on the day that Rav Yehudah, who was a student of Rav, died!

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Shmuel therefore says that the correct text of the Gemara in Bava Basra (87a) is, "Is there a Tana who was taught Midos by Rav?"

Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this. In our Gemara it is impossible to say he was taught by Rav, as Rav Yitzchak says, "I did not teach him (Rav)."

Answer: It is possible to say that "to him" actually means "from him." We find a similar definition of the word "Lo" in Bava Metzia (33a) when the Gemara says, "a student and his teacher needs him."

Question (cont.): However, the statement, "And through the Pilpul of Rebbi Chiya he taught him about utters in general (without saying the animal was nursing)," this does not seem to be the case.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam says that there were two Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimis. One was alive during the time of Rebbi, as stated in Shabbos (40b) that Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi says that once I went in to the bathhouse after Rebbi etc. It could be that this Rav Yitzchak was the teacher of Rav.

Question: This is slightly difficult. If Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi from Bava Basra (87a) was the teacher of Rav, how could it be that he answered Rebbi Elazar by quoting a statement from Rebbi Avahu said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan etc.? Rebbi Yochanan who was the teacher of Rebbi Avahu used to call Rav "our master," as stated in Chulin (95b)!

Explanation #1: Rashi explains this means, "Is there someone here who taught Rav that it is forbidden to eat an utter cooked without tearing?" Rebbi Elazar held of the second version of Rav (109b).

Explanation #2: It appears that this is not referring to the versions quoted earlier. Rather, he heard that Rav forbade utter, even if it was torn vertically and horizontally. This is as stated later that in Sura they did not eat utter, even though the Mishnah permitted it if it was torn. Rebbi Elazar thought this was difficult. Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avudimi answered him that Rav saw a valley (hole in people's observance of this law) and put a fence around it.

Explanation (cont.): Rav Yosef says that he taught him about the utter of an animal that was nursing, that this is forbidden even if it was torn, as opposed to the Mishnah which is talking about the utter of an animal that was not nursing.

Explanation (cont.): Rebbi Chiya taught this law to Rav regarding an utter in general without mentioning it was only regarding the utter of an animal that was nursing, as he thought Rav would understand this on his own. Rav did not understand this, and mistakenly thought he meant all utters were forbidden due to a Beraisa (presumably known to Rebbi Chiya) that argues on our Mishnah and forbids all utters even if they are torn.

Opinion: We eat utter, even if it is from a nursing animal, as long as it is torn. We rely on the version of Rav that he merely found a valley etc. (and therefore forbade it for that place, even though it is not forbidden according to Halachah). There is no difference between a nursing animal and an animal that is not nursing.

Opinion (cont.): Regarding the incident with Ravin and Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef where they brought before them a dish of cooked utter and Rav Yitzchak ate, the utter must have been from a nursing animal. This is why Ravin did not want to eat. However, Rav Yitzchak's opinion is the main opinion, as indicated by Abaye's statement "Rabin Tichla! Why didn't he eat?"

Opinion (cont.): This is similarly evident from the incident involving Rami bar Tamri where he took all utters, even those that had belonged to nursing animals, and ate from them.

Opinion: According to Torah law, it is exempt forever.

Proof: This is as stated later (137a) "your clothes - not the clothes of others." However, since it looks like his garment the Chachamim obligated him to put Tzitzis on it after thirty days, since it is uncommon to borrow clothes for more than thirty days.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam deduced from here that borrowing without specifying for how long is assumed to be for thirty days just as this assumption is true regarding a loan. This is as stated in Makos (3b) that if someone lends his friend money without specifying an amount of time, he cannot ask him to pay him back within thirty days of the loan.

Implied Question: It appears that one cannot bring proof from our Gemara to this law. We say in Menachos (44a) that if someone rents a house in Chutz la'Aretz he is exempt for thirty days from Mezuzah. This is despite the fact that renting without specifying a time is not assumed to be for thirty days.

Opinion #1: Regarding whether one makes a blessing on a borrowed Talis it seems that one should not make a blessing.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Rabeinu Tam says that women can make a blessing on Sukah even though they are exempt, as they are not commanded but receive reward if they perform the Mitzvah.

Proof: This is evident from the fact that Rav Yosef said that he would make a Yom Tov (i.e. festive meal) for the Rabbanan if someone would tell him that the Halachah is like the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who says that a blind person is exempt from Mitzvos. If he would not have been able to make blessings on the Mitzvos, he certainly would not be happy.

Answer: Even so, this is incomparable to a borrowed Talis. In the case of Sukah, a different person is obligated in the Mitzvah as he is not blind and not a woman. In this case, everybody who has a borrowed Talis is exempt from Tzitzis.

Opinion #2: Even so, one who makes a blessing has not lost by doing so.

Opinion #1: Some say that if this borrowed Talis is made of Kilayim, for example if it has Techeiles, it is forbidden since it is exempt from Tzitzis according to Torah law (and therefore there is no Mitzvah to push aside the prohibition of Kilayim).

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam says that one should not worry about this. This is because the Gemara says in Menachos (40b) that Techeiles does not present a problem of Kilayim, and it is even exempt in a Talis.

Opinion #2 (cont.): The Gemara concludes that this is discussing a case where he put Tzitzis on a Talis that already had Tzitzis. It is not coming to say that this is after he takes off the original Tzitzis, and that it is not invalid due to Ta'aseh v'Lo Min ha'Asuy. If it would be saying this, why say Kilayim does not apply? He should say that if one puts Tzitzis on a Talis that already has Tzitzis, it is valid!

Opinion #2 (cont.): Rather, he is teaching us that any Talis which is permitted to have Kilayim, meaning that it has Techeiles, can be used in any fashion. This is whether to wrap oneself in it or to put it under him, whether it is for him, his friend, or his wife, and whether it is during the day or at night. It is always permitted even though it has a mixture of Kilayim. (Accordingly, even if it is a borrowed Talis it can be used in a way where one does not fulfill the Mitzvah, and even so one does not transgress Kilayim.)

Implied Question: The Gemara in Shabbos (25b) says that there is a decree about this due to clothing worn at night (implying that one might come to wear this Kilayim clothing at night when there is no Mitzvah, unlike what we have just said)!

Answer: This is unlike Rashi's explanation that he might come to cover himself at night (and transgress Kilayim). Rather, it is a Gezeirah due to clothing that is specific for the nighttime. In such a case Kilayim was never permitted (for such a Beged), as it is excluded from "u'Ri'eesem" - "and you will see them" (Bamidbar 15:39).

Question: Rebbi Eliezer from Metz asked Rabeinu Tam that in the beginning of Erchin (3b) it says that everyone is obligated in Tzitzis: Kohanim, Leviyim, and Yisraelim. The Gemara explains that the novelty of this statement is that even Kohanim are obligated. One might think that because they are permitted to wear Kilayim (in the Bigdei Kehunah) they should not be obligated in Tzitzis.

Question (cont.): This is why the Mishnah says that Kohanim are obligated. Even though they are permitted to wear Kilayim when doing the Avodah, they are not permitted to do so when they are not doing the Avodah. We do not say they are in general permitted to wear Kilayim.

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that the Gemara there also permits the Kohanim to wear Kilayim, even when they are not doing Avodah.

Proof: This is as the Gemara asks in Yoma (68a), can one have benefit from Bigdei Kehunah or not? The Gemara answers from the Mishnah in Tamid (1:1) that says, "They did not sleep in their Bigdei Kehunah." This implies that they did not sleep in them, but did walk around in them (even at night)!

Proof: Additionally, the Beraisa says regarding Bigdei Kehunah that one cannot go into the city with them. This means that it is forbidden due to misuse of Hekdesh. In the Mikdash, it is permitted to wear them whether one is doing Avodah or not.

Proof: When the Gemara says, "Though they are permitted during Avodah etc." it is discussing the Bigdei Kehunah worn during the Avodah. "When it is not during Avodah" means that when a Kohen wears regular clothes he is not permitted to wear Kilayim.

Implied Question: However, the Gemara there implies that they are only permitted to be used if they are being worn. This is as the Gemara wants to deduce there that one can have benefit from Bigdei Kehunah, as it says that they can take them off, fold them, and put them under their head.

Implied Question (cont.): The Gemara pushes this aside by saying that one should not say they may put it under their heads, but rather opposite their heads.

Implied Question: This is indeed logical. If one thinks it means they put it under their heads, even though they are allowed to benefit from it, one should still say it is prohibited due to Kilayim! According to this, it would be forbidden to put a borrowed Talis underneath someone (i.e. as a bedsheet). (This is unlike Rabeinu Tam's position stated above that one can use it whenever he wants in any way he wants.)

Answer: However, it appears that one can differentiate between a Talis, whose purpose is to give the person wearing it benefit, and Bigdei Kehunah whose main purpose is for the Avodah of the Beis Hamikdash.

Question: Regarding charity, the Pasuk says, "You should surely open your hand...for because of this Hash-m will bless you etc." We say in Bava Basra (8b) that Rava forced Rav Nasan bar Ami to give our hundred Zuz to charity!

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam says that "forcing" means with words, as we find in Kesuvos (53a) "he forced him and he went up."

Answer #2: Alternatively, regarding charity there are also negative prohibitions "Do not close (your hand)" and "Do not harden (your heart)."

Opinion #1: Rabeinu Tam says that this entire Gemara is discussing a liver that was not salted. If it was already salted and it stayed in the salt, it is obviously permitted to cook it together with other meat, as through the salting the blood will be emitted. The custom is indeed to cook liver after it has been roasted.

Opinion #1 (cont.): It is similarly permitted to cook it after it has been salted, as the Bahag explains that the amount of time required for salting is the amount of time required for roasting. This is because salting is like the boiling of roasting, and it causes meat to emit just as roasting causes meat to emit.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, without salting we are unsure if it is permitted to cook it with meat. It is possible that the blood of the liver, even though it has been emitted is permitted, despite the fact that the blood of other limbs that has been emitted is forbidden as stated in Kerisus (4b) that one Pasuk is for blood from the limbs.

Opinion #1 (cont.): This is why we say later (113a) that one cannot salt meat unless it is in a vessel that has holes in it. However, one can salt a liver in such a fashion, as the entire liver is blood yet the Torah said it is permitted. This is as the Gemara stated earlier (109b), "He permitted us (to eat) liver."

Opinion #1 (cont.): It appears that according to Torah law it is obvious that blood from the liver is permitted, even if it left the liver, as the entire liver is blood as I have explained.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that the Gemara in Kerisus (21b) does not list blood from the liver when it says, "blood from the spleen, heart, kidneys, and other limbs are forbidden by a negative prohibition." Rather, the question is whether or not it is permitted according to Rabbinic law.

Opinion #2: Alternatively, it is possible to say that without salting it is obvious that the liver is forbidden. The Gemara is asking regarding liver that was salted. Since the liver is mostly blood, does it indeed come out when it is salted?

Question: However, there is a slight difficulty. The Gemara says later that there is not even a question about it causing other meat to become forbidden, as the Mishnah says, "liver forbids." Why don't we say the Mishnah is talking about a case where the liver was not salted?

Observation: According to Rabeinu Tam, there is no question.

Answer: He understands that the case is after salting, as this is the normal time one cooks meat (after it has been salted).

Implied Question: Later (111a), the Gemara says that a cooked liver that was brought to Bar Sheva and he did not eat it.

Answer #1: According to Rabeinu Tam one must say that he knew the liver was not salted.

Answer (cont.): Additionally, when the Gemara quotes (111a) the Amoraim who ate the trachea being brought "in its box" (meaning that it was cooked together with the lungs, heart, and liver), it knew that the liver was not salted even though it must be that the lungs and heart that were together with the liver were salted.

Implied Question: One should not think that to say this was the case is bizarre (that they did not salt the liver but did salt everything else).

Answer: They did many things in order to show the Halachah to the students.

Answer #2: Alternatively, all three (including the liver) were salted. However, the salting only helped for the liver because it was torn vertically and horizontally along with it being cut on the bottom as stated in the Gemara (ibid.).

Implied Question: The Gemara later says, "However, for the spleen it is just fat" and it quotes Shmuel who had cooked spleen on a day when he blood let.

Answer #1: They knew that the spleen was not salted for him. If it would be salted, it would even be permitted if it was a liver.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Gemara there is discussing tearing it vertically and horizontally. However, this is only regarding liver, not regarding spleen which does not need tearing as proven by the incident regarding Shmuel etc. They knew that they made the dish from an entire spleen.

Opinion: The Rif writes that the custom amongst all of Bnei Yisrael is not to cook a liver, even after salting, without roasting it.

Observation: This is a Mishnah in Terumos (10:11).

Question: There is a difficulty with the position of Rav Safra. What was his reason for not quoting the Mishnah originally as he quoted it in the end? He presumably knew the (correct text of the) Mishnah beforehand.

Question (cont.): The Amoraim clearly knew the Mishnayos, even Zeraim and Taharos, by heart. This as the Gemara states in Shabbos (138b) regarding the Torah being forgotten from Yisrael, "This is also a Mishnah (meaning that this would not be forgotten, even though it is a Mishnah in Taharos) that states that if a Sheretz was found in an oven, the bread inside is a Sheini because the oven is a Rishon."

Answer: Rav Safra always knew the Mishnah. However, he thought that Abaye was unsure whether a liver that was boiled became forbidden, or perhpas it did not become forbidden as per the argument of the Tanaim later. He was unsure regarding the Halachah. He therefore brought him a proof from Rebbi Zerika and Rebbi Asi who boiled it and ate it.

Answer (cont.): Abaye answered him that it clearly is not forbidden by itself, as is the opinion of the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, and like the Stam Mishnah in Terumos (ibid.).

Answer (cont.): He answered, "Why isn't it obvious to you from the Mishnah that was your source that it is not forbidden even if it is boiled, that even if it is cooked it forbids other meat?"