Question: We should deduce from here that it is forbidden, as he has to boil it!

Answer: They were also unsure about this, and they therefore were stringent. However, they only did this when they boiled it with other meat, in order that it should not forbid the other meat. However, by itself it would not be forbidden.

Explanation: It must be it was not boiled in hot water. Since there was no other meat with it, they did not need to boil it. Even though it emitted blood and forbade the sauce and vessels they did not worry about this, since the liver itself was permitted.

Implied Question: One cannot say that Rav Nachman permitted it because it was boiled, but if it were not boiled he would have understood it was forbidden while Bar Sheva held that even if it was boiled it was forbidden. (Why not?)

Answer: If so, when the Gemara says this is an argument among the Tanaim it is difficult, as the Tanaim did not argue about this subject.

Explanation: This is discussing cooking it in a pot after it is roasted or salted. If he wants to eat it after it was roasted, why cut it, as what it emits slips out and falls down. Whatever does not fall down is considered blood of the limbs and is permitted, as stated in Kerisus (does not appear there, see Tosfos in Chulin 14a, DH "v'Nasvin").

Implied Question: One might say the case is roasting it without cooking, and the blood of the bronchi of the liver requires us to tear the liver even for roasting since its blood makes one liable to receive Kares even though it did not separate.

Answer #1: If so, why shouldn't the spleen require tearing as perhaps it also is considered to have bronchi!

Answer #2: Additionally, it is logical that there are no bronchi in the spleen. If so, what would be the novelty of the Gemara (if it is only discussing roasting) when it says, "However, this does not apply to the spleen?"

Opinion: The Bahag writes that a person who roasts a whole liver needs to cut it. Why? This is because the blood goes into the bronchi. If he does not tear it, he should do so after it is cooked. When he tears it, the blood gathered in the bronchi is emitted. We do not suspect that the blood in the bronchi is absorbed back into the liver. This is because we conclude in Pesachim (74b) that "just as it absorbs also it emits."

Explanation: This is specifically regarding the body of the spleen which is permitted fat. However, the blood that comes out of it is forbidden, as the Beraisa states explicitly in Kerisus (21b).

Opinion #1: Lechtachilah everyone agrees that this is forbidden, even though meat on top of meat is permitted even according to the opinion that does not hold of "just as it absorbs so does it emit." This is because the blood of regular meat drips out.

Opinion #1 (cont.): However, regarding a liver that is mostly blood that does not go out by mere salting as opposed to blood in other meat, the blood does not go out well enough.

Question: According to Rabeinu Tam (Tosfos 110b, DH "Kavda," as opposed to the previous opinion which is that of Rashi) this is somewhat difficult, as throughout this Gemara we have not been doubtful regarding liver aside from when we were lenient not to require salting. We have not been stringent in such a case.

Question (cont.): Even though we stated earlier that it does not absorb because it is always in the middle of emitting, the main discussion of the Gemara does not mention this.

Question (cont.): It would seem that the Gemara is continuing, with the reasoning stated previously in the discussion being the reason for forbidding liver!

Answer: However, it is possible to say that it is referring to what was previously said that this is only regarding liver, as it is mostly blood. It is not referring to spleen, which is just fat.

Question: Why is this reason necessary? We should know this due to the law, "just as it absorbs so too it emits?"

Answer: You might say this reason is needed to permit even according to the opinion in Pesachim (74b) that does not hold of "just as it absorbs so too it emits."

Question: This is still difficult, as we conclude (ibid.) that Mulyasa is permitted even Lechtachilah for this very reason. Yet in our Gemara we say that roasting liver over meat is forbidden Lechatchilah according to everyone!

Answer: It is possible that there are times when the meat under the liver is roasted first, and the liver is still emitting and causes blood to fall on the meat. When the meat is taken away it absorbs, and it did not have time to emit.

Question: If so, meat on meat should also be forbidden for this very reason, as it is possible the bottom piece of meat will be roasted first, and it will be taken off of the spit!

Answer: We do not say "just as it absorbs so too it emits" regarding the liver which contains so much blood.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Pesachim (ibid.) says that a heart should be torn after it is cooked, as just as it absorbs so too it emits. (The heart also has a lot of blood, yet we do say this rule regarding a heart!)

Answer: Even though there is a lot of blood in the heart, the heart cooks and the blood becomes dry in its place in the cavity of the heart (and there is no prohibition against this, see Tosfos #3, (a) above).

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Gemara in Menachos (21a) says that one does not transgress for eating blood that was cooked.

Answer: Even so, when it originally was emitted before it was cooked it was forbidden according to Torah law. However, "slaughtered milk" starts off being prohibited mid'Rabbanan.

Question: However, this is difficult according to what Rashi said earlier that blood from the liver, even if it was emitted, is not prohibited according to Torah law. Rashi had explained that this was evident from the fact that it (blood from the liver) is not listed in Kerisus (21b) amongst the (blood from the) heart, spleen, and kidneys.

Question: How is utter permitted when it is underneath meat? The fat of the meat drips onto the utter! If the case is where it is torn vertically and horizontally and smashed against the wall, it should also be permitted when it is on top of meat, as it is permitted (after being torn and smashed) to cook it in a pot together with other meat!

Answer: This case is worse, as even though he tears it the milk of the utter drips onto the meat and it is recognizable in its form.

Opinion: One can derive from here a simple leniency that where it was torn vertically and horizontally and smashed against the wall, it is permitted to cook it with other meat together in a pot as stated by Rabeinu Tam.

Opinion (cont.): We did not find in Rashi that he argues on Rabeinu Tam in this matter, as he explicitly permits here having the utter under the meat, even though the fat of the meat drips onto the utter.

Observation: People are careful not to cut boiling utter with a fleishig knife

Question: This is a silly custom. Even when they are on one spit we Lechatchilah allow the utter to be below the meat. Even for the meat to be on top is only forbidden Lechatchlah for the reason we have explained. However, b'Dieved it is permitted.

Implied Question: The Beraisa says later (113a) that salty non kosher meat mixed with kosher bland meat is forbidden. (How, then, can Rabin say "Meliach Aino k'Roseiach?")

Answer: This Beraisa is discussing fish, as they have a soft membrane (and regarding them even Rabin agrees Meliach k'Roseiach).

Explanation: He is not saying that it is permitted because it is a NaT (Nosen Ta'am) bar NaT, as is the reason for permitting the boiling fish that were placed in the fleishig bowl.

Explanation (cont.): Abaye holds this is considered one Nosen Ta'am due to the sharpness of the radish.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Abaye later says this is forbidden. (How can he rule here that this is permitted?)

Answer: He is saying this according to the opinion of Rav Kahana (but he does not agree).

Explanation: In other words, one cannot prove that Rav said this from here. However, Rav indeed explicitly said this, as is apparent later.

Explanation: This title refers to the father of Shmuel, as stated in Berachos (18b).

Opinion: The Halachah is not like this, but rather as we rule in Berachos (41b).

Explanation: When the bowl was fleishig, it is still permitted to eat the fish with Kutach (milchig dip). If the bowl and fish were cold, it is not even necessary to say this, as there is nobody who would argue.

Explanation (cont.): However, this applies when one of them is boiling (either the fish or the bowl). This is because whether we rule that the top item is stronger or that the bottom item is stronger, in any event one must take off a layer. This is as stated in Pesachim (76a) that before it cools it absorbs.

Opinion: Rashi's son in law, the Rivan, said in his name that this is only if they were placed in the bowl. However, if they were cooked there, they are forbidden. This is because it would be considered like one Ta'am.

Opinion (cont.): An incident came before Rashi regarding eggs that were cooked in a milchig pot. He forbade them from being used as stuffing in meat.

Proof: One can bring proof to his opinion from radish cut by a fleishig knife. It is forbidden to eat the radish with Kutach (milchig dip) because due to the sharpness of the radish, it absorbs a lot and it is considered one Ta'am. Cooked items are not better than a radish!

Observation: However, according to the other explanation of Rashi that it is forbidden because of the congealed fat that is on the knife that is not recognizable, and this causes what is considered a Ta'am Rishon in the radish, there is no proof.

Opinion: Rashi implies that there is no difference between fish being placed in a bowl and if they were cooked in that bowl.

Proof: Earlier, regarding Nat bar Nat, Rashi explained that if they were cooked with actual meat or one wanted to eat actual milk in this bowl, Shmuel would agree that it is forbidden. This is because it is a Ta'am Rishon. This implies that it is only forbidden if they were actually cooked with meat, not cooked with the bowl.