Implied Question: We say in Pesachim (30b) that one cannot coat the oven with the (fat of the) tail, and if he did all of the bread is forbidden until the oven is heated up again. It is not enough to merely wipe it clean. There is no proof from there that if it was cooked it would be forbidden, since the wiping apparently does not make it into a NaT bar NaT. (This should be proof to the position of the Rivan!)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that an oven cannot be cleaned well when it has fat stuck to it. It therefore remains extant until the oven is heated up.

Proof: One can deduce that even if they were cooked they are permitted. This is as stated in Zevachim (97a) that everyday is considered to clean out the absorption of "its friend" (the Korbanos of the previous day).

Proof (cont.): Accordingly, one can cook a Shelamim in a pot which had a Shelamim cooked in it yesterday, as we do not say that it is lessening the amount of time one can eat today's Shelamim. This is because it is a secondary taste which is nullified before it transfers a status of the Shelamim becoming forbidden (one day early).

Implied Question: One cannot say that the case in Zevachim (ibid.) is different because it is a third Ta'am (NaT bar NaT bar NaT) due to the water in the pot.

Answer #1: According to that reasoning, the eggs (used to stuff meat, see first part of Tosfos on 111b) would also be permitted because they were cooked in the water that is in the pot. (See Tiferes Yaakov regarding why Tosfos switches back to discussing the case of the eggs.)

Answer #2: Additionally, regarding the different types of spits, the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (76a) says that every day they are kashered from the previous day.

Question: However, there is actually no proof from the Gemara there (ibid.). This is because even if he cooked a Chatas in a pot, it is permitted to cook a Shelamim in the same pot (on the same day), as stated in the Gemara (ibid.).

Question (cont.): This is despite the fact that he is lessening its ability to be eaten, as it causes the Shelamim to be forbidden to non Kohanim, women, and servants, and it can only be eaten by male Kohanim. It also becomes invalid if it leaves the Azarah, as it is a secondary taste (of something that is more restricted).

Question (cont.): It must be that the reason there is because Min b'Mino is nullified mid'Oraisa by the majority. Regarding vessels of the Beis Hamikdash, we say that the law in practice should follow the Torah law. (Accordingly, one cannot bring proof that even cooking in the pot is generally permitted.)

Opinion: If bowls used for meat were washed with a frying pan used for milk in a Kli Rishon, and both of them were Ben Yomo, they are forbidden. This is even if we say that "they were in" does not mean they were merely present, but even that they were cooked. This is only if the fat was extant on the bowls, as it is like a knife that was not wiped clean, which Rashi in his second explanation says is forbidden.

Opinion (cont.): Even if there is not fat extant it is forbidden, as the bowls touch the frying pan and taste is emitted from one to the other, giving a secondary taste that is forbidden.

Opinion (cont.): Additionally, it is not similar at all to fish that were in a bowl, as when the secondary taste of meat and milk go into the water, the water immediately becomes forbidden. The water then forbids the bowls and frying pan being washed in it. If one of them is not a Ben Yomo, the Ben Yomo is permitted. (See Maharam who says that it would seem that there is a difficulty with the text of Tosfos, as Tosfos should seemingly hold that the one that is not a Ben Yomo should also be permitted.)

Opinion: One should be careful not to cut garlic, leek, and onion with a dairy knife because they are very sharp.

Opinion (cont.): If he did cut them and put them in a pot full of boiling water, it is nullified with sixty times more water than the taste absorbed in the vegetable that was emitted by the knife. However, if he cut them with a knife of idolatry, the entire vegetable is deemed Neveilah and one needs sixty times more water than the entire vegetable for the prohibited taste to be nullified.

Question: It requires study to determine whether the taste in a knife that was wiped clean and not a Ben Yomo is turned into a good taste by these vegetables, as we indeed say regarding Chiltis in Avodah Zarah (39a).

Implied Question: One should not prohibit, based on this reasoning, putting a jar of meat next to a jar of milk in one large box. (Why not?)

Answer: In that case, he is careful that the contents of one jar should not fall into the other jar. However, in our Gemara he is not careful that some of the Kutach (milchig dip) should not fall into the salt. He will not be aware of this, and he will end up salting meat with this salt.

Answer (cont.): The same applies to vinegar, as it is normal to put vinegar into a cooked dish. We therefore suspect that some of the Kutach will fall into the vinegar, and he will put this into the cooked dish.

Opinion #1: Rebbi Yaakov Yisrael once permitted a barrel full of meat that was well salted together with a piece of Neveilah. He explained that this is not considered that it is not eaten due to the saltiness, unless it is salted in order to pickle/preserve it.

Proof: This is as stated in Shabbos (75b) that a person who salts meat on Shabbos is liable due to the Melachah of Me'abed (i.e. pickling, akin to the Melachah that is done when tanning leather). We say that the case is where he needs this food for his travels. However, if he merely needs it for household consumption, a person does not turn his food into wood.

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rashi also explains that it is not eaten due to the amount of salt in it until it is soaked and then rinsed with water, similar to the meat that is salted in order to be stored (for a long time).

Question: Rabeinu Tam has difficulty with this. Were the thighs that were salted together with the Gid ha'Nasheh in the house of the Reish Galusa (97b), regarding which the Gemara discusses "salted is like boiled," going to be used for provisions during travel?

Question (cont.): Similarly, the Gemara earlier (111b) discussed a bowl that had meat salted in it, and it said that one cannot eat boiling food in it (due to the blood that was in it). The same applies to the earthenware bowl in Rebbi Ami's house (in the Gemara ibid.).

Question (cont.): Similarly, the Gemara later says that Rav Mari salted slaughtered meat together with Treifah meat. Were all of these cases only discussing provisions for travel or for storage for a long period of time?!

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that all salting that we do for meat (to get out the blood) so that it can be eaten cooked is considered to cause the food to be inedible due to the salt.

Proof #1: This is apparent from the explanation of the Bahag that the amount of salting is like the amount of roasting, as salting is like the boiling of roasting.

Proof #2: Similarly, the Gemara in Menachos (21a) says that the reason (salt does not have to be put on blood of Kodshim that goes on the Mizbe'ach) is because it is excluded by the Pasuk. If it would not be, I would think that blood requires salting. Wouldn't salting it mean it is no longer blood? Rav Yehudah says in the name of Rav that one does not transgress eating blood if it has been salted!

Proof (cont.): This indicates that salting Kodshim is considered (meat that is) not eaten due to its salt, as one is exempt if he eats blood that was salted just as he is exempt if he eats blood that was cooked, as we state there that one does not transgress for eating such blood!

Proof (cont.): Rabah says there regarding the salting of Kodshim, "And so too for cooking." This implies that for salting in order to cook meat one needs to put in enough salt that it is considered not eaten (until the salt is scattered and the meat is washed off) due to the salt.

Explanation: The blood gathers by the bottom part of the salt.

Implied Question: Even the opinion stated earlier (108b) that one cannot take out a forbidden absorption holds this is permitted. We do not say that when the (permitted) fat drips from the meat it becomes forbidden due to the blood mixed with it, and it cannot become permitted anymore by the two rows of salt. (Why is this permitted?)

Answer: Since the blood completely separated from it, it no longer has even the slightest taste of blood. They were experts in the fact that nothing was left, and therefore it is permitted (see Bach that the word should read "u'Mutar" not "ha'Mutar").

Opinion: However, nowadays we cannot permit this through two rows of salt. This is as the Bahag states that this only applies in their time when they knew the exact amount of salt that constituted these two rows. However, too much blood will stop the strength of the blood. We are not expert enough to know how to refrain from placing too much salt or too little salt.

Explanation: Only the fish are prohibited.

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel asks that if so, Rav Nachman should have said, "fish that was salted together with fowl are forbidden."

Answer: If it would have said this, this would imply that it is even if the fowl is bland and the fish are spiced. This is as the Gemara states later regarding kosher fish that is salted together with non kosher fish that the case is where the kosher fish are salted and the non kosher fish are bland. This is not true, as in such a case the fish would not be prohibited. (This is why Rav Nachman did not say the case in this way.)

Opinion: The fowl does not become forbidden from the fish that became forbidden, even according to the opinion that regarding all prohibitions we say that the piece becomes Neveilah if the prohibited matter spreads out.

Implied Question: We would say that some of the blood that was absorbed by the fish was emitted together with some fish brine, and that was absorbed by the fowl. The fish does not emit all of the blood it absorbed and thereby become permitted, as it stops emitting at some point. (Why, then, is the fowl permitted?)

Answer: Even so, there is no reason to forbid the fowl because its blood falls away through salting just as it does through roasting. Since fish have soft membranes, we say that the blood of the chicken does not fall away from it (see Maharam at length).

Opinion: Rashi explains that two pieces of (animal) meat emit at a similar pace, and they both emit at the same time. As long as the bottom piece is emitting, it does not absorb.

Opinion (cont.): The Gemara similarly explains later (113a) regarding Rav Sheshes who salted one limb at a time, "it does not make a difference." Rashi explains that this means it is permitted since they do not absorb when they are emitting, and when one piece stops emitting the other already stopped.

Question: There is difficulty with his explanation. How can it be that a person salts many pieces of meat together, one after the other, and he puts the second on the first, and third and fourth on top of that, and so on? People do this even if there are many pieces, even though the first one stopped emitting first!

Question (cont.): The simple explanation of "it does not make a difference" is that even though the bottom piece emits first it does not become prohibited. Why should it be permitted if the bottom piece emits first?

Answer: The reason seems to be because blood falls away during salting as it does during roasting. Just like we permit Lechtachilah for meat to be roasted above other meat because blood falls away, even though the bottom part of the meat that is closer to the fire stops emitting first, we must say the same regarding salting.

Answer (cont.): Since fish have soft membranes they are forbidden, because they are soft and allow the blood to be absorbed in it without it falling away.

Question: However, where there are grooves in the top part of the meat at the bottom that make the blood unable to fall away, it is indeed difficult. Why should it be permitted? It is an everyday occurrence that we find grooves in the pieces on the bottom that are filled with fish brine, and that people are lenient regarding this matter!

Answer #1: Some say that emission of fish brine takes much longer than emission of animal blood. As long as the emission of the fish brine is taking place, it also emits what it absorbed from the top pieces of meat after they had emitted their blood. What is found in the grooves is fish brine, not blood.

Question: However regarding fish one cannot say this, because the emission of the blood of fowl goes on long after the emission of fish brine.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Yosef from Orleans said that the emission of fish is finished before the fowl start to emit. This is why the fish does not emit what they have absorbed from the fowl (back into the fowl). However, if they were both meat, since the emission of the bottom piece of meat did not finish before the beginning of the emission of the top piece of meat, the way for it to emit is not closed. Since it can emit, it will not stop doing so until the piece on top of it stops emitting.

Answer #2: Similarly, if they salted a third piece and put it on top of the top piece before the bottom piece stopped emitting, it emits until the third piece stops emitting, and so on. Similarly, whatever will be put on will absorb and emit, since it does not rest at all.

Question: While according to the two aforementioned reasons we cannot forbid due to the top piece of meat, why don't we forbid the meat due to the blood absorbed by the salt that is between each piece? This blood is mixed into the brine that is in the grooves after all of the blood and brine has been emitted!

Question (cont.): It is understandable that the salt on any salted piece of meat does not cause it to be forbidden, as the amount of blood absorbed in the salt is miniscule and it does not move from the salt anymore. However, here that the salt is mixed into the brine that is in the groove and it turns clear, this blood should at least cause a layer to be taken off!

Answer #1: Perhaps we only say "salting is like boiling" when the meat is being emitted. However, after the emission it is not considered boiling, as the strength of the salt has stopped. It caused the meat to emit, and its strength waned when the blood left the meat.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is possible that the salt that is on the meat stops the blood from gathering into the meat.

Observation: According to the two reasons I mentioned, as long as the bottom piece is emitting brine it absorbs and emits the blood of the top pieces together with its brine. Accordingly, as long as it is open to emit it and it absorbs and emits, one must wait for the bottom piece until the top piece is salted for as long as it would be roasted, as until then the bottom piece does not full emit its blood.

Answer #3: However, it is still possible to give another reason. It is possible that as long as the meat is emitting brine it does not absorb any blood. This takes quite some time.

Observation: However, one cannot therefore permit meat that is in this brine if it is in a vessel that does not have any holes. Such meat will not have the ability to emit, since it is sunk in brine and is therefore absorbing.

Observation (cont.): This is Shmuel's reasoning when he says later (113a) that one can only salt in a vessel that has holes. Even though the meat did not finish emitting its blood it absorbs, as I have explained.

Observation: If half of the piece was inside the brine and half was outside the brine, whatever is inside is forbidden and whatever is outside is permitted, as I explained earlier (96b, DH "Afilu") regarding a young goat that was roasted with its forbidden fat.

Opinion #1: There was an incident in Rashi's house as follows. Meat was in salt for the length of time it would take to roast it, and it was first on a shelf and afterwards placed in a barrel for the entire night. (Tosfos ha'Rosh notes it was not washed off before being placed in the barrel.) Afterwards, the barrel was found to be full of meat "juices" from the salt that caused the meat to emit all of its juices. (The question is whether these juices are considered blood, causing the meat to become forbidden, or are they something else.)

Opinion #1 (cont.): Rashi answered that since the meat was in the salt for the proper amount of time before it was put into the barrel, the juices in the barrel are not considered blood, but rather liquid from the meat. This seems correct.

Opinion #1 (cont.): One should know that this liquid is permitted after the meat has already been salted for the amount of time it would take to roast it. After it has been in the salt for this amount of time, it can be washed off and cooked in a pot, even though it has not emitted these juices which are going to be emitted later.

Implied Question: One also cannot forbid the liquid due to the salt that is pressed into the meat. One might say this is a reason to forbid meat that falls into those juices, because the juices contain a majority of salt that is on the surface of the meat. The juice cannot even be eaten because it is so salty, and it therefore should be considered like boiling in order to forbid the meat. (Why is this not reason to forbid the juices?)

Answer: If so, all meat in the world should be forbidden when it is put in a vessel to be rinsed off, as the salt crushed into the meat mixes in the water. What is the difference between water and meat juice, as both would otherwise be permitted (if the salt does not forbid them)?

Answer (cont.): Rather, it must be that the blood in the salt dries and it does not have the ability to be absorbed back into the meat. Rather, it stays in the salt even though it is crushed into the juices. This is similar to what I explained regarding the grooves in the meat. What is the difference if it is full of brine or if it is full of meat?

Answer (cont.): Alternatively, the strength of the salt stops because it drew the blood out of the meat, and it is no longer considered boiling as I explained earlier.

Opinion #2: However, one should not be lenient, as the custom has already been established that it is forbidden.

Explanation: This is an actual derivation regarding Sheratzim and animals. It is not an actual derivation regarding fish, as I explained earlier (99b, DH "Shani") regarding the Gemara's answer there that brine is different, as it is considered mere sweat.

Question: Why don't we derive this from "Mishras" which teaches Ta'am k'Ikar? We derive Ta'am k'Ikar from there to the entire Torah, as stated in Pesachim (44b).

Answer #1: The main derivation is only needed for its brine. The rest is an Asmachta, as stated in Bava Metzia (30b) regarding "v'Hisalamta." The main derivation there is only regarding an important person regarding whom it is not honorable (inappropriate, i.e. a Rosh Yeshiva carrying a basketball in pubic) to return the lost object in question.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is needed for the teaching of sauce and sludge. This teaches us that even if something is totally crushed, it is like the real thing. Accordingly, if a person completely crushed a Sheretz (i.e. put it in a blender and turned it into a Sheretz shake) and swallowed it, it is like eating it.

Answer #2 (cont.): One might think that one is not liable for drinking a Sheretz, since the prohibition is stated regarding eating a Sheretz.

Proof: The Gemara later (120a) indeed quotes this teaching regarding a person who crushed forbidden fat and swallowed it.

Question: If so, how can we derive from here that their brine is forbidden if we require it to teach us about drinking?

Answer: They are equal teachings. We would not know the prohibition against drinking being like eating is true just because we know the prohibition against brine, as we could have said that the case is where one froze it and then ate it.

Explanation: Later (120a), the Gemara explains that Kipah is Firma (very thin and tiny pieces of meat). The Gemara asks that if this is the case, it itself should be impure just as food is impure! Rather, it must be that it is the spices.

Explanation (cont.): In our Gemara (see side of Gemara replacing "v'Hayah" with "v'Hacha") it can be either Firma or spices, as the Gemara is teaching us that drinking it is like eating it. Rashi indeed explains that Firma is meat and spices that are congealed at the bottom of the pot.

Implied Question: However, Rashi should not have said congealed.