Implied Question: This is despite the fact that the Beraisa is a stronger source. (Why, then, does the Gemara ask that Rava should have asked from Shmuel instead?)

Answer: The Beraisa itself is only a source due to Shmuel's statement quoted together with it. However, (the Gemara asks that) Shmuel's statement alone should be sufficient.

Explanation: The Gemara answers that I would think that Shmuel's statement is only regarding the blood. This is not a problem here, as it is possible that the blood either fell away or just as it was absorbed so too it was emitted.

Explanation: This implies that it does not absorb.

Text: We do not have the text, "And we see from here that their brine is permitted." This is because the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah (35b) clearly states that the brine of a non kosher fish is prohibited. The end of the Beraisa here also states that if a non kosher fish was salty and a kosher fish was bland, it becomes forbidden.

Explanation: Regarding salting being like boiling, it is irrelevant whether the top or bottom item is stronger. Even a layer does not have to be taken off in this case, even though we say regarding a case when the top or bottom is stronger that (even if the hot item was weaker) by the time it cools it causes (a layer of) absorption.

Opinion: One can derive from here that it is unnecessary to scald cheese molds of Nochrim before making and salting kosher cheese in them. This is because it is like a case of a kosher fish that was salted that was mixed with a bland non kosher fish. Salting does not apply to wood, and wood does not become boiled up through salting.

Opinion (cont.): It is common practice that people take salt from a bowl that is generally used for meat and put it in milk.

Implied Question: One cannot forbid, due to this reasoning, salting intestines together with other meat because they are not bothered to emit, and they absorb blood like fish. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because here the blood falls away, but regarding fish their membrane is soft (and it therefore retains the blood), as I have stated earlier (112b, DH "v'Dagim").

Implied Question: One cannot permit due to the blood falling away if they poured blood on the meat when it was roasting.

Answer: Only blood that was emitted falls together with the brine through roasting or through salting, as stated earlier (111a). However, where the blood is extant it does not fall away.

Explanation: It is permitted in anyway, even if he puts the second piece of meat on top of the piece that was already salted, as I explained earlier.

Explanation: Similarly, fowl is forbidden (to cook with milk) according to Torah law. Rebbi Akiva is the only one who says that undomesticated animal and fowl is not prohibited (to be cook with milk) according to Torah law.

Explanation (cont.): They derive this later from the derivation that whatever is forbidden to be eaten due to Neveilah is forbidden to cook with milk.

Implied Question: There are many such Pesukim. (Why, then, are these Pesukim called Sheni Kesuvim?)

Answer: Rather, all of the Pesukim regarding Rivkah are considered one Pasuk, and all of the Pesukim regarding Yehudah are called one Pasuk.

Question: This is difficult, as it would seem that one Miut (exclusion) should be enough. The same applies to the Gemara later (117b) regarding the Terumas ha'Deshen.

Opinion #1: Rashi did not have to erase this text.

Opinion #2: This is why the Gemara says that Shmuel holds Issur Chal Al Issur. If he generally held Ain Issur Chal Al Issur and still derived the derivations of our Gemara, he would not have derived Cheilev and Neveilah from one Pasuk. Rather, he would have derived that the Pasuk is teaching that only one prohibition similar to Basar b'Chalav applies. (The Maharam explains that if Shmuel generally held Ain Issur Chal Al Issur, he would only derive one exception to this rule from the one extra Pasuk. The Maharsha has a different text in Tosfos.)

Implied Question: The Gemara later answers that Shmuel indeed holds Ain Issur Chal Al Issur, and yet Shmuel still derives that both of these prohibitions can apply to Basar b'Chalav as explained by Rashi. (This is contrary to the logic above.)

Answer: This is because both teaching apply to a young goat.

Question: Even so, it is only excluded due to the Pasuk, "Gedi!"

Answer: Even if the Torah would only have written, "Lo Sevashel Basar b'Chaleiv Emo" I would have excluded blood, as it is not called meat.

Proof: This is as the Gemara states in Pesachim (23b) that when the Torah permitted one to benefit from Neveilah, it permitted the animal, its fat, and its Gid. However, it does not say that the Torah permitted its blood, as it is not included in Neveilah.

Observation: Without the Pasuk of "Gedi" we would not have derived that the prohibition of Basar b'Chalav should apply to the prohibition against Cheilev. This is as we stated earlier (103a) that the prohibition against Neveilah and Treifah should take effect on the prohibition of Cheilev, as Neveilah causes impurity and Treifah even applies when the animal is alive.

Proof: We indeed say this in the Gemara in Zevachim (70a).

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (103a) stated that the prohibition of Treifah takes effect on the prohibition against Aiver Min ha'Chai, just like Treifah takes effect on Cheilev. This is despite the fact that Aiver Min ha'Chai also causes impurity.

Answer: Even so, since Cheilev is punished with Kares and Treifah takes effect on it, certainly Treifah will take effect on Aiver Min ha'Chai.