1)

(a)If some milk falls on to a piece of meat cooking in a pot containing many pieces (and the entire piece is outside the gravy, see Tosfos DH 'Tipas Chalav'), on what two conditions does our Mishnah forbid the piece?

(b)What does the Tana then say in the same case, but where he subsequently stirs the pot?

1)

(a)If some milk falls on to a piece of meat cooking in a pot containing many pieces (and the entire piece is outside the gravy, see Tosfos DH 'Tipas Chalav'), our Mishnah forbids the piece - if a. it does not comprise sixty times the volume of the milk that fell into it (because then the latter is 'Nosen Ta'am') b. if he did not subsequently stir the pot.

(b)The Tana then rules that, if he did then stir the pot - assuming that the meat in the pot is sixty times the milk, the milk is Bateil,.

2)

(a)If, as Abaye maintains, Ta'amo ve'Lo Mamasho (Ta'am ke'Ikar) is d'Oraysa, from where do we learn it?

(b)If it were not d'Oraysa, it would be permitted, because Basar be'Chalav is a Chidush, and we cannot generally learn from a Chidush. What makes Basar be'Chalav a Chidush?

(c)So how does Abaye prove that Basar be'Chalav is not a Chidush, and that Ta'am ke'Ikar is therefore d'Oraysa?

(d)If so, from where will we learn that where it is not Nosein Ta'am, it is permitted (see Maharsha)?

2)

(a)If, as Abaye maintains, Ta'amo ve'Lo Mamasho (Ta'am ke'Ikar) is d'Oraysa, we learn it from - Basar be'Chalav, which, as our Mishnah teaches us, is only Asur when it gives taste.

(b)If it were not d'Oraysa, it would be permitted, because Basar be'Chalav is a Chidush, and we cannot generally learn from a Chidush. What makes Basar be'Chalav a Chidush is the fact that - each of the two ingredients on its own is permitted (see Tosfos DH 'de'Chidush Hu').

(c)Abaye proves that Basar be'Chalav is not a Chidush however (and that Ta'am ke'Ikar is therefore d'Oraysa) - from the fact that it is only Asur if it is Nosein Ta'am, because if it was a Chidush, then even a Kolshe'Hu ought to be forbidden.

(d)And we will learn that where it is not Nosein Ta'am, it is permitted - from Zero'a Besheilah (as we learned in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh [see Maharsha]).

3)

(a)Rava refutes Abaye's proof. What does he mean when he says 'Derech Bishul Asrah Torah'?

3)

(a)Rava refutes Abaye's proof. When he says 'Derech Bishul Asrah Torah' he means that - in reality, Basar be'Chalav is a Chidush, and that part of the Chidush is that it must be Nosein Ta'am, seeing as the Torah only forbids them if they have been cooked together (see Tosfos DH 'Amar Rava').

4)

(a)What does Rav say about the case in our Mishnah, once the milk is Nosein Ta'am to the piece?

(b)Like which Tana does Rav hold?

(c)We ask whether Rav disagrees with Rava, who holds according to Rebbi Yehudah Miyn u'Miyno ve'Davar Acher Salek es Miyno k'Mi she'Eino, ve'she'Eino Miyno Rabah Alav u'Mevatlo. According to Rava, what ought we to say in this case?

(d)How do we reconcile Rav with Rava? What difference does it make, which sort of gravy it falls into?

4)

(a)Rav rules that, in the case in our Mishnah, once the milk is Nosein Ta'am to the piece - that piece becomes Neveilah, and renders Asur all the pieces in the pot, even if they are more than Shishim, because he holds ...

(b)... Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil, like Rebbi Yehudah.

(c)We ask whether Rav disagrees with Rava, who holds according to Rebbi Yehudah Miyn u'Miyno ve'Davar Acher Salek es Miyno k'Mi she'Eino, ve'she'Eino Miyno Rabah Alav u'Mevatlo (as we learned in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh). According to Rava therefore - the gravy ought to be Mevateil the piece containing the milk.

(d)We reconcile Rav with Rava however - by establishing the case where the gravy is thick (when it consists of the meat sediment), which is considered Miyn be'Miyno, just like the other pieces.

5)

(a)We query this however, from the S'vara Efshar Lesochto, Mutar. What does Efshar Lesochto mean?

(b)What is the problem?

(c)What makes Efshar Lesochto, Mutar a Din Bedi'eved, but not Lechatchilah?

(d)So how do we resolve the problem?

5)

(a)We query this however, from the S'vara Efshar Lesochto, Mutar, which means that - if Isur becomes absorbed in Heter, and is re-cooked, the Isur is squeezed out and redistributed among all the pieces of Heter (a contradiction to Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah).

(b)The problem now is that - if Rav does indeed hold Efshar Lesochto, Mutar, why does even the first piece remain Asur? Once it has been re-cooked with the other pieces, they should all combine to be Mevateil the milk that it absorbed?

(c)Efshar Lesochto Mutar is a Din in Bedi'eved, but not Lechatchilah - due to the principle Ein Mevatlin Isur Lechatchilah.

(d)We resolve the problem however, by establishing that Rav holds Efshar Lesochto, Asur, as we will now see.

6)

(a)Rav, Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Yochanan all hold Efshar Lesochto, Asur. What do Shmuel, Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi and Resh Lakish say?

(b)What does Rav say with regard to the milk, in a case where a piece of meat falls into a pot of milk?

(c)Why does this pose a Kashya on what we just said?

(d)We answer by reciting the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo". What do we try to learn from there that will answer the Kashya on Rav?

6)

(a)Rav, Rebbi Chanina and Rebbi Yochanan all hold Efshar Lesochto Asur; whereas Shmuel, Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi and Resh Lakish hold - Efshar Lesochto, Mutar.

(b)If a piece of meat falls into a pot of milk - Rav permits the milk.

(c)This poses a Kashya on what we just said - because the milk that became absorbed in the piece ought to become Asur, and then, because of the S'vara of Chatichah Na'asis Neveilah, it ought to render the rest of the milk Asur too, because Miyn be'Miyno Lo Bateil.

(d)We try to answer by reciting the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo", from which we (initially) learn that - the kid is Asur, but not the milk.

108b----------------------------------------108b

7)

(a)What does Rav say in a case where someone cooks half a k'Zayis of meat together with half a k'Zayis of milk and eats them?

(b)How does one measure a k'Zayis of milk or any other liquid?

(c)Why does this latter ruling of Rav pose a Kashya on the D'rashah that we just made in his name from the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo"?

(d)If, on the other hand, Rav does include milk in the Isur, why does he permit the pot of milk into which the piece of meat fell?

(e)Why does the milk not then become Asur once it cools down?

7)

(a)In a case where someone cooks half a k'Zayis of meat together with half a k'Zayis of milk and eats them - Rav sentences him to Malkos for eating the mixture, but not for cooking it.

(b)One measures a k'Zayis of milk or any other liquid - by placing a cupful of the liquid in a dry dish and measuring the liquid that is displaced by the olive that one gently drops into it.

(c)This latter ruling of Rav poses a Kashya on the D'rashah that we just made in his name from the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo" - because if Rav really held that the milk is not included in the Isur of Basar be'Chalav, then how can it combine with half a k'Zayis Basar to make up the Shi'ur?

(d)We therefore conclude that Rav does include milk in the Isur, and the reason that he permits the pot of milk into which the piece of meat fell is - because he is speaking where the milk is boiling, in which case the piece of meat is able to absorb the milk in the pot, but not to exude into it.

(e)And he is speaking where the piece of meat is removed before the milk has cooled down; otherwise, it will have exuded into the milk, rendering it all Asur.

8)

(a)What problem do we have with Rav's dual ruling in the case of someone who cooks half a k'Zayis of Basar together with half a k'Zayis of Chalav and then eats them?

(b)How do we answer the Kashya? What does be'Ba mi'Yoreh Gedolah mean?

(c)In which point does Levi disagrees with Rav?

(d)Tana de'bei Levi supports Levi's ruling. What does Tana de'bei Levi also say about the Shi'ur Bishul that renders one Chayav?

8)

(a)The problem with Rav's dual ruling in the case of someone who cooks half a k'Zayis of Basar together with half a k'Zayis of Chalav and then eats them is that - Mah Nafshach, if the two half-k'Zeisim combine, then why is he not Chayav for cooking them, whereas if they don't, then why is he Chayav for eating them?

(b)We answer that in fact - the two half-k'Zeisim do not combine, and he is only Chayav for eating them - because Rav is speaking 'be'Ba mi'Yoreh Gedolah' (where they were originally cooked in a large pot [consisting of at least a full k'Zayis of each).

(c)According to Levi - one is Chayav for cooking the two half-k'Zeisim as well (because he holds that the two halves do combine).

(d)Tana de'bei Levi supports Levi's ruling. He also gives the Shi'ur Bishul that renders one Chayav - as cooked to the point that others (Nochrim) would eat it (fully cooked).

9)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa renders Asur a piece of meat onto which a drop of milk falls, if there is not Shishim in the piece. What does Rebbi Yehudah actually say?

(b)What reason does he give for his ruling?

(c)What do the Rabbanan say?

9)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa renders Asur a piece of meat onto which a drop of milk falls if there is not Shishim in the piece. What he actually says is - 'Keivan she'Nasnah Ta'am ba'Chatichah, ha'Chatichah Atzmah Na'asis Neveilah, ve'Oseres Kol ha'Chatichos Kulan ...'

(b)... because they are the same species.

(c)The Rabbanan - combine the gravy, the sediment and the other pieces to be Mevateil the drop of milk.

10)

(a)Under which two conditions does Rebbi prefer the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah?

(b)And under which condition does he prefer the opinion of the Rabbanan?

(c)With reference to Rebbi's opinion based on Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, why can he not mean that the owner did not stir or cover the pot at all?

(d)If he means that he did not cover it at first, only later, then why does the piece not become permitted, on the grounds that just as it absorbed, so too, it exudes (into all the other pieces)?

(e)We can extrapolate from Rebbi that Rebbi Yehudah forbids the piece even if one stirred the pot from beginning to end. Why should the piece then be Asur? Why do the other pieces not combine to be Mevatel the milk?

10)

(a)Rebbi prefers the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah - on condition that one neither stirred the pot nor covered it.

(b)And he prefers the opinion of the Rabbanan - provided one either stirred or covered the pot.

(c)With reference to Rebbi's opinion based on Rebbi Yehudah's ruling, Rebbi cannot mean that one did not stir or cover the pot at all - because then the piece of meat would absorb the milk, but how would it exude it (to render the other pieces Asur)?

(d)He must therefore mean that he did not cover it at first, only later, and the piece does not become permitted, on the grounds that just as it absorbed, so too, it exudes (into all the other pieces) - because he holds Efshar Lesochto, Asur.

(e)We can extrapolate from Rebbi that Rebbi Yehudah forbids the piece even if one stirred the pot from beginning to end. Nevertheless, the piece becomes Asur - because we suspect that he did not mix or cover them properly (in which case, the milk extends to all the other pieces, which cannot therefore combine to be Mevatel it).