Question: Why didn't Rava cite Shmuel's law to show that they are forbidden?

(Shmuel): Salting is like roasting (regarding absorptions and emissions). Pickling is like cooking.

Answer: One might have thought that Shmuel's law applies only to blood. The Beraisa teaches that it applies to even to brine and soup.

Question #1 (Beraisa): If a Tahor fish was salted with a Tamei fish, it (the Tahor fish) is permitted.

Suggestion: Both were salted (and the Tahor fish does not absorb brine of the Tamei fish)!

Answer: No, only the Tahor fish was salted.

Question (Seifa): If the Tahor fish was salted and the Tamei fish was unsalted, it is permitted.

Inference: In the Reisha, both were salted!

Answer: No, the Seifa explains the Reisha;

If a Tahor fish was salted with a Tamei fish, it is permitted;

The case is, the Tahor fish was salted and the Tamei fish was unsalted.

Support: We must explain this way. If the Reisha permits when both are salted, we already know to permit when only the Tahor fish is salted! (The Seifa would be superfluous)!

Rejection: No. (Perhaps) the Seifa must teach when only the Tahor fish is salted, so we will know that the Reisha is not this case;

Rather, in the Reisha both are salted, and it is permitted.

Question #2 (Seifa): If the Tamei fish was salted and the Tahor fish was unsalted, it is forbidden.

Inference: If both were salted, it is permitted!

Answer: No, even if both were salted, it is forbidden;

Since in the previous case the Tahor fish was salted and the Tamei fish was unsalted, the Tana taught the next case when the Tamei fish was salted and the Tahor fish was unsalted.

(Shmuel): Blood leaves the meat only if it is salted very well and rinsed very well.

(Rav Huna): One must salt it, then rinse it.

(Beraisa): One must rinse it, salt it, and rinse it again.

They do not argue. Rav Huna discusses when the butcher rinsed the meat (before the buyer took it home), and the Beraisa discusses when he did not.

Rav Dimi of Neharda'a salted with coarse salt. He would shake it off afterwards.

(Rav Mesharshiya): We do not presume that there is blood in the Bnei Me'ayim (innards).

This refers to the entrails, stomachs, small intestines, and end of the large intestine.

(Shmuel): We salt meat only in a porous Kli.

Rav Sheshes would salt each piece individually.

Question: Why wouldn't he salt two at a time?

Answer: The blood would separate from one and enter the other.

Objection: Also in one piece, the blood separates from one end and goes to the other end!

Rather, one may salt even pieces together (Rashi - they all emit blood at the same time, and do not absorb then. Tosfos - because blood is smooth, they do not absorb it. Alternatively, as long as any piece emits blood, all the pieces emit brine, and do not absorb then.)

(Shmuel): If a butcher breaks the neckbone (after slaughtering) before the animal dies, he makes the flesh heavy, steals from the buyer, and causes blood to be absorbed in the limbs.

Question: What does this mean?

Does it mean that he makes the flesh heavy and steals from the buyer, because he makes blood be absorbed in the limbs?

His only transgression is theft (he causes people to pay for blood), but he does not cause people to eat blood (salting will remove the blood);

If so, a butcher may do this if he will not sell the meat, rather, eat it himself.

Or, does it mean that he makes the flesh heavy and steals from the buyer, and he causes blood be absorbed in the limbs?

Not only does he steal, rather, he also causes people to eat blood (salting will not remove the blood);

If so, he may not do this even to eat it himself.

This question is unresolved.

(Mishnah): One who brings fowl on the same table with cheese does not transgress a Lav.

(Gemara) Inference: If he would eat them together, he transgresses a Lav. This shows that the Torah forbids fowl and milk!

Rejection: No. It means that one who brings fowl on the same table with cheese will not come to transgress a Lav (since the Torah does not forbid them).

(Mishnah): Basar v'Chalav of Tahor Behemos may not be cooked together. If they were cooked, one may not benefit from it.

If the meat or milk is from a Tamei Behemah, they may be cooked together, and one may benefit from it;

R. Akiva says, the Torah does not forbid meat of a Chayah or bird (with milk);

It says three times "do not cook a kid in its mother's milk," to exclude Chayos, birds and Tamei Behemos.

R. Yosi ha'Gelili says, it says "do not eat any Nevelah," and "do not cook a kid in its mother's milk." The Isur of Basar v'Chalav applies to species to which Nevelah applies.

Suggestion: Since Nevelah applies to birds, Basar v'Chalav should apply to birds!

Rejection: "In its mother's milk" excludes birds, which do not have milk.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this (that all Behemos are forbidden? The Torah said only "Gedi" (kid))?

Answer (R. Elazar): "Yehudah sent Gedi ha'Izim (a kid of goats)" implies that when it says only 'Gedi', it may even be a cow or sheep.

Question: We should learn (Rashi - from a Gezerah Shavah) from here that 'Gedi' always refers to a goat!

Answer: It says also "the skins of Gediyei ha'Izim" implies that (unspecified) 'Gedi' may be a cow or sheep.

Question: We should learn that 'Gedi' always refers to a goat!

Answer: These are Shnei Kesuvim (two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other). We do not learn from them (to other places).

Question: According to the opinion that learns from Shnei Kesuvim, how can we answer?

Answer: There are two exclusions. The above verses said "ha'Izim. They could have said 'Izim'.

(Shmuel): From (the repetitions of) "Gedi" we include Chelev, meat of a Nevelah, and a fetus. From "Gedi" we exclude blood, a fetal sac, and meat of a Tamei animal;

"In the milk of its mother" excludes the milk of a male (if such an abberation should arise), of a slaughtered animal, and of a Tamei animal.

Question: "Gedi" is written only three times (regarding Basar v'Chalav). How does Shmuel learn six laws from it?

Version #1 - Answer: Shmuel holds that Isur Chal Al Isur (an Isur takes effect even on something that is already forbidden). We derive Chelev and meat of a Nevelah from one "Gedi";

We do not need a verse to exclude blood or a fetal sac, for these are not included in "Gedi."

One "Gedi" includes a fetus, and the last "Gedi" excludes meat of a Tamei animal.

Question: Shmuel holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur!

(Shmuel citing R. Eliezer): If a Tamei Kohen ate Tamei Terumah, he is not liable to death (at the hands of Heaven);

"They will die for it, when they profane it (Terumah)" excludes Tamei Terumah, which is already profaned.

Answer #1: In general, Shmuel holds that Isur Chal Al Isur. Tamei Terumah is an exception, because it says "in it."

Answer #2: In general, Shmuel holds that Ein Isur Chal Al Isur; Basar v'Chalav is an exception. We learn this from "Gedi."

Answer #3: Shmuel himself holds that Isur Chal Al Isur. He cited R. Eliezer's opinion, but argues with it.

Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami): If one cooked (meat) in milk of an animal that never nursed (calves) yet, what is the law?

Answer (Rava): Shmuel excluded milk of a male. This is because a male will never be a mother;

Inference: A female will (probably) become a mother. Her milk is forbidden (with meat) even though she has not nursed yet.