According to Rabeinu Tam (and my understanding of Rashi) the issue Abbaia raises is whether any blood that comes out of the liver is prohibited, even the liver was not salted. Tosfos says that the story of Bar Shva continues to deal with this case. If so, what does the gemora mean when it says about Bar Shva, "k'tanai"? The machlokes in the braisa is whether Shlika accomplishes more than bishul. How can boiling it longer impact the issue of whether the blood of the liver is prohibited at all miderabanan?
Addition- Just to follow on my earlier question, I incorrectly said that Rashi learns like Rabeinu Tam. I see that Rashi clearly is not learning like Rabbeinu Tam. But I still don't understand according to Rabeinu Tam.
Yakov
Shalom Yakov,
If I understand your question correctly, I think the key is an assumption that Tosfos makes throughout this entire Sugya according to Rabeinu Tam. Rabeinu Tam (in Tosfos 110b, DH Kavda) explains that the entire Sugya is discussing a liver that was not salted. If the liver was properly salted, Rabeinu Tam holds that the blood has already been removed, and there is no longer a problem with cooking it together with meat.
Tosfos carries this assumption through the later cases as well. Regarding Rav bar Shava specifically, Tosfos says that according to Rabeinu Tam we must assume that it was known that the liver had not been salted. I think the same basic assumption applies to the Beraisa introduced by "k'Tana'ei": the Beraisa, too, is discussing an unsalted liver.
Accordingly, Shelikah is not being presented as something that removes the blood more effectively than ordinary Bishul. We are starting with a liver that was never salted, so its blood is still present and comes out during cooking. The Machlokes in the Beraisa is what happens afterward: Rebbi Eliezer holds that the liver expels but does not re-absorb, and therefore "Oseres v'Einah Ne'eseres"; Rebbi Yishmael ben Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah holds that when it is spiced or Shelukah, it can also absorb, and therefore "Oseres v'Ne'eseres."
In other words, according to Rabeinu Tam, Shelikah does not determine whether the blood of the liver is prohibited in the first place. The entire discussion, including the k'Tana'ei, is taking place without Melichah. Shelikah is relevant to the separate question of whether the blood that has come out can then be absorbed back into the liver.
If I have misunderstood the precise point of your question, please write back and clarify it, and I will be happy to take another look.
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner
Shalom Rav Steiner,
Thank you for taking time to think this through and respond.
I follow and agree with how you develop Rabeinu Tam's understanding throughout the sugya. According to the Rabeinu Tam, the sugya was not about absorption of blood from or back into the liver; it was whether that blood is forbidden in the first place.
Once it is established in the story of Rav bar Shva that this blood is prohibited, the statement "k'tanai" would normally indicate that this conclusion is not a proof to this central question, because there is another view in the tenaim about this very issue. But, in this case, according to your suggestion, the gemara is making a parenthetical comment that there happens to be a machlokes tanaim about whether shlika causes blood to be absorbed back into the liver. This was never raised as a question or issue in the sugya and seems inconsistent with the usual use of "k'tanai".
Kol tuv,
yakov
Shalom Yakov,
I understand your point, and I agree that the wording of "k'Tana'ei" is somewhat difficult. At least for now, though, I don't see another way to understand Tosfos, especially in light of Tosfos' comment that if the issue were whether Chalitah works, it would not fit with the "k'Tana'ei."
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner