B. But this concern applies to a radish. [112a] Because of its sharp taste it absorbs [flavor from other foods]. But [for mild foods such as] cucumbers [that were cut with a knife used for meat] he scrapes away a layer from the place where it was cut and eats it [in a milk concoction].
C. [If they were cut with a knife used for meat] stalks of turnips are permitted [to be eaten in a milk concoction]. Stalks of beets are prohibited. If he cut together with [the beets some] turnips, it is perfectly acceptable.
A. R. Dimi posed a question of R. Nahman, “What is the rule about putting a jar of salt next to a jar of milk concoction?” He said to him, “It is prohibited.” [Some of the concoction may fall into it.]
B. [He asked,] “What is the rule about [putting a jar of] vinegar [next to a jar of milk concoction]?” He said to him, “It is permitted.”
C. [He asked,] “And what is the difference [between these cases]?” [He said to him,] “If you go and measure for me a kor of salt [I will tell you].”
D. “What is the basis [for making a distinction between salt and vinegar]? In this case [of milk concoction that falls into salt] the prohibited substance is visible. In this case [of milk concoction that falls into vinegar] the prohibited substance is not visible.”
A. There was a fledgling that fell into a jar of milk concoction. R. Hinnena the son of Raba from Pashrunia permitted [the eating of the food even though the concoction was salty (Rashi)].
B. Said Raba, “Who is smart enough to permit such a case if not R. Hinnena the son of Raba from Pashrunia? For he reasoned that when did Samuel say, `[With regard to the rules of mixtures of foods] salting is equivalent to scalding' [IV.1 C above]? This principle applies only where [the salted solution] is so salty that it is inedible. But this milk concoction is salty but still edible.”
C. And this concern [to permit eating the fledgling that fell into the milk concoction] applies only to a raw one. But if a roasted [fledgling fell in, before one eats it, its outer layer all around] must be peeled off.
D. And if [the fledgling] had slits in it, the whole mess is prohibited. And if it had been preserved with spices, the whole mess is prohibited. [In both instances the bird will absorb the milk concoction.]
A. Said R. Nahman, said Samuel, “A loaf [of bread] that he sliced meat upon — it is prohibited to eat it [because the bread absorbs blood from the meat].”
B. And this concern applies where [the meat] was red. And this concern applies where [the blood] soaked through [the bread]. And this concern applies where [the liquid that exudes] is thick. But where it is thin [i.e., runny], this concern does not apply.
C. Samuel would throw [such bread] to the dogs. R. Huna would give it to his servant. But any way you wish to look at this matter [Huna's rule is not logical]. If it is permitted, it is permitted to everyone. And if it is prohibited, it is prohibited to everyone. [The explanation for his rule is that] R. Huna held a different view because he had a tormented personality.
D. Raba would eat [such bread] and call [the liquid in it], “Wine from meat.”
A. Said R. Nahman, said Samuel, “They do not place a receptacle [to collect the dripping fat] under [roasting] meat until the red color is gone from it [visibly indicating that the blood has drained out]. How can one tell [that the meat has reached this stage]? When it starts to smoke [indicating that the fluid that drips out onto the coals is fat and not blood].”
B. R. Ashi raised an objection, “Perhaps the bottom part [of the meat opposite the heat of the coals] will be roasted before the top part [of the meat] is roasted.” Rather said R. Ashi, “There is no solution [to the problem of collecting in a receptacle the fat that drips from the roasting meat without also collecting blood that drips from the meat]. Rather he must throw into [the receptacle to absorb the blood] two lumps of salt. [112b] And then he may pour off [the fat].”
C. Said R. Aha the son of R. Iqa to R. Ashi, “Did Samuel say this [i.e., that after the red color is gone from it, the drippings are permitted]? Did not Samuel say, `A loaf [of bread] that he sliced meat upon — it is prohibited to eat it [because the bread absorbs blood from the meat, VII.1]'?” [You can explain] that case is different. Because on account of the pressure from the knife [as he cuts the meat] it egests [blood into the bread].
A. Said R. Nahman, “Fish and fowl that he salted with each other are prohibited.” [The fish absorb the blood that comes out of the fowl.] What is the circumstance? If [he salts them together] in a vessel that is not perforated [to allow the fluids to drain out], then even [if he salts] fowl with other fowl, it should be prohibited. If [he salts them together] in a vessel that is perforated, then even fish and fowl [salted together] should be permitted.
B. Invariably [the case is that he salted them together] in a perforated vessel. And fish [absorb the blood] because they have thin outer membranes. They egest [their fluids] first. And fowl have a denser consistency. After the fish finish [egesting fluids] the fowl continue to egest their fluids. And then [the fish] in turn absorb [the blood] from them.
C. R. Mari bar Rachel once salted properly slaughtered meat together with terefah meat. He came before Raba [for a decision as to the law]. He said to him, “[The verse says] `These are unclean [to you among all that swarm; whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until the evening]' (Lev. 11:31). This specification prohibits [also] the fluids and gravy and froth from them.” [Even if one piece of meat does not absorb blood from another when they are salted together, the proper meat will absorb other prohibited fluids from the terefah meat.]