skewering liver on top of meat for roasting. Rav Ashi said: How haughty is this Sage! Even if you say that the Sages stated that one may eat meat roasted under liver after the fact, did they say that one may roast them in this manner ab initio?

The Gemara adds: And if there is a receptacle under the spit for the drippings of fat, then even if the meat is on top of the liver it is also prohibited to roast the meat, as the blood from the liver will fall into the fat in the vessel, and one might come to eat the mixture.

The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from roasting a piece of meat by itself over such a vessel, which is permitted? Here too the blood of the meat drips into the fat in the vessel. The Gemara answers: Blood of most meat sinks to the bottom of the vessel, while the fat floats on top. Since the fat can be separated from the blood, it is permitted. By contrast, the blood of the liver floats above the fat and cannot be removed from it, and therefore the entire mixture is prohibited.

§ Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: The knife with which one slaughtered an animal absorbs blood due to its heat, and it is therefore prohibited to cut any boiling food with it, since that food will in turn absorb the blood from the knife. If one cut cold food with this knife, some say that the piece he cut requires rinsing before one may eat it, and some say that it does not require rinsing.

§ The Gemara cites other statements of Shmuel. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to a bowl in which meat was salted to remove its blood before cooking, it is prohibited to eat any boiling food placed in it, as that food absorbs blood of the meat from the bowl. And in this Shmuel conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Shmuel said: A salted food imparts its flavor like a boiling food, and a food item marinated in vinegar, brine, or the like absorbs flavor from the liquid or vessel as would a cooked food.

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A salted food is not considered like a boiling food, and a marinated food is not considered like a cooked food. Abaye said: I can prove that this ruling that Ravin cited is not correct, as there was a certain bowl [pinka] in Rabbi Ami’s house in which meat was salted, and Rabbi Ami broke it so that it would no longer be used. Now Rabbi Ami was a student of Rabbi Yoḥanan. What is the reason he broke that bowl? Is it not because he heard that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A salted food is considered like a boiling food? Ravin’s citation was evidently in error.

Rav Kahana, the brother of Rav Yehuda, sat before Rav Huna, and he sat and said: With regard to a bowl in which meat was salted, it is prohibited to eat any boiling food placed in it. And he added: With regard to a radish that one cut with a knife used for cutting meat, it is permitted to eat it with kutaḥ, a food that contains milk, even though the sharpness of the radish causes it to absorb the fat of the meat from the knife.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason to distinguish between blood absorbed in a bowl and fat absorbed by the radish? Abaye said: This radish absorbed a permitted substance, as the fat on the knife is permitted for consumption by itself, but that bowl in which meat was salted absorbed a prohibited substance, i.e., blood.

Rava said to Abaye: And if the radish absorbed a permitted substance, what of it? Ultimately, if one desires to eat the radish with kutaḥ, it is a permitted substance that leads to a prohibition, as he will eat a prohibited substance. Rather, Rava said: The distinction is that with regard to this radish, it is possible for a Jew to taste it before eating it with milk to see if it has acquired the flavor of meat. But with regard to that bowl, it is not possible for a Jew to taste its contents to see whether they have absorbed blood.

Rav Pappa said to Rava: But let a gentile cook taste the contents of the bowl to see whether they have the taste of blood. Didn’t we learn in the Tosefta (Terumot 8:12): With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it, and if he cooked milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to the milk. Likewise, if one cooked teruma in the pot, he may not cook non-sacred food in it, and if he cooked non-sacred food in it, the non-sacred food is prohibited if there is sufficient teruma absorbed in the pot to impart flavor to the non-sacred food.

And we said with regard to this baraita: Granted, one can know whether the non-sacred food has acquired the flavor of teruma, as a priest can taste it. But with regard to the prohibition of meat cooked in milk, who can taste it? And you, Rava, said to us: Let a gentile cook taste it. So too here, with regard to the food in the bowl, let a gentile cook taste it. Rava responded: Indeed, a gentile cook can discover whether the food in the bowl has absorbed the taste of blood. When I said my statement I was referring to a case where there is no gentile cook available.

§ It was stated: If a fish was removed from the fire and placed, still hot, in a bowl in which meat had been eaten, Rav says: It is prohibited to eat the fish with the milk dish kutaḥ, since the fish has absorbed meat from the bowl. And Shmuel says: It is permitted to eat the fish with kutaḥ.

The Gemara explains: Rav says that it is prohibited to eat the fish with kutaḥ because this is a case of imparted flavor, i.e., from the meat to the fish. And Shmuel says that it is permitted because the flavor is first imparted to the bowl, and only then from the bowl to the fish. This is therefore a case of imparted flavor derived from imparted flavor.

The Gemara notes: And this opinion of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference. As Rav arrived at the house of Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya, the son of his son. He felt pain in his eyes, and they prepared for him an ointment in an earthenware bowl as a remedy. Later they placed a dish for him in that same bowl. Rav tasted in that dish the flavor of the ointment and said: It imparts so much flavor! Those present inferred that according to Rav, imparted flavor derived from imparted flavor is strong enough itself to impart flavor. The Gemara rejects this: But that is not so, and one cannot reach any general conclusions from this story. It is different there, as the ointment was very bitter.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar was standing before Mar Shmuel, and they brought before Shmuel a fish that had been removed directly from the fire and placed into a bowl used previously for meat, and he ate it together with kutaḥ. Shmuel gave Rabbi Elazar some of this dish, but Rabbi Elazar did not eat it, as he was a student of Rav, who prohibited such mixtures. Shmuel said to him: To your teacher, Rav, I gave this dish and he ate from it, yet you will not eat? Later Rabbi Elazar came before Rav, and said to him: Did the Master retract this halakha? Do you permit this? Rav said to him: God forbid that the progeny of Abba bar Abba, i.e., Shmuel, would feed me something that I do not hold to be permitted. Shmuel never fed me such a dish.

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi were sitting down to eat. One of them was sitting on this side of the ford of the Sura River, and the other one was sitting on that side of the ford. They brought one Sage a fish that had been removed from the fire and placed into a bowl previously used for meat, and he ate it together with kutaḥ. They also brought the other Sage figs and grapes during the meal, and he ate them but did not recite a separate blessing over them, even though these foods were usually consumed following the main portion of the meal before reciting Grace after Meals, and a separate blessing was made on them.

One Sage said to his colleague: Orphan! Student without a teacher! Would your teacher do this, i.e., eat such fish with kutaḥ? And the other Sage said to his colleague: Orphan! Would your teacher do this, i.e., eat these fruits during a meal without reciting a blessing over them? One Sage said to his colleague: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who permits eating such fish with kutaḥ. And the other Sage said to his colleague: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: The blessing over the bread exempts all the other types of food eaten during a meal, including those usually eaten separately following bread, and likewise the blessing over wine exempts all types of drinks.

Ḥizkiyya says in the name of Abaye: The halakha is: If a fish was removed from the fire and placed into a bowl used for meat, it is permitted to eat it together with kutaḥ. But with regard to a radish that one cut with a knife with which he had cut meat, it is prohibited to eat that radish with kutaḥ, contrary to Rav Kahana’s statement above.

The Gemara notes: And this statement applies only to a radish,