Question: This is difficult. Why don't we say, as we say later, that the opposite should be true? If he receives lashes for cooking, he should certainly receive lashes for eating!

Observation: It is still forbidden, as Kutach is made out of the leftover liquid from milk used to make cheese, as stated in Pesachim (42a). We said earlier (111b) that it is forbidden to eat meat with Kutach.

Explanation: This derivation is only necessary to teach that milk from one type of animal with meat from a different type, such as cow meat with goat milk or goat meat with cow milk, is prohibited.

Explanation (cont.): However, cow meat with cow milk is clearly included, as we derived earlier (113b) that wherever the Torah says "Gedi" it means to include cows and sheep. Rashi did not have to give the explanation he gave.

Question: One could ask that an undomesticated animal and birds according to Rebbi Akiva, or birds alone according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, should able to prove otherwise. This is because they were forbidden from breeding together with other animals or birds of their types, as stated in Bava Kama (55a), yet they were not forbidden from being cooked together!

Answer: [While this would have been a good question,] the Gemara instead asks a better question.

Question: According to the Rabbanan one should prove otherwise from an undomesticated animal, as Oso v'Es Beno does not apply to an undomesticated animal.

Observation: The Gemara later derives from "ba'Chaleiv" that one is liable if he cooks it in its own milk.

Implied Question: This is despite the fact that Shmuel derived laws from this Pasuk earlier (113b), here he derives from "ba'Chaleiv." (How can he do so?)

Answer: This is because both of these words are extra. The Pasuk could have stated "b'Emo" and I would know that it means "ba'Chaleiv Emo," as by one of the Pesukim it would have indeed explicitly stated "ba'Chaleiv Emo."

Implied Question: Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili excludes fowl because the mother does not have milk. (He uses this Pasuk for his teaching that fowl is excluded from the prohibition of Basar b'Chalav. How, then, does he derive Shmuel's law?)

Answer: He understands that the extra letter "Vav" in "Emo" teaches this lesson.

Explanation: In Pesachim (21b), we say Rebbi Avahu must hold like Rebbi Meir. According to Rebbi Yehudah, the words in the Pasuk are needed to say exactly what they mean (a prohibition against eating). He derives from "Throw it to the dogs" that you specifically can throw Neveilah, not other prohibited items, to the dogs.

Question: According to Rebbi Meir, how can Rebbi Avahu derive that "do not eat" means it is also forbidden from benefit since we find regarding Neveilah that the Torah explicitly stated it is permitted for benefit? Rebbi Meir also requires the Pasuk regarding Neveilah to teach that one should give it to the Ger Toshav before selling it to a Nochri!

Answer: We would know that a Ger Toshav takes precedence without it being taught by the Pasuk. However, now that the Pasuk explicitly states giving and selling regarding Neveilah to teach that food that is prohibited to eat is also prohibited from benefit, without the Pasuk "Or" teaching giving to a Ger is first, I would think the Torah is equating the two (giving and selling).

Question: Let only one of them be written, either selling to a Nochri or giving to a Ger Toshav, and leave out the "Or" if it is so obvious that giving to a Ger Toshav takes precedence!

Answer: (If giving to a Nochri would be omitted) I would think that the Pasuk is coming to exclude giving to a Nochri.

Question: Why doesn't the Pasuk only write about giving to a Nochri?

Answer: I would think that it is telling us not to give Neveilah to a Ger Toshav even though he never accepted that he would not eat Neveilah, in order that he should hurry to convert (and not refrain due to his abundant supply of Neveilah). (The word "Ela" should read "Shelo.")

Answer (cont.): This is specifically regarding Neveilah in Eretz Yisrael as Nochrim are not commonly found there. If he would sell it to a Nochri, he would have to sell it for a paltry amount of money. In this situation, giving it to a Ger Toshav takes precedence.

Answer (cont.): However, it is obvious that if a person has something to sell he is allowed to sell it to a Nochri before giving it to someone else as a present, even to a Jew.

Text: The Gemara does not have the text, "to a Ger Toshav by giving and to a Nochri through selling," as explained by Rashi in Pesachim (21b).

Question: If it would have this text, I would have thought it is according to Rebbi Yehudah who says that the Pasuk means what it says. However, we established that Rebbi Avahu's statement can only be according to Rebbi Meir.

Answer: If this would be the proper text, we could explain that it is merely using the phraseology used by the Pasuk, but not because it holds that the words mean only what they say. Alternatively, it could be that this phraseology was used because giving to the convert takes precedence.

Observation: It is forbidden to give a Nochri a present. This is stated in the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (20a).

Question: Doesn't the Mishnah in Chulin (93b) say that a person can send a thigh of an animal that includes the Gid ha'Nasheh to a Nochri? "Sending" implies for free! In Pesachim (22a), the Gemara implies that this is even according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Answer: The Tosefta says that if the Nochri was his neighbor he is permitted to send it to him, because it is as if he is selling it to him. (This is because he is essentially bartering it for his favor and goodwill in neighborly relations.)

Explanation: This implies that without the word "Oh" I would think that "you should give" and "sell" is referring to both the Ger Toshav mentioned earlier and the Nochri. We indeed say in Bava Metzia (61a) that "Marbis" refers to money and the food mentioned later.

Question: This is difficult, as in Kidushin (32b) there is an argument among the Tanaim regarding standing up and honoring an old person and a wise man. There is an opinion that both do not apply to both people, because the Pasuk states, "From before an old person you should stand, and you should honor the face of an elder."

Answer: It is possible to say that the word "miPnei" does not fit well with the word "v'Hadarta," and the word "Pnei" does not fit well with the word "Takum."

Question #1: In Yoma (52a), Isi ben Yehudah says that there are five words in Pesukim in the Torah which are unclear whether they are connected to the words before them or the words after them. They are: Se'ais, Machar, Arur, Meshukadim, and v'Kam. Why don't we say that they should be applied both to the previous words and the words after them?

Question #2: Additionally, Isi himself holds in Kidushin (ibid,) that standing up and honoring refer to both an old person and a wise man!

Answer: In our Gemara, Bava Metzia (61a), and Kidushin (32b), where there are two words and one is certainly connected to the previous words and one is certainly connected to the following words, it is possible to say that each word is connected to both the previous and following words. However, in Yoma (ibid.) it seems that each word is either referring to the previous words or the following words.