Chapter 69

The laws of Melicha and Hadacha

Introduction:

This chapter will discuss all the details of the salting process. The salting of meat to remove its blood does not just consist of the simple act of applying salt to meat. There are various steps and guidelines that must be guarded during the salting process. For example the meat is required to be rinsed or soaked prior to the salting. One must place a certain amount of salt on the meat and leave the salt on the meat for a certain amount of time. How much salt must be placed? How long must the meat, or may the meat, remain with the salt? On what surfaces may one salt the meat? What is done to the meat after the salting process? What is the law if any of these steps were skipped or not adhered to properly? All these laws and details are elaborated in this chapter.

 

The reason behind salting meat:

As stated in the previous section it is forbidden to eat blood that separated from a limb, while absorbed blood which never separated from the limb is permitted to be eaten. Thus if one desires to eat raw meat it is not required to be salted beforehand as the absorbed blood never separated from the meat and is hence permitted. However if one desires to cook the meat since the cooking process expels all the blood and gravy from the food the blood is considered separated and is forbidden. Thus if one desires to cook meat or poultry he is required to first remove its blood. This can be achieved in one of two ways; either through salting the meat or roasting it over a fire. This current chapter will discuss the salting process and its detailed laws


Hadacha Rishona [Halachas 1-4]

1. Hadacha Rishona-Washing/Soaking the meat prior to salting:

A. The law:[1]

  • Michaber:

    Rinse meat: One is required to rinse the meat [well[2]] prior to salting.[3] [It does not suffice to merely rinse it effortlessly, such as by simply pouring water over it.[4]]

  • Rama:

Soak for a half hour:  Initially one should be careful to soak the meat in [cold[5]] water for thirty minutes[6] and is to wash it well within that water [to remove any noticeable blood[7]]. [The meat is to be completely submerged within the water.[8] The water is to be cold but not cold to the point that it freezes the blood. [9]]

The law if the meat was rinsed and not soaked: If one washed the meat well but did not soak it, it suffices. [This ruling of the Rama means to say that even if the meat was not yet salted one may proceed with the salting and he is not required to soak it beforehand.[10] This however only applies if it was rinsed well. If however it was not rinsed well, then if the meat has not yet been salted one must go back and rinse it well. If however the meat was already salted after this light rinsing, it suffices and one is not required to rewash and then re-salt the meat.[11]]

Letting the meat drip dry after the washing: After the rinsing and soaking of the meat one is to wait for the meat to drip water for a small amount of time prior to beginning the salting. This is to be done in order so the water on the meat does not completely dissolve the salt and prevent it from being able to remove the blood. [Nevertheless one is not to delay the salting until the meat is completely dry, but is rather to salt it while it remains slightly moist. This is necessary because the salt needs to slightly dissolve onto the meat in order to be able to remove the blood, and hence a small amount of moisture is to remain.[12]]

 

Q&A

In a time of need may one be lenient to merely rinse the meat rather than soak it?[13]

In a time of need, such as on Erev Shabbos when there is little time remaining, it suffices for one to rinse and soak the meat well and soak it for a small amount of time until there is no longer any visible redness in the water. Afterwards one may salt the meat.

 

If the meat was not completely submerged within the water what is the law of the piece?[14]

One is to rinse well the area of the meat that was not submerged within the water and it then suffices according to all opinions.[15]

 

Must the vessel used to soak the meat be immersed in a Mikveh if purchased from a gentile?[16]                                       

It is to be immersed without a blessing.

 

B. The reason behind Hadacha Rishona:[17]

There are various reasons mentioned in Rishonim regarding why there is an obligation to rinse the meat prior to the sating process. There are practical ramifications behind these reasons as will be explained.

The following are the reasons mentioned in Rishonim:

  • Ran:[18]

    To soften the meat: One is required to wash the meat prior to salting in order to soften the meat. If there is external dry blood on the meat the salt will be unable to penetrate it properly and remove its blood. 

  • Mordechai:[19]

    To clean the meat from dirt: One is required to wash the meat prior to salting in order to remove any dirt from the meat, as dirt clogs up the salt and prevents it from being able to remove the blood from the meat.

  • Smag[20]; Smak; Hagahos Maimanos; Shaareiy Dora; Hagahos Sheid; Rieh: [21]

To remove external blood from the meat:  One is required to wash the meat prior to salting in order to remove the external blood that is on the surface of the meat.[22] The reason this blood must be removed prior to salting is because if one were to salt the meat with its external blood, then that blood would become absorbed within the meat and forbid it.[23]

Rinsing the meat allows the salt to remove an abundance of blood from within the meat. When the meat is not wet the salt can only remove a minute amount of blood, and since the meat is not expelling a large amount of blood this blood that is removed can become reabsorbed within the meat.

  • Ruling of Shulchan Aruch:

There is no clear ruling given in Shulchan Aruch. The Peri Megadim[25] summarizes as follows: The Michaber seemingly rules like the Mordechai or perhaps the Ran that the washing is needed simply to help the salt remove the blood and not because the external blood becomes absorbed.[26] However the Ashkenazi Poskim[27] rule like the Smak and Hagahos Maimanis that the external blood becomes absorbed within the meat. Practically one is to initially suspect for all the reasons mentioned and their practical ramifications.

 


C. What is the practical ramification between the reasons?

 

There are a number of ramifications between the reasons:

  • Michaber:[103]

    If meat which was dirty[104] with blood was soaked in water for 24 hours some opinions rule that this meat is forbidden to be eaten through salting and cooking it, and rather it is only permitted to be eaten through roasting.

  • Rama:[105]

    If the meat soaked in the water for 24 hours there are opinions which forbid the meat entirely even for roasting and so is the custom.[106] [This law applies even if the meat does not contain any external blood and rather only contains absorbed blood.[107]] Thus the meat and the vessel are both forbidden.[108] Nevertheless it remains permitted to continue using this vessel for soaking unsalted meat.[109]

    If the unsalted meat stayed for less than 24 hours in the water:[110] If the meat did not remain a full 24 hours within the water then everything remains permitted. 

  • Shach:[111]

    The law if clean unsalted meat soaked for 24 hours:[112] According to the Michaber, even in a case that the meat was cleaned of external blood but was not yet salted to remove its absorbed blood, if it soaked in liquid for 24 hours the meat is forbidden to be salted and cooked.

    Questions the ruling of Michaber that permits roasting the meat: The Shach questions the ruling of the Michaber which permits roasting the meat even if the meat was dirty with external blood, as it is not found in any Posek that meat which was dirty with external blood and was soaked for 24 hours may be roasted afterwards.  The Shach suggests that perhaps the Michaber learns that once the external blood mixes with the water it is no longer considered Dam Beiyn and it can hence be removed through roasting.

  • Taz: [113]
  1. What is the law if one salted the meat without first washing it?[28] According to the Smag, and those Poskim who rule accordingly, since the meat has absorbed the external blood the meat is forbidden. However according to the Ran and Mordechai one can rinse off the meat and re-salt it even if one originally salted it without removing the external blood.[29] [See Halacha 2!]
  2. How well must one wash the meat?[30] If the main reason for rinsing the meat is to soften it, then if one only rinsed the meat lightly it does not suffice, and even if one already salted the meat it would require to be re-washed properly. If one cooked the meat it would be forbidden. However if the main reason to wash the meat is in order to rinse off the surface blood then a light rinse suffices. [See Halacha 2C!]
  3. Must the meat be rewashed after being cut?[31] If the main reason for rinsing the meat is to soften it, then if one cut the meat after rinsing it, it is not required to be re-washed. However if the main reason to wash the meat is in order to rinse off the surface blood then it must be re-washed if it was cut before salting. [See Halacha 1E!]

 

D. If the butcher already washed the meat before one bought it, must it be rewashed?[32]

If the butcher rinsed unsalted meat prior to selling it, it is not necessary to rewash it at home prior to salting.   [However this only applies if the butcher gave the meat a good rinsing, even if he did not actually soak it in water. If however he simply poured water over the meat in order to beautify it then this washing is invalid even Bedieved.[33] If one knows that the butcher rinsed the meat, but does not know how well the meat was rinsed it can be assumed that it was rinsed well.[34] If the piece was cut after being washed then it must be rewashed, as will be explained next.]

 

E. The law if one cut the meat after doing Hadacha Rishona:[35]

If after washing the meat one [used a knife[36] to] cut the meat to two or three pieces [prior to salting], then he must rewash the meat before he salts it.[37] If one did not rewash it [and went ahead and salted it], then it is considered as if the meat was never washed [and has the same laws as unwashed meat which was salted].[38] This rule likewise applies if one removed the hooves of an animal after the washing prior to the salting [as by removing the hooves the meat under it is considered cut and external blood is released]. [39]

Must one rewash the meat if he tore it into two pieces rather than using a knife?[40] The above law which requires a rewashing of the meat prior to salting only applies if the meat was cut with a knife after it was originally washed.[41] [However if one tore the meat with his hands the meat is not required to be rewashed prior to salting as tearing does not apply pressure to the meat and hence blood is not released.[42]]

Opinion of the Ran-One is never required to rewash the meat:[43] The Ran[44] rules that even when the meat is cut with a knife after its initial washing it nevertheless may be salted without being rewashed.[45] Practically we rule that the meat must be re-washed even Bedieved if it was cut with a knife before salting.[46]

 

F. Must one remove the hooves of an animal prior to salting the legs?[47]

No. It suffices to wash the legs together with their hooves as one is only required to wash off visible blood, and the blood between the hooves and meat of the leg is not visible.[48]

 

G. May one use fruit juice for Hadacha Rishona:

This matter is disputed amongst Poskim. Refer to Halacha 11B where this matter is discussed.

 

Final Ruling:

Prior to salting the meat for its blood the meat is to soak for approximately 30 minutes in cold water. While in the water one is to scrub the meat in order to rinse off any external blood from the meat. After the 30 minute period the meat is to drip its excess liquid and is then to be salted. The meat is not to be cut until after the salting process.

 

The practical way the washing and soaking is done in Kosher Slaughterhouses:

The salting area contains a large container of water which is called “the chiller” into which the meat is placed to soak. The poultry only enters into the chiller after it has been checked by a row of Mashgichim for Treifos, Dam Tzarur and had its head, feet and feathers removed. The chicken remains in the chiller for anywhere between 40 minutes to an hour. The chiller contains a rolling conveyor belt hence verifying that every piece of chicken inserted remains at least a half hour within the water. When the chicken reaches the end of the conveyors belt after approximately 40-60 minutes it is then placed onto a surface from which it is allowed to drip. It is then taken to be salted.

 

Q&A

What is the desired temperature of the chiller?[49]

The water should not be too hot or too cold.  Some Hashgachas require the temperature to be 8 Celsius [46.6 Fahrenheit]. Others require the temperature to be 10-12 Celsius. If the water is too cold it can freeze the blood, and cause it to not come out with the salting.

 

May water that contains salt, such as sea water, be used for the washing?[50]

No.

 

Yemenite Custom:[51]

The Yemenites do not cut the meat after it is salted until after it is cooked.

 

The Mashgiach inspection line and line for removal of organs

  

The conveyor’s belt used for Hadacha

  

The vessel in which the chicken drip after the soaking prior to salting

2. The law if meat was salted without being rinsed:[52]

A. Opinion of Poskim:

  • Michaber:

    If one salted meat without washing it beforehand, he is to wash it and re-salt it.[53] However there are opinions[54] which hold that the meat is now forbidden to be eaten.[55] [Practically the Michaber[56] rules one may be lenient in a case of great loss. This means that in a case of great loss one may be lenient to wash and re-salt the meat.[57] However if one cooked the meat without salting it a second time the meat is forbidden[58].

  • Rama:

    Practically we are accustomed like the second opinion that the meat is forbidden. This applies even if one only slightly salted the meat[59] and the salt did not remain Shiur Melicha on the meat [See footnote!][60]. However in a case of great loss one may be lenient[61] [like the first opinion to wash the meat and re-salt it.[62] Alternatively one can wash the meat and then roast it.[63] This allowance applies even if the meat was properly salted and the salt remained Shiur Melicha, nevertheless in a case of great loss one may be lenient.[64]]

  • Bach:

    Slightly salted or less than Shiur Melicha:[65] The Bach rules that if the meat was only slightly salted or did not remain Shiur Melicha then the meat is permitted. [Some[66] however explains that even the Bach agrees it is only allowed in a case of great loss, and hence there is no difference in ruling between the Bach and the Rama in this case. However if the meat was both only slightly salted and did not remain Shiur Melicha then the Bach is completely lenient even in a case that does not involve loss.]

    Properly salted and remained Shiur Melicha:[67] The Bach rules that if the meat was properly salted and remained Shiur Melicha then the meat is forbidden even in a case of great loss, and it does not help to wash and re-salt the meat.

  • Rashal:[68]

    The Rashal rules that the meat is always forbidden even in a case of great loss and it does not help to wash it and then salt it a second time, or roast it. This applies even if the meat did not remain Shiur Melicha.

  • Shach:[69]

The Shach agrees with the ruling of the Rama that the meat is permitted in a case of great loss, and if the meat did not remain Shiur Melicha then it helps to wash it and roast it.

 

B. May the meat be roasted if it was salted without being washed?

In all cases that it helps to wash and re-salt the meat [i.e. a case of great loss according to the Michaber and Rama] then it may likewise be roasted.[70] However if it does not help to wash it and re-salt it [such as a case where there is no great loss] then roasting likewise does not help.[71] This however is with exception to a case that the meat did not stay Shiur Melicha with its salt in which case some Poskim[72] rule it may be roasted and eaten [even if no great loss is involved[73]]. However others[74] rule that even in such a case the meat is forbidden even to be roasted. [See Chapter 76 Halacha 2C]

 

C. The law if the meat was slightly rinsed prior to the salting:[75]

If one even slightly rinsed the meat prior to the salting and then salted it, the meat is Kosher.[76]  [This applies even if one did not yet cook the meat, nevertheless the light rinsing suffices and one is not required to give the meat a proper washing and then re-salt it prior to cooking.[77]]

 

D. The law if the meat contains 60x its external blood:[78]

Just like we are lenient regarding if the meat had a slight rinsing, similarly we are lenient even if the meat was not rinsed at all but the meat contains 60x versus its external blood. Thus in such a case the meat remains permitted. [79] [This applies even if one did not yet cook the meat, nevertheless one is not required to give the meat a proper washing and then re-salt it prior to cooking.[80]]

Does a piece of meat commonly contain 60x its external blood?[81] A typical piece of meat does not contain 60x its external blood. However it is possible for this to occur and hence if one verifies that the piece contains 60x  its external blood the above leniency would apply. [Chicken contains 60x its blood as the external part of the chicken which is covered by the skin does not contain Dam Beiyn[82] while the internal part only contains a small amount of blood. Hence if one salted a chicken without Hadacha Rishona the chicken remains permitted.[83]]

 

E. The law if one salted many pieces together and one of those pieces were not previously washed:[84]

If one salted many pieces of meat for their blood and one of those pieces were not washed beforehand, then that piece alone is forbidden while the other pieces remain permitted.[85]

 

Summary:

Meat which was salted without being rinsed is forbidden unless one of the following apply:

  1. It is a case of great loss and the meat has not yet been cooked. In such a case one is to wash and re-salt the meat.
  2. The meat contains 60x its external blood.
  3. The meat was slightly washed prior to salting.
The meat did not remain with the salt for Shiur Melicha. In such a case one may wash and then roast the meat. This applies even if the case does not involve a great loss.

 

Q&A

What is the law if one salted and then cooked the meat without Hadacha Rishona?[86]

The meat is forbidden even if the pot contains 60x the meat, although there are Poskim that are lenient for Sefaradim in a case of great loss.

 

What is the law if chicken was salted and cooked without Hadacha Rishona?[87]

The chicken remains permitted.[88]

 

3. To place unwashed meat in designated areas that are clean of salt:[89]

Due to the requirement to wash the meat prior to salting one may not place unwashed meat on a surface that contains salt.[90] As a result of this rule it is accustomed amongst scrupulous Jews to only place the unwashed meat in a vessel or area that is designated for this purpose due to fear that other areas may contain salt.[91] Likewise they never place salt in this area.[92] [Likewise one is not to place the meat near food due to worry that the food may contract blood and one may eat the food without washing off the blood.[93] Likewise the meat is to be distanced from fire or any source of heat in order prevent the blood in the meat from cooking.[94]]

 

4. May the vessel used for soaking the meat be used for other foods?[95]

The custom is to avoid using the bowl that was used for soaking the unsalted meat, for [even cold[96]] Kosher foods [as we suspect perhaps some blood has remained stuck to the walls of the vessels. However from the letter of the law it is permitted to use the soaking bowl for even cooking Kosher foods as Issur taste of blood has not become absorbed within the walls of the bowl. [97] Practically if Bedieved one cooked food in the soaking bowl the food is permitted so long as the bowl was rinsed prior to the cooking.[98] Furthermore even initially one may use the bowl for cold dry foods, and it is only with regards to hot foods or cold liquidly foods that the custom is to avoid using it.[99]]

 

Q&A

If one accidently used a Kosher vessel for the soaking must the vessel be Kashered?[100]

No. Even if this occurred a few times one is to simply wash the vessel and he may then continue use it for Kosher foods. However initially it is forbidden to soak the meat in a Kosher vessel [although in a time of need one may do so[101]].

 

5. The law if the unsalted meat soaked in the vessel for 24 hours:[102]

A. The law if the water did not contain 60x the meat:

The Taz explains that the wording of the Michaber “dirty with blood” does not refer to external blood but rather to the blood that is absorbed within the meat. This explanation avoids the questions addressed by the Shach. [The Shach in Nekudas Hakesef argues on this explanation and refers the reader to his explanation of the Michaber in 69/60 as brought above.]

 

B. The law if there was 60x more water than meat in the vessel:[114]

In a case that the meat remained within the water for 24 hours and the water contains 60x versus the meat, the meat remains Kosher [even for cooking, even according to the Rama[115]]. [However there are Poskim[116] which prohibit the meat even in such a case. The Shach[117] concludes one may be lenient to roast the meat however not to cook it. The Taz[118] however concludes one may be lenient to even cook it as rule the Michaber and Rama. The above allowance applies even if the meat contained external blood and not just absorbed blood.[119]]

 

Summary and Final Ruling:

If unsalted meat soaked in a vessel for 24 hours the meat is forbidden.[120]  If there is 60x of water versus the meat in the bowl the meat is permitted even for cooking. Although some[121] are stringent to only allow roasting.

 

Q&A

What is the law if unsalted meat or chicken was wrapped in plastic or paper that contained water?[122]

If the chicken or meat remained within the water for 24 hours it is forbidden.

 

*5. What is the law if one soaked pre-salted meat for 24 hours in an Issur vessel:[123]

The meat remains permitted as by the time the 24 hours arrive the taste within the pot is spoiled and is Nosen Taam Lepegam.

 

6. Salting frozen meat:[124]

It is forbidden to salt frozen meat and rather one must wait until it defrosts. [The reason for this is because salt is unable to remove blood of frozen meat].

If the meat froze within the salting process: If the meat froze during the salting process, prior to remaining Shiur Melicha, and then defrosted, it is proper to salt the meat a second time for Shiur Melicha.[125] [This applies even if the meat defrosted after freezing and remained Shiur Melicha with the salt, nevertheless one is to re-salt it.[126]]  If one went ahead and cooked the meat without re-salting it, then if after the meat defrosted the salt stayed on it for Shiur Melicha the meat is permitted. [However if the salt did not remain on the meat for Shiur Melicha after it defrosted, then the meat is forbidden. The amount of time the salt spent on the meat before it became frozen and afterwards do not combine for Shiur Melicha.[127]]

 

Q&A

What is the law if one salted frozen meat?

He must re-salt it [and if one went ahead and cooked it the meat is forbidden.] Some Poskim[128] rule that if one washed the meat after salting it while frozen, or delayed 12 hours prior to re-salting it then it no longer helps to salt it and the meat must be roasted.

 

7. The Melicha salt:

A. Which types of salt are to be used for the salting process:[129]

Common table salt [thin]: One may not use thin salt for the salting process.[130]  Thin salt is defined as salt which is as thin as flour [such as typical table salt].[131] If however one has no other salt available then thin salt may be used.[132]

Coarse salt: One may not use coarse salt for the salting process if it is coarse to the point that it rolls off the meat. [Practically all salt which is not thicker than regular salt derived from the Sea is not considered coarse and may be used.  However salt which is coarser than sea salt may not be used until it is crushed to smaller pieces.[133] Thus even if one has no other salt available other than coarse salt it may not be used since one is able to crush it to is proper size.[134]]

 

B. May one reuse salt that had been used for salting meat for blood?[135]

Reusing the salt for salting other meat for blood: Salt that had been used to salt meat to remove its blood may not be reused to remove the blood of other pieces of meat. [However Bedieved if one reused the salt to remove the blood of other meat, the meat is nevertheless permitted even if it was not re-salted before being cooked.[136] This however only applies if the meat has already been cooked, if however one did not yet cook the meat then he should wash it and re-salt it with unused salt.[137]]

May one eat the salt? It goes without saying that it is forbidden to eat the salt which was used to salt meat to remove blood. [However some Poskim[138] rule that if the salt has dried out then one may even eat the salt.[139] The Shach[140] negates this opinion.[141]]

 

Q&A

May one use wet salt?[142]

No. Only dry salt is to be used.

 

May one used cook salt?[143]

This matter is disputed amongst Poskim.

 

May one use chemical based salt for the salting process?[144]

No.

 

May sugar be used to do Melicha if there is no salt available?

Some Poskim[145] rule that sugar is valid to be used instead of salt. Many Poskim[146] however argue on this opinion and so is the final ruling. However Bedieved if one already cooked the meat after using sugar to salt it, one may join the lenient ruling to other leniencies to help permit the meat.[147]

 

Are new technological methods of removing blood from meat valid as an alternative to salting?[148]

No.

 

8. The amount of salt required for Melicha:[149]

A. Lechatchilah:

The following questions are discussed in this Halacha: How much salt must be placed on the meat? Must the entire piece of meat be salted? Must it be salted on all sides and in all areas? Must a very thick piece of meat be cut thinner for the salting?

Salting in all areas until the meat is inedible:[150] One is to salt the meat in all areas to the point that no area on the meat is left without salt. Enough salt is to be added so that the meat is currently inedible due to the amount of salt. It is not necessary to add more salt to the meat once it has enough salt to be considered inedible. [This is coming to exclude that one does not need to pile the salt onto the meat.[151]]

Must a thick piece of meat be cut prior to salting:[152] Even a very thick piece of meat may be salted in its current state and is not required to be cut thinner before salting.[153] However there are opinions[154] which require a thick piece of meat to be cut thinner and then salted. Practically we rule one may salt a thick piece in its current state.[155]

Must one salt all sides of the meat? [156] One must salt the meat on both of its sides.

Salting the inside of a chicken or animal:[157] One must salt both the outside and inside [i.e. inner cavity from where the intestines are removed] of a chicken. [This applies to all meat or poultry that contains an inner vacuum such as lungs.[158] It is for this reason that one is to cut the chicken’s back open prior to salting. This allows one to properly salt the inner area of the chicken. [159]]  

Salting the inside of a lung:[160] Based on the above ruling by a chicken one must likewise salt the inside compartments of a lung. Thus prior to salting the lungs of an animal one is to tear open its compartments.

Must the inside of a head be salted:[161] If the head is whole it may be salted on its outside and there is no need to split open the head in order to salt it inside.[162] However if the head is split then one must salt both its outside and inside.

 

B. The law if one only salted one side of the meat or chicken:

  • Michaber:

    If only one side of the meat or poultry was salted it is nevertheless permitted. Likewise if one salted only the inside or outside of the chicken it is permitted.

  • Rama:

    Introduction: The Rama rules that if only one side was salted we are stringent to prohibit the meat unless the case involves a great loss. This applies if the meat was already cooked. If however the meat was not yet cooked then it can still be salted or roasted. Whether one may still salt the meat or it must be roasted depends on the amount of time that has passed since the original salt was placed on one side. If 12 hours have passed the Rama rules the meat must be roasted. There is a dispute between the Shach and Taz regarding if the Rama intends to prohibit salting the other side in this case even if the case involves a great loss, or whether in times of great loss he agrees it may still be salted. To note however that in the final stance of the Shach and Taz they agree that we allow salting even in such a case if the case involves a great loss, and their dispute is only with regards to whether this is the intention of the Rama.

    Meat was cooked after salting on one side: There are opinions[163] which forbid meat that was salted on only one side and then cooked. Practically the custom follows this opinion, although in a case of need [such as a great loss[164]] one may be lenient. [This applies even according to the Shach.[165]]

    Meat was not yet cooked and is within 12 hours of salting: If the meat was only salted on one side and was not yet cooked then if the meat is still within 12 hours of the salting [and according to some[166] has also not yet had this salt washed off] then one may salt the side which has not yet been salted, and then cook the meat.[167] [This allowance applies in all cases even if the case does not involve a loss.]

    Meat was not yet cooked and is within 12 hours of salting but was washed within 12 hours: If one washed the meat after it was salted on only one side, then even if it is still within 12 hours from the salting, some Poskim[168]  rule it no longer helps to salt the other side[169], and it only remains permitted to be eaten through roasting. However the Taz[170] rules that even if the meat was washed, it may still be salted if it is within 12 hours from the first salting.[171] [In such a case one is to salt both sides of the meat and not just the unsalted side.[172]]

    Meat was not yet cooked and is past 12 hours: If the meat was only salted on one side and was not yet cooked then if the meat is past 12 hours from the salting it no longer helps to salt the other side[173], although the meat may still be roasted and eaten.[174] In a case of need such as a case of great loss, it is disputed whether the Rama intends to permit salting the meat even after 12 hours or if even in such a case it is only permitted to be roasted.[175] The Shach[176] rules that if the meat is past 12 hours but still within 24 hours of salting, then in a case of great loss the Rama[177] rules one may salt the other side and cook it rather than roast it.[178] However the Taz[179] explains that according to the Rama if the meat is past 12 hours of salting then even in a case of great loss one may not salt the other side, even if it is within 24 hours of salting, and rather only roasting helps.[180] [The Minchas Yaakov[181] concludes the words of the Shach are unclear and have no way of fitting into the words of the Rama.]

  • Shach:[182]

The Shach rules that if the meat is cooked it is permitted in a case of great loss[183] and if the meat is still raw then within 12 hours it may still be salted on the other side and after 12 hours but within 24 hours it must be roasted unless the case involves a great loss in which case it may still be salted. This is also how the Shach learns the opinion of the Rama. The Shach[184] rules that if the meat was washed, even within 12 hours, it no longer helps to salt it and it thus may only be roasted.

The Taz rules that in all cases one may salt the other side even if the meat is past 12 hours of salting.[186] [Furthermore it is permitted to be salted even if it is past 24 hours and the case does not involve a great loss.[187]]

However the Taz interprets the Rama to rule that after 12 hours the meat may never be salted even in a case of great loss and rather it must be roasted.

 

C.  The law if a small area of the meat remained unsalted:[188]

  • Michaber:

    The meat remains permitted.

  • Rama:

    The Shach[189] learns that according to the Rama[190] if even a small area remained without salt it has the same law as an entire side that was not salted in which case if the meat was cooked it is forbidden unless the case involves great loss. This also seems to be the opinion of the Rashal.[191] [Nevertheless the Shach himself argues on their ruling as is explained next.]

  • Shach[192]; Taz[193]; Bach[194]:

The Shach, Taz and Bach rule that if both sides were salted but there was an area left unsalted the meat is permitted even if the case does not involve a great loss. Practically the Shach concludes that so is the custom of the world and people are not particular regarding if every spot was salted.

 

Summary:

Initially one is to salt the entire piece of meat on both sides until it is not edible due to the salt. If one only salted one side and already cooked it then the meat is forbidden unless there is a case of need, such as great loss.[195]

If the meat was not yet cooked, then if the meat is within 12 hours of the salting one may salt the other side. If it is past 12 hours then according to some Poskim[196] it may not be salted even in a case of great loss and rather may only be roasted. Others[197] rule in a case of great loss if the meat is still within 24 hours it may still be salted. Others[198] rule that one may always re-salt the meat even if 24 hours have passed.

 

Q&A

What are split back chickens?[199]  

Prior to the soaking the chicken is customarily split by its back. This is done for two reasons: In order to verify the chicken is cleansed from any inner limbs, and in order to accomplish the salting of all the areas inside the chicken in a most easy fashion.

 

If the skin of the chicken began peeling off the chicken must one also place salt under the skin?[200]

Yes.

 

Chart of opinions regarding salted on one side

 

 

Cooked

Raw within 12 hours

Raw within 24 hours

Raw past 24 hours

Raw but washed

 

Rama

 

Forbidden unless great loss

 

Re-salt

 

Roast. Dispute if holds may salt in great loss

Roast

———————

 

Shach

Forbidden unless great loss

 

Re-salt

Roast. May salt in great loss

Roast

Considered past 24 hours

 

Taz

Forbidden unless great loss

 

Re-salt

 

May re-salt

 

May re-salt

 

May re-salt on both sides

 

 

9. Cutting the meat prior to washing off the salt:[201]

Introduction: After meat is salted for Shiur Melicha the salt must be washed off the meat prior to eating or cooking being that the salt contains blood. The Halacha here discusses whether one may cut the meat prior to washing off the salt.

A. The law of the meat:

May one Lechatchilah cut the piece of meat: This matter is disputed amongst Poskim in 69/20 and will be discussed in Halacha 26!

Bedieved if one cut the meat: If one cut the meat while it still contains Melicha salt [then if this occurs after the salt has remained Shiur Melicha on the meat[202]] there is no need to re-wash that area of the meat and salt it.[203] If however one cut the meat while it was still within Shiur Melicha then one must rewash that area well and re-salt it.[204]

 

B. The law of the knife:

This matter is disputed amongst Poskim in 69/20 and will be discussed Halacha 26.

 

Summary:

If one cut the meat within Shiur Melicha he must wash the meat and then re-salt. If it is cut after Shiur Melicha the meat does not require to be further salted. It is disputed if initially one may cut meat prior to washing off its salt even if it is past Shiur Melicha, and some opinions require the knife to be Kashered if this is done.

 

10. Shiur Melicha:

A. How long does the salt have to remain on the meat?[205]

  • Michaber:

    The salt must remain on the meat for at least a Shiur Mil[206] which is close to 20 minutes [i.e. 18 minutes[207]]. [However according to Admur[208], and so rules Kitzur SH”A[209] one must wait a minimum of 24 minutes.[210]]

  • Rama:

    The initial custom: The custom is to leave the salt on the meat for one hour. One may not divert from this custom.

    The law Bedieved: Bedieved if one washed off the salt prior to the passing of an hour but after a Shiur Mil [then if he already cooked the meat[211]] he may rely on the opinion of the Michaber and the meat is Kosher. [If however the meat was not yet cooked he is to re-salt it.[212]]

    The law in a time of need: In a time of need one may rely on the ruling of the Michaber[213]. The following is considered a time of need:

    1. One needs the meat for Shabbos [and is thus pressed for time].
    2. One needs the meat in honor of guests[214], and one is pressed for time to feed them.

 

B. The law if one washed and cooked the meat prior to the salt remaining Shiur Melicha:[215]

If one washed and cooked the meat prior to it remaining a Shiur Mil with the salt then it has the same law as meat that was cooked without being salted. Thus one requires 60x in the pot versus this meat and even then the piece of meat remains forbidden unless it is case of need. See Halacha 14 for the full details of this subject!

 

C. Is there a maximum limit of time regarding how long the salt may remain on the meat?[216]

This matter is disputed amongst Poskim. Practically one is to suspect for the stringent opinion and thus rinse the meat before 12 hours have passed, although Bedieved the meat is permitted even if one did not do so. See Chapter 70 Halacha 5 for the full details of this subject!

Summary:

One is to salt the meat for one hour and wash it off prior to 12 hours passing. If one salted the meat for less than one hour but for at least a Shiur Mil then if the meat was already cooked it is permitted. If the meat was not yet cooked one is to re-salt the meat. If one salted the meat for less than Shiur Mil and he already cooked it the meat is forbidden. If one washed off the salt after 12 hours the meat remains permitted.

 

Q&A

What is the law if one is in doubt whether the meat remained for 18 minutes with the salt and the meat was already cooked?

Some Poskim[217] are lenient to permit the meat even without 60x.

 

11. Hadacha Achrona-Washing the meat after salting:[218]

A. How is the meat to be washed from its salt after Shiur Melicha?

  • Michaber

    Shake or rinse and then wash twice in vessel: After Shiur Melicha has passed one is to shake off the salt from the meat, or alternatively rinse the salt off the meat, and then wash it twice within a vessel. One is to wash out the vessel between the two washings. One is not to place the meat in the washing vessel until the salt is shaken or washed off.

    The reason for shaking or washing the meat prior to placing it in the bowl:[219] The meat is required to be shaken or washed prior to washing it in the bowl because if one were to place the meat in the washing bowl together with its salt then it could reabsorb the blood that is on the salt, as the water stops the meat from giving off gravy, and thus allows it to absorb the blood.[220]

  • Rama

    Introduction: The Rama here adds a gloss to the ruling of the Michaber and states that there are opinions which require the meat to be salted three times. Seemingly this opinion is arguing on the opinion of the Michaber. However the Rama then states that one can accomplish this three time requirement by shaking or rinsing the meat and then washing it twice. It thus ends up that the Rama is stating the same opinion as the Michaber, and it is not understood what the Rama here is trying to add. This matter is dealt with in the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch.

    Wash the meat three times: There are opinions[221] which rule that the meat must be washed three times and so is the initial custom.

    How does one wash the meat three times according to the Rama:[222] Due to the above requirement to wash the meat three times one is to shake or[223] rinse the salt off the meat and then wash it twice in a bowl. When this [shaking or rinsing] is done it is considered as if he washed the meat three times. Alternatively one can place water in a bowl and wash it three times in that bowl. Practically so is the custom.[224] In a case that one is rinsing the meat three times in the bowl one is to initially place a large amount of water in the bowl for the first washing in order so it nullify the power of the salt that is in the gravy.

    The questions on the Rama: The Shach[225] and Taz[226] both address the following questions on to the above explanation of the Rama: If the Rama holds that it suffices to shake or rinse the meat and then wash it twice being that this is considered as if he washed it three times then this is the same opinion as the Michaber and what novelty has the Rama added through his gloss on the Michaber’s ruling? A further question is addressed by the Shach and Taz[227] regarding the second option offered by the Rama to wash the meat three times in a bowl: How can the Rama rule it suffices to wash the meat three times in the bowl without shaking or rinsing off the salt beforehand? Doing so can cause the blood to become reabsorbed within the meat as explained above in the Michaber. The following are the answers offered by the Shach and Taz in their explanation of the Rama:

    The explanation of the Taz in the Rama:[228] The Taz learns that there is a misprint in the Rama and really it should read that in the first option one must “rinse and shake the meat and only then wash it twice in a bowl”. This action of rinsing and shaking is considered like one of the three washings. Thus according to the Rama it does not suffice to simply shake or rinse the salt off and wash it twice as rules the Michaber and rather one must first shake and rinse the salt off beforehand. It is on this point that the Rama then gives a second option: If one does not desire to shake and rinse the meat prior to the washing, then he must shake or rinse it and then wash it three times.

    The opinion of the Shach in the Rama:[229] The Shach offers two interpretations of the Rama’s first option to shake or rinse and then wash the meat twice:

  1. Dispute regarding rinsing in hand: The dispute between the Michaber and Rama is regarding the reason for why it is required to shake off the salt prior to the washing. The Michaber learns that it is only required in order so the blood on the salt does not enter back into the meat. However the Rama rules that it is required because the meat needs to be washed three times and the first shake or rinse is considered like the first wash. The Halachic ramification between the Michaber and Rama is in a case that one decides to do the entire rinsing process of the meat in his hands and not in a bowl. According to the Michaber in such a case it is not necessary to first shake or rinse the meat and then wash it twice in his hands and rather rinsing it twice in his hand suffices.[230] On this the Rama argues and says that the meat is always required to be rinsed three times even when rinsing it in ones hands, and thus it does not suffice to simply rinse it twice in ones hands, and rather he must first shake or wash the meat and then rinse it twice.
No dispute: In truth there is no argument between the Michaber and Rama and this is the exact point that the Rama is emphasizing. The Rama is explaining that one should not presume that the Michaber does not hold of the opinion that requires the meat to be washed three times as the initial shaking or rinsing which is required prior to the washing is itself considered as one of the washings. The Shach concludes that this second explanation seems more plausible in the Rama.

The ramification of the two explanations of the Shach in the Rama: According to the Michaber is one required to first rinse or shake the meat if he is rinsing it in his hands.

The Shach’s explanation of the Rama’s second option to rinse the meat three times: The Shach offers two interpretations of the Rama’s second option to wash the meat three times:

The Rama here intends to say that perhaps even after shaking or rinsing the meat and washing it twice a third washing is still required as the first washing is not truly effective. Alternatively the Rama means to say that if one places a lot of water in the vessel for the first washing then he can skip the shaking or rinsing and rather rinse it three times in the vessel.

 

Summary of the opinion of Rama:

  1. Some[231] hold the Rama to rule that one must either shake and rinse the meat prior to washing it twice or just shake it or rinse it and then wash it three times.
  2. Others[232] hold the Rama to rule that it always suffices to either shake or rinse the meat and then wash it twice. However this is required even if one washes the meat in his hands as opposed to in a vessel.
  3. Others[233] hold that the Rama prefers that the meat to be washed three times in a vessel even after it is shaken or rinsed before the washing.
  4. Others[234] hold the Rama to rule that if one places a lot of water in the vessel for the first washing it suffices to wash it three times and one is not required to shake or rinse the meat beforehand.

 

Final Ruling:[235]

Practically one is to shake off the salt and then wash the meat three times.

 

The method used by Hashgachas:[236]

After the salted meat has remained at least one hour on the conveyor’s belt it then falls off the belt onto a metal platform. This fall is considered to shake the salt off the meat. The meat is then entered into a conveyor’s belt which is within a large open metal container that consists of three compartments of water.

 

B. Washing the salted meat using fruit juice:[237]

One may use fruit juice to wash the meat after salting and it is not required to specifically use water.[238]

May one use fruit juice for Hadacha Rishona: The Shach[239] and Taz[240] rule that fruit juice may be used for Hadacha Rishona just as it may be used for Hadacha Achrona.[241] However the Rama in his Teshuvos[242] rules that fruit juice is invalid for Hadacha Rishona as the juice sticks to the meat and thus does not soften it.[243]

 

C. What is the law if one washed the meat only one time after Shiur Melicha and then cooked it?[244]

The meat is Kosher as washing three times is only initially required. 

 

D. What is the law if one did not shake or rinse off the salt prior to placing it in the rinsing bowl:[245]

If one washed the meat in a bowl without shaking or rinsing off the salt beforehand the meat remains Kosher as [although the water stops the flow of gravy nevertheless] the water sterilizes the power of the salt [and thus the salt is no longer considered hot and can no longer bring blood back into the meat[246]].[247] Even if there was only a minute amount of water in the vessel it has the ability to sterilize the salt.[248]

What is the law if one placed the meat in a bowl of Tzir?[249] Tzir which dissipates from the meat after Melicha has the same status as water and thus nullifies the power of the salt. Thus if one placed the salted meat in a bowl of Tzir the meat is permitted. [However this applies only in accordance to the Michaber which rules in 69/20 (Halacha 24) mainly like the opinion that Tzir is not considered hot after Shiur Melicha. However according to the Rama there the meat remains forbidden.[250]]

If one placed the salted meat in a bowl of blood:[251] If one placed the salted meat in a bold of actual Issur blood then the meat is forbidden a peels worth.

One placed the salted meat in an empty bowl prior to washing:[252] If one placed the salted meat in an empty bowl prior to washing it and left it there for a short time until it was washed there are opinions which say that even if the bowl was empty of liquids the meat remains permitted being that it only remained in the bowl for a short amount of time[253] and there is thus no worry that the blood entered back into the meat. Practically one may rely on this opinion. [This allowance applies even if the meat began giving off a small amount of gravy.[254] If however one finds actual Tzir in the bowl then the meat immediately becomes forbidden as explained in 69/20.[255]] [For the full discussion on this topic refer to Halacha 24!]

One washed the meat one time and then placed it in an empty bowl:[256] Once the meat has been washed even one time it remains permitted [even if it was placed in an empty bowl and one sees that Tzir came out].

One placed the salted meat in an Issur or Dairy bowl:[257] If the vessel is clean of any dairy or Issur residue the meat remains permitted [even if there was no water in the bowl and the vessel was Ben Yomo[258] so long as the meat did not stay long enough to release actual Tzir[259]]. If the vessel was dirty with milk or Issur residue then if there is some liquid in the bowl the meat remains permitted. [However if the bowl is empty of liquid then the meat is forbidden due to the Issur or dairy residue.[260] However the Rashal[261] rules that if the dairy leftover is residue of dairy solids then the meat remains Kosher even if the leftover is moist and there was no liquid in the bowl. However if there was actual milk in the bowl the meat is forbidden.]

 

E. When must the salt be washed off the meat after Shiur Melicha:

The salt is to be washed off the meat prior to 12 hours passing since the salting occurred.[262] Likewise one is not to place the meat in a vessel without a hole unless it is first washed, as was explained above.[263] See Halacha 24 and chapter 70 Halacha 5 for the full details of this topic.

 

12. Meat that was cooked without being cleaned from its salt:[264]

If one cooked the meat without washing off its salt [at all, not even one time[265]] all the food in the pot[266] is required to have 60x the salt[267] [and external blood[268]] otherwise everything is forbidden.[269] One is not required to have 60x versus the piece of meat that contained the salt.[270] [However the Rashal[271] rules that one requires 60x the entire piece of meat, and even in such a case the meat remains forbidden.[272] Practically the accepted Halachic ruling of Rabbanim is unlike the Rashal, and the pot does not require 60x the meat and when there is 60x even the meat itself is permitted.[273]]

How does one measure the 60x?[274] Everything in the pot [including the salted meat itself[275], however not the actual pot[276]] joins to have 60x against the blood.[277] Thus if the pot contains other food which in total adds up to the size of the salted piece of meat then everything is Kosher, as certainly every piece of meat contains at least 30x its surface salt [and blood], and hence when there is other food the size of the piece of meat we know for certain that the pot contains 60x. [However an individual piece of meat never contains 60x its surface salt, even if the piece is very thick.[278] However there are opinions that hold that a piece of meat does contain 60x its surface salt, although practically we do not rule this way.[279]]

One placed dry salted meat in a Keli Rishon:[280] If the salted meat dried prior to washing off its salt[281] and one then entered the meat together with its salt into a Keli Rishon, all the food remains Kosher. The reason for this is because since the blood has dried out the meat certainly contains 60x versus the leftover blood. Nevertheless Lechatchilah one must first wash off the salt prior to cooking it or placing it in a Keli Rishon even though the blood has dried out.[282] Likewise one is not to wash off the salt with water that is Yad Soledes.[283]

One washed the meat one time and then cooked it:[284] If the meat has been washed even one time and was then cooked it remains permitted as Bedieved even one washing suffices for Hadacha Achrona.

 

The law if the meat was placed in a Keli Sheiyni:[285]

  • Rama:

    If the salted meat was placed in a Keli Sheiyni [that was Yad Soledes[286]] all the food requires 60x versus the blood and salt, and if it does not contain 60x everything is forbidden [although the pot itself does not need to be Kashered[287]]. Now although a Keli Sheiyni does not have the ability to cook or transfer taste[288], nevertheless in this case since the meat contains salt and Tzir [which are sharp foods[289]], it gives the ability to even a Keli Sheiyni to cook the Issur. [This law applies regarding any Keli Sheiyni that contains vinegar or other Davar Charif, in which case it has the ability to cook.[290]]

  • Rashal and other Poskim:[291]

    The Rashal and other Poskim rule that if the meat was placed in a Keli Sheiyni the food remains Kosher even in such a case that the meat contains salt and Tzir[292]. [However this leniency only applies regarding salt and Tzir being that its strength is diminished after the salting. However vinegar and other sharp foods give a Keli Sheiyni the ability to transfer forbidden taste even according to the Rashal.[293]]

  • Shach:[294]

    The Shach rules one is to be stringent like the Rama although in a case of great loss one may be lenient like the Rashal. [However this leniency only applies regarding salt and Tzir, as sated above.]

  • Taz:[295]

The Taz rules that one who is lenient like the Rashal does not lose out.[296]

 

One placed salted meat in a Keli Rishon that is off the fire:[297]

The food requires 60x the salt and the blood according to all opinions. This applies even by salted ox meat.[298]

 

One does not remember if he washed the salt off the meat before cooking:[299]

The Taz and others[300] rule that the meat is Kosher as we assume one washed it beforehand.[301]  However the Shach based on his opinion in Nekudos Hakesef would seemingly argue that the entire pot requires 60x the salt.[302]

 

Summary and Final Ruling:

If one cooked meat, or placed it in a hot Keli Rishon prior to washing off its salt the food in the pot requires 60x versus the salt and external blood of the meat. The meat itself joins the 60x. If there is 60x the entire pot, including the meat, is permitted. If the meat was placed in a hot Keli Sheiyni some rule the food requires 60X. Others rule the food is permitted.

 

13. Can a gentile be trusted with the salting process?[303]

Introduction:  In general we do not trust a gentile with regards to Halachic matters. The question arises regarding a case that the gentile cooked one’s salted meat and one does not know if the gentile washed it beforehand as required. In such a case there are two possible scenarios in which a gentile can be believed; Mirseis and Masiach Lefi Tumo. Mirseis means that the gentile fears skipping the required washing such as if he is a worker in one’s home and is being watched. Masiach Lefi Tumo means the gentile makes a casual statement that he washed the meat and does not have knowledge of the requirement to wash it.[304] There is a dispute amongst Rishonim and Poskim as to whether we believe the gentile in both cases or whether only in the case of Mirseis or only in the case of Masiach Lefi Tumo. 

  • Michaber:

    Mirseis-If knows the laws and Yotzei Vinichnas is trusted: If a gentile which works in a Jewish home[305] cooked salted meat and one is unsure whether the gentile washed the meat prior to cooking it then if the gentile knows the custom of Jews[306] [to wash the meat from the salt prior to cooking] and there was a Jew which was entering and leaving the area constantly, one may rely on the word of the gentile if he says that he washed it[307]. This allowance applies even if only a child which has reached the age of understanding was constantly entering and leaving the area.[308] [Furthermore in this case even if the gentile did not say whether he washed the meat beforehand we assume that he washed it.[309]]

  • Rama:[310]

    If Mirseis or Masiach Lefi Tumo is trusted: The gentile is believed in either one of the following scenarios: If the gentile innocently says that he washed the meat well prior to cooking it [Masiach Lefi Tumo] he is believed. Likewise if the gentile knows of the Jewish custom and a Jew, even a child, was constantly entering and exiting the gentile is believed. In the latter case he is believed because he fears to skip the washing being that he knows the Jewish custom is to wash it and he may be seen not following the custom.

    If one told the gentile not to wash the meat and then found that he cooked it: If one told the gentile not to wash [or cook] the meat without his permission and the gentile transgressed his command, the meat is forbidden [if there isn’t 60x] as we see with our very eyes that this gentile does not fear the Jew, and we thus cannot rely on him even if he says that he washed it well.

  • Shach:[311]

    Does the Michaber hold that we believe the gentile if he is Masiach Lefi Tumo? The Shach learns that the Michaber did not mention the allowance of Masiach Lefi Tumo, being that he holds we do not believe a gentile which is Masiach Lefi Tumo, and a gentile is only believed if he feared cooking the meat without washing it beforehand. However the Rama seemingly learns that the Michaber agrees to his assertion that the gentile is believed if he was Masiach Lefi Tumo.[312]

    Is any gentile believed in a case of Yotzei Vinichnas?[313] There are Poskim which rule that the allowance of Mirseis only applies by ones worker, such as a maidservant, as a worker fears not following the custom. However other gentiles will not fear skipping the washing process even if a Jew is constantly entering and exiting.[314]

  • Taz:[315]

    Masiach Lefi Tumo is believed: We do not believe a gentile regarding a Biblical prohibition even if he is Masiach Lefi Tumo. However by a Rabbinical prohibition he is believed. Thus in this case the gentile is believed as blood which is removed from limbs through salting or cooking is only a Rabbinical prohibition.

  • Ruling of Admur in Shulchan Aruch Harav:[316]

A gentile is always believed regarding a Rabbinical prohibition if he is Masiach Lefi Tumo.

 

What is the definition of Masiach Lefi Tumo?[317]

Masiach Lefi Tumo means the gentile’s words hold credibility being that there isn’t suspicion that his words contain a lie. This can occur in one of two instances:

  1. Gentile does not know of custom: The gentile does not know of the Jewish custom to wash the meat and tells the Jew that he washed it. In such a case he is believed even if he was asked by the Jew whether he washed it.[318]
“Kishur Dvarim” Stated in casual conversation: The gentile casually says within a conversation that the meat was washed. In such a case he is believed even if he does know of the Jewish custom to wash the meat as he had no intent to tell the Jew that he washed it. If however the gentile simply states [not as part of a conversation] that he washed the meat then if he knows of the Jewish custom the Taz rules it is not considered Masiach Lefi Tumo. [It is however unclear from the Shach if he agrees with this ruling, and rather it seems that even if the gentile knows of the custom his statement is always believed so long as he was not questioned by the listener whether he washed it.[319]]

 

Summary:

The gentile is believed to have washed the meat if he is a worker in the home and knows the meat requires washing and there was someone constantly entering or exiting. Alternatively if the gentile mentioned casually within a conversation that he washed the meat then he is believed. Alternatively if the gentile does not know of the custom to wash the meat and answers after being asked that he washed it, he is believed.

 

Q&A

May one even initially trust a gentile to do the salting?[320]

Some Poskim write that initially the salting is to be done by a Jew and only in a time of need is it to be done by a gentile.

 

14. Meat that was cooked without being salted:[321]

A. Ruling of Michaber and Rama:

  • Michaber

    If the pot has 60x everything is Kosher: If one cooked meat [or placed it in a hot Keli Rishon[322]] without salting it beforehand the food in the pot requires 60x versus the meat.[323] If there is 60x then everything is Kosher including the meat.[324] 

  • Rama:

    There are opinions[325] which rule that the actual piece of unsalted meat remains forbidden even if there is 60x within the pot. Practically the custom is like this opinion. However in a case of need [or great loss[326]] one may be lenient like the opinion of the Michaber to permit the meat if there is 60x in the pot. The following are examples of cases of need.

    1. One needs the meat for the honor Shabbos.
    2. One needs the meat in honor of guests.

      The reason behind the stringent opinion in Rama:

  1. The Shach[327] explains that the meat is forbidden because we suspect that its blood has moved from one area of the meat to another and has remained in the meat.[328]
  2. The Taz[329] explains that in addition to the above explanation the meat is also forbidden being that the blood is an Issur Davuk and hence the meat has become Chanan.[330]
  3. Alternatively the Taz explains we suspect that the meat resurfaced above the gravy prior to it releasing its blood and became Chanan due to its blood.[331]

 

B. The law if one cooked the meat prior to it being properly salted:[332]

If one cooked the meat prior to it being properly salted it is considered as if it was never salted and one requires 60x versus the meat and even then the meat remains forbidden unless it is case of need. [Definition of properly salted: This means that one cooked the meat prior to the completion of Shiur Melicha. If however the salt remained Shiur Melicha but was simply not salted in all areas then the entire pot is Kosher[333] in a time of need or great loss[334]. Likewise even if it is not a time of need or great loss if there is 60x versus the meat even the meat itself is permitted.[335]]

 

C. One cooked meat that was salted after three days from the slaughtering:[336]

Meat that passed three days since the slaughtering may not be salted and rather is to be roasted. If one salted the meat and then cooked it, it is considered as if it was never salted and one thus requires 60x versus the meat in the food. [Furthermore even if there is 60x in the food the meat itself remains forbidden.[337]]

 

D. The law if one cooked an unsalted whole chicken:[338]

If one cooked a whole unsalted chicken the chicken remains forbidden even in a case of great loss, even if there is 60x.[339]

 

E. One does not remember if he salted the meat before he cooked it:

The Taz[340] and others[341] rule that the meat is Kosher as we assume one salted the meat beforehand.[342]  However the Shach in Nekudos Hakesef argues that the entire pot is forbidden unless it contains 60x the meat.[343] [Practically some Poskim[344] rule one may be lenient in a case of great loss.]

 

F. One placed raw unsalted meat in a Keli Rishon that is off the fire:[345]

According to the Rama[346] even by ox meat the food requires 60x, as a Keli Rishon that is off the fire has the ability to cook the blood of even ox meat.[347] However others[348] rule that although a Keli Rishon can cook the blood of ox meat it does not have the ability to absorb the blood within the ox meat[349], and hence the ox meat remains Kosher. The Taz[350] rules like the latter opinion that the ox meat remains Kosher although all other meats have the ability to cook in a Keli Rishon that is off the fire and hence if they were placed into the food without being salted for blood the food is forbidden without 60x.[351]

G. The law if meat that was cooked without Melicha became mixed with other meat:[352]

If meat that was cooked without being salted became mixed with other pieces of meat, the piece is nullified and it is thus permitted to eat all the pieces. This applies even if the piece was Charal. [Regarding the amount of nullification required: From the Rama it is implied that one only requires majority and so is evident from the Taz[353]. However the Shach[354] rules that 60x is required as is the law in all cases of Min Beino Mino. The Shach concludes that perhaps this was also the intent of the Rama.[355]]

H. “Chalita” The law if one placed unsalted meat in boiling water:[356]

[According to the Michaber] if meat was scalded in boiling water prior to being salted for blood and was then cooked, the meat is permitted. However this only applies if one is certain that the water in which the meat was scalded in was very hot.[357] Some Poskim[358] however only permit the meat in a time of need or great loss.

However according to the Rama some learn that the meat is forbidden unless it was salted before it was cooked. Others learn it is permitted Bedieved even if it was not salted after being scalded, prior to being cooked.[359] [Practically Ashkenazim forbid the meat unless there are other leniencies that can be placed into the equation.[360]]

 

Summary-Final Ruling:

The law of the other food: If there is 60x in the pot versus the meat, the food is permitted.

The law of the actual meat: Even if there is 60x versus the meat, the meat nevertheless remains forbidden unless it is case of need or great loss.[361]

 

Verifying that meat was salted:[362]

When buying meat from a butcher one is obligated to verify whether the meat has already been Kashered. If the meat has not yet been Kashered the buyer must verify how much time has passed since the slaughtering. At the same time whenever one sends someone unsalted meat he is obligated to tell the recipients that the meat needs to be Kashered.

 

Q&A

Does the unsalted piece of meat itself join the rest of the pot to have 60x against its blood?

Some Poskim[363] rule the meat itself joins the rest of the food to have 60x against its blood. Others[364]  rule that the meat does not join the 60x.

 

15. Meat that was not salted for three days after it was slaughtered:[365]

A. The law:

Roasting and not salting:[366] Meat [or fat[367]] that was not salted within 72 hours[368] post the slaughtering [and was not placed in water during that time[369]] now contains dry blood within it and [perhaps[370]] salting it no longer helps to remove its blood. Therefore the meat can no longer be eaten through salting it and then cooking, [smoking or drying[371]].[372] However one can eat the meat through roasting it [and salting it slightly beforehand as will be explained next].

When roasting the meat must one salt it before roasting it?[373] The meat is initially to be slightly salted prior to the roasting as is always the custom when roasting meat to remove its blood. It does not require a full salting before the roasting even though its blood has dried. [374]  

May one Lechatchilah leave meat for three days without salting if he plans to roast it:[375] One may not initially allow meat to remain three days [72 hours] without salting [even if he plans to roast it] as we suspect one may [forget[376] and] come to cook it.

The law if one salted and cooked the meat:[377] If one salted the meat and then cooked it, it is considered as if it was never salted and one thus requires 60x in the food versus the meat. [Furthermore even if there is 60x in the food the meat itself remains forbidden.[378]]

If after three days one soaked the meat in warm water does it help to liquefy the blood and hence allow Melicha?[379] No. Once three days have passed the blood is considered permanently dry.

 

B. May one cook the meat once it has been roasted?[380]

One is not allowed to cook the meat even after it has been roasted [as perhaps not of all of its blood has left through roasting and it will now leave in the cooking process which has an intensified extraction ability.[381]] [However there are opinions[382] which rule that if one fully salted the meat and then roasted it then one may cook it. In a time of need such as a great loss one may be lenient like this opinion.[383] Some Poskim[384] are lenient in a time of need to allow one to do Chalita to the meat and then cook it. Some Poskim[385] are lenient in a time of need to allow cooking it even without Chalita.]

Bedieved if one cooked the meat after roasting it: If one [transgressed and] cooked the meat after roasting it nevertheless the meat remains permitted.[386] [However the Rashal rules the meat is forbidden. The Bach negates this opinion[387] and so concludes Taz that the meat is permitted[388].]

 

C. Must the arteries, veins, and Cheilev be removed from meat within 72 hours from slaughtering?[389] 

Even if one did not remove the arteries, veins or Cheilev from the meat within three days from the slaughtering, nevertheless the meat still remains permitted to be roasted [or salted if the meat was in water during part of the three days].[390] Nevertheless Lechatchilah one is to remove the Cheilev [and arteries[391]] within three days from the slaughtering.

 

D. One salted meat after three days in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav:[392]

If one salted meat in a vessel that does not contain a hole [then if one finds Tzir in the bowl[393]] the meat is forbidden even if the meat is three days past slaughtering and hence contains dried blood.[394]

One salted meat after 3 days in a Keli Menukav and then salted it in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav:[395] If one salted meat after 72 hours in a vessel that contains a hole and then washed the meat and re-salted it in a vessel that does not contain a hole the following is the law: If one finds gravy in the bowl and the meat remained in it for Shiur Kevisha [18 minutes[396]] then the meat is forbidden as it has a status of Kavush. If however it stayed for less than this amount of time then the meat is permitted.[397]


E. One salted meat after three days together with other pieces of meat?[398]

The pieces are being salted to remove their blood: If one salted meat that is three days past slaughtering together with other meat that is within three days then if the pieces are being salted for the first time [and hence contain blood] then the piece that is passed three days is forbidden.[399]

The pieces were already salted for their blood: If one re-salted salted meat that was already properly[400] salted for its blood together with meat that is three days past slaughtering and is now being salted for the first time, then if the vessel does not contain a hole [Eino Menukav] all the already salted pieces are forbidden [even if they remained in the Tzir for less than Shiur Kevisha[401]].[402] [If however the meat was salted together in a Keli Menukav then in this case we are lenient to permit the already salted meat.[403] However there are opinions[404] which are stringent even in a case that the vessel contained a hole.]

 

F. Placed in water within the 3 days:[405]

If one soaked the meat in water [for less than 24 hours[406]] during the 72 hour period then the 72 hour period restarts [from when one removes it from the water], and thus one may always delay the salting process until the last 30 minutes prior to the end of the 3 days.[407] [Hence one can delay the salting process for many days so long as he soaks the meat in water within every 72 hours.]

How long must the meat soak for? [The Toras Chatas[408] requires it to be soaked for one or two hours.] The Taz[409] rules that initially the meat is to soak for 30 minutes just like is required by Hadacha Rishona. The Shach[410] rules that it suffices to soak the meat for less than 30 minutes although one must initially soak the meat well and a mere rinse does not suffice.

Bedieved is a mere rinse valid:[411] Bedieved if one did not soak the meat well, then even if he only gave it a mere rinse we are lenient to permit salting and cooking the meat after the 72 hours, so long as the veins were removed from the meat. If however the veins were not removed from the meat than a mere rinse does not suffice even Bedieved, and hence if it remained 72 hours [without soaking for 30 minutes[412]] it may not be salted and cooked. [However there are opinions[413] which are lenient. Practically Admur [414] rules that in a case of great loss one may be lenient to remove the veins and soak the meat in warm water for a few hours and then salt it.]

May one Lechatchilah soak it in water to restart the three days:[415] The Rama[416] holds that one may not initially place the meat in water in order to restart the 72 hours and rather it must be initially salted for blood within 72 hours from the slaughtering. Nevertheless Bedieved if one already delayed 72 hours and it was soaked within that time, then he may salt and cook the meat. Likewise in a time of need or in a case of great loss one may even initially soak the meat in order to restart the 72 hours. Furthermore in many communities[417] the custom is to allow soaking it even initially in order to restart the 72 hours. The Rama[418] concludes that those communities may be lenient as they have upon whom to rely.  The Shach concludes that practically one need not be stringent in these laws.[419]

 

G. The law if there is doubt whether the meat is three days past slaughtering?[420]

If one salted meat that is questionable whether it is three days past the slaughtering one may be lenient to cook it.

 

H. The law if meat that was not salted within three days became mixed with other meat:[421]

If meat that was not salted within three days of slaughtering became mixed with other pieces of meat, the piece is nullified in majority[422] and it is thus permitted to cook all the pieces [if they have all already been salted]. [If the pieces have not yet been salted then one is to salt all the pieces[423] and then cook it.[424] However if the three day piece was not yet salted while the other pieces were already salted, then one requires 60x versus the largest piece of meat.[425] If one does not have 60x then seemingly all the pieces must be roasted.[426]]

Does the above law apply even if the three day meat is Charal? The above law that the three day meat is nullified in majority applies even if this meat is Charal.[427]

May one cook the entire group of meat together at the same time:[428]  It is forbidden to cook all the pieces together simultaneously unless one has 60x of Heter against the largest[429] piece in the pot. [Likewise one may not eat all the pieces together simultaneously[430]], although there is no need to throw out one of the pieces.[431] [If one transgressed and cooked all the pieces together see “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 109 Halacha 1B.[432]]

Why is the group of meat not forbidden due to it being a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin [DSL”M]?

  • Rama in chapter 102: [433] Even though the meat in the above case is allowed to be roasted, and there are opinions which thus say that something which is allowed to be roasted is considered a DSL”M, nevertheless here it is not considered a DSL”M being that it is not an intrinsic Issur [Machmas Atzmo] but rather is only forbidden due to absorbed blood, and only foods which are intrinsically forbidden receive the stringency of a DSL”M, as explained in “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Halacha 2D.
  • The reason of the Shach[434]/Taz[435]: A food can only be considered DSL”M if it is currently forbidden for a certain matter and that matter will eventually become permitted. In this case however the meat in question is always forbidden to be cooked and always permitted to be roasted. There is no aspect that will eventually become permitted and it is hence not viewed as a DSL”M.

 

General Summary of Halacha 15:

Meat or fat that was not salted within 72 hours post the slaughtering [and was not placed in water during that time] can no longer be eaten through salting it and then cooking, [smoking or drying]. Rather one can only eat the meat through roasting it. One is to slightly salt the meat prior to roasting it. If one transgressed and salted the meat and then cooked it, it is considered as if it was never salted and one thus requires 60x versus the meat in the food. If one soaked the meat in water [for less than 24 hours] during the 72 hour period then the 72 hour period restarts [from when one removes the meat from the water].

Lechatchilah: One may not initially allow meat to remain three days [72 hours] without salting even if he desires to soak it in water. However in a time of need one may be lenient to soak it, and some hold that even initially one is not required to be stringent in these laws.[436]

May one cook the meat once it has been roasted? One is not allowed to cook the meat even after it has been roasted. [However there are opinions[437] which rule that if one fully salted the meat and then roasted it, then it may be cooked. In a time of need such as a great loss one may be lenient like this opinion.[438]]

Bedieved if one cooked the meat after roasting it: If one [transgressed and] cooked the meat after roasting it nevertheless the meat remains permitted. [439]  [However the Rashal rules the meat is forbidden. The Bach negates this opinion and so rules Taz[440].]

The law if meat that was not salted within three days became mixed with other meat:[441] If meat that was not salted within three days of slaughtering became mixed with other pieces of meat, the piece is nullified in majority and it is thus permitted to cook all the pieces [if they have already all been salted]. [If the pieces have not yet been salted then one is to salt all the pieces and then cook it. However if the three day piece was not yet salted while the other pieces were already salted, then one requires 60x versus the largest piece of meat.[442] If one does not have 60x then seemingly all the pieces must be roasted.] It is forbidden to cook all the pieces together simultaneously unless one has 60x of Heter against the largest piece in the pot. [Likewise one may not eat all the pieces together simultaneously], although there is no need to throw out one of the pieces.

 

Q&A

If the meat was refrigerated for three days may it be salted and cooked?[443]

Refrigerating meat does not help lengthen the drying process of its blood.  Hence if the meat remained unsalted for three days in the refrigerator it is no longer permitted to be cooked.

 

If meat was frozen for three days may the meat still be salted and cooked?[444]

Practical example: May the Rabanut of Israel slaughter animals in South America, freeze the meat and delay the Melicha until the frozen meat reaches Israel in which they have a proper salting facility

The law: Some Poskim[445] rule that even if the meat was frozen for one day the meat is forbidden to be eaten even through roasting as it is considered as if it was soaked in water for 24 hours. Others[446] rule if it stayed frozen for over 24 hours it may be roasted.[447] Others[448] rule it may even be cooked if it remained frozen for less than three days although it is only permitted to be roasted if it remained frozen for three days.[449] Others[450] rule it is permitted to even be cooked if it stayed frozen three days.[451]

Practically some of today’s Poskim[452] rule that Lechatchilah one should not freeze the meat with intent to salt it after three days, however Bedieved in a time of need one may freeze it for three days and then salt it.[453] although Bedieved it is Kosher. Other Poskim[454] rule that even initially one may freeze it for three days and then salt it.

 

May a butcher shop sell meat which has passed three days since the slaughtering?

There are opinions[455] which forbid selling meat which has passed three days due to worry that the buyer may come to cook it.

 

May one place the meat into a Keli Sheiyni after roasting?

Some Poskim[456] rule one may be lenient to do so.

 

May one soak the raw meat on Shabbos if after Shabbos its three days will expire?[457]

It is forbidden to rinse the meat on Shabbos in order to prevent it from becoming forbidden to be cooked.[458]

Having a gentile rinse the meat: One may not be lenient to ask a gentile to rinse the meat.[459] 

May one initially leave liver unsalted for three days after slaughtering?[460]

Yes.[461] Although in such a case one may not cook it after roasting.

 

16. The law if meat that was cooked without Melicha became mixed with other meat:[462]

See Halacha 14G!

 

17. The law if a piece of meat which was not salted became mixed with raw salted pieces:

  • Taz: [463]

    If a piece of meat that was not yet salted became mixed with other salted pieces the meat is nullified in majority as it has a status of Yaveish Beyaveish. One is not required to salt all the pieces separately due to doubt, as salting is considered an expense, and whenever an Issur can only be permitted through an action that involves an expense we allow it to be nullified and it is not defined as a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin.

  • Shach:[464]

Seemingly according to the Shach the Issur meat requires 60x.

 

18. Unsalted meat which soaked for 24 hours in water:[465]

See Halacha 5 where this law was already discussed!

 

Keli Menukav and Eino Menukav

19.  On what surface is one to salt the meat?[466]

One may only salt meat for blood on a surface which allows the blood to flow away from the meat.

The following surfaces may be used for salting:

  1. Keli Menukav: A vessel that has a hole [i.e. Keli Menukav] which allows the blood to flow out through it, is a valid surface for salting.[467] When using a Keli Menukav one must beware that the holes of the vessel are open and do not become clogged by the meat. Due to this some are stringent to place twigs or straw on the bottom of the Keli Menukav [between the holes and the meat] in order to prevent the meat from stuffing up the hole. However Bedieved if one did not do so, one does not need to suspect that the holes became clogged and the meat is permitted.[468]
  2. On top of twigs and straw:[469] One may salt meat on top of twigs or straw [as the blood flows to the bottom of the twigs and is thus similar to a vessel with a hole.]
  3. A slanted table:[470] One may salt on top of a slanted surface which causes water that is poured on it to slide off.
  4. A smooth flat surface:[471] A wooden board which has been smoothened with a blade to the point that water slides off of it, does not need to be placed in a slanted position when salting the meat. However if the plank was not smoothened with a blade then it must be slanted during the salting process.

Placing the salting vessel over earth:[472] One may not place the vessel which contains salted meat over earth, as this is considered like salting meat in a vessel without a hole. Nevertheless Bedieved if one did so the meat remains Kosher.[473]

One who salted on a flat surface:[474] If one salted on a surface that water does not flow off from, such as a flat table, and it causes the blood to gather in one area, then the meat is forbidden as this is similar to salting in a vessel without a hole.

 

Q&A

May one hang the meat and salt it for its blood?

Some[475] write this may not be done. Vetzaruch Iyun.

 

20. The law if one salted meat in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav-The law of the vessel:[476] 

A. May one use this vessel for hot foods?[477]

If one salted meat in order to remove its blood in a vessel that does not contain a hole then the vessel becomes forbidden to be used with hot Kosher foods, [even when the vessel is clean[478]].[479]

The law if one used the vessel for hot foods:[480] If one transgressed and used the vessel [for hot food] then if the food is dry [even if it is slightly moist[481]] one must remove a peels worth from the food. However if the food is a liquid then one requires 60x the peels[482] worth of the vessel[483]. [This refers to a case that the vessel is cold.[484] If however the vessel is hot then the food always requires 60x[485] a peels worth of the vessel even if the food is only slightly moist, while if it is completely dry then only a peels worth is required from the food.[486]]

Does the food in a vessel normally contain 60x a peels worth of that vessel?[487] Normally the food in a vessel contains 60x a peels worth of that vessel. However it is possible for a food not to contain 60x such as by a very wide vessel.

 

Summary:

Vessel is cold, food is hot: If the food is dry one needs a Kelipa. If the food is a liquid then one needs 60x a Kelipa of the vessel in the area of contact [although some[488] require 60x versus a peels worth of the entire vessel, and some require 60x versus the entire thickness of the area of contact.].

Vessel and food are hot: If the food is completely dry one needs a Kelipa. If the food is slightly wet one needs Netila [according to Sefaradim and according to Ashkenazim 60x]. If he food is a liquid then one needs 60x a Kelipa of the vessel.

 

Chart

 

Completely dry

Slightly moist

liquid

Cold vessel

Kelipa of food

Kelipa of food

60x Kelipa of vessel

Hot vessel

Kelipa of food

Netila of food [60x Kelipa of vessel for Ashkenazim]

60x Kelipa of vessel

 

B. May one use the vessel for cold food?[489]

Lechatchilah: If one salted meat in order to remove its blood in a vessel that does not contain a hole then [if the vessel has been cleaned and washed with water, according to all it may be used for cold foods. If it was not yet washed then the following dispute is recorded: There are opinions[490] which rule it is permitted even initially to use the bowl for cold foods prior to it being washed[491], so long as the bowl is clean[492].[493]] However other opinions[494] say that it is forbidden to use the bowl with cold foods prior to it being washed with water [even if the bowl is cleaned[495] of all its blood[496]].[497] [Others[498] hold that only by earthenware is it forbidden to use it for even cold foods prior to washing it with water. However by other vessels it is permitted if the vessel has been wiped clean.]

Bedieved:[499] If one went ahead and used the [clean] bowl for cold foods before washing it then one is required to wash the food prior to eating.

May one place raw meat in this bowl:[500] It is permitted place a piece of raw meat into the bowl [even if the bowl has not been washed so long as it is clean].[501]

 

Summary:

One is not to use the vessel for cold foods until the vessel is washed with water. If one did use it before washing it then one must wash the food prior to eating. It is permitted even initially to place raw meat in the vessel. It is permitted to use the vessel for cold foods once it has been washed.

 

C. May one reuse the vessel for salting meat:[502]

Salting for blood: If one salted meat in order to remove its blood in a vessel that does not contain a hole then if one makes a hole in the vessel [and cleans it[503]] it is permitted to reuse it for salting other meat for blood.[504]

Salting for preservation: Meat which has already been salted and washed may be re-salted [for preservation] in this bowl even if one does not make a hole in it. [Nevertheless one may not allow the meat to remain in the bowl for 24 hours as then it is considered Kavush Kimivushal.[505] Nonetheless Bedieved even if it was left there for 24 hours the meat remains Kosher.[506]]

 

21. May one use a Keli Menukav that is designated for salting, for other foods?[507]

May a vessel with a hole that was used to salt meat be used for other foods?

A. Hot foods:

  • Michaber:

    Dispute: A vessel with a hole that was used to salt meat for blood is permitted to even initially be used to eat hot food [as the blood never became absorbed in the vessel being that the blood is Mishrak Sharik[508]]. However there are opinions which forbid using this vessel with hot foods.[509]

  • Rama:

    Final Ruling-Bedieved is Kosher: Practically, one is to initially beware from using the vessel with hot foods, although Bedieved it is permitted. [This applies by all vessels. Thus Lechatchilah all material vessels may not be used for hot foods although Bedieved the food is Kosher even by vessels made of earthenware.[510]]

  • Rashal; Bach:[511]

    Permitted by all materials other than earthenware: The Rashal rules that even initially one may use the vessels for hot foods so long as the material is not made of earthenware. By earthenware vessels if one used it for hot foods then even Bedieved the food is forbidden. The Bach agrees with this final ruling of the Rashal that by earthenware we prohibit the food even Bedieved.

  • Shach:[512]

    Earthenware is forbidden Bedieved: Initially one may not use any material vessel for hot foods. Bedieved if one did so the food remains permitted with exception to earthenware vessels in which case the food is forbidden.

  • Taz:[513]

Rules like Shach: The Taz rules like the Shach, Rashal and Bach that by earthenware the food is forbidden even Bedieved [and Lechatchilah it is forbidden to use any material vessel for hot food[514]]. 

 

Summary of the law by earthenware:

The Rashal rules that if one placed hot food inside an earthenware Keli Menukav then the food is forbidden. However according to the Rama even by an earthenware Keli Menukav it is permitted to be eaten Bedieved. Practically the Shach arbitrates that by earthenware one is to be stringent even Bedieved like the Rashal [and so rules also the Bach; Issur Viheter[515], and Taz.]

 

B. Placing cold foods in the vessel:[516]

One may use a Keli Menukav for cold foods even initially and even if the vessel is earthenware. This allowance applies even if the vessel has not been washed so long as it has been cleaned.

 

Summary:

It is initially forbidden to cook or place hot foods in the vessel used for salting [Keli Menukav]. Bedieved if one used it with hot food the food is permitted by all materials that are not earthenware.  However by earthenware many Poskim forbid the food even Bedieved[517], although some[518] are lenient.

 

22. The law if one salted in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav-The law of the meat:[519]

A. How much of the meat becomes forbidden:

  • Michaber:

    Meat within Tzir is forbidden if fully salted and remained 18 minutes: If meat was salted [with the amount of salt required for the Melicha process[520]] within a vessel that does not have a hole, then if it remained within the vessel for the amount of time it takes water to begin to boil when placed on a fire [i.e. 18 minutes-See Q&A], then all the meat that is submerged within the liquid blood [i.e. Tzir] is forbidden to be eaten even through roasting [as Kavush Kemevushal[521]]. However the part of meat that protrudes above the gravy remains Kosher. Nevertheless one must remove a Kelipa worth from this part. [This Kelipa is removed from the area that the protruding piece touches the bottom area that is submerged within the gravy.[522]] This leniency regarding the top part that protrudes from the gravy applies even if the piece of meat is fatty.[523]

    The law if the meat remained less than Shiur Kevisha:[524] If the meat remained for less than Shiur Kevisha   within the gravy then the meat is permitted although a peels worth must be removed.

  • Rama:

Meat is entirely forbidden:[525] There are opinions which forbid the entire piece of meat, including the area that is above the Tzir. Furthermore, this applies even if one only slightly salted the meat [less than the amount required for Melicha] as is done for roasting.[526] Furthermore even if the meat remained in the salt for less than Shiur Melicha [18 minutes] the entire meat is forbidden if Tzir is visible within the bowl.[527] Practically the custom follows this opinion and one may not swerve from it. [This applies even if one salted the meat in a vessel with a hole and then in middle of Shiur Melicha he placed the meat in a vessel without a hole.[528] If however the meat is past Shiur Melicha see Halacha 24]

The law if one salted many pieces together in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav: If one salted many pieces of meat together in a vessel that does not contain a hole then only the piece of meat that is in on the bottom and is touching the Tzir is forbidden, while all the upper pieces [which are completely above the Tzir[529]] are Kosher.[530] Practically this is the custom.

 

B. The law if the forbidden piece became mixed with other pieces:[531]

The Rashal[532] rules that if meat which was salted in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav became mixed with other pieces of meat it is nullified in 1:2.[533] The Shach questions this ruling although suggests that perhaps since blood of the limbs is only Rabbinically forbidden therefore one can be lenient like the Rashal. However seemingly he is only lenient in a case where this piece of meat is still within Shiur Melicha.[534] However from the Rashal it is implied that this allowance applies even to a case that the piece of meat was fully salted for Shiur Melicha in a bowl without a hole. The Shach concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun.

 

C. A piece of meat was placed in a bowl with bloody Tzir:[535]

If a piece of meat fell into bloody Tzir then if the piece that fell was salted and was still within Shiur Melicha then the entire piece is forbidden[536]. However if the meat was after Shiur Melicha then only the part that is inside the gravy is forbidden while the part above the gravy is permitted. If one is in doubt as to whether the meat is within Shiur Melicha or past Shiur Melicha then we are lenient regarding the area that is above the gravy.

 

D. What is the law if one salted meat on top of another piece of unsalted meat in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav:[537] 

Example: A woman salted a pre-salted goose on top of a goose that was not yet salted within a vessel that does not contain a hole.

The law: The area of meat of the lower piece which is submerged within the Tzir is forbidden[538] while the meat which protrudes above the Tzir is Kosher.[539] [However the Shach in Nekudos Hakesef argues that in this case all the food remains permitted as the upper meat was already salted for its blood and the Tzir is hence Kosher.[540] However in a case that the top meat was not yet salted for its blood then this law would apply and the meat within the Tzir would be forbidden.]

 

Final Ruling:

If meat was salted within a vessel that does not have a hole, the meat is entirely forbidden. This applies even if only a minute amount of salt was used, and even if the meat did not remain Shiur Melicha in the vessel.[541] This applies even if one salted the meat in a vessel with a hole and then in middle of Shiur Melicha he placed the meat in a vessel without a hole.[542]

 

Q&A

Practically what is the amount of time it takes Tzir to boil [Shiur Kevisha]?[543]

Some opinions[544] rule this refers to 18 minutes just as is the measurement of salting meat for its blood. Others say it is not less than 6 minutes. Others however argue that this depends on the size of every item, and its cooking ability and hence no definite time can be given.[545] Practically the accepted ruling of Rabbanim is 18 minutes.[546]


What is the law if meat or chicken fell onto the ground during Shiur Melicha?

Some Poskim[547] rule that the meat is forbidden, as it is considered as if the meat was momentarily placed in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav. Others[548] however rule that if the meat did not yet release gravy then it is permitted.

 

23. “Chalita” Must the meat be placed in boiling water following Shiur Melicha and Hadacha?[549]

  • Michaber:

    Dispute: One does not need to place the meat in boiling water after the Melicha process is complete and hence it may now be placed even in non-boiling water.[550] However there is an opinion[551] which does require the meat to be first placed in boiling water prior to cooking it[552] [Practically, according to the Michaber one is to be stringent if possible, to place the meat in boiling water.[553]]

  • Rama:

Final Ruling: The custom is like the first opinion and so is the main opinion.[554]

  • The custom of the Yemenite Jewry:[555]

The Yemenite custom is to require Chalita prior to cooking the meat.

 

24. “Maaseh DeRashi” The status of the gravy after Shiur Melicha:[556]

Introduction: In Halacha 22 we learned that blood of meat has the ability to prohibit the meat if the meat is salted in a bowl without a hole. We learned that this applies even if one salted the meat in a vessel with a hole and then in middle of Shiur Melicha he placed the meat in a vessel without a hole.  This current Halacha will deal with the law of meat that was salted in a bowl with a hole for the amount of Shiur Melicha and was then placed after Shiur Melicha into a bowl without a hole. The question here is since the meat was not washed and is still dissipating gravy and still contains external blood and blood absorbed salt, does any of this blood become reabsorbed into the meat. This depends on several factors: What is the status of Tzir that dissipates from the meat after Shiur Melicha. Is the gravy considered to still contain blood or is it considered regular gravy? Furthermore even if the Tzir is considered gravy is the gravy considered hot enough to transfer the external blood to the meat or is it considered cold? Furthermore even if the gravy is considered cold does the salt that is on the meat have the ability to transfer the external blood into the meat? In summary there are three factors that threaten the Kashrus of the meat in this case: A. Is the Tzir blood? B. Is the Tzir hot? C. Is the salt hot? This matter is disputed between Rishonim and Poskim as will be explained below. This scenario became known as Maaseh Derashi [a story with Rashi] due to that the question occurred in Rashi’s home. The following are the details of this case and Rashi’s ruling:

Masseh Derashi: A number of Rishonim[557] record the following story that occurred within the house of Rashi: In Rashi’s home a piece of meat which was not washed after Shiur Melicha was placed in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav. When they came to remove the meat they noticed the meat was now sitting in a pool of gravy. Rashi was asked the Halachic ruling of the meat and Rashi ruled that the meat is Kosher. Others however argue on this ruling. The following are the opinions and their reasons:

 

A. Salted meat which was placed into a vessel without a hole after Shiur Melicha without being washed beforehand:

  • First opinion:[558]

    Meat is Kosher: If a piece of meat that was salted for Shiur Melicha was placed in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav without washing it beforehand then even if the bowl began filling up with gravy, the meat nevertheless remains Kosher.[559] Similarly if a piece of Kosher meat fell into a bowl of Tzir that flowed from meat after it passed Shiur Melicha, the meat is Kosher.[560]

  • Second Opinion:[561]

    Meat requires Kelipa: There is an opinion which forbids the meat[562] in both of the above cases.[563] [This applies even if the meat remained in the Tzir only momentarily.[564] However this only applies if the meat was found in actual Tzir. If however it remained in the vessel only momentarily and was removed prior to it releasing Tzir then the meat is permitted.[565]]

  • The Final Ruling of Michaber:

    Lechatchilah beware, permitted Bedieved: Lechatchilah one is to be stringent like the second opinion [not to place meat that is after Shiur Melicha in a vessel that does not have a hole, until it is washed. However Bedieved if one did so the meat remains Kosher, and so is the ruling of the Sefaradim.[566]]

  • The Final Ruling of Rama:

    Forbidden a Kelipa worth: There are opinions[567] which prohibit a Kelipa worth of the meat that is submerged within the Tzir and so is the custom. However the area above the Tzir is completely permitted. [This applies even if there is 60x of meat versus the Tzir, as a Kelipa is never nullified in 60x.[568]] Nevertheless in a case of great loss, and it involves a Seudas Mitzvah then one may be lenient like the first opinion which says that after Shiur Melicha the gravy is no longer considered hot [and hence the meat is completely permitted].[569]

  • Rashal:[570]

    Meat in Tzir is completely forbidden if no 60x: The Rashal rules that the entire area of meat that is submerged within the Tzir is forbidden, including a Kelipa worth from the area above the Tzir.[571] However according to Rashal if there is 60x in the meat that is submerged in the Tzir, versus the Tzir then the meat is completely permitted.[572]

  • Taz:[573]

The Taz rules like the Rashal that all the meat that is submerged in the Tzir is forbidden.[574] One may however be lenient like the Michaber in a case of great loss that is also a Seudas Mitzvah.[575]

 

B. According to the stringent opinion what is the law if there is 60x of meat versus the Tzir in the bowl?[576]

According to the Rama which requires a Kelipa of the area of meat submerged within the Tzir there is no relevance in whether the meat contains 60x versus the Tzir, as a Kelipa is never nullified in 60x. However according to Rashal which holds that all the meat in the Tzir is forbidden then if one has 60x within the meat that is in the Tzir versus the Tzir, everything is Kosher. However the meat which is above the Tzir does not join the 60x as the blood does not penetrate into that area.

 

C. According to the stringent opinions what is the law if the meat became mixed with other Kosher pieces:[577]

If meat which became forbidden due to Tzir that dissipated after Shiur Melicha became mixed with other meat it is nullified in a 1:2 ratio.[578]


D. The law if one washed the meat and then placed it into a vessel without a hole:[579]

According to all opinions if the meat was washed after Shiur Melicha it remains Kosher even if one finds it sitting within gravy[580]. This applies even if one only gave a slight rinse to the meat prior to placing it in the bowl.

 

E. The law if one left the meat in the bowl for a short amount of time:[581]

If one placed the salted meat in an empty bowl prior to washing it and left it there for a short time until it was washed there are opinions which say the meat remains permitted being that it only remained in the bowl for a short amount of time and there is thus no worry that the blood entered back into the meat. Practically one may rely on this opinion. [This allowance applies even if the meat began giving off a small amount of gravy.[582] If however one finds actual Tzir in the bowl then the meat immediately becomes forbidden according to the stringent opinion mentioned above. [583]]

 

Final Ruling of A-D:

Ashkenazim: If a piece of meat that was salted for Shiur Melicha was placed in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav without washing it beforehand [and Tzir dissipated from the meat] then the meat that is within the Tzir is forbidden a peels worth. Others rule the area in the gravy is completely forbidden. Nevertheless in a case of great loss, and it involves a Seudas Mitzvah one may be lenient to permit the meat.

Michaber and Sefaradim: According to the Michaber and Sefaradim the meat is always permitted.

Meat remained in bowl for a short amount of time: If no Tzir dissipated from the meat the meat remains Kosher according to all. Furthermore one may be lenient even if a small amount of gravy dissipated so long as it is not actual Tzir.

 

F. What is the law if one salted a Treif duck and after Shiur Melicha placed it on top of other meat?[584]

According to the second opinion the meat is forbidden unless the case involves great loss and a Seudas Mitzvah in which case one may be lenient to consider the Tzir cold.[585] However the Bach rules that since the duck releases non-Kosher gravy even after Shiur Melicha therefore one cannot be lenient even according to the lenient opinion. The Taz negates this ruling and concludes one may rely on those who are lenient.

 

G. The law of the vessel which received Tzir after Shiur Melicha:[586]

The vessel in which the Tzir of after Shiur Melicha fell into is forbidden[587] [according to the Rama[588]]. [If the vessel is made of materials other than earthenware then it is only prohibited a peels worth, and if it is made of earthenware it is entirely forbidden.[589]]

 

H. The law if the meat was placed in a dairy bowl:[590] 

Vessel contains dairy residue: If one placed meat after Shiur Melicha but prior to washing, inside a dairy bowl, then if the bowl contains milk residue [the Rama rules] the meat is [completely[591]] forbidden [if it does not contain 60x the residue], as the gravy of after Shiur Melicha is considered hot. However if the case involves a great loss, and it involves a Seudas Mitzvah one may be lenient like those which say that after Shiur Melicha the gravy is no longer considered hot.

Vessel is clean:

  • Shach:[592]

    If the dairy vessel was clean then the meat is kosher, even if the vessel is Ben Yomo.[593] [However some[594] write this applies only if the meat remained in the vessel for less than 18 minutes. Vetzaruch Iyun.[595]]

  • Taz:[596]

    The Taz rules that if the vessel is Ben Yomo the meat is forbidden.[597]

  • Final Ruling:[598]

We rule like the Shach.

 

Summary:

If meat was placed after Shiur Melicha into a dairy bowl, then if the bowl is clean and not Ben Yomo the meat is permitted. If the bowl is clean but Ben Yomo it is disputed whether the meat is permitted, although practically we are lenient[599]. If the bowl contained residue of milk then the meat is completely forbidden unless it is a case of great loss and Seudas Mitzvah.

 

25. Must one wash the meat after Shiur Melicha:[600]

  • Michaber:

    Based on the second [stringent] opinion [mentioned in Halacha 24A] that the Tzir is considered hot even after Shiur Melicha it is forbidden to eat the meat until it is well washed. [The Shach and Taz ask that in truth this Halacha of washing the meat is not at all dependant on the above dispute, as everyone agrees that one cannot eat the external blood that remains on meat after salting. They thus explain the Michaber in the following way:]

  • Explanation of Shach:[601]

    The Shach explains that the intent of the Michaber is to say that according to the stringent opinion one must wash the meat within 12 hours of the Melicha, prior to it releasing all of its Tzir.[602] However according to the first opinion there is no limit as to when the meat must have its external blood washed off.  Alternatively the intent of the Michaber is to say that according to the stringent opinion even if one was to cut the sides of the meat, hence freeing it of all its external blood and salt, it would require a washing in order to stop the flow of Tzir which is considered like blood according to the stringent opinion.[603]

     

  • Explanation of Taz:[604]

The Taz explains the intent of the Michaber is to say that according to the stringent opinion one must wash the meat prior to placing it in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav. However according to the first opinion this is not necessary.[605]

 

26. May one cut the meat prior to washing it? What is the law regarding the knife if one cut the meat?[606]

A. May one cut salted meat after Shiur Melicha prior to washing it?

  • Michaber:

    Dispute-Lechatchilah do not cut, Bedieved is permitted: The Michaber rules that according to the stringent opinion which rules that the Tzir is considered hot even after Shiur Melicha it is forbidden to cut meat that is after Shiur Melicha prior to washing it. If one does so then [according to this opinion[607]] the knife needs Hagala. [However according to the lenient opinion above it is even initially permitted to cut the meat before washing it. Practically according to the Michaber although initially one is to suspect for the stringent opinion and not cut the meat until it is washed, nevertheless if the meat was cut the knife remains Kosher.]

  • Rama:

    May cut even initially: There are opinions which allow cutting meat with a knife after Shiur Melicha[608] [even if the knife contains grooves[609]] as “Ein Melicha Likeilim”[610]. Practically this is the main opinion [and hence it is even initially[611] permitted to cut the meat with a knife after Shiur Melicha]. Furthermore even if a knife was used to cut meat that is within Shiur Melicha the knife does not become forbidden [as will be explained in C].[612]

    Washing the knife before reusing: After using a knife to cut salted meat one must rinse off the knife [prior to cutting other foods].[613] If the Tzir on the knife has already dried then one is to do Neitza to the knife. This means one is to stab the knife [ten times[614]] into [ten different areas[615] of] the ground.

  • Rashal:[616]

If one used a knife to cut meat after Shiur Melicha then Lechatchilah he is to do Hagala to the knife, however Bedieved[617] it suffices if one cleaned the knife with a hard object [hence removing any external blood from it]. Nonetheless one who is stringent to forbid any [hot] food cut with this knife prior to it being Kashered will be blessed. If the knife was not cleaned with a hard object then one is to be stringent to himself to forbid the food however when ruling for others one is to be lenient to permit the food even if the food was hot and the knife was not cleaned.

 

B. Cut a piece of meat which was in the midst of roasting for its blood:[618]

The Rashal rules that cutting roasted meat follows the same laws as salted meat and hence initially one may not cut the meat until it is roasted to the point that all its blood has been removed. [However once it is fully roasted it is permitted to be cut.[619]]

 

C. Cutting salted meat within Shiur Melicha:[620]

It is [even initially[621]] permitted to cut salted meat that is within Shiur Melicha so long as one plans to wash the meat well in that area and then salt it.[622] The knife itself remains Kosher and requires a mere rinsing as explained above.[623]

Final Ruling:

Ashkenazim: After Shiur Melicha has passed one may cut meat with a knife even prior to washing it. However one is required to wash off the Tzir from the knife after doing so. If the meat is still within Shiur Melicha then it may only be cut if one plans to re-wash and re-salt the meat afterwards. As well one must rinse off the blood from the knife. [There are Poskim which require the knife to be Kashered in all cases, although Bedieved if it was already used the food is permitted.]       

Sefaradim: According to the Michaber and Sefaradim it is forbidden to cut meat with a knife until its salt is washed off. This applies even after Shiur Melicha although Bedieved in such a case the knife remains Kosher. [However if the knife was used during Shiur Melicha it must be Kashered.[624]]

 

27. Salting meat for preservation after it has been salted for Shiur Melicha?[625]

If after Shiur Melicha one desires to salt meat for preservation then [according to the stringent opinion mentioned in Halacha 24A[626]] one is to first wash the meat very well from its salt and then re-salt it for preservation. Once the meat has been washed it may then be re-salted even in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav [even according to the stringent opinion mentioned in Halacha 24A]. [However according to the lenient opinion mentioned there one may even initially[627] salt the meat after Shiur Melicha, in a vessel without a hole, prior to washing it.[628] Practically according to the Michaber one is to initially be stringent.]

 

Summary of Cases of Ramification between Rashi [1st opinion] and Tosafus [2nd opinion]:

  1. Meat fell into Tzir of after Shiur Melicha.
  2. Meat was placed after Shiur Melicha in bowl without a hole.
  3. Meat was cut after Shiur Melicha.
  4. Meat was not washed until after all its gravy left. [See Shach 70/24]
  5. Meat was preserved with salt prior to being washed.


28. Is slightly salted meat required to be washed prior to roasting it for its blood?[629]

If one slightly salts the meat before roasting and then roasts it right away, then it is not required to wash the meat [prior to roasting it[630] or eating it[631]], as the flame draws out all the blood, including all the external blood, and prevents any blood from becoming absorbed within the salt. This applies even in accordance to the stringent opinion [mentioned in Halacha 24A].[632] However if the meat was left in the salt for a while prior to roasting it then the salt absorbs the blood and hence forbidding the salt, and thus the salt must be washed off prior to roasting [or alternatively prior to eating[633]]. [Practically it is the Ashkenazi custom to always wash the meat after roasting due to that we suspect for external blood being stuck on to the meat.[634]]

 

Summary:

If the salt did not remain much time on the meat prior to roasting it may be roasted without washing it off. If it remained some time with the salt then one is to wash off the salt before roasting.

 

29. What does a person do if he has no salt to use for Melicha:[635]

In an area that salt is not available one is to roast the meat until all its blood leaves. After the meat is roasted to this amount it may then be cooked. [Regarding how long meat must be roasted for if one does not plan to cook it before eating it-See Chapter 76 Halacha 8]

How long must the meat be roasted for until its blood is removed?

  • Ran[636] and so rules Rama[637] and Shach[638]:

    The meat is to be roasted to the point of Maachal Ben Drusaiy [which is defined as half cooked[639]]. One may even initially roast it only until this point.[640]

  • Rashba[641] and so rules Rashal[642] and Michaber[643]:

    The meat is to be roasted until it is edible for majority of people.[644]

  • Hagahos Sheid:[645]

    Women are not expertise in the amount of roasting required, and hence they are accustomed to roast the meat until the outside of the meat is dry.

  • Taz:[646]

It is proper to be stringent like the Hagahos Sheid and roast the meat until it is dry in order to fulfill ones obligation according to all.

 

Final Ruling of Poskim:

Initially one is to roast the meat until it is fully cooked.[647] Although Bedieved if the meat was cooked in a pot after being roasted half way it is permitted.[648]

 

Q&A

What is one to do if he is not medically allowed to eat salt and is unable to roast the meat?

If he is healthy then he may not eat the meat.

If the person is sick and is in need of meat then he can be lenient in the following matters:

  1. Salt the meat for 18 minutes.[649]
  2. Use diet salt.[650]
  3. Some allow, based on the directive of a Rabbi, to cut the meat to small pieces and then do Chalita to the meat.[651]

 

List of practical order of Melicha:

  1. Salt the meat within three days of slaughtering.
  2. Remove feathers, inner organs, forbidden fats and veins from animal or poultry.
  3. Cut off the head
  4. Cut the back of the chicken [split back]
  5. Soak the meat for half hour
  6. Shake off the water
  7. Salt the meat in all areas
  8. Place the meat in an area that the blood flows off
  9. Shake the salt off the meat
  10. Rinse the meat in three different pools of water

 

General Q&A

May one salt ground meat for blood?[652]

No. Ground meat cannot be salted for its blood or roasted and is hence forbidden to be eaten. However there are Poskim[653] that are lenient for Sefaradim to allow roasting it.

 

Does the skin of animals or chicken contain blood and hence require salting?

The Taz[654] rules that skin does not contain blood. Some Poskim[655] rule that the skin of animals does not contain blood and hence does not require Melicha. However the skin of poultry contains blood and hence must be salted. Others[656] however rule to the contrary that the skin of animals contain blood and hence must be salted while the skin of poultry does not contain blood. Some[657] rule it suffices to scald the skin in boiling water and it may then be cooked without Melicha.

 

May one salt meat in the bathtub?[658]

Yes, although one who is stringent is blessed.

 

May one salt meat in an area that water is falling?[659]

No, as we suspect the salt may wash off the meat.

 

May one add more salt to the meat during the salting process?[660]

One may add more salt to the meat only while it is within 18 minutes of the salting. Once it is past 18 minutes then initially one is not to add more salt.[661]

 

May one eat meat or chicken that has veins that are dripping red gravy?[662]

Yes, as the liquid of such veins are considered fat and not blood.

 


[1] 69/1

[2] Shach 69/2; Taz 69/2; The Shach explains that it does not need to be soaked so long as it is well rinsed.

[3] According to the Michaber there is no obligation to soak the meat for any specific amount of time but it rather suffices to simply rinse it well. This is because the Michaber does not suspect for the opinion of the Ran which requires Hadacha Rishona to be performed in order to soften the meat. Alternatively the Michaber holds that rinsing the meat also softens it and soaking is unnecessary. [See Peri Megadim Hakdama] Nevertheless it has become the accepted custom even amongst Sefaradim to soak the meat before the salting and so is done by all the Sefaradi Hashgachas. [Hakashrus 9/57]

[4] Shach 69/2; Taz 69/2

[5] Kitzur SH”A 36/1. The water however should not be too cold as this freezes the blood and prevents it from dissipating with salt as will be explained.

[6] This is done in order to suspect for the opinion which says the reason behind performing Hadacha Rishona is in order to soften the meat. Hence one is to soak it in the water for some time in order for the meat to become truly softened. However according to the other opinions there is no advantage of soaking the meat rather than rinsing it well. [Peri Megadim Hakdama; Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/5]

[7] Kitzur SH”A 36/1; as the soaking only accomplishes the softening of the meat and does not remove the external blood. The external blood can only be removed by scrubbing on the meat with water. [See Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/5]

[8] Kitzur SH”A 36/1 in name of Pischeiy Teshuvah; Darkei Teshuvah 69/20

[9] Kitzur SH”A 36/1 in name of Pischeiy Teshuvah;  Some Hashgachas require the temperature to be 8 Celsius [46.6 Fahrenheit]. Others require the temperature to be 10-12 Celsius. [See Koveitz Shechitas Lubavitch p. 43]

[10] Shach 69/5; The necessity of the Shach to explain the Rama in this fashion is due to that the Rama rules in 69/2 that even a light rinsing suffices after the fact, if the meat was already salted. Here however the Rama writes that only a good rinsing suffices. Hence to avoid a contradiction the Shach interprets that the ruling here refers to a case that the meat has not yet been salted and even so if it was well rinsed one may proceed with the salting and skip the soaking. [Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 5] Vetzaruch Iyun as to why we should allow the soaking to be skipped prior to salting if initially one is to soak it. What difference does it make if it was already well rinsed, either way one should initially soak it to accomplish the softening of the meat.

[11] Shach 69/5 based on Rama 69/2

[12] Shach 69/6; Taz 69/4; Kitzur SH”A 36/7

[13] Kitzur SH”A 36/3

[14] Peri Megadim Hakdama; Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/5; Beis Shearim 28

[15] As the meat becomes soft even if only part of it was submerged within the water. [ibid]

[16] Hakashrus 9 footnote 173; See Michaber 120/5

[17] Taz and Shach 69/1; See Peri Megadim Hakdama for a full analysis of all the opinions and the ramifications between them.

[18] Ran, and opinion in Mordechai brought in Shach 69/1 and Taz 69/14; The Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 1 explains that in truth the Ran and the opinion brought in the Mordechai is not the same opinion. The Ran holds that the rinsing is done in order to soften the surface of the meat, whereas the opinion brought in the Mordechai requires a half hour soaking to soften the entire piece of meat.

[19] Mordechai brought in Shach 69/1

[20] Lavim 124

[21] Brought in Shach 69/1; Taz 69/1

[22] When the butcher cuts the meat, he applies pressure with the knife and this forces Dam Beiyn to appear on the surface.

[23] There are two explanations amongst Rishonim as to how the external blood will become absorbed within the meat:

Smak; Hagahos Sheid brought in Shach 69/1: Although salt has the power to remove blood from meat this applies only to absorbed blood. However visible blood, which is called Dam Beiyn, salt does not have ability to remove from meat once it becomes absorbed within the meat. Thus the salt causes this external blood to become absorbed within the meat and not come out. In the words of the Shach: The concept of Mishrak Sharik; Keboloa Kach Polto and Aidiy Ditarid Lefloat Lo Baliy does not apply by Dam Beiyin and since this external blood is viewed as Dam Beiyn the meat would become forbidden if salted without rinsing it off before the salting. [Shach 69/; See also Rama 70/6; 72/2] Thus according to the Shach as soon as one places salt onto the external blood the blood becomes absorbed within the meat even though the meat is busy expelling its own blood. However the Taz [69/1] based on the Rieh Beis Yosef explains the issue a little differently:

Rieh brought in Beis Yosef, Taz 69/1: Salt only has the ability to expel liquid blood as opposed to dry blood. Thus since the external blood is dry it remains on the meat throughout the salting process. Now although it is possible to wash the meat after the salting process and hence clean it from the external blood, nevertheless we require the rinsing to be done prior to the salting due to worry that perhaps after the meat will expel all of its blood and Tzir the dry blood will liquefy and become absorbed within the meat. Now since the meat no longer contains its absorbed blood it does not help to salt it a second time to remove this external blood which became absorbed as we only apply the rule of Keboloa Kach Polto when the meat is expelling its absorbed blood. [Taz ibid] Thus according to the Taz the external blood is not able to be absorbed within the meat while the meat is expelling its blood and gravy [meaning that the Taz applies the rule of “Aidiy Ditarid Lefloat Lo Baliy” also to Dam Beiyn]. Furthermore it is also understood from the Taz that he applies the rule of Keboloa Kach Polto to Dam Beiyn and it is only when there is no more original absorbed blood within the meat that he says the rule does not apply. The problem however with this understanding of the Taz is that all Poskim agree that Dam Beiyn is not applied to the rules of Kebolo Kach Polto and Aidiy Detarid Leflot, as explained in Rama 70/6 and 72/2. The Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 1 hence establishes that according to the Rieh mentioned in Taz he holds that external blood is not viewed as Dam Beiyn at all, and the word Dam Beiyn used in the Taz is not literal. Hence in conclusion the dispute between the Rieh/Taz and Smak/Shach is whether we view the external blood as Dam Beiyn or as regular absorbed blood. To note however that the above is only the explanation of the Taz in the Michaber. However the Taz himself holds in 69/7 that external blood is Dam Beiyn as rules the Smak. [Peri Megadim ibid]

Practical ramification between the two reasons: According to the reason in Shach even if one washes the meat during the salting process [while it is still expelling blood or Tzir] the issue applies and the meat is forbidden as it has absorbed external blood. According to the reason in Taz if one washes the meat prior to it finishing to expel all its blood and gravy then the meat is permitted as it has never yet absorbed the external blood. [See Peri Megadim Hakdama]

[24] Brought in Peri Megadim Hakdama to Melicha

[25] Peri Megadim Hakdama to Melicha

[26] Vetzaruch Iyun as the Michaber rules one must rewash the meat if it was cut with a knife hence implying the issue is the external blood, as explained in Shach 69/3; Likewise the Michaber in 69/2 rules that only in a case of great loss may one re-salt the meat if it was salted without Hadacha Rishona, hence learning like the opinion of the Smak. [So explains Shach 69/12]

[27] See Rama 69/2 and Shach 69/3; Taz 69/7

[28] Taz 69/1 and Shach 69/1

[29] As although the external blood became absorbed within the meat during the first salting, nevertheless since the meat did not yet expel its own blood [as holds the Ran and Mordechai] therefore it has the ability to expel the external blood when salted a second time. As external blood which became absorbed within meat is able to dissipate together with the expulsion of the meats own blood. [Taz 69/1] According to this opinion the external blood is not viewed as Dam Bieyn but rather as absorbed blood that is outside the meat. [See Peri Megadim M.Z. 1]

[30] Shach 69/14; Taz 69/10; See Peri Megadim Hakdama that soaking the meat for 30 minutes is only required according to the opinion which holds Hadacha Rishona is done in order to soften the meat.

[31] 69/1; Shach 69/3

[32] Rama 69/1

[33] Issur Viheter Kala 4 brought in Toras Chatas Klal 15/4; Shach 69/2; Taz 69/2

[34] Shach 69/2

[35] 69/1

[36] Shach 69/3

[37] Michaber 69/1

The reason for this is because the pressure applied when cutting with a knife releases blood. This blood is considered Dam Beiyn and must be washed off prior to salting. [Shach 69/3 in name of Mordechai]

[38] Rama 69/1

[39] Rama 69/1

[40] Shach 69/3 as is implied from the wording of the Michaber “cut” and not “tore”, thus implying that a knife was used.

[41] As in such a case the pressure of the knife causes absorbed blood to come out, and there is thus now Beiyn blood on the surface of the meat. This blood must be washed off prior to the salting. [Shach ibid]

[42] Peri Megadim 69 S.D 3 as is implied from Shach ibid

[43] Brought in Shach 69/3

[44] This is proven from the fact the Ran requires one to have three knives for cutting meat, one knife for the Shechita, one for the Cheilev and one for the meat itself. Now if one must always rinse the meat after cutting it before salting, then one may simply allow the Cheilev knife to be used also for the meat, as in any event the meat will be washed. Thus we see the Ran holds that the meat does not need to be rewashed after cutting. [Shach ibid]

[45] The Shach ibid explains the reason of the Ran is because the Ran rules that the entire purpose of washing the meat is to soften it and not in order to wash off the external blood. Thus once it was washed and softened it no longer needs rewashing even when cut with a knife which caused external blood to dissipate. [Shach ibid]

[46] As we hold the main reason for the washing is due to the external blood as is evident from 69/2, thus since there is now new external blood on the meat it must be rewashed. [Shach ibid]

[47] Shach 69/4

[48] The novelty of this ruling is that we do not consider the blood between the hoof and the leg as external blood. Likewise we consider the water to penetrate and soften the leg even though it is covered by a hoof. [Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 4]

[49] See Koveitz Shechitas Lubavitch p. 43]

[50] Kaf Hachaim 69/18; Yaskil Avdi 2/4; Darkei Teshuvah 69/125

[51] Peulas Tzadik 2/251

[52] 69/2

[53] This opinion holds that the external blood which became absorbed will come out when the meat is salted a second time just like meat which fell into Tzir or the absorbed the blood of another piece. [Taz 69/7] This follows those Rishonim which hold the reason for Hadacha Rishona is in order to soften the meat, as according to them the Dam Beiyn can be removed through a second salting. [Taz 69/1 and Shach 69/1; Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 10]

[54] Smak and Mahriy Terushin

[55] As they hold that external blood is considered Dam Beiyn and thus can never come out through Melicha. [Taz 69/7] This follows those Rishonim which hold the reason for Hadacha Rishona is in order to remove the Dam Beiyn as according to them the Dam Beiyn can never be removed through a second salting. [Taz 69/1 and Shach 69/1; Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 10]

[56] So rules Michaber in the Beis Yosef and so is implied from the Michaber here. [Shach 69/12 and so concludes Kaf Hachaim 69/39 to be opinion of Michaber]

[57] Shach 69/12

[58] Peri Chadash 69/14; Kaf Hachaim 69/42; and so is implied from Shach ibid and so explains Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 12 that we are not lenient Bedieved to rely on the opinion of the Rieh which holds Hadacha Rishona is only initially required as a matter of good advice. For Ashkenazim this applies even if there is 60x in the pot, nevertheless the meat remains forbidden as it is considered cooked with its blood. [Kaf Hachaim ibid] However there are Poskim which are lenient in a time of great loss even if the meat was already cooked. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 69/28; See Har Tzevi 69; Kaneh Bosem 1/50]

[59] There are two reason given for why even a slight amount of salt prohibits the meat: As we do not know the exact amount of salt that is required to salt meat for its blood and hence perhaps even a slight amount of salt which is placed before roasting meat is enough to cause absorption of the external blood. Alternatively, even if we were expert in the amount of salt required, it is not possible that a small amount of salt will not cause some of the external blood to become absorbed. [Taz 69/8 as explained in Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 8]

Other Opinions: The Bach [brought in Taz 69/8] rules that if the meat was only slightly salted or did not remain Shiur Melicha then the meat is permitted. [The Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 8 however explains that even the Bach agrees it is only allowed in a case of great loss, and hence there is no difference in ruling between the Bach and the Rama in this case. However if the meat was both only slightly salted and did not remain Shiur Melicha then the Bach is completely lenient.] The Taz negates this ruling of the Bach based on the second reason mentioned above that it is not possible that no external blood became absorbed even if a little salt was used and even if it did not remain Shiur Melicha, as what difference does it make if one used a lot of salt or a little bit of salt in this regard. [Taz 69/8; See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 8]

[60] This is the literal wording of the Rama which implies that even if the salt did not remain Shiur Melicha the meat is forbidden. However see B that even according to the Rama if it did not stay Shiur Melicha it is nevertheless permitted to be roasted even if the case does not involve great loss.

Other opinions: The Bach rules that if the meat did not remain Shiur Melicha even if it was properly salted then the meat is permitted. The Taz 69/8 however negates this ruling as explained above.

[61] Other Opinions: The Rashal rules that the meat is always forbidden even in a case of great loss and it does not help to wash it and then salt it a second time. The Shach negates this opinion stating that the main opinion follows the Rama. [Shach 69/12]

[62] Shach 69/12; and so is implied from Michaber and so rules Levush. [Shach ibid]

[63] Shach 69/12; As anytime that it helps to salt the meat a second time certainly it helps to roast it. [ibid]

[64] Taz 69/9; and so is implied from Shach 69/13 which negates the opinion of the Bach

Other Opinions: The Bach rules that if the salt remained Shiur Melicha the meat is forbidden even in a case of great loss. The Shach negates this opinion stating that the main opinion follows the Rama. [Shach 69/13]

[65] Brought in Taz 69/8

[66] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 8  

[67] Brought in Shach 69/13

[68] Brought in Shach 69/12-13

[69] 69/12-13

[70] Shach 69/12

[71] So rules Rashal and Toras Chatas that the meat is forbidden even to be roasted. [Taz 69/7]

[72] Shach 69/13, and so rules Rama in Darkei Moshe and in 76/2 that meat which was salted without Hadacha Rishona prior to roasting, remains permitted so long as it did not remain Shiur Melicha with its salt.

[73] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 13

[74] The Rashal rules that even when meat has not stayed Shiur Melicha it is forbidden to even be roasted. [brought in Shach 69/13]. So rules also Taz 76/5 that the meat is forbidden even for roasting.

[75] Rama ibid

[76] Meaning despite the fact that we initially require a thorough washing of the meat, Bedieved if the meat was even slightly rinsed we permit it if it was already salted.

The reason for this leniency is because we are lenient like the opinions which hold that the reason for Hadacha Rishona is due to the external blood, and this blood is removed even with a slight rinsing. However according to the opinion which requires washing in order to soften the meat then a light rinsing does not suffice and hence it is as if the meat was never salted and the meat would be required to be properly washed and re-salted, and if it was already cooked it would be forbidden. [Shach 69/14; Taz 69/10] See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 10 which questions this lenient ruling of the Rama as it contradicts the leniency of permitting to re-salt the meat if it was not washed at all and the case involves a great loss, as that leniency is based on the opinions which hold the main reason for washing is to soften the meat and hence salting it a second time helps. However according to the reason of Dam Beiyn they hold the blood never comes out. Hence how can we here be lenient like the opinion which holds of the reason of Dam Beiyn, to permit the meat even with a slight rinsing and also be lenient to permit re-salting in a case of great loss like the opinion which holds of the reason of softening. This is considered to grab the leniency of all the opinions.

[77] Shach 69/14

[78] Rama ibid

[79] The reason for this leniency is because we are lenient like the opinions which hold that the reason for Hadacha Rishona is due to the external blood, and it is possible for meat to contain 60x versus its external blood. However according to the opinion which requires washing in order to soften the meat then no blood has been removed with this salting and hence the meat would be required to be properly washed and re-salted, and if it was already cooked the meat would be forbidden. [Shach 69/14; Taz 69/10] See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 10 [brought in footnote of previous case] which questions this ruling of the Rama.

[80] Shach 69/14; However see Igros Moshe 1/23 that one should wash and re-salt the meat to suspect for those opinions which say the reason behind the washing is to soften the meat.

[81] Shach 69/15

[82] Rav Akiva Eiger 69/2 in name of Peri Megadim 72

[83] Igros Moshe 1/23

[84] Rama 69/2

[85] We do not suspect that the external blood [Dam Beiyn] of the unwashed piece became absorbed within the other pieces as we apply the rule of Mishrak Sharik [the blood slides off the meat and does not enter into the other pieces] to this blood as since the external blood has liquefied it is has the same status as absorbed blood regarding the other pieces. Alternatively even if this blood were to become absorbed in the other pieces we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto being that such blood which is removed through Melicha is only Rabbinically forbidden. [Taz 69/11; Shach 69/16 as explained by Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 16]

[86] Kaf Hachaim 69/2

[87] Igros Moshe 1/23; Har Tzevi 69

[88] Chicken contains 60x its blood as the external part of the chicken which is covered by the skin does not contain Dam Beiyn while the internal part contains only a small amount of blood. Hence if one salted a chicken without Hadacha Rishona the chicken remains permitted.

[89] Taz 69/12; Kitzur SH”A 36/14

[90] Kitzur SH”A 36/14

[91] Taz 69/12 in name of Rashal

[92] Taz 69/12

[93] Beir Heiytiv 69/14 in name of Peri Chadash

[94] Hakashrus 9/42; Rama 68.11; Darkei Teshuvah 69/51 and 181

[95] Rama 69/1

[96] Shach 69/7

[97] Shach ibid; As there was no heat involved and the meat did not soak for 24 hours within the bowl to cause the bowl to absorb blood. [Shach ibid]

[98] Shach 69/7

[99] Taz 69/5

[100] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 5

[101] Chochmas Adam 30/6; Kaf Hachaim 69/27

[102] This law is mainly discussed in 69/15 although the Rama makes mention of it also in 69/1.

[103] 69/15

[104] Shach 69/60 understands this to mean that it contained external blood, while the Taz 69/36 understands it to mean that it contains absorbed blood. See opinion of Shach brought next.

[105] 69/1; 69/15

[106] 69/15

[107] Shach 69/61

[108] As when an Issur has remained 24 hours in a liquid it is considered Kavush [pickled] and pickling an Issur is Halachicly considered like cooking it. [Shach 69/8]

[109] 69/1

As the meat does not remain 24 hours in the bowl and hence it never receives Issur taste from the bowl. Furthermore even if one left the meat in the bowl for 24 hours the meat is permitted as by the time the 24 hours are reached the bowl is no longer Ben Yomo. Nevertheless initially it is forbidden to let even meat which has been already salted for blood to remain 24 hours soaking in liquid within the vessel. [Shach 69/10]

[110] Rama 69/1

[111] 69/60

[112] Background:

The Shach questions the wording of the Michaber “dirty with blood” which implies external blood, and thus if the meat was clean of any external blood it remains Kosher even if it soaked 24 hours in its absorbed blood. As a possible reason the Shach suggests that the absorbed blood can still come out through salting the meat even after the meat has been Kavush. However if it is dirty with external blood then since this blood is considered Dam Beiyn and Dam Beiyn can never be removed neither through roasting or cooking. Therefore if  the meat was Kavush in the liquid for 24 hours it is considered to have absorbed the external blood which can no longer be removed through salting. [However see next that the Shach questions why the Michaber would allow the meat to be roasted in this case.]

Practically however the Shach negates this explanation and brings a row of Rishonim and all Achronim that rule the law applies even if the meat was clean of external blood. Thus the Shach concludes the Michaber’s wording is not to be understood that he limits his ruling to only such a case, and rather he wrote this wording simply because it is only common to soak meat if it is dirty with external blood. [Shach ibid]

[113] 69/36

[114] Michaber 69/15

[115] Shach 69/9; 69/61; Taz 69/6; Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 3

The reason why we do not prohibit the meat despite the fact that Kavush is considered like cooking [and hence we should apply the same law as when the meat was cooked without salting in which case we rule the meat is forbidden even with 60x] is because Kavush is not the same Halachic status as cooking regarding all matters. [Taz 69/6; Shach 69/61 in name of Toras Chatas] Furthermore even by cooking it is only a custom to be stringent when there is 60x within the water and hence by Kavush one may be lenient. [Shach ibid]

[116] Rashal brought in Taz 69/6; 69/37; and Shach 69/61; as he learns the laws of Kavush have the same laws as cooking for all matters, see previous footnote. The Taz 69/37 explains that the Rashal rules by cooking that the meat is forbidden by the letter of the law. Hence he is also stringent by Kavush. However the Rama which writes one may be lenient in a case of great loss even by cooking is completely lenient by Kavush.

[117] 69/61

[118] 69/37

[119] Shach 69/61

[120] The Michaber rules the meat may be roasted, although the Rama rules it is forbidden.

[121] Shach 69/61

[122] Igros Moshe 2/19

[123] Shach 69/10; See Admur 447/28; 551/63; See “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Halacha 1D!

[124] Shach 69/11

[125] See Shut Mahrshag 2/178 regarding one who washed the meat in middle of Shiur Melicha and hence is required to re-salt it that the Melicha which occurred prior to washing meat does not join the Melicha after the washing and hence a full Shiur Melicha is required.

[126] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 11

[127] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 11

[128] Degul Merivava 69

[129] 69/3

[130] Michaber ibid; As thin salt becomes absorbed within the meat and thus does not remove the blood from it. [Shach 69/17; Taz 69/12]

[131] Michaber ibid

[132] Rama ibid; Toras Chatas Klal 16/10 and Bach. [brought in Shach 69/17]

[133] Taz 69/12 in name of Darkei Moshe and Issur Viheter

[134] Shach 69/18; Taz 69/12

[135] Rama 69/9

[136] Toras Chatas Klal 15/20 brought in Shach 69/40

[137] Shach 69/40 and so is implied from Toras Chatas ibid

[138] Apei Ravrevi brought in Shach 69/41

[139] As the drying process removes any remnant of blood from the salt. [Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 41]

[140] 69/41

[141] As we rule that dry meat is only permitted without being salted being that it contains 60x its blood, hence implying that even after the drying process some remnant of blood remains in the salt. [Shach ibid]

[142] Darkei Teshuvah 69/73; Kitzur SH”A 36/8

[143] See Darkei Halacha p. 23

[144] Divrei Yatziv  brought in Darkei Halacha p. 22; Sheilas Yeshurun 13; Tirosh Viyitzhar 218; Igros Moshe 2/23; Mishneh Halachos 4/99; Hakashrus 9/68

[145] Halachos Ketanos 218; Ikarei Hadat 1/36; Chavas Daas brought in Avnei Nezer 532

[146] Rav Poalim 2/4; Ben Ish Chaiy Taharos 22; Ruach Chaim 69/5; Piskeiy Teshuvah p. 71 brought in Darkei Halacha p. 20; Salmas Chaim 281; Divrei Chaim 1/7; Tztitz Eliezer 9/35; Sheivet Halevy 2/26; Daas Torah 69/328; Ksav Sofer 36; Shoel Umeishiv 1/142; Darkei Teshuvah 69/328

[147] Beis Yitzchak 7; Har Tzevi 66 rule one may permit the meat or chicken if it was placed into very hot water as from Talmudic law Chalita is an alternative to salting.

[148] Igros Moshe 2/23

[149] 69/4

[150] Michaber ibid

[151] Shach 69/19

[152] Shach 69/19

[153] This follows the ruling of the Rashba. [Shach ibid]

[154] Mordechai [brought in Shach ibid]

[155] Shach ibid and so rules Rashal brought in Shach and so is implied from Taz 69/13

[156] Michaber ibid

[157] Michaber ibid

[158] Taz 69/13

[159] See Lechem Hapanim [Misgeres Hashulchan] on Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 36/3 for an elaboration on the obligation to split the back of the chickens before salting.

[160] Taz 69/13; See Chapter 72 Halacha 14

[161] Taz 69/13; See Chapter 71

[162] Now although the Mordechai brings a case in which a head was salted only on its outside, and the Rav invalidated the head, that case seemingly involved a head that was split open prior to salting and hence according to all must be salted on its inner side. [Taz ibid]

[163] Hagahos Sheid and Aruch Klal 6

[164] Taz 69/14 and Shach 69/21 learn that the wording “a need” in the Rama refers to a great loss. The Shach [69/21] learns this wording to be going on both a case that the meat was cooked and not yet cooked and hence in both cases in a case of great loose we are completely lenient. The Taz [69/15] however learns this wording of the Rama to only refer to a case that the meat was already cooked, however if the meat was not yet cooked there is no further leniency in a case of great loss.

[165] Shach 69/21; Upashut; See Minchas Yaakov [by author of Shvus and Iyun Yaakov] on Toras Chatas Klal 15/12 that explicitly explains this to be the intent of the Shach, and so learns Peri Megadim S.D. 69/21; Darkei Halacha Yoreh Deah 69/4; Kaf Hachaim 69/80. [Furthermore, there is no other way of learning the Shach as how can he say that the Rama holds if the meat was cooked it is forbidden even in a case of great loss if the Rama explicitly writes otherwise! Furthermore how can the Shach write “as is explained in Toras Chatas” when the Rama himself in Toras Chatas allows in a case of great loss even if cooked!]

The reason this matter has been emphasized here is because the wording of the Shach can be misleading to the reader and one may mistakenly learn that the Shach explains in the Rama that if the meat was cooked it is never allowed even in a case of great loss. [This is can be misunderstood from the Shach’s words “it does not have a Takana at all” and “however in a case of great loss then if the meat has not yet been cooked…”] In truth however, as learn the above Poskim in the Shach, if the meat was cooked it is always allowed in a case of great loss. The former way of learning is a mistake as is evident from proper analysis of this subject in the source of the Rama in the Toras Chatas, and how others understood this Shach.

[166] See next.

[167] The reason that salting the other side still helps within the 12 hours even though the salted side has already removed all its blood [and hence we should suspect perhaps the blood of the newly salted side will absorb into the previously salted side] is because within 12 hours of salting the meat still dissipates gravy and hence any blood that the previously salted side will absorb from the newly salted side will become expelled together with its gravy. [Shach 69/22]

[168] Shach 69/22; Bach brought in Shach ibid and Taz 69/15.

[169] As when one rinses salted meat the water clogs up the pores and stops the dissipation of gravy. This applies even if it is washed within 12 hours from the salting. Hence it no longer helps to salt the unsalted side, as since no gravy is being dissipated from the salted side the blood of the newly salted side will enter into the already salted side and prohibit it. [Bach brought in Taz ibid; Shach ibid]

[170] Taz 69/15

[171] As there are many Poskim which hold that even when salted meat is washed its pores remain open and gravy continues to come out .Thus since in any event we rule that in a case of great loss if one side was salted it suffices, therefore one may be lenient to salt the other side within 12 hours even after the meat has been washed and rely on those Poskim which rule washing does not close the pores. [Taz ibid]

[172] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 15; See Har Tzevi 68

[173] As after 12 hours has passed since the meat has been salted it no longer gives off gravy, and thus any blood which it would absorb from the side which is now being salted would remain in the already salted side. If however the meat were to still release gravy then any absorbed blood would dissipate together with the gravy. For this reason it is no longer optional to salt the meat after 12 hours. [Shach 69/22; Taz 69/15]

[174] Roasting is allowed as fire sucks out the blood from the unsalted side and prevents this blood from getting absorbed into the already salted side. [Rama ibid] Furthermore, even if the already salted side would absorb some blood, it would be expelled through the fire. [Shach 69/23]

[175] The argument of the Shach and Taz revolve regarding the meaning of the word “Vidavka Im Kvar Nisbashel” [specifically if it was already cooked] of the Rama. The Taz learns [and so is the simple implication] that it is coming to limit the leniency of a great loss to only a case that the meat was already cooked, while if the meat is still raw there is no difference in law in whether the case involves a great loss or not being that one can simply roast the meat. The Shach however learns that these words refer to the beginning statement of the Rama that the meat is forbidden, and hence the Rama limits the prohibition only to a case that the food was already cooked and no great loss is involved.  If however the meat is still raw then it is permitted to roast it even without a great loss. However if there is a great loss then even when the meat is raw and past 12 hours one may be lenient to salt it. Hence the Shach learns the leniency of a case of great loss applies to both raw and cooked meat. [See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 21]

[176] Shach 69/21

[177] The Shach reinterprets the simple reading of the Rama here to fit this interpretation. Likewise he bases this understanding on the ruling of the Rama in chapter 70/6 which rules that in a case of great loss one may assume that gravy dissipates up to 24 hours from the salting. 

[178] As there are opinions which say [and so rules the Rama in end of chapter 70] that meat gives off gravy up to 24 hours of the salting, and hence the blood absorbed by the previously salted side will be expelled together with its gravy. Thus here in a case of great loss one may be lenient like that opinion to salt the meat, as it is difficult to differentiate in this case simply because the meat can still be roasted. [Shach ibid]

[179] 69/15; So learns also Peri Chadash 69/23

[180] As it is not applicable to apply the concept of great loss in this case since in any event the meat remains permitted through roasting. [Taz ibid]

[181] Klal 15/12, brought in Kaf Hachaim 69/21

[182] 69/21

[183] Shach 69/21; Upashut; See Minchas Yaakov [by author of Shvus and Iyun Yaakov] on Toras Chatas Klal 15/12 that explicitly explains this to be the intent of the Shach, and so learns Peri Megadim S.D. 69/21; Darkei Halacha Yoreh Deah 69/4; Kaf Hachaim 69/80. [Furthermore, there is no other way of learning the Shach as how can he say that the Rama holds if the meat was cooked it is forbidden even in a case of great loss if the Rama explicitly writes otherwise! Furthermore how can the Shach write “as is explained in Toras Chatas” when the Rama himself in Toras Chatas allows in a case of great loss even if cooked!]

The reason this matter has been emphasized here is because the wording of the Shach can be misleading to the reader and one may mistakenly learn that the Shach explains in the Rama that if the meat was cooked it is never allowed even in a case of great loss. [This is can be misunderstood from the Shach’s words “it does not have a Takana at all” and “however in a case of great loss then if the meat has not yet been cooked…”] In truth however, as learn the above Poskim in the Shach if the meat was cooked it is always allowed in a case of great loss. The former way of learning is a mistake as is evident from proper analysis of this subject in the source of the Rama in the Toras Chatas, and how others understood this Shach.

[184] 69/22

[185] 69/15

[186] He learns this from the fact the Rama rules in chapter 75/1 that if one salted the inside of intestines and not the outside it still helps to salt the outside even after 12 hours as intestines are not Muchzak Bedam [established to contain a lot of blood]. From this we see that there is no suspicion that the already salted side will absorb from the unsalted side. Similarly here after one side has been salted there is not that much blood left on the unsalted side [as is proven from the fact that in a case of great loss we permit the meat even if it was cooked] and hence there is no suspicion that blood from the unsalted side will become absorbed within the salted side. [Taz ibid]

[187] So is understood from the reasoning of the Taz ibid which compares this case to the case of the intestine in 575/1 and there it is understood that the allowance of the Rama applies even after many days and even without a great loss. The reason is because we do not suspect that any blood will enter into the unsalted side, and hence the release of gravy is irrelevant to the discussion. [See Peri Megadim 75 M.Z. 4 which explicitly explains this way regarding the intestines]

[188] Shach 69/20; Taz 69/14

[189] 69/20

[190] The Shach proves this from the Rama in Toras Chatas ibid

[191] Brought in Shach ibid

[192] 69/20

[193] 69/14

[194] Brought in Shach 69/20

[195] However according to the Michaber the meat remains permitted even without great loss. However many Sefaradi Poskim rule that one should be stringent like the Rama to forbid the meat unless the case involves great loss. [Zivcheiy Tzedek 69/55; Ben Ish Chaiy Achareiy 2; Kaf Hachaim 69/76]

[196] Taz 69/15 as he learns the Rama; Peri Chadash 69/23; Minchas Yaakov Klal 15/12

[197] Shach 69/21

[198] Taz 69/15

[199] See Lechem Hapanim [Misgeres Hashulchan] on Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 36/3 for an elaboration on the obligation to split the back of the chickens before salting; Chochmas Adam 30/8; Hakashrus 9/48;

[200] Darkei Teshuvah 69/83

[201] 69/15 and 69/20

[202] Shach 69/24

[203] Michaber ibid; as past Shiur Melicha the meat no longer contains blood which can squeeze out through cutting it. Thus it is not similar to cutting meat after Hadacha Rishona prior to the salting. The novelty of this ruling is that we assume the meat does not contain any more blood after Shiur Melicha even if the meat is very thick. [Taz 69/16]

[204] Shach 69/24; Taz 69/16; Rama 89/20

As while meat is within Shiur Melicha it still contains blood, and this blood comes out upon being cut, and is considered Dam Beiyn. Now this Dam Beiyn will become reabsorbed within the meat due to the salt and according to some opinions is unable to come back out. It is thus similar to a case that one cut the meat after Hadacha Rishona and hence must be rewashed. [Shach and Taz ibid]

[205] 69/6

[206] The amount of time it takes to walk a Mil. A man can walk 10 Parsaos per a 12 hour day. Each Parsa contains four Mil for a total of 40 Mil per day and 3.3333 Mil per hour. This equals 18 minutes per Mil. [Shach 69/25] Others however rule that one can only walk 30 Mil per a 12 hour day which equals 2.5 Mil per hour. This equals 24 minutes per Mil. [See Admur 459/10 for the calculation of this opinion]

[207] Shach 69/25

[208] 459/10; Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 44

[209] 36/11

[210] As they are stringent like the opinion that holds which rules it takes 24 minutes to walk a Mil. Hakashrus 90/71 writes to wait at least 24 minutes although at a time of need one may be lenient to wait 18 minutes. [Chazon Ish 123/6] So writes also SSH”K 40/87

[211] Shach 69/26

[212] Shach 69/26

[213] Lechatchilah this is 24 minutes and in a time of need 18 minutes as explained above.

[214] See Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/13 regarding if this allowance applies to all forms of guests or only to special honorable guests.

[215] Rama 69/11 as explained by Taz 69/30

[216] Michaber 70/5

[217] Zivcheiy Tzedek 69/124; Kaf Hachaim 69/91; Mahrsham 9/52

[218] 69/7-8

[219] Shach 69/27 in name of Rashba

[220] This means to say as follows: So long as meat is giving off gravy it does not absorb blood from the salt. Hence although the salt is hot it does not have ability to re-absorb the external blood that is on the meat back into the meat. However if one were to stop the gravy from coming out while the salt is still hot then the meat could reabsorb its external blood. Hence we require the salt to be removed prior to placing it in the water and stopping its gravy. [According to this the entire need of shaking or rinsing the salt off the meat prior to washing it in a vessel is only in accordance to those that hold the salt is still considered hot after Shiur Melicha (See Maaseh Derashi in Halacha 24) however according to those that hold the salt is now cold, there is no need to shake off the salt beforehand. See Taz 69/46]

[221] Aguda in name of Oar Zarua

[222] Rama 69/7

[223] See Taz below which states this “or” is a misprint and it should really read “and”.

[224] It is unclear from the Rama if this “and so is the custom” is going on either one of these two methods or is going on specifically the second method. Practically the Kitzur SH”A 36/12 rules one is to shake off the salt and then wash the meat three times.

[225] 69/28

[226] 69/17

[227] As explains Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 18

[228] 69/17 as elaborated in Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 17

[229] 69/28 as explained in Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 28

[230] As the only reason the Michaber requires shaking off the salt is because otherwise the blood will become reabsorbed within the meat when he places the meat into the vessel. Hence here that no vessel is being used and the washing is taking place completely in one’s hands there is no worry that the blood will become reabsorbed and hence the first shaking or washing is not necessary. [Shach ibid]

[231] Taz 69/17

[232] Shach 69/28 in his first and second explanation of the first option of the Rama

[233] Shach 69/28 in his first explanation of the second option of the Rama

[234] Shach 69/28 in his second explanation of the second option of the Rama

[235] Kitzur SH”A 36/12

[236] Koveitz Lubavitch Shechita p. 44

[237] Rama 69/7

[238] The Rama [in Darkei Moshe and Teshuvah 132] writes that this is learned from the Ran. The Shach 67/30 and Taz 67/17 ask that in truth there is no such ruling in the Ran. However they did find this ruling in Tosafus regarding how it’s possible to have meat that went through Hadacha Rishona and is still not able to receive impurity of which Tosafus answers that the meat was washed with fruit juice. From here we learn that fruit juice is valid for washing for after Melicha.

[239] 67/30

[240] 69/17

[241] They prove this from the fact that we rule fruit juice may be used for the washing after Melicha, and the only source found that allows using fruit juice for washing discusses using it for Hadacha Rishona as explained in the previous footnotes. [Shach and Taz ibid]

[242] 132/11

[243] The Shach and Taz both question and prove otherwise as explained above. The Taz concludes the Rama made a double mistake by quoting the wrong source for the allowance of Hadacha Rishona and then furthermore differentiating between Hadacha Rishona and Achrona.

[244] Rama 69/9; Shach 69/29

[245] 69/8

[246] Shach 69/31

[247] Michaber ibid

[248] Rama ibid

[249] Shach 69/30

[250] Degul Merevava 69/8, as is proven from Shach 69/31, otherwise there would be a contradiction.

[251] Shach 69/31

[252] Rama 69/8

[253] As one has left it there only in the interim while preparing to do the washing.

[254] Shach 69/32 in name of Issur Viheter Klal 10/19

[255] Shach 69/32

[256] Rama ibid

[257] Rama ibid

Seemingly the difference between this case and the case in 69/20 is that here it refers to a case that no Tzir has yet come out, while in 69/20 it refers to a case that Tzir has become coming out.

[258] Shach 69/33

[259] Shach 69/32. If Tzir did come out, then refer to 69/20 where this scenario is discussed.

[260] Taz 69/18

[261] Brought in Taz ibid

[262] Shach 69/85; Michaber 70/5

[263] Taz 69/56

[264] 69/9

[265] Rama ibid

[266] The Rama [brought next] emphasizes that the entire pot joins to nullify the meat in 60x and the meat itself is not required to have 60x its salt being it is not considered an Issur Davuk, as will be explained. This certainly is true according to the Michaber as he does not hold of Chanan by other Issurim. [Shach 69/35]

[267] One requires 60x the salt because the salt has absorbed blood and we do know the amount of blood that it contains. Thus even according to those Poskim which do not hold of Chanan by other Issurim one must nullify the salt. Certainly according to us that we rule Chanan does apply by other Issurim one requires 60x the salt being that the salt has now become intrinsically forbidden. [Shach 69/34; Taz 69/19; Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 34; M.Z. 19; The Taz writes that the salt is forbidden because it has become Chanan. Based on this explanation however this only goes according to those Poskim which hold of Chanan by other Issurim, while according to the Michaber one would have to resort to the reason mentioned in the Shach ibid that we do not know how much blood the salt absorbed. So explains Peri Megadim ibid.]

The reason why the salt is nullified despite the fact it gives taste: Although salt is a food that gives taste, of which it is ruled that it is never nullified even in 1000x [see 98/8] this only applies if the salt is an intrinsic Issur however if the salt simply absorbed an Issur then it is nullified in 60x as the taste of salt itself is not forbidden. [Taz 69/19]

[268] Shach 69/4 and so rules Toras Chatas Klal 1

[269] Michaber ibid

[270] Rama ibid; Taz 69/19; Shach 69/35; Bach brought in Taz ibid

Even according to the Rama which holds of Chanan by other Issurim the piece of salted meat is not required to contain 60x its salt as it is not considered an Issur Davuk. The reason it is not an Issur Davuk is because the salt melts off the meat as soon as it enters into the pot. [Shach and Taz ibid]

[271] Brought in Taz 69/19; Shach 69/35

[272] As the Rashal rules that the salt is an Issur Davuk and hence the meat has become Chanan. However the Bach; Taz; and Shach refute this claim as once the meat is placed in the liquid in the pot its salt dissolves and thus no longer is an Issur Davuk. Furthermore according to the Michaber, besides for the above argument, one must say that the piece of meat itself does not become Chanan as he does not hold of Chanan by other Issurim. [Shach ibid; Regarding the seeming repetitiveness of the Taz ibid regarding the ruling of the Rashal and why each time he brings his opinion from different sources, see Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 19]

[273] Shach ibid; Taz ibid; Bach brought in Taz ibid

[274] Rama ibid

[275] Pashut as the piece has not become Chanan as explained above from Taz 69/19

[276] Taz 69/20

[277] Even according to the Rama which holds of Chanan by other Issurim the piece of salted meat is not required to contain 60x its salt as it is not considered an Issur Davuk. The reason it is not an Issur Davuk is because the salt melts off the meat as soon as it enters into the pot.

[278] Taz 69/21; Shach 69/36; Toras Chatas Klal 1; this negates the opinion of Mahrahm which holds a piece of meat contains 60x its salt. [Shach 69/35; Taz ibid]

[279] Taz 21

[280] Rama ibid

[281] So explains Shach 69/39; See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 39 which explains the Shach is coming to exclude a case that one already salted and washed the meat and then re-salted it in order to dry, in which case even initially one may place the meat with its salt into a Keli Rishon being that all its blood has already been removed.

[282] As nevertheless there is still some blood remaining and it is forbidden to initially nullify an Issur.

[283] Vetzaruch Iyun if this includes even water of a Keli Sheiyni, as the Rama is stringent regarding a Keli Sheiyni that it can cook salted meat as will be explained next.

[284] Rama ibid

[285] Rama ibid

[286] Shach 69/37; Toras Chatas Klal 1

[287] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 22

[288] Taz 69/23; See Rama 94/7 and 105/2; “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Basar Bechalav” Chapter 94 Halacha 9; “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 105 Halacha 2.

[289] See Shach 69/38

[290] Shach 69/38

[291] Brought in Shach 69/37; Taz 69/ 23;  So rules also Rashba; Rosh; Mordechai; Michaber 118/9 [brought in Shach ibid]

Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on this opinion of the Rashal as the Rashal brought in Shach 105/5; Taz 105/4 is of the opinion that a Keli Sheiyni transfers Issur taste even without salt. How can he thus be lenient here even when there is salt? The Peri Megadim [69 M.Z. 23 and Gilyon Mahrsha] addresses this question and states the Rashal rules that although a Keli Sheiyni has the ability to transfer taste it does not have the ability to remove taste from within a solid and also transfer it. Thus it cannot remove the taste of blood within the salt and transfer it to the meat. However he asks that in truth the salt melts and it is no longer considered a solid and it is difficult to say that the entire allowance of the Rashal is only in a case that the salt is thick and will not melt.

[292] The Rashal argues on the premises of the Rama and says that the salt does not give a Keli Sheiyni the ability to cook, as after Shiur Melicha the salt no longer has any power. [Taz ibid; Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 37]

[293] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 37 and 38

[294] 69/37

[295] 69/23

[296] As the reason of the Rashal [that the salt loses its power after Shiur Melicha] is rational, and anyways this blood is only Rabbinically forbidden. [ibid]

[297] Taz 69/23

[298] As although ox meat cannot cook in a Keli Rishon that is off the fire [Admur 318/17] nevertheless when it is salted it has the ability to cook. [Taz ibid and so rules Rashal]

[299] Taz 69/24

[300] Peri Chadash 69/44

[301] The reason for this leniency is because blood which has been extracted from meat is only a Rabbinical Issur and in a case of doubt we apply the rule of Safek Derabanan Lekula. Furthermore since one is accustomed to always wash the salt off the meat prior to cooking one can assume that it was done in this case as well. Now although the meat has a Chazaka to have blood nevertheless here there is a majority against the Chazaka and the Chazaka gets overpowered by it. [Taz ibid]

[302] As we do not apply the rule of Safek Derababna Lekula in this case, as meat has a Chazaka that it contains blood on its salt, and a mere doubt cannot remove the meat from that status.

[303] 69/10

[304] If however the gentile knows that if the meat is not washed the Jew may not eat the food then his statement is not considered Masiach Lefi Tumo unless it was casually said as part of a conversation. [Taz 69/23]

[305] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 42 learns from this that only a worker is believed in a case of exiting and entering as opposed to a regular gentile. [see Shach 69/42]

[306] The Taz [69/25] states that this means either that he knows of the custom or is fit to know of the custom. The Nekudos Hakesef argues on this assertion and so questions Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 25 that if in actuality the gentile does not know the custom then he will not fear cooking the meat without washing. The Peri Megadim hence interprets this Taz to be going on the child.

[307] The Shach 69/42 says that in truth it is not necessary for the gentile to state whether he washed the meat as we assume he was afraid to do otherwise and he thus certainly washed it. It is from these extra words of the Michaber that the Rama understood that perhaps the Michaber agrees that Masiach Lefi Tumo is also valid. However the Shach himself learns that these words are not to be taken literally and hence no inference is to be learned from them. [Shach ibid]

[308] This applies even if the child does not know that meat must be washed, so long as he is of knowledgeable age. [Nekudos Hakesef; See Taz 69/25; Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 25]

[309] Shach 69/42; As by Mirseis it is not required for the gentile to say that he washed the meat.

[310] This ruling of the Rama is based on Smak

[311] Shach 69/42

[312] As the Michaber says “we rely on his word” thus implying that we do rely on casual talk, as by a case of Mirseis there is no need to rely on his words. However the Shach himself learns that these words are not to be taken literally and hence no inference is to be learned from them. [Shach ibid]

[313] Shach 69/42; Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 42

[314] This can also be inferred from the Michaber which writes “a gentile worker” and not any gentile. [Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 42]

[315] Taz 69/24

[316] 513/15; See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 49

[317] Taz 69/23; Shach 69/43

[318] Shach ibid

[319] See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 43; So is implied from Admur 513 Kuntrus Achron 6 that he learns the Shach is arguing on the Taz. See Piskeiy Admur p. 49

[320] See Darkei Teshuvah 69/165; Hakashrus 9/51-52

[321] 69/11

[322] Shach 69/44; Peri Megadim 69 S.M. 44

[323] As we do not know how much blood has dissipated from the meat into the food. [Taz 69/26; Shach 45] See Q&A regarding if the meat itself joins to be part of the 60x.

[324] As whatever blood has left the meat has become nullified in 60x and whatever blood is still within the meat is considered blood of the limbs which is Kosher. Now although blood which has moved within a piece is forbidden even if it has remained in a different area of the piece, by cooking whatever blood moves is completely dissipated from the piece and does not remain inside. [Taz 69/27]

[325] Smak; Hagahos Sheid

[326] Shach 69/47 in name of Toras Chatas

[327] 69/46

[328] Blood which has moved from one area of the meat to another is forbidden and hence it is forbidden to eat the actual piece of meat even if there was 60x. The Shach says one cannot say the meat is forbidden due to Chanan, as Chanan only applies if one cooked the meat separately without 60x. [Shach ibid]

[329] 69/28

[330] The Shach ibid argues on this explanation.

[331] In such a case the other foods in the pot do not join to nullify the meat in 60x and it hence becomes Chanan.

[332] Rama ibid

[333] Taz 69/30; based on Rama 69/4 which rules if only one side was salted  we are lenient in a case of need or great loss.

The reason for why if the meat did not remain Shiur Melicha the entire pot is forbidden while in the case that only one side was salted  we are lenient in a case of need, is because when at least one side was salted we are lenient to say that it has the ability to remove all the blood. However if the salt did not remain for Shiur Melicha then not all the blood has come out. [Taz ibid]

[334] Pashut as that is how the Rama rules in 69/4. Vetzaruch Iyun on the wording of the Taz ibid; See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 30

[335] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 30 [Seemingly this is his intent there as otherwise he directly contradicts the ruling in 69/4 that the meat is only permitted in a case of great loss.]

[336] Rama ibid; See Halacha 15 for the full details of this law

[337] Shach 69/48

[338] Taz 69/29

[339] The reason for this is because we suspect blood has spread from one area to another within the chicken and has not dissipated into the pot. [Taz ibid]

[340] Taz 69/24

[341] Peri Chadash 69/44; See Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/15; Mahrsham 2/187; Divrei Yisaschar 66; Yad Yitzchak 2/30; Darkei Halacha p. 34

[342] The reason for this leniency is because blood which has been extracted from meat through cooking is only a Rabbinical Issur and in a case of doubt we apply the rule of Safek Derabanan Lekula. Furthermore since one is accustomed to always salt the meat prior to cooking one can assume that it was done in this case as well. Now although the meat has a Chazaka to have blood nevertheless here there is a majority against the Chazaka and it gets overpowered by it. [Taz ibid]

[343] As we do not apply the rule of Safek Derababna Lekula in this case, as meat has a Chazaka that it contains blood, and a mere doubt cannot remove the meat from that status. Furthermore, there is no set assumption that since one normally salts the meat we can assume one did so also in a case that one does not remember, as salting is an arduous job which one would remember if he were to have done so.  [ibid]

[344] Ben Ish Chaiy Taharos 19; Kaf Hachaim 69/105

[345] Taz 69/23; See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 23

[346] 69/9 which is stringent even regarding a Keli Sheiyni; and so rules Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 2/4 [Taz ibid]

[347] Meaning although ox meat cannot cook in a Keli Rishon that is off the fire [Admur 318/17] nevertheless its blood is able to be cooked.

[348] Rabbeinu Yerucham; Rashal and so rules Taz ibid

[349] As taught in Hilchos Shabbos chapter 318/11 that ox meat itself cannot cook in a Keli Rishon, and it is only its moisture which cooks.

[350] 69/23

[351] So concludes Taz ibid.

[352] Rama 69/14

[353] Taz 69/35 and Rashal [brought in Taz ibid] rule that if a piece of meat that was not yet salted became mixed with two salted pieces all the meat is permitted as it has a status of Yaveish Beyaveish. [See Halacha 17] This implies that also in the case of the Rama he would agree that only majority is required. Vetzaruch Iyun how he would answer the questions of the Shach of why 60x is not required? Perhaps one can say the Taz rules like the Issur Viheter that does not require 60x by Yaveish Beyaveish Eino Mino if the Issur is an absorbed Issur. Alternatively perhaps he holds that by a Rabbinical Issur we are lenient to only require majority in a case of Yaveish Beyaveish. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol as in truth it is the Shach in 109/9 that suggests a Rabbinical Issur is nullified in majority in all cases of Yaveish Beyaveish, while here he lengthens his discussion of how it is permitted to permit the meat without 60x. [So asks the son of the Shach on his father in Nekudos Hakesef; See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 57; See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 35]

[354] 69/58

[355] The Michaber states regarding meat that was not salted for three days that became mixed with other meat that it is nullified in majority. The Rama states that the same rule applies regarding meat that was cooked without being salted and became mixed with other meat. It is thus implied that this meat is also nullified in majority. However the Shach asks that this is a classical case of Yaveish Beyaveish Min Beino Mino of which we require 60x. Now although this case involves an Issur Balua [absorbed blood] and hence the Issur is not recognized, nevertheless according to the Rama even in such a case 60x is required as the Rama rules that 60x is required due to worry one may come to cook the mixture together. [This is unlike the Issur Viheter which rules 60x is only required by Yaveish Beyaveish Eino Mino due to that the Issur is recognizable and hence here in this case one could be lenient being the Issur is absorbed.] The Shach hence concludes that perhaps even the Rama only meant to teach us that even a Charal piece is nullified in this case, although in truth 60x is required. [Shach ibid; See previous footnote for the questions on the Shach]

[356] See 73/2; Chapter 73 Halacha 8

[357] Machazikei Bracha 73/14; Bircheiy Yosef 69/1; Kaf Hachaim 73/33

[358] Ben Ish Chaiy Taharos 23

[359] See Rama 67/6; Shach 73/10; Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 10

[360] See Minchas Yitzchak 4/88-3; Beis Yitzchak 7; Har Tzevi 66; Sheivet Halevy 2/26

[361] However according to the Michaber the meat itself is also permitted if there is 60x.

[362] Hakashrus 9/38-39

[363] Peri Chadash 69/42

[364] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 29; Zivcheiy Tzedek 117; Erech Hashulchan 69/20; Kaf Hachaim 69/153

[365] 69/12-14

[366] Michaber 69/12

Background:

The law of meat which has remained three days without being salted is not discussed in the Talmud. The Geonim however suspected that perhaps after three days the blood becomes dry and will no longer dissipate through salting. The Rivash however strongly argued on this opinion. Practically we are stringent like the Geonim in this matter. [See Shach 69/53; Taz 69/32]

[367] Kaf Hachayim 69/188

[368] The Michaber writes “three days of 24 hours”.

[369] See Halacha F

[370] Taz 69/32 based on Rashal explains that there is doubt as to whether the blood is able to still come out through salting and hence we are stringent to not allow salting and then cooking. At the same time we are also stringent to assume that some blood did come out and hence if one salted the meat in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav the meat is forbidden as will be explained. Hence we are stringent to suspect for both options.

[371] Chelkas Yaakov 2/44

[372] As we suspect that through cooking the meat the blood that was not released through the salting will soften and then come out into the food. [See Shach 69/51]

[373] Shach 69/50

From the letter of the law the meat does not need to be salted at all before roasting even when it passed three days since the slaughtering. The slight salting is merely a custom that is practiced when roasting all meat, even within three days of the slaughtering. The Peri Megadim explains the novelty of this Shach is that one should not think that salting does not help at all and hence even the customary slight salting prior to roasting can be skipped. Rather one is to try to do as much as possible to remove the blood including a slight salting. Nevertheless a full salting is not required. [Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 50] This come to negate the ruling of the Toras Chatas [Klal 4/11] that one does not need to salt the meat at all before roasting however possibly he means to say that it does not require salting like meat which one desires to cook but rather a slight salting for roasting. [See Minchas Yaakov Klal 4/1 which suggests both ways of learning]

[374] Shach ibid in name of Toras Chatas Klal 4/1

This negates the opinion of the Issur Viheter [brought in Toras Chatas ibid] that requires a full salting prior to the roasting.

[375] Rama 69/12

[376] Shach 69/52

[377] Rama 69/11

[378] Shach 69/48

[379] Shach 69/49 in name of Toras Chatas 4/4 and Rashal; However see Admur Shut 17; See Piskeiy Admur p. 51; See Tzemach Tzedek Piskeiy Dinim 69/10 that one may be lenient even if the meat was not washed at all during the three days.

[380] Michaber 69/12

[381] Shach 69/51; Taz 69/31

Why may liver be cooked after roasting as opposed to meat that is after three days? This case is not similar to the rule by liver which must be roasted and after the roasting may be cooked even initially, as the reason liver must be roasted is because its abundance of blood is not able to be extracted through salting. However through roasting we assume all its removable blood has left, and hence there is no reason to avoid cooking it once it has been roasted. However here that the blood has dried we are not positive that all the removable blood was extracted through roasting as roasting does not help to soften all the dried blood. This is in contrast to cooking which does soften any remaining blood. Hence since cooking may cause any remaining dried blood to be removed we are therefore initially strict to forbid cooking. [Shach ibid]

[382] Harav Ozer in Koveitz Yashan brought in Taz 69/32; However the Minchas Yaakov Klal 4/2 writes that this opinion follows the opinion brought in Issur Viheter that requires a full Melicha prior to roasting, and based on our ruling that this is not required we see that we do not hold of this opinion. [Peri Megadim  69 M.Z. 32]

[383] Peri Megadim 698 M.Z. 32

[384] Zivcheiy Tzedek 69/ 132; Peulas Tzadik 2/143

[385] Ben Ish Chaiy Kedoshim 10

[386] As we assume that all its moveable blood has left through the roasting and any leftover blood will not have the ability to dissipate even through cooking. [Shach 69/51]

[387] Brought in Taz 69/32

[388] 69/32; Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 32

[389] Shach 69/50

[390] This negates the opinion brought in Toras Chatas Klal 4/1 that some communities forbid even roasting the meat if the veins were not removed within 72 hours.

[391] So is implied from wording of Shach ibid and Toras Chatas Klal 4/1

[392] Taz 69/32

[393] See Rama 69/18

[394] Taz ibid based on Rashal; The reason for this is because although salt cannot remove all the dried blood we suspect that it has ability to remove some of the blood and hence this piece of meat has the same law as any meat which is salted in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav. [See Halacha 22]

[395] Rashal brought in Taz ibid

[396] See “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” chapter 105 Halacha 1 in Q&A!

[397] Seemingly one should prohibit the meat even in this case being that since it contains dried blood perhaps not all the blood came out by the first salting and it is now coming out in the second salting. However the Rashal concludes that in truth any dried blood that is removable through salt was already removed through the first salting and all blood that was not removed through the first salting will also not be able to be removed through the second salting . In other words if one says that salt cannot take out dried blood then here too by the second salting it cannot take it out, and if one says that the salt can take out dried blood then it was already removed by the first salting. [Taz and Rashal ibid]

[398] Taz 69/32

[399] As we suspect that although the meat is dry and cannot dissipate blood through salting perhaps it is nevertheless able to absorb the blood of the other pieces [and since perhaps this piece does not give off its own blood we cannot apply the rule of “Aydi Detarid Leflot lo Baliy”]. Now this absorbed blood will not become removed from the piece even if he salts it [Keboloa Kach Polto] as perhaps it will not give off its own blood, and is hence similar to a piece of meat which was already salted for blood and was then re-salted together with other pieces which contain blood in which case we rule the piece is forbidden. [see 70/6] This negates the opinion of some Rabbanim which permit the piece based on the rule Kebolo Kach Polto. [Taz ibid]

[400] Meaning it was salted in a vessel with a hole and was then washed. [Taz ibid]

[401] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 32

[402] As we suspect that perhaps some blood did come out of the dry piece and thus became absorbed in the other pieces, and since the pieces were already salted for their blood the blood will no longer come out through salting. [Taz ibid]

[403] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 32; as since we are not certain that the dry meat has released blood and there is a logic of “Mishrak Sharik” applicable here in a case of Menukav [i.e. Meaning that we can say that the blood slides off the other pieces and leaves the vessel] therefore the Taz is lenient in this case even though if this case involved a piece of meat salted within three days we would be stringent. However in a case of Eino Menukav since the blood cannot escape and the logic of Mishrak Sharik is not applicable we are stringent to forbid the meat. [Peri Megadim ibid]

[404] Chidushei Rav Akiva Eiger based on the question on Taz that in 70/6  we rule that even when a vessel contains a hole those meats that were already salted become forbidden. Hence he says the wording of the Taz is inaccurate. However the Peri Megadim explains that in this case there is a difference as explained in the previous footnote.         

[405] Michaber 69/13

[406] As if it stayed for 24 hours it is Kavush Kemevushal.

[407] The reason for why one must soak the meat before the last 30 minutes of the 72 hour period: The Taz explains that it takes 30 minutes to soften the meat as is learned from the law that one must soak the meat in water for a half hour prior to salting it, therefore he must begin the soaking prior to 30 minutes remaining within the 72 hours. [Taz 69/34] However the Shach learns the 30 minutes mentioned here by the Michaber is not literal and it helps soften the meat even if it is left in water for a small amount of time. [Shach 69/54]

[408] Klal 4/3

[409] 69/34

[410] 69/54

[411] Shach 69/53; Taz 69/33; Toras Chatas Klal 4/3

[412] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 53

[413] Masas Binyamin 108; Yad Yehuda Haaruch 69/57

[414] Shut 17; See Piskeiy Admur p. 51; See Tzemach Tzedek Piskeiy Dinim 69/10 that one may be lenient even if the meat was not washed at all during the three days.

[415] Shach 69/53

[416] In Toras Chatas Klal 4/3

[417] Such as Krakow which was the community of the Rama

[418] Toras Chatas ibid

[419] As this stringency of dried blood is not found in the Talmud and is rather a stringency of the Geonim.[Shach ibid]

[420] Rama 69/13

[421] Michaber 14

[422] Why the meat is nullified in majority rather than 60x:

  • Shach:

    The Shach [69/57] asks the following question: The rule is that by all mixtures of Yaveish Beyaveish which are not the same species we require 60x versus the Issur being that one may come to cook the mixture and transfer Issur taste. [See “A Semicha Aid…Taaruvos” chapter 109] Thus the question is why here is 60x not required? In this case the Issur which is the blood is not the same species as the meat and hence it is a mixture of Min Beino Mino? The Shach answers that since the Issur of three day old meat is only from the Geonim and does not have a source in the Talmud therefore we are lenient in a case of a mixture to only require majority even though it is a case of Min Beino Mino. [Meaning since the meat in question has already been salted for its blood and it is only due to a stringency of the Geonim that we say the blood has dried and remained inside therefore we are lenient regarding the amount of nullification required.]

  • Taz:

The Taz [69/35] learns that this case has a status of Yaveish Beyaveish and hence only majority is required.

[Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol on the ruling of Taz as Yaveish Beyaveish of Eino Mino requires 60x, as asks the Shach above. Perhaps one can say the Taz rules like the Issur Viheter that does not require 60x by Yaveish Beyaveish Eino Mino if the Issur is an absorbed Issur. Alternatively perhaps he holds that by a Rabbinical Issur we are lenient to only require majority in a case of Yaveish Beyaveish. Vetzaruch Iyun Gadol as in truth it is the Shach in 109/9 that suggests a Rabbinical Issur is nullified in majority in all cases of Yaveish Beyaveish, while here he lengthens his discussion of how it is permitted to permit the meat without 60x. So asks the son of the Shach in Nekudos Hakesef; See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 57] 

[423] It is implied that one may salt all the pieces together in such a case even though we are generally stringent regarding salting a three day piece together with other pieces. [See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 55]

[424] Shach 69/55; The Shach writes that this case applies whether none of the pieces of meat have yet been salted, and one may thus salt all the pieces together and cook them, or alternatively a case that all the pieces have been salted, in which case one may then cook all of them

[425] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 55; However according to Taz 69/35 even here only majority is required in which case the entire mixture may be cooked without re-salting.

[426] This applies according to the Shach as explained in Peri Megadim ibid. However according to the Taz ibid as long as there is majority it may be cooked.

[427] As Charal only applies by an intrinsic Issur, and not by an Issur Balua. [Shach 69/59; Taz 69/35; See “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 102]

[428] Shach 69/58

[429] As one does not know which piece is the Issur. Upashut!

[430] See Chapter 109 and so is implied from Michaber here which forbids cooking them together.

[431] This is proven from the fact that the Rama here does not mention that one of the pieces must be thrown out as he does in chapter 109. The reason for this is because here it is a mere stringency of the Geonim, and the entire ruling of throwing out one piece is itself a mere stringency. [Shach ibid].

[432] There a dispute is recorded between the Michaber and Rama although seemingly in this case there is even more room to be lenient being that three day meat is a stringency of the Geonim. Vetzaruch Iyun

[433] Rama 102/4

[434] Shach 69/56; 102/11

Background:

The Shach and Taz differ with the ruling of the Rama that an absorbed Issur cannot become DSL”M, as explained in Halacha 2D. However they agree to the ruling of the Rama in this case for other reasons. They explain that the meat is not considered a DSL”M being that the main opinion holds that something which is always permitted to be eaten a certain way, such as here to roast the meat, is not considered a DSL”M, as only something which is now forbidden and will eventually be permitted is a DSL”M.

[435] Taz 69/35; 102/10

Analysis of the opinion of the Taz:

In the beginning of the Taz 102/10 he brings the same reason as the Shach regarding why this meat is not considered a DSL”M. However later on he mentions a few times that this meat would have a status of a DSL”M being that it is permitted to be roasted, and there is no difference between an absorbed Issur or innate Issur. The Beir Heiytiv 102/10 learns the Taz to rule that such meat is considered DSL”M. Others argue that the Taz wrote this simply within the opinion of the Rif that holds such a case would be considered a DSL”M, and is simply coming to negate the opinion that an absorbed Issur is not a DSL”M. However he himself rules like most Poskim that meat is not a DSL”M for the reason he wrote in the beginning of the Taz. To note that in Chapter 69/14 the Taz does not argue with the ruling of the Michaber and furthermore he even explains why the meat is not a DSL”M. See Taz 69/35

Opinion of Admur: See Admur 513 Kuntrus Achron 4; Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 54 that Admur rules like the Shach and Taz.

[436] Shach 69/53

[437] Harav Ozer in Koveitz Yashan brought in Taz 69/32;

[438] Peri Megadim 698 M.Z. 32

[439] As we assume that all its moveable blood has left through the roasting and any leftover blood will not have the ability to dissipate even through cooking. [Shach 69/51]

[440] 69/32; Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 32

[441] Michaber 69/14

[442] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 55

[443] Igros Moshe Yoreh Deah 1/27

[444] See Beir Heiytiv 69/8; Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/6; Darkei Teshuvah 69/50; Igros Moshe 1/27; Vayeishev Moshe 96; Yabia Omer 2/4

[445] Dvar Shmuel 373 brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/6373

[446] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 60

[447] As even if we consider the meat as Kavush in water many Poskim rule that the meat remains permitted to be roasted, hence here one may be lenient. [ibid]

[448] Minchas Yaakov 14 brought in Beir Heiytiv 69/8; Kiryas Chana 29 brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah ibid; Oar Yitzchak 11 brought in Darkei Teshuvah ibid

[449] As they hold ice is not considered like water and hence the meat is not considered as if it were soaked in water for 24 hours. However the ice also does not have ability to prevent the drying of the blood and hence the meat is only permitted to be roasted like all meat that was not salted for three days.

[450] Eimek Halacha 26 brought in Darkei Teshuvah ibid; Livushei Mordechai 15

[451] As they hold the freezing process prevents the blood from drying and hence it can still be salted like regular meat. [ibid]

[452] Igros Moshe 1/27

[453] As in his opinion although majority of Poskim are stringent nevertheless by a Rabbinical matter one may be lenient, as well as that it seems logically that freezing prevents drying of the blood. [ibid]

[454] Yabia Omer 2/4; Orchos Yashar 2/3

[455] Igros Moshe 3/7

[456] Sheivet Hakehasi 1/215

[457] Admur 321/6; M”A 321/7

Other Opinions: The Nodah Beyehuda 27 rules it is permitted to rinse the meat on Shabbos and so concludes the M”B in Biur Halacha 500 although he writes it is best to do so through a  gentile.

[458] The reason for this is because the meat is Muktzah if it is hard meat that is not fit to be chewed [in its raw state] as was explained in chapter 308 [Halacha 68]. [Furthermore] even if [the meat] is soft and is fit to chew [in its raw state] one may not be lenient [to rinse it] as since he does not want to eat it today, rinsing it involves the prohibition of doing [an action which entails] effort on Shabbos for [the need of] a weekday. [ibid]

[459] As although [the Sages] allowed in a scenario of a great financial loss to do anything through a gentile which is only Rabbinical prohibition, as explained in chapter 307, nevertheless here it does not entail such a great loss if one were to not rinse it, being that he is [still] able to eat it through roasting. [ibid]

[460] Chamudei Daniel 34 brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/26; Hakashrus 9/86

[461] As there is no suspicion that one may come not to roast it, as liver must always be roasted regardless of whether it is three days after slaughtering. Now although there is worry one may come to cook it after the roasting, nevertheless since Bedieved the liver is permitted if it is cooked after roasting therefore we are not initially stringent to suspect for this to occur. [ibid]

[462] Rama 69/14

[463] Taz 69/35; See previous case and footnotes there for the questions and explanations of this Taz.

[464] Based on Shach 69/57 and Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 57; See previous case and footnotes there!

[465] 69/15

[466] 69/16

[467] Michaber ibid

[468] Rama 69/16

[469] Michaber ibid

[470] Michaber ibid; See Admur 499/4 regarding salting on a slanted hide.

[471] Rama ibid

[472] Rama ibid

[473] See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 38

[474] Taz 69/38

[475] Hakashrus 69/65; However all the sources he mentions are inaccurate and do not mention this ruling.

[476] 69/16-17

[477] Michaber 69/16

[478] Shach 69/3

[479] As although there is a rule that “Ein Melicha Bekeilim” nevertheless this only applies to the ability of salt to remove taste from a vessel, in which case we say the heat of salt is ineffective. However salt does have the ability to absorb taste into a vessel. Hence in this case since blood was absorbed in the vessel, the vessel is now forbidden and may not be used for cooking, or placing hot food inside. [Taz 69/39]

[480] Rama 69/16

Background: Shach 69/64

Ruling of Rama in Toras Chatas:  The Rama in Toras Chatas [Klal 11/8 brought in Taz 69/39; Shach 69/64] rules that the above law follows the classical rules of Tatah Gavar. Thus if the vessel is cold then if the food is dry one requires a Kelipa and if the food is a liquid one requires 60x a Kelipa [of the food]. If the vessel is hot then 60x is required. [See Shach 105/21]

Ruling of Rama in Shulchan Aruch: The Rama here in Shulchan Aruch rules that if the food is dry a Kelipa is required while if the food is hot one requires 60x the Kelipa of the plate. It is unclear from the Rama here if he is referring to a case that the plate is hot or cold.

First understanding of Shach-Vessel is hot: The Shach suggests that at first glance we must say that the case of the Rama is referring to a case that the vessel is still hot as based on the rule of Tatah Gavar why would one need 60x the peel worth of the vessel if the vessel is cold. However if the vessel is hot then based on the rule of Tatah Gavar if the food is a liquid one would require 60x a peels worth of the vessel, [as a vessel can only absorb up to a peels worth through the heat of salt]. If the food is completely dry then a peels worth of the food suffices. Furthermore, in truth a third scenario is possible that is not mentioned by the Rama which is if the food is slightly moist. In such a case we require Netila from the food unless it is fatty in which case we require 60x.

The questions on this explanation: The Shach questions this understanding in the Rama as the Rama does not mention that the vessel is hot. Furthermore, if one were to establish the case to be dealing with a hot bowl then one would require 60x the peel of the entire vessel and not merely versus the area that the meat touched, and this is not implied from the Rama [from the fact he did not write “the entire vessel”-P”M ibid]. Likewise if one were to establish the case to be dealing with a hot bowl one would have to establish that the hot food in the dry case is completely dry without any moisture, as if it were even slightly moist it would require Netila, and it is difficult to limit the Rama’s case of dry food to a case that has absolutely no moisture. Furthermore from the Toras Chatas it is proven that when the Rama states a dry food he refers to a food that contains slight moisture.

The final explanation of Shach-Vessel is cold: Based on the above questions the Shach states the case in the Rama must be referring to a cold vessel and thus when he states that by a liquid one requires 60x a peels worth of the vessel he is only referring to the area that the liquid touched in the vessel and not the entire vessel.

The question on this explanation: On this explanation remains the question of why 60x is required at all versus the peels worth in a case that the vessel is cold. One cannot say that the reason why 60x a Kelipa of the vessel is required is because by a liquid one cannot remove a Kelipa and hence since the forbidden Kelipa has mixed into the rest of the food 60x is required, as the Rama 91/4 rules one does not need 60x the Kelipa of liquids.

Final answer of Shach: The Shach suggests as follows: Although in general the Rama rules one does not require 60x a Kelipa by liquid, in this case the Rama is stringent like the Riva which does require 60x a Kelipa in a case of liquid. The reason for this is because there are opinions [Raavad] which hold that a salted vessel is always considered hot even after being washed, and thus according to them one would require 60x even by a moist solid that is placed in a bowl. Thus the Rama rules that at the very least by a liquid one is to be stringent.

[481] Shach 69/64

[482] As Melicha only penetrates a peels worth and hence only a peels worth of the vessel has become forbidden. [Shach 69/64]

Other Opinions: According to the Derisha [98/18] one requires 60x versus the entire vessel being that salt is able to penetrate an entire vessel with Issur and not just a Kelipa worth. [Peri Megadim 98 S.D. 13]

Opinion of Admur in Shulchan Aruch Harav: In 447/30 Admur rules that one requires 60x versus the entire thickness of the vessel and not just 60x a peels worth. See Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 57 and 63. 

[483] According to the Shach one only requires 60x versus the peels worth of area of contact [Shach 69/64] or alternatively 60x versus a peels worth of the food. [Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 64; In Toras Chatas the Rama says 60x versus a Kelipa of the food, the Peri Megadim says that the novelty here in the Rama is that even if it has 60x versus the area of the vessel that it touched it suffices, even though if he would measure versus a peels worth of the food then one would require 61x.] However the Minchas Yaakov [Klal 11/10 brought in Peri Megadim ibid] rules that according to the Rama one requires 60x versus a peels worth of the entire vessel as we suspect the liquid moved around and touched all the walls of the vessel.

[484] Shach 69/64-See background

[485] Toras Chatas Klal 11/8

[486] Shach 69/64

[487] Shach 69/65; Issur Viheter Klal 36/2; See Admur 452/8; Piskeiy Admur p. 58

[488] Minchas Yaakov Klal 11/10

[489] 69/16

[490] This is the first opinion mentioned in Michaber which only prohibits hot foods from being placed in the vessel, which implies that cold foods are allowed. [Taz 69/39]

[491] Meaning if one salted meat in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav they hold one does not need to clean the plate with water and rather so long as the blood has been wiped off one may place cold foods on it.

[492] Shach 69/66

[493] Their reason is because they hold that after Shiur Melicha the vessel is considered cold. [Taz 69/39]

[494] Second opinion in Michaber

[495] Such as through using a paper towel and not water.

[496] Shach 69/66; Meaning they hold it does not suffice to clean off the blood using a paper towel and rather water must be used.

[497] The reason behind this stringent opinion is because they hold that a vessel is considered hot even after Shiur Melicha so long as it has not yet been washed. [Taz 69/39] Nevertheless even according to this opinion the food does not become forbidden if it is cold and rather only requires a washing. [See Shach 69/67]

[498] Toras Chatas Klal 11/8 and Rashal brought in Shach 69/66

[499] Michaber ibid

[500] Shach 69/67

[501] The reason why placing raw  meat is permitted while other cold foods are forbidden: It is permitted to place raw meat in this bowl as the entire prohibition of using this bowl for cold foods is due to worry that one may forget to rinse the cold food [as is proven from the ruling of Bedieved]. Hence since raw meat is anyways generally rinsed prior to cooking, it does not pose a problem. [Shach ibid; Taz 69/40]

[502] Rama 69/16

[503] See Shach 69/66

[504] The reason why the salt does not extract Issur blood from the bowl:  Although this bowl contains Issur blood nevertheless one may salt meat in it as there is a rule Ein Melicha Lekeilim. This means that the heat of salt does not have the ability to remove taste from the Issur bowl and thus the meat remains permitted. [Shach 69/67; Toras Chatas 11/9 in name of Issur Viheter]

[505] Shach 69/68; Taz 69/41

Why is it allowed to leave the meat in the bowl for 18 minutes if the meat releases Tzir and by Tzir a food becomes Kavush within 18 minutes as ruled in 105/1? The rule of Ein Melicha Lekeilim applies likewise to Tzir. Thus just like salt cannot remove the taste from within the walls of a vessel so too Tzir cannot remove the taste. Accordingly Tzir is only problematic within 18 minutes if the Tzir itself is Issur or there is also Issur in the bowl. [Shach and Taz ibid]

[506] As by the time 24 has passed the vessel is no longer ben Yomo and it hence releases spoiled taste. Nevertheless initially one may not leave it there as a spoiled Issur is initially forbidden to eat. [Shach 69/68] However see Admur 447/29 that nevertheless the taste of Issur that is in the vessel becomes Charif due to the Tzir and hence it is not considered spoiled even after 24 hours,. Thus if one leaves Tzir within this vessel for 24 hours it is forbidden. See Piskeiy Admur p. 57.

[507] 69/17

[508] Taz 69/42; Shach 69/69

[509] Seemingly they suspect that prior to the blood flowing out the taste of the blood became absorbed within the walls of the vessel.

[510] Toras Chatas Klal 11/7 brought in Shach 69/70

[511] Brought in Shach 69/70; Taz 69/43

[512] Shach 69/70

[513] Taz 69/43

[514] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 43 in opinion of Taz

[515] Shach 69/70

[516] Shach 69/70

[517] Rashal; Bach; Shach; Taz

[518] Rama

[519] 69/18

[520] Shach 69/71; According to the Michaber this means that one must place enough salt to the point that the meat is inedible due to the salt. However according to the Rama we are stringent even by a small amount of salt. [Shach ibid]

[521] Shach 69/72; The reason why in this case the meat is forbidden in 18 minutes while by meat that soaked in water it requires 24 hours and even then it may still be roasted is because the salt effects the absorption of blood into the meat to be much more severe than a mere case of soaking. [Shach ibid]

[522] Shach 69/73

[523] As although fat causes taste to travel, this only applies if the Issur is fatty, however if the Heter is fatty while the Issur is lean, as is the case here with blood, then we apply the rule that an Issur cannot travel further than it can penetrate on its own accord. [Shach 69/73]

[524] Shach 69/72

[525] The reason behind the stringent opinion: The nature of meat is to release blood through its bottom pores as opposed to its side. This opinion rules that since in a vessel without a hole there is no room for the blood to leave the salted meat being that its pores are clogged by the bottom of the vessel due to lack of a hole, therefore all the blood that leaves one area of the meat becomes stuck in a different area of the same meat without ability to escape. This transfer of blood occurs throughout the entire piece and is not relevant to the area that is within the gravy or above it. Now blood which has moved from one area of a limb to another is forbidden to be eaten and is not possible to be removed even through a second salting or roasting. For this reason the entire piece becomes forbidden. [Taz 69/44; Shach 69/74; Issur Viheter; Rashal]

Difference between this case and a case that a piece of meat was placed in a bowl with bloody gravy: In chapter 70/6 we rule that if a piece of meat that has been salted for its blood falls into bloody Tzir then only the area within the Tzir is forbidden. Based on the above reason it is understood why in that case the Rama agrees the area above the Tzir remains permitted as only when meat is releasing its own blood and that blood has no escape does the entire piece become forbidden. However Tzir itself can only prohibit the area it touches and does not have the ability to penetrate into the area above it. Hence in the case that the meat was already salted for its blood, the area above the Tzir remains Kosher. [Shach 69/74]

Reason why roasting the meat helps remove blood that moved during slaughtering but does not help in this case: When one breaks the spinal cord during slaughtering the blood moves from area to area within the meat and hence the meat can no longer be salted. Nevertheless the meat is permitted to be roasted. [see Chapter 67] The reason why in this case we rule that the blood can never come out even through roasting is because there is difference regarding how the blood was moved. Blood which moved during slaughtering is able to still be removed through roasting. However blood that was removed through salting can never come out even through roasted and thus here the Rama rules that the entire meat is forbidden. Alternatively we are more stringent in this case being that in addition to the blood moving from one area to another it was also Kavush within the Tzir and Kavush blood can never leave even through roasting. [Shach 69/74; See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 74]

Reason why the Michaber is lenient despite the above reason of Rama: The reason for why the Michaber is lenient and does not suspect for blood that separated from one area to another is because the Michaber rules like the Rosh that holds that blood which moved from one area to another within the same piece of meat is permitted. [Peri Megadim 76 S.D. 2]

[526] As we are not expert in how much salt is needed to heat the meat and begin removing blood from it. Hence we are stringent even by a small amount of salt. [See Rama 91/5; Admur 457/29; Piskeiy Admur p. 67]

[527] As the prohibition is not relevant to Kavush Kemivushal but rather due to blood moving from place to place and this occurs immediately upon salting the meat.

[528]  Shach 69/75

[529] Shach 69/77; Toras Chatas Klal 12/11; However see 70/6

[530] The reason the upper pieces which are above the gravy are permitted despite the fact that there is a piece of meat that is under it that does not have any escape for its blood, is because the surface of the lower meat in truth does not clog the pores of the upper piece and thus the upper pieces release blood towards the bottom of the bowl. However the surface of the bowl does clog up the pores of the bottom piece and hence prohibits it. [Taz 69/45 in name of Issur Viheter]

[531] Taz 69/44; Shach 69/76

[532] Brought in Shach and Taz ibid

[533] Although this is a case of Min Beino Mino of which we rule 60x is required as one may come to cook the mixture in which case 60x the blood is required nevertheless since Biblically Yaveish Beyaveish is always nullified 1:2 and being that in this case itself there are opinions which rule that the area above the gravy is Kosher, therefore were lenient to only require 1:2. [Shach and Taz ibid] Vetzaruch Iyun as it is implied that the Rashal is lenient even if the mixture was cooked together, in which case 60x is Biblically required. See Chidushei Beis Meir which addresses this question.

[534] And thus we can be lenient like the Michaber and say the meat does not become forbidden at all. However if the meat remained Shiur Melicha then it is forbidden according to all.

[535] Shach 69/75; Masas Binyamin 39

[536] As so long as it is within Shiur Melicha it gives off blood and now this blood which has no escape moves from one area to another hence prohibiting the piece. [Shach ibid]

[537] Taz 69/44

[538] Even though this Tzir does not contain blood, as the goose was already salted for blood, nevertheless Tzir causes a food to become Kavush, and hence we consider the meat that is submerged within the Tzir to have been Kavush. Now since this meat was not yet salted for blood it is as if this blood has been cooked in the piece and hence the submerged area is forbidden. [See Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 44]

[539] Since the lower piece of meat was not salted it has no blood leaving it, and the only problem here is that it is Kavush within Tzir of which the Rama in 105 brings a dispute whether the area above the Tzir is permitted or not. The Taz ibid concludes that one may be lenient.

[540] Vetzaruch Iyun on the Shach as in truth if the meat remains in even Kosher Tzir for 18 minutes it is considered Kavush as explained above. [Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 44]

[541] However according to the Michaber if the meat was not fully salted for Shiur Melicha it remains Kosher. Furthermore the meat is never entirely forbidden but rather only the area that is within the Tzir.

[542]  Shach 69/75

[543] See Darkei Halacha 105; Hakashrus 10 footnote 315

[544] Beis Lechem Yehuda in his introduction

[545] See Darkei Teshuvah 105/42; Piskeiy Admur p. 65; Admur 447/29; 467/56; 473/29; 527/12; 648/25

[546] Hakashrus 10 footnote 315

[547] Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/35 in name of Chamudei Daniel

[548] Darkei Teshuvah 69 in name of Yad Yehuda; Darkei Halacha p. 47

[549] 69/19

[550] This opinion holds that we assume all the blood has left through the Melicha process and hence it may be heated normally without restriction. [Shach 69/78]

[551] Rambam chapter 6 Hilchos Machalos Assuros

[552] As they suspect that perhaps some blood has remained inside and will come out through cooking, we thus scald the meat to prevent any exit of leftover absorbed blood. [Shach 69/78]

[553] Shach 69/78

[554] As we assume all of its blood has already left, and any redness which now leaves is mere gravy. [Shach 69/78]

[555] Peulas Tzadik 2/251; Hakashrus 9/75

[556] 69/20

[557] Tosafus Chulin 112b “Vedagim”; and so rules Rosh and Mordechai Chulin 112b in the name of Rashi; Tur in name of Rashi. There is no source in Rashi for this ruling and it is rather a widespread oral tradition that became recorded by the above Rishonim in the name of Rashi.

[558] Rashi brought in Michaber as Stam and first opinion

[559] It goes without saying that if the meat was already washed everything is Kosher according to all opinions as the meat no longer releases gravy.

[560] The reason why the meat remains Kosher: According to this opinion Tzir that is released after Shiur Melicha is not blood but rather mere gravy. Furthermore this gravy is considered cold [however see Shach as learns P”M below] and hence although the meat still contains external blood prior to being washed, the gravy does not transfer the external blood into the meat. Furthermore the salt that the meat contains also does not have ability to reabsorb the external blood into the piece as will be explained. [Shach 69/79; Taz 69/46]

Reason why the salt cannot transfer the blood back into the piece:

  • Bach and simple reading of Shach-Tzir cools off salt: According to the Bach [brought in Taz ibid] and Shach [69/79; See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 79] the reason why the salt does not reabsorb the blood back into the meat despite it being hot is because the cold Tzir nullifies the heat of the salt.
  • Shach as learns Peri Megadim-Tzir nullifies blood: The Peri Megadim [69 S.D. 79] explains that in truth the Shach [69/79] is not the same opinion as the Bach. Rather according to the Shach even if the Tzir is considered hot the meat remains Kosher as the salt and blood become nullified in the Tzir and hence the Tzir does not transfer actual Issur taste to the meat. The Peri Megadim asks how it is possible for the blood and salt to become nullified in such a small amount of Tzir.
  • Taz-Salt is cold: The Taz [69/46] argues that the reason the salt does not reabsorb the blood back into the meat is because salt naturally loses its heat after Shiur Melicha, and is thus considered cold. Hence irrelevant of whether the Tzir nullifies or cools off the salt [as suggests the Bach] the salt is not able to spread taste into the meat. Now since the Tzir that dissipates after Shiur Melicha is considered cold, there is no heat left in this mixture to cause transference of external blood into the meat. [The reason the salt loses its heat after Shiur Melicha is either due to it drying up or due to that its heat power has been completely used through removing the blood from the meat. Rosh and Taz ibid]

Reason why one must shake off the salt or rinse the meat prior to Hadacha Achrona according to this opinion: It was explained earlier that the meat must be washed prior to cooking due to that it still contains external blood. It is ruled that one must first rinse or shake the salt prior to washing the meat in order to nullify the heat of the salt. In truth according to this opinion of Rashi [as explained by the Taz] there is no need to first nullify the power of the salt in water as the salt is already considered cold. Thus the Taz explains that this was only required in accordance to the second opinion mentioned below. [See Taz 69/46; However according to the reason of the Shach; Bach and those that argue on Rashi this shaking is required being that the salt is still hot.]  However according to all one requires Hadacha Achrona, as one may not cook the meat with its external blood. [Taz 69/46]

Reason why if a Bar Yonah fell in Kutach it is forbidden: A slaughtered and Kashered dove that fell into a salty dairy dip is forbidden even if the salt is past Shiur Melicha. The reason for this is because only when the salt does an action of removing blood is it no longer considered hot and thus in this case the salted dairy dip is still considered hot and prohibits the dove. [Taz 69/47]

[561] Tosafus Chulin 112b brought as second opinion in Michaber. Mordechai in name of Rabbeinu Eliezer; Rokeiach 41 in name of Rabbeinu Eliezer

[562] Regarding how much of the meat becomes forbidden according to this opinion, the Rama and Shach rule that only a Kelipa’s worth becomes forbidden while the Rashal and Taz rule the area of meat within the Tzir is entirely forbidden. See below in opinion of Rama and Rashal.

[563] Meaning both in the case that the meat was placed after Shiur Melicha in a bowl without a hole, and in a case that regular meat fell into Tzir that dissipated from meat that is after Shiur Melicha.

The reason behind this opinion: According to this opinion even the Tzir that dissipates after Shiur Melicha is considered like regular Tzir [which contains blood] and is not mere gravy. Likewise it is considered hot due to the salt. Thus if one places this meat into a bowl without a hole and Tzir flows from the meat, the meat becomes forbidden due to it re-absorbing its blood. Nevertheless [according to some] this Tzir is not powerful enough to fully transfer taste into the meat and hence the meat is only forbidden a peels worth. [Shach 69/80 and 69/85] Thus according to the Shach this opinions holds of two stringencies A. The Tzir is considered like blood and B. The Tzir is considered hot. However the Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 80 explains that in truth even if we hold. that Tzir is considered gravy and not blood nevertheless the meat would be forbidden if we consider the Tzir as hot. The reason for this is because the meat itself still contains external blood and blood filled salt prior to being washed and hence if we consider the Tzir as hot [irrelevant to its gravy status] it has ability to penetrate the blood back into the meat. 

Reason why we do not apply the rule of “Aidy Detarid Liflot Lo Baliy”: As this rule only applies when the blood has an area to escape. However in a vessel that does not contain a hole and there is thus no escape for the blood, the meat is able to reabsorb the blood despite it still giving off blood.  [Shach 69/81]

[564] Shach 69/80; Issur Viheter Klal 10/16

[565] See E below

[566] Kaf Hachaim 69/296; Zivcheiy Tzedek 69/208

[567] Tosafus Chulin 112b; Mordechai in name of Rabbeinu Eliezer; Rokeiach 418 in name of Rabbeinu Eliezer

[568] Shach 69/81

[569] This ruling of the Rama was stated after he mentions the case of placing the meat in a dirty dairy vessel. Nevertheless obviously this allowance applies in all cases and the Rama is simply teaching that even in a case of dairy residue we are lenient in a case of loss and Seudas Mitzvah. [Shach 69/84; Aruch Hashulchan 69/115; See Taz 69/47]

[570] Brought in Taz 69/48; Shach 69/81

[571] He writes that this is implied from the Rishonim which did not limit the Issur to a Kelipa’s worth. [Taz 69/48]                                                                       

[572] Shach ibid

[573] 69/48; 47

[574] Taz 69/48; Kaf Hachaim 69/395                                                                

[575] Taz 69/47

[576] Shach 69/81

[577] Rashal brought in Taz 69/48

[578] As by mixtures one may be completely lenient like Rashi. [ibid]

[579] Shach 69/80; Toras Chatas Klal 14

[580] As this gravy is not considered blood and is cold.

[581] Rama 69/8

[582] Shach 69/32 in name of Issur Viheter Klal 10/19

[583] Shach 69/32

[584] Taz 69/47

[585] So rules Toras Habayis; Rama;  brought in Taz ibid

[586] Rama ibid

[587] As a vessel absorbs blood more easily than meat, as the blood has no area to escape from the bowl. [Taz 69/49] However the Shach [69/82] explains that this law was already explained in 69/16 [Halacha 20] that a vessel becomes prohibited a Kelipa worth when Tzir falls on it. Based on this it requires further analysis as to the novelty of the explanation of the Taz, as in truth even if the Tzir has room to escape the vessel would be prohibited a Kelipa worth if the Tzir fell on it. [Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 49] Likewise it is not understood what the Taz means to say that the bowl absorbs more than the meat if the bowl is also only forbidden a Kelipa worth. Perhaps then the explanation of the Taz is as follows: The Taz was bothered by the fact we rule that only the meat which is within the Tzir becomes forbidden and not the meat that is above the Tzir, as this should imply that the vessel is permitted as the vessel is not considered within the Tzir but is rather similar to the meat which is above the Tzir. He thus explains that a vessel absorbs more than meat as the blood has nowhere to escape.

[588] However according to the Michaber the vessel remains Kosher being the Michaber rules like Rashi Bedieved. [Kaf Hachaim 69/300; Zivcheiy Tzedek 69/211]

[589] Shach 69/82

It is implied from the Rama that the entire vessel is forbidden. The Shach explains that this is only referring to a vessel that cannot be peeled, such as a vessel that had a large amount of Tzir fall inside, or a vessel made of earthenware.

[590] Rama ibid

[591] Shach 69/83; Toras Chatas Klal 14

[592] 69/83; and so rules Rashal

[593] As Ein Melicha Lekeilim, meaning that Tzir is not considered hot enough to remove taste from a vessel.

[594] Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/39; as otherwise it is certainly considered Kavush Kimivushal.                     

[595] As both the Shach [69/68] and Taz [69/41] rule that Tzir does not have the ability to remove taste from a vessel even past 18 minutes. Vetzaruch Iyun.        

[596] 69/50 and so rules Levush and Hagahos Sheid [brought in Shach 69/83]

[597] The Nekudas Hakesef asks on the Taz how this can be correct if we hold Ein Melicha Lekeilim.

[598] Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 83

[599] Peri Megadim ibid

[600] Michaber 69/20

[601] 69/85

[602] So explains Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 85 in Shach and so writes Michaber in 70/5 and in Beis Yosef brought in Shach 70/24

Reason: As otherwise the Tzir which is blood [according to this opinion] will enter back into the meat after 12 hours.  [Peri Megadim ibid; Michaber 70/5]

Now although in 70/24 the Shach explains [in name of Toras Chatas] that even according to those [i.e. Rama] that are stringent by Maaseh Derashi are lenient in this case, that is only because they take into account the opinion of Rashi together with the concept of Mishrak Sharik and are hence lenient. However according to the stringent opinion itself [i.e. Tosafus] they would be stringent in this case as well.

[603] The Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 85 however concludes that in truth we do not hold the second opinion is stringent due to that he considers Tzir like blood but rather because he considers it hot and it hence has ability to absorb the external blood into the meat, hence if one cuts all the sides of the meat it may be eaten according to all without salting.

[604] Taz 69/52

[605] The Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 52 asks on this saying that even according to Rashi which is lenient is only lenient Bedieved, however Lechatchilah one must be stringent to wash it before placing it in a bowl.

[606] 69/20

[607] Shach 69/86

[608] However within Shiur Melicha one is not to cut the meat unless he plans to wash the meat and re-salt it. The reason for this is because the cutting releases external blood which can become reabsorbed during the Melicha. However the knife itself remains Kosher even if one cuts with it during Shiur Melicha. [so is implied from Rama and so learns Taz 96/53 in Rama] 

[609] Shach 69/87 as any blood that enters into the grooves of the knife becomes cleaned off with the movement of the cutting of the meat. [Shach ibid]

[610] What is the meaning of Ein Melicha Likeilim? Literally this means Melicha does not have ability to transfer taste into vessels. The Shach 69/88 asks that in truth salt has the ability to enter blood into a vessel, as is proven from the fact even that the Rama agrees that a vessel without a hole used for salting may not be used for hot foods. Rather this rule of Ein Melicha Likeilim only applies regarding the ability of salt to remove taste from a vessel in which we say that salt does not have the ability to do so. Thus explains the Shach that in truth the Rama means to say that the knife is permitted being that the blood slides off the knife [“Dam Mishrak Sharik”] and hence does not have time to become absorbed within the knife. So explains also Toras Chatas Klal 17 and Taz 69/53.

Why earlier did the Rama rule a Keli Menukav may not be used for hot foods? Although we rule that a salting vessel with a hole may not initially be used for hot foods, this is because even when a vessel has a hole the blood delays some moments on the vessel until it flows out. During this period of time we suspect the vessel absorbs Issur blood. However by a knife it slides off without delay and hence the concept of Mishrak Sharik truly applies. [Shach in Nekudos Hakesef; Peri Megadim 69 S.D 88] However the Taz 69/53 leaves this matter in question.

[611] Shach 69/89; Toras Chatas

Why we do not initially prohibit cutting the meat due to the knife requiring Hadacha: Generally we rule that whenever a vessel requires washing from an Issur it is not allowed to be initially used with the Issur due to that one may forget to wash it. [See 91/1-2] Nevertheless by a knife we are lenient as any Issur that is on a knife is clearly visible to the cutter and hence we do not suspect one may forget to wash it the next times he uses it, being that he will surely notice the Issur. Alternatively we are lenient being that the Tzir of after Shiur Melicha is itself disputed as to whether it is blood or gravy. [Shach 69/89]

[612] As the blood is Mishrak Sharik and hence slides off the blade. [Taz 69/53] Thus the prohibition of cutting meat during Melicha [see 69/15] is not because it prohibits the knife but rather because while meat is still within Shiur Melicha it contains blood, and this blood comes out upon being cut, and is considered Dam Beiyn. Now this Dam Beiyn will become reabsorbed within the meat due to the salt and according to some opinions is unable to come back out. It is thus similar to a case that one cut the meat after Hadacha Rishona. [Shach 69/24; Taz 69/16; Rama 89/20]

[613] This applies even if the Tzir has not yet dried onto the blade, nevertheless the blade must be washed [and a mere wiping does not suffice].  [Shach 69/90]

[614] Michaber 121/7

[615] Michaber 121/7

[616] Brought in Shach 69/87

[617] Such as if one already cut a food using this bloody knife.

[618] Shach 69/87; See Michaber 76/4

[619] Michaber 76/4 as roasting removes all the blood according to all opinions and the Tzir that comes out is mere gravy. One may cut the roast even while it is still hot. See Chapter 76 Halacha 11.

[620] Rama ibid

[621] See Shach 69/89 and so is implied from Rama

[622] As the prohibition of cutting meat during Shiur Melicha [see 69/15] is not because it prohibits the knife but rather because while meat is still within Shiur Melicha it contains blood, and this blood comes out upon being cut, and is considered Dam Beiyn. Now if the meat is not rewashed this Dam Beiyn will become reabsorbed within the meat due to the salt and according to some opinions is unable to come back out. It is thus similar to a case that one cut the meat after Hadacha Rishona in which case we require one to rewash it. [Shach 69/24; Taz 69/16; Rama 89/20] Thus if one plans to rewash and re-salt the meat after cutting it then it may be cut even initially.

[623] Rama as explains Taz 69/53 being that the blood is Mishrak Sharik; However the Taz questions that in truth the knife should forbidden if it was used to cut within Shiur Melicha just like the Rama rules by a salting vessel that has holes in which case Lechatchilah one is not to use it for hot foods. However the Shach in Nekudos Hakesef [see also Peri Megadim 69 S.D 88] answers that although we rule that a salting vessel with a hole may not initially be used for hot foods, this is because even when a vessel has a hole the blood delays some moments on the vessel until it flows out. During this period of time we suspect the vessel absorbs Issur blood. However by a knife it slides off without delay and hence the concept of Mishrak Sharik truly applies.

[624] So is implied from Michaber ibid that only by after Shiur Melicha are we lenient due to the opinion of Rashi.

[625] 69/20

[626] Shach 69/92; Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 92; As according to them one must wash the meat prior to the passing of 12 hours [as explained in Halacha 25]. Thus even if one desires to place the meat in a Keli Menukav it must be washed before re-salting, as when meat is salted for preservation it remains a long time with its salt. However according to the lenient opinion one may salt the meat for preservation even prior to washing it off. [See Peri Megadim ibid] Vetzaruch Iyun as how can one salt meat if it contains Issur blood on it? See 70/1; Chapter 70 Halacha 1C. See next footnote!

[627] However see next footnote which explains that in truth even according to the lenient opinion one may not initially salt the meat prior to washing off its blood.

[628] See Peri Megadim ibid; Aruch Hashulchan 69/118; Vetzaruch Iyun as if one were to now salt the meat again prior to washing off the salt, why wouldn’t the heat of the newly added salt cause transference of taste of the meats external blood which was never washed off even according to the lenient opinion? Furthermore it is ruled in Shach 70/2 [see Chapter 70 Halacha 2] that initially one may not salt meat a second time prior to washing it, and no differentiation is made regarding the opinions of Maaseh Derashi. [According to the explanation of the Shach in Halacha 24A this is not a question as the salt and blood becomes nullified in the Tzir and hence there is no transference of taste. However according to the explanation of the Bach and Taz his question would remain.] Perhaps however one can explain as follows: Here we are discussing preserving the meat with salt in a vessel without a hole in which case according to the stringent opinion the meat is forbidden even Bedieved if one does so prior to washing the meat. On this the Michaber says that according to the stringent opinion one must do so otherwise the meat becomes forbidden Bedieved. However according to the lenient opinion although initially the meat is to be washed, as explained in Shach 70/2 nevertheless Bedieved the meat is permitted. Now with regards to re-salting the meat in a bowl with a hole, this case is not relevant to our discussion, and is rather discussed in 70/1 in which we rule that initially according to all one is to first wash the meat and Bedieved according to all the meat is permitted.

[629] Michaber 69/20; 76/2; See Chapter 76 Halacha 4

[630] Kaf Hachaim 69/317

[631] See Aruch Hashulchan 69/118    

[632] The novelty is that even according to this opinion there is no problem to place the meat after it is roasted, prior to washing it, in a bowl without a hole, as the meat does not contain any blood.

[633] Taz 76/4; Shach 76/7; Aruch Hashulchan 69/118     

[634] Rama 76/2

[635] 69/21

[636] Brought in Taz 76/54

[637] Ran, and so rules Issur Viheter; Tur

Opinion of the Bach: The Bach [brought in Taz 76/11 and Shach 76/25] rules that meat still contains blood even after it is half cooked. Nevertheless this minute amount of blood is nullified when cooked and hence one may cook the meat after it is half roasted. The Shach and Taz negate this opinion as if this were to be true it would be forbidden to cook the meat being one may never initially nullify an Issur. Rather after it is half cooked it no longer contains any blood.

[638] 76/1; 76/25

[639] Rama 76/2; Some Poskim say it is defined as one third cooked [See 253/13]. Practically we are stringent. [Aruch Hashulchan 76/9]

[640] Shach 76/13 in name of Issur Viheter as we do not suspect that he may not roast it half way due to that he desires to cook it afterwards.

[641] Brought in Taz 69/54

[642] Brought in Taz 69/54; Shach 76/14

[643] Michaber 76/5

[644] The Rama in 76/5 writes on these words of the Michaber “this means when the meat is half cooked”. And thus according to the Rama it seems he learns there is no difference between this opinion of the Rashba and that of the Ran. However the Rashal ibid explicitly writes that they are arguing and rules like the Rashba that if the meat is not cooked for majority of people, even though it is already half cooked, it still contains blood. Furthermore there are Poskim [Kneses Hagedola  305; Kaf Hachaim 69/320] which write on the words of the Michaber here “to roast the meat until all its blood leaves” that according to the Michaber it must be cooked more than half way. Furthermore the Michaber himself in Avkas Rochal  216 writes that it must be cooked more than half way.

[645] Brought in Taz 69/54

[646] Taz 69/54

[647] Peri Megadim 69 M.Z. 54; Chavas Daas 69/76; Machazikei Bracha 69/53; Zivcheiy Tzedek 69/222; Kaf Hachaim 69/320; 76/27

However Aruch Hashulchan 76/9 rules like the Rama and Shach that half roasted suffices.

[648] Kaf Hachaim 69/320 based on Peri Megadim ibid

[649] Chazon Ish 123/1; Tzitz Eliezer 12/52

[650] Hakashrus 21 footnote 65

[651] Yeshuos Moshe 47; Sheivet Haleivy 2/26; Oar Metziyon 9; Minchas Yitzchak 9/73; SSH”K 40/87

[652] See Mateh Levi 2/20; Siddur Yaavetz; Kinyan Torah 1/23; Sheivet Halevy 2/27; Yaskil Avdi 7/3; Zkan Aron 2/40; Darkei Halacha 25; Hakashrus 9/62

[653] Yabia Omer 5/5; Yechave Daas 5/52

[654] 23/7

[655] Yad Efraim 76; Yad Rama 29

[656] Gilyon Mahrsha 23

[657] Igros Moshe 1/33

[658] Minchas Yitzchak 3/63; 9/74; Yabi Omer 4/5; Hakashrus 9/55

[659] See Darkei Teshuvah 76/3; Hakashrus 9/54

[660] Kaf Hachaim 70/3; Hakashrus 9/70

[661] See Chapter 70 Halacha 2

[662] Hakashrus 9/74

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Leave A Comment?