[1] Michaber 70/1

[2] Being that the lower pieces were salted first and hence will complete their expelling of blood prior to the upper pieces that were salted later.

[3] As “Aidiy Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy”; when something is giving off it cannot absorb.

[4] Taz 70/1 This is called “Kebolo Kach Polto”

Background:

Tosafus suggests two reasons as for why the meat remains permitted in this case. One reason accepts the rule of “Aidiy Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy”. The second reason does not accept this rule and holds that a piece that is releasing Tzir is able to absorb blood. However they apply a different rule of “Kebolo Kach Polto” that the blood becomes expelled together with the Tzir of the meat. The Rama holds of this second reason as is evident from the fact that he requires one to re-salt meat that absorbed Tzir after it passed Shiur Melicha, hence implying that it does absorb blood of another piece even when dissipating Tzir. [Taz ibid] A third reason is because we apply the rule of Mishrak Sharik both by Melicha and roasting. [Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 1; See 73/4; Shach 73/12; Taz 76/1] See Peri Megadim ibid for a number of practical ramifications between the reasons. To note however that the above assertion of the Taz that the Rama holds of the second reason is only in accordance to his understanding of the Rama. However the Shach [70/32 and 37] learns that the Rama agrees that meat cannot absorb blood while releasing Tzir and it is only when it falls into Tzir that the Rama requires re-salting. [See Peri Megadim ibid; See Halacha 6!]

[5] As since the meat is expelling Tzir it will not absorb the blood.                                   

[6] Michaber 70/1

[7] Taz 70/1

[8] Rama 70/1;

See 69/20 in which the Michaber depends this ruling on the dispute in Maaseh Drashi [regarding salting meat for preservation after Shiur Melicha]. Vetzaruch Iyun as to why no mention is made in that Halacha of the Rama’s ruling here and likewise why here no mention is made that it is dependent on the dispute there. On the contrary, from here it is implied that the ruling is according to all opinions. Vetzaruch Iyun! Perhaps however one can explain as follows: Here we are discussing placing the meat in a vessel with a hole, and in this case the dispute of Maaseh Derashi is irrelevant. However there the Michaber was discussing preserving the meat with salt in a vessel without a hole and in that case it is dependent on Maaseh Drashi. [See Shach 70/11; 70/24; Taz 70/6]

[9] Shach 70/2

[10] The reason why in this case the meat is permitted while when salting without Hadacha Rishona it is forbidden:

1. Difference between absorbed salt and Dam Beiyn: The reason we do not suspect the salt will cause the external blood to absorb into the meat in this case despite the fact that when one salts meat without Hadacha Rishona we rule the blood becomes absorbed within the meat, is because prior to Hadacha Rishona there is actual blood [Dam Beiyn], and this blood can become absorbed through salt. However here it is mere absorbed blood that became extracted through salt, and such blood is not reabsorbed through a second salting. [Shach 70/3]
2. Aidiy Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy: Alternatively the reason is because the meat after Shiur Melicha is still expelling Tzir due to its first salting and this prevents it from absorbing from the new salt that was added. However when salting meat for the first timethe salt absorbs into the meat all of its external blood and hence if the meat is salted without Hadacha Rishona it is forbidden. [Shach ibid; Taz 70/2-See Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 2 as to how the Taz can use this reason if he holds the Rama does not hold of it, as explained in Halacha 1]
3. Salt cannot absorb, can only expel: Alternatively salt cannot absorb Issur into a food and only has the ability to remove Issur from it. [Rosh brought in Taz ibid]

Ramification between the reasons: The ramification would be regarding a case that one salted the meat a second time after 24 hours passed since the first salting. According to the first and third reason the meat would remain Kosher as the salt will not absorb the external blood. However according to the second reason the meat would be forbidden as there is no longer any expulsion of Tzir to prevent the absorption of blood. The Taz which rules like the second reason hence rules in this case that the meat is forbidden. [Taz ibid; Regarding why the Taz is not stringent even past 12 hours, even though according to some opinions after 12 hours there is no more Tzir, is because he joins the third reason (of the Rosh) to those opinions which rule there is Tzir until 24 hours. Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 2]

Based on above why do we prohibit Dam Beiyn that fell onto salted meat?

In 70/6 [See Halacha 13] the Rama rules that if Dam Beiyn fell onto salted meat the meat is forbidden. The reason why in that case it is forbidden while in this case it is permitted is because by Dame Beiyn we do not apply the rule of Aidiy Detarid Liflot Lo Baliy, and hence it is similar to blood falling onto a hot piece of meat in which we rule the meat is forbidden irrelevant of whether it is expelling gravy. However absorbed blood that is expelled through salt is under this rule of Aidiy Detarid Liflot and hence cannot be absorbed during the expulsion of Tzir. [Taz ibid]

[11] Shach 70/2; Toras Chatas Klal 15/20; This is implied from the wording of the Rama “salted” and not “may salt”. [Shach ibid]

[12] Taz 70/2 as explained in previous footnotes

[13] Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 3 and M.Z. 2 rules one can be lenient like the first reason in the Shach; Minchas Yaakov Klal 15/44; Peri Chadash 70/2; Zivcheiy Tzedek 70/3

[14] Kaf Hachaim 70/4

[15] Kaf Hachaim 70/3; Hakashrus 9/70

[16] See Halacha 2

[17] 70/1-2

[18] Meaning that both the meat and fish were salted. If only the fish was salted, see D. If only the meat was salted then according to the Michaber it has the same status as if both were salted, however according to the Rama this matter depends on whether the fish was already salted for its blood or not. These laws will be explained in E.

[19] The novelty here is that we do not say the meat or poultry absorb the now forbidden gravy of the fish. [See Shach 70/4; Peri Chadash ibid]

[20] Shach 70/4; This is similar to the ruling of the Michaber in 69/8 that if one salted meat in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav the area of the meat above the Tzir must have a Kelipa removed.

[21] As the scales themselves are in place of the required Kelipa. [Shach 70/5; Taz 70/3] Alternatively the reason is because the scales delay the Tzir from leaving and hence they do not absorb from the chicken as Aidiy Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy. [Rama ibid; Taz ibid in name of Rashal; Shach ibid]

The ramification of the two reasons:

1. The law if one salted fish with an Issur that does not contains any fat: According to the first reason the fish is permitted as the scales are themselves the Kelipa. According to the second reason the fish is forbidden a Kelipa worth as we do not apply the rule of Aidy Detarid Leflot regarding absorbing the taste of Issur. [Shach ibid]
2. The law according to the Rama which holds the fish is completely forbidden if it does not have scales: According to the first reason the fish is forbidden even if it has scales. According to the second reason the fish is permitted. [Taz ibid]

Practically the Rama holds of both reasons. [Shach ibid]

[22] See Rama Chapter 105/9; See “A Semicha Aid for Learning the laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 105 Halacha 5!

[23] Brought in Shach 70/4; This follows the opinion of the Rashbam brought in Bach and Beis Yosef on the Tur.

[24] His reason is because the fish has become forbidden and its Tzir enters into the chicken.

[25] 70/4

[26] Taz 70/3; Shach 70/16; Toras Chatas; Issur Viheter Klal 13

[27] Shach ibid

[28] Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 16

[29] Darkei Teshuvah 70/10 in name of Yad Yehuda and Arugas Bosem 2

[30] Michaber 70/2

[31] The reason for this is because although salt has ability to heat up the other piece and cause it to absorb taste nevertheless it is not hot enough to cause the other piece to release its own gravy. Hence in this case although the meat absorbs taste of fish it does not release any blood into the fish. [Taz 70/4]

Reason why by Heter that was salted and Issur was not the Heter requires Kelipa:  In 70/3 the Michaber rules that if salted Heter touched unsalted Issur the Heter requires a Kelipa. In this case however even a Kelipa is not required. The reason for this is because although salt does not have the ability to heat up another piece to the point it causes that piece to release blood, nevertheless it does heat it up to the point the other piece releases Tzir. Now in the case that the salted Heter touched Issur since the salt causes the Issur to release Tzir, and this Tzir is forbidden, therefore the Heter is forbidden a Kelipa worth due to the Tzir. However in this case regarding fish, although it absorbs a Kelipa worth of Tzir of the meat, it does not absorb any of its blood, and since only the blood of the meat is forbidden as opposed to its Tzir, therefore the fish remains Kosher. Furthermore even if the meat were to release some blood, it certainly will not be able to still release blood by the time the fish concludes releasing its blood and Tzir. [Shach 70/7] 

[32] See Michaber 105/10

[33] 70/2

[34] As either way when the meat or poultry is salted it releases blood and this blood becomes absorbed within the fish irrelevant of whether or not the fish is also salted.

[35] Shach 70/6 and 70/14; Taz 70/8; From the fact the Michaber does not differentiate here between whether the fish has already been salted or not proves that he holds the fish requires a Kelipa even if it had not yet been salted for its blood. So understands also the Toras Chatas Klal 20/14 to be the opinion of the Michaber, and so rules Derisha and Rashal and Michaber in Beis Yosef. [Shach 70/6; Taz ibid]

The reason why we do not apply the rule of “Aidiy Deyiflot Dam Didei” by fish: The reason why do not apply the rule of “Aidiy Deyiflot Dam Didei” by fish [this rule means that whenever a piece absorbed external blood, and it itself contains blood we say that when one salts the meat and expels its own blood it will also expel the external blood it absorbed] is because fish has a very soft composure which allows a deep absorption of the blood of the meat. This blood becomes congealed within the fish and does not come out through salting it even though it will dissipate its own blood. [Shach ibid; Toras Habayis Haaruch]

Alternatively the reason is because fish contains very little blood and Tzir. Hence if the fish absorbs external blood it is possible that the blood of the meat will not fully dissipate together with the small amount of Tzir that is expelled from the fish, and since this is a case of a Biblical doubt we are therefore stringent. It is only regarding pieces of meat that are salted together that we apply this rule of “Aidiy Deyiflot Dam Didei” being that it expels blood and Tzir for a long time. [Taz 70/8]

Alternatively the reason is because the Sages were only lenient in a case of meat to apply this rule being that it is an obligation to salt meat, and hence since blood of meat is only Rabbinical they were lenient in the rules. However by fish since it does not require salting the Sages were never lenient to apply this rule. [Taz 70/8]

Opinion of Issur Viheter: In Klal 5/2 the Issur Viheter rules like the Michaber that salting the fish does not help remove the external blood. [Shach ibid]

[36] 70/2

[37] Shach 70/15; The Shach explains that the wording of the Rama is not to be taken literally as he himself already ruled earlier in 70/1 that when both the meat and fish are salted the fish is forbidden being that it finishes expelling its blood and Tzir prior to the expelling of blood of the meat. Rather the Rama here is simply explaining the two cases of unsalted fish, that there is a difference between if unsalted fish was not yet salted or was already salted [even though in truth it has the same law as when it is in the midst of being salted]. [Shach ibid]

[38] So rules Rama also in Toras Chatas and Darkei Moshe. [Taz 70/8]

[39] Shach 70/14, Taz 70/8; as explained above in the opinion of the Michaber. Regarding why the Rama here does not state his usual wording of “There are those which argue and say” this is because the Michaber does not explicitly write his opinion in this case. [Shach ibid]

[40] Taz 70/8

[41] As the blood of meat never comes out together with blood of fish. See Michaber and footnotes there for the reasons brought in the Taz.

[42] As explained in Shach 70/4 and 70/10

[43] As whenever a Kelipa is required the position of the fish is not relevant and since according to the Michaber even when the fish is on bottom only a Kelipa is required, therefore there is no difference in law if the fish is in other positions. [Shach 70/10]

[44] As although blood does not travel upwards and hence when the fish is on top it does not receive the blood, nevertheless the fish does absorb a peel worth in the area of contact. This is similar to the ruling of the Michaber in 69/8 that if one salted meat in a Keli Sheiyno Menukav the area of the meat above the Tzir must have a Kelipa removed. [Shach ibid]

[45] 70/2

[46] Shach 70/10; As is the law regarding a piece of meat that has fallen into Tzir [after it was salted and washed].

[47] Shach 70/8 and Taz 70/5 in name of Rashal

[48] We do not say Safek Derabanan Lekula in this case as it is close to certain that the pieces turned over during the salting. [Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 5]

[49] As explained in Shach 70/4

[50] Shach 70/9 based on Issur Viheter 13

[51] The reason for this is because the area that reaches above the meat is no different than fish that is placed on top of salted meat in which the Rama rules the fish only requires a Kelipa. [Shach ibid]

[52] Rama 70/2

[53] Shach 70/11

[54] Now although we rule in 91/5 that even after Shiur Melicha meat is considered hot, nevertheless here the fish is permitted being that after Shiur Melicha the meat does not contain any more blood [however see next], and hence the heat of the meat can no longer transfer any Issur taste to the fish. [Shach 70/11]

Why this ruling of Rama does not contradict his ruling regarding meat that was placed in a bowl without a hole after Shiur Melicha: It was explained in chapter 69/20 [See Chapter 69 Halacha 24] that we rule like the stringent opinion of Tosafos that Tzir is considered blood and is considered hot even after Shiur Melicha, and hence if one places meat after Shiur Melicha into a bowl without a hole all the meat in the Tzir becomes forbidden a Kelipa worth. Accordingly here too we should be stringent to require the removal of a Kelipa of the fish. The reason why here the Rama is lenient is because Tzir that comes out after Shiur Melicha can only prohibit a food if the food sits in the Tzir, such as in the case that the meat was placed in a vessel without a hole. However when the Tzir escapes from the food such as in this case that the meat and fish are in a vessel with a hole the fish remains Kosher. Now although the meat contains moisture of Tzir on it, and this moisture is touching the fish, nevertheless mere moisture does not have the ability to penetrate the fish and hence the fish is Kosher. [Shach 70/11; Taz 70/6]

[55] Shach 70/12; Toras Chatas

[56] Based on Shach 70/13 and Michaber 91/3

[57] Rama 70/2

[58] Shach 70/13

[59] This means that salt does not have ability to remove taste from a vessel.

[60] Shach 70/13; See also Rama 105/12; Kaf Hachaim 105/130; and Shach 69/89

Why is meat allowed to initially be salted in this vessel but not fish? In chapter 69/16 the Rama rules that one may salt meat in a vessel used for salting and he is to wash the meat afterwards. The reason why by meat we do not suspect one will come to cook it without washing is because it is common to wash meat prior to cooking. However fish is only commonly washed when it is preserved, however when cooking right away it is not commonly washed. [Shach 70/13]

[61] Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 13; Shach 70/13 motions to look in 91/3. There he explains that when a plate is completely clean one may place even wet Kosher food on it. Vetzaruch Iyun as there he only allows it in a time of need, such as one does not have other vessels available. Furthermore based on Rama 105/12; Kaf Hachaim 105/130; and Shach 69/89 one is to never initially salt a food in an Issur vessel. One must conclude that a vessel which merely absorbed blood through salting is viewed differently than a vessel that absorbed hot Issur. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[62] Taz 70/7

[63] Rashba brought in Beis Yosef

[64] Rashal

[65] Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 7; The Peri Megadim explains that although the Rama clearly rules in 105/12 that food that is salted in an Issur vessel always remains Kosher, it is possible to learn from the Rama here that fish is an exception being that fish has a very soft texture and hence one may think that it is able to absorb some Issur from within a vessel. For this reason the Taz brought the Rashal which rules that we are lenient in all cases. See Taz 105/28; Peri Megadim 105 M.Z. 28

[66] Shach 70/16 based on Rama 70/2 which refers the reader to 91/5; There the Michaber rules that if salted meat touched cheese, the cheese is forbidden if the meat was salted Shiur Melicha. The Rama however rules that even if only a minute amount of salt was placed on the meat, the cheese is forbidden unless the case involves great loss. See Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 16 which explains in Shach that even in a case of great loss we are stringent in this case, as the law of blood differs from the law of meat and cheese. Seemingly however according to the Michaber the fish would be completely permitted if the meat was not properly salted as he rules there in 91/5, and so rules Peri Chadash 70/16; Zivcheiy Tzedek 70/18; Kaf Hachaim 70/27

[67] As the Michaber rules in 91/5, and so rules Peri Chadash 70/16; Zivcheiy Tzedek 70/18; Kaf Hachaim 70/27

[68] 70/3-4; See also 105/9-11 “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 105 Halacha 5!

[69] The Rama 70/3 and 4; and Taz 70/11 refer the reader to those Halachas and did not write anything in this chapter regarding this.

[70] 105/9; 91/5

[71] This is similar to meat which is salted for its blood of which the ruling is it must be salted until it is inedible due to the salt. [ibid]

[72] 91/5

[73] This means that the Issur and Heter meat are touching each other. The Shach [70/17] however explains that the law in this case applies whether or not the meats are actually touching each other, so long as the gravy of the Issur meat reaches the Heter. The reason why the Michaber here mentions that the meats are touching is to teach us that even if they are touching if the Issur is not salted [See case B] the Heter remains permitted. [Shach ibid]

[74] 70/3; in 70/4 the Michaber establishes this case to be referring to a scenario that both the Heter and Issur are lean

[75] Why earlier do we rule that salted meat does not absorb the blood of other meat while here we are stringent? Although while meat is dissipating its blood it cannot absorb the blood of another piece of meat, nevertheless it is able to absorb the Tzir of the other piece, and in this case since the Tzir of the Issur meat is forbidden therefore a Kelipa is required. [Michaber 70/3; Shach 70/18; See Admur 452/20; Piskei Admur Yoreh Deah p. 72]

[76] Shach 70/22; As the idea of Tatah Gavar is only relevant when more than a Kelipa is required. If however a Kelipa is the maximum that is required then even if only the Issur was salted it makes no difference which piece is on top and which is on bottom, as the taste of the salted Issur will only travel a Kelipa worth from either position. [Shach ibid]

[77] Shach 70/17; Taz 70/10; The reason why the Michaber here mentions that the meats are touching each other is to teach us that even if they are touching, if the Issur is not salted [See case B] the Heter remains permitted. [Shach ibid]

[78] See Michaber 105/9

[79] If the Issur was fatty one must also remove a Netila worth from the Heter just as is the law by roast. In this regard it is irrelevant whether the Heter is also fatty or lean. [See 105/5; Shach 105/28 and so writes Darkei Halacha p. 222] However Tzaruch Iyun from the Michaber there as he only states that a Netila is needed in the case that the Heter was fatty and does not state this requirement in his previous statement regarding if the Issur is fatty and Heter is lean.

[80] As the fat of the Kosher piece fattens the Issur piece and allows its Issur taste to travel fully into the Heter. [Shach 70/21]

This follows the ruling of the Tur and Michaber in 105/9. However the Rashal [brought in Shach 105/28] rules that whenever the Issur is lean only a Kelipa is required even if the Heter is fatty and both are salted. Admur in Shulchan Aruch Harav 467/51 brings both the opinion of the Michaber and of the Rashal and concludes that one may be lenient in a case of great loss that involves Simchas Yom Tov. See “A Semicha Aid for Learning the Laws of Taaruvos” Chapter 105 Halacha 5B!

[81] The law if the Issur is lean and the Heter is fatty and only the Issur is salted:

The Michaber 105/9 rules that if the Heter is fatty, then even if it was salted with lean Issur it requires 60x and the removal of a Netila. The Shach 105/28 concludes that even according to the Michaber this only applies if the Heter is also salted. If however the Heter is not salted then if the Issur is lean the Heter only requires the removal of a Kelipa even if the Issur is on bottom and the Heter is fatty.

[82] Shach 70/22; As Tatah Gavar. Meaning the unsalted piece which is on bottom over powers the salted piece which is on top and cools it down. [Shach ibid]

[83] 105/9-11; as explained in Shach 70/23

[84] As regarding the positioning, when it comes to salting we do not differentiate between if the salted piece is on bottom or on top. In other words the rule of Tatah Gavar does not apply by Melicha according to the Rama. [ibid]

[85] As we are no longer experts in regards to when a piece is considered lean or fatty, and we are thus stringent that all meats are defined as fatty. [ibid]

[86] Rama 70/3; This rule applies also according to the Michaber and the reason why the Michaber here mentions that the meats are touching each other is to teach us that even if they are touching, if the Issur is not salted [See case B] the Heter remains permitted. [Shach 70/17]

[87] The novelty here is that we do not consider the contact of the pieces to transfer salt to the Issur piece and hence consider it salted. [Shach 70/17]

[88] Ran

[89] As the Michaber never holds salting can prohibit more than a Kelipa as ruled above in Halacha A.

[90] As the contact of the salted piece heats up the Issur and removes its Tzir and causes it to become absorbed within the Heter. [Taz 70/10] The Shach explains that the salted Heter transfers salt to the Issur piece and hence consider it salted. [See Shach 70/17]

[91] Shach 70/19; As the meats are not touching each other. [Shach ibid]

[92] Shach 70/19, as the Michaber rules in 91/5 and 105/10 that the Heter is to be washed, and this requirement can only apply in a case that they were touching, thus we see he holds of the first opinion. Likewise in the Beis Yosef he rules like the first opinion. [Shach ibid]

[93] 105/10 brought in Shach 70/20; however in Toras Chatas Klal 21 the Rama is completely lenient and so rules Rashal and Levush. [Shach ibid]

[94] Shach 70/20 says “great loss” in 105/39 he motions to look in 70/20.

[95] The Shach [70/20] brings that in the Toras Chatas [Klal 21] the Rama is completely lenient to permit the salted piece, and so rules the Rashal and Levush. Practically the Peri Megadim 105/39 concludes one may be lenient like the first opinion.

[96] 467/50 regarding a kernel found in a salted chicken that Admur rules like the Chok Yaakov that only if the kernel is also salted is there transference of taste. See Piskeiy Admur p. 74 and 355.

[97] Shach 70/18; Taz 70/9 in name of Shaareiy Dura

[98] Peri Megadim 70 S.D 18

[99] Peri Megadim 70 S.D 18

[100] Rama 105/9; Shach 91/20

[101] Rama 105/11

[102] According to the Michaber if only the Heter is salted it is never forbidden even if both pieces are fatty. [105/10; first opinion in 70/3] According to the Rama however both pieces are always forbidden unless in a case of [great-Shach 70/20] loss. [Rama 105/10]

The Shach [70/20] brings that elsewhere the Rama is completely lenient to permit the salted piece. So concludes also the Peri Megadim 105/39.  According to many Poskim one may be lenient even if no loss is involved.

[103] Rama 105/10

[104] Rama 105/9

[105] Michaber 70/5; See Admur 500/17; Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 77

[106] The reason for this is because if one allows the salt to remain on the meat past this time the external blood that is on the meat and that is on the salt [which is still on the meat] can penetrate back into the meat. [Michaber ibid]

[107] The reason for this allowance is because the blood which remains on the piece of meat after 12 hours slides off the meat and cannot be absorbed. Alternatively the reason is because the piece of meat releases gravy eternally and thus we apply the rule of Aidy Detrad Leflot Lo Baliy. [Taz 70/12] 

[108] Taz 70/13; Shach 70/24; Toras Chatas Klal 14; As there is no Dam Beiyn gathering in the bowl, as the blood slides off the meat [and out of the vessel] [Taz 70/12; Toras Chatas ibid] and furthermore meat in truth gives off gravy forever and thus does not absorb from the blood. [Taz ibid] Thus even those that are stringent by Maaseh Derashi are lenient here. [ibid]

Is the dispute here dependent on the dispute of Maaseh Derashi? [Shach 70/24]

The Beis Yosef writes that this dispute is dependent on the dispute brought in 69/20 regarding whether Tzir of after Shiur Melicha cools off the power of salt or not. According to the latter opinion one would need to wash the meat prior to all its gravy leaving, as otherwise it would absorb back the blood of the salt which is still considered hot in their opinion.

However the Toras Chatas [Klal 14] writes that in truth this dispute is disconnected from the dispute there as even the stringent opinion there is only stringent in a case that the meat is in a bowl without a whole, and is thus sitting in its own Tzir in which case we suspect for absorption from the blood of the salt. If however the meat is in a vessel with a hole then they too would agree that one may rely on Mishrak Sharik, as well as other logistics to say that the meat will not absorb the blood. For this reason the Michaber’s conclusion that Bedieved the meat remains completely Kosher holds true even according to the stringent ruling of the Rama there in 69/20 which requires a peels worth removed. [Toras Chatas brought in Shach 70/24]

According to above why does the Rama prohibit meat that contacted meat that is within Shiur Melicha? [Shach 70/24]

The Rama rules in 70/6 that if meat that is after Shiur Melicha falls onto meat that is within Shiur Melicha the meat that is after Shiur Melicha is forbidden. This applies even if the meat is in a vessel with a hole. The question is raised why the Rama does not permit the meat based on the rule of Mishrak Sharik as he does here in this case? The Shach explains the reason why the Rama is stringent in that case is because in that case there is actual hot blood touching the meat and hence we do not rely on Mishrak Sharik. In this case however that the meat is already after Shiur Melicha and according to many Poskim there is no more blood, and the salt is no longer hot one can apply the rule of Mishrak Sharik and be lenient if the meat remained past 12 hours with the salt.

Question on Shach: Shach 69/85 explains that in truth this dispute is dependent on the dispute of Maaseh Derashi [See Peri Megadim 69 S.D. 85], thus how can he say here that it is not dependent. In truth based on this we must conclude as follows: Everyone agrees the dispute here is based on the dispute of Maaseh Derashi. The stringent opinion here follows the opinion of Tosafus while the lenient opinion follows the opinion of Rashi. However the Shach emphasizes here the following point: Those opinions [i.e. Rama] which earlier were stringent like Tosafus, in this case would be lenient like Rashi, being that here since the vessel has a hole there is an additional reason to be lenient; Dam Mishrak Sharik.

Final Word: The dispute here is based on the dispute of Maaseh Derashi. Those opinions [Rama] which earlier were stringent like Tosafus, in this case would be lenient like Rashi, being that here since the vessel has a hole there is an additional reason to be lenient; Dam Mishrak Sharik.

[109] Michaber 70/6

[110] Rashba brought as first opinion in Michaber

[111] Shach 70/26 in name of Toras Habayis and Ran as otherwise, if the meat is still dissipating Tzir, it will not absorb any of the expelled blood even according to this opinion. [Shach ibid]

The stopping of the expelling of Tzir can occur in one of two ways: The meat has been washed after Shiur Melicha and hence its pores have been closed up, preventing it from expelling any more Tzir that it contains. [Toras Habayis, however see Halacha 8] Alternatively it has remained with the salt long enough to dissipate all its blood and Tzir. [Rashal; Shach 70/26]

[112] If the meat has never been salted then it is not dissipating any blood or Tzir and it thus fully absorbs the blood of the salted piece. [Shach 70/25] The same applies if the meat has been salted and washed or has expelled all of its Tzir. [Shach 70/26]

[113] According to this opinion the newly absorbed blood cannot be dispelled from the meat even if one later salts the meat, as salt does not have the ability to expel the blood of another piece. [Taz 70/14] Now although earlier [Halacha 1] we ruled that one may salt many pieces of meat together and we are not worried about the blood that the pieces will absorb from each other being we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto, nevertheless according to this opinion this rule only applies in that case since the meat is currently being salted and is currently expelling its own blood and hence is able to expel the blood right away. Alternatively they apply the rule of Aidiy Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy. Vetzaruch Iyun.

[114] Sefer Hateruma brought as second opinion in Michaber

[115] Shach 70/27; Beir Hagoleh

[116] Meaning when one salts the meat after it has absorbed blood from a salted piece.

[117] Either due to being washed or due to remaining with its salt for over 24 hours. [See Shach 70/26]

[118] See Shach 70/27-28; Beir Hagoleh says these words are missing from the Michaber.

[119] As they hold that salting helps to remove even newly absorbed blood, even in a case that it already gave off its own blood and Tzir. [Taz 70/14]

[120] Shach 70/28; Taz 70/14

[121] Shach 70/26; Taz 70/14

The novelty of this case over the previous case is that in the previous case that the meat was salted and washed shortly after Shiur Melicha there is room to say that since the meat still contains Tzir it helps to re-salt it, as when it is re-salted it will once again expel Tzir and through the expelling of the Tzir the blood will come out. Hence the Shach novelizes that even if the meat has no more Tzir, re-salting it still helps according to this opinion. [Shach ibid]

Opinion of Bach: This is unlike the opinion of the Bach which rules that if the meat does not contain any more Tzir then according to all opinions the meat is forbidden. The Shach negates this opinion.

[122] Shach 70/29; and so explains Beis Yosef and so is understood from Rama [Shach ibid]

Opinion of Mahriy Kohen: The Mahriy Kohen [27] explains that in truth the Michaber here means to rule that Lechatchilah if a Rav is asked such a question he is to rule that the meat is forbidden in both cases [i.e. never yet salted or pre-salted]. However Bedieved if he mistakenly ruled the meat is permitted after re-salting it then one may rely on his ruling. In other words even Bedieved one may not eat the meat, in any of the cases, and that which the Michaber wrote only “Lechatchilah” is because he was referring to the ruling of a Rav, that initially a Rav is to forbid the meat, and if he didn’t then, Bedieved, he does not need to retract his ruling. The Shach ibid negates this opinion saying it is a distortion of the simple words of the Michaber. [Shach 70/27]

The law if the meat was already cooked without being re-salted: If meat that was pre-salted for its blood was then salted with other meat that is within Shiur Melicha and was then cooked prior to re-salting it as requires Michaber, the food in the pot requires 60x a Kelipa worth of the meat. [Kaf Hachaim 70/51 as according to the Michaber Melicha only forbids a peel worth]

[123] Regarding the amount of time it takes a piece to release all of its blood and gravy see next Halacha!

[124] Shach 70/31 based on Shach 70/26; See however next Halacha for a second opinion brought in Taz 70/16.

[125] Shach 70/30 in name of Toras Chatas Klal 6/5

The reason for this is because since the meat has already given off all its blood and Tzir there is nothing being expelled to prevent it from absorbing the blood of the other piece, and this blood cannot come out even through salting or roasting being that there is no blood of its own that is needed to be expelled. We also do not apply the rule of Mishrak Sharik in such a case. Hence the entire piece of meat is forbidden as it is our custom to rule that Melicha has ability to transfer taste throughout the entire food [as opposed to a mere Kelipa]. [Shach ibid; Taz 70/15]

[126] Shach 70/30

The difference between this case and a case of meat falling into Tzir [see Halacha 10] in which we rule it is only prohibited if it stayed Shiur Melicha: The reason why in this case the meat is immediately forbidden is because in this case the blood of the other piece is directly falling onto this meat, and it is hot due to the salting. This causes the blood to immediately become absorbed within the meat. This is unlike the case in which meat falls into Tzir of which the Rashal holds that it only becomes prohibited due to absorption if the meat remained in the Tzir for Shiur Kevisha. [Shach ibid]

[127] Shach 70/34

[128] Shach 70/29; Taz 70/18

[129] First explanation of Shach based on Mahriy in Hagahos Sheid 66; Toras Chatas Klal  6/2 in name of Hagahos Sheid

[130] This is similar to the ruling of the Michaber and Rama regarding one who salted meat without Hadacha Rishona.

[131] Rav Yaakov Shushan mentioned in Hagahos Sheid; Bach; Rashal; Issur Viheter Klal 5; and so is implied from Michaber and Rama here which never mentioned any differentiation. [Shach 70/29]; and so is implied to be the opinion of the Shach [Beir Heiytiv 70/20] and so rules Taz 70/18.

[132] Rashal brought in Shach ibid; The reason this case is different is because we assume the unsalted meat has received salt from the other pieces and it is hence a case of meat that is salted without Hadacha Rishona. However in a case that the unsalted meat did not remain a long time with the other pieces and simply received their Tzir then this opinion rules the meat is permitted as Tzir does not have as much power as salt. [Shach 70/29]

[133] Rama 70/6

[134] The reason for this is because within 12 hours of the salting gravy is still being released and consequently the meat will not absorb the blood of other pieces. [“Aidy Detarid Liflot Lo Baliy”]

[135] Shaareiy Dura in name of Geonim

[136] Shach 70/32 as since the meat is still giving off gravy it does not absorb the blood.

[137] Rama ibid and so rules Shach 70/33

Opinion of Rashal: The Rashal [brought in Shach ibid] rules that the meat is permitted even without great loss, as he rules that the meat still gives off Tzir for up to 24 hours from the salting. Practically the Shach concludes that main ruling follows the Rama, as so rule many Rishonim, and so rules Michaber that after 12 hours meat no longer gives off Tzir. [Shach 70/33]

[138] Shach 70/32; The reason for why it is not required to be re-salted is because so long as we hold that the meat is still giving off gravy it cannot absorb the blood of the other piece. [Shach ibid] This differs from the case of meat that falls into Tzir in which case the Rama requires one to re-salt the meat. [See Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 16]

[139] Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 16 in his explanation of Taz 70/16; The reason for this requirement is because the meat absorbed the blood of the other piece and it is only that by re-salting it, it will expel the newly absorbed blood.

[140] Toras Chatas brought in Taz 70/16; and 70/19; Shach 70/31 and 70/26 and 69/22; Beir Heiytiv 70/18

[141] Tur in name of Rav of Rashba in Taz 70/16; Taz 69/15; and so seems to be the opinion of the Taz himself as is evident from his above rulings and explanations; and so learns Taz 70/16 to be the opinion of Rama. However see Shach 70/39 which learns the Rama differently; So rules also Tzemach Tzedek [Kadmon] 8; Masas Binyamin 53; Minchas Yaakov Klal 10/14 brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 70/15

[142] Taz 70/16

[143] As since the meat still contains its own blood, when it is salted it will expel the blood of the other piece together with its own blood. We do not say that water closes the pores of the meat and prevents it from releasing any more blood, as some opinions rule regarding Tzir, as water only closes the pores of Tzir and not the pores of blood. This is proven from the fact there is no opinion that holds that if meat is washed within Shiur Melicha it can no longer be salted. [Taz ibid]

[144] See Darkei Teshuvah 70/37

[145] Har Tzevi 70; Meil Shmuel 1 brought in Darkei Teshuvah 70/37; Mahrsham 4/36 permits in case of great loss.

[146] They hold that the washing closes the pours of the meat and hence the meat still contains Tzir which it begins to dissipate upon being re-salted and we thus apply the rule of Aidiy Detarid Liflot Lo Baliy. [See Chamudei Daniel brought in Darkei Teshuvah ibid; Chachmas Adam Klal 32/23]

[147] Mahrfiy Levi 1/51 brought in Darkei Teshuvah ibid

[148] As they hold once the meat has been washed its pores remain closed even if it is salted again.

[149] Rama 70/6

[150] Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 16 as he explains the opinion of the Shach; Shach 70/37

Opinion of Taz: The Taz [70/16] seemingly rules that both cases have the same law. This is why the Taz required even in the former Halacha for the meat to be washed and re-salted. Furthermore according to the Taz 70/19 even in this case he is lenient in a case of great loss if the meat is past 12 hours. [See Peri Megadim ibid for an explanation of the Taz.]

[151] Rama 70/6

[152] Taz 70/16; Regarding the length of Shiur Kevisha-See B

[153] Shach 70/34

[154] Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 40

[155] Rama 70/6

[156] Although the Rama is stringent to require meat to remain one hour with the salt, nevertheless regarding these laws he agrees that Shiur Melicha is 18 minutes. [Darkei Teshuvah 70/66 in name of Chomos Yehoshua; Mahriy Ashkenazi 17; Yad Yitzchak 2/32; Moshe Haish 2; However see Menachem Shmuel 69]

[157] Shach 70/36; Taz 70/17

Background of Shach:

The Shach addresses the following question on the Rama’s ruling: How can the Rama rule that the meat remains permitted so long as it did not soak for 24 hours if in 105/1 it is ruled that Tzir prohibits within 18 minutes due to Kavush Kemevushal? Furthermore how can the Rama allow the meat to be permitted if it fell during Melicha into a Keli Sheiyno Menukav, in which case the Rama ruled in 69/18 that the meat is forbidden?

Hence the Shach establishes that this case must be referring to meat that fell into Tzir which is in a Keli Menukav [and it takes some time for the Tzir to drain through the hole] and hence the meat is not forbidden within 18 minutes as only when the Tzir is gathered in a bowl without a hole does it have ability to do Kevisha to the meat as ruled in 105/1. For this reason the meat is also permitted even though it is within Shiur Melicha as the bowl contains a hole which allows the blood of the meat to escape through. [Shach ibid] [See Teshuras Shaiy 243; Ikarei Dat 7 that Kevisha is only considered like Bishul if the meat remains soaked in the liquid without moving for 24 hours. If the vessel is shaken then it is not considered Kavush. Hence in this case since the Tzir is constantly moving due to it being in a vessel with a hole the meat is not considered Kavush.]

Background of Taz:

The Taz asks the same question as the Shach that if this case involves a Keli Sheiyno Menukav the meat should regardless be forbidden as ruled in 69/18. He hence establishes that the case must be referring to a Keli Menukav. However regarding the first question of the Shach the Taz rules that there is a misprint n the Rama as will be explained.

[158] Taz 70/17; See Shach 70/40

Background:

The Shach and Taz established this case to be dealing with a Keli Menukav. The question however that is asked on this establishment is that if the vessel has a hole then how did the meat fall into the Tzir, why didn’t the Tzir flow out of the hole? The Taz thus explains that this refers to a case that one salted meat in a closed barrel on top of twigs. Thus the blood has room to flow to the bottom of the barrel. Now if one of the pieces of meat that is within Shiur Melicha falls into the Tzir what is the law of the meat. This is the case that the Rama here is referring to.

[159] We are not worried in this case of the water closing up the pores of meat as since the meat still contains its own blood, its pores will become reopened after re-salting it. [Taz 70/16; Peri Megadim 70 S.D 39]

Opinion of Rashal: According to the Rashal the meat does not need to be washed even initially prior to the new salting and one who desires to be stringent it suffices for him to pour on it a slight amount of water. [Brought in Shach 70/42]

[160] Peri Megadim 70 S.D 39; Meaning in this case one can rewash the meat even very well as we don’t care if this causes the pores to currently close up as the pores will reopen. This is opposed to the next case which discusses meat that is after Shiur Melicha in which case one is only to slightly rinse the meat. [ibid]

[161] Shach 70/35 and so writes Rama explicitly later on: “and so too if the meat fell into the Tzir prior to it remaining Shiur Melicha one is to re-wash it and re-salt it”.

The reason why it must be re-salted is because when it falls into Tzir we assume the meat absorbs the Tzir and this Tzir can only dissipate through re-salting the meat. The reason why in this case we assume the Tzir will dissipate after re-salting the meat is because the meat still contains its own blood and hence it will dissipate the Tzir it absorbed from the other piece together with its own blood.  [Shach ibid]

Reason why in this case we do not apply the rule of Aidy Detarid Leflot: Although we generally apply the rule Aiydi Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy, this only applies when the piece is not sitting within the Tzir, such as in the case where they are being salted on top of each other however in this case that the meat is sitting within the Tzir it does become absorbed. [See Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 16; Thus this case is unlike the case mentioned in Halacha 1 that meat that is within Shiur Melicha does not absorb from other meat as here the meat is sitting in the Tzir while there the Tzir simply falls on the meat and slides off and hence does not become absorbed.]

[162] Shach 70/41 and Taz 70/16 as water cannot close the pores of blood.

[163] The Shach 70/36 addresses the following question on the Rama’s ruling: How can the Rama rule that the meat remains permitted so long as it did not soak for 24 hours if in 105/1 it is ruled that Tzir prohibits within 18 minutes due to Kavush Kemevushal?

The Shach offers two explanations:

1. Perhaps raw meat is different than other foods, and hence raw meat takes 24 hours to be considered Kavush within Tzir while other foods take 18 minutes.
2. Since this case refers to a case that the Tzir is within a vessel that has a hole and hence the Tzir is constantly dissipating. Therefore it takes 24 hours for the Tzir to pickle the meat even though in normal circumstances Tzir can pickle in 18 minutes.

Opinion of Rashal: The Rashal [brought in Taz 70/16 and 70/17] rules that even if the meat remained 18 minutes within the Tzir it helps to salt the meat in this case as since the meat still contains its own blood, it will dissipate the Tzir together with its blood. If however the meat remained in the Tzir for 24 hours then all agree the meat is forbidden as it is considered as if it was actually cooked. The Taz negates this opinion saying that after Shiur Kevisha the meat is considered cooked and it never helps to re-salt the meat after this occurs. [Taz 70/16 and 70/17]                                                                                                                                                                                  

[164] Taz 70/17

Background of Taz:

The Taz asks on the Rama that if in truth in this case the meat only becomes forbidden after 24 hours why did he establish the case with Tzir, if he could have established it with water. Furthermore in the Toras Chatas the Rama himself rules it becomes Kavush within 18 minutes. The Taz thus concludes there must be a misprint in the Rama and in truth it was written “the amount of time it takes the Tzir to boil”.

[165] Rama ibid

[166] Shach 70/36; Taz 70/17

[167] Rama 70/6

[168] Shach 70/47; See Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 40

[169] Rashal

[170] The Rama establishes that in all cases that we prohibit the meat we only prohibit the meat that is within the Tzir while the meat above the Tzir is permitted. The reason for this is because blood cannot travel upwards. This law applies even if the meat is fatty, nevertheless we do not say the fat causes the Tzir to travel upwards. [Shach 70/45; 69/18]

Other Opinions: The Rosh and Rashal only prohibit a Kelipa worth of the meat if the meat remained less than Shiur Kevisha in the Tzir. Practically the Rama rules the entire area is forbidden as we rule that Melicha prohibits a food up to 60x just like by cooking. [Shach 70/46]

[171] Shach 70/45

[172] i.e. even if the meat is within 12 hours of salting.

[173] Meaning one did not wash the meat prior to it falling into the Tzir as according to the Rama and other Poskim once the meat is washed it no longer releases Tzir. [Shach 70/37; 70/26; Taz 70/19]

[174] Opinion of Rashal: According to the Rashal the meat does not need to be washed even initially prior to the new salting and one who desires to be stringent it suffices for him to pour on it a slight amount of water. [Brought in Shach 70/42] To note however the Rashal himself holds that in this case the meat is always forbidden and only when the meat is still within Shiur Melicha does he permit re-salting the meat, and in that case he holds the meat does not need to be re-washed. [Shach 70/37]

[175] Shach 70/39; Beir Heiytiv 70/26; Taz 70/18 in name of Rashal

Background:

The Shach ibid addresses why the washing of the meat will not cause the pores to close and hence lock the Tzir inside the meat. He answers that only when one washes the meat before it falls into the Tzir does it close up the pores however here that it is being washed simply to wash off the Tzir from the meat, the pores still remain open as one does not give it a good washing, and simply rinses off the external Tzir. Thus the Shach establishes that only a thorough washing closes the pores of meat. [From this it is understood that one is to be careful to only slightly rinse the meat and not give it a good washing and so learns Beir Heiytiv ibid.]

Opinion of Taz: The Taz 70/16 rules based on the above question that according to the Rama in the Shulchan Aruch washing meat does not close up its pours and hence here one can wash the meat even very well. This ruling of the Rama retracts his ruling in the Toras Chatas that washing closes up the pours.

[176] The reason the Rama allows one to be lenient if the meat is within 12 hours is because according to all opinions the meat is still releasing Tzir and hence in a case of great loss we rely that after the meat is re-salted it will expel the blood it absorbed together with its own Tzir. [Shach 70/38] Alternatively in a time of need we say the meat is permitted because it did not absorb any of the Tzir being it was still dissipating its own Tzir and Aidy Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy. [Toras Chatas brought in Shach 70/37] The practical ramification between these two reasons is regarding if the meat was cooked without being re-salted as will be explained next.

The reason why in this case one is required to re-salt the meat as opposed to the previous Halacha [Halacha 6]: In this case since the meat is sitting within the Tzir we assume the meat absorbs the blood and hence it is only permitted if one re-salts the meat, in which case we say in a case of great loss that the meat will expel the blood together with the Tzir. In truth however this is only required because the Rama suspects for the opinion of the Rashal [see next] that the meat absorbs the blood even though it is still expelling Tzir. However the Rama himself in Toras Chatas holds that the meat does not absorb the Tzir being it is still dissipating its own Tzir. Hence if one did not re-salt the meat as is initially required and went ahead and cooked it, one may permit the meat even in this case.[Shach 70/37]

Opinion of Rashal: The Rashal [brought in Shach 70/37 and Taz 70/16] rules that after Shiur Melicha the meat is always forbidden, even if the meat is within 12 hours and it is a case of great loss. His reasoning is because he holds that only Tzir can come out with Tzir while blood cannot come out with Tzir. Thus even if one were to re-salt the meat, since it contains no more blood, even though it will expel its Tzir it will not expel the blood that it absorbed. However the Rama holds that in a time of great loss one may be lenient to say that even the blood of another piece is expelled together with Tzir. [Brought in Shach 70/37]

[177] Shach 70/38; As many opinions hold that meat no longer dissipates Tzir after 12 hours and if even by a case that the meat is within 12 hours we are only lenient in a case of great loss then in this case we are not lenient even if there is a great loss. [Shach ibid]

Opinion of Taz: It is implied from Taz 70/19 “a full day” that in a case of great loss one may be lenient even if the meat is past 12 hours, so long as it is within 24 hours. Seemingly then the Taz is arguing on the Shach and simple meaning of Rama. Perhaps however the Taz does not in truth mean a full day of 24 hours but rather 12 hours. In any event there is no way to enter his interpretation into the Rama as he clearly limits the allowance to meat within 12 hours. [Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 19] However based on Taz 70/16 and Peri Megadim 70 M.Z. 16 it is understood that the Taz rules the same way in this case as he does in the case of Halacha 6, and hence he permits the meat within 24 hours in a case of great loss.

[178] See Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 40

[179] Rama ibid

[180] As the meat was already washed prior to being salted and hence no longer contains any Dam Beiyn. [Taz 70/18; Shach 70/43]

[181] Shach 70/37

[182] As the Rama in Toras Chatas holds that the meat does not absorb the Tzir being it is still dissipating its own Tzir. Hence if one did not re-salt the meat as is initially required and went ahead and cooked it, one may permit the meat even in this case.[Shach 70/37]

[183] Rama ibid

[184] See However Even Shesiya 42 that this is not to be taken literally and is merely coming to exclude that the meta does not need to remain in the Tzir for 18 minutes. If however it was immediately removed then it is permitted.

[185] However in the earlier cases of A and B that the meat was not yet salted for Shiur Melicha the meat only becomes forbidden if it remains Shiur Kevisha within the Tzir. [Taz 70/20]

Reason why the entire piece within the Tzir is forbidden as opposed to a mere Kelipa: The Rosh [brought in Toras Chatas Klal 6] holds that if the meat remained in the Tzir for less than Shiur Kevisha [18 minutes] then only a Kelipa worth of the meat within the Tzir is forbidden while the remainder is permitted. The Rama argues that we are not accustomed like this ruling and rather all the meat that is within the Tzir becomes immediately forbidden even if it remained there for less than Shiur Kevisha. The Rashal argues on the Rama and rules that it only becomes forbidden completely if it remained Shiur Kevisha. The Shach defends the Rama and explains that according to our ruling that Melicha prohibits up to 60x just like cooking we are stringent even if the meat remained less than Shiur Kevisha and hence the opinion of the Rosh does not contradict the Rama as the Rosh is referring to the letter of the law that Melicha only prohibits a peel’s worth, while the Rama is referring to the custom that Melicha prohibits a food completely. [Shach 70/46]

[186] Rama 70/6

[187] Toras Chatas 8 brought in Shach 70/47

[188] As since there is doubt as to whether the Tzir is within a vessel with a hole or a vessel without a hole therefore we are lenient to permit the area above the Tzir. The reason for this is because even by a vessel without a hole it is a mere stringency to prohibit the entire piece of meat, including the area above the Tzir, hence here that there is doubt we are lenient to permit the meat above the Tzir. This is similar to the law mentioned in 69/9 that if one is in doubt whether the meat fell into Tzir before or after Shiur Melicha then we are lenient to permit the area above the Tzir. If however we were to view this case as a case of Tzir within a vessel with a hole then the entire meat would be permitted. Hence on the one hand we are stringent to consider the case similar to a vessel without a hole, and on the other hand we are lenient to only prohibit the area within the Tzir. [Shach 70/47]

[189] As regarding meat that is after Shiur Melicha there is no difference in law in whether the Tzir is in a vessel with a hole or without a hole, either way the meat that is in the Tzir is forbidden.

[190] As the blood that is extracted from within the limbs is only Rabbinical. [Shach 70/49]

Reason why here we are lenient while by Tzir on the ground we are stringent: Although Tzir that is on the ground is likewise a doubt whether it is considered a Keli Menukav or Eino Menukav and nevertheless we are stringent, perhaps this is because we suspect if we were to be lenient in that case one may come to be lenient by actual blood that is on the ground. However here since we don’t even know if there is Tzir we are not worried one may come to be lenient by actual blood. [Shach 70/49; see Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 49]

[191] Shach 70/50; See also Admur 447/60 which writes “one must have a lot more water than olives”; Piskeiy Admur Yoreh Deah p. 79

[192] Rama 70/6

[193] Shach 70/48

Opinion of Mahriy Kohen: The Mahriy Kohen [Teshuvah 26] rules that if meat which has never been salted  touched meat that is being salted in a Keli Sheinyo Menukav, then that meat is forbidden as the blood which it absorbs can never be expelled. The Shach negates this opinion. [Shach 70/48]

[194] Rama 70/6

[195] Shach 70/44

[196] Shach 70/44; Peri Megadim 70 S.D. 44; Rama 91/5