This Halacha is an excerpt from our Sefer
Buy me here or on Amazon.com
Check out our state of the art Online Melicha course
________________________________________________________
Kashering the Liver
Introduction:
This chapter discusses removing the blood of liver. Rabbeinu Tam[1] writes that the entire liver is blood and it is only permitted to be eaten due to an explicit statement in the Torah. Thus Biblically the blood of liver is permitted and only Rabbinically forbidden due to it being similar to other blood.[2] It is disputed amongst Poskim whether it suffices to salt the liver as is done with other meat or whether it must be roasted. The details of the Kashering process relevant to liver will be elaborated on in this chapter. For further details and laws regarding roasting meat refer to chapter 76. The laws stated there regarding roasting meat apply likewise to liver unless stated otherwise in this chapter.
Custom not to eat liver:
Some Poskim[3] rule that one is to beware not to eat the liver of animals or fowl being that doing so leads to forgetfulness and is damaging to the body.[4] This especially applies to men, and pregnant and nursing women.[5]
Others[6] however rule that it is permitted to be eaten, and on Shabbos eating liver is a commended custom of the students of the Baal Shem Tov.
Removing forbidden fats from liver:
There are forbidden fats called Cheilev attached to the liver of a cow. These fats must be removed by an expert Minaker prior to the roasting of the liver. For this reason it is important to purchase liver, as well as all meats, from a reliable Hashgacha as some livers have been mistakenly sold with their forbidden fats under Rabbinical certification.
1. How does one remove blood from liver? Does Melicha suffice or must it be roasted?[7]
A. Opinion of Rishonim:[8]
Background: The Talmud records that Abayey asked Rav Safra to find out for him what one is allowed to do with liver. The Mefarshim understand this question to mean that Abayey asked him to verify whether one is allowed to cook the liver. The answer that was received was that it is permitted to cook the liver. After Abayey was told this answer he stated that he was not asking whether it is permitted to cook the liver alone but rather is it permitted to cook it with other meat. The answer given was that although liver may be cooked alone it may not be cooked with other meat. The Gemara here does not disclose the state of the liver being questioned. Was this liver already salted for blood or is it prior to being salted? It is this matter which is disputed amongst the Rishonim. Rashi holds the Gemara is discussing liver that was already salted while Rabbeinu Tam learns it is discussing liver that was not yet salted.
- Rashi:[9]Even if liver was salted for its blood it is forbidden to cook it with other meat being that it dissipates blood into the meat.
- Rabbeinu Tam:[10] Rabbeinu Tam rules that it is permitted to cook liver after it has been salted just like it is permitted to cook all meat after salting it. Furthermore it is even permitted to cook it with other meat.[11] B. Ruling of Poskim:
- Michaber:[12]Lechatchilah salting does not help to remove the blood-Must cut and roast: The liver contains a lot of blood and thus it does not initially suffice to salt the liver for its blood in order to be allowed to cook it.[13] Rather the liver must be cut and roasted, and only afterward is it permitted to be cooked. Bedieved if one cooked the liver without roasting it beforehand-See Halacha 7! Regarding how the liver must be cut-See Halacha 2.
- Tur as explained in Taz:[14]
Lechatchilah must roast although Bedieved may cook after salting if Rav ruled this way: Practically we[15] rule like Rabbeinu Tam that it is permitted to cook liver even with other meat after it has been [cut open[16] and] salted for its blood. Nevertheless initially the custom is to be stringent not to cook the liver until it is roasted, although Bedieved the food remains permitted if one did so. If a Rabbi ruled to a person like Rabbeinu Tam, that he may cook the liver after [cutting it[17] and] salting it then one may do so and the Rabbi is not required to retract his ruling.[18] If however a Rabbi ruled that one may cook the liver alone even without salting it beforehand then he is forced to retract his ruling.
- Hagahos Sheid:[19]Even Bedieved the food is forbidden: If one cooked the liver without roasting it beforehand then everything is forbidden including the liver, unless the Rav already ruled like Rabbeinu Tam in which case we permit the food.
- Rama; Shach; Taz:
The custom is like the Hagahos Shed. See Halacha 7!
Final Ruling
It is forbidden to cook the liver after salting it and rather it is required to be cut and roasted. Bedieved if one cut the liver and salted it and then cooked it all the food is forbidden unless the Rav ruled it is Kosher.
Q&A
Does the above law apply to liver of fowl?[20]
Yes. Both the liver of animals and fowl are required to be roasted prior to cooking.
2. Cutting the liver prior to roasting:[21]
Introduction: In the previous Halacha it was stated that one must cut the liver prior to roasting in order to release all of its blood. There is however a difference of opinion regarding whether this cutting is required only if one desires to cook the liver after the roasting or even if he wants to eat it after it is roasted.
A. Cutting the liver prior to roasting if one plans to cook it afterwards:[22]
If one plans to cook the liver after roasting then the liver must be cut horizontally and vertically prior to the roasting.[23] [This applies according to all opinions.[24]] It is to be roasted with its cut area facing downwards. Afterwards the liver may be cooked.
B. Must the liver be cut prior to roasting even if one does not plan to cook it afterwards?[25]
- Michaber: The liver is to be cut prior to roasting [even if one does not plan to cook it afterwards]. The reason the liver is to be cut prior to roasting is in order to release the blood that is found in the tubes of the liver.
- Rama:
There are opinions[26] which rule that if one does not plan to cook the liver after roasting it[27], it does not need to be cut at all. Practically the custom is like this opinion to even initially roast liver without cutting it beforehand. [However after the roasting some Poskim[28] rule that even according to the Rama one is to cut open the tubes of the liver and remove its blood. However the simple interpretation of the words of the Rama is that he does not require tearing to be done even after roasting.[29]]
- Taz:[30]One is required to cut the liver before roasting even if he does not plan to cook it afterwards. C. How is the liver to be cut prior to roasting?[31]
As stated above the Michaber writes that prior to roasting the liver one is to cut it vertically and horizontal.
The Rama offers the following alternative methods.
- Puncturing the liver: If one punctures the liver in many different areas using a knife it is considered as if it is cut vertically and horizontally. [This applies even if one desires to cook the liver after the roasting. However this only applies Bedieved if one already roasted the liver in which case we nevertheless allow him to cook it. However initially if one desires to cook the liver after roasting it he must cut it horizontally and vertically[32], or use the next two options.[33] The Taz[34] however rules that if one desires to cook the liver after the roasting then it does not suffice to puncture the liver, and even Bedieved, if he roasted it this way, we forbid him from cooking the liver. Furthermore even if one does not desire to cook the liver it is initially to be cut horizontal and vertical prior to roasting.[35] Practically we rule like the Rama.[36]]
- Cutting the gallbladder: If one cut off the gallbladder together with [the veins and tubes[37], and he also cut off] a piece of the actual liver [from the area of the gallbladder, thus forming a hole in the liver] for the blood to flow out then it is considered as if it is cut vertically and horizontally. [This may be done even initially as an alternative to cutting it vertically and horizontally even if one plans to cook it after roasting.[38] This applies both by the liver of fowl and animals.[39] The Taz[40] however rules that if one desires to cook the liver after the roasting then it does not suffice to remove the gallbladder, and even Bedieved, if he roasted it this way, we forbid him from cooking the liver. Furthermore even if one does not desire to cook the liver, removing the gallbladder is only valid by the liver of a chicken however the liver of an animal must be cut vertical and horizontal. The Peri Megadim[41] concludes that we rule like the Rama regarding the liver of chicken. However regarding the liver of an animal removing the gallbladder does not suffice.]
Cutting the liver to pieces: It is only required for the liver to be cut prior to roasting if one is roasting a whole liver. If however the liver is cut to pieces then it may be roasted regularly [and cooked afterwards]. [This applies according to all opinions, even initially.[42]]
How is the liver to be cut prior to roasting if one does not desire to cook it afterwards? According to those Poskim which require cutting the liver prior to roasting even if one does not desire to cook it afterwards [See B] it is disputed as how it must be cut prior to the roasting. Some Poskim[43] rules that it suffices to cut it in one direction, either vertical or horizontal. Others[44] rule it should initially be cut both vertical and horizontal. Others[45] rule that by chicken liver it suffices to remove the gallbladder and puncture it with a knife.
D. The law if one roasted the liver without cutting it:
If one roasted the liver without cutting it beforehand then it is to be torn after the roasting[46], and have its tubes removed, in which case it may then even be cooked.[47] However if one does not plan to cook the liver then according to the Rama it is not required to be cut even initially.
Summary:
If one plans to cook the liver after roasting it then if the liver is whole it is required to be cut vertically and horizontally prior to the roasting. Alternatively one may remove the gallbladder together with some of the liver prior to the roasting, although some Poskim are stringent, especially by the liver of animals. If one did not cut the liver prior to the roasting then he may do so afterwards.
If one does not plan to cook the liver after roasting it then the custom is to cook it whole and not require cutting prior to roasting. [Nevertheless it is best to cut it after the roasting even according to this opinion.[48]]
|
|
Horizontal and vertical |
Horizontal or vertical |
Many holes with a knife |
Removing Gallbladder |
Cutting to pieces |
Not cut at all |
|
Roasting without cooking |
Valid |
Michaber: Valid Taz/Rashal: Initially invalid. |
Shach: Valid Taz/Rashal: Initially invalid. |
Rama: Valid Taz: Valid for chicken |
Valid |
Michaber: Invalid Rama: Valid even initially |
|
Cooking after roasting |
Valid |
Invalid |
Rama: Valid Bedieved Taz: Invalid. |
Rama: Valid Taz: Invalid. |
Valid |
Invalid |
3. In what position is the liver to be roasted?[49]
The liver is to be roasted with its cut part facing down.
4. How long is the liver to be roasted for?[50]
The liver is to be roasted until it is ready to be eaten. [This is defined as when the liver has become half cooked.[51] However many Poskim argue that the liver must be fully cooked and so is the initial practice.[52]]
5. Cooking the liver after roasting:[53]
After the above process is done the liver may be cooked.
6. Washing the liver after roasting:
If one plans to cook the liver afterwards:[54] If one desires to cook the liver after roasting it then he is required to wash the liver after roasting it prior to cooking it.[55] Nevertheless if one cooked the liver without washing it after the roasting the food remains permitted.
If one plans to eat the liver after roasting without cooking:[56] [It is not required to wash the liver after roasting it, prior to eating it, if one does not plan to cook it in between.[57]] [However] the custom is to always wash the liver after roasting [even if one plans to eat it roasted without cooking[58]]. This is done in order to wash off the external blood which is attached to the liver.
The custom of Sefaradim:[59]
Sefaradim are not accustomed to require one to wash the meat after it is roasted if one does not desire to cook it.[60] If however one desires to cook it then different opinions exits regarding this matter.[61]
7. What is the law if one cooked the liver without roasting it beforehand?[62]
*See Halacha 1 for the opinion of Rishonim and Tur on this matter
- Michaber:First Opinion: If one cooked the liver [without roasting[63] or salting it beforehand[64]] then if the liver was cooked without any other food the liver itself is Kosher being that the liver expels blood and does not absorb it.[65] However the pot itself is forbidden. [If however the liver was cooked together with other food then although the liver remains permitted[66] nevertheless the other food is forbidden being that it absorbs the blood of the liver.[67] However others[68] rule that if the other food is fatty then even the liver is forbidden. ] Second Opinion:[69] There is an opinion that forbids the liver if it was cooked without being roasted beforehand.[70] Final ruling of Michaber: [The Michaber does not give a final ruling regarding which opinion to follow. The accepted understanding of the Michaber in such a case[71] is to rule that the liver is forbidden as rules the second opinion although in a case of great loss or in case of need for Shabbos one may be lenient like the first opinion.[72]]
- Rama: Forbidden: [Majority of Poskim rule like the first opinion[73] however] the custom is like the second opinion to prohibit everything in the pot including the liver.[74] This applies even if the liver was salted [and torn both horizontally and vertically[75]] prior to the cooking.[76]
- Rashal:[77]Differentiates between if liver was cooked alone or with other food: If the liver was cooked alone without any other food in the pot then the liver is permitted as it does not absorb the blood. If however there was other meat [or any other food that contains fat[78]] in the pot then the liver is also forbidden as it absorbs the forbidden gravy of the other food.[79] [The Shach[80] and Taz[81] negate this opinion.]
- Taz:[82]
Rules like Rama: One may not swerve from the ruling of the Rama that the custom is to forbid the liver.
- Shach:[83]
Rules like Rama: The custom is like the second opinion to prohibit everything in the pot including the liver as rules the Rama. This applies even if the liver was salted and torn both horizontally and vertically prior to the cooking.
The law if the Rav ruled that the food is Kosher:[84]
If one tore and salted the liver properly before the cooking and then cooked it with other food and the Rav ruled that the food is Kosher as rules Rabbeinu Tam then [even according to the Rama] one may rely on his ruling and all the food in the pot remains Kosher. If however the liver was not [torn and] salted beforehand then [according to the Rama] the food is forbidden irrelevant of the ruling of the Rav.
Final Ruling
Ruling of Ashkenazim: If one cooked the liver without roasting it beforehand then all the food, including the liver is forbidden. This applies even if the liver was cut and salted beforehand. If however the Rav ruled that the food is Kosher then if the liver was cut and salted before being cooked, one may follow his ruling and all of the food in the pot is Kosher.
Ruling of Michaber and Sefaradim: All the food in the pot is forbidden although in a case of great loss, or for the need of Shabbos one may be lenient to permit the liver. However the other food is forbidden. If the other food contains fat then some rule even the liver is forbidden, even in a case of great loss.
Q&A
What is the law if one poured hot water over liver?[85]
The liver is permitted[86] although the vessel into which the water fell into is forbidden.
What is the law if liver soaked in a vessel with liquid for 24 hours?[87]
Some Poskim[88] rule the liver is permitted even without 60x, although the vessel is to be Kashered. Others[89] rule the liver is forbidden.
8. “Chalita” Cooking the liver after scalding it:[90]
*What is Chalita? Chalita refers to scalding a food in boiling water or [Halachicly defined[91]] vinegar.
- Michaber:
If one scalded liver in vinegar or boiling water and made a hole in the liver and removed the veins that are within the liver then from the letter of the law it is permitted to cook the liver afterwards [without roasting or even salting it beforehand] [92], although the Geonim forbade one from doing so.[93] Practically Bedieved if one cooked the liver after doing Chalita to it and removing its veins then the liver [and any other food in the pot, including meat[94]] is permitted [even if one did not roast it or salt it beforehand[95]].[96] [This applies even according to the stringent opinion brought in the Michaber[97] regarding one who cooked liver without roasting it beforehand.[98]]
- Rama:
The Rama here does not write a gloss on the ruling of the Michaber hence implying that he agrees to his ruling that if the liver was scalded then all the food in the pot is permitted. However in the Toras Chatas[99] the Rama rules that the liver is forbidden. It is disputed amongst Poskim as what in truth is the final ruling of the Rama. Some Poskim[100] rule that even according to the Rama if the liver was scalded before being cooked and had its inner veins removed then Bedieved all the food in the pot is Kosher as rules the Michaber. However others[101] rule that according to the Rama everything in the pot, including the liver is forbidden if it was not roasted beforehand. [Practically some[102] rule that Ashkenazim are to be stringent unless the case involves great loss or one needs the food for Shabbos.]
The law if one did Chalita to the liver and did not yet cook it:[103] Seemingly according to the Rama in Toras Chatas the liver is forbidden even if one did not yet cook it. Alternatively even according to the Rama in Toras Chatas the liver is still permitted to be roasted and then cooked.
Final Ruling
Ruling of Michaber and Sefaradim: If one scalded the liver and cooked it without roasting it beforehand everything remains Kosher.
Ruling of Ashkenazim: If one scalded liver prior to roasting it, it is disputed whether the liver remains Kosher. This dispute applies whether or not the liver was cooked after the scalding.
9. “Chalita” Cooking regular unsalted meat after scalding it:
[According to the Michaber] meat that 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.[104] Some Poskim[105] 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.[106] [Practically Ashkenazim forbid the meat unless there are other leniencies that can be placed into the equation.[107]]
10. May one roast the liver together with other meat:[108]
Permitted to roast on top; forbidden to roast below:[109] It is permitted to roast liver under other pieces of meat that are being roasted for their blood. It is however forbidden to roast liver above other pieces of meat [even if the other meat is being roasted for its blood[110]].[111] Bedieved if one roasted the liver above the other pieces of meat nevertheless the meat remains Kosher [even if one witnessed the liver drip blood on top of the other pieces of meat[112]].[113] [This applies even if the lower meat has already been salted for its blood.[114]]
Roasting on a skewer: When roasting on a skewer it is initially forbidden to roast liver for its blood together with other pieces of meat even if the liver is on bottom.[115] [If however the skewer is set in place and does not move then it is permitted to roast liver together with meat on a skewer so long as the liver is not on top of the meat.[116]]
The law if the liver was previously salted for its blood:[117]
Roasting it on top of other meat: If liver was [properly[118]] salted for its blood it may be roasted even[119] on top of other meat. The reason for this is because [the salt has] diminished the amount of blood contained within the liver and it is now similar to roasting meat over meat. [Nevertheless the custom is to never initially salt liver prior to roasting it, as will be explained in Halacha 11.]
May the liver be salted on bottom of the other meat if it was previously salted?
-
- Shach:[120]It is permitted to roast previously salted liver under meat that is being salted for its blood. This applies even if liver was washed after being salted and is thus no longer releasing any Tzir.[121] [Many Poskim[122] rule like the Shach and negate the opinion of the Taz.]
- Taz:[123]It is forbidden to roast previously salted liver under meat that is currently being roasted for its blood. This applies even if the liver was not yet washed after being salted.[124] [Nevertheless Bedieved if one roasted the liver under the other meat the liver is permitted. Furthermore it is even initially permitted to roast the liver on a skewer together with other meat if the meats are sides by side or the liver is on top.[125]] Summary:
It is permitted to roast liver together with other meat if the liver is not on top of the other meat. If the liver was already salted for its blood then it is permitted to roast it even on top of other meat, and certainly on bottom or on the side. However there are Poskim which prohibit roasting the liver on bottom in such a case.
The custom today:[126]
The Beir Heiytiv writes that the custom of the world is to never roast liver together with other meat in any position, even if the liver has been previously salted.
Q&A
May one roast many pieces of liver together?[127]
Yes.[128] However one should avoid placing the livers on top of each other.
11. May one salt the liver prior to roasting?[129]
- Michaber: It is permitted to salt the liver prior to roasting.
- Rama:
The custom is not to salt liver at all prior to roasting, even if one desires to salt the liver by itself without any other meat.[130] One may not swerve from this custom. However one should slightly salt the liver while it is on the skewer [ready to be roasted] or when it is on the fire.
Bedieved if one salted the liver: If one salted the liver prior to roasting the liver remains permitted whether one salted it alone or with other meat. This applies even if one salted the liver on top of other meat, nevertheless all the food remains permitted. [Nevertheless in a case that one salted the liver prior to roasting one is to wash off the salt prior to roasting.[131]]
12. Salting liver together with other pieces of meat:[132]
Lechatchilah:[133] Lechatchilah [even according to the Michaber which allows salting liver] one may not salt the liver on top of other meat [even if the meat is currently being salted for its blood[134]] however he may salt it under the other meat.
The law if Bedieved one salted liver on top of other meat:[135] Bedieved if one salted liver on top of other meat nevertheless the meat remains permitted [if the meat is currently being salted for its blood. If however the meat has already been salted and washed then the meat is forbidden.[136] This however applies only according to the Rama, however according to the Michaber even if the meat was already salted for its blood and was washed nevertheless Bedieved the meat remains permitted.[137]]
One salted a chicken or a cow together with its liver:[138] If one salted a [whole] chicken together with its liver attached to it then there are opinions[139] which say one is to remove a peel worth from the area of attachment of the liver to the chicken. This however is a mere stringency. [If the liver is not attached to the chicken then there is no need to remove a peel worth from the area that the liver was touching.[140] If one salted a cow together with its liver nevertheless one is not required to remove a peel worth from the area surrounding the liver being that the liver is not attached to the cow as is the liver of a chicken.[141]]
Final Ruling of 8-9:
Ashkenazim: One is not to salt the liver prior to roasting. Rather he is to slightly salt it while it is on the skewer over the fire. Bedieved if one salted the liver before roasting the liver remains Kosher although he is to wash off the salt prior to roasting.
Sefaradim: One may salt liver prior to roasting.
Salting liver with other meat: One may not salt liver on top of other meat. If one did salt it on top of other meat then the meat is permitted if the meat has not already been salted and washed from its blood.
Q&A
What is the law if one salted the liver in a vessel without a hole?
Some Poskim[142] rule that only the area of the liver that is within the Tzir is forbidden while the area of the liver which is above the Tzir is permitted.[143]
13. Washing the liver prior to roasting:[144]
[The custom is to wash the liver prior to roasting in order to remove the external blood that is stuck to it.[145]] Nevertheless if one did not wash the liver [at all, neither prior to roasting it or after roasting but prior to cooking[146]] the liver remains permitted.
Q&A
Must one wait for the meat to dry from the water prior to placing it on the fire?[147]
Some Poskim write that one is not to place the meat on the fire while it is still wet being that this causes the meat to cook within the water.
May one place water on the meat while it is roasting?[148]
One may not pour water on the liver while it is roasting to remove its blood, as this can cause the liver to cook within the water. However Bedieved if this occurred then by liver one may be lenient.[149]
14. What is the law if one roasted a whole chicken together with its liver?[150]
- Michaber: If a whole chicken was roasted together with its liver everything remains permitted.
- Rama:
There are opinions[151] which require a peel worth to be removed from the area of the chicken which surrounds the liver [even if the liver was not attached to the chicken, but was sitting loosely inside[152]]. Practically this is a mere stringency. [Bedieved if one cooked the chicken without removing a peel worth the surrounding area the chicken remains permitted even without 60x and one is not required to remove the Kelipa after the cooking.[153]]
Summary
The chicken and liver remain permitted although one should remove a peel worth from the area of chicken surrounding the liver.
15. What is the law if one cooked a chicken together with its liver without roasting it beforehand?[154]
*Note: This case is discussing a liver that was neither roasted nor salted before the cooking. Regarding the law if one salted the liver before cooking it but did not roast it beforehand-See Halacha 7.
The Law:[155] If a chicken was cooked together with its liver [without being roasted beforehand] then the chicken requires 60x the liver.
Does a whole chicken contain 60x its liver:[156] There is no chicken that contains 60x its liver when its liver is whole. Therefore if one cooked a chicken together with its whole liver and the liver was attached to the chicken, the entire chicken becomes Chanan, and the remaining food in the pot requires 60x versus the entire chicken. The reason for this is because we rule [Chapter 92/4] that the concept of Chanan applies by all Issurim. [However according to the Michaber which does not hold of Chanan by other Issurim all the food in the pot joins the chicken to nullify the liver in 60x.[157]]
If a piece of chicken was attached to the liver:[158] Based on the above law if a piece of chicken was cooked with a piece of liver attached to it [without being roasted beforehand], then that piece of chicken requires 60x versus the piece of attached liver. If the piece does not have 60x the liver, then the entire piece becomes Chanan, as we rule that the concept of Chanan applies by all Issurim. [However according to the Michaber which does not hold of Chanan by other Issurim all the food in the pot joins the chicken to nullify the liver in 60x.[159]]
If the liver was not attached to any of the pieces:[160] If the liver was not attached to any meat while being cooked then all the food in the pot joins to nullify the liver in 60x and in such a case all the food in the pot is permitted.
If there is 60x in the pot does the liver also become permitted?[161] In all cases that there is 60x versus the liver, although the food remains Kosher, the liver itself remains forbidden as is the ruling regarding one who cooked a heart with its inner blood as explained in chapter 72 [Halacha 5]. [This applies even if one salted the liver and chicken before cooking it.[162] However there are Poskim[163] which question this ruling of the Rama. According to the Michaber the liver is always permitted if it contains 60x.[164] Practically some Poskim[165] rule that even Ashkenazim may be lenient in a time of need.]
One placed the cooked liver in a second pot of food:[166] If after one cooked the liver without previously roasting it one placed it in a second pot of hot food then if there was 60x in the first pot versus the liver, although the liver itself remains forbidden as explained above, nevertheless the food in the second pot remains permitted even if it does not have 60x.[167] This however is with exception to if the liver was cooked with other meat.[168] [However there are Poskim[169] which argue on this ruling and prohibit the food in the second pot if it does not have 60x.]
Summary
Rama-Ashkenazim: The food in the pot requires 60x the liver, and even in such a case, according to the Rama, the liver remains forbidden, although some are lenient in a time of need to permit the liver. If the liver was attached to the chicken then the entire attached piece is forbidden if it does not have 60x the liver and in such a case the other food in the pot requires 60x versus the liver and attached piece combined.
Michaber-Sefaradim: Everything in the pot always joins to nullify the liver in 60x and in such a case even the liver itself remains permitted.
16. The law if one roasted a stuffed chicken with the heart or liver inside:[170]
*Note 1: Although it is not stated explicitly in the Rama whether this case is referring to a chicken that is being cooked in a pot or roasted it is clear from the Poskim[171] that this case is discussing a chicken that is being roasted together with its stuffing.
*Note 2: Although not stated explicitly, one must conclude that the case here is discussing a chicken that was salted for its blood prior to being stuffed and was then stuffed with eggs and roasted. As if the chicken still contains blood and it was roasted with an egg stuffing then it would regardless be forbidden even if it does not contain a heart or liver.[172]
Stuffed with eggs: [If one roasted[173] a] chicken that was stuffed with eggs and it was found to contain a heart or liver [that did not have its blood removed beforehand[174]] then the law follows the same law as one who cooked an [unstuffed] chicken with an attached liver or heart and one thus requires 60x in the chicken versus the liver or heart and [if the heart or liver is attached to the chicken[175] then] the stuffing does not join the chicken for a total of 60x.[176] [If the liver or heart is not attached to the chicken then both the chicken and the stuffing join to nullify the liver or heart in 60x.[177]] If one does not have 60x in the chicken versus the liver or heart then the entire chicken, including its stuffing, is forbidden. [If one has 60x the liver or heart then everything is permitted including the stuffing of eggs.[178] However there are Poskim[179] which require 60x versus the heart or liver and the egg stuffing combined if the heart or liver was attached to the chicken. Furthermore they rule that even if there is 60x the egg stuffing remains forbidden. Practically we do not rule like this opinion[180], however one who desires to be stringent to prohibit the stuffing of eggs even when there is 60x may do so, although the chicken itself is certainly permitted if it contains 60x.[181]]
Stuffed with meat: If one roasted a chicken that was stuffed with meat and does not contain any eggs in its stuffing, and it was found to contain a heart or liver [that did not have its blood removed beforehand] then the law follows the regular roasting laws [and the chicken is permitted as explained in Halacha 14].
Stuffed with meat and eggs:[182] If one roasted a chicken that was stuffed with meat and eggs and it was found to contain a heart or liver [that did not have its blood removed beforehand] then the law follows the same law as cooking. This applies even if the meat stuffing was not yet salted for its blood, nevertheless we do not apply to it the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto.
Summary:
The case: Chicken was salted for blood and then roasted with an egg stuffing, and it was then found to contain a heart with blood or liver.
If the chicken was stuffed with eggs while roasted then the chicken requires 60x versus the liver just like the law regarding if they were cooked together. If the liver was attached to the chicken then the eggs do not join the 60x. If the liver was stuffed with meat then everything is permitted.
Ruling of Sefaradim:[183]
The chicken and stuffing is always permitted even if roasted with an egg filling, just as is the law if it was roasted with a meat filling.
17. The law if one cooked a stuffed chicken with the heart or liver inside:[184]
If one cooked a stuffed chicken together with its liver and the liver contains blood, then if the liver was attached to the chicken, the stuffing does not join the chicken for a total of 60x versus the liver and rather the chicken itself must have 60x the liver. If the liver is not attached to the chicken then everything in the pot, including the stuffing joins to nullify the heart in 60x. This applies even if the chicken is stuffed with eggs. [Nevertheless one who desires to be stringent to prohibit the stuffing of eggs may do so, although the chicken itself is certainly permitted if it contains 60x.[185]]
Complete Summary of Roasting Process for Liver
- Hadacha Rishona: Wash the liver from any external blood
- Cut the liver horizontally and vertically or cut the liver to a few pieces.
- Position the liver with its opening facing down.
- Salt the liver while it is on the skewer ready to be roasted. Do not salt beforehand.
- Roast until the liver is fully cooked.
- Wash the liver after it is roasted.
Practical Q&A
May one cook the liver after the above roasting process is complete?
If the liver was roasted within three days of the slaughtering then it may be cooked after the roasting process is complete. If however the liver remained three days after the slaughtering prior to being roasted then the liver is forbidden to be cooked even after the roasting process is complete. See Chapter 69 Halacha 15 for the details on this matter.
May one initially leave liver unsalted for three days after slaughtering?[186]
Yes.[187] Although in such a case one may not cook it after roasting.
May one roast frozen liver?[188]
Some Poskim[189] rule one may not roast frozen liver being that this is considered like one is cooking it within water. Others[190] however rule it is permitted being that the fire melts the liver and removes the water.
May one roast liver while it is wrapped in a wrapping?
No. One may not roast liver in a wrapping whether the wrapping is of tin foil or other material.[191] However there are Poskim[192] which are lenient.
What is the law if one cooked a chicken together with a liver that was placed in a plastic bag?[193]
The chicken together with all the other food in the pot requires 60x versus the liver. If the chicken was fried in a pot together with the liver and the liquid did not reach the liver that that was in the plastic bag then one is to remove a Netila worth from the chicken.[194]
May one oil the liver prior to roasting?[195]
Yes.
May one roast liver over a gas flame?
Some Poskim[196] rule one is to avoid doing so being that it is difficult for the fire to reach all the areas of the meat. Others[197] however rule it is permitted, although one is to avoid placing the meat over a high flame.[198]
[1] Tosafus Chulin 110b “Kavda Mah Asun Alei”
[2] This applies even if the blood separated from the liver, nevertheless it is only Rabbinically forbidden. This is in contrast to regular blood that has separated from a limb which is Biblically forbidden. [Tosafus ibid]
[3] Kaf Hachayim 157/28; 72/6; Ben Ish Chaiy Acharei 2/11 and other Achronim. This falls under the acronym of “Melach” Moach, Leiv, Kavod.
The reason: Based on the Arizal the Nefesh, Ruach and Neshama reside in the heart mind and liver and is thus not to be eaten. [ibid]
[4] From a nutritional perspective: Liver contains very high levels of cholesterol [400 mg per serving] and iron and is thus to be avoided by those with heart disease or high cholesterol. It however does also contain many good resources of vitamins such as B12, vitamin A, and vitamin C.
[5] Ben Ish Chaiy ibid
[6] Mishneh Halachos 3/63 writes that he has never seen anyone being careful in this. Yabia Omer 2/8; Hakashrus 9/86; See Yaskil Avdi 8/9
[7] 73/1
[8] Taz 73/1
[9] Chulin 110b “Kavda Mah Atem Nohagin”; Although Rashi does not write explicitly whether the liver was already salted the Mefarshim explain this to be Rashi’s opinion, that the question of the Gemara applies even if the liver was already salted for blood. [Taz 73/1; Peri Chadash 73/1; Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 1]
[10] Tosafus Chulin 110b “Kavda Mah Asun Alei” brought in Taz 73/1
[11] His reason is because although it is impossible to remove all the blood of liver through salting, nevertheless this blood is Biblically permitted and was only Rabbinically forbade due to a decree that one should not come to be lenient by regular meat. Hence once the liver has been salted there is no longer any reason to be stringent. [ibid]
[12] 73/1
[13] Although the Michaber rules that Bedieved if one cooked the liver without roasting it then the liver is permitted and the vessel is forbidden, nevertheless one is never allowed to initially cook the liver prior to roasting it even if he does not mind causing the pot used for the cooking to become prohibited. [Shach 73/1 in name of Toras Chatas and Bach; Taz 73/3] The reason for this is because only Bedieved do we say that the liver does not absorb the blood during cooking, although Lechatchilah it is forbidden to cook it prior to roasting. [Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 1 and M.Z. 3] Alternatively the reason is because according to some opinions if the liver is cooked for a long time it is possible for it to begin absorbing back the blood which it dissipated into the pot and hence since we are not expert in the amount of time that it takes the liver to begin absorption, therefore we are initially stringent never to cook it without roasting. [Taz 73/3]
[14] Taz 73/1
[15] This refers to the Tur. [Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 1]
[16] Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 1
[17] Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 1
[18] See Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 1
[19] Brought in Taz 73/1
[20] Kaf Hachaim 73/1
[21] 73/1
[22] 73/1
[23] Why is the liver to be cut in both directions? There are two reasons why the liver is to be cut prior to roasting. A. To remove the blood that is gathered in the tubes of the liver. B. To verify that all the blood leaves the liver. This is the reason why the liver is to be cut in both directions prior to roasting, as only when it is cut in both directions is it possible for all the blood to come out of the liver. If the liver is not cut in both directions then although the gathered blood of the tubes is able to escape nevertheless it is possible that some blood will remain in the liver and dissipate into the food when it is cooked. [Peri Chadash 73/11 brought also in Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 5]
[24] Minchas Yaakov Klal 24/17; Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 5; Kaf Hachaim 73/40; See Taz 72/5
It is possible to understand from the Taz ibid that the Rama 73/3 holds one is not required to cut the liver beforehand even if he desires to cook it afterwards. This however is definitely not the simple implication of the Rama, and from the answer of the Taz ibid it is also not implied. [See Darkei Halacha p. 77]
[25] 73/3
[26] Riy brought in Tur
[27] The simple understanding of the Rama is that he is referring to a case that one does not desire to cook the liver afterwards, otherwise according to all the liver is required to be cut and so rules Minchas Yaakov Klal 24/17; Zivcheiy Tzedek 73/24; Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 5; Kaf Hachaim 73/40. However it is possible to understand from the Taz 73/5 that the Rama holds one is not required to cut the liver beforehand even if he desires to cook it afterwards. This however is definitely not the simple implication of the Rama. [See Darkei Halacha p. 77]
Background of the Taz:
The Taz 73/5 asks why here the Rama writes that one may be lenient not to cut the liver before roasting if he himself ruled in 73/1 alternative methods of cutting the liver before roasting. The Taz then negates suggesting that the Rama in 73/1 is referring to a case that one desires to cook it afterwards while here is referring to a case that one does not desire to cook it afterwards. The Taz then concludes that one must say that the Rama in 73/1 was following the opinion of the Michaber in this Halacha which rules that cutting is required in all cases. This wording of the Taz implies that he understands the Rama to rule that even if one does desire to cook the liver after roasting, cutting it beforehand is not required. Vetzaruch Iyun.
[28] Shulchan Gavoa 73/11 brought in Kaf Hachaim 73/41
[29] Kaf Hachaim 73/41
[30] 73/2
[31] 73/1
[32] Shach 73/3 in name of Toras Chatas 24/6; Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 3 “and so is the final ruling”
Other Opinions: The Peri Chadash 73/4 and Minchas Yaakov 24/12 rules that one may even initially puncture the liver many times with a knife and roast it and then cook it.
[33] Shach 73/4
[34] 73/2 based on Rashal
[35] Rashal brought in Taz ibid
[36] Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 3 and M.Z. 2
[37] Shach 73/4
[38] Shach 73/4 based on Toras Chatas
[39] Kaf Hachaim 73/10
Other Opinions: The Chavas Daas 73/4 [and Taz brought next] rules that the above option given by the Rama only refers to the liver of fowl and not to the liver of an animal. However this is not the simple implication of the words of the Rama.
[40] 73/2
[41] 73 M.Z. 2 and M.Z. 5
[42] Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 2
[43] Peri Chadash 73/11; Kaf Hachaim 73/37
[44] Rashal brought in Taz 73/2
[45] Taz 73/2
[46] Michaber 93/3
Although the liver absorbs the blood of the tubes during the roasting process, nevertheless this blood is dissipated together with the livers own blood. [Shach 73/11]
[47] Rama 73/1; However see Kneses Hagedola brought in Kaf Hachaim 73/38 that some rule that once the liver has been roasted it no longer helps to tear it in order to permit cooking the liver.
[48] So concludes Kaf Hachaim 73/41
[49] Michaber 73/1
[50] Rama 73/1
[51] Shach 73/2 and so rules Issur Viheter
[52] Hakashrus 9/95; See Chapter 69 Halacha 29 for all the opinions on this matter.
[53] Michaber 73/1
[54] Rama 73/1
[55] The reason why the liver is to be washed after roasting is in order to remove the external blood which is stuck to the salt that was placed on the liver prior to roasting. Alternatively the reason is because if one were to cook the liver without washing it beforehand a red pigment would enter into the food which appears like blood and eating this is considered Maaras Ayin. [Shach 73/5]
[56] Rama 73/5
[57] Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 18 based on Rama 73/1
One is forced to conclude that according to the Rama this is not required from the letter of the law as earlier in 73/1 he wrote that one is to wash the liver only if he plans to cook it. Hence to refrain from creating contradiction one must conclude that in 73/1 the Rama stated the letter of the law while here he mentions the custom. [Peri Megadim ibid]
[58] Shach 73/18
[59] Kaf Hachaim 76/29
[60] Zivcheiy Tzedek 76/18
[61] The Peri Chadash rules one is not required to rinse the liver even if he desires o cook it. The Beis Yosef rules it needs to be washed beforehand.
[62] 73/1
[63] So adds Rama
This addition of the Rama is not coming to exclude that if the liver was not salted then even this opinion is stringent as in truth the same logic of allowance applies whether the liver was pre-salted or not as either way liver does not absorb its blood while expelling it. [Shach 73/7]
[64] So adds Shach 73/6 and 7; This is unlike the simple understanding of the Michaber that we are discussing a case that the liver was already salted. [Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 6]
[65] Being that the liver is busy expelling its own blood it is therefore not able to absorb any blood from the pot as Aidiy Detarid Leflot Lo Baliy. [Shach 73/6]
[66] Shach 73/9; See below the opinion of Rashal.
[67] Shach 73/6
[68] See below the opinion of Rashal.
[69] Rambam
[70] The reason for this is because the Rambam rules like the Chachamim that the liver is able to absorb the blood at the same time that it is dissipating it. [Taz 73/4]
[71] Meaning in all cases that the Michaber rules one way and then brings a dissenting opinion but does not rule how to follow the following is the accepted way of ruling according to the Michaber.
[72] Zivcheiy Tzedek 73/14 brought in Kaf Hachaim 73/20; See also Shach 73/10 that he writes that the Michaber rules like the Rambam that the meat is forbidden; However see Yechaveh Daas 2/51 that according to the Michaber the meat is permitted as he follows the first “stam” opinion.
[73] Taz 73/4
[74] This follows the opinion of Hagahos Sheid [brought in Taz 73/1]
The reason why we are stringent the Achronim explain is because there is an opinion in the Gemara that holds that if the liver is “Shaluk” rather than cooked then it is able to absorb back its blood. Now Shaluk literally means that the liver has remained in the water for a long time. However since we are not knowledgeable in the definition of this amount of time therefore we are stringent to always prohibit the liver. [Shach 73/8]
[75] Shach 73/9 based on Toras Chatas
[76] As the liver contains a lot of blood it which does not completely come out through salting even if the liver is cut open. [Shach 73/9]
[77] Brought in Taz 73/4 and Shach 73/9
[78] Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 9; See next footnote
[79] The Rashal explains that since the other food in the pot absorbed blood from the liver it becomes Chanan. Now, although the liver does not absorb blood from the pot its does absorb gravy of the other foods, and since this gravy is now forbidden, the liver itself is also forbidden. [ibid] The Shach argues against the Rashal that there is a rule which states that a Chanan Issur cannot travel more than the Issur itself, and hence here since the blood cannot become absorbed within the liver than neither can the gravy which became forbidden. [Shach 73/9] Some answer this question against the Rashal by stating that the fat of the other meat causes the liver to absorb its own blood. Accordingly if one cooked the liver in mere water then it would remain permitted as water does not contain fat which can cause the blood to travel back into the liver. [Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 9; Kreisy 73/1]
[80] 73/9
[81] Taz 73/4
[82] Taz 73/4
[83] 73/9
[84] Taz 73/1; Shach 73/9 in name of Toras Chatas
Ruling of Tur as explained in Taz 73/1: According to the Tur if a Rabbi ruled to a person like Rabbeinu Tam [that he may cook the liver after cutting it and salting it] then one may do so and the Rabbi is not required to retract his ruling. If however a Rabbi ruled that one may cook the liver alone even without salting it beforehand then he is forced to retract his ruling.
[85] Halacha Lemoshe 27
[86] As in this case the suspicion of the Rama does not apply as the liver does not remain within the water. Hence it is not similar to cooking liver. [ibid]
[87] See Pischeiy Teshuvah 73/4; Darkei Teshuvah 73/ 33; Darkei Halacha 73/1
[88] Peri Chadash; Makom Shmuel 29; Oatzer Chaim 10; Shaar Efraim 88; Miel Tzedaka 35 permits it if one washed the liver beforehand; Eimek Shieila 19
[89] Chok Yaakov 27; Chavos Yair; Bieir Eishek 46; Peri Hasadeh 4/49; Hakashrus 9 footnote 258
[90] 73/2
[91] See Seder Birchas Hanehnin 7/2 that it is only considered real vinegar regarding losing its blessing if the vinegar boils when placed onto the ground.
[92] The reason for this is because once the liver has been scalded its pours become closed and blood is no longer able to separate from it. [Shach 73/3]
[93] The reason the Geonim were stringent is because we are no longer expert in the definition of Chalita. Meaning we don’t know how hot the water must be and for how long the liver has to remain within the water. [Aruch Hashulchan 73/15; Rama 67/6; See Admur 454/7]
[94] Shach 73/10; Shulchan Gavoa 73/9; Zivcheiy Tzedek 73/22
[95] Shach 73/10
[96] The reason it is permitted is because the Geonim were only initially stringent on this matter. [Aruch Hashulchan 73/15]
[97] See above Halacha 7
[98] Shach 73/10
[99] Klal 24/5
Background of ruling of Rama in Toras Chatas:
The Rama in Toras Chatas rules that even Bedieved the liver and all other food is forbidden being that we are accustomed to prohibit liver that was cooked without being roasted [see Rama Halacha 7]. The Shach asks why the Rama rules in this case the liver is forbidden if even the Rambam which is the stringent opinion regarding cooked liver [in Halacha 7] rules that Bedieved if the liver was cooked after Chalita it is Kosher. The Shach explains the Rama as follows: Just like it is our custom [see Halacha 7] to prohibit even Bedieved liver that was cooked without roasting because we are not expert in how long the liver is allowed to remain in the hot water, similarly we are stringent here even Bedieved to prohibit liver that was cooked without being roasted, even if it had Chalita done to it, being we are not expert in Chalita. [In other words we see a precedent from Halacha 7 to prohibit the liver based on our lack of knowledge and hence here too we forbid the liver due to our lack of knowledge of Chalita.] [Shach 73/10]
Why the Rama in 67/6 rules leniently Bedieved:
The Rama in 67/6 rules that Bedieved if one did Chalita to meat and then cooked it without salting it beforehand the meat is permitted. Why here is the Rama stringent regarding liver. The Shach suggests two answers:
1. Liver contains a lot of blood and hence we are stringent even Bedieved regarding liver. [Thus if one did Chalita to liver, even if it was not yet cooked the liver is forbidden. However meat does not contain so much blood and hence Bedieved if one did Chalita and then cooked the meat without salting it beforehand, the meat is permitted. Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 10]
2. Since we are not expert in the definition of Chalita we consider the meat and liver to not have been scalded at all. Hence if Chalita was done, by meat we permit it to be salted and then cooked and by liver it is forbidden to be salted, as is always the law for Kashering liver, and rather it must be roasted. [Thus according to this second answer the Rama rules that if the liver was not yet cooked it may still be roasted. However according to the first answer the liver is forbidden even if it was not yet cooked. Likewise according to the first answer the meat is permitted even if it was cooked without salting. However according to the second answer the meat is only permitted if it was salted prior to cooking. Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 10]
[100] Minchas Yaakov 24/9; Aruch Hashulchan 73/15 based on the fact the Rama here in Shulchan Aruch does not argue on the Michaber. The Aruch Hashulchan ibid writes that all the greatest of Achronim agree to his ruling that the liver is Kosher Bedieved.
[101] Shach 73/10; Chavas Daas 73/9 as rules the Rama in Toras Chatas, and so is the final ruling of Bach.
[102] Kaf Hachaim 73/32
[103] Shach 73/10; Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 10; See Background of Toras Chatas in previous footnote.
[104] Machazikei Bracha 73/14; Bircheiy Yosef 69/1; Kaf Hachaim 73/33
[105] Ben Ish Chaiy Taharos 23
[106] See Rama 67/6; Shach 73/10; Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 10; See Background of Toras Chatas in previous footnotes.
[107] See Minchas Yitzchak 4/88-3; Beis Yitzchak 7; Har Tzevi 66
[108] 73/4
[109] Michaber ibid
[110] Shach 73/12
[111] The reason for this is because we do not apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto regarding the blood of liver being that liver contains a lot of blood. Hence if one roasts the liver on top of other meat the meat will absorb the blood of the liver that drips on it and this blood will not come out. [Shach 73/12 in name of Tosafus Chulin 111b] The Levush explains that the reason is because meat dissipates its blood a lot quicker than the liver and hence if one roasts liver on top of meat when the meat finishes dissipating its blood it will absorb the blood of the liver. The Shach negates this opinion. [Shach 73/12]
[112] Rashi brought in Kaf Hachaim 73/42
[113] The reason for this is because we apply the rule of Dam Mishrak Sharik, that the blood slides off the meat and does not become absorbed at all, hence Bedieved we permit the meat. [Gemara Chulin 111b brought in Shach 73/12] Nevertheless Lechatchilah one may not roast the liver above the meat as meat is soft and is easily able to absorb other blood and hence we do not initially rely on this rule. [Beis Yosef brought in Kaf Hachaim 73/42]
Opinion of Levush: The Levush explains that the reason the meat is permitted is not because of Mishrak Sharik but because Bedieved we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto and hence although the meat absorbs the blood of the liver it dissipates it together with its own Tzir. The Shach negates this opinion. [Shach 73/12]
[114] See Rama 76/1; Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 6
[115] The reason for this is because a skewer is commonly adjusted during the roasting and hence changes position from up to down, hence causing the liver to be on top of the meat. [Shach 73/13]
[116] Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 13
[117] Rama ibid
[118] Meaning it was salted Shiur Melicha as is required of regular meat as otherwise all the blood of the liver has remained and it would remain forbidden to roast it on top of other meat.
[119] This implies that it may certainly be roasted on bottom of the meat and so rules Shach 73/14; Peri Chadash 73/14 and other Poskim. However the Taz argues over this interpretation as will be explained below.
[120] 73/14
[121] As not all the blood of the liver has dissipated through the salting, and hence we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto to the blood that the liver will absorb from the other pieces of meat. This applies even according to Rabbeinu Tam. [Shach ibid]
Opinion of Derisha: The Derisha rules that only if the liver was not yet washed and is hence still releasing Tzir is it permitted to be roasted under meat that is being roasted for its blood. The Shach negates this opinion. [Shach ibid]
The opinion of Rama according to Shach: The Shach explains that the reason why the Rama uses the word “even” is because he holds it is certainly permitted to roast the liver under the other meats. [Shach Ibid]
Why we do not initially prohibit placing the liver on top just like we rule regarding other meat that is pre-salted: In 77/1 the Rama rules one may not roast meat that was previously salted for its blood together with meat that is being roasted for its blood. The Shach asks why here regarding liver is the Rama lenient? The Shach ibid explains that even by regular meat we are only initially stringent to not allow roasting them together. However Bedieved the meat is permitted as we apply the rule Kebolo Kach Polto. Now since liver contains a lot of blood even initially we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto and it is hence permitted to be roasted together even initially.
[122] Peri Chadash 73/14; Kreisy 73/6; Chochmas Adam Klal 34/14; Zivcheiy Tzedek 73/29; Kaf Hachaim 73/48
[123] 73/6
[124] The reason for this is because we rule like Rabbeinu Tam that salt helps remove the blood of liver [although the custom is unlike his opinion] and hence once it has been salted it is able to absorb the blood of the upper pieces of meat. [Taz ibid] The Shach in 73/14 and Nekudos Hakesef explain how in truth even according to Rabbeinu Tam it is permitted to roast the liver under the other meat as we apply the rule of Kebolo Kach Polto.
Opinion of Derisha: The Derisha rules that if the liver was not yet washed and is hence still releasing Tzir it is permitted to be roasted under meat that is being roasted for its blood. The Taz negates this opinion. [Taz ibid]
The opinion of Rama according to Taz: The Taz explains that even the Rama does not mean to permit roasting the liver under the meat and the reason why he says the word “even” is because he is saying that not only is it permitted to roast it on a skewer side by side but it is even permitted to roast it with the liver on top. [Taz ibid] The reason it is permitted to roast it on a skewer according to the Taz is because even if the skewer does turn over and the liver ends up being on bottom nevertheless the liver is permitted, and hence we are not stringent in this case to initially prohibit roasting on a skewer. [Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 6]
[125] Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 6; See previous footnote.
[126] Beir Heiytiv 73/11; Hakashrus 9/93
[127] Hakashrus 9/92
[128] Minchas Yitzchak 5/17; however see Moadim Uzmanim 3/136
[129] 73/5
[130] The reason for this is because the fire will cause the blood which became expelled due to the salt to become absorbed in the meat. Alternatively this custom was made in order to distinguish between meat and liver, to show that for liver salting is invalid. [Shach 73/16; Taz 73/7 in name of Issur Viheter; Mahril and Toras Chatas] According to the first reason mentioned if one did salt the liver prior to roasting he should rinse off the salt before roasting. [Shach ibid]
[131] Shach 73/16; The reason for this is because the fire will cause the blood which became expelled due to the salt, to become absorbed in the meat. [Shach ibid]
[132] 73/5
[133] Michaber ibid
[134] Shach 73/15, however if the meat was previously salted than even Bedieved the meat is forbidden according to the Rama as will be explained next. Hence the Michaber here must be referring to meat that was not yet salted for blood. [Shach ibid]
[135] Rama ibid
[136] Shach 73/15 as rules Rama in 70/6 regarding salting meat for its blood together with meat that was already salted. [See Chapter 70 Halacha 6]
[137] Kaf Hachaim 73/50 as rules Michaber 70/6
[138] Rama ibid
[139] Mordechai
[140] Shach 73/17
This is unlike the opinion of the Levush which requires a Kelipa even if the liver is not attached to the chicken but is merely touching it. [Shach ibid]
[141] Shach 73/17; So is implied from the Rama which only mentions the case regarding a chicken and not a cow. [ibid]
[142] Harei Besamim 2/124
[143] Although the Rama in 69/18 rules that the entire piece of meat becomes forbidden due to blood which separated from area to area, nevertheless in this case we are lenient as we do not prohibit blood that moved from one area to another by liver which is entirely blood. [ibid; see Chavas Daas 73]
[144] Shach 73/19 in explanation of Rama 73/5
[145] Shach 73/19 in name of Toras Chatas
[146] Shach 73/19
The Shach establishes this case of Rama to be referring to liver that was not washed Hadacha Rishona or Achrona, and is nevertheless permitted. His reason for establishing the case to refer even to Hadacha Rishona even though the simple reading of the Rama implies that only Hadacha Achrona was skipped is because the Rama already stated in 73/1 that if one did not wash the meat after roasting, the meat is permitted, and hence in order so his ruling here not be repetitive the Shach establishes the case to refer to that one did not wash the liver before the roasting. [Shach ibid]
[147] See Darkei Teshuvah 76/3; Hakashrus 9/88
[148] Darkei Teshuvah 73/17 in name of Migdal Hasheim 22
[149] As the water dries right away due to the fire and the prohibition of blood moving from place to place does not apply by liver. [ibid]
[150] 73/6
[151] Mordechai
[152] Shach 73/20 based on Darkei Moshe and Toras Chatas Klal 26
[153] Shach 73/21 partially based on Toras Chatas
[154] 73/6
[155] Michaber ibid
[156] Rama ibid
[157] Shach 73/22
[158] Rama ibid
[159] Shach 73/22
[160] Rama ibid
[161] Rama ibid
Ruling of Rama in Toras Chatas [brought in Shach 73/23 and Taz 73/8]:
The Rama in Toras Chatas [Klal 24/3] rules that the liver is also permitted if there is 60x being that even by meat [the fact that we forbid unsalted meat that was cooked even if there is 60x-See Chapter 69 Halacha 14] it is a mere stringency. Hence certainly by liver of which many Poskim rule that cooked liver always remains permitted being it does not absorb blood, if there is 60x the liver is permitted. Nevertheless the Rama in Toras Chatas concludes that Rabbeinu Yerucham is stringent to forbid the liver even in such a case and he is unable to argue on his opinion.
[162] Shach 73/23 based on Toras Chatas and so rules Bach; See Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 23
The novelty here is that we do not say since the blood of the liver has diminished therefore the liver is permitted if there is 60x in the pot.
[163] Shach 73/23
Background:
The Shach records the ruling of the Rama in Toras Chatas. The Shach states that the Rama’s source of stringency in Rabbeinu Yerucham is inaccurate and he thus concludes with a Tzaruch Iyun on this entire ruling of the Rama that the liver is forbidden even with 60x. [In truth however the Minchas Yaakov 23/6 edits that the Rama did not mean to write “Mahriv” which stands for Rabbeinu Yerucham, but rather Mahril and hence the entire question of the Shach against the source of the Rama was futile. See Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 8]
[164] Kaf Hachaim 73/65; However see Rav Poalim 1/7 that in Bagdad the custom is to discard the liver.
[165] Kreisy 73/8; Aruch Hashulchan 73/25
[166] Taz 73/8
[167] The reason for this is because forbidding the liver even in a case that there was not 60x is a stringency [as the Rashal rules the liver is permitted even in such a case being that it does not absorb the blood] and hence we are lenient to permit the food in the second pot. [Taz ibid]
[168] The Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 8 questions this statement saying it contradicts his previous statement that the liver does not prohibit other foods. The Aruch Hashulchan 73/25 concludes that this Taz has no understanding.
[169] See Peri Megadim 73 M.Z. 8
[170] Rama 73/6; See also Rama 76/2; 77/1; Taz 72/10;
Background of the laws of chicken with egg stuffing:
The first source that discusses the law of a chicken that is filled with eggs is the Mahrit [Mahriy Terushin] brought in the Hagahos Sheid [printed on page 27 in Shaareiy Dura Hashaleim]. There he novelizes that eggs congeal and prevent the blood of chicken from escaping. This is unlike the plain ruling of all his predecessors such as the Rambam, Smag and Igur which permit all fillings and do not differentiate between eggs and others. The below ruling of the Rama is hence based on this ruling of the Mahrit in Hagahos Sheid.
Ruling of Sefaradi Poskim: The Michaber makes no mention of this differentiation of eggs and meat. The Peri Chadash 73/22; 77/3; Shulchan Gavoa 77/3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 77/8; Kaf Hachaim 73/70; 77/13 all rule that the Sefaradim rule like the Rambam and Smag that there is no difference in law regarding an egg stuffing and thus it has the same law as all stuffing in which case we rule that the food always remains permitted.
[171] Shulchan Gavoa 73/27 adds the word “and it was roasted” The Maareh Kohen edits into the words of the Rama “A chicken that was roasted and filled with eggs” or “a chicken that was filled with eggs and was roasted with a heart or liver”. [Darkei Teshuvah 73/44]
[172] As rules the Mahrit; Hagahos Sheid and Rama in 77/1 that whenever one roasts chicken for its blood with an egg filling the food is considered cooked and is forbidden. Now although there it does not explicitly state whether the chicken is forbidden or only the egg, it is evident from the wording of the Mahrit brought in Hagahos Sheid that the chicken is forbidden as there he writes that the eggs prevent the blood of the chicken from leaving and hence it is considered as if the chicken was cooked in its blood. [Yad Yehuda Haaruch 77/7 and so is implied from Peri Megadim 77 M.Z. 4; Now although from Shach 77/5 which writes that if there is 60x in the filling versus “the Issur” than everything is permitted it is implied that the entire issue is the blood of the meat stuffing and not of the chicken and hence if there is no meat with the eggs everything is permitted, the Darkei Teshuvah 77/6 explains that “the Issur” here refers to the eggs, meaning if there is 60x of meat stuffing versus the eggs everything is permitted as the eggs are nullified.] Thus we must conclude that the above case is discussing a chicken that no longer contains blood. Upashut.
[173] See Note 1
[174] However the chicken did have its blood removed beforehand through salting for Shiur Melicha as explained in Note 2.
[175] Shach 73/24
[176] Although a chicken does not contain 60x its liver as discussed above, nevertheless it is possible for it to contain 60x a part of the liver and hence this law is applicable in a case that the liver is not whole. Likewise although a chicken always contains 60x its heart as discussed in Chapter 72 Halacha 9, nevertheless it is possible for the chicken not to have 60x its heart if the chicken is not whole. [Shach 73/25]
The reason why an egg stuffing causes the roasted chicken to have a status of cooked: When eggs are cooked they prevent the blood of the liver or heart from flowing out and hence the concept of Kebolo Kach Polto does not apply and the entire chicken is considered as if it was cooked with the liver. [Rama ibid; Shach 73/24] Alternatively since the eggs are liquid we consider it as if the chicken was cooked in liquid. [Yad Yehuda Aruch 77/7]
[177] Shach 73/24; Peri Megadim 73 S.D. 24; as is implied from Issur Viheter and Toras Chatas
Opinion of Rashal: The Rashal rules that the egg stuffing never joins the chicken for the 60x ratio even if the heart or liver is not attached to the chicken. The Levush understands this also to be the opinion of the Rama here. However the Shach negates this understanding in the Rama being that the Rama writes it has the same law as cooking which implies that the stuffing does join if the liver was not attached. [Shach ibid]
[178] Shach 73/25 and so rules Toras Chatas, Aguda, Mahril, Issur Viheter
[179] Rashal brought in Shach 73/25; Taz 72/10; and so rules Bach [brought in Shach ibid]
Opinion of Rashal: The Rashal rules that by egg stuffing the eggs do not join the 60x even if the liver is not attached to the chicken. Furthermore if the heart is attached to the chicken and the chicken is filled with eggs one requires 60x in the chicken versus the heart and the egg stuffing. If one does not have 60x then the entire chicken is forbidden. The Taz negates this opinion of the Rashal.
[180] Shach 73/25; Taz 72/10
[181] Taz 72/10
[182] Shach 73/26 as is implied from Rama ibid which writes “with meat and it does not have eggs”; and so rules Rama in Toras Chatas Klal 9/7
Opinion of Rashal: The Rashal [brought in Taz 72/10 and Shach 77/5] rules that if the chicken is stuffed with eggs and meat then if the chicken was salted for its blood together with this filling then we view the entire stuffing like it is eggs. If however the chicken was not salted with the stuffing then the stuffing is viewed as meat. The Shach 77/5 negates this opinion of the Rashal and rules as above that there is never a difference between salting and roasting regarding a stuffing of eggs with meat and so rules Rama in 73/6. The Rashal [printed in Mechonos-Ateres Shlomo on Shaareiy Dura] brings that he discussed this issue with the Rama face to face and the Rama argued on his opinion. The Rashal there goes on to defend his opinion against the opinion of the Rama.
[183] Peri Chadash 73/22; 77/3; Shulchan Gavoa 77/3; Zivcheiy Tzedek 77/8; Kaf Hachaim 73/70; 77/13; See Background
[184] Taz 72/10; See Chapter 72 Halacha 9
[185] Taz 72/10
Opinion of Rashal: The Rashal differentiates between a stuffing of meat and a stuffing of eggs. If the stuffing is meat then it joins the 60x in the pot if the liver is not attached to the chicken. If the stuffing is eggs then it does not join the 60x even if the liver is not attached to the chicken. Furthermore if the liver is attached to the chicken and the chicken is filled with eggs one requires 60x in the chicken versus the liver and the egg stuffing. If one does not have 60x then the entire chicken is forbidden and the pot requires 60x versus the entire chicken. If the chicken is stuffed with eggs and meat then if the chicken was salted for its blood together with this filling then we view the entire stuffing as if it is eggs. If however the chicken was not salted with the stuffing then the stuffing is viewed as meat. The Taz negates this opinion of the Rashal and rules as above that there is never a difference between eggs and meat in this regard.
[186] Chamudei Daniel 34 brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 69/26; Hakashrus 9/86; See Chapter 69 Halacha 16
[187] As there is no suspicion that one may come not to roast it, as liver must always be roasted regardless of whether it remained 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]
[188] See Hakashrus 9 footnote 263
[189] Mates Yado 89
[190] Sheivet Hakehasi 5/131
[191] Pischeiy Teshuvah 73/1 in name of Nodah Beyehuda; Teshuvah Meahavah 1/84; Chochmas Adam 34/16; Kaf Hachaim 65/4; Hakashrus 9/87; Peri Megadim 65 M.Z. 2
[192] The Taz 65/2 rules it is permitted to roast meat or liver over paper.
[193] Igros Moshe 3/14
[194] Although the Rama in 105/5 rules that we always require 60x versus the Issur being that we are no longer expert between fatty and lean, nevertheless here 60x is not required being that this is similar to the case mentioned in 105/8 regarding a kidney that was roasted together with its membrane and Cheilev in which we rule that the membrane separates between the kidney and the Cheilev and hence the kidney remains permitted with exception to a Kelipa. Now although the Rama there is stringent to forbid the entire kidney, that is because the case was dealing with fat. However blood is lean and thus in this case the Rama would be lenient. Furthermore we witness that plastic does have the ability to prevent liquid from penetrating and hence it is considered more of a blockage then the membrane. Thus even according to the Rama one may be lenient in this case to only require Netila. [Igros Moshe ibid]
[195] Chelkas Yaakov 2/105 as rules Rama 78/1; Darkei Teshuvah 78/4; Mishneh Halachos 5/91
[196] Moadim Uzmanim 3/236
[197] Minchas Yitzchak 5/17
[198] As this can cause the outside of the meat to cook leaving the inside still raw and thus containing blood. [ibid] See Hakashrus 9/89
Leave A Comment?
You must be logged in to post a comment.