Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/69
The PDF that this English translation was imported from can be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:The_Laws_of_Salting_Meat_-_Translated_Including_a_Summary_Of_Every_Shach_and_Taz_-_Ari_Enkin.pdf
The author-translator's preface can be found in text form at (this link).
דיני מליחה והדחה.
Contains 21 Seif
ובו כ"א סעיפים
Seif 1[edit](1) [1] One must rinse the meat before salting it. [2] (2) And if the butcher rinsed it, one need not rinse it at home, and if after rinsing the meat [3] another cut was made, [4] or the hooves (3) were removed after being rinsed, one must go back and re-rinse. Rema: And if the re-rinsing was not performed it is as if the meat was never rinsed.
Shach [1] The reason as brought by the Ran and the secondary opinion in the Mordechai is to soften the meat in order to allow for easy removal of the blood by the salt. The Mordechai writes that the reason is in order to remove any dirt which may be on the meat because otherwise the salt will simply fill up with blood and not do its job of removing the blood. The Hagos Maimoni is of the opinion that it is to remove the blood that is on the surface of the meat, for otherwise the salt will simply fill up with it and not perform its job of removing the blood that is inside the meat. [2] This is of course if the butcher performed a thorough rinsing as is required, such as by soaking the meat in a vessel. If so, then you need not wash it at home. However, a mere spraying is not acceptable even post facto. If we know the butcher rinsed the meat, we can assume it was done properly. [3] Only if cut with a knife will you have to go back and re-wash, because through the pressure of a knife, blood is brought up to the surface. However, according to the Ran who holds the reason for the washing is to soften the meat, it would make no difference how many cuts are made, and re-washing would not be required. However, halacha follows the opinion that the rinsing is due to blood, therefore re-washing will be required even post facto. [4] Re-washing is required only if the hooves were sliced off, however if they were not cut, they are as any other part of the meat, and no special washing is required. [5] However a small rinsing is insufficient, and one is required to go back and properly rinse the meat. However if the meat has already been salted after such a small rinsing, it is acceptable post facto. [6] However do not let the meat completely dry for then the salt will not stick to the meat or melt at ail. [7] According to the halacha it would be permissible to use the vessel with other things, because the vessel doesn’t absorb anything since the meat does not soak for twenty four hours, and it is used for cold items. However we customarily refrain from doing so due to blood that might be stuck to the vessel. [8] This is due to the rule that something soaked for twenty four hours, is as if it was cooked. (Kavush K’mevushal) [9] Later it is explained that it is even forbidden to roast this meat. If there was a sixty ratio of water against the meat, it may even be cooked. [10] The reason we permit it is because the second meat will not be in the vessel for a twenty four hour period. Even if it was soaked for twenty four hours, any taste released will be a stale one thereby not causing the meat to be forbidden. [11] The Maharshal writes that meat that was frozen may not be salted until it is defrosted. Meat that was salted but frozen before the end of the required salting period should be re-salted when it melts. If it wasn’t re-salted but it did undergo the required salting time after having thawed and it was subsequently cooked - it is permitted, post facto. Taz (1) The Bais Yosef brings two reasons for the primary rinsing, a) The Rosh holds it is for any blood that might have dried on the surface because salt will not absorb dry blood that is on the surface of the meat, b) The view of the Ran is that the washing is to soften the meat, making it easier for blood to escape during the salting. The Hagos Maimoni gives the reason that it is to remove the blood that is on the surface of the meat, for otherwise the blood will simply fill up with blood and not perform its function of removing the blood that is in the meat. (2) It seems that the butcher would have to soak the meat in water in order for it to be sufficient. A small spraying of water is insufficient. (3) The hooves. (4) However don’t let it totally dry because then the salt won’t stick to the meat and won’t bring out the blood. (5) The reason is because we fear that the vessel was not cleaned properly from the blood, however post facto the vessel is permissible. (6) However if there is a sixty ratio of water against the meat, the meat would be permissible, because even if it was cooked without being salted we are lenient in a case of great financial loss. Therefore, we would permit the meat even without incurring a great financial loss as long as there was sixty. The Rashal disagrees. Seif 2[edit][12] If one salted without first rinsing the meat, then wash it now and then (7) re-salt it, however some forbid this.
Shach [12] For the purposes of halacha it seems that in a case of great loss, or it is before Shabbos with no time to prepare more meat, it would be permitted if it was washed and re-salted, and not like the Maharshai who forbids it. [13] This is referring to the case of cooking , however it is permissible to roast it if it hadn’t sat in the salt for the entire time requirement. [14] This is because according to the view that the meat must be soft, surely a minimal rinsing can not accomplish that. However according to the view that it is for blood that is on the surface such a rinsing can indeed accomplish that. Even if it wasn’t cooked yet, it seems that this minimal rinsing is sufficient, and one is not required to go back and re-wash/re-salt. [15] This is surprising because there is no piece of meat that can be sixty times the size of the blood on it. However if you do have such a piece, it would be fine. [16] Because to the other pieces this blood is as any other blood. Taz (7) The reason is so that it can go back and release what it has absorbed. Those who forbid it do so because they hold that the salt can’t release blood that it absorbed from the surface of meat. (8) There are two reasons for this, a) because we are not competent enough to be able to distinguish between a slight salting for the purpose of roasting, and one for the purpose of cooking and b) because even a slight salting, such as in preparation for roasting, can cause some of the surface blood to be absorbed. (9) Meaning that in an emergency it is permitted even if it sat for the entire salting time. (10) The meat is permitted in this case based on the view that the rinsing is for the blood that is on the meat’s surface. However, regarding the view that the rinsing is for the purpose of softening the meat, it would not be acceptable. Those who permit it are relying on those who rule that the reason for the rinsing is to remove surface blood. (11) The other pieces are permitted because we assume that since the other pieces are in the process of releasing blood, then they won’t absorb any. Also we assume that even if it would absorb blood, it will immediately release it based on the principle of “K'bolo Kach Polto" Seif 3[edit]The salting is not performed with [17] salt that is as (12) thin as flour nor with salt that is too thick so that it will fall off the meat however if the [18] only salt you have is thin then it may be used. Shach [17] This is because thin salt will just be absorbed by the meat, and not do its job. However, post facto, any salt is acceptable. [18] The reason the Rema didn’t address the issue of thick salt is simply because you can turn thick salt into thin salt by cutting or grating it. Taz (12) This is because thin salt will be absorbed into the meat. The maximum thickness of salt is that of salt that is gathered from sea water. Anything thicker than this must be made thinner. One should always be careful as to which surfaces one puts his raw meat on. if meat is mistakenly placed on a surface soiled with salt, it is as if the meat has been salted without rinsing. Also, one should be careful not to leave salt in a place where someone might place raw meat. Seif 4[edit]The salt should be spread over the meat so that no place on the meat is without salt and salted to the extent that it would not be edible with such an amount of salt. [19] More salt than this is not needed. The salting must be done on both sides of the meat, (13) and the insides of poultry must also be salted. In a case where one only salted the inside or outside, or only one side of the meat, it is acceptable.
Shach [19] The salt need not be piled high. A thick piece of meat need not be cut to make it two thinner pieces for the purposes of salting. [20] This is regarding the beginning of the halacha which stated that there must remain no place without salt. However we are not so particular regarding spots that were not completely salted. It is proper to be careful initially, however it does not render the meat unfit. [21] The implication is that if the meat has already been cooked it is forbidden, and nothing can be done. However if it wasn’t cooked yet, then in a case of great loss we can permit the meat by going back and salting the other side within twenty four hours. [22] The explanation is that once it is in the process of releasing blood, it will also release anything that it possibly absorbed from the other side. This is referring to a case where the meat wasn’t washed off. However the pores on meat which has been washed off become immediately closed and further slating won’t help. [23] Even if it did absorb, it will release. “K'bolo kach polto" Taz (13) This refers to anything that has openings, such as the lungs, which must be opened before sailing, if one did not cut open the head, and salted it as is, it is acceptable, but if one did cut the head, both sides must be salted. It is most meticulous to cut the head open or to at least poke a hole in the skull, so that the blood will flow out. (14) We permit meat salted on one side in the case of a great loss. If salt was not covering the entire piece of meat, it is also acceptable even if no great loss will occur. (15) If the meat wasn’t cooked then the only option is to re-salt it as long as it’s within twelve hours, which is the time period in which meat releases fluids (tzir).Therefore this new salting won’t affect the side that is in the process of being salted. There are cases of a great loss in which we are more lenient and assume that meat releases fluids for twenty four hours. We can not use this leniency here because it can not be called a case of great loss, since one can still use the meat by roasting it. Of course, all this is speaking of a case where the meat was not washed off after having been salted. If the meat has been washed off then the pores of the meat close, and further salting won’t help. Seif 5[edit](16)[24] If one cuts the meat after having salted it one need not re-salt the place of the cut. Shach [24] This is if the cut was made after the required salting period. However, if it was done during the salting period, one must go back and re-rinse and re-salt the place that was cut. Taz (16)We must be speaking of a case where the cut was made after the required salting time since we assume that after such time all the blood has been removed. However, if the cut was made within the required time, then re-rinsing and resalting is required. It makes no difference if a piece of meat is thin or thick regarding the laws of salting. Seif 6[edit]The required salting time is no less than the time it takes to walk a mil, which [25] is about a third of an hour.
Shach [25] This is eighteen minutes. [26] Meaning if one already washed the meat off after this short period of time and then cooked it. Seif 7[edit]Before one puts the meat into the vessel in which it is to receive its final rinsings [27] the salt should be wiped off or the meat should be sprayed with water, and then the meat should be placed in the vessel to be used for rinsing. The meat is rinsed off twice and the vessel should be sprayed off as well between the two rinsings.
Shach [27] The reason is that if one placed the meat in a vessel with water but it had no holes, the meat would then absorb the blood and salt that is on it. [28] It seems that the Rema is not arguing with the Mechaber, and is simply ruling that a spraying or wiping of the meat followed by two intensive rinsings would be acceptable. Regarding the Rema’s second view of requiring three rinsings - it is because the large quantity of water used will nullify the intensity of the tzir and an initial wiping/spraying would not be needed. [29] Post facto, if one only rinsed off the meat once and then cooked it, it is acceptable, [30] This is based on the Gemara in Masechet Chullin, daf 33, that says if one slaughtered an animal and blood did not come out, then one may eat the meat with hands that are tamay. This is because the meat is not susceptible to tuma due to the fact that blood did not come out. Tosafos asks: Shouldn't the meat become susceptible to tuma when one rinsed it out in the water'? The two answers given are the a) the meat was to be roasted or D) it was rinsed in fruit juice. Therefore it seems that fruit juice would be permissible even for the preliminary washing, in contradiction to the Rema that holds it would be permissible only for the washing after salting. Taz (17) Two questions may be asked. A) What is the Rema coming to teach us since anyway the Mechaber holds that spraying off the meat or wiping it off followed by two washings in a vessel is enough. And b) the “or” place it three times in a vessel is not acceptable because rinsing it by hand is initially and ideally required! Therefore it seems that the ”or" is a printers mistake and everything works out well by saying that the Mechaber holds that two rinsings is enough, and that the wiping is not for the purposes of rinsing but rather in order to help prevent the meat from absorbing the salt and blood which is on it. (17*) see Shach [30]. Seif 8[edit]If one did not wipe off the salt, nor rinse it we don’t forbid the meat [31] because the water in the vessel will nullify the potency of the salt.
Shach [31] Not only water, even tzir. Water was written in order to exclude the case where only forbidden blood was in the vessel thereby forbidding the meat until a klipah is removed. [32] Even if some liquid was in the vessel, the meat is still permitted because it was there for a short period of time, however if tzir was in the vessel, the meat is immediately forbidden. [33] What is meant is that since the vessel is clean it won’t matter if it is treif or dairy even if there is presently no water in the vessel. However, if the vessel is dirty the meat would be forbidden unless there was at least a little water in the vessel. It seems from the Rema that all this is true even if the vessel is a ben-yomo. because salt won’t bring out absorbed taste. Taz (18) Since the vessel is clean it will not matter even if the vessel is dairy. However if the vessel is dirty it is forbidden unless there was at least a little water in the vessel. The Rashal permits a vessel that even had remains of a dairy food product, as long as it is not the actual dairy ingredient. Seif 9[edit]Meat that was salted and then cooked without a final washing must have a sixty ratio (19) [34] against the salt that is upon it.
Shach [34] The reason we need sixty against the salt and that it is not sufficient just to have sixty against the blood is because we don’t know how much blood was absorbed. The rules of chana"n can not be applied here, because they apply only to situations of milk and meat. You also need sixty against the blood on the meat in addition to the salt. [35] We can’t say that one must have sixty against this entire piece in question, because the rules of chana"n don’t apply here, and because blood is not considered an issur davuk because salt dissolves once placed into a liquid. Everyone follows the opinion of the Rema here. [36] There is no piece that can have sixty against the blood and salt that is upon it. Even a thick piece. [37] In a case of great loss, one may be lenient, however, ideally, a kli sheini should not be permitted. [38] And any other sharp ingredients will cause it to cook in a kli sheini. [39] This is referring to a case that it was not washed after its salting and then dried. It would be permitted even in a kli rishon but initially one should be careful and wash it off properly. [40] However post facto it is permitted. The case is only considered post facto if it was cooked already, but if not. one must go back and re-wash and re-salt. [41] It is even forbidden if the salt has completely dried. Taz (19) Sixty against the blood is not sufficient because the salt becomes neveilah. The piece does not become neveilah because the salt dissolves once placed in water. (20) We are referring to everything that is contained in the pot, not the pot itself. (21) The wording of “thirty times the salt”, is the proper wording. (22) Kli Sheini is the pot that the piece is placed into. (23) The Maharshal holds that the salt does not increase the cooking speed, for it is weakened from having salted the meat. One who holds like him will not loose. Unsalted ox meat placed in a kli-rishon may be removed and salted if it did not boil yet since ox meat takes a long time to cook. This applies only to meat such as this that takes a while to cook, and not to any other meat. Seif 10[edit][42] A non-Jew who works in Jew’s home, who is cooking a piece of meat that we’re not sure if it was washed off is subject to the following halacha: If the non-Jew knows Jewish customs, we may believe to say he washed it off if there was an adult Jew occasionally walking in and out, or if there was a knowledgeable child.
Shach [42] The Mechaber did not bring down mesiach Ifi tumo, for he does not hold of it, however the Rema does. [43] Even if he is aware of the Jewish customs, he is believed in a case of mesiach Ifi tumo. How is it possible to have a case of mesiach Ifi tumo if he knows what is forbidden/permitted? It is in a case where he casually told others that he washed it. Taz (24) The mesiach Ifi tumo referred to here is a case where he did not explicitly come to provide necessary information. For example, he is speaking with regard to other matters , and indirectly provided the information needed. In such a way is he believed. How much better if he knows the customs may he be believed since he is an employee and wants tofulfil his masters wishes. However if he has ulterior motives, such as wanting to be favored by a Jew, we don’t accept his mesiach Ifi tumo. If there is someone walking in and out we don’t even need mesiach Ifi tumo, as is how the Rema ruled. The reason a non-Jew is believed with mesiach Ifi tumo is because the prohibitions here are of a rabbinical nature. In a case where meat has been cooked, and you are unsure whether it had been salted, the meat is permitted for the same reason i.e. that is a doubt in a rabbinical law. It can also be said that there is a chazakah that in the majority of situations one will have surely salted his meat. A rov is stronger than a chazakah. (25) Even a simple child is sufficient. Seif 11[edit][44] Meat that has been cooked without having been salted is permitted if there are [45] sixty times (26) that piece in the pot, (27) and all the other meat is permitted as well.
Shach [44] Even if it was not cooked, as long as it was placed in a pot that was hot, sixty is required to permit it. [45] Sixty against the blood is not permitted, for we do not know the amount of blood that came out. [46] The reason it’s forbidden is because the blood has moved around inside the meat, therefore we need sixty against the whole piece. All the other meat remains permitted. [47] Or in a case of great loss. [48] Even if there is sixty, that piece remains forbidden. The purpose of the sixty is to be able to permit the other pieces that has been cooked with it. Taz (26) The reason we require sixty against the meat, and not just the blood is because we don’t know how much blood came out. (27) That is because any blood that mixed in with the other meat is batel. (28) The reason is because the piece has been cooked in its own blood. It is also for the reason that the taste of the blood remains in the meat and is not weakened or nullified, therefore the entire piece is forbidden. Another reason is because the blood is considered an issur davuk, and if the piece of meat was exposed outside of the liquid in the pot before it let out the blood, there is now lacking sixty against the blood, and it therefore becomes forbidden. (29) Poultry that has many openings is forbidden even in a case of great need since the blood had moved from place to place. (30) The case is speaking about having been salted properly but not having sat in the salt the required time. Seif 12[edit]Meat that was left for three full days without having been salted can no longer be salted because the blood has dried and will no longer be released through salting. Therefore it [49] may not be cooked [50] only roasted (31) and after it is roasted [51] it still may not be cooked (32) but if it was it is permitted.
Shach [49] Even if it is placed in warm water to ‘awaken’ the blood, it will not help. [50] It need not be fully salted, just slightly as is done before roasting. Nikkur should always be performed within three days, but if it was delayed the meat is still permitted to be cooked. [51] The reason is because we fear that maybe not all the blood came out during the roasting, and it may now come out in the subsequent cooking, since cooking is more intense than roasting. However, if it was cooked, we will assume that all blood that could have come out, did indeed came out during the roasting and that no more will come out during the cooking. The case of liver is different, in which it may be even initially cooked after having being roasted since salting is not adequate for liver and roasting is mandatory, therefore we assume that all blood that would have come out has indeed been expelled. Over here though, the blood has dried up within the meat, and it could be that the roasting did not get all the blood out, therefore it should not be cooked even after being roasted. [52] Don’t leave it out for three days even is you intend to roast it because you may forget and cook it. Taz (31) The reason is because perhaps the roasting didn’t remove all the blood, and the cooking may bring up more blood. (32) And not like those that forbid it if it is cooked, even post facto. Meat that went three days without being salted, and is now salted with other meat is forbidden since even though it won’t release any blood, it still absorbs blood. I found a source to permit cooking meat that went three days without being salted, if it was properly salted and then roasted. Seif 13[edit](33) [53] If the meat was soaked in water within three days, it may go another three days (34) (54) less half an hour.
Shach [53] The Rema holds that one should not soak meat for the purpose of letting it sit another three days. However In the case of a great loss one may even initially do so for that purpose. The soaking for this purpose must be for at least an hour or two. [54] Not exactly half an hour, just slightly less. Taz (33) This is only if it sat half an hour, however simply pouring water does not help. If nikkur was performed within three days, this superficial pouring of water will be considered as not having gone three days without water, post facto, but before the salting a proper soaking is required even post facto. (34) A half an hour which is the time requirement for the soaking. Seif 14[edit]Meat that was left unsalted for three days [55] and was then mixed up with other pieces is [56] nullified [57] among the permissible majority, and [58] all the pieces may be cooked (35) [59] even if it was a chaticha ha’ruya I’hischabed. (This is also the rule for pieces cooked without being salted, and then mixed with others.) Shach [55] That is mixed with other pieces that have not yet gone three days without being salted. All pieces may then be salted and cooked. Or alternatively, it can also be a case where all the pieces were salted, and one piece among them was over three days old. The law is that they may all now be cooked. [56] The meat should seemingly be considered a davar sheyesh lo matirim, and not be able to be nullified, however since it can be roasted at any time it is not a davar sheyesh lo matirim. [57] This requires further study for if it is cooked, the blood will give taste to the meat in the pot making this mixture a min b’sheino mino requiring sixty and not just a majority. [58] They may all be cooked if they are cooked piece by piece or even all together if additional food is added to make a sixty ratio against the meat in question, otherwise not. One need not throw a piece away as in other cases because the case here is one of chumra instituted by the Geonim and not of halacha. [59] For it is not intrinsically forbidden but rather it is because of the blood within it. Taz (35) For the issur here is not of itself but rather due to the blood that is within it, and the blood is not ruyah I’hischabed. It is also not considered a davar sheyesh lo matirim because it may be roasted. The same is also true if an unsalted piece is mixed with two other salted pieces, then one need not re-salt them all due to the uncertainty of which one is which. Here too, it is also not considered a davar shyesh lo matirim because a financial loss is incurred to perform the salting. Seif 15[edit](36) [60] Meat covered in blood that was sitting in water for twenty four hours is forbidden by some unless it is roasted (37) [61] or unless there is sixty in the water against it, ([62] Some even forbid it to be roasted, and this is how we should act.) Shach [60] It is not necessarily forbidden due to blood but rather it is forbidden simply because it was soaked. To even permit it for roasting requires further study, for the blood is considered as b’eyn. [61] This makes the piece permitted. We should be lenient in this case for it to be roasted only and not cooked, and if there wasn't sixty it remains forbidden. [62] Even if roasted and even if it wasn’t dirty, since it was soaked, it is forbidden. Taz (36) This is referring to a case before salting and it is permitted because it was nullified. (37) One may rely on the Rema and permit meat that was soaked in water if there was sixty even if it is not a case of great loss. Seif 16[edit]We perform the salting only in a vessel with holes or upon straw or shavings or in a diagonal position insuring that if water was spilled onto it, it would flow off immediately.
If one performed the salting in a vessel without holes (39) [63] it is forbidden to use the vessel with very hot items.
Some say that even with cold items it is forbidden to use the vessel unless it is washed down well, and if it was used without first being washed off, the item used should be washed off.
Shach [63] Even after the vessel has been washed. [64] This is referring to a case where the dish was cold, and a boiling hot item was placed upon it making both considered to be 'cold' because of the rule of tatai gavar. even so one must take a klipah, even if it is dry, [65] As a general rule, we assume that the food in a vessel is sixty times that of its klipah, therefore why is the Rema stating this law here? Rather, this is the general rule with regards to most vessels, however, a vessel that is very wide and not high might not have sixty. [66] An earthenware vessel may not be initially used without being washed off. Other vessels, however, are permitted as long as they are at least wiped down before use. [67] This is because salting can not bring out the taste from a vessel. Why then did the Rema write this here after the some say’? This is because one will probably wash off the meat before cooking it. One may even place it on a nonkosher vessel. However with other things, even if cold, it is forbidden to use this vessel for one might forget to rinse it off. [68] For example, salting for preservation, in which the meat is often left in the salt for longer than 24 hours, is permitted because the salting does not bring out taste from vessels. Even if taste would come out after the 24 hours of salting, it would be considered nosen taam lifgam. Ideally meat should not be left in such a vessel, because nosen taam lifgam is initially forbidden. Taz (38) The ‘one need not worry’ is not referring to the case of water not being able to flow out, for the meat becomes forbidden in such a case even post facto. (39) Salt can not bring out taste absorbed in a vessel. However, a vessel can absorb taste from the salt, and will come out through cooking. This is why one may not use the vessel for boiling hot foods. One may use the vessel for cold items, even if it was not washed out. (40) Because salt won’t bring out taste. (41) We are speaking of a case of salting for preservation in which a lot of salt is used for a long period of time. If it sat for twenty four hours on such a vessel it is forbidden because of kavush k’mevushal and we assume that it absorbed taste from the vessel. Therefore we must be speaking of a case in which it is in this vessel for less than 24 hours. Seif 17[edit](42) But if it has holes [69] it is permissible to eat boiling hot food from it, and there are some that forbid boiling hot [70]One should be careful initially (43) but post facto, it is permitted. Shach [69] Because in a vessel with holes, blood does not get absorbed into the walls of the vessel. [70] However with an earthenware vessel it is forbidden even post facto, but with cold it is permitted even initially if wiped well. Taz (42) For the blood flows out, and is not absorbed in the vessel, (43) An earthenware vessel is forbidden even post facto if it was boiling hot. Seif 18[edit]Meat [71] that was salted in a vessel without holes [72] and was left for as long as it takes for water to begin boiling is subject to the following rules: Anything in the tzir is forbidden even for roasting, and what is outside the tzir is not forbidden [73] expect for a klipah’s worth, even if it is fatty.
Shach [71] According to the Mechaber whatever is so salty that it can not be eaten is considered as boiling (roseiach). However, we follow the Rema who holds that any amount of salting renders it roseiach for we are not experts in differentiating between the different levels of saltines. [72] This is because soaking is the equivalent to cooking, and if the time wasn’t as long as it takes for water to boil, then anything in the tzir is forbidden until a klipah is removed for salting is the equivalent to boiling. If it was left for as long as it takes for water to boil, it is entirely forbidden, even for roasting. [73] Meaning even if the place that touched the piece that was in the tzir is fatty, it is not assumed that it flows to all parts of the meat. We only forbid parts where the blood could actually flow to on its own. Fattiness can only spread blood to a place where blood can flow on its own. [74] This is because once salted, the blood begins to move from place to place, and if the vessel has no holes then the blood just gets re-absorbed into the meat and will not be taken out by another sailing or roasting. [75] if a piece fell into tzir that is in a vessel without holes, and we are uncertain whether it fell before the required salting time has passed or not, then whatever is outside the tzir is permitted. However, if we are sure that it fell before the required salting time, the entire piece is forbidden, even that which is outside the tzir, for it is considered as if it was salted in a vessel without holes. 176] If this piece was mixed with other pieces, and even cooked, then it is nullified in a majority, and sixty is not required, however, sixty is required by rabbinical law if cooked. [77] Meaning the other pieces that are not actually touching the tzir. Taz (44) This is because the blood flows down, and since there is nowhere for the blood to go it is absorbed into the piece of meat. The Rashal ruled to permit such a piece when nullified in a majority. (45) The reason is because the top pieces are permitted, for the higher pieces can still release their blood. Even a klipah need not be removed. Seif 19[edit]After meat has been salted and washed, it may even be placed in water that is not boiling [78] and there are those that require it to be placed in boiling water. Rema: The custom is to follow the first opinion. Shach [78] The reason is in order to manipulate any remaining blood to come out through boiling. The Mechaber holds it is best to observe this ideally, but the Rema holds it is of no concern, and any red juice that flows out after salting is certainly not blood. Seif 20[edit]Meat that was salted for as long as required and then placed in a vessel without holes without being washed off [79] and then filled up with tzir is permitted. (46) According to this, meat that fell into tzir that came out of the meat (47) after the required salting time is permitted. There are those who forbid it no matter what, and they should be followed initially.
(52) [85] According to his words even though meat sat in salt its required time, one may not eat it until it is washed off well. It is forbidden to cut it with a knife before it gets washed [86] and if cut, the knife must be kashered.
If one wants to then go and perform a salting in order to preserve the meat after it has been property salted for blood in a vessel with holes, [92] then the meat must be washed off well and resalted. It may even be re-salted in a vessel without holes. If one wants [93] to salt meat and eat it roasted without washing one may do so and we are not worried about the blood that is on the salt, for the fire sucks out the blood and the salt can not absorb it. This is when it is salted and put on to be roasted, but if it sat in the salt, the salt absorbs blood, and the meat becomes forbidden. Therefore, it must be washed off well, then roasted, and then it may be eaten. (See later on in section 76 regarding the law for meat that was salted without being washed off, and then roasted) Shach [79] The reason is because tzir that comes from the meat after sitting the required salting period is simply ordinary juice. Even though the salt that is on the meat is forbidden for it is mixed with blood , and is melted in the tzir, it is nevertheless nullified. [80] The reason some forbid it is because the tzir coming from the meat after the required salting time is absorbed into the meat because it is still considered roseiach, however it is only absorbed through the klipah. Those who forbid it, forbid it immediately. It seems though that if the meat was washed once before being put into a vessel that had no holes, the meat is permitted even if it fills with tzir, for everyone agrees that post facto one washing suffices. [81] A sixty ratio won't help to nullify it because any time that a klipah is to be removed the rules of nullification do not apply. The Maharshal argues on the Rema and forbids anything in the tzir and even a klipah above it. If there is a sixty to one ratio of meat and tzir it is permitted, however what is in the tzir does not combine to nullify for blood does not flow upwards. [82] A vessel used to salt meat is forbidden to the depth of a klipah, however, here it appears that the vessel is forbidden because a vessel can not be peeled of its klipah, for example: if a lot of tzir has been absorbed into it, or it is an earthenware vessel which is entirely forbidden. [83] From the words of the Rema it seems that when the dairy vessel is not dirty with dairy residue, it is permitted even if it was used that day since we rule that salt does not bring out taste that is absorbed in a vessel. The Rema forbids the meat since there is probably not a sixty ration against the residue. [84] Meaning that in a case of great loss even if the vessel was dirty we assume that the tzir is not roseiach. [85] Considering that everyone agrees that the meat must be washed off after salting, what then is the new insight that the Mechaber is trying to teach over here? One must then say that for sure the reason for washing is to remove salt and dirt, therefore if one sliced the meat on all sides in such a way that there is now no salt on the meat it would be permissible to eat it without washing. However, according to those who require the washing because the tzir is considered as blood, one must always wash it first no matter what in order to close up the pores. [86] This is only according to the view of the one who forbids it. However, according to what the Mechaber ruled that ideally one must be careful but post facto it is permitted, it emerges that initially one is forbidden to cut it, but if it was cut the knife doesn’t need kashering. [87] Even if there are indentations in the knife, thereby not allowing for any liquid to flow off, nevertheless it is permitted because the motions of the knife release anything on it surface. [88] For the blood flows, and is not absorbed into the knife. This is for a vessel in that we can say that the blood will flow, however for all other vessels there is some absorption via the salt. [89] It seems that it is even initially permitted to cut with this knife, but afterwards the knife must be washed, and one will usually wash a knife before the next usage anyways so there is no need to worry. One may also be lenient in light of the fact that no prohibitions are involved once it has gone through the required salting time according to most poskim. However, it is initially forbidden to cut meat with a non-kosher knife, but post facto one need not worry, [90] Even if the tzir has not dried yet, one is still required to wash it. [91] The knife is to be thrusted into the ground ten times. See section 121. [92] This is going on the last view in the Mechaber as well that it is still considered roseiach after the salting period, therefore it must be washed before being released of the tzir. [93] see section 76. Taz (46) The reason is that once the required salting time has passed, the tzir is not considered to be roseiach. According to Rashi if one cut the meat after the required salting time it needs only to be washed, for the tzir is considered as a cold substance now, not roseiach, but the Mechaber requires purging. (47) The reason is that the tzir coming from the meat after the salting time is as any liquid. Even though the salt on the meat is forbidden for it is mixed with blood, nevertheless, the blood dries up into the salt and has no strength to be absorbed into the meat, as well as the fact that the salt has no strength after the salting period. This is all in a case of great loss, if not, one should not be lenient for many are of the opinion that the salt is still considered roseiach. (48) But the Rashal holds that whatever is in the tzir is absolutely forbidden. He also says that if this piece is mixed with others it doesn’t need sixty, only a majority to be nullified. It is a case where one may rely on Rashi who is lenient in any case. (49) For the vessel will easily absorb since it has nowhere to go. (50) This is even if it is not dirty. As long as the dairy vessel is ben-yomo, it is forbidden (51) Meaning that in a case of great loss one may be lenient as in the first opinion that doesn’t consider the tzir roseiach after the salting period. (52) This is difficult to understand for even the first opinion in the Mechaber, which is Rashi’s view, one must wash the meat well after salting. Therefore, why did he write this law as being according to the one that forbids it? One must say that according to Rashi one need not wash the meat off right away, and it may even be put it into a vessel without holes until one is ready to cook it and then wash it. However according to those who forbid it for it is considered as roseiach one must immediately wash the meat before placing it into a vessel without holes, but this is not mentioned in the words of the Mechaber. (53) It seems that the knife is permitted even if cut during the sailing time because the blood will flow off. This poses a difficulty based on section 17 where it should be permitted even in a vessel with holes based on this, and nevertheless the Rema forbids it! This requires further study. Seif 21[edit]In a place where salt is not easily found, one should roast the meat (54) until its blood has come out, and then one may cook it. Taz (54) It is proper to roast it until it is dry on the outside, for then all the blood has surely come out, and not simply a partial roasting.
|
סעיף א[edit]צריך להדיח הבשר קודם מליחה. ואם הדיחו הטבח אין צריך להדיחו בבית (טור). אם אחר שהדיח חתך כל נתח לשנים או לשלשה (או שהסיר טלפי הרגלים לאחר ההדחה (ארוך כלל ד וי"ז)) -- צריך לחזור ולהדיחם. הגה: ואם לא עשה כן הוי כלא הודח כלל (שם).
סעיף ב[edit]אם מלח ולא הדיח תחילה -- ידיחנו וימלחנו שנית. ויש אוסרין.
סעיף ג[edit]לא ימלח במלח דקה כקמח ולא במלח גסה ביותר שנופלת מעל הבשר אילך ואילך (ואם אין לו מלח אחר רק מלח דק כקמח -- מותר למלוח בו) (ד"ע) סעיף ד[edit]יפזר עליו מלח שלא ישאר בו מקום מבלי מלח וימלח כדי שלא יהא ראוי לאכול עם אותו מלח. ואינו צריך להרבות עליו מלח יותר מזה. ומולחו משני צדדים. ועופות צריך למלחם גם מבפנים. ואם לא מלחם אלא מבפנים או מבחוץ, וכן חתיכה שלא נמלחה אלא מצד אחד -- מותר.
אחר שנמלחה החתיכה, אם חתך ממנה -- אינו צריך לחזור ולמלוח מקום החתך. סעיף ו[edit]שיעור שהייה במלח אינו פחות מכדי הילוך מיל שהוא כדי שלישית שעה בקירוב.
קודם שיתן הבשר בכלי שמדיחו בו ינפץ מעליו המלח שעליו או ישטפנו במים. ואחר כך יתן הבשר בכלי שמדיחין בו וידיחנו פעמיים וישטוף הכלי בין רחיצה לרחיצה.
אם לא ניפץ המלח שעליו ולא שטפו -- אין לאסור, כי המים שבכלי מבטלין כח המלח
ויש מתירין אפילו לא היו מים כלל בכלי והניחו בו הבשר; דאין לחוש בשעה מועטת כזה שעוסקין בהדחה הבשר (ש"ד ואו"ה כלל א וי'. ועיין לקמן סעיף כ). ויש לסמוך עלייהו. ואין לחוש בכל זה רק בהדחה ראשונה אבל לאחר הדחה ראשונה אין לחוש (כך משמע ממרדכי ור"ן).
בשר שנמלח ונתבשל בלא הדחה אחרונה צריך שיהא ששים כדי המלח שבו.
עכו"ם משמש בבית ישראל ונתן הבשר בקדירה ואין ידוע אם הדיחו -- אם יודע העכו"ם מנהג ישראל סומכין על דבריו אם היה שם ישראל יוצא ונכנס או שום קטן בן דעת.
בשר שנתבשל בלא מליחה -- צריך שיהיה בתבשיל ששים כנגד אותו בשר ואז מותר הכל.
בשר ששהה ג' ימים מעת לעת בלא מליחה -- נתייבש דמו בתוכו ולא יצא עוד על ידי מליחה ואין לאוכלו מבושל אלא צלי. ואחר שצלאו לא יבשלנו. ואם בישלו -- מותר. ואין להשהות בשר ג' ימים בלא מליחה דחיישינן שמא יבשלו (ב"י בשם פסקי מהר"י סימן קצא) סעיף יג[edit]ואם שרו אותו במים תוך השלשה ימים יכול להשהותו עוד ג' ימים אחרים פחות חצי שעה. (אגור) (בשר שנמלח וספק אם נמלח תוך ג' -- מותר) (בארוך) סעיף יד[edit]בשר ששהה שלשה ימים בלא מליחה ונתערבה אותה חתיכה בחתיכות אחרות -- בטלה ברוב ומותר לבשל כולן ואפילו היתה ראוייה להתכבד. (וכן הדין בנתבשל בלא מליחה ונתערב אחר כך באחרות) (או"ה) סעיף טו[edit]בשר המלוכלך בדמים שנשרה במים מעת לעת -- יש אוסרים לאכלו כי אם צלי אלא אם כן יש במים ששים כנגדו (ועיין ס"ק נו). (ויש אוסרין אפילו לצלי והכי נהוג) (או"ה) סעיף טז[edit]אין מולחין אלא בכלי מנוקב או על גבי קשין וקיסמין או במקום מדרון בענין שאם ישפך שם מים יצאו מיד.
ואם מלח בכלי שאינו מנוקב -- אסור להשתמש באותו כלי בדבר רותח. הגה: ואם נשתמש בו בעי קליפה אם הוא דבר יבש (רשב"א) ואם הוא דבר לח בעינן ששים נגד קליפה מן הקערה (ב"י בשם י"א) ויש אומרים שאפילו בצונן אסור להשתמש בו בלא הדחה ואם נשתמש בו בלא הדחה ידיח מה שנשתמש בו. הגה: אבל מותר לחזור ולמלוח בה בשר לאחר שנקבוה או אפילו בלא נקיבה אם הבשר שהה כבר במליחתו והודח (ב"י בשם הגהת ש"ד וארוך) סעיף יז[edit]אבל אם הוא מנוקב מותר לאכול בו אפילו רותח. ויש אוסרין ברותח. ויש ליזהר לכתחלה ובדיעבד מותר (ארוך כלל ג). סעיף יח[edit]בשר שנמלח בכלי שאינו מנוקב ושהה בו כשיעור שיתנו מים על האש ויתחילו להרתיח כל מה שממנו בציר -- אסור לאכלו אפילו צלי. וחלק החתיכה שחוץ לציר אין אסור ממנו אלא כדי קליפה; ואפילו אם יש בה שומן.
אחר שנמלח הבשר והודח -- מותר ליתנו אפילו במים שאינן רותחים. ויש מי שמצריך ליתנו במים רותחין. והמנהג כסברא ראשונה וכן עיקר (ב"י וד"ע). סעיף כ[edit]בשר שנמלח ושהה כדי מליחה ונתנוהו אחר כך בכלי בלא הדחה ונתמלא מציר -- מותר. ולפי זה בשר שנפל לתוך ציר היוצא מהבשר אחר ששהה כדי מליחה מותר. ויש מי שאוסר בזה ובזה. ויש לחוש לו לכתחלה.
ולפי דבריו אף על פי ששהה הבשר במלח כשיעור -- אסור לאכול ממנו עד שידיחנו יפה יפה. ואסור לחתוך ממנו בסכין קודם שידיחנו. ואם חתך צריך להגעילו. הגה: ויש מתירין לחתוך בסכין לאחר ששהה שיעור מליחה דאין מליחה לכלים. וכן עיקר דמותר (ת"ה סימן קנ"ב ואו"ה כלל לז'). אבל הסכין צריך הדחה אחר כך או נעיצה בקרקע אם נתייבשה עליו הציר (ארוך) ואפילו קודם שיעור מליחה אין האיסור משום הסכין אלא משום שיצא דם בעין על הבשר. ואם רוצה להדיחו שם היטב ולחזור ולמלחו שם מותר. וכשרוצים לעשות מליח להתקיים לאחר ששהה במלחו בכלי מנוקב כשיעור הראוי מדיחים אותו יפה יפה ואחר כך חוזרין ומולחים אותו כדי שיתקיים ואפילו בכלי שאינו מנוקב ואפילו לפי סברא זו אם רוצה למלוח ולאכול צלי בלא הדחה עושה ואינו חושש לדם שעל המלח שהאש שואבו ומונע המלח מלבלוע דם. והני מילי במולחו ומעלהו לצלי אבל אם שהה במלחו -- המלח בולע הדם ונאסר, ולפיכך מדיחו יפה יפה וצולה ואוכל. (ועיין לקמן סימן ע"ו מדין בשר שנמלח ולא הודח ונצלה כך). סעיף כא[edit]במקום שאין מלח מצוי יצלה הבשר עד שיזוב כל דמו ואחר כך יבשלוהו. |