Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/76

by Yosef Karo

דין בשר לצלי

Contains six Seif.

ובו ששה סעיפים:

1 [1] Meat that is to be roasted need not be salted [2] since the fire will draw out the blood that is in it by itself. [3] However, if other blood had dripped on the grill, [4] even if it’s cold we do not say that the fire will draw it out, (1) [5] and it causes the meat to become forbidden to the depth of a netilah. Shach [1] It seems that even the preliminary washing is not needed for the fire will draw out everything. [2] The meat need not be thoroughly roasted. A simple roasting will suffice and will have brought out any blood that would have come out. [3] The Tur writes that any blood that drips onto the grill is problematic, for it is considered as surface blood (b’eyn) and is not subject to the rule of “as it absorbed so will it release.” [4] The reason is because we rule that the lower item is the dominating item (tatai gavar), and the blood is as a hot food. [5] This is according to the Mechaber, however we hold that all problems involving roasting and salting requires sixty. The Rema didn’t write it here for he assumed we were familiar with his ruling. Taz (1) We rule that problems in a situation of roasting or salting cause the entire item to become forbidden. Here too, as well. The “other blood” we are referring to is blood b’eyn, which we don't say will come out in the fire. The size of netilah is that of the width of a finger (2 cm). 2 If one wishes to salt the meat before roasting it (2) [6] and eat it without washing it, one may do so and we are not worried about the blood remaining on the salt. Some say this ruling refers to one who salted it, and then immediately roasted it, (3) but if it lay in the salt (4) the salt absorbs and is forbidden. [7] Therefore it should be well washed before the roasting. Rema: [8] Some say that roasting requires a preliminary washing (Ramban), and some say that it requires a slight salting beforehand as well (Rashi). The custom is to wash it first and then to lightly salt it when it is on the skewer, and to then immediately roast it so that the salt will not absorb blood. [9] Nevertheless, if it wasn’t washed or salted at all, or it was salted without having been washed first, and then roasted, it is still permitted. This is only if it did not sit idle in the salt (5) without being washed for the entire salting period, but if it did indeed lay idle for this amount of time before being roasted, it is forbidden. [10] There is no difference in all this (6) between geese, or other birds with open cavities [11] as long as they are not stuffed with eggs or other meat. If they are stuffed they are subject to the same rules as have being cooked, and require salting just as any other meat to be cooked. It is customary to act stringently when roasting meat that has not been salted [12] and to refrain from always flipping over the skewer so that the blood will flow, but post facto, one need not worry. In makes no difference in all this if one wishes to eat after roasting, or if one wishes to cook it afterwards. [13] It simply must be roasted first to the point that it is fit to be eaten [14] which is about half it’s possible roasting. Some say [ 15] that all roasting requires a washing after being roasted because of the blood that is stuck to it. and this is the custom in the first instance. Nevertheless, it if wasn't washed and even if it was cooked, it is permitted. This is true even if it was first salted before being roasted and not washed after the salting that it is permitted. We are not worried about the blood that is upon it, for the fire draws it out. Shach [6] This is referring to the washing that is done after the salting, meaning that if it wasn’t washed before the roasting, it is still permitted when salted and then immediately roasted. We are not worried about the blood that may be on the salt for the fire will draw it out. and not allow the salt to absorb blood. [7] If it wasn’t washed before the roasting, it can be made permissible by the washing after the roasting. [8] This is because of the surface blood upon it. [9] If the meat was not washed, then this blood is considered as blood b’eyn, and we have already said that the fire does not draw out the surface blood! The answer is that since it is not actual surface blood we say that the fire will draw it out. Nevertheless, if it wasn’t washed, and it lay in salt for the required salting time the fire will not help for the salt absorbed the blood, and regarding blood that is on the surface we do not say “as it absorbed, so will it release.” Regarding that which the Rema says “or that it was salted without being first washed, and then roasted, is still permitted” is even in the first instance. It is phrased in a post facto fashion to tell us that it must be washed after being salted, before being roasted. The ruling of the Mechaber that if it had lay in the salt it becomes forbidden (because the salt absorbed blood) and must therefore be washed before the roasting, is referring to a case where it was washed before the salting as well. [10] There is no difference between any type of meat because they all are subject to the rule of “as it absorbed so will it release.” [11] It seems contradictory to what we have learned regarding it being stuffed with meat that it is permitted to be roasted without being washed. The answer is that over here we are coming to convey that with eggs it remains forbidden even post fact without salting, but with meat it is only post facto that we permit it. [12] Or that they were salted without completing the required salting period. Post facto we permit it even if it was flipped over. [13] Whether one wishes it eat it immediately after roasting it, or whether it is to be cooked first, it still must be roasted for at least half the total time, that it can possibly be roasted. If it wasn’t properly roasted then it is even forbidden for it to be cooked afterwards. [14] The reason is that after being half roasted, all the blood has come out. [15] It is written that if it meat was roasted without having been salted it must be washed three times. This is also said if it salted without completing the required time or if it completed the required time but wasn’t washed afterwards. Taz (2) Meaning without being washed after the salting before being roasted. (3) Meaning even if only sat for a little while and not for the entire salting time requirement. (4) Meaning the salt becomes forbidden. Therefore in the first instance the meat must be washed off before roasting. If it wasn’t, then it can be washed off after the roasting. All this is referring to a case that it was washed before being salted, but if it wasn’t salted it doesn’t need to be washed off before being roasted. (5) It should be ruled that there is no time limit for this, just as the Rema ruled so in Toras Chatas. (6) The reason is because they are all subject to the rule of “as it absorbed, so will it release.” (7) It is in contradiction to what we learned regarding being stuffed with meat that it may be roasted without being salted. The answer is because it comes to teach us that in the first instance it must be salted, but only post fact is it permitted. 3 [16] If the jugular vein of poultry was not pierced during the slaughtering then it is forbidden to eat it, even if roasted, unless it is cut limb by limb and roasted. [17] If one wished to eat it raw, it is forbidden until it is cut and salted. If the meat was cleaned from its veins of blood, it may be eaten raw even without being salted, [18] or roasted, even all of it at once. [19] There are those who rule stringently that it should not be eaten all at once even if roasted (8) [20] until the jugular vein and the majority of the two required tubes have been but. Shach [16] The laws are dealt with in section 22. [17] Even though it is permitted to eat raw meat with simply washing it without salting it, nevertheless it is different here for the blood is gathered in the tubes. [18] It is also permitted to be cooked by salting it, just like other meat since it was cleaned out from it's blood vessels, [19] Nikkur. is not needed. [20] The Tur writes that “after the two tubes have been cut”. The Mechaber didn't write it, for he feels that it is not dependent on this. Taz (8) The Tur writes that one must have slaughtered through the two tubes. The Rashba writes that if they weren't entirely cut then the animal must be cut limb by limb. 4 There is one who forbids the cutting of roasted meat with a knife that is beside the fire if it wasn't salted, so long as it hasn't been fully roasted because of the blood that gets absorbed into the knife. [21] There is also one who forbids the skewer that was used for roasting meat that wasn't salted. There is also one who ruled that it is forbidden to leave roasted meat on the skewer [22] after it is removed from the fire (9) after the flow from the meat had concluded, for fear that the hot meat will now re-absorb it. There are those who permit all the above situations, and it is indeed the custom to permit it. [23] We are careful in the first instance (10) but post facto it is permitted. Shach [21] This is because regarding skewers, we do not say that “as it absorbed so will it release, ” [22] it seems that if the skewer is presently on the fire even though any blood flow has finished it is permitted because in this instance we say that what ever the meat could have absorbed from the skewer is again released, [23] The Maharshal writes that the knife should ideally be purged, however wiping it with a hard substance suffices. The skewer is permitted post facto. Taz (9) If the skewer is removed from the fire while there is still a flow from the meat, the meat is still permitted, but the skewer become forbidden. It seems that it is not forbidden to remove it from the fire even if not fully roasted. Every day when meat that wasn’t salted is roasted people aren’t careful not to remove the meat until it is fully roasted. The meat and skewers should be permitted because of the rule “as it absorbed, so will it release.” (10) In a case where a great loss is not involved, the skewer should be ruled forbidden. If non-kosher meat was roasted on a skewer, it becomes forbidden even in a post facto situation. 5 Roasted meat that was not first salted, and was cut over a loaf of bread [24] does not cause the bread to become forbidden, even if it appears red, as long as the meat was roasted to the point of being edible to most people. That is, half its time. The same is true regarding the red juice that flows out of the meat. Shach [24] Even if the red juice is thick, it is still permitted. This is the ruling according to most authorities. 6 (11) [25] Meat that is roasting without first having been salted should not have a vessel be placed below it in order to catch the fats that are dripping off it, until it has been roasted to the point that it can be eaten. Shach [25] The Gemara states that if a few pieces of salt have been placed in the vessel then it is permitted to place it under the meat. The fat will itself separate from the blood and easily be removed from the vessel when poured. If the meat has already been sufficiently roasted then it is permissible to place a vessel under it, for anything that comes out at this point is no longer blood. Taz (11) Our case would not require us to place any salt in the vessel at all for when the Gemara ruled that salt must be placed in a vessel it was referring to meat that was not yet roasted. The reason the Mechaber did not mention placing salt in the vessel is because he is speaking of meat that has already been properly roasted. This ruling is accordance with all authorities.

סעיף א הצלי אין צריך מליחה לפי שהאש שואב הדם שבו מעצמו. אבל אם דם אחר נטף על הצלי, אפילו אותו דם הוא צונן -- לא אמרינן שהאש שואבו, ואוסר ממנו כדי נטילה. סעיף ב רצה למלוח צלי ולאכלו בלא הדחה -- עושה, ואין לחוש לדם שעל המלח. ויש מי שאומר דהני מילי כשמולחו וצולהו מיד אבל אם שהה במלחו -- המלח בולע ונאסר; לפיכך מדיחו יפה קודם צלייה. הגה: ויש אומרים דצלי בעי הדחה תחילה (רמב"ן). ויש אומרים דצריך גם כן קצת מליחה תחילה (רש"י). והמנהג להדיחו תחילה וגם למלחו קצת כאשר נתחב בשפוד וצולהו מיד קודם שיתמלא המלח דם (הגה' ש"ד). מיהו אם לא הדיחו ולא מלחו כלל או מלחו בלא הדחה תחילה ונצלה כך -- מותר ובלבד שלא שהה כך במליחתו בלא הדחה שיעור מליחתו. אבל אם שהה כל כך קודם שצלאו -- אסור (כך משמע בארוך כלל ה). ואין חילוק בכל זה בין אווזות ושאר עופות החלולים (מרדכי וש"ד וב"י ועת"ח כ"ט ד"ו) ובלבד שלא יהיו מלואים בבצים או בשאר בשר. אבל אם מלואים -- דינם כבשול וצריכים מליחה תחילה כמו לקדרה (ש"ד). ונהגו להחמיר כשצולין בשר בלא מליחה שלא להפוך השפוד תמיד כדי שיזוב הדם (ארוך כלל ט). ובדיעבד אין לחוש. ואין חילוק בכל זה בין אם רוצה לאכלו כך צלי או רוצה לבשלו אחר כך, רק שיצלנו תחילה כדי שיהא ראוי לאכילה דהיינו כחצי צלייתו. יש אומרים דכל צלי צריך הדחה אחר צלייתו משום דם הדבוק בו (אגודה ואגור). וכן נוהגין לכתחלה. מיהו אם לא הדיחו ואפילו בשלו כך -- מותר (עיין לעיל סימן עג). ואפילו נמלח קודם צלייתו ולא הודח אחר המליחה -- אפילו הכי מותר ולא חיישינן לדם ומלח שעליו; דנורא משאב שאיב (או"ה). סעיף ג לא נקב הורידים [בעוף] בשעת שחיטה -- אסור לאכלו ואפילו צלי עד שיחתוך אבר אבר ויצלה. רצה לאכול ממנו בשר חי -- אסור עד שיחתוך וימלח. ואם נקר הבשר מחוטי דם -- אוכל אפילו בלא מליחה חי או צלי; ואפילו כולו כאחד. ויש שהחמירו שלא לאכלו כולו כאחד אפילו בצלי אלא לאחר חתיכת הורידין ורוב שני הסימנים. סעיף ד יש מי שאוסר לחתוך בסכין צלי שאצל האש שלא נמלח כל זמן שאינו נצלה כל צורכו מפני דם שנבלע בסכין. ויש מי שאוסר השפוד שצלו בו בשר בלא מליחה. ויש מי שהורה שאסור להשהות הצלי על השפוד לאחר שהוסר מן האש לאחר שפסק הבשר מלזוב, שמא יחזור הבשר החם ויבלע ממנו. ויש מתירין בכל זה. וכן המנהג להתיר. (ואנו נוהגין לכתחלה ומתירין בדיעבד) (מהרא"י בהגהת ש"ד ואו"ה כלל לז) סעיף ה צלי שלא נמלח וחתכו על גבי ככר, אף על פי שיש בככר מראה אודם -- מותר אם נצלה עד כדי שהוא ראוי לאכילה לרוב בני אדם (דהיינו חצי צלייתו. והוא הדין שהמוהל בלא ככר נמי שרי) (ב"י בשם הרשב"א) סעיף ו בשר שצולין בלא מליחה -- אין נותנין כלי תחתיו לקבל שמנונית הנוטף ממנו עד שיצלה עד שיהא ראוי לאכילה על ידי צליה זו.