Siman 22

There are in living creatures two veins near the simanim, and they are two pulsating sinews in the neck on the two sides of the windpipe [Rambam], and the sages commanded that at the time of slaughtering one should also slaughter the veins or pierce them while it is struggling, while the blood is still warm, so that the blood will exit and not cool within them. This is because most of the blood in an animal or a bird is drawn after the veins in the neck, and neither salt nor fire can extract all the blood that is in them. It is not like the blood of the limbs that has not separated, because at the time of slaughtering the blood gushes and spurts through the place of slaughtering, and all the life-blood is uprooted and shaken from its place to exit. When the veins are not cut, the blood remains in them and also spreads to the meat surrounding the veins, and it does not exit through salting or through roasting as long as the bird is whole. However, through cutting and salting the blood exits, and it is even permitted for a pot [the Rosh, beginning of chapter 2]. See what I wrote in section 11.

The sages were only stringent regarding a bird, since it is the way to roast it whole, and therefore even if his intention is to cut it into pieces, nevertheless he should not rely on this ab initio, for perhaps he will change his mind and roast it whole. However, regarding an animal they were not stringent in this, because it is not the way of the world to roast a whole animal. Therefore, if his intention is to roast it whole, such as sheep, goats, and small calves, he also must puncture the veins while it is struggling or slaughter them together with the simanim—and not for the sake of slaughter, as the Karaites erred in this, who walk in darkness and the light of the Torah has not shone upon them, but rather for the sake of the blood, as has been explained.

And know that in an ordinary bird the veins are slaughtered, and in an ordinary animal the veins are not slaughtered. The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote [in Torat HaBayit] that one who slaughters an animal, beast, or bird and blood did not emerge from them, even though he did not slaughter the veins nor pierce them, he does not need to cut it limb by limb; for specifically when the blood is stirred to emerge and does not find a place to emerge, it is considered to have moved from place to place and is forbidden. However, when blood did not emerge from them, the matter proves that the blood was not stirred at all to emerge. And there is one who disagrees regarding this [the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit]. And even according to the first opinion, it is only regarding roasting, but regarding boiling, it is obvious that the blood will move at the time of boiling and will remain inside the bird and the pot. Therefore, it requires cutting limb by limb at the time of salting when he salts it for boiling [Tevuat Shor].

There are some of our teachers who wrote that it is only called "whole" with the head, but when the head is cut off it is not called "whole," and it is permitted to cook it entirely even without cutting the veins, for when the head is removed there is a place for the blood to flow out by means of melichah; and that which we said to cut it limb by limb is not exact. Nevertheless, the head of a beast, which is large, must be cut in two [Mordechai in the name of Rabbeinu Tam]. Our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly in section 1.

When the veins were not slaughtered and one roasted it whole, he must discard the veins and cut around them the amount of a netilah, which is the thickness of a finger. And even though in siman 65 it will be explained regarding the neck-sinews that a kelipah is sufficient, and according to the Tur there even a kelipah is not required, yet here even the Tur required a netilah; for the neck-sinews are different, as they are thicker than veins and do not emit as much into the meat [Darkhei Moshe there]. And this fact, that we do not require sixty against the sinews as we do in cooking—where it will be explained that sixty is required—is because it does not spread through the whole of it in roasting, and a netilah is sufficient [the Rosh]. And even according to what I wrote in siman 105, that we require sixty even in roasting because we concern ourselves that it spreads through the whole of it, nevertheless, a netilah is sufficient here. For in truth, several of our teachers hold here that even a netilah is not required, because regarding blood we say "as it absorbs, so it emits," and what the meat absorbs from the blood that is in the veins, it will return and emit [Tosafot at the beginning of the second chapter, the Semag, and Sefer HaTerumah]. However, we are stringent for the reason that the sinews themselves do not leave their state of blood entirely after one removes it from the fire, and the sinews will still emit a bit of blood into the meat, and the meat does not have the power to emit after it has been removed from the fire [the Rashba in Torat HaBayit, second gate]; for we consider the blood in the sinews as actual blood and not as emitted blood. And it is merely a stringency, and therefore a netilah is sufficient [Shach, subsection 6].

And for this reason, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that if it was salted in this manner, one subsequently removes the threads and it is permitted, and there are those who are stringent to peel around the threads. Thus far his words. And ostensibly his words are puzzling, for we maintain that "salted is like boiling hot of a roast," as he himself wrote in siman 105, and it is obvious that if in a roast we require a netilah, one certainly needs at least the thickness of a peel in salting, as is written there; and how could he be lenient here even without a peel? Rather, it is certainly because from the fundamental law we say regarding blood, "as it absorbs, so it emits," and this requirement of a netilah is merely a stringency, and it is sufficient for us to be stringent in roasting and not in salting. However, nevertheless, there are those who are stringent to require a peel [ibid.]. And even though our teachers who are stringent consider it as actual blood in its own right, where we do not say "as it absorbs, so it emits" [the Rosh and the Rashba], nevertheless, since this stringency in a roast to require sixty is not from the fundamental law, as will be explained in siman 105, and likewise the stringency in salting is only rabbinic in our case—for blood that was salted is only rabbinic, and likewise blood that was cooked, and in blood there is another leniency that "it slides off," as will be explained in its place—therefore we are not concerned to be so stringent. And there are some of the later authorities who were stringent in this, but we are not to move from the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch [Atzei Levonah].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: And if he cooked it whole, he probes and extracts the veins, and the remainder—if there is enough in all that is in the pot to nullify the blood that is in all the veins by sixty, it is permitted. Thus far his words. And his intention is sixty against all the veins, for we do not know how much blood emerged from them, and so it is with all prohibitions. And that which he wrote, "to nullify the blood that is in all the veins," is because the prohibition is on account of the blood [Shach, subsection 9].

And behold, our teacher, the Rema, is known to be stringent regarding a connected prohibition—meaning, when the prohibition is connected to a certain piece—to require sixty against all the pieces if there is not sixty within the connected part against the prohibition, as he wrote in siman 72 and 73 and siman 92. And according to this, we should have required here sixty in the chicken against the strings, or that there should be in the pot enough to nullify the chicken connected to the strings; and all the more so according to what he ruled later in siman 92, that we say "the piece itself becomes a prohibited entity" (chanan) regarding all prohibitions. Nevertheless, he did not provide any gloss here. And it must be said that he holds that regarding a connected prohibition, there are two reasons to require sixty against the whole: the first is because that piece connected to the prohibition absorbs first and the entire piece becomes "neveilah," and automatically one needs sixty against it. And another reason is that we fear perhaps at one time this piece was alone and absorbed from the prohibition, and then even if we do not say chanan regarding other prohibitions but only regarding meat in milk, nevertheless this piece remains in its prohibited state, as he wrote in siman 106. And here, both reasons do not apply: for the first reason, that the piece is quick to absorb, is not relevant here because the strings themselves intervene between the blood and the chicken, for in the skin of the strings themselves there is no blood, and according to this, the chicken is not quicker to absorb than everything else in the pot. And regarding the second reason, we also do not fear it, for since blood that was cooked is only a rabbinic prohibition, we do not establish a flaw to say that it was alone. Therefore, if there is in everything in the pot sixty against the strings, it is permitted [Shach subsection 8 and Pri Megadim].

And there are those who disagree and hold that we say here "forbidden substance attached," and one requires sixty against the whole if there is not in the chicken sixty against the veins [Taz subsection 5 and Tevuot Shor]. And their reasoning is that the veins do not constitute an intervention, like the membrane that will be explained in siman 105 which does not constitute an intervention. However, in truth it is not comparable, for the membrane is soft and the veins are hard and they constitute a complete intervention. Therefore, the primary view appears like the first opinion. And there is one who is stringent to require sixty also against the peel that was forbidden initially during salting prior to the cooking, for every cooking necessarily requires salting it beforehand, and if so, according to those who are stringent and require a peel during salting, behold one now requires sixty also against the peel [Darkhei Moshe letter 2 in the name of the Agur]. And there are those who are lenient in this because the peel during salting is nothing but a mere stringency, for regarding salting it is certainly appropriate to say "just as it absorbs, so it expels" [Taz subsection 6].

And know that according to what has been explained, if the veins were slaughtered, or if one cut it limb by limb, or if the head was removed, it is permitted either to roast it entirely or to cook it. And there are several of the early authorities who hold that everything stated in the Gemara regarding veins is only for roasting, but for cooking, both things are required: the slaughtering of the veins and the cutting limb by limb and the removal of all the sinews that contain blood [Tur in the name of the Ra'ah and Ran in the name of the Ra'avad]. And all our teachers disagree with them, as wrote the Rosh, the Rashba, the Ran, and the Tur, see there. And know that the Rambam, of blessed memory, did not mention the laws of slaughtering veins at all because he holds that it is not the halacha [for Rabbi Yehuda holds so in the Mishnah at the beginning of the second chapter, and the halacha is like the Sages; and that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to his son in Berakhot 8a, "Be careful with the veins like Rabbi Yehuda," is only a measure of piety and extra caution, but such is not the opinion of all the poskim].