Siman 68

The Tur wrote: One who buries the head in hot ashes to scald it must be careful that the place of slaughter is facing downward so that the blood will flow out through there. If he placed it on its sides, the brain and the membrane are forbidden because the blood collects inside the skull and the brain is cooked within the blood. If he placed it on its nostrils and inserted a reed or another object into it, it is permitted; if he did not insert anything into it, it is forbidden. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matter is that when they wish to remove the hair of the head, water is placed upon it and it is buried in hot ashes [Rashi 93b] or in a hot oven even without hot ashes [Bach]. It is known that the brain is placed within the bone of the skull, surrounded by bone on all sides, and if so, there is no way for the blood in the brain and its membrane to flow out, and it turns out that it is cooked in its blood; therefore, the brain and the membrane are forbidden. However, the rest of the meat of the head is permitted, for the blood in the brain will not reach the meat because the bone intervenes. Therefore, the sages commanded that one should place the head upon the place of slaughter, meaning that the place of slaughter should be below, and then there will be a place for the blood of the brain to flow out, namely through the spinal cord [Pri Megadim], for the brain in the spinal cord is drawn from the brain in the head, and automatically the blood will flow out through there. And even if they placed it on its nostrils, nevertheless, if one did not insert a reed or another object into its nostrils, they are not open enough for the blood to flow through there; but when one inserted a reed or another object, they are open and the blood will flow through there. The same applies if one made a large hole in the skull and placed it downward, it is also valid for the reason that it will flow through there, and specifically that the hole reaches the brain [Beit Yosef].

And know that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 changed the wording of the Tur, who wrote "one who hides the head to roast it must etc." whereas the Tur wrote "to scald it." And in truth, there is an opinion that for roasting, placing it in the place of slaughtering is not effective, as this only helps to remove the hair; but to prepare it for roasting to eat it, one must remove the brain and clean the membrane of blood, and that is to cut the vessels in the heart [Torat HaBayit in the name of "some say"]. And the reason is because they hold that even for roasting one must cut the vessels and the membranes. Therefore, he intentionally changed the wording of the Tur because he holds that for roasting one does not need the cutting of the threads and membranes, as he wrote in siman 65. Therefore, he wrote "to roast it." And the Tur also holds this way in the law, as he wrote in siman 71, see there; and that which he wrote "to scald it" comes to inform us that even to scald it one must do so.

And furthermore, because of this reason, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, changed this wording, for he follows his reasoning in section 3 where he wrote, and this is his wording: There is one who wrote that to remove the hair alone, even if he left it on the sides, is permitted, and there is one who forbids. Thus far his words. And it appears that his opinion inclines toward the first opinion, that to remove the hair, the place of slaughter below is not needed at all, because it is not necessary to linger long in the hot ashes until the blood in the brain is cooked. Therefore, he wrote here to roast it and not to scald it, because he holds that for scalding there is no prohibition here at all. But the Tur does not hold so, as I have written. [And the wording of the Rambam is also like the Shulchan Aruch, for he also holds that for roasting there is no need for the cutting of the veins, as I have written in siman 65].

And regarding his words in section 3, our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: The first opinion is the primary one, and thus we are accustomed to singe the head to remove the hair, and similarly birds from the remnants of feathers upon them, for since it is not placed in one spot but rather he moves it here and there, we are not concerned that the blood was absorbed into it; and it is not forbidden except for burying it and when it is placed constantly in one spot. And we are accustomed to singe over straw and stubble which do not have such heat as to cook the blood, and nevertheless, he should move it over the fire constantly so that it does not remain in one spot for long. Thus far his words.

And his words are puzzling, for he wrote that the first opinion is primary, and if so, it is permitted to bury it to remove the hair even if he places it on the sides, and afterwards he wrote "and so we are accustomed etc." because since it is not placed in one spot etc. and it is only forbidden as hatmanah, thus far his words. But according to the first opinion, hatmanah is permitted to remove the hair. And there are those who distinguished between an animal and a bird, that according to the first opinion it is permitted with an animal because the skin is tough, but not with a bird because the skin is soft, where there is no permission except when it is not placed in one spot [Kru"p]. And indeed it is possible that according to the law one should distinguish thus, but our teacher, the Rema, equates according to the custom the head of an animal to a bird. Furthermore, they distinguished between one who put water on the hair, in which case it is forbidden because we concern ourselves that he will leave it for a long time in the hot ashes since the water will protect the skin and the meat from being singed, and one who did not put water, in which case it is permitted because he will be concerned about singeing and will not delay for long [ibid.]. And certainly this is not implied at all in his words. And there are those who explained that this is what he meant: the first opinion is primary, and even the second opinion only disagreed regarding hatmanah, but regarding singeing it is permitted, and therefore we are accustomed thus [Shach subsection 5]. And according to this, the main point is missing from his words.

And it seems to me that his intention is this: for in truth it is difficult to say that it would be permitted with hatmanah to remove the hair on the grounds that he will not linger long, for who can determine how much is "much" and how much is "little," especially in a matter entrusted to women and the unlearned, and particularly since Rashi and Tosafot [93b] explicitly forbade this, as did the Tur. Therefore, according to what appears from his intention in his book Darkhei Moshe, he holds that those who permit did not permit hatmanah at all, but rather they permitted removing the hair even without placing the place of slaughtering downward. And the reason is that when his desire is only to remove the hair, he will not perform hatmanah in the hot ashes at all, but rather he will place it thus on the fire to remove the hair, and afterward he will flip it to the other side to remove the hair from there, and likewise he will roll it around and around; for since he does not perform hatmanah on all of it in the hot ashes, the hair will not be removed except for the place resting on the hot ashes. And in this, even those who forbid did not disagree, and it turns out that there is no dispute here at all. Therefore, according to the language written by our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who did not mention hatmanah at all but rather wrote that to remove the hair alone some permit and some forbid, and upon this he said that the first opinion is primary—for certainly it is permitted to remove the hair, but in a manner where there is no hatmanah but rather placing and passing it over, for they never permitted hatmanah. And if so, it follows that there is no dispute here, for in such a case there is no one who forbids, and such is our established ruling and such is the simple custom, and one must not change it, for certainly with hatmanah it is forbidden even post facto [and the words of the Shach require further study, for on the contrary, in the Darkhei Moshe it appears clear that he holds that even those who permit only permitted in such a case; see there and examine closely].

And in the first section he wrote that ab initio it is the custom to be stringent not to roast any whole head even if one wants to place it on the place of slaughter, for we fear perhaps it will turn on its sides. Thus far his words. And it turns out that according to the custom, the burial is completely nullified, whether to roast as he wrote here, and all the more so to remove the hair and not place it on the place of slaughter as he wrote in section 3; and even to place it on the place of slaughter we also fear perhaps it will turn on its sides. And if so, according to the custom, if one wants to roast it, he should open the skull and remove the brain from there, and salt the brain and also the skull. And he may salt upon the hair, for the hair does not prevent the discharge, and afterwards he may roast it as he wishes. And they are accustomed to discard the membrane of the brain, and in a goose there are those who are accustomed to discard the brain with the membrane, and in the species of chicken there are those who are accustomed to throw away the head entirely [Ba'er Heitev], and there is no reason for this except because it is not worth the trouble for this, and anyone who wishes may extract the brain from whatever species it is and salt it and eat it. And if his desire is to remove the hair while it is still closed, he should pass it over the fire as they do for birds.

Tosafot and the Rosh wrote [Gid HaNasheh 15] that there are those who place a hen in water after shechitah and bury it in hot ashes to remove the feathers. Even though regarding a head it is only permitted where one places it on its nostrils, that is because there are many bones in the head and things that prevent the blood from exiting; but regarding a hen, the fire draws out the blood. The Tur also wrote that it is permitted to scald a hen in hot ashes because it has no place where the blood would collect. Thus far his words [and in the Rosh it is written "to roll," and it is all one]. And there is one who wrote that even the head may be buried because the head of a fowl is soft and the blood exits [Taz, subsection 5]. These are puzzling words, for it is explicitly explained in the Mordechai in this wording: And regarding a hen, one cannot say this, for one does not place the head of the hen on the hot ashes, but rather cuts it off and casts it away; and even if one places it on the hot ashes, nothing is forbidden except the head. Thus far his words. The Rashba also wrote this in Torat HaBayit [Bach, section 3], and this is his wording: And it is permitted to place a hen on hot ashes etc., but the head of the hen one does not place on the hot ashes, but rather cuts it off and casts it away; and even if one places it, nothing is forbidden except the head. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that the head is forbidden [and so wrote the Pri Chadash, subsection 13; and see the Pri Megadim who also wondered about him, see there].

One must be in doubt regarding the intent of the Tosafot and the Rosh, whether that which they permitted was only to remove the feathers, but to roast it and eat it is forbidden, or if even to roast it is permitted; and what is the law regarding boiling it by means of this roasting? For behold, among the Rishonim there is a dispute regarding this. This is the wording of the Rashba there: Regarding the preparation of meat, I saw that the author of the Ittur, of blessed memory, wrote: And so too a hen, they singe it even though the heart and the liver are inside, and there is no concern because they do not leave it for so long. It appears from his words that if they leave it long enough for the heart to heat up from within and for [blood] to flow, it is forbidden, unlike the words of the author of the Terumot, of blessed memory. And it seems to me like his words, for if he requires it for a pot it is forbidden, for blood that separated from its place by means of the fire and was absorbed in another place does not exit from the place where it was absorbed by the power of salt, but rather by the power of the fire; for just as its absorption is by means of fire, its expulsion is by means of fire, for as it absorbs, so it expels. Therefore, if he requires it for a pot, it is not rendered fit. But for roasting, even if he left it on the fire for a long time, there is nothing to it, for the blood that was expelled from this place and absorbed in that place by means of the fire will likewise exit from there by means of the fire. Thus far his words. [The Ran there also brought this in brief].

Behold, the opinion of the Ittur is clear, as he holds that the blood of the heart and the liver is not like blood that has been discharged, but rather like blood in its essence, and we do not say "as it absorbs, so it emits," as will be explained in siman 69. However, the opinion of the Rashba must be understood, for since he considers them like blood that has been discharged and we say that the fire will cause it to be absorbed and emitted, if so, what concern is there to cook it afterwards, just like any roasted meat which is permitted to be cooked? And what is this that he says, that blood that separated by means of the fire etc. does not exit etc. by the power of salt—what salting is required for this? And if we say that his intention is that by means of the fire it will not emit completely and afterwards during cooking the blood will exit, if so, even for roasting it should be forbidden according to the law of blood that is stirred to exit but did not exit, as written in siman 67. And if we say that this is the explanation: that when he wishes to eat it roasted, he will leave it for a long time in the coals and all the blood will exit, but if he wishes to cook it, he will not leave it for so long and will salt it afterwards—this is not implied by his words, for on the contrary, he wrote: "but for roasting, even if he left it on the fire for a long time etc.," behold, even in this manner it is forbidden for cooking. Nevertheless, it must be said that this is his intention as I wrote, and logic dictates this, for one who desires cooking does not leave it for a long time on the fire to the point of roasting so that the meat does not get spoiled; consequently, when he leaves it for a little while and the blood is stirred to exit by the fire, it will not exit by means of salting. But when his intention is for roasting, he leaves it for a long time until it is fit for eating, and consequently it will emit all the blood, and then indeed if he wishes to cook it, he may cook it because the blood has already exited. And that which he wrote, "even if he left it on the fire for a long time etc.," this is the explanation: so that you should not say that it is forbidden to leave it for a long time even for roasting on the grounds that perhaps over time the blood will be stirred to exit and will not exit outside; to this he said that it is not so, for if it is stirred to exit, it will certainly exit outside by means of the fire [so it appears to me]. From this it is clear that the Rashba, of blessed memory, holds that even the blood collected in the heart is called discharged blood and not blood in its essence, and so wrote our teacher, the Rema, below in siman 72, see there [see Shach subsection 17 who raised a difficulty: according to what he wrote in siman 72 subsection 9, the Rashba holds that regarding other meat it is called blood in its essence; and he answered that this is regarding roasting and not regarding searing, see there. And his words are puzzling, for the Rashba permitted it even in roasting as I wrote. However, the truth is that the Rashba wrote this regarding the laws of the veins [Bayit Sheni, Shaar 2], and here regarding the primary law of the heart [Shaar 3, Bayit 3] he did not mention this, and also there he wrote it as one in doubt and regarding cooking and not roasting, see there and examine carefully].

The Rishonim wrote that when one scalds a bird in hot ashes, he must rinse the place of slaughter and likewise all other visible blood upon it, for this blood is cooked and dries and will no longer exit. For this reason as well, if he removed the innards first, he must rinse it inside very well before singeing it, because the body is full of blood and the fire does not have the power to expel it outward; for the fire only extracts absorbed blood, but blood that is visible, the fire does not expel it, but rather on the contrary, it hardens it and it is forbidden [Shach, subsection 18, in the name of the Ran]. And do not wonder that if so, even when one buries it before opening the chicken, how does the fire expel the blood that is inside the body? For certainly it is so, that when the chicken is closed, all the blood within it is considered absorbed blood because the blood has not yet seen the air. But when he opened it, automatically the blood within the body becomes like visible blood. For such is the law in all salting of meat, that one must rinse the blood upon it because it is like visible blood, and if before the duration of salting he cuts the piece in two, he must rinse it again as is written in siman 69. And previously it was considered absorbed blood, but when it is revealed to the air it is considered visible blood, and here too it is similar.

And all these laws our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained to us in section 9 with brevity, and this is his wording: It is permitted to scald a chicken in hot ashes or to singe it in fire, provided that one first rinses the place of slaughtering very well, and likewise any other blood if it is visibly attached to it; if it is for a pot, one must be careful not to leave it so long in the fire that the heart and the liver could become hot and emit. Thus far his words. And it is automatically explained from his words that for roasting it is permitted, and everything is for the reason that we explained.

But the words of the Tur require further study, for he wrote in the name of the Rashba: One who singes geese or chickens in fire to char the remnants of the feathers upon them must wash the place of the shechitah so that the blood of the place of shechitah does not cook and be absorbed into the meat, and afterward he passes it through the fire and shall not linger with it much in the fire, so that its blood is not absorbed into its meat through the heat of the fire; for that which is absorbed through the heat of the fire adheres to it greatly and does not exit through melichah. Thus far his words. And why did he not write that this is only for boiling, but for roasting it is permitted? And it is possible that in that which he wrote, "it does not exit through melichah," it is as if he wrote that this is for boiling, for for roasting melichah is not required, as the Tur wrote in siman 76, see there. Nevertheless, he should not have been so vague. Therefore, it is possible that he leaves it vague and was concerned for the opinion of the author of the Ittur, that it is also forbidden for roasting, and also Rabbeinu Yerucham says for roasting [Shach subsection 17 in the name of the Darkhei Moshe]. And there are those who forbade it for the reason that, ab initio, liver on top of meat is forbidden, as written in siman 73, and here when it is not open it would be so, understood [see Beit Yosef]. And even if regarding the primary law perhaps he does not hold so, nonetheless he was concerned for this and did not write the permission explicitly, for the Tosafot and the Rosh also leave it vague.

And all the matters we have written are according to the law, but our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9 that it is not the custom now to scald at all in hot ashes, even a chicken. However, if one transgressed and did so, in a bird the entire head is forbidden and the rest is permitted, and in an animal the whole is not forbidden, only the membrane and the brain, if he did not place it on the place of slaughter or the nostrils and did not pierce it with anything. And if he did not rinse the place of slaughter or other visible blood that is upon it, he must remove or peel the place of the blood and the rest is permitted. Thus far his words. And that which in a bird the entire head is forbidden is because, due to its smallness, its brain membrane cannot be discerned after it was on the fire; but with smearing, the membrane is still recognizable, as is written in siman 71. And that which he permitted when he did not rinse the place of slaughter by means of removal or peeling, even though regarding visible blood one requires sixty in roasting as is written in siman 76, it must be said that this is not considered so much visible blood, and therefore removal is sufficient; and one who sees that the blood did not enter so far into the depth, peeling is sufficient. And that which he wrote to remove or to peel [Shach, subsection 21], for the essence of visible blood is blood that comes to it from elsewhere, and the proof is that even blood that is upon the meat we consider as visible blood regarding salting, as is written in siman 69, and nevertheless regarding roasting we do not consider it so, as is written in siman 76. And although there it is entirely permitted, nevertheless regarding the blood of the place of slaughter we require removal or peeling.

That which we have said, that when one did not leave the place of slaughtering below in the head, the brain and its membrane are forbidden and the entire head is permitted, this is regarding roasting. However, if one cooked the head in a pot whole and did not open the skull and did not remove the brain, everything is forbidden, and one requires sixty against the entire brain and its membrane. For in cooking, the separation of the bone is not effective, as it is impossible that the blood in the brain and the membrane will not be emitted by means of the broth and enter into all the meat. And even if the head was salted before they cooked it, it is nothing, for the salt did not remove the blood in the brain and the membrane and the veins within it, which require cutting and salting for cooking, as I wrote in siman 65. And also, the blood in the brain cannot be removed because the bone separates. And there is no difference between poultry and livestock in this law.

Since regarding cooking one requires sixty against the brain and the membrane, if one cooked the head alone and there is certainly not sixty against the brain and the membrane, therefore one requires sixty in the entire pot against the head according to our position, for we hold that "the piece itself becomes forbidden" regarding all prohibitions, and the head is forbidden even if there is sixty against it. And if there is not sixty, everything in the pot is forbidden and the pot itself is treif. And regarding a bird, if they cooked the head while it was attached to the chicken, one joins the entire chicken to the sixty against the brain and the membrane [Shach, subsection 9]. Then the brain and the membrane are forbidden and the rest is permitted, but naturally one throws away the head of the bird entirely, for it is impossible to recognize the membrane of the brain after cooking, as has been written in section 15.

It has already been explained in section 8 that even for roasting, it is the custom to open the skull and remove the brain from within it, see there. And all the more so regarding boiling, it is the custom to remove the brain and to cut the skull within it lengthwise and crosswise, for then the membrane is cut well; and there are those who remove the membrane entirely. And post facto, if one cut it lengthwise or crosswise it is sufficient, even if he did not remove the brain before the salting, and even if he boiled it thus [see Shach subsection 8 and Pri Megadim]. And later in siman 71 it will be explained that post facto, if he made a hole in the bone opposite the membrane and also pierced the membrane, and placed the hole downward and salted it thus, and did not remove the brain and did not cut the membrane, it is permitted post facto, see there.

One who comes to scald the head must cut the veins in the jaw prior to scalding. That which was explained in siman 65, that the cutting of the veins is not required, refers to roasting and not to boiling. Similarly, one must rinse the place of slaughtering so that no blood remains there, and likewise when scalding a bird. Even if one only singes to remove the hair and feathers, this is the law. Nevertheless, post facto it is not forbidden in the case of mere singeing if one did not cut the veins and did not rinse the place of slaughtering. In our regions, where we singe over straw and stubble, even initially the custom is not to rinse the place of slaughtering, and there is no concern in this at all because it is a light singeing [Shach, subsection 11 in the name of the Darkhei Moshe].

When scalding a head or feet with fire, one does not need to salt them first, and one salts them afterward. If one wishes to salt them first, this is sufficient, as the hairs do not prevent the discharge, and one does not need to return and salt them after the scalding. However, it is a choice fulfillment of the mitzvah to salt after the scalding and the singeing [ibid. subsection 13 in the name of the Rashal]. It is a simple matter that this rule, that the hairs do not prevent the discharge, applies to an animal; but regarding birds, it is obvious that salting is not relevant at all upon the feathers, because they are far from the body and it is considered as if it were not salted at all.

Those who place the feet of the animal on the fire in order to remove the hooves, which are called "shichl," which is like a shoe for the animal's foot, and to singe the hair without prior melichah, it is permitted. However, some are stringent and cut the tips of the hooves slightly and place the cut downward so that the blood will flow out. This is the widespread custom, and one should not deviate.

And regarding salting, one must cut the hooves of the leg before salting, for if not, it is like salting in a vessel that is not perforated, as the blood of the salting gathers there and has no place to exit. Nevertheless, post facto, if the hooves were salted and their tips were not cut, it is not forbidden post facto. Some forbid what is inside the shell, and one should cut slightly above the hooves after the salting and the rest is permitted, for in truth this is not similar to a vessel that is not perforated, as the leg is placed lengthwise and there is space for the blood to exit through the entire length of the leg, which is not the case when it is placed in a vessel that is not perforated, where all the blood must necessarily gather there. According to this, even with a leg, if he salted it standing upright it is forbidden because the blood gathers there. However, some say that even in such a case it is permitted because in the hooves the blood is a very minimal matter and it does not prevent the rest of the blood from being emitted [ibid. subsection 13 in the name of the A"ch]. And such is the law regarding burying in hot ashes: one must ab initio cut the tips of the hooves. But regarding the mere singeing of hair, where one passes it over the fire and constantly changes its position in the manner that one singes poultry, there is no concern even ab initio. However, ab initio it is proper to be stringent even with singeing to cut the tips of the hooves, and it is a beautiful custom [ibid. subsection 15 in the name of the Ran, see there].

The Tur wrote: One may not scald kids, lambs, or fowl in a kli rishon, for the milk and blood within them cook together with the skin. The Rashbam permitted pouring from a kli rishon upon them, for pouring is considered like a kli sheni. Rabbeinu Tam forbade it, for he considers it like a kli rishon. However, if one poured upon it, it is sufficient for him to peel the skin, for it only cooks to the depth of a klipah. And if the head of the fowl is upward when one pours upon it, then a klipah is not required, because the feathers protect it. Thus far his words. That is to say, the place where the feathers connect to the body is toward the top, and therefore when one pours upon the fowl while the head is upward, the feathers lie upon the body in their natural manner and protect the body, and this is much more than the depth of a klipah. This is not the case when the head of the fowl is downward, for then the feathers fall away from the body and one pours the boiling water upon the body itself, and therefore it requires a klipah.

It must be understood according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that pouring is like a kli rishon, if so, why is a klipah sufficient? It is known that the Rishonim raised many difficulties against his approach, and we, with the help of Heaven, explained his approach [in the book ... siman 94] that he holds that according to the Torah even a kli rishon does not cook; that is to say, cooking is only when the pot stands upon the fire, as it is found in the Yerushalmi [chapter 1 of Ma'asrot]: You do not have a clear cooked dish except when the fire moves beneath it, see there. And when it is removed from upon the fire and they placed something into the pot, even though it was brought in its very boiling state, nevertheless it does not cook. Many of the poskim hold that our Shas does not hold this way [see Pri Chadash, subsection 18], but Rabbeinu Tam holds that our Shas also holds this way. A proof for this is that it was ruled in the third chapter of Shabbat that it is permitted to place salt in a kli rishon on Shabbat because it does not cook in a kli rishon, and they said there that salt requires cooking like the meat of an ox. According to this, even the meat of an ox does not cook in a kli rishon [see there in the Rosh, siman 17]. If so, in what place does it cook? Rather, certainly it only cooks when it stands upon the fire, and this is according to the Torah. But by rabbinic decree they forbade it even in a kli rishon and even by means of pouring, as it was taught there: A stew pot or a pot that one removed boiling, one may not place spices into them, etc. And so it is explained in the words of the Rambam that this Mishnah is among the shevutim and not from the Torah prohibitions, for the Rambam wrote all the laws of baking and cooking in chapter 9 of Shabbat, whereas this Mishnah he wrote among the shevutim in chapter 22, law 6, see there. According to this, Rabbeinu Tam holds that even in a kli rishon it does not cook more than a k'dei klipah. According to this, the Tur spoke well that according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam pouring is like a kli rishon, but nevertheless a klipah is sufficient for it because a kli rishon itself also does not cook more than a k'dei klipah [see Shach, siman 105, subsection 5, and the main point is in his words, see there and examine closely].

This is regarding the matter of cooking, but regarding the matter of absorption, even by Torah law it absorbs in a kli rishon, and even by means of pouring, as is explicit in Zevachim [95b] that even a copper vessel absorbs by means of pouring [Shach, subsection 33]. For this reason, the rabbis decreed regarding cooking because by Torah law it absorbs, and anything that absorbs by Torah law, the rabbis decreed that it should be considered cooking. The absorption is also only to the depth of a klipah; even absorption that is by means of a kli rishon, such as when they placed something in a kli rishon after they removed it from atop the fire, it does not absorb more than a klipah [see Shach ibid.]. Therefore, the Tur, who wrote that a klipah is sufficient, refers both to kids and lambs and also to poultry. Now, in poultry there is only the concern of cooking, that the blood will be cooked, but in kids and lambs there is the prohibition of chelev, that by means of the pouring the chelev will be absorbed into the meat; nevertheless, a klipah is sufficient. We see from this that the absorption is also only to the depth of a klipah. [And according to this, the words of Rabbeinu Tam will be understood, which are brought in Tosafot Shabbat 42b, Pesachim 40b, Avodah Zarah 74b, and Zevachim 95b, which seemingly do not equate to one another, and the difficulties against him were many, as the Ran wrote at the end of Avodah Zarah, and the Acharonim also disagreed regarding his words, as the Shach wrote in siman 105 and the Pri Chadash in this siman; and according to what I have written, all is well with the help of Heaven, and in the book Imrei Lephi we explained the matters at length, see there and examine carefully].

However, this is only regarding the absorption of vessels, but regarding foods, it is certain that a kli rishon causes absorption throughout its entirety, as is explicit in Pesachim [76a]: Hot into hot or cold into hot is forbidden; hot into cold, one must peel it. See there. Behold, in a kli rishon, even cold into hot is forbidden in its entirety because the bottom prevails. But with irui, even in foods, it only causes absorption to the thickness of a peel. The reason is due to this very point: that when cold falls into hot, where the hot is on the bottom, it has strong power to cause absorption throughout the entirety of the upper substance that fell into it, because food is soft and is not similar to a vessel. But with irui, where the hot is from above and the cold is on the bottom, it does not have the power even in foods to cause absorption more than the thickness of a peel. And although regarding cooking it does not cook more than the thickness of a peel in a kli rishon as I have written, nevertheless the sages were more stringent with foods, which are soft, to forbid the entirety in a case of cold into hot, and certainly in a case of hot into hot, but not so with irui. However, regarding the hagalah of vessels, this and that are equal. It emerges that according to the essential law, irui is entirely like a kli rishon, both regarding the cooking of foods and regarding absorption in vessels, and only in foods are they not similar to one another, and they were stringent regarding it as I have written [and with this, that which the Tur wrote according to Rabbeinu Tam that irui is like a kli rishon, while the Tosafot in Shabbat 42b wrote that it is not like a kli rishon etc., is settled; see there and examine carefully].

The Tur himself does not agree with Rabbeinu Tam even regarding vessels, and this is what he wrote in siman 121. This is his wording: And if he comes to pour upon it from a kli rishon to kasher it, Rabbeinu Tam wrote that it is considered like a kli rishon, and the Rashbam wrote etc., and my father, our teacher, of blessed memory, wrote that here certainly pouring is not effective etc. However, a vessel that was only used by means of pouring, it is sufficient for it also to be kashered by means of pouring. Thus far his words. And indeed, even Rabbeinu Tam did not say that immersion by means of pouring is sufficient except for a kli rishon that did not stand near the fire, such as where they placed a vessel in a boiling pot after they removed it from upon the fire, for so his words are precise in Tosafot Zevachim ibid., and not for a vessel that stood near the fire, for in this even immersion from a kli rishon is not effective according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam unless the immersion will be like standing near the fire with a white-hot stone and the like. And according to the opinion of the Tur and all who disagree with him, they hold that the law of a kli rishon is like standing near the fire in all laws, whether for cooking or for the absorption of vessels, and therefore for immersion it is also sufficient from a kli rishon even for a pot that stood near the fire, for they have one law.

And with this, the words of the Tur in siman 105 are understood, where he wrote in this language: And it is possible that he means to say that hot into hot also does not forbid except for a k'dei klipah, and so I have seen from some of the authors; but it is not so, rather it forbids all of it if the hand recoils from it. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, there in his great book, was very embittered by these words and wrote that even a student of one day would not err in this, and that there is no author who would say so, for it is an explicit Gemara in Pesachim [76a] that it forbids all of it, see there. And there is one who wanted to settle this by saying that the intention of the Tur is regarding a kli sheni [Bach], and this is certainly more far-fetched, for regarding a kli sheni many hold so. However, the truth is that he is speaking of a kli rishon, and those who are stringent are those who follow the system of Rabbeinu Tam, of blessed memory, that iruy is like a kli rishon, and just as iruy is only a k'dei klipah, so too is the heat of a kli rishon; but they only said this regarding the absorption of vessels and not regarding the absorption of foods. And the primary intention of the Tur is that they are lenient regarding a kli rishon that it does not cause absorption so much, and the Tur did not agree even with this, as he wrote [see Taz there, subsection 4, who also wrote like the Bach, and it requires further study].

And it is further possible to say regarding the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that irui is exactly like a kli rishon even regarding foods. And that which "hot into hot" or "cold into hot" prohibits the whole is because it remained there for a long time, and the transmission of the absorption proceeds further and further, as the senses testify; this is not the case with irui, for since the boiling liquids immediately fall off the chicken, it only causes absorption of a k'dei klipah. And in this matter as well, when they placed hot into hot and immediately removed the food, it is also only prohibited as a k'dei klipah. According to this, irui is literally like a kli rishon, and the intent of the Tur in siman 105 is simply settled, as is understood.

And that which the Tur wrote in the name of the Rashbam, that he permitted pouring from a kli rishon upon them because pouring is considered like a kli sheni, thus far his words. It is clear from this that he permitted it even with kids and lambs and was not concerned at all for the absorption of the milk, for he holds that pouring does not cause absorption at all. And one must be precise in this, for behold, the Tosafot and the Rosh in Shabbat there wrote in his name that his proof is from that which we maintain that the bottom prevails, see there, and therefore it does not cook. But regarding the matter of absorption, even when the bottom prevails it requires peeling, as it is found in Pesachim there regarding hot into cold, that until it cools it absorbs a peel's thickness. And one must say that he holds that when one pours a hot forbidden substance into a cold permitted substance, it certainly causes it to absorb a peel's thickness; but in the case of pouring boiling water upon the kids and lambs, where the boiling water is permitted and you must say that they extract the milk and afterwards cause it to be absorbed in the meat, in this we say the opposite: until it extracts it, it cools, and it no longer has the strength to cause absorption [commentators on the Rosh there and the Pri Chadash]. And according to this, one must say that granted it causes absorption of a peel's thickness, nevertheless, to extract and cause absorption as one it does not have the strength. And according to Rabbeinu Tam, for whom it is like a kli rishon, it also extracts and causes absorption as one, for it also cooks a peel's thickness [however, according to this, his wording is not well-settled where he wrote that it is like a kli sheni, and in my humble opinion it appears that he holds the pouring does not cause absorption at all because the water is falling, as I wrote in the previous section, and examine it closely]:

And behold, according to the opinion of these our teachers, in a kli sheni it is completely permitted, for a kli sheni does not cause absorption at all. However, the Rashba, of blessed memory, holds that even a kli sheni, when the hand shrinks from it, causes absorption, as the Tur wrote. This is his wording: And the Rashba wrote that even if pouring is considered like a kli sheni it is forbidden, for even though it does not cook, it causes absorption and emission; for they forbade even placing the flanks upon the meat immediately after slaughtering lest the chelev flow and be absorbed into the meat, therefore it is forbidden to scald except after purging and salting. Thus far his words. And there are those among the poskim who agreed with his words, but most poskim do not hold so, and they rejected his proof from flanks, for this is only ab initio, but post facto it is permitted, as the Rambam wrote in chapter 7 of Ma'achalot Assurot, and this has already been explained in siman 64 [and in Torat HaBayit he brought another proof from the heat of the slaughterhouse and more, and they rejected it, for there it involves the pressure of the knife].

And also our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, hold that a kli sheni does not cause absorption at all, and regarding pouring, they ruled like Rabbeinu Tam, and pouring is only when the stream has not been interrupted. This is his wording in section 10: One may not scald kids, lambs, or poultry in a kli rishon unless one has removed the chelev and salted them. And similarly, one should not pour upon them from a kli rishon, and if one poured, peeling the skin is sufficient. And if the head of the bird is facing upward when one pours upon it, it does not require peeling. And it is not called pouring unless the stream from the kli rishon was not interrupted when it touched below, but if it was already interrupted, it is not called pouring and it does not forbid. And even in a kli sheni, some say that one should not scald, but if one did scald, it is permitted, for we maintain that a kli sheni does not cook even if the hand recoils from it [meaning, and it also does not cause absorption], and after the fact it is permitted, but initially it is forbidden. And therefore, the custom in these lands is not to scald anything except after salting. However, for the honor of guests or for the needs of Shabbat, it is permitted to place in a kli sheni, even initially, a piece full of ice and frost in order to hasten its salting. And it is good to be careful initially not to place it except in water from which the hand does not recoil. And there is no difference between an earthenware vessel, a copper vessel, or other vessels regarding the matter of a kli sheni. Thus far his words. And according to this, they wrote in section 13: Chickens that were scalded together in a kli sheni and one of them was found to be treif, the others are not forbidden. Thus far his words. And the primary laws of a kli rishon and a kli sheni will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 65.

If a gentile maidservant in a Jewish house scalded poultry and they did not see whether it was in a kli rishon or a kli sheni, and it was before the melikhah, if she is knowledgeable in Jewish practices and there is a boy or girl there who is knowledgeable in the matter and she said that she scalded it in a kli sheni, it is permitted; for we say that she is certainly afraid to act contrary to Jewish customs when there are those watching. But without this it is forbidden, and even if she is masiah lefi tumo that she scalded it in a kli sheni, we do not rely on this. And although regarding melikhah in siman 69 we rely on this as I wrote there, that is because there is an additional reason there that they are fastidious about cleanliness [Shach in 134]. But here, what does she care if it is a kli rishon or a kli sheni? On the contrary, in a kli rishon the scalding is better. Therefore, we do not rely on masiah lefi tumo unless there are those watching and she knows Jewish customs. However, now in our times, we have not heard of the matter of scalding before the melikhah at all, and consequently, when the maidservant performed the scalding before the melikhah, the chicken is forbidden in any case, for she has departed from our custom.

Water in which they scalded before the salting, even if it is not boiling, one must be careful not to return them to boil them in order to scald with them a second time, and likewise they should not return this chicken into them, or in order to rinse bowls with them even those of meat, for it is unavoidable that they did not absorb some blood in them. And they have practiced not to use scalding water at all, even if they are only cold, and it is a beautiful custom. And a chicken that ate milk and the milk was found in the crop or in the gizzard, one should not scald it at all, so that the milk, which is like fat, will not be absorbed into the meat of the chicken [Beit Yosef], unless one removes the milk in its entirety.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 15: If a chicken was scalded in a kli sheni in a milky pan, even if it is ben yomo, the vessel and the chicken are permitted if they poured the water first; but if they poured water over the chicken, if the head is downward, there is one who forbids and there is one who permits. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter is that even if the chicken was salted, there is here a prohibition of meat absorbing milk. However, if they put the water first in the pan and afterwards put in the chicken, this is a kli sheni and everything is permitted. However, if they poured the boiling water from a kli rishon over the chicken while it was in the pan, naturally the water caused emission from the vessel and from the chicken and they absorbed from one another. And the "ones who permit" is not only according to the opinion of the Rashbam that pouring does not forbid at all, but even according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, nevertheless it can be said that the emissions did not meet one another, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote in siman 95, see there. [See Shach and Taz and Levush, and in my humble opinion the matters are according to their plain meaning, and the one who forbids does not hold like the Rema in the name of the Beit Yosef, and examine this.]