Siman 69

The blood absorbed within the meat—the remedy for how to extract it from the meat was received by our Sages, of blessed memory, that it is extracted either through roasting over fire, for the fire expels it, or through salting, for the nature of salt is to draw the blood to itself and expel it, even if it is a very thick piece. For thus did the Holy One, Blessed be He, create the nature of salt to draw out all the blood absorbed in the piece. And what is the order of salting? One first rinses the meat from all its sides so that it shall be clean of visible blood that is upon the piece, and afterwards he salts it and lets it rest in its salt for the duration that will be explained in section 34, and afterwards he rinses it once more as will be explained with the help of Heaven in section 41.

Regarding the reason for the rinsing prior to the salting, opinions are numerous. The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in Torat HaBayit, third house, third gate [in Mishmeret]: In order that the meat shall be moistened and the salt shall adhere to it, and also that the meat shall be more prone to discharge its blood, and the eye testifies to this; and so the Tosafot explained. Thus far his words. [In our editions this is not found in Tosafot]. The Ran, of blessed memory, wrote [in chapter 8]: In order that the meat shall be softened and its blood shall exit by means of salting, for if it were congealed upon its surface, the salt would not have the power to extract its blood. Thus far his words. And perhaps the reasons of both are equal in their intent, though they did not state them with the same wording.

The Ra'ah, of blessed memory, [in Bedek HaBayit there] wrote: Because of the blood that dried upon its surface prior to salting, and there is a concern lest the meat remain a long time in its salt until it dries and ceases from emitting the blood and the juice, and the blood will melt and be absorbed by the meat. Thus far his words. And it is a remote concern, for the meat is needed for its time and you are requiring him to rinse as a decree lest it remain a long time like a full day, for the meat emits blood and juice for twelve hours [from the Mahab and further in the Gemara 112a where it challenges from a Baraita to Rav Huna to resolve this case where he requires it to eat immediately and that case for the evening, see there].

The Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote [Chapter 1, Siman 46] that without rinsing, the salt does not have the power to extract all of the blood, but only a portion of it, and that portion returns and is absorbed into it; see there. And it can be said that his intention is also like the reasoning of the Rashba and the Ran, that without rinsing, the meat does not become moistened and does not soften, and therefore it does not have the power to extract all of the blood [Beit Yosef]. And it can also be said that what the Ran wrote—that if it is congealed upon its surface, the salt will not have the power to extract its blood—his intention is that the salt will not have the power to extract all of the blood, but it will extract a portion. And so it is implied from the wording of the Rashba, who wrote "it will be easier to extract its blood," which implies explicitly that with rinsing it is easier for extraction; however, even without rinsing it extracts a little. And according to this, the words of the Rosh, the Rashba, and the Ran are one. And the practical legal difference is regarding whether the meat becomes forbidden and further salting is of no use, as will be explained according to the opinion of those who hold that the blood that exits has the status of actual blood and not like the blood of extraction, and we do not say regarding it "as it absorbs, so it emits" [see Shach, subsection 1, who does not hold this way according to the opinion of the Ran, and it requires further study].

The Mordekhai wrote [in chapter 8] that the first rinsing is to remove the dirt of the blood that is on the surface of the piece, for if not so, the salt becomes saturated with it and will no longer extract the blood that is within the piece. Thus far his words. And according to this reason, it implies that without rinsing, the salt does not extract any of the blood within it at all, and it is as if it was not salted at all; and it is obvious that salting a second time is effective after one rinses the blood that is upon it along with the first salt. Or, it is possible to say that his intention is also that all of the blood does not exit, but some of it he will extract. However, the poskim adopted the first opinion, that according to this reason the salt does not extract at all, and it requires further study [see Shach and Taz, subsection 1].

The Mordechai wrote another reason, that the first rinsing is to moisten the meat so that it will release the blood by means of salting. He rejects this reason, for on the contrary, cold water hardens it and constricts the blood, as in the case of a lung in siman 37, that one should not check it in cold water because it hardens it, such that it becomes tough. Some have written that this is like the reason of the Ran, of blessed memory, to soften the meat [ibid.], and some say it is a different reason. For the reason of the Ran is to soften the upper surface upon the meat so that it should not be dry, and regarding this, the objection that it hardens it is not applicable, for in any event it moistens it. But this reason is to soften the entire thickness of the meat so that the salt will have the ability to expel it [Pri Megadim], and therefore he rightly objects that on the contrary, cold water hardens it. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, rejected this rejection, for this is only in cold lands and during a time of great cold, and then indeed one must warm the water slightly; but in most countries, and even in cold countries during the summer, certainly cold water softens the meat, see there [and from a lung there is no proof at all, as Rashi wrote on 47b: because the membrane is thin, see there].

The Semak, the Semag, and the She'arim wrote that without the first rinsing, the salt causes the visible blood upon the piece to be absorbed within it, and it does not discharge it afterward. And even though it is the nature of salt to discharge blood and not to cause absorption, that refers to that blood which has not separated; however, blood that has already separated and is found upon it, the salt causes it to be absorbed into the meat and it no longer exits, and it is forbidden [Sha'arei Dura siman 5]. The Rosh disagrees regarding this and holds that it is permitted. The She'arim likewise wrote that the Maharam disagrees regarding this and holds that it is permitted, for blood glides off. And there will be further explanation regarding this with the help of Heaven; and see what I wrote in section 51.

And there is a practical difference between these reasons regarding the law, for according to the reason of the Rashba and the Ran, a thorough rinsing is required to soften the meat, but according to the Rosh and the first reason of the Mordechai, a minimal rinsing is sufficient, as it is only to remove the blood that is on the surface of the piece. And all the more so is it thus according to the reason of the Semag and the Semak, and perhaps also according to the opinion of the Ra'ah it is so. And behold, according to all these opinions, at any rate, a thorough rinsing is sufficient and there is no need to soak the meat in a vessel for any duration of time. But according to the last reason of the Mordechai, which is in order to soften the entire thickness of the meat, certainly a rinsing is not sufficient and soaking in water is required for a duration of time so that the entire thickness of the meat will soften. And perhaps also according to the reason of the Ran soaking is required, for it is possible to say that even the upper surface will not soften without soaking [and in the Shas and the Rishonim soaking was not mentioned, only rinsing].

There is a further practical difference if one cut the meat after the rinsing: according to the opinion of the Rashba and the Ran, and according to the final reason of the Mordechai, which is that it is for the sake of softening, a second rinsing is not required, as it has already been softened; and so too according to the reason of the Ra'ah. However, according to the reason of the Rosh and the first reason of the Mordechai, and according to the reason of the Semag and the Semak, a second rinsing is required at the place of the cut, for blood has formed upon the surface of the pieces at the place of the cut. And so too there is this practical difference if one cut the meat before the completion of the salting, for at the completion of the salting, when it has discharged all the blood, according to all opinions nothing is required, as will be explained before us; but in the middle of the salting, a second rinsing is required according to the Rosh, the Mordechai, and the Semag, as is understood.

There is a further practical difference: if one salted without rinsing, is the meat forbidden such that rinsing and salting will no longer avail, or is it not forbidden? For according to the Rashba, the Ran, and the Ra'ah, it certainly avails; for what does it matter to us if the meat has not yet softened? When he rinses it, it will soften. And all the more so according to the reasoning of the Ra'ah, there is no concern in this, as is understood. And so too according to the reasons of the Mordechai: for according to his first reason—to rinse away the blood so that the salt does not become filled with it—what does it matter to us? When he rinses and salts properly, the salt will perform its action. And all the more so according to his latter reason, which is for the sake of softening. However, according to the reasoning of the Semag, the Semak, and the Sha'arei Dura—that the reason is because the salt causes the blood on the surface of the piece to be absorbed—they wrote explicitly that the meat is forbidden, because this absorbed blood will no longer exit by means of salting. See what I wrote in section 4.

However, the Rosh wrote, and this is his wording: And if one salted without rinsing, some say there is no remedy for the meat, etc., because through the first salting some of the blood was released, etc., and it returns and is absorbed into the meat, etc., and the second salt does not expel it since it already was released and returned into it. And according to what the author of Sefer HaTerumah wrote, that meat which was salted and placed upon meat that was not salted has a remedy through salting and will expel, etc., all the more so here it is permitted, since if it expels blood that it received from the outside, all the more so it expels its own blood; and so it stands to reason. Thus far his words. And since the Rosh considers it like expelled blood, regarding which we say "as it absorbs, so it expels," it follows that even according to the reasoning of the Smag and the Smak it is permitted, for granted that the salt causes the blood on the surface of the meat to be absorbed, nevertheless it will expel it afterwards. But they consider this like actual blood, regarding which we do not say "as it absorbs, so it expels." And it is explicitly written in the Sha'arim in this language: that meat without rinsing is like actual blood that fell upon the meat, which is forbidden, for "sliding off" does not apply to it, nor does "as it absorbs, so it expels." Thus far his words. However, even according to this opinion, if there is sixty in the piece against the blood upon it, it is certainly permitted, and consequently in such a case, according to everyone, one rinses it and salts it again and it is permitted to cook, and there is no doubt in this.

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch: One must rinse the meat before salting, and if the butcher rinsed it, one does not need to rinse it at home. And if after he rinsed it, he cut each piece into two or three, or if he removed the hooves of the feet after the rinsing, he must return and rinse them; and if he did not do so, it is as if it were not rinsed at all. Regarding the rinsing of the meat, initially one should be careful to soak it for approximately half an hour and rinse it well in the soaking water, but if he did not soak it but only rinsed it well, it is sufficient for him. And afterwards he should wait a little so that the water drips off before he salts it, so that the salt does not melt from the water and fail to extract blood, etc. If he salted it and did not rinse it first, he should rinse it and salt it a second time; but there are those who forbid it, and so we practice, even if it was salted only a little in the manner that one salts for roasting, and even if it did not remain in its salt for the duration of salting. However, in a case of great loss, one may permit it. And if it was rinsed only a little before he salted it, it is permitted post facto; and the same law applies if there were sixty in the piece against the blood that is upon it. Thus far their words.

And one must be precise regarding their words, for one way or the other: if they hold the primary halakha to be like the words of the Ran, that it is for the sake of softening, and therefore they wrote that in a case of great loss one may permit meat salted without rinsing by rinsing it and salting it a second time, and they are not concerned with the absorption of the blood—if so, why did they write regarding one who cut every piece into two that if he did not rinse it a second time it is as if it were not rinsed at all? For according to the reason of softening, rinsing is not required, as has been written. And if they held the halakha to be according to the reason of the Semak, that without rinsing the salt absorbs the blood that is visibly present, and for this reason they required as an absolute requirement to rinse a second time when he cut it into two—if so, why did they permit in a case of great loss regarding meat salted without rinsing to rinse and salt it a second time? And it must be said that they always hold the halakha to be like the Semak, but they hold like the Rosh that it is not considered like blood that is visibly present, but rather like blood of discharge, such that during the second salting the blood will exit.

And according to this, the explanation of their words is as follows: One must rinse the meat before salting, and this is indispensable, but soaking is only ab initio, as will be explained, for the reason for soaking is only according to the latter opinion in the Mordechai, and perhaps also according to the reason of the Ran, as I wrote in section 4, see there. Therefore, if the butcher rinsed it, one does not need to rinse it at home, even though it is not the way of the butcher to soak but rather to rinse [and the poskim who hold that soaking is indispensable would explain that in the Gemara the butcher soaks it in water]. And if he afterwards cut each piece into two, it requires a second rinsing on the place of the cut, and this is indispensable because the primary reason is due to visible blood. And afterwards they say that ab initio one should be careful to soak it for half an hour to take into account the latter reason in the Mordechai, but ex post facto, if he rinsed it well, it is sufficient for him, and he does not need to soak even if it has not yet been salted [Shach, subsection 5]. However, with a minimal rinsing, it is only ex post facto if it was already salted; but when it was not salted, he does not fulfill the obligation with this, because a minimal rinsing is only according to the reason of the Semak and not according to most poskim. Nevertheless, ex post facto we rely on this, for so we hold as the primary halakha. And so too, if he salted and did not rinse first, he should rinse it and salt it a second time; that is to say, not only according to the reasons of softening, but even according to the reason of blood that is upon the piece, nevertheless, according to the opinion of the Rosh, a second salting is effective. And there are those who forbid it, for they consider it like visible blood, and so we practice. However, in a case of great loss, we rely on saying that it is not like visible blood but rather like blood that has been discharged. And we have learned from this that our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, hold as the halakha in a case of great loss that the blood upon the piece has the status of discharged blood, and in a case of great loss we rely on this [and see there in section 117].

However, regarding that which they wrote, that initially one should soak for half an hour and rinse it well in the soaking water, thus far their words, one must understand the nature of this rinsing; for after the soaking, what further need is there? And in my large book [heading 8] I wrote that initially one should soak for more than half an hour and afterwards rub the meat well in the first water, thus far my words. But I found that the Rashba, of blessed memory, also wrote this in his novellae [8b]: that when the butcher rinses after the shechitah while the blood is still warm, then a rinsing is sufficient and rubbing is not required; but in the rinsing of the homeowner, which is a long time after the shechitah and the blood has already cooled, then a rinsing alone is not enough, for with this the visible blood that has dried will not be removed, and rubbing is required, see there. And therefore they were stringent also regarding soaking, for perhaps the blood cooled so much that even with soaking it will not be removed, and therefore they required rubbing as well, and post facto it does not invalidate. [And according to this, what was written in the Shulchan Aruch, "and to rinse it well in the soaking water," the intention is for the rubbing. And that which was written in the Shulchan Aruch "half an hour," while in the Darkhei Moshe he wrote "more than half an hour," there is no concern in this, for there is no set measure for the matter, and the source of the measure of half an hour I do not know from where he has it. And what was written regarding the removal of the hooves of the feet, see what I wrote in siman 68, section 21, and suffice it].

It is the custom not to use a vessel in which meat is soaked prior to salting. Even though the vessel is not forbidden by soaking for less than twenty-four hours—as this is the measure of "soaked is like cooked"—and therefore if they soaked in a kosher vessel, the vessel is not forbidden, nevertheless, we concern ourselves that perhaps they did not rinse the vessel well and a small amount of blood remained in it. Therefore, we do not use it ab initio even for cold items. Ex post facto, if they used it even for hot items, it is permitted if it was clean. If it happened that they soaked meat in a meat vessel, he rinses it well so that no blood remains in it, and it is kosher. If they soaked the meat for twenty-four hours, the meat is forbidden and also the vessel, for "soaked is like cooked," and the measure of soaking for twenty-four hours will be explained in siman 105. Nevertheless, even if the vessel became forbidden, he may still soak meat in it prior to its salting because its soaking is for a short time and it does not become forbidden through this. But to soak in it for twenty-four hours meat that was salted and rinsed is forbidden, for it will absorb from the vessel, and it is a treif vessel, and its law is like cooking in a forbidden pot, which will be explained in siman 93. And some say that ex post facto it is permitted because the soaking comes after twenty-four hours, and then it is a "giver of a flavor that impairs" [Shach, subsection 17]. And they disagreed with this: first, because the soaking comes at the end of the twenty-four hours [Pri Chadash, beginning of siman 105]; and furthermore, does the soaking come in a single moment? Behold, it is certain that throughout the twenty-four hours it is soaked bit by bit and absorbs the flavor, rather, the completion of the soaking comes at the end of the twenty-four hours, and if so, it is not relevant to say regarding this "a flavor that impairs" [Kereti U-Peleti ibid., and see Magen Avraham siman 447, subsection 16, who wrote like the Pri Chadash that the expulsion and absorption come as one; and therefore, even though the Taz at the beginning of siman 105 also holds like the Shach, see there, nevertheless we do not rule accordingly, and this is the opinion of the Issur Ve-Heter that the Taz there wondered about].

One must be very careful in our lands during the winter time, for although the meat is not full of cold and frost, it is nevertheless very hard and requires much soaking, and not in very cold water. It is good to soak it in hot water, provided that the heat is minimal so that it is close to lukewarm, for without this, the salt will certainly not discharge the blood, as this is understood through the sense of sight. One must warn the women about this very, very much. All the more so if there is ice and frost in the meat, for it is forbidden to salt it until the ice and frost have departed by means of its soaking in hot water as I have written; for if one salts it while it is still in ice and frost, it can forbid the meat, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

Meat that has frozen is forbidden to be salted until one softens it. And if it froze in the middle of its salting: if the time of salting passed before it froze, we have no concern with it. And if it froze within the duration of its salting and the entire piece froze, the better way is to salt it a second time after it softens and to leave it then for the duration of salting. However, if he did not do so, and after it softened he left it in its salt to complete the duration of salting, we combine the time from before the freezing and from after the freezing; and if there is the duration of salting between the two of them, it is kosher. But the time that it was frozen we do not combine, for then the salt did not perform its action at all. And all this is when the entire piece froze, and then there is no difference whether he rinsed it after it softened or did not rinse it. But when part of the piece is frozen and part of it is not frozen, there are other laws regarding this [see Shach subsection 11, and perforce his intention is when all of it froze, see there and examine carefully].

And know that that which we wrote, that we combine the time before the freezing and after the freezing, so it appears to me from the wording of the poskim [Hagahot Sha'arei Dura and Yam Shel Shelomo siman 93] who wrote that if before the freezing it had not yet stayed the duration of melihah, and after the freezing he immediately rinsed it and placed it in the pot, it is forbidden because the time of freezing is like a stone, see there. This implies explicitly that if he waited after the freezing until he completed the duration of melihah, it is well and good. And also from the perspective of logic it is so, for one way or the other: if the freezing spoiled all the power of the salt that is upon the meat such that it can no longer perform its action, if so, it should not be effective even if it stays after the freezing the duration of melihah; and if it did not spoil it, why should we not combine them? And there are some of the great authorities who wrote explicitly that specifically when after the softening from the freezing it stayed the duration of melihah it is permitted, but to combine what was before the freezing with what was after the freezing is not effective even post facto [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at subsection 11 and Havat Da'at]. And I wonder at their reasoning, and in practice one should be concerned for their words, but for the law, it appears to me that the primary view is as I wrote [even though from the wording of the Shach it appears somewhat like their words, nevertheless, one who examines the Yam Shel Shelomo there and his words in the Hagahot Sha'arei Dura will see that the intention of the Shach is also thus; and that which he wrote "it shall stay the duration of melihah after the thawing," meaning to say, together with what was before it froze. And so the Pri Hadash wrote explicitly in subsection 12, and such is the primary law].

And if part of a piece is frozen and part of it is not frozen, he should not salt it until he softens all of it. And if he salted it and afterwards they found frost and ice on part of it, he should cut from it the frozen part, soften it, and salt it by itself, and the remainder is permitted. And even though there are those who are concerned to say that even the remainder is considered as if it were salted only on one side, because for that which is on the side of the ice the salting is not effective [Chavat Da'at, subsection 10], nevertheless, this is not a concern at all, for the salt performs its action in every place that is not frozen. And so wrote one of the great authorities [the Gaon Rabbi Zalman Mirkes in section 11]:

But if he wishes to remedy it while it is still attached together, the matter is difficult. It is not only necessary to say that if it was already salted for the duration of salting and rinsed after the salting, and it is found that part of the piece is frozen, then certainly there is no remedy for it while it is still attached; for the frozen place must be salted a second time, and the place that is not frozen will absorb the blood of the frozen place and will not expel it, since after the rinsing the pores of expulsion have already closed, as will be explained. Rather, even when it has not yet been salted for the duration of salting, in which case the rinsing does not close the pores of expulsion [as is explained from the Shach, siman 80, subsection 26], and according to this he could rinse it and wait until the frozen place softens and salt it once more, and certainly post facto if he did so it is permitted—nevertheless, one should not rely on this ab initio, for perhaps the time of salting has already passed. And when the time of salting has passed, it is difficult to find a remedy even without rinsing, because he must perform some action so that the frozen place softens, such as placing it in a slightly warm place or handling it much, and of necessity the salt upon it will dissolve in the water and he will need to salt a second salting. And then, whichever way you look at it, it is impossible: for if he rinses, the pores of expulsion will close, and if he does not rinse, behold, ab initio we do not salt upon a piece that was salted and remained for the duration of salting when it was not rinsed, as will be explained. Therefore, there is no remedy for it. However, this too, post facto, when he did not rinse it and salted it once more after the softening, it is kosher [as mentioned above regarding this law; see also the Dagul Mervavah and Yad Ephraim, and what appears correct to me I have written, and examine it].

When one salted without rinsing first, some forbid it even for roasting without a case of great loss, for they liken it to blood that is visible; and even though roasting does not require rinsing, as was written in section 76, and we do not consider the blood upon the meat as visible blood, nevertheless, the blood that is absorbed by means of salting, according to the reasoning of the Smag, is worse, and we consider it as visible blood [see Taz subsection 7 and Pri Megadim]. And some permit it even ab initio for roasting, for this is not similar to visible blood at all [Shach subsection 13]. And it is possible that even this opinion intends specifically for a case of great loss, and so one should instruct. And know that several of the poskim wrote regarding the laws of salting that when the permission is clear regarding roasting, and regarding boiling the permission is only in a case of great loss, one should not permit boiling since it is possible through roasting. And it appears to me that in our lands this is not applicable, for we see tangibly that we are not experts in roasting meat over the fire and in the small amount that goes to waste; therefore, if in boiling it is permitted in a case of great loss, one should not forbid it on the grounds that it is possible through roasting, because in roasting there will also be a case of great loss. And see what I wrote in section 82.

If a piece was salted without rinsing along with other pieces that were rinsed and salted together, that piece is forbidden according to the laws that were explained above, and the other pieces are completely permitted. We do not say that they absorb from it and their status should be like the piece itself. The reason is that even though regarding itself we consider it as having actual blood, nevertheless regarding others it is simple that it is only the blood of discharge, and "as it absorbs, so it emits" [Shach, subsection 16]. For in this piece, when the blood is absorbed within it, it is thick and hard, and therefore it can be said that it is like actual blood; but the absorption in the other pieces is after it has melted, and it is like other blood of discharge [Pri Megadim]. Furthermore, blood is slippery and does not permeate from piece to piece during salting [Taz, subsection 11].

In the Gemara [113a] it is implied that one should not salt with fine salt but only with coarse salt, and so wrote the Rambam [in chapter 10], and he wrote the reason is because fine salt melts and is absorbed into the meat and does not extract the blood, see there. But the Rosh wrote [siman 47] that on the contrary, the finer the salt is, the more it spreads over the meat and acts to extract the blood because it adheres to it, but the coarse salt, when one turns the piece to salt it from the second side, it falls off from it. Thus far his words. And the Gemara informs us that even with coarse salt it is permitted, but it is better with fine salt [from the Ma'adanei Yom Tov], and so it is clarified from the words of Rashi, see there. And such is the opinion of the Ra'avad and the Ran, see there, and also the Rashba holds so [as the Maggid Mishneh wrote there]. And perhaps they do not disagree at all, for the intention of the Rambam is regarding salt as fine as flour, and in this even these our teachers would agree to this as the senses testify, and their intention was for fine salt and not for the finest of the fine.

It appears that this is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote in section 3: One should not salt with fine salt like flour, nor with salt that is too coarse which falls off the meat here and there; and if he has no other salt but salt as fine as flour, it is permitted to salt with it. Thus far their words. And he should cover the meat with much salt so that it is somewhat thick so that it does not dissolve [Chayei Adam]. And what is the measure of its coarseness? That it should not be fine like flour and also not too coarse. They wrote that any salt that is not coarser than the salt made from sea water is kosher for salting, and if it is coarser, one must crush it [Taz, subsection 12, in the name of Issur V'Heter]. And we still do not know its measure. And the main matter is a wonder in my eyes, for from sea water they make very large pieces and afterwards they crush it, each one according to his desire, as is known to us. Furthermore, it is a wonder to me that according to the opinion of the Rosh, that anything which is finer is more kosher for salting, if so, in the Gemara there where Rav Dimi says, "salt with galanita salt," meaning with coarse salt according to the explanation of Rashi—granted that it is permitted also with coarse salt, nevertheless, since the fine is better, why did Rav Dimi not do so? Is it possible he did not want to perform the mitzvah in the most choice manner? And it is clear that this is the reasoning of the Rambam who forbids fine salt, but according to the Rosh, it is difficult.

And in my humble opinion, another matter appears regarding this, for behold, Rashi explained "milcha galanita" as coarse salt, but the Aruch [entry galan 4] explained it as hard as stone. And behold, in the Shas two types of salt are found: Sodomite salt and Istrokanite salt. Also in our days these two types of salt are found: plain salt which is gathered from sea water, and Istrokanite salt which is quarried from the mountains. Rashi explained in Beitzah [39a] that plain salt is very fine, and consequently Istrokanite salt is not fine; and Rashi explained this explicitly in Menachot [21a]. This is his wording: Sodomite salt, the sea casts it to its shores; Istrokanite is made from the ground and by the hand of man; plain salt is fine, Istrokanite is coarse. Thus far his words. And behold, in Bava Batra [20b] Rashi explained plain salt as thick and hard as stone, see there. And it does not contradict what he wrote there, for it is only as many have questioned him, for the matter is thus: plain salt in its nature is very hard like stone [Aruch entry ben, see there], therefore when it is ground or crushed it becomes very fine, more so than Istrokanite salt which is moist and soft in its nature. Therefore, when it is ground or crushed, it cannot become so fine, as the senses testify to this [the Gaon R.Y.B. in the Aruch there]. And today as well we see that sea salt is much harder than earth salt and also much saltier. According to this, plain salt is fine and hard as stone, and Istrokanite is coarse and soft. Therefore, there is in each one regarding the matter of melichah an advantage and a disadvantage: for the Sodomite is fine and easy to dissolve, but against this it is hard as stone and not easy to dissolve; and Istrokanite is coarse and not easy to dissolve, and against this it is soft and easy to dissolve. And the name "galal" has several explanations as is clarified in the Aruch. Therefore, Rashi explained "coarse salt," and it is Istrokanite even though it is soft, and the Aruch explained "hard as stone," and it is plain salt even though it is fine. According to this we shall say that the Rambam explains like Rashi and the Rosh explains like the Aruch. According to this, for the law, with sea salt it is better when it is fine, and the salt will not dissolve since it is hard in its nature; but mountain salt must be coarse according to its nature at the time they grind it or crush it. But nevertheless, can one not sift it in a sieve so that it will be very fine? And certainly it is forbidden to perform melichah with it, and perhaps even after the fact it is forbidden. Therefore, the obligation is to be careful and to warn the women that the salt should be somewhat coarse. Furthermore, I say in my humble opinion that regarding that which our teacher, the Rema, permitted to perform melichah with salt fine as flour when there is no other salt here, one should not rule so except with sea salt and not with mountain salt.

Those who are meticulous are accustomed to be careful not to place meat that was not rinsed prior to salting neither on a table nor on any board that is not designated for this purpose, due to the concern that perhaps there is salt in the place where the meat is set and he will not be aware of it [Rashal]. Consequently, one must be careful not to place salt in a location designated for placing meat when they bring it from the butcher shop [Taz subsection 12]. After the fact, there is no concern regarding all of this, as it is merely a general caution. One must also be careful with a basket, a vessel, or a cloth in which they took meat from the butcher, not to use them for anything else even for cold items, unless he first rinses the basket, the vessel, or the cloth, because usually a bit of blood from the meat adheres to them. After the fact, one should not forbid it.

Regarding the essence of the melichah, the Tur wrote in the name of the Rashba that it is not necessary to place salt on the meat until it is entirely covered; rather, one salts it very well until it is not fit to be eaten with that salt. The custom is to salt it from two sides, but post facto, if one only salted from one side, it is permitted. The proof is that regarding a very thick piece, we do not require one to split it in two; thus, the salt draws out all the blood that is in the depth of the meat's thickness, and certainly in a thin piece, the salt will also draw out the blood that is on the second side [Torat HaBayit]. However, the Rosh wrote that one must scatter salt upon it in a manner that no place remains without salt, and one is obligated to salt it from two sides. Therefore, even a goose or a hen, one must open it and rinse it internally very well and salt it from the inside and the outside, and no place shall remain inside without melichah, or one should rub the salt with his hands into the depth if he cannot reach there to salt properly. And that which the Rashba said, bringing proof from a very thick piece, this is no proof, for the rabbis established that the salt draws out the blood even from the depth, but all this is only if there is a force pushing the blood from two sides: one side pushes the blood to the other side, and the salt on the other side draws it out to the exterior. If so, when it is salted from only one side, then on that side which was not salted, the blood stands at its edge ready to exit, but there is no salt there to draw it out with force to the exterior [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 8, siman 83].

And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 4 are perplexing, for he wrote: One should scatter salt upon it so that no place remains without salt, and he should salt it so that it would not be fit to eat with that salt, and there is no need to increase the salt more than this; and he salts it from two sides, and poultry must be salted from the inside as well; and if he only salted them from the inside or from the outside, and similarly a piece that was only salted from one side, it is permitted. Thus far his words.

And behold, he began with the opinion of the Rosh that there should not remain a place upon it without salt, and concluded with the opinion of the Rashba that it should not be fit to eat with that salt. And it is true that in his great book he wrote that it is not necessary to say that they disagree, but it is impossible to say so, for it is obvious that when there remains no place without salt, it is unfit to be eaten with that salt. And what relevance is there to saying that one need not increase more than this, since he covers it entirely in salt, what more could he do? And that which they wrote, that the intention is that he should not make it like a building, this too is astonishing, for this act of covering it entirely in salt is like a building [Bach]. Furthermore, since the Rosh was so stringent that there should not remain a place upon it without salt, how is it possible to say that he permits post facto one salted only on one side? Rather, certainly they are two opinions [and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo there and the Bach, see there]. And even though in the Rosh it is not explicitly stated that if one salted from one side it is not effective even post facto, nevertheless it is implied that his opinion is so, since he did not write the opposite, that post facto it is kosher from one side. And so wrote the Rokeach [siman 415]: A chicken that was salted from the outside and not from the inside is forbidden. Thus far his words. And so wrote the Mordechai [chapter 8] in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak bar Kalonymus, see there; and he brought opinions there regarding this, for some forbid and some permit, see there. And it appears that the Rosh holds like those who forbid, and so it is evident from the wording of the Tur, see there.

Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And some forbid even post facto if it was salted on one side, and such is the custom unless there is a need; and specifically if it was already cooked this way, but if it was not yet cooked, he should not cook it this way, but rather if it is within twelve hours of being salted, he should go back and salt the second side that was not yet salted and cook it afterwards; and if it is after twelve hours, then he should roast it, for the fire draws out [the blood] and the side that was already salted does not absorb from the side that was not salted. Thus far his words. Because within twelve hours it still emits brine and will also emit the blood that it would absorb [Shach, subsection 22]. However, after twelve hours the emission has already ceased, and even though in siman 70 he wrote that in a case of great loss one may rely on the opinion that holds that the emission of brine lasts a full day, nevertheless here, where roasting is possible, we do not rely on this. And this is specifically when it was not rinsed after the salting, but if it was rinsed, the pores of emission are closed even before twelve hours once it has stayed the duration of salting, and further salting is of no use, and it is permitted only for roasting [ibid.]. And some say that since in a case of great loss we rely on the opinion of the Rashba that one side is sufficient, therefore even without a case of great loss we can rely that the emission of brine lasts a full day, and even if it was rinsed we do not say that the pores of emission are closed, because there are those who disagree with the very essence of this law and hold that even if rinsed the pores of emission are not closed, and therefore within twenty-four hours he can salt it again [Taz, subsection 15]. And know that if it was rinsed, when he salts it again he must salt from both sides, but if it was not rinsed, he only needs to salt the second side. And the reason is that seemingly some ask: what benefit is there in salting the second side, for this blood will still not emit when there is no repelling force from the second side [the Gara], as I wrote in section 28? However, it is not a difficulty at all, for since it still emits brine, the repelling force from the second side has not ceased, and it is like one salted on both sides; and this is when it was not rinsed, but if it was rinsed, even if we say that the pores of emission are not closed, nevertheless at that moment the emission ceased and the repelling force from the second side ceased, and therefore it is necessary to salt from both sides [as mentioned above. And that which I wrote here "where roasting is possible etc." we wrote according to the explanation of the Taz there which is simpler, but for the halacha the Taz concludes like the Shach and is more lenient than him even if rinsed. And see what I wrote in section 22 that for us, by means of roasting it is considered a case of great loss, and such appears somewhat to be the opinion of the Shach; and examine it].

And know that that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, "and such is the custom," refers only to the salting from both sides. However, to cover it entirely with salt such that no place remains without salt, it seems that they did not practice so [Bach, and see Shach subsection 20, and Pri Megadim], because most of the poskim hold like the Rashba that we only require that it not be edible due to its saltiness. And so wrote the Aruch, brought by the Rokeach [siman 406], and this is his wording: And it is explained in the Aruch that one must salt it so that it is not good to eat, and one must salt from all its sides, etc., but one who salts a little, scattering the salt here and there, it is forbidden for the pot. Thus far his words. But when one scatters it over all of it, it is sufficient. And so wrote the Ba'ag and the Hagahot Maimoniot [chapter 6]. Nevertheless, initially, when it is possible that no place remains without salt, a blessing shall come upon him, and especially with the salt of our country which is not from the sea and is not so salty.

It is a simple matter that regarding one who salts from one side as we have stated, there is no distinction whether the salted side was placed face up or down, as there are those who wish to make a distinction in this, but it is not the primary view. And it is also simple that the salt must be clean of a mixture of other things, and if there was a mixture of another type in it, even less than half, the salting is not effective, and he is obligated to rinse it and salt it a second time with clean salt, unless the mixture was a very small amount that is considered as nothing, for then post facto it is valid; but in a complete mixture, even post facto it is not effective. And know that if in the middle of the salting he cut the piece in two, he must rinse the place of the cut and salt it a second time, but after the duration of salting he does not need to return and salt the place of the cut, even according to those who hold that even after the duration of salting there is blood within the meat, as will be explained [see Torat Chatat section 21 who wrote that rinsing is required when he cut before the final rinsing, and afterwards even rinsing is not required, see there; and I wonder, for even before the rinsing why is it necessary to rinse this place, for he must necessarily rinse the entire piece].

How long must the piece remain in its salt? The Rambam wrote [chapter 6]: the time it takes to walk a mil, which is approximately a third of an hour, and that is 18 minutes. They brought proof for his words from what our sages, of blessed memory, said [Shabbat 75a] that salting is a type of tanning, and the measure for tanning is a mil [the Maggid Mishneh]. And I wonder, for it is explicitly explained in two places in the Shas that the measure for tanning is four mil [Pesachim 46a, Chullin 122b]. And it is true that Rashi, of blessed memory, wrote in Niddah page 55a that it is the measure of a mil; however, it is certainly a scribal error, for all those things listed there are four mil. And so the Rambam himself wrote in chapter 4 of Hilkhot Avot HaTumot, and so wrote the Arukh in the entry "Gabal," see there.

Therefore, it appears to me that the reasoning of the Rambam is as follows: Behold, the Bahag wrote that the duration of melikhah is the duration of roasting, and the Ramban wrote in the name of the Geonim that the duration of roasting is the time it takes to walk a mil [the Maggid Mishneh and the Beit Yosef], and this was a tradition in their hands from the sages of the Talmud. Therefore, the Rambam did not want to write "the duration of roasting," as we would still not know how much time that is; rather, he wrote "a mil." The reason is because the blood exits through melikhah just as it does through roasting, and therefore the Sages, of blessed memory, said that "salted is like boiling," and thus they have one duration [Beit Yosef]. However, even regarding this I am astonished, for regarding "salted is like boiling" there are several opinions as to which type of salting they said this, and only Rabbeinu Tam holds that this refers to salting for the pot, but several opinions hold that it refers to a different salting, as the Tur wrote in siman 91. And while it is true that the opinion of most poskim is like Rabbeinu Tam, nevertheless there are those who disagree with him, as is written there. Furthermore, I have a difficulty, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, cited there in his great work in the name of the Nasi of Barcelona that it is only at the end of the duration of melikhah that it becomes like boiling and not before, see there; and how can we compare it to roasting, where the fire draws out the blood from its beginning to its end? Furthermore, the senses testify that the drawing power of fire is not similar to the discharge of salt, and a clear proof for this is meat that stayed for three days without melikhah, as will be explained, which is forbidden by melikhah but permitted by roasting. And there are several such matters in the laws of melikhah, for the power of fire is stronger than the power of salt.

Therefore, it is clear to me that this is the reasoning of the Rambam, who elaborated that after the final rinsing one should cast the meat into boiling water, but not into lukewarm water, so that it shall whiten immediately and blood will not exit. Thus far his words. All of our teachers wondered about him, asking from where he derived this matter, for there is no place in all the dispersions of Israel that adopted this stringency. And it appears to me that for the Rambam, all that we have questioned was difficult. Therefore, since he was unable to disagree with the Geonim, who held this measure as a tradition from the sages of the Gemara, he therefore explained that we do not rely on this alone, for certainly roasting is not comparable to salting in this regard; rather, afterwards one casts the meat into boiling water to contract the blood remaining within it. But if one leaves the meat in its salt for a measure of more than a mil, even the Rambam would admit that there is no need to cast the meat into boiling water.

And according to this, I say that regarding that which the world is accustomed to leave it in its salt for the duration of an hour, and it is not known to us why they practiced this stringency which is not mentioned at all in the earlier authorities—for they all wrote "the time it takes to roast" according to the tradition of the Geonim—rather, the collective of Israel, if they are not prophets, they are the sons of prophets. For the custom was established so that they would not need to place the meat immediately into boiling water, as the meat is spoiled by this, as is known. And that which they fixed the measure of an hour is because the primary boiling of the salt is after the duration of the salting, as I wrote; then one must wait the duration of roasting. It emerges that this is twice eighteen minutes, which are thirty-six minutes, and since it was removed from a half-hour, it was established at an hour [what the Tiferet Shmuel wrote from Pesachim requires great study, as the Peleti wrote].

And according to this, it appears to me regarding what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 6, and this is their wording: The duration of remaining in salt is no less than the time it takes to walk a mil, which is approximately a third of an hour, and upon this one may rely ex post facto or even ab initio for the honor of guests or for the needs of Shabbat; but otherwise, the custom is to leave it in salting for the duration of an hour, and one should not change. Thus far their words. And in my humble opinion, if they do so for the honor of Shabbat or for guests or ex post facto, they should cast it into boiling water as the Rambam wrote, or at the very least they should salt it and let it remain in its salt for thirty-six minutes, no less, and so I consistently instruct. [Also my brother-in-law, the Gaon, in his book on the Sheiltot, Parshat Vayikra, followed a similar path, see there; however, what he wished to say, that the Sheiltot and the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot also intended like the Rambam, is merely a pretext, see there well and examine closely].

However, what can I do, for the custom is not so, and also all our teachers, the Rosh, the Rashba, the Tur, and all the Rishonim wrote the duration of roasting and rejected the words of the Rambam regarding what he requires to place the koshering in boiling water; behold, it is explicitly clear that they do not hold accordingly. And it must be said that they have a tradition that with this duration, salting is sufficient to extract all the blood. And in truth, regarding roasting, even in less time than this the fire extracts the blood, but there is no clarified measure for this, and not all fire is equal, as is understood. Therefore, they said regarding the duration of roasting that it should be fit for consumption for most people, as will be explained in siman 76. But regarding the opinion of the Rambam, it appears to me clear as I have written [that which we questioned in section 34 regarding the duration of tanning, I found in the Noda BiYehudah siman 23 that the Ha-Gaon Rabbi Itzik Berlin questioned this, and the words of the Noda BiYehudah are forced, just as he himself was forced in the second edition siman 39, see there]:

This is what they wrote in section 19, and this is his wording: After the meat has been salted and rinsed, it is permitted to place it even in water that is not boiling; however, there is one who requires placing it in boiling water, but the custom is according to the first opinion and such is the primary ruling. Thus far his words. For he holds that the redness remaining after the duration of salting is nothing but mere juice, as all the Rishonim wrote. However, according to what I have written, there is no proof at all from the custom, for since they have accustomed to let it remain for a full hour, even according to the opinion of the Rambam there is no need to place it in boiling water. And perhaps their intention is that the custom is so even when they salt only for the duration of roasting, as I have written.

The Rosh wrote [siman 44] that after it has remained for the duration of roasting, one must rinse it two times: the first to remove the salt and the blood, and the second to remove the moisture of the first waters that remained. Thus far his words. The Tur wrote likewise in the Remazim there, and so wrote the Mordechai, the Smag, the Smak, the Sha'arim, and the Sefer HaTerumah [siman 62], that one must rinse two times [cited in the Bach]. They wrote that post facto, if one rinsed only one time, it is sufficient [Beit Yosef and Bach]. Only in the Hagahot Ashri did he write that ab initio one should rinse three times to purify the second waters that touched the first; see there.

The Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit [brought in the Beit Yosef] that one must be careful regarding the rinsing after the salting, that he should shake off the salt or rinse it with water before placing it into the vessel of water in which it is rinsed; for if he rinses it with its salt inside the vessel, the water will break the power of the meat's discharge, and the blood that is on the surface of the meat and on the surface of the salt will return and be absorbed within it because of the salt that is with it in the vessel, etc. Thus far his words. And it is clear that this concern is only with very little water, for with much water, the water nullifies the power of the salt and the brine. Therefore, all the Rishonim were not concerned for this, for according to the law even little water nullifies the power of the brine, as will be explained, and certainly much water. However, it is clear that the Rashba would not disagree with all the poskim that it is not sufficient ab initio with two times, for from where would he say so? Rather, in this he innovated that the first rinsing should not be in the vessel but rather in the air, or he should shake off the salt and afterwards rinse another second time in the vessel.

And according to this, that which the Tur wrote: "And after it has stayed for the duration of salting, he shall rinse it two times; the first to remove the salt and the blood, and the second to remove the moisture of the water that remained on it. And he shall wash the vessel in which they rinse between each rinsing. And before he places it in the vessel of water in which he rinses it, he shall shake off all the salt that is upon it or rinse it with water so that none of the salt remains upon it, etc. However, if it was not rinsed with water first and he did not shake it off, it is not to be forbidden, for the water in the vessel nullifies the strength of the salt and it is not considered like a boiling liquid to forbid the meat." Thus far his words. And behold, one cannot say that his intention is that besides the two rinsings one requires shaking or rinsing, for how could he disagree with his father, the Rosh, and most of the Rishonim? And at the very least, he should have mentioned that the Rosh does not hold so, as is his way. And furthermore, how could he rule contrary to what he himself ruled in the Remazim, as I have written? Rather, the order of his words is as follows: first he wrote the exact wording of his father, the Rosh, that it requires rinsing two times, and afterward he wrote the concern of the Rashba, that he should not place the meat with its salt into the vessel, but rather shake it or rinse it. And in such a case, one rinsing afterward is sufficient, and he did not concern himself with explaining this explicitly because it is impossible to err in this, for all the poskim did not require more than two times. And afterward he wrote that post facto, if he did not shake and did not rinse, there is no concern in this. And his intention is that this is why the Rosh and most of the poskim were not concerned for this. [And so it appears the Beit Yosef and the Bach understood, even though they did not explain it explicitly, but this was a simple matter to them; and so it is explicitly apparent from the Derisha, who wrote that in the Hagahot Ashri he wrote to be stringent with three times, see there; and if you were to think that the Tur also intended this, what did he innovate in this?]

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7: Before one places the meat into the vessel in which he rinses it, he should shake off the salt that is upon it or rinse it with water, and afterwards place the meat into the vessel in which they rinse and rinse it twice, and rinse the vessel between each washing. Thus far his words. The commentators of the Shulchan Aruch understood that his intention is that he should rinse it twice besides the shaking or the rinsing, which constitutes rinsing three times. According to this, they raised many difficulties against our teacher, the Rema, who wrote: And there are those who say that one must rinse the meat three times, and this is how we practice ab initio; therefore, he should rinse it or shake the salt from upon it and rinse it twice, for this is like rinsing three times; or he should put the water into the vessel and afterwards place the meat into it and rinse it three times, and this is the practice; and ab initio he should put much water in the first rinsing so that they nullify the strength of the salt that is in the brine. Thus far his words. And it is difficult: what did he add to the words of the Author? And they were greatly pressed regarding his words [Shach subsection 28 and Taz subsection 17]. They also raised a difficulty against him: how did he write that ab initio one should put the water into the vessel, for ab initio it is forbidden according to the reasoning of the Rashba, so that the blood that is with the salt should not return and be absorbed within it [Shach].

But the truth is that it never entered the mind of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, to rule that rinsing three times is required like a lone opinion, but rather two times like the opinion of the majority of the poskim. Rather, he was concerned for the concern of the Rashba regarding the absorption of the blood into the meat, and therefore required first of all to shake off the salt or to rinse, unlike the Tur who wrote this at the end of his words to fulfill the opinion of the Rashba because the Rosh was not concerned for this as I have written, but he was very concerned for this and therefore wrote it first. And that which he wrote, "and he shall rinse it twice," his intention was to teach us the essential law of rinsing, how many times it is necessary to rinse, and he says that two times are required, and he shall wash the vessel between one washing and the other. And this is like the wording of the Tur who wrote this previously, meaning when he rinses the two times in the vessel. And automatically, according to his previous words where he requires shaking off or rinsing, one time is sufficient. And you should know that it is so, for if we were to say that the rinsing twice is after the shaking off or the rinsing, if so, why is it necessary to wash the vessel between one washing and the other? Behold, the essence of the blood has already been removed through the shaking off or the rinsing. Rather, it is certainly as we have said.

And for this reason, our teacher, the Rema, rightly came to add that there are those who say that it requires rinsing three times, and such is the custom ab initio. This opinion is not concerned with the concern of the Rashba, and therefore he wrote that one who is concerned with the concern of the Rashba requires scrubbing or washing and afterwards rinsing two times; or, one who is not concerned with the concern of the Rashba shall put water in the vessel and rinse it there three times. And such is the custom, not to be concerned with this concern and to rinse three times in the vessel, which means to place the meat inside the vessel and rinse it, and afterwards he shall lift the meat from the water and return and drop it into the water and rinse it, and afterwards a third time. And he added to say that ab initio one should put much water in the vessel in order to satisfy the concern of the Rashba, for even the Rashba was only concerned with a small amount of water and not with a large amount of water, as he wrote in section 42; see there.

And regarding this, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, came in section 8 to say, and this is his wording: If one did not shake off the salt that was upon it nor rinse it, it is not to be forbidden, for the water in the vessel nullifies the strength of the salt. Thus far his words. That is to say, even though there is a significant concern for the concern of the Rashba, for which reason he preceded this in section 7 to the primary law of rinsing, as I wrote in section 45, nevertheless, post facto, if one did not do so, it is not to be forbidden because most of the poskim were not concerned for this, and it is sufficient to be stringent ab initio. And our teacher, the Rema, came to clarify, and this is his wording: And even if the water is minimal, nevertheless it nullifies the strength of the tzir. Thus far his words. That is to say, that in this is the primary novelty that it is not to be forbidden post facto, for if there were much water, there would be no concern at all, as we have explained.

And he added further to say, and this is his wording: There are those who permit even if there was no water at all in the vessel and they placed the meat in it, for one need not be concerned during such a brief time as they are occupied with the rinsing of the meat, and one may rely upon them; and one need not be concerned with all this except regarding the first rinsing, but after the first rinsing there is no concern. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that we have already written that regarding the concern of the Rashba, his opinion is to be lenient. And behold, this is all when they prioritize the water to place it in the vessel and afterwards the meat; but to place the meat first and afterwards the water, it is obvious that it is forbidden according to all the poskim, for until they place the water in the vessel, the meat rests in a vessel that is not perforated and will absorb the tzir that it emits. And for this he wrote that there are those who permit bediavad even in such a case, because it is a brief time and one need not be concerned with the absorption of the meat, and he wrote that one may rely on this bediavad and not lekhatchila. And this is all regarding the first rinsing, but after this there is no concern at all in this even lekhatchila. Therefore, those who are concerned for the concern of the Rashba and require shaking or washing, there is no concern afterwards how they place it into the vessel.

The common custom in all Jewish homes is that they have a specific vessel for the soaking of meat, and in it they also rinse after the salting, and they do not use it for anything else. However, according to the law, there is no concern and no distinction whether they rinsed in a meat vessel, or a treifa vessel, or a dairy vessel, even those that were used within the day, since the vessel is clean and the meat is left in it for a short time, and with cold substances there is no concern in this. But if the vessel is soiled with treifa or with milk, it is obvious that it is forbidden to rinse meat in it, for the salt will heat them and they will be absorbed into the meat. And if there was a small amount of water in the vessel that nullifies the power of the salt so that it is no longer considered as boiling, even if they are soiled it is permitted if one rinsed in them [this is the explanation of the words of our teacher, the Rema, at the end of section 8, and see Shach subsection 33].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is permitted to rinse the meat with fruit juice and there is no need for water. Thus far his words. Our teachers, the Acharonim [the Shach and the Taz], agreed that both for the rinsing before the salting and for the rinsing after the salting, it is permitted with fruit juice, for there is no correct reason to distinguish between fruit juice and water. And even though in a responsum he desired to distinguish regarding the first rinsing, that perhaps the fruit juice hardens the meat and does not soften it, nevertheless, we see that here he states it without qualification. Therefore, even though there are some of the great authorities who wish to uphold his words that he wrote in the responsum [siman 132], nevertheless, one who sees will see that there is not enough in their words to reject the words of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch and their proofs. And what is more, the Radbaz wrote this explicitly in a responsum [siman 37]. And there is no distinction between the seven liquids that render one susceptible to receiving impurity and other liquids; and in all of them it is permitted when they rinsed meat with them, whether before salting or after salting. And this is all ex post facto.

It is permitted to leave the meat in its salt even for several hours, but longer than the time it takes to discharge its brine—which is twelve hours or a full twenty-four hour period according to the opinions that will be explained—it is forbidden to leave it, for we fear that it will return and absorb from the blood that is upon it and upon the salt. For during the entire time of discharge, since it is preoccupied with discharging, it does not absorb; but after the time of its discharge, there is a concern. And there are those who permit leaving it in its salt even for several days, because the blood upon it is minimal and is absorbed in the salt and cannot exit from it, for it is not the way of salt to discharge the blood from itself; on the contrary, it draws it to itself. This is the opinion of the Rosh, and the first opinion is the opinion of the Rashba, as the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in siman 1. Initially, one should be concerned for the opinion of those who forbid, but after the fact it is permitted. The widespread custom is not to leave it for more than an hour. See what I wrote in section 7.

And upon this dispute it also depends whether, if one salted meat and it remained for the duration of salting and was salted a second time before rinsing, according to the opinion of the Rashba there is concern that the second salt will cause the moisture of the blood that is upon the piece to be absorbed into the meat. And perhaps even before it remained for the duration of salting, one should not place salt upon it a second time, unless in the first instance it was not salted properly; and even in such a case, it is better to rinse it and salt it a second time. However, according to the opinion of the Rosh, that the way of salt is only to extract and not to cause absorption, it is permitted. And regarding the law, also, ab initio one should be concerned for those who prohibit, but ex post facto it is permitted, as in the previous section. [This law I learned from the Mahari, siman 67, and it was brought in the Beit Yosef, who wrote that according to the Rosh, that salt does not cause absorption, it is permitted, see there; and automatically, according to the Rashba, it is prohibited, and for the law he followed the Rosh].

Meat that was salted and cooked without the final rinsing requires sixty against the blood that is on the surface of the meat and against the salt. We do not measure only against the blood absorbed in the salt, but rather against all the salt. Firstly, because we do not know how much blood the salt absorbed, and just as we measure in matters of issur v'heter regarding a dairy spoon that was thrust into a meat pot against the entire spoon because we do not know how much it absorbed, as is written in siman 93, so too in this case. Furthermore, for we are stringent in all prohibitions to say chanan, as is written in siman 92, and if so, the salt becomes neveilah and it is necessary to measure against it. And one should not say that if so, sixty will not avail, for salt is made for flavoring, and anything made for flavoring is not nullified even in a thousand; for it is not so, as this applies only if the salt was prohibited of its own accord, but here its prohibition is because of the blood, and it is a general rule that that which becomes prohibited cannot prohibit more than that which prohibited it. Therefore, we judge this with sixty like all prohibitions.

And behold, there are some among the early authorities who said that you have no piece of meat that does not contain sixty against the blood and the salt upon it [see Beit Yosef]. However, many disagree with this, for there is no proof that there would be sixty; and it is not only necessary to say this regarding a wide and thin piece, where there is not sixty, but even in a thick one it is possible that it does not contain sixty. Therefore, they counted and concluded that there is certainly thirty within it against the blood and the salt. Therefore, if there is water or other things in the pot whose volume is like the volume of the meat, it is permitted, for together there is sixty. And we do not consider the piece as an attached prohibition such that we would require sixty against the entire piece, for the salt is not attached to the piece, and as soon as it falls into the pot the salt melts and the blood is removed, and the absorption goes equally to the piece and to what is in the pot. Therefore, there is no attached prohibition here, and therefore even the piece itself is permitted. And there is one who wished to say that the piece itself is forbidden, but all the great authorities disagreed with him [Turei Zahav subsection 19, and Shach subsection 35, and Pri Chadash, and Kereti U-Peleti].

And if there is not sixty in the piece and in what is in the pot against the blood and the salt, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9 that even if it was only placed in a kli sheni, everything is forbidden, for since there is salt and brine there, even in a kli sheni it cooks. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that this is when the hand recoils from it [Shach subsection 27]. And although a kli sheni does not cook, nevertheless with salt and brine it does cook. However, several of the poskim are lenient in this, for just as a kli sheni does not cook, so too it does not cause the discharge and absorption simultaneously; and here you must say that it would discharge the blood from the salt and cause it to be absorbed in the meat, and the heat of a kli sheni does not have the power to do this. And if it is because of the salt and the brine, behold, after the duration of melihah its boiling has already ceased [Yam Shel Shelomo siman 83]. And since blood that was salted is rabbinic, one may be lenient in this [Taz subsection 22]. But when there is no great loss, one should not transgress the words of our teacher, the Rema [Shach subsection 37]. And some are lenient even with a small loss [Pri Chadash subsection 38], but it does not appear so. [And in truth the matter is astonishing, for the Yam Shel Shelomo and the Taz subsection 15, subsection 5, and the Pri Chadash there hold that a kli sheni causes absorption even generally, so how were they lenient here? And that which they said that here it is to discharge and absorb simultaneously, this is even more astonishing, for the salt dissolves in the water and is absorbed in the meat, and the Pri Megadim already raised this difficulty in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 22. And perhaps because most of the time there is sixty, as I wrote previously, and blood that was salted is rabbinic, they seized upon the opinions of the lenient. Furthermore, regarding the essence of this stringency, it appears that it is only according to Rabbi Yehuda in Shabbat 42b in the Mishnah of "the pot etc." and not according to the Tanna Kamma, and see Pesachim 40b; and the Kereti U-Peleti subsection 6 already raised this difficulty and his answers are very forced, see there. And perhaps the Rema holds that with salt even the Tanna Kamma agrees. However, this is all in a kli sheni, but in a kli rishon the meat is forbidden even without salt when they placed it in a kli rishon before melihah, as the Taz wrote here, and not like Rabbeinu Yerucham who is lenient in this, and all the more so after melihah before rinsing, that it is forbidden in a kli rishon if there is not sixty here, and examine this.]

Meat that was salted and not rinsed after its salting, and one left it thus in its salt until the meat dried, is permitted even if they placed it in a kli rishon; for since it dried on the surface, there is certainly sixty in the piece against the salt that is upon it since it has already dried. Furthermore, this is post facto, but ab initio one should not leave it in its salt until it dries. Also, when one did leave it, he should not place it into boiling water until he rinses it well of its salt; on the contrary, when it has dried, it requires much scrubbing so that the salt is removed from the meat. And know that all that is explained in these laws regarding "not rinsed after the salting," the intention is that it was not rinsed at all; but if it was rinsed even a little, even one time, even though it requires rinsing two or three times as has been explained, nevertheless post facto there is no prohibition here even if it was rinsed only once. And when it was cooked thus, it is permitted without any hesitation, for certainly even with one rinsing the salt and the blood were removed from the piece, and even if something remained, there is certainly sixty against it.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 9: Salt that was used for salting once is forbidden to be used for salting a second time, and all the more so it is forbidden to eat the salt after it was used for salting. Thus far his words. And they wrote that if one salted with the salt a second time and it was cooked in this manner, it is permitted post facto [Shach, subsection 1, in the name of Torat Chatat]. And this is a perplexing law, for certainly we are witnesses that when the salt is filled with blood, it no longer has the power to extract blood from another piece. And this is stated explicitly in the Tosafot and the Rosh whose words we cited in section 104, see there. And it is like the matter that our sages, of blessed memory, said regarding vinegar that was used for scalding once, that it no longer has the power to contract a second time [Pesachim 74b], even when the vinegar is very strong, as is written in siman 67, see there. And so he wrote regarding eating the salt after it was used for salting, that when it has dried out significantly it is permitted [ibid. subsection 41] on the grounds that the blood is burnt and consumed within the salt. And this too is very perplexing, and some of the great authorities have rejected this matter, and certainly so it is, and it is a complete prohibition.

The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: And it was written in the Sefer HaMitzvot that if a Kuti serves in the house of an Israelite and placed the meat in the pot, and it is not known if he rinsed it or not, he is believed when speaking according to his innocence. And if it is known that it is the way of an Israelite to rinse it, and there was even a youth there who knows the nature of rinsing, or even if he enters and exits, it is permitted, for the Kuti is afraid. And there are those who forbid in this. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that even though we establish that speaking according to one's innocence is only believed regarding the testimony of a woman, nevertheless, there are those who hold that regarding a rabbinic matter, one is believed when speaking according to his innocence [Mordechai at the beginning of Beitzah and Terumat HaDeshen siman 79]. And here the prohibition is rabbinic, for blood that was salted or cooked is rabbinic. However, the opinion of most of the poskim is that even in a rabbinic matter he is not believed, as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book at the end of siman 137, see there. Nevertheless, here there is another reason for leniency, for a Kuti is meticulous about cleanliness [Avodah Zarah 30a]. However, speaking according to one's innocence is only relevant when he did not know that a matter of prohibition and permission depends on this, for if not so, it is not according to his innocence [Bach and Derishah]. And according to this, the words of the Tur are interpreted that he is believed when speaking according to his innocence when he does not know the laws of Israel, and afterwards he says: And if he knows that it is the way of an Israelite to rinse it—and if so, speaking according to his innocence is not relevant—there is no permission unless there was even a minor there or that he enters and exits, and then the Kuti is afraid to change. And conversely, if he does not know the custom of Israel and is not speaking according to his innocence, it does not avail that an Israelite was there or enters and exits, for being afraid is not relevant in this since he does not know that this is a requirement. However, it is possible to say that even when he knows the custom of Israel, speaking according to his innocence is relevant, such as when he told others without intention and they did not ask him if he rinsed or not [Shach, subsection 43]. And this is like speaking according to one's innocence regarding an agunah, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 17. And "those who forbid" hold that we do not rely on speaking according to one's innocence nor on the reason of being afraid, because it is a matter that is possible to clarify, namely, to give it to a Kuti baker to taste if there is not an excess of salt in it [Beit Yosef]. And the opinion of the Tur appears to lean toward the first opinion, since he did not write to give it to taste [Rema in Darkhei Moshe, letter 21].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: A Cuthite who serves in the house of an Israelite and placed meat in a pot, and it is not known if he rinsed it—if the Cuthite knows the custom of Israelites, we rely on his words if there was an Israelite there coming and going, or any child of understanding. Thus far his words. And he did not write the permission of speaking in innocence, for he follows his reasoning that speaking in innocence is not believed even regarding a rabbinic prohibition, as he wrote later at the end of siman 137; see there.

Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, who ruled in Orach Chaim siman 513 that regarding a rabbinic prohibition we rely on a non-Jew speaking innocently, and this is also evident from his words later in siman 316 regarding a firstborn, see there; therefore he wrote here, and this is his wording: And one of them is sufficient, either a non-Jew speaking innocently that he rinsed it well, or that an Israelite, even a minor, is going out and coming in, for he is afraid, provided that he knows the custom of Israelites. However, if he protested to the non-Jew that he should not rinse it without his permission and he transgressed his words, it is forbidden, for we see that he is not afraid, and one may also not rely on his words. Thus far his words. Meaning, even in a case of a non-Jew speaking innocently, we do not rely on his words after he transgressed the words of the homeowner. And the fact that he did not write his words in the language of "and there are those who say" is because it is not explicitly evident from the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, that he does not hold of this rule of a non-Jew speaking innocently, and such is his way in many places. It is also clear from his words that even regarding one who knows the custom of Israelites, the rule of a non-Jew speaking innocently applies, for regarding one manner he said "and one of them is sufficient," etc. [See Shach subsection 43 and the Taz, and according to what I wrote it is settled simply, and examine it.] And know that if there are legs to the matter that the non-Jew rinsed it, it is permitted in all manners even without a non-Jew speaking innocently and without the reason of being afraid, and this depends on the understanding of the homeowner that the non-Jew did as was necessary [according to the Pitchei Teshuvah in the name of the Noda BiYehudah]. And one should not ask that there is a prohibition here of foods cooked by non-Jews, for one can say that it deals with a case where the Israelite placed the pot on the fire, which is permitted as is written in siman 113. And the fact that they did not mention the permission that a non-Jewish baker should taste it is because they follow their reasoning at the beginning of siman 98 that nowadays we do not rely on this, see there. [The Kereti U'Peleti subsection 9 raised this difficulty, and also questioned that we do not rely on a non-Jew speaking innocently even in a rabbinic prohibition, see there. And it is not a difficulty at all, for regarding tasting we do not rely as has been written, and the Rema holds that in a rabbinic prohibition we rely on a non-Jew speaking innocently, and so wrote explicitly the Magen Avraham in siman 513 subsection 12. However, the words of the Shach at the end of siman 137 are very astonishing, as he wrote that it is the opinion of all the poskim that in a rabbinic prohibition we rely on a non-Jew speaking innocently from that which is in Bava Kamma 114b, and therefore he divides between a case where a prohibition was established and where it was not established, see there. And it is not so, for most of the poskim hold that he is not believed, and that which is in Bava Kamma is regarding those disqualified from testimony, and the Pri Chadash already challenged him here in subsection 40. However, the Rema holds so, for so ruled the Mordechai and the Terumat HaDeshen, and also the opinion of the Ran inclines toward it as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of siman 137, see there.]

An incident occurred involving a woman who cooked meat and forgot whether she had salted the meat or not, and they ruled that the meat is kosher for two reasons: One, since blood that has been cooked is a rabbinic prohibition, a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently [Taz, subsection 24]. And one should not ask that if so, why did we require the permission of a Cuthean who speaks offhandedly or is in fear—let us permit it for this reason; for it is not comparable, as regarding a Cuthean one cannot permit it for this reason, for why would he trouble himself to rinse, and certainly he does not desire extra trouble, and therefore we required other reasons [Pri Chadash, subsection 44]. And the second permission is that certainly the woman acted according to her constant habit and salted first [Taz]. And there are those who disagree regarding this, that from the reason of a rabbinic doubt being ruled leniently one cannot permit it, since a state of prohibition was established, and it will be explained in siman 110 that wherever a state of prohibition was established, we do not say a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently. And the second permission, from the reason that she certainly acted according to her constant habit, also cannot permit it, for on the contrary, how is it possible that she forgot such a major act as salting and rinsing? Certainly she did not salt [Shach in Nekudot HaKesef].

The great Achronim agreed to permit this, for from the perspective of "a status of prohibition is established," one should not prohibit it, as in truth this law—that where a status of prohibition is established we do not say a doubt regarding a rabbinic law is judged leniently—is not agreed upon. It will be explained in siman 110 that there are those who hold that even where a status of prohibition is established, we say a doubt regarding a rabbinic law is judged leniently [Pri Chadash there]. And regarding the matter of forgetting, how could she forget such a significant act, and certainly she did not salt it? One can say the opposite: for if she certainly did not salt it, how could it enter her mind to be in doubt about this? Rather, certainly the nature of the doubt could be, for example, that she was very busy, and according to what comes to her memory, at times it seems to her that she salted and at times it seems to her that she did not salt. And the truth is so, that it is necessary to contemplate the nature of the doubt, and if it is a complete doubt, one may rely and say that she certainly salted [Palti subsection 10]. And for the law, it requires further study [and in a case of forgetting, if she rinsed it afterward, one should permit it simply].

And that which appears correct in my humble opinion is that even though we do not rely on the tasting of a kutei as written at the beginning of siman 98, and besides this, regarding tasting if the meat has the taste of blood, it is also difficult to ascertain this because even after the duration of melihah there remains a juice like blood [Kereiti U-Peleiti], nevertheless it is clear that if the meat was not salted at all, even if she put salt in the pot as is her usual way, the meat and the cooked food would still be bland from lack of salt, as is understood. And if it is not bland and its taste is good, this is a clear sign that the meat was salted. And in this, it appears that even a kutei who is not a baker is trusted, for he cannot lie about this since the Israelite would recognize his lie immediately. Therefore, it appears correct in my humble opinion to give it to a kutei to taste: if he says it is bland without salt, it is a sign that the meat was not salted, and if he says it is good and proper, one can rely on the great authorities who permit it. [And what the Taz wrote, that the permission is based on the principle of the majority, is not understood at all, as the Nekudot HaKesef wrote. And what the Pri Megadim wrote, based on the principle of attaching the minority to the hazakah and it becomes half and half, making it an evenly balanced doubt which is permitted in a rabbinic matter, see there—meaning that it is permitted even according to the one who holds that where a prohibition was established it is forbidden even in a rabbinic matter—this requires further study, for this is a majority that is dependent on an action, and we do not follow such a majority as stated in Bekhorot 20b, and it is not similar to what the Tosafot wrote in Yevamot 119a, s.v. Rabbi Meir, see there and examine it carefully].

And know that all this is if the woman herself raised this doubt, whether she salted the meat or not. But if the woman left from here after she placed the meat in the pot to cook, we are not to raise any doubt at all whether the meat was salted or not, and it is obvious that she certainly salted it according to the practice of the daughters of Israel, and there is no doubt in this, and it is permitted to eat. However, if one sent meat to his fellow as a gift and did not inform him whether the meat was salted or not, the matter is simple: he must salt it. We do not say that certainly the sender salted it so that he would not cook a prohibited item, for it is not so; for the sender also knows that since he did not inform him that it was salted, he will certainly salt it. And if he cooked it without salting, it is forbidden to eat until the matter is clarified [and so wrote the Yad Ephraim]. However, if they recognize by the meat that it was salted, they may rely on this if the matter is clear to them.

An incident occurred where a certain woman brought meat, fat, and milk into her home and requested another woman to prepare the meat and the fat through rinsing and salting for the pot, and she did so. Afterward, the woman of the house found all three items in one vessel and asked the other woman, "Why did you do this?" She replied, "I did not know that there was milk here." If so, there is a doubt whether they were salted together. They ruled that since meat and milk are "a species with a different species" and it is prohibited by the Torah through the imparting of flavor, it is a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition and we follow the stringent view [Pri Chadash subsection 44 in the name of Tzemach Tzedek]. However, if the doubt is regarding the fat and the milk, which is "a species with its own species," which by Torah law is nullified by a majority, it is a doubt regarding a rabbinic prohibition and we follow the lenient view [ibid.]. And even regarding meat and milk, a peeling is sufficient for the meat, for many poskim hold that through salting it does not permeate more than a peeling, as was written in siman 105; therefore, in a case of doubt, one may rely upon them [Kereiti U-Pleiti subsection 7] because it is a double doubt: perhaps the milk did not touch the kosher item, and if you say it did touch, perhaps a peeling is sufficient. And if it touched in one place and he does not know in which place it touched, it is like a place that requires peeling that became mixed with others, and it is nullified one in two, as will be explained in siman 91 [ibid.]. And there several laws will be explained regarding a matter that requires peeling and they did not peel it; see there carefully [see Pri Chadash who disputed the Tzemach Tzedek, but it is not a valid dispute as the Kereiti U-Pleiti wrote, see there and examine carefully].

Meat that was cooked without melikhah—and not specifically that it was cooked, but even if one placed the meat into a kli rishon that is yad soledet bo [Shach, subsection 44], and even if one removed the meat immediately from the boiling water—there must be sixty in the pot against the meat. And if there is not sixty here, everything is forbidden: the meat, the cooked food, and the pot, because of the blood in the meat. And why is sixty required against the entire meat? Because we do not know how much blood is in the meat, for such is the measure regarding all absorptions of forbidden substances. And there is no difference between the meat of a beast and the meat of a fowl, or between meat and fat, or whether the meat or the fat was rinsed first or was not rinsed, for we do not rule leniently regarding fat.

And if there are sixty here, the meat is also permitted, and it is not relevant here to say chanan, for the meat has never yet been forbidden. And one cannot say that the meat was cooked in its blood, for it is not so; for the blood that was emitted from the meat into the water was nullified in the water, and the blood that did not exit the meat is blood of the organs that did not displace. And one cannot say that perhaps the blood was aroused to exit its place but was not emitted into the water, and it would be considered displaced from place to place and forbidden as written in siman 67, for it is not so; for presumably the blood that was aroused by the cooking to exit presumably exited outside, for who would prevent it? And that which did not exit certainly was also not aroused to exit [this is the intent of the Taz, subsection 27]. And there is one who wishes to say that according to this reason, if the meat was salted a little but not its full requirement and they cooked it, its law is as if it was not salted at all, and behold, in this case the blood was already aroused to exit by the salting, and we should fear lest it did not exit outside and the meat would be forbidden [the gloss of Rav B.P.]. However, even in this there is no concern at all, for it is certain that the blood that was aroused to exit by salting, it is obvious that it exited by cooking, and we should not maintain such a strange deficiency that what was aroused to exit by salting did not exit by cooking [it appears to me].

Nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 11 that there are those who forbid that piece even when there is sixty against the piece, and such is the custom, unless it is for a need, such as for the honor of Shabbat or for the honor of guests, for then one may rely on the words of those who are lenient. Thus far his words. And the same applies when there is a significant loss, such as for a poor person, for this is considered a significant loss relative to his means [Shach]. And the reasoning of those who forbid is because the meat was cooked in its blood, and the reasons we wrote are not sufficient, for we fear that the broth confuses the flavor of the piece and causes the blood within it to spread from place to place [ibid.]. Furthermore, there is a concern lest the blood emerged upon the piece from above and had not yet ceased to mix with the water, and the blood then returned into the piece [as mentioned above from the Hagahot Sha'arei Dura, section 2, see there]. And you should know that this is a major concern, for according to the law of the Gemara, it is permitted to scald in boiling water to constrict the blood, but the Geonim decreed saying that we are not experts in scalding, as the Rif wrote in the chapter "Kol HaBasar" and as will be explained in siman 73 regarding liver. And it must be understood why the Geonim were stringent due to a lack of expertise; what concern is there in this? For whichever way you look at it, the blood that is aroused to emerge will be nullified in the water, and that which is not aroused to emerge is blood of the limbs that has not spread. And granted that regarding the water it is certainly proper to forbid, for it is like nullifying a prohibited substance initially even when there is sixty against the meat; but if he only wishes to eat the meat and cast the water away, why did they forbid it? Rather, it is certain that there is also a concern lest it discharge the blood and then return and absorb it. Nevertheless, the first opinion is primary for the halacha, and therefore for a need it is permitted, as has been written.

And even according to the first opinion, in a chicken that is not opened, it is certainly proper to forbid it, for the liver and the rest of the organs within it are as if they are placed in a vessel, and the blood will be emitted from them and absorbed into the chicken; and perhaps the boiling water will shrink within the chicken that which the liver and the rest of the organs emit [Beit Yosef in the name of the Mordechai]. And there is one who wishes to be stringent regarding a chicken even if the internal organs were removed from it, because since it is hollow, there is a concern lest it [the blood] moved from place to place [Taz, subsection 29]. But this is an excessive stringency, for immediately when the blood is emitted into the cavity, the blood is mixed with the water and it is like any piece of meat [Nekudot HaKesef]. And know that if a piece was salted and was not salted properly, such as with a small amount of salt or if it did not remain for the duration of salting, its law is as if it were not salted at all. And likewise, meat that remained for three days and was not salted, even if he salted it afterwards, its law is as if it were not salted at all. And if it was cooked, one requires sixty against it to permit what is in the pot, but the piece itself is forbidden even according to the first opinion; for since the blood hardened within it, there is certainly reason to fear lest the cooking softens it slightly and the blood moved from place to place and did not exit outside. Therefore, even in a case of great loss it is forbidden [see there one who wanted to be lenient in this according to the reasoning of the Rosh, that in the piece itself there is no prohibition in moving from place to place, and I am wonderstruck, for we indeed hold it to be forbidden as is proven in many places].

Meat that remained for three days without melichah, the Geonim said that the blood has dried within it and melichah is not effective to extract the blood from within it, and it is forbidden to eat it cooked, only roasted, for the fire will extract the blood. And if it is permitted to cook it after its roasting, some forbid it, for who is to say that the fire extracts all the blood, as perhaps a little blood remains and it would be blood of the organs that has not separated, and when he cooks it the blood will emerge. And even though the liver is permitted to be cooked after its roasting and we do not fear that blood remains within it, this is because the liver is still soft, as three days have not passed over it, and it is entirely expelled through roasting; this is not the case when three days have passed [Shach, subsection 21]. And according to this, even a liver that three days have passed over it should also not be cooked after its roasting. However, it can be said that since the liver is entirely blood and the Torah only permitted it through its roasting, there is no further distinction whether three days passed over it or did not pass over it. And so it appears primary, for it was not mentioned in any posek to make a distinction in the liver regarding this.

And there are those who permit cooking after roasting; first, because it is more likely that the fire will extract all the blood, and even if we say that it does not extract it because of its hardness, we say also that the cooking will likewise not extract it. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, decided in section 12 that ab initio one should be stringent not to cook it, but ex post facto if one cooked it, it is permitted. The great Acharonim agreed to this, for this is a simple matter, that even if a very small amount of blood remains and the cooking would emit it, nevertheless it is a small amount and does not have the capacity to forbid. The Radvaz, of blessed memory, ruled to perform chalitah with boiling water after the roasting, and afterwards one may cook it, for according to the law of the Gemara, chalitah itself is sufficient; therefore, with both together, roasting and chalitah, the matter is simple that there is no concern in eating it further through cooking, and so one should instruct. And know that there are those who require salting before the roasting, but there is no basis for these words, and one conducts himself with it as with other roasted meat, which will be explained in siman 77, to salt it a little when placing it on the fire; see there [ibid. subsection 50].

And behold, in the Gemara there is no hint of this law at all, but our teachers, the Rishonim, all agreed with the Geonim, and they certainly received this from the sages of the Shas. And in my humble opinion, it seems there is a hint to this in the Shas [113a], where it says there regarding the rinsing that precedes the salting, that if the butcher did not rinse it, he should rinse it in his house, and if the butcher rinsed it, he does not need to rinse it in his house; see there. And it must be understood: why should the butcher rinse it, performing labor that is not incumbent upon him? And more than this must be questioned, for in Shabbat [75a] there is one who holds that a slaughterer is liable on account of dyeing; see there. And it says there that the matter of dyeing is because it is pleasing to the butcher that it appear full of blood, so that everyone will understand it was slaughtered today and will buy from him; see there. And behold, according to this, the butcher is concerned that there be blood upon the meat, and if so, why would he rinse it to spoil his own interests? Rather, certainly on the first and second day he would not rinse, but on the third day, when he fears lest three days pass and a loss reach him because they will not buy from him for cooking, he hastens to rinse in order to count three days from the rinsing, as will be explained. And a proof for three days appears to me from that which we learned at the end of Yevamot, that one may only testify regarding a corpse until three days, for from then on the face changes. And this matter is known, that all this is because of the blood, for the blood is the soul; and all three days that the blood has not yet hardened, the form of his face is as before, and after three days when the blood has hardened, the form also changes. And therefore we say there in the Gemara that when it is placed in water, even after a long time one may testify regarding him, for the face has not changed, just as we say here that when one rinses the meat in water, it performs its action for another three days. And although in the core matters they are not entirely similar to one another, nevertheless, there is a remembrance of the matter for this law from the Mishnah and Gemara [and likewise from Ketubot 4a, "it was only taught where he put water etc.," is a proof for this, see there; and it requires further study from the end of chapter HaZahav, and delve into it].

One may not delay meat for three days without melichah, for we fear perhaps they will cook it; because in the vast majority of cases they cook and do not roast, one may not rely on the fact that he will warn to roast it afterwards, for in such a case we certainly fear a mishap [see Pelati subsection 12, and according to what I wrote it is well-settled]. And if the butcher sees that it will remain with him for three days, he should hasten to soak it in water as will be explained. Likewise, it is forbidden to delay three days without nikur of the chelev, as I wrote at the end of siman 64, and this is much worse than melichah, for in this case there is no permission for roasting, as is understood. And there is one who wishes to forbid even ex post facto without nikur of the chelev for three days [Bach in the name of the Raviah]. And although we permit it ex post facto as I wrote there, nevertheless it is a great transgression and the butcher must be careful in this.

And know that since this law was not mentioned in the Gemara, we do not rule based on it except regarding a stringency, that it is forbidden to cook it as has been explained, and not regarding a leniency. For example, if one salted meat over which three days had passed in a vessel that is not perforated, we do not say that the blood has hardened and did not emit anything and the meat is not forbidden for roasting; rather, it is a complete prohibition and the meat is treifa, as with any salting of meat in a vessel that is not perforated [Taz, subsection 32]. Furthermore, who is to say that it hardens so much that the salt emits nothing? Perhaps it emits some blood. However, if they previously salted this meat in a perforated vessel and afterwards salted it in a vessel that is not perforated, it is permitted, for whatever was possible to emit, it emitted in the perforated one, and what it did not emit there, it will not emit here either [ibid. in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo], and we do not say that it emits little by little; and there is one who is concerned for this [Nekudot HaKesef]. And if one salted this meat with other meat over which three days had not passed, it appears also that this meat is forbidden, and we should not say that just as it does not emit through salting, so too it will not absorb through salting, for this is no proof, and perhaps it absorbs; and regarding it, it is not relevant to say "just as it emits its own blood, it will also emit what it absorbed from another" [ibid.], and it is forbidden even for roasting as I wrote in siman 70. However, many disagree on this and it is an excessive stringency, and certainly it also emits a bit. Furthermore, the Geonim only spoke regarding the blood, but it certainly emits juice, and it is like other meat, for "since it is occupied with emitting, it does not absorb." And in any case, through roasting it certainly returns to its fitness. And it is a simple matter that if one salted this meat with other meat that had already been salted and rinsed in a vessel that is not perforated, the other meat is also forbidden [ibid.].

We have already written that there is no difference between meat and fat even though it is soft. And there are some among the great authorities who wished to permit goose fat over which three days had passed, for in roasting it would go to waste, and he wished to permit it for salting because it is very soft and the blood within it has not hardened [Shevut Yaakov]. And all the great authorities [Noda BiYehudah and the Gara] cried out against him like a crane. And certainly so it is, for we have no right to innovate anything regarding natural properties from our own minds that which the Geonim did not say. And there were those who wished to permit salting it and adding fat until there is sixty [ibid.], and this too requires further study and it is difficult to act upon this in practice, and one should sell it to a non-Jew. And only in a case where it was salted and it is a doubt whether it was salted within three days or after three days, our teacher, the Rema, ruled that it is permitted. And it is simple, for a doubt regarding a rabbinic law is judged leniently even if it were explicit in the Gemara, and all the more so regarding a stringency of the Geonim. But to create other leniencies is not within our power without the tradition of our teachers, the poskim. And perhaps regarding the fat that is inside the goose, which is very soft and moist, there is room to be lenient; see in section 80.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 13: And if they soaked it in water within the three days, he may delay it for another three days less half an hour. Thus far his words. For he holds that the soaking must be half an hour, just as with the rinsing that precedes the salting [Taz]. And some say that it is not specifically half an hour, but rather a little less [Shach, subsection 54]. The explanation of the matter is that if it were not so, behold, until the end of the three full days from the start of the soaking it would immediately become forbidden if we count the half hour of soaking toward the three days, and he should have delayed it until more than half an hour; rather, it is certain that the time of soaking is not counted within the three days. If so, half an hour is not required, and a minimal amount is sufficient so that from the completion of the soaking there will not be three days. And regarding this he says that in truth he did not speak specifically, but rather a little less [see Pri Megadim and the glosses of Rav Baruch Fraenkel; and it appears to me as I have written, and all is well, and examine it].

From these words of his, it is explained that specifically soaking is required, and it clearly implies that a mere rinsing is not effective to delay more than three days. And behold, in several places we have seen that they only rinse the meat well and do not soak it, and we cried out against this and there was no one to pay heed. And so I saw one of the great authorities write in this language: and they have already accustomed themselves even ab initio to a mere rinsing, and it seems that one should not be lenient ab initio where it is possible by means of soaking, etc. Thus far his words [the Gaon Rabbi Zalman Margolios in Yad Ephraim]. And in truth, the Rishonim and also the Tur did not mention this matter at all, that soaking would be effective to delay another three days, and only our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought this in his great work in the name of the Agur, and there even rinsing alone was mentioned. This is his wording: The Agur wrote, I saw great authorities permit it when they poured water over it within three days, and those who are meticulous place the meat within three days in water and leave it there for about two hours, and then one can delay it another three days, etc. Thus far his words. And his words in the Shulchan Aruch are a decision based on his own reasoning to soak, and half an hour is sufficient. Therefore, those who followed the custom of rinsing have upon what to rely. And some say that if they purged the meat of the veins within three days, they rely after the fact on a mere rinsing, since there is no blood there except what is absorbed in the meat; but if they did not purge it, only soaking is effective [Taz, subsection 33].

An incident occurred involving a butcher who took congealed meat from the slaughterhouse to his home, and it thawed there, and three days passed; however, the thawing occurred within the three days. The teacher ruled to permit it, and it is permitted to cook it, because after the thawing from the congealed state, it is moistened by the water of the thawing, and this is like a rinsing and is permitted post facto. A certain great authority agreed to this if there was a moisture that wets other things on the surface of the meat [the Ha-Gaon Rabbi Zalman Mirkes in his responsa]. And so it appears that if the meat was placed in a cellar called a "ladovnia" among blocks of ice in a manner where the meat is moistened by the water of the blocks of ice, one should permit it in a case of great loss, for this is like a rinsing. But without a great loss, one should not permit it. And it is obvious that the rinsing must be from every side, and if it was rinsed on only one side, it is nothing.

Some say that if the meat is frozen and it was soaked but did not thaw from its frozen state, the soaking is of no consequence, and it is forbidden to cook it after three days from its slaughter, for soaking is intended to soften the meat, and when it is frozen like a stone, the soaking accomplishes nothing [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 53]. These are words of reason, for certainly during the winter when the freezing is at its peak from the intensity of the cold, the meat is indeed like a stone. However, one could say the opposite: that the entire duration of the freezing should not be counted within the period of the three days for this very reason—since it is hard as a stone, it is not relevant to say that the blood hardens within it, for then the action of the blood is of no consequence, as it is already hard as a stone regardless. A proof for this reasoning is that one may only testify regarding a corpse up to three days because its form changes after three days, as is written in Even HaEzer, siman 17; nevertheless, when it was placed in the cold and froze, many great authorities permitted it even after three days for this very reason, that as long as it is frozen, it does not change [Beit Shmuel ibid., subsection 78]. We have already written in section 72 that this law has a source from there. Furthermore, we see empirically that when meat is not frozen and is left for several days, its taste and smell spoil, but when it is in its frozen state, even for many days, when it thaws from its freezing, it retains its good taste and smell. All of this is because as long as it is frozen, it is not like a living thing, but rather like a mere stone. A proof for this—that freezing changes the essence of a thing—is from that which we learned at the beginning of the third chapter of Taharot: Broth, crushed beans, and milk, while they are a liquid that can moisten, they are a first degree of impurity; if they froze, they are a second degree, meaning they are considered like food; see there. Thus, freezing changes its status from a liquid to a food. So too regarding foods: when during the time of freezing it is like a stone, it changes from the category of food to the category of mere wood. Also regarding the matter of Shabbat it is so, for water constitutes a partition, and when it freezes, the status of a partition is nullified from it and it is like mere dust [Magen Avraham siman 363, subsection 51 and Taz ibid.], for anything that freezes nullifies its previous status. And although one may distinguish between these cases, as is understood, nevertheless it is certain that as long as it is frozen, the meat is like mere wood and stone, and the blood then performs no action at all. We see similarly with fruits, such as apples and the like, that in the winter days when they freeze, they are like stone and are not fit for eating at all. And that which is in the Mishnah in Taharot—that their law is like foods—is because their freezing is slight and they are fit for eating, like oil that is slightly congealed; but in the winter days in the northern countries where the cold is intense and they become truly like stones, they would not even have the law of foods [according to the Pri Megadim, subsection 60; but according to what I have written, it is not so, and observe carefully].

A whole bird that has not been opened, soaking is not effective for the internal organs such as the gizzard and the like, and it is forbidden to cook them; rather, he shall roast them over the fire. There is one who wishes to say that even for the meat it is not effective, but only for the skin, yet it is not so; for even if we say that the pores in the skin of the bird do not penetrate through and through, nevertheless, the meat also softens by means of soaking [Noda BiYehuda, Second Edition, Orach Chaim 27]. However, if he does not soak it in water but only rinses it, he must pour much water upon it and also rub it well with his hands, for if not so, there will certainly be no benefit to the meat [ibid.]. And in such a case, he should strip the skin and cook it, and the meat he shall roast [the fat that is inside perhaps may be permitted in a case of great loss, as it is very moist].

If the third day falls on Shabbat, it is forbidden to rinse the meat, and all the more so to soak it; and even by means of a kutei it should be forbidden, since there is permission through roasting, one should not exert effort on Shabbat [Magen Avraham siman 321, subsection 7]. Therefore, regarding geese, whose primary purpose is for the fat and it constitutes a total loss, it should be permitted by means of a non-Jew [Noda BiYehuda Tinyana ibid.]. However, for us, as we are not experts in roasting over the fire and it constitutes a great loss, it should be permitted for all meat by means of a kutei. And if it is impossible through a kutei, he should do it by himself, for there is no melakhah in this; and all the more so if he needs to wash his hands, he can wash his hands over the meat and pour much water on his hands so that the water prevails on every side. And on Yom Tov it is certainly permitted, for behold, he can cook it on Yom Tov, unless it is close to evening such that it is not fit to cook and eat on that day, for then it is necessary to do it by means of a kutei or to wash his hands over the meat as I have written.

Meat that remained for three days without meliha and that piece became mixed with other pieces and it is impossible to identify it, it is nullified in the majority according to the law of dry in dry that will be explained in siman 109. And we do not say that the law of dry in dry—where it is nullified in the majority—is only in "kind with its own kind" and not when it is "not its own kind," as is written there, for the reason that if one cooks them it will impart flavor, and here the prohibition is because of blood and this is like "kind with that which is not its own kind." However, besides the fact that this law is a stringency of the Geonim and one should not be so stringent regarding it, furthermore, that which is prohibited in "not its own kind" is specifically regarding a Torah prohibition, and here when one cooks it, it is blood that was cooked which is only rabbinic. And even according to those who are stringent there even regarding a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless here it is not relevant at all that the blood would impart flavor in cooking for two reasons: one, for the blood that this piece will emit in cooking will certainly be nullified in sixty by the water in the pot; and furthermore, for in every piece there is also tzir which is red like blood and comes out in cooking and there is no difference in the flavor. Therefore, this law is not relevant here [I learned this from what the Pleiti wrote in subsection 14]. And also one should not prohibit it for the reason of davar she-yesh lo matirin, for it has permission through roasting, as davar she-yesh lo matirin is not relevant unless it has permitters from that which was previously prohibited, as is written in siman 102, and here for roasting it was never prohibited. And furthermore, davar she-yesh lo matirin is not relevant unless no loss will reach him, and for us, as we are not experts in roasting over the fire, it is a complete loss, as is written in section 22, see there.

And how shall one act regarding the mixture? If they were all salted, but this piece was salted after the three days, nothing further is required. And if they have not yet been salted, he should salt them now, and he may salt them as one; for from whatever perspective: if this piece will emit its own blood, it will not absorb the blood of others, as we are dealing with a case where it is preoccupied with emitting and does not absorb. And if it will not emit its own blood, and there is concern that it will absorb the blood of others, nevertheless, what of it? For it contains its own blood and even so it is nullified; if so, it should also be nullified by the absorption of other blood [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 55]. However, even this is not sufficient, for how can we add blood to it manually and nullify it? This would be like nullifying a prohibited substance ab initio. According to this, it is necessary to salt each one individually. But according to what I wrote in section 74, that it always emits brine, if so, there is no concern that it will absorb the blood of others. Nevertheless, it is better to salt each one individually. And know that in siman 109 it will be explained that regarding a dry-in-dry mixture that is nullified by a majority, one must cook each one individually, see there, and there is a further stringency in this matter. And know that even if this piece is fit to be served to honored guests, it is nullified by a majority, since the prohibition is not due to itself but due to the blood within it, and blood is not fit to be served to honored guests; and this will be explained in siman 101 with the help of Heaven.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 14: And such is the law regarding that which was cooked without melikhah and was afterwards mixed with others. Thus far his words. Meaning, that it is nullified by a majority. And there is one who forbids, for in this case sixty is required, since this piece is a complete prohibition and is not similar to that which passed three days, which is a stringency of the Geonim. Therefore, according to the one who holds in siman 109 that even regarding a rabbinic prohibition in a dry-in-dry mixture of a different species sixty is required because if he cooks them it will impart flavor, sixty is required here as well [Shach, subsection 37]. However, according to what I wrote in section 82, that here it is not applicable that it will impart flavor because the tzir also contains flavor, a majority alone is sufficient [and so wrote the Kereti U-Peleti and the Havvat Da'at]. Furthermore, the primary ruling is that regarding a rabbinic prohibition we do not say this, as I wrote there [Pri Chadash, subsection 48]. And there is one who wishes to permit in a case where a piece that was not salted was mixed with pieces that were salted before cooking, that it is nullified by a majority and there is no need to salt them, because a dry-in-dry mixture is nullified by a majority. And even though it is a davar she-yesh lo matirin through melikhah, nevertheless it is permitted, for it is only called a davar she-yesh lo matirin when time permits it without an action; and furthermore, there is a loss of salt here; and furthermore, he does not wish to spoil these pieces by salting them twice, as they will not be good for eating [Yam Shel Shelomo, siman 86]. However, from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in this siman and in siman 102, it is evident that they do not hold of this law, and similarly there are among the great authorities who disagree with this [Nekudot HaKesef and Pri Chadash]. And such is the primary ruling, that such a thing is not called a loss, and this has the law of a davar she-yesh lo matirin. Therefore, he should salt each one by itself if the pieces that were already salted were rinsed, because the pores of discharge have become closed and they will absorb from the one that was not yet salted; or if he wishes, he may roast them all over the fire [and if they were not rinsed, it appears to me that he may salt them as one, for this is like a post-facto situation, and examine this].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 15: Meat soiled with blood that was soaked in water for twenty-four hours, there are those who forbid eating it except as a roast, unless there is sixty in the water against it. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who say even for a roast, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And all the great authorities have already found this difficult, for behold, soaking is like cooking, and how is it possible to permit it for roasting? For this is like meat that was cooked without salting, regarding which they themselves explained in section 11 that if there is no sixty, everything is forbidden; see there. It is understandable when there is sixty, for even in cooking the piece itself is permitted, as is written there; and even though our teacher, the Rema, there was stringent regarding the piece itself even when there is sixty, as we explained in section 68, nevertheless in a case of great loss he admits, as is written there, and therefore they were not stringent regarding soaking since according to the essential law even in cooking it is permitted. But when there is no sixty here, [how] is it possible to permit the meat for roasting? And in truth, there is one who holds that soaking is only like a second vessel [Beit Yosef in the name of the Ram], and according to this it is understandable, for since a second vessel does not cook, soaking also does not cook. But in truth, our teachers the authors of the Shulchan Aruch wrote explicitly at the beginning of siman 105 that soaking is like total cooking, and they ruled likewise below in section 18 regarding the matter of salting in a vessel that is not perforated, that the meat is forbidden due to the reason that soaking is like cooking [and see Shach subsection 60 and Pri Chadash subsection 51 who remained in wonderment; however, what the Shach wrote that "soiled" is like blood itself is not a difficulty at all, for the Beit Yosef does not hold so, as the Pri Megadim wrote there; however, in truth there is no difference between "soiled" and "rinsed" since it was not salted, as the Taz wrote in subsection 36 and as the Shach himself concluded; and also the words of the Rema are puzzling, for he wrote "and such is the custom," which implies they conducted themselves with this stringency, yet according to the essential law soaking is like cooking].

However, when we examine closely what the expression "soiled with blood" means—for it should have said "meat that was not salted," and if his intention was that it is still soiled even on the outside because it was not rinsed, it should have said "that was not salted and not rinsed"—it is true that the source of the law is from our teacher Yerucham [Beit Yosef], and there too this expression is written, and there too one must examine this expression closely. Therefore, it appears that they wrote this intentionally, for while it is true that soaking is like cooking, nevertheless, in all prohibitions of soaking, the matter is such that one soaks a permitted item in a prohibited item, such as meat in milk or meat in the brine of treifa, where the permitted item that is soaked absorbs from the prohibition in which it was soaked, or vice versa, where one soaks a prohibited item in a permitted item and the permitted item being soaked absorbs from the prohibiting item, as in Shevi'it chapter 7 regarding a rose that one soaked in oil or carobs in wine, see there. And similarly in Terumot chapter 10, where one soaked secular lettuce with a vegetable of terumah or vice versa, see there. And it is also explained there that not every item absorbs by means of soaking, as we learned there: all items soaked with one another are permitted, except with lettuce, see there. And they did not say "soaking is like cooking" for everything; for according to Rashi, there is no law of soaking except in brine and vinegar, as written in siman 105. And while it is true that we hold that there is soaking in everything with a soaking of twenty-four hours, nevertheless, this is all so that one will absorb from the second, but what concern is there in meat soaked in water if it absorbs from the water? Perforce you must say that first it will emit the blood into the water, and afterward the meat will absorb the blood that was emitted into the water. But who says that the nature of soaking is thus? And a proof for this is from Terumot there, which says that a vegetable absorbs from lettuce, and therefore a secular vegetable with terumah lettuce—the vegetable is forbidden to non-priests, but the lettuce does not absorb from the vegetable, and therefore secular lettuce with terumah vegetable is permitted, see there. Now, let us be concerned that the vegetable will absorb from the lettuce and the absorbed matter will be terumah, and afterward the secular lettuce will absorb the lettuce-matter absorbed in the vegetable and forbid it? Rather, certainly we do not say so. And according to this, if the meat is not soiled with blood and the concern is only from the absorbed blood, certainly it is completely permitted. However, when it is soiled with blood, perforce as soon as it falls into the water the blood is rinsed into the water, and it becomes like meat soaked in blood, where there is a concern that the meat will absorb from the blood. Therefore, that which they said, "meat soiled with blood," they are stating the reason: that therefore some forbid it except for roasting, for in roasting certainly one should not be stringent, as it is obvious that this small amount of blood mixed in water—its absorption is minimal, and it is enough to forbid it in salting for cooking. And some forbid it even for roasting, for they compare it to complete soaking. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote this law in section 1, and we explained it in section 16, see there. And all this we wrote to explain the words of our teachers, but for the practical law, we must instruct according to the opinion of the great later authorities: that even if the meat was rinsed, it is forbidden even for roasting in a soaking of twenty-four hours [see Pelati subsection 15 who also wrote similarly to this, that soaking does not effect emission and absorption simultaneously, and he did not distinguish between rinsed and not rinsed, and according to what I wrote, it is well settled].

One may only salt meat in a place where the brine from the salting will have a place to flow, such as salting it on a smooth board and placing it on an incline. If it is very smooth, such as if it was planed with a plane, which is called "gehebelt," one does not need to place it on an incline, for even without this the blood will flow well. However, if it is not so smooth, one should place it on an incline in a manner that when water is poured there, it will exit immediately without any delay at all; or one may salt it upon straw or wood chips that have much space between them so the brine will flow. Therefore, there are those who make woven reeds where there is much space between reed and reed and the blood will flow there, and even with this, it is customary to place a piece of wood under its upper end and set it on an incline. And if one desires to salt in a vessel that has sides, the obligation is to make many large holes in the bottom of the vessel. This is what the Sages, of blessed memory, and all the poskim said: One may only salt meat in a perforated vessel [113a], meaning that when one wants to salt in a vessel, he should only salt in a vessel perforated at its bottom. But it is better not to salt in a vessel at all, for even with this, extra caution is required, as sometimes the meat itself blocks the holes and then the meat is forbidden. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 16 that with a perforated vessel, one should be careful ab initio that the holes remain open, and therefore one should not set it on the ground, for it is like a vessel that is not perforated. And so too they are somewhat stringent to place straw or wood chips inside the perforated vessel because the meat will block the holes; but ex post facto one need not be concerned with all this. Thus far his words. Meaning, that ex post facto they do not forbid based on extra concerns, but all this is if the water descends from there; however, when the water does not descend, it is forbidden even ex post facto [Taz, subsection 38]. And one must be careful when salting on the edge of a bench and there are large holes in the bench where the brine collects and the meat enters into the hole, for this is certainly like a vessel that is not perforated [Ba'er Heitev, subsection 51 in the name of Knesset HaGedolah]. And it is impossible to explain everything in writing; rather, every master of the house is obligated to supervise the salting of meat, for the matter is handed over to maidservants and they are not precise in this. It is incumbent upon every master of the house to see and to establish the practice in his home to salt on a smooth board and that it be on an incline, or in another manner where the brine will have a place to flow with much room.

And if one salted in a vessel that is not perforated, the meat is forbidden entirely, and it is forbidden even for roasting, because the brine has no place to flow; and immediately when the salt begins to expel the blood, the blood returns to the interior of the meat, and it becomes like blood itself which does not exit through salting nor through roasting. And one should not ask: how will it expel the blood, for the pressure of the place does not allow it to be expelled? For this is no question at all, as the upper side of the meat along with the sides are initially open to release the blood, but after it releases it, it remains in the vessel beneath the meat and returns and is absorbed into it.

And one should also not ask: surely we maintain later at the beginning of siman 70 that one may salt several pieces one upon the other, and even though the lower one finishes its discharge before the upper one, there is no prohibition in this because the discharge of brine lasts a long time, and as long as it is occupied with discharging, it does not absorb, as will be explained there; if so, in a vessel that is not perforated, let us also say that since it is occupied with discharging, it does not absorb. For this too is no question at all, because there the world is spacious for the meat and it will not absorb, whereas in a vessel that is not perforated, since the meat is submerged slightly in the brine, the world is cramped for it and it lacks the ability to discharge and it absorbs [Tosafot and the Rosh, chapter 8, end of siman 37]. Furthermore, since it is placed in brine, it does not need any power of its own to absorb the brine, but rather the brine is absorbed into it of its own accord [Ma'adanei Yom Tov ibid., letter shin]. Furthermore, since the meat is like kavush in brine, and kavush is like cooked, and regarding cooked it certainly is not relevant to say "since it is occupied with discharging it does not absorb," for the broth confuses, as it causes discharge and causes absorption, and so it is with kavush.

And how much time must it be placed in a vessel that is not perforated for the meat to be forbidden? The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: Our teacher Tam wrote that it is forbidden immediately, even if it did not remain for the duration of the shiur of melihah. And the Ri of Barcelona wrote that it is not forbidden unless it remained in the vessel for the duration of the shiur of melihah. And my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that if it remained in it for the duration of the time from when they place water on the fire until it begins to boil, it is considered like kavush. Thus far his words. And the reasons of these, our teachers, are as follows: The reason of the Ri of Barcelona is that since the prohibition is due to kavush being like cooked, and in a matter that does not have heat, the kavush is twenty-four hours, why then do we say that in a short time it is like cooked? Because the meat is hot due to the melihah, and the heat of the melihah is only at the completion of the shiur of melihah. And we have already mentioned this opinion of his in section 35, see there; therefore, he required this duration. And the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam is because the brine and the blood begin to exit from the meat immediately, and the drops themselves are not edible due to their saltiness, even though the meat is still edible despite its saltiness. Therefore, the meat that is being pickled and cooked within the brine and the blood, which are salty, immediately re-absorbs the blood that it emits [Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba]. And that which he wrote "immediately," the intention is not in a single moment, but rather until brine is visible in the vessel, which is a short time. And the opinion of the Rosh is neither like the words of this one nor like the words of that one, and his reason is that since the prohibition is because it was pickled in brine and we say it is like cooked, therefore it is impossible for it to be forbidden instantly at the time the meat is cold. And since the shiur of pickling in brine is the time it takes to place it on the fire and it begins to boil, as written at the beginning of siman 105, therefore if it was pickled within the brine for this duration, the meat is forbidden, and in less than this duration it is not forbidden except for the outer layer. And how much salt must one place on the meat for it to be forbidden in a vessel that is not perforated? They did not explain explicitly, but from the silence of their words it appears that it must be like all melihah for a pot, for this shiur is called "not edible due to its saltiness," as will be explained in siman 91 [and so it appears from the Shach, subsection 71, see there].

And if the meat that is outside of the tzir is also forbidden, there is a dispute among the poskim regarding this. This is the wording of the Tur: And Rabbi Peretz wrote that the entire piece is forbidden, even what is outside of the tzir. And even though a piece that was salted and fell into forbidden tzir is only forbidden regarding what is inside the tzir, here it is all forbidden. And my master, my father, of blessed memory, wrote that here too it is only forbidden regarding what is submerged within the tzir, and so wrote the Rashba; and even if it has fat, we do not say that by means of the fat it permeates through it all. Thus far his words. And the reasoning of Rabbi Peretz is that it is not similar to a kosher piece that fell into tzir, because that piece has discharged all its blood, and blood does not permeate upwards as it slides down, and similarly tzir does not permeate upwards, and therefore only what is inside the tzir is forbidden. But regarding salting in a vessel that is not perforated, where its blood has not yet exited and the place is crowded for it since it is not perforated, and the blood in the piece is aroused to exit and spreads from place to place, it is like blood of the limbs that has spread. And the Rosh does not hold so. And one should not ask of Rabbi Peretz: granted that it is so, nevertheless let it be permitted via roasting, according to the law of one who breaks the neck of an animal after its shechitah, where the blood also spreads from place to place and it is permitted via roasting as written in siman 67; for it is not similar to there, as here, where it was salted in a vessel that is not perforated, it is considered kavush, and kavush is like boiling [Shach, subsection 74]. And this, that according to the Rosh it is not forbidden even in fatty meat although fat permeates, nevertheless since the prohibition itself, which is the blood and the tzir, does not permeate upwards, the fat that becomes forbidden because of it cannot forbid more than the prohibition itself forbids [ibid., subsection 73]. And it is a great principle in prohibitions, as will be explained in siman 105.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 18: Meat that was salted in a vessel that does not drain and remained in it for the duration of the time it takes to place water on the fire and for it to begin to boil—whatever of it is in the tzir is forbidden to be eaten even roasted, and the part of the piece that is outside the tzir, only a k'dei klipah of it is forbidden, and even if it contains fat. Thus far his words. And the klipah is in the place where it touched the piece that was in the tzir. And this is according to the opinion of the Rosh. And one cannot bring a proof from this that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, holds regarding blood that moved from one place to another place after the shechitah and did not exit to the outside that there is no prohibition in the matter; for behold, this is the reasoning of the Ri"f who forbids even what is outside the tzir, as it could be said that from this there is no proof, for he holds that through this, what is outside the tzir did not move from place to place, for so it is implied from the language of the Rosh [see the Beit Yosef]. But this cannot be said, that he holds that even though it moved, it is nevertheless permitted for roasting like in the case of breaking the neck, for if so, he should have clarified that what is outside the tzir is only permitted for roasting; rather, it is certainly as we have said [and although I have already written that it appears to me that the Beit Yosef indeed holds so, nevertheless from here one cannot bring a proof for this, as I have written].

But our teacher, the Rema, ruled like Rabbeinu Tam and like the Ri Porat, and this is his wording: And some forbid the entire piece, even what is outside the tzir, and even if it was salted only a little in the manner that one salts for roasting, and even if it did not remain for the duration of salting but only a little until tzir was seen in the vessel; and such is the custom, and one should not deviate. Thus far his words. And we have already explained the reason for this. And know that there is one who says that the primary law is that there is no prohibition regarding blood that spreads from place to place, and therefore we hold in practice that what is outside the tzir is permitted [Pri Chadash, subsection 63]. But it is not so. Firstly, for we accept as the halacha like our teacher, the Rema, who forbids in several places regarding spreading from place to place. However, even if we were to say that there is no prohibition in spreading from place to place, we have already explained in section 91 that here it is much worse due to the principle of kavush, which is like cooked; and just as with cooking without salting, certainly even the part of the piece that is outside the broth is forbidden, for through the agitation of the cooking it is obvious that the blood permeates upward, so too here in kavush in tzir, and the piece is "hot" as it has not yet been salted, the forbidden tzir permeates upward and forbids it all. And so we hold. And this is not comparable to kosher meat that fell into tzir, for there the meat is not "hot" [and so it appears from the Chavot Daat, subsection 26, see there; and with this the difficulty of the Pleiti against Rabbeinu Tam in subsection 21 is resolved, see there].

He further wrote that it is only forbidden regarding that piece which touches the brine that is resting at the bottom of the vessel, but the other pieces above it that are salted with it are permitted, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And even though the upper pieces discharge downward onto the lower one, and here the lower one is indeed blocked from discharging as has been written, nevertheless, one piece is not so pressed against its fellow that the lower ones would prevent the upper ones from discharging, and even a kelipah is not required [Taz, subsection 45].

The Acharonim wrote in the name of the Maharshal that even though we are stringent to forbid even that which is outside the tzir, nevertheless, if this piece was mixed with others, it is nullified one in two. Since according to the Torah it is nullified one in two, and only by rabbinic decree did they require sixty, the poskim who permit that which is outside the tzir are sufficient to rely upon them, at the very least, so that it shall be nullified by a majority [Taz subsection 44 and Shach subsection 76]. And seemingly it implies that this is only when only the part of the piece that is outside the tzir was mixed, for regarding the part that is inside the tzir, there is no one who permits it. However, from their wording it does not imply so, for they should have specified, and this is explicitly proven from the words of the Maharshal in his book Yam Shel Shlomo [siman 94], see there. And certainly it is so, for indeed it is very difficult: what novelty is there in this? For our teacher, the Rema, already ruled in section 14 that meat that was cooked without melichah and was mixed with others is nullified by a majority, and we explained his words in section 84, see there. And the Maharshal himself ruled in his book [siman 86] that when a piece of meat that was not salted was mixed with others, it is nullified one in two and there is no need to salt them, and we brought his words there. If so, what difference is there between one and the other? And it must be said that this law is more stringent, for since this meat that was salted in a vessel that is not perforated has already been forbidden, and we maintain "the forbidden substance itself becomes forbidden" (chanan) regarding all prohibitions, if so, when he cooks them, it will impart flavor and requires sixty by rabbinic decree; this is not the case for a piece that was not salted, which has not yet been forbidden. However, regarding the ruling of our teacher, the Rema, there is no difference here. Therefore, I say that behold, the Acharonim also disagreed on this ruling, as I wrote there in section 84, and we resolved his words, see there. However, according to their opinion, there is a novelty in this ruling. Therefore, it seems clear to me that they permitted it even if the entire piece was mixed, for since according to our teacher, the Rema, it is permitted regardless, and according to the system of the Rosh that which is outside the tzir was not forbidden at all, therefore we are lenient in this mixture to permit one in two. And also in the opinion of the Maharshal it must be said so. [The Griva also raised a difficulty: is not "flavor is like the substance itself" (ta'am k'ikar) a Torah law? See there. And according to what I wrote in section 64, it is not a difficulty at all. And I also saw that he remained in "further study" (tzarich iyun) regarding the wording of the Mechaber in section 18, who wrote "the amount of time it takes to place water on the fire and it begins to boil," while at the beginning of siman 108 he wrote "the time it takes to place it on the fire," which implies the object itself, see there. And in truth, even there his intention is as it is here, and "the time it takes to place it" refers to the object placed inside the tzir, and he should place it on the fire in water, and in any other way it is impossible to interpret at all, and examine it closely.]

An incident occurred where a woman placed a goose that had been salted and rinsed upon a goose that had not yet been salted, and she salted the upper goose in the manner that one salts after the initial salting in order to let it remain in the salt. They ruled that if brine flowed from the upper one and the lower part of the bottom one was resting in the brine, if it remained in the brine for the time it takes to place it on the fire and for it to begin to boil, it is like being pickled in brine; the lower part resting in the brine is forbidden, and the upper part is permitted according to all the poskim. For even the Rif was only stringent in a case where it was salted in a vessel that is not perforated, but here the lower one was not salted, and its law is no more stringent than a piece that was salted and fell into forbidden brine, where that which is above the brine is permitted, as was written in siman 91. For here, although the brine is permitted, nevertheless, since the lower one was not salted, it was pickled prior to salting, and pickling is like boiling regarding the part resting within the brine [this is the intention of the Taz in subsection 44, and the difficulty of the Nekudot HaKesef is resolved; and regarding that which the Pri Megadim wondered about the Nekudot HaKesef, it seems to me it is because he did not explicitly explain that it remained for the duration of pickling, see there and delve].

And what is the law of a vessel that is not perforated when meat was salted in it? Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 16, and this is their wording: And if one salted in a vessel that is not perforated, it is forbidden to use that vessel for a hot item; and if one used it, it requires kelipah if it is a dry item, and if it is a liquid item, we require sixty against the kelipah from the bowl. And some say that even for a cold item it is forbidden to use it without rinsing, and if one used it without rinsing, he must rinse what he used. However, it is permitted to return and salt meat in it after it has been perforated, or even without perforation if the meat has already remained for the duration of its salting and was rinsed. But if it is perforated, it is permitted to eat in it even a hot item; and some forbid a hot item, and one should be careful ab initio, but post facto it is permitted. Thus far their words.

The explanation of their words is that we hold that there is no salting for vessels to emit, but there is salting to absorb into vessels, and they will emit through cooking. That is to say, by salting a prohibited salting in the vessel, it certainly absorbs and becomes treifa. However, for it to emit from itself to subsequently prohibit a permitted item salted in it, in this regard there is no salting for vessels, for the power of salting does not act to extract the emission of the vessel. But when one cooks a permitted item in it, the cooked food is prohibited because through cooking the prohibition is emitted from the vessel and absorbed into the permitted item. And this is what they wrote, that it is permitted to return and salt meat in it after they perforated it, for even though the vessel is treifa, nevertheless the power of the second salting is not sufficient to extract the absorbed matter from it. And that which they wrote, that even without perforation, if the meat already stayed in its salting and was rinsed, their intention is that they salt there for a few hours, but to leave the meat for twenty-four hours is certainly prohibited, for the meat will certainly emit brine and it will be kavush, and this is like cooked. And just as cooking extracts the absorbed matter from the vessel, so too does kavishah [Taz, subsection 41]. And one should not ask: is not the measure of kavishah in brine the time it takes to place it on the fire and for it to begin to boil? For it is not so, as this measure is for the meat and not for the vessel, and for a vessel one requires twenty-four hours like all kavush items [ibid. and Shach, subsection 68]. And the proof for this is that the boiling of the salt and the brine is not effective to emit from the vessel as it is effective to emit from the meat, and if so, their boiling regarding a vessel is like water and requires twenty-four hours. And there is one who wishes to permit even after twenty-four hours because after twenty-four hours it is a spoiled taste, and we have already written in section 16 that this reasoning is not so, see there. Furthermore, brine is a sharp substance, and a sharp substance, even after twenty-four hours, gives a taste for improvement, as is written in siman 96.

However, there are some among the great authorities who hold that even in a vessel, kavush is like cooked in brine for the duration it takes to place it on the fire and begin to boil [Magen Avraham siman 447, subsection 28]. According to this, it must be said that it refers to a case where the brine does not flow from it [Kereti U-Peleti], but this is not sufficient, for presumably the brine will flow as is the way of pickling. And it appears to me that here there is no concern at all, for since the meat was rinsed with water, and it has already been explained in section 47 that water nullifies the power of brine even if the water was a small amount, if so, there is not in this the measure of kavush as in brine, but rather as in water. And even according to the one who holds that we require a majority of water [Shach, end of siman 70], nevertheless here we do not require a majority of water, for as of now there is no brine here, but rather it will be formed by the salt, and then every drop of brine—its power will be nullified by the water. Furthermore, there are those who disagree on this and hold that even water less than the brine nullifies the power [Magen Avraham siman 447, subsection 39]. And one should not ask that perhaps he will salt after the water dries, for this is no question at all, as if the meat dries, the salt will not extract brine, as is understood. Furthermore, one should not be concerned with many apprehensions in this.

Regarding that which they forbade to use it for a hot item, and if one used it, it requires kelipah for a dry item, and for a liquid item it requires sixty against the kelipah of the bowl—the explanation of their words is as follows: For behold, we maintain that the bowl after rinsing is cold, even though there are those who disagree on this [Penei Yehoshua]. Therefore, even though it is forbidden to use it for a hot item because cooking causes discharge as has been written, nevertheless, if one used it, since the bowl is cold, its law is like hot into cold where kelipah is sufficient because the bottom prevails, as will be explained in siman 105. And this is for a dry item; even if it is slightly moist like meat, nevertheless kelipah is sufficient. But for a complete liquid like broth, where kelipah is not applicable, one requires sixty against the kelipah of the bowl in the place where the hot item was used. And even though it will be explained in siman 91 regarding hot meat that fell into cold milk that since kelipah is not applicable to the milk it is permitted without kelipah, nevertheless here, where there are those who hold that the bowl is always considered as hot because the power of the salt and the brine absorbed in it are hot, and especially when they meet hot items the power of the bowl's heat is also awakened, therefore we are not lenient without sixty against the kelipah of the bowl in the place where it was used. And if the bowl was hot, if one used it for a completely dry item, kelipah is sufficient; and if it is slightly moist, it requires netilat makom; and for a complete liquid, one requires sixty against the kelipah of the entire bowl, even in a place where it was not used, for "hot in its part is hot in its entirety." However, not like all vessels is there sixty in the item used against the kelipah of the entire vessel, as I wrote in siman 137, and an ordinary bowl which is wide and not high will not have sixty in it against the kelipah of the bowl [Shach, subsection 65]. And there are those who disagree on this, and it depends on the sight of the eyes of the teacher. And the reason that one only needs sixty against the kelipah of the bowl is because the bowl was not forbidden more than a kelipah, as will be explained in siman 98, for through melihah the vessel is not forbidden more than a kelipah, see there. And this is regarding using it for a hot item [this I learned from the words of the Acharonim, and the difficulty of the Shach in subsection 64 is settled, and examine it].

But to use it with cold items, there is no prohibition at all, and one need only wipe the vessel so that there is no blood upon it. This is according to our position that the vessel is cold; however, according to those who hold that it is boiling, it is like cold into hot, and a dry item requires a kelipah, while a liquid item is entirely prohibited [Rashba, Chullin 111a, in the name of some great authorities]. However, we do not rule accordingly. Nevertheless, even according to those who hold that it is cold, some say that even with cold items it is prohibited to use it without rinsing, just as it is with a knife used for slaughtering, which is prohibited for eating cold items without rinsing; and if one did not rinse the knife, one must rinse that which was used with it, and here it is the same. And some say that here it is not comparable to a knife, for with a knife there is the pressure of the knife, and therefore it is permitted to use without rinsing [both opinions are in the Tur, see there]. And some distinguish between an earthenware vessel and other vessels, for an earthenware vessel is prohibited to use without rinsing because it always emits even when cold, which is not the case with other vessels [Shach, subsection 66, in the name of Torat Chatat and Yam Shel Shlomo].

And all this is regarding a vessel that is not perforated, but when one salted in a perforated vessel, it is permitted to use it even with boiling hot food, for the blood was not absorbed in it at all, as blood glides and exits through the perforations and was not absorbed at all in the vessel. And that which they said in the Gemara [ibid.], "a bowl in which one salted meat, it is forbidden to eat boiling hot food in it," refers to a vessel that is not perforated [the Rosh]. And the Gemara comes to teach us not only that the meat is forbidden, for that is a simple matter, but even the vessel is forbidden; for if not so, how do we always salt in a perforated vessel, for it would be forbidden from the first time [ibid.]. However, according to what I wrote, that through salting the prohibition will not be emitted from the vessel, there is no proof from this. But many of our teachers [see the Beit Yosef] hold that even in a perforated vessel it is forbidden to eat boiling hot food, and one must say according to their words that even though blood glides, this is regarding the meat, but in the vessel there remains blood and brine between the perforations. And there are some of the Rishonim who distinguish between an earthenware vessel and other vessels, for an earthenware vessel certainly absorbs even when it is perforated [the Tur in the name of the Ri of Paris]. And this is what our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote: that one should be careful ab initio, but post facto it is permitted, thus far their words; meaning that ab initio one should be careful with all vessels, and post facto it is permitted even with an earthenware vessel, for they did not mention this distinction, which proves that they hold that post facto even an earthenware vessel is permitted. But some say that an earthenware vessel is forbidden even post facto [Yam Shel Shlomo and the Bach], and to this the Acharonim agreed [the Shach and the Taz], and so one should instruct. And this is regarding boiling hot food, but to use it cold in a perforated vessel is certainly permitted even in an earthenware vessel, and it does not even require rinsing, only wiping [the Shach, subsection 70]. And according to this, one should be careful not to place a boiling hot pot on a board upon which one salts meat, and post facto it is permitted as I wrote [in the Beit Yosef he cited in the name of the Hagahot Sha'arei Dura that on a board it is permitted according to everyone, but our teacher, the Rema, in Darkhei Moshe, sign 36, challenged him, that this is according to the one who holds that in a perforated wooden vessel it is permitted ab initio, but according to those who forbid, it is also forbidden on a board, see there].

The Tur wrote: An incident occurred where meat was salted and remained for the duration of salting, and they subsequently placed it in a vessel without rinsing, and it became filled with tzir, and Rashi permitted it. Thus far his words. And he abbreviated his words, but the Tosafot [120b] and the Rosh [siman 38] explained the reason: that on account of the tzir one should not prohibit it, for it is not blood but rather the sap of the meat and its moisture; for behold, after the duration of salting one rinses it to cook it in a pot and we are not concerned for the tzir that is emitted from it, see there. And according to this, for the Rambam, who requires that after rinsing one must cast it into boiling water because he holds that even after the duration of salting blood remains in the piece, as I wrote in section 36, certainly he disagrees with this law. However, most of the poskim disagree with him, as I wrote there. And this is the intent of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 2, who wrote this law, and prior to this they wrote that the Rambam requires placing it in boiling water and we do not practice accordingly, see there. And their intent is that also from the ruling of Rashi it is proven that he does not hold like him. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, even though he cited the opinion of the Rambam—and this is his wording: After the meat has been salted and rinsed, it is permitted to place it even in water that is not boiling, and there is one who requires placing it in boiling water. Thus far his words.—and this is the opinion of the Rambam, his intent is not that in practice he is concerned for this opinion, but rather such is his way to cite his opinion even though he does not hold accordingly. And behold, even though we explained in section 37 that in my humble opinion even the Rambam admits that when it remained in its salt for a full hour it emits all the blood, see there, and according to this one can sustain the incident of Rashi even according to him, nevertheless our teachers did not hold so, for they wrote that it remained in its salt for the duration of roasting and even so Rashi permitted it, see there.

And regarding that which Rashi was not concerned that the blood and the salt upon the piece would be absorbed into the meat, the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote that if we were to forbid it due to the blood and the salt upon the meat, if so, we would forbid all meat that is placed in water to rinse it, for the salt and the blood within it are dissolved and absorbed into the meat. For what is the difference to me between water and what is the difference to me between mohal, as both are permitted? Rather, certainly the blood of the salt has dried within it and no longer has the power to emerge; or alternatively, the power of the salt ceased after it expelled the blood from the meat, and on account of that salt it is no longer considered as boiling, see there. And as for the blood upon the surface of the meat, certainly there is no concern, for it is immediately mixed into the mohal, and the concern is only perhaps the salt is as boiling; regarding this they wrote that afterward it is not as boiling for the reason they explained.

And know that the Rashba, of blessed memory, did not cite in any place this incident of Rashi, and it appears to me that he follows his own reasoning which he wrote regarding that which [the sages] stated, that one may only place meat in a perforated vessel [113a]. This is his wording: And perhaps we should say that even after the duration of its salting it was stated, because it exudes tzir and its tzir is inedible due to its salt, and it is thus considered hot; and when it collects in a vessel that is not perforated, it causes the blood that is upon the salt to be absorbed into the meat, because it collects within the tzir, and kavush is like cooked. And regarding kavush and cooking, it is not relevant to say "since it is occupied with exuding, it does not absorb." However, only that which stands within the tzir is forbidden, but the rest is permitted with the removal of a portion, because the blood does not permeate. Thus far his words. Behold, he holds that the tzir, even though it is permitted, nevertheless it is like hot and causes the blood that is upon the salt to be absorbed into the meat; but the Tosafot and the Rosh hold that this tzir is similar to water and is not like hot.

And behold, above at the end of section 42, we brought the words of the Rashba who wrote regarding the final rinsing that one should shake off the salt or wash it before placing the meat into the vessel of water, for if not so, the water breaks the power of the meat's discharge, and it turns out that the blood upon the meat and upon the salt will return and be absorbed within it due to the salt that is with it, see there. And according to this, one must ask why the Rashba needed to say it is because of the reason that the tzir is boiling, for even in water he forbids it. However, according to what I wrote there, that this is only in a small amount of water and not in a large amount of water, it is well-settled; for here, even in a large amount of tzir it is forbidden because the tzir is boiling. And furthermore, because of the absorption of the salt it would only be forbidden to the depth of a kedei klifah, but because of the reason of kavush, everything that is within the tzir is forbidden. And furthermore, it is possible to say that there it is only a mere concern ab initio, while here the prohibition is even ex post facto; yet there too it implies that he is speaking from the essential law, see there.

And know that the commentators raised a difficulty against the Tur, who ruled according to the incident of Rashi, whereas above he wrote that if one did not shake off the salt and did not rinse it, it is not to be forbidden because the water in the vessel nullifies the power of the salt; thus far his words. And it implies that without water it should be forbidden, yet according to the incident of Rashi, it is permitted even without water. And there is one who answered that there he wrote even according to the opinion of one who disagrees with the ruling of Rashi [Taz, subsection 46]. And this is forced, for if so, he should have mentioned here as well that there is one who disagrees; rather, certainly either he did not see the opinion of those who disagree, or he does not hold at all like the opinion of those who disagree, even to be concerned for it, and if so, why was he concerned for it? And there is one who answered that also there he did not specifically mean water, for the same law applies to mohel, and there he intended to exclude a case where there is neither mohel nor water but only a dissolution of blood and forbidden salt [Bach]. And this too is forced, for it is dealing with one case [Taz]. And if we say that it is necessarily so, that before it emits tzir the blood and salt are dissolved and forbid the meat, if so, here too it was already forbidden before it was filled with tzir. And it seems to me that it is not a difficulty at all, for above it refers to the words of the Rashba that he brought previously, that one is obligated to shake off or rinse. And the reasoning of the Rashba is because the water in the vessel breaks the power of the meat's emission, and the blood and salt will return to be absorbed in the meat, as I wrote in the previous section. To this the Tur says that there is no concern at all in this, for just as the water nullifies the power of emission, so too it nullifies the power of the salt [and he was not able to reject it based on the ruling of Rashi, since the Rashba disagrees on this, and therefore he says that even according to his reasoning there is no concern in this].

And behold, the opinion of the Rashba, who disagrees with the ruling of Rashi as has been written, was not brought by the commentators of the Tur at all; however, they brought the words of the Tosafot, who cited the incident involving Rashi and agreed accordingly as the halacha. Nevertheless, they concluded in their words that, in any case, one should not be lenient, for the people have already practiced a prohibition. Thus far his words. [Beit Yosef] And there is a doubt regarding their words, whether the custom is to prohibit the whole of whatever is within the brine, or only a k'dei klipah. And one of the early authorities wrote that they practiced permitting it by means of a klipah [ibid. in the name of Sha'arei Dura]. According to this, it appears that this was also the intention of the Tosafot. And it appears that their reason is not because of the heat of the brine like the reasoning of the Rashba, for if so, it would be like kavush and the whole of it would be prohibited; rather, their reason is because of the salt, and salt is not like something cooked, but rather like the heat of roasting, and a klipah is sufficient.

And behold, this is certain: that even according to those who are stringent, it is not because the brine is the brine of a treifah, but rather because of the blood and the salt. For even the Rashba, who forbids the whole thing due to the boiling of the brine, wrote explicitly that because of the boiling of the brine, it absorbs the blood that is within the salt into the meat, and not because of the essence of the brine, as we brought his words in section 105. And according to this, if kosher meat fell into the brine that collected after salting, there is no prohibition here at all [see what I wrote in siman 70, section 2].

According to this, one must understand the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 20, who wrote: Meat that was salted and remained for the duration of salting, and they subsequently placed it in a vessel without rinsing and it became filled with tzir, it is permitted; and according to this, meat that fell into tzir that exits from the meat after it remained for the duration of salting is permitted, and there is one who prohibits in this case and in that case, and one should be concerned for his view ab initio. Thus far his words. And this is certainly clear from his wording, that what he wrote regarding "meat that fell into tzir etc." refers to kosher meat. If so, what is this that he wrote, "there is one who prohibits in this case and in that case"? Who is the one who prohibits in the case of kosher meat that fell into this tzir? It is understandable regarding that meat itself which was not rinsed, like the case of Rashi, that there is indeed one who prohibits, either as kedi klipah or according to the Rashba it is entirely prohibited as I have written. But regarding kosher meat that fell into this tzir, why should it be prohibited? For according to everyone, the tzir is not treif. And if we say that his intention is for the opinion of the Rambam, behold the Rambam does not deal with this law at all. Furthermore, regarding the primary law of the Rambam that he brought previously, he did not write at all that it is proper to be concerned for it ab initio, see there. Also, in his great book, he did not bring at all anyone who prohibits in the case of kosher meat that fell into this tzir. [And one must further study the Shach in subsection 85 who wrote that the "one who prohibits" holds that tzir after the duration of salting is hot and is considered blood and not mohel etc. Thus far his words. And it is astonishing, for it is true that he holds it is hot, but not because it is considered blood, but rather the prohibition is because of the blood that was salted. And similarly, what he wrote in subsection 80, this is his wording: for he holds that this tzir etc. and it is hot and is absorbed into the meat, thus far his words; it is difficult, for it is not by reason of the absorption of the tzir into the meat, but rather by reason of the absorption of the blood that was salted. And so wrote the Pri Megadim in subsection 85, this is his wording: and nevertheless for us, even though we maintain that after the duration of salting if it became filled with tzir it is prohibited, the reason is not because the mohel that exits is blood, but rather because the blood and the salt upon it give flavor to the meat to cause absorption, thus far his words; and examine this carefully].

Therefore, it appears to me clearly that a printing error fell into the Shulchan Aruch, and it should be: "And there is one who forbids in this," and his intention is regarding the primary law that he wrote, that meat that was salted etc. and became filled with tzir is permitted—on this there are those who disagree, as we have explained. But regarding kosher meat that fell into this tzir, there is no one who disagrees. And he intentionally wrote "and there is one who forbids in this," for if he had not written "in this" but rather "and there is one who forbids" without qualification, it would have implied that it refers to everything that was explained previously, and in truth it is not so. Therefore, he was precise and wrote "in this," for as I have written, if it were not so, he should have written without qualification "and there is one who forbids," as is his way in every place.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who forbid even ex post facto any amount, and such is the custom; and specifically that which is placed within the brine, but that which is outside the brine is permitted. The vessel into which that brine fell is forbidden. Similarly, if the vessel was for milk and there is residue in it, the meat is forbidden, for even after the duration of its salting it is considered as boiling. However, if it is a case of great loss and there is also a need for a seudat mitzvah, one may be lenient and say that after it has remained for the duration of salting, its brine is not considered as boiling. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words is that since Tosafot and others among the Rishonim wrote that the custom is to forbid, one should not be lenient even post facto. And behold, although from their wording it also implies more so that according to the custom all of it is forbidden—everything that is in the brine—nevertheless, since the Rosh and the Tur ruled to permit it entirely and did not mention the custom, it is sufficient to forbid a klifeh. And even if there are sixty against the klifeh, it is of no avail, for perhaps it does not absorb more than a klifeh, and what benefit is there in the area where the absorbed matter is not present to combine it for nullification? And all the more so that what is outside the brine does not combine for nullification [see Shach, subsection 81]. However, the great Acharonim forbid entirely everything that is inside the brine [ibid. and Taz, subsection 48, and Yam Shel Shlomo, section 76]. And so it appears, for the Rashba explicitly forbids it as I have written, and also from the wording of Tosafot it implies thus as I have written. And if the meat was rinsed, even only one rinsing, there is no longer any prohibition in all of this [ibid.]:

And that which he wrote, that the vessel into which that tzir fell is forbidden, this is the explanation: in this case of Rashi where the vessel was filled with tzir from meat that had not been rinsed, the vessel is also forbidden, and not because of the tzir, but also because of the blood and the salt that were absorbed into the vessel. And how much is its prohibition? A k'dei klipah, so that it should not be more stringent than the meat itself. And even according to what I wrote to forbid everything, nevertheless the vessel does not absorb more than a k'dei klipah even in tzir that is within the duration of melihah, as will be explained in siman 91. But if the tzir alone fell upon the vessel, since the tzir is after the duration of melihah, there is no prohibition in it at all as I wrote. And his words refer to this vessel that was filled with tzir [and so it appears from his words in the Darkhei Moshe, letter 40, see there].

And that which he wrote, that if the vessel is for milk and there is milk residue upon it the meat is forbidden, this is also according to the system of those who disagree with Rashi, as he concludes that even after the duration of salting it is considered as boiling, and this is not according to Rashi [see Beit Yosef in the name of the Hagashad, and it requires further study]. And specifically when it is soiled, but if it is not soiled, even if it is a ben yomo, it is permitted [Shach subsection 83], for there is no salting for vessels regarding extracting from the vessel. And there is one who says that even if it is not soiled it is forbidden [Taz subsection 50, and so wrote the Beit Yosef], and it must be said that he holds that that which they said, "there is no salting for vessels," is only regarding blood and not regarding meat in milk [so wrote the Taz in siman 70 subsection 7, and it requires further study]. But in truth, it appears in every place that regarding everything we say there is no salting for vessels [and the words of the Taz require further study, and also what he wrote in subsection 49 is not understood, as the Pri Megadim wrote there]. And this is all because we are stringent to say that even after the duration of salting it is considered as boiling. And behold, from the essential law, most of our teachers agreed in practice with Rashi that it is not considered as boiling. Therefore, in a place of loss and great need, such as a significant financial loss or a mitzvah feast, one may be lenient in all that has been explained, and even regarding milk residue.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that according to the words of the one who disagrees with the ruling of Rashi, even though the meat remained in the salt for the required duration, it is forbidden to eat from it until he rinses it very well, and it is forbidden to cut from it with a knife before he rinses it, and if he did cut, it requires hag'alah. Thus far his words. And his words are puzzling, for what is the relevance of rinsing to the one who disagrees with Rashi, for behold, it is an explicit Gemara that after salting one must rinse very well [113a], as has been explained above. And some say that his intention is as follows: that according to Rashi, he may rinse a long time after the salting, but according to those who disagree, since all the blood and the salt are boiling, he must rinse immediately [Shach and Taz and Pri Chadash]. But this is not clear from his wording at all [Taz]. And some say that this is what he means: that even though to eat from it is forbidden according to everyone until he rinses it very well, nevertheless regarding cutting from it with a knife before he rinses it, it is certainly forbidden according to those who disagree; but after rinsing, even if he did not rinse very well, it is permitted even according to the opinion of those who disagree, and therefore he wrote first "until he rinses it very well" and afterwards he wrote "that he rinses it" without qualification [Prisha]. And this too is forced. And it seems to me according to its plain meaning, and this is what he means: it is forbidden to eat from it etc. and it is forbidden to cut etc., meaning just as it is forbidden to eat from it until he rinses it, so too it is forbidden to cut from it until he rinses it. And the main novelty is that according to the opinion of those who disagree, that which the sages of blessed memory required to rinse after the salting, this is also regarding cutting from it, whereas according to Rashi, it is only regarding eating alone.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who permit cutting with a knife after the duration of melichah has passed, for "there is no melichah for vessels," and such is the primary ruling, that it is permitted. However, the knife requires rinsing afterward or thrusting into the ground if the tziri has dried upon it. And even before the duration of melichah, the prohibition is not because of the knife, but because actual blood emerged upon the meat; and if he wishes to rinse it well there and return and perform melichah there, it is permitted. Thus far his words. And it must be understood what relevance "there is no melichah for vessels" has here, for that applies to extracting from a vessel via melichah and not to absorbing, as has been explained in siman 98. And there is one who says that his intention is that the blood slides off and is not absorbed into the knife [Shach]. Nevertheless, without the reason that "there is no melichah for vessels," one should not permit it, for later in siman 70 he prohibits if one placed meat that was salted and rinsed near meat that had not yet stayed the duration of melichah, see there, and we do not say that it slides off. Rather, regarding a vessel we say so, because regarding melichah for a vessel, even though through melichah a vessel that is not perforated absorbs, nevertheless here where there is a place for the blood to flow, we say "there is no melichah for vessels" even regarding absorbing, for the reason that it slides off [Minchat Yaakov]. And this is like the law of a perforated vessel, where we say it slides off. And even though there he ruled that one should be careful ab initio as written in siman 102, that is because it rests in one place and blood and tziri remain between one perforation and another, as written there, and this is not applicable to a knife, as is understood. And that which he wrote that it requires rinsing or thrusting is simple, and the law of thrusting will be explained in siman 121, that it requires ten times in hard ground, see there. And that which he wrote that even before the duration of melichah the prohibition is only because of actual blood that is on the meat, this is a flow of language, for if it were truly actual blood, the meat would be prohibited as will be explained in siman 70. And we have already written in siman 14 that the authors of the Shulchan Aruch do not consider it truly like actual blood, see there, but rather it is called actual blood regarding the matter of if it was not rinsed before the melichah, see there [and the difficulty of the Gara and the Chavat Daat is answered, and also the difficulty of the Taz subsection 53 is answered, and examine carefully]. And one should not ask that since the knife requires rinsing, why does he permit it ab initio—let us fear lest he forget to rinse, as in siman 91, see there—for it can be said that regarding a knife, since the blood is visible upon the surface of the knife, he certainly will not forget to rinse [Shach subsection 89]. And also, since it is after the duration of melichah, which according to most poskim carries no concern at all, therefore it is permitted even ab initio [ibid.]. And according to this, we must say that what he wrote regarding before the duration of melichah is only post facto and not ab initio.

According to the opinion of those who disagree with Rashi, when one wishes to perform salting for preservation, he should do so as follows: after it has remained in its salt for the duration of salting in a perforated vessel, he shall rinse the meat very well according to the law of rinsing after salting, and afterwards he may salt the meat even in a vessel that is not perforated. And know that all this which we required rinsing applies to salting for cooking, but if he wishes to salt and eat roast without rinsing, he may do so and need not concern himself with the blood that is upon the salt, because the fire draws it out and prevents the salt from absorbing blood. However, this is specifically when he salted it and immediately brought it up to roast, but if it remained for a short time in its salt, the salt absorbs the blood and becomes forbidden; therefore, he rinses it very well and roasts and eats if it is not his desire to rinse after the roasting. And in siman 76 several laws will be explained regarding this matter of roasting, see there. And the matter is simple that in a place where salt is not available, it is necessary to roast the meat over the fire until all its blood flows out, which means that it shall be dried on the outside to the extent that it would be fit for consumption for most people, and afterwards he is also able to cook the meat. And some say that this is the duration of half its roasting, for this is like the food of Ben Drusai; however, initially he should roast until it is dried on the outside as I wrote, in order to remove himself from doubt [see Taz subsection 54].