Siman 70

One may salt many pieces of meat one on top of the other, even though the lower one finishes its discharge before the upper one, and we do not fear that it will return and absorb from the blood of the upper one. There is no difference between species and species, even beef with the meat of kids and lambs, and even with poultry. However, meat with fish, even poultry with fish, is forbidden to salt. If one transgressed and salted them together, whether he salted them one next to the other or salted the meat on the fish or the fish on the meat, the poultry is permitted but the fish is forbidden to the extent of a kelipeh or in its entirety, according to the opinions that will be explained in section 12. This is explained in the Gemara [113:].

The Rishonim wrote several reasons for the reason for the difference between meat and fish in this matter. Some say because blood slides off during salting just as it does during roasting; and just as it is permitted in roasting to place meat upon meat even ab initio, even though the initial discharge is completed on the lower side of the fire's side because it slides off, so too in salting it is permitted in such a manner. And fish specifically, because their skin is soft, are forbidden because they are tender and the blood is absorbed within them and does not slide off from them [Tosafot ibid.]. However, this reason is not sufficient, for behold, sometimes pits full of blood are found in the lower pieces, and in this "sliding off" is not applicable since the blood is in a pit, and nevertheless the custom is to permit this [ibid. and in the Rosh, section 37]. Furthermore, it is unavoidable when they lie one upon the other that through the pressure and the heat, a small amount of salt absorbed with blood will not melt between one piece and another and remain there and not flow out; and also the blood absorbed in the salt that is between one piece and another is certainly dissolved in the brine that is there [ibid.].

And one of our teachers, the Rishonim, replied that since he acted according to the enactment of the sages, and the prohibition is rabbinic—as blood that has been salted is rabbinic—one should not impose too much trouble [ibid. in the name of Rashbam]. And we say that even if the lower one were to absorb from the upper one, it will return and emit it, for the emission of brine continues for a long time, and as long as the lower one emits its own brine, it will also emit together with it what it absorbed from the upper one [ibid.]. However, regarding fish, one cannot say this, because the emission of the blood of the birds continues after the emission of the brine of the fish, and once its own emission has ceased, it will no longer emit what it absorbed from the birds. According to this, one must leave the lower one until the completion of the emission of the blood of the upper one [the Rosh ibid.], and afterwards also for a short time so that there will be time for the lower one to emit what it absorbed from the upper one [it appears to me]. And one should not ask: behold, we see before the rinsing pits full of brine between the lower and the upper ones, and according to this, we should have to wait until nothing remains in the pit, which is a sign that the lower one has emitted; for in truth there is no concern, as in the pits it is brine and not blood, and the brine is considered meat, as it is after the duration of salting and the blood has already been emitted [this is the intent of the Tosafot who wrote: "And some explain because the emission of brine continues for a long time etc. and what is found in the pits is brine etc." Thus far their words. And why did they need this? But according to our words it is well understood. And the Maharsha, of blessed memory, was pressed to explain that it does not refer to what was above, see there; but according to what I wrote it is simply understood that they were forced to this, and examine it].

And behold, according to this, since the primary prohibition regarding the fish is because it finishes all its discharge before the discharge of the blood of the poultry—if the poultry were salted beforehand, and a short time before the completion of the duration of the salting one salts the fish and places the poultry upon the fish, the fish would not be prohibited. For the discharge of the poultry will not continue after the fish, and automatically the fish will discharge what they absorbed from the poultry. And so too, according to this reasoning, there is sometimes a prohibition even with meat and meat; for example, if one salted the lower piece a long time before the upper piece, in a manner that its discharge of brine will cease in a short time, and one salted the upper piece upon it, and the brine of the lower piece ceases before the discharge of the blood of the upper piece, for then the lower piece is prohibited [and so wrote the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 1].

However, some say that since one salted the upper one before the completion of the discharge of the lower one's brine, even though the time concluded before the discharge of the upper one's blood, nevertheless there is no concern in the matter. For after the lower one has begun to engage in discharge, it will also discharge what it absorbs from the upper one even after its own discharge, because its pores are open and will not close again. And if it is difficult, for if so, why are the fish forbidden? One must say it is because the fish complete their discharge before the birds began to discharge, and when they began to discharge, the discharge pores of the fish had already closed; therefore, when they absorb from the birds, they will no longer discharge because their discharge pores have closed [the Ri of Orleans answered in Tosafot]. And according to this, if one salted the birds a short time before the fish in a manner that they began to discharge, the fish would not be forbidden, for while they absorb from the birds, they are discharging their own brine, and their discharge pores will not close again even after the completion of their own discharge. And also regarding the essence of this reasoning, the Rashba, of blessed memory, wondered how it is possible to say that the fish complete all their discharge before the beginning of the birds' discharge, and it does not seem so from the perspective of reason [and see what I wrote in section 18].

However, some say another reasoning, that we do not need to say at all that the lower one will absorb from the upper one and then return and emit it, but rather that it will not absorb at all; for as long as the meat is occupied with emitting its brine, it does not absorb the blood of another [ibid.]. And this is regarding meat, but regarding fish, because of their thinness and softness, it is not relevant to say so, and they will absorb from the meat even during the time they are occupied with their own emission [so one is forced to say, and examine this]. And behold, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 1, took this answer as the primary one, and it is a widespread halacha among all the poskim that as long as it is occupied with emission, it will not absorb. Nevertheless, their words must be explained, for they are seemingly perplexing, as will be explained with the help of Heaven:

This is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch: One may salt many pieces one on top of the other; even though the bottom one finishes its discharge before the top one, we do not say that it returns and absorbs from the blood of the top one, because it lingers a long time in discharging brine, and all the while that it discharges brine, it does not absorb. And even if much brine collects and stands in a cavity between the pieces, it is permitted. In what case does this apply? When salting meat with meat, and even beef with the meat of kids and lambs, and even with poultry, for it is impossible for all their brine to finish discharging until the beef finishes discharging its blood. But meat with fish, even poultry with fish, it is forbidden to salt, because fish discharge all their brine before the poultry finishes discharging its blood. Thus far their words. And there is much wonder, for this reason regarding the prohibition of fish follows the previous opinions; but according to this reason, it should have said that fish absorb even during the time of their discharge, as I have written. For if not so, granted that they discharge all their brine earlier, nevertheless, during the time of their own discharge they should not absorb from the poultry. And even if they absorb afterward, they would surely discharge it, since the beginning was during the time of their own discharge and the pores of discharge were not closed, as I have written previously [and it is impossible to explain their words according to Rabbeinu Yitzchak of Orleans].

And perforce we are compelled to say that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch do not hold of this reasoning, but rather they hold that even if the beginning was at the time of their discharge, nevertheless after the conclusion of their discharge, when they absorb, they will no longer discharge. And they hold that even regarding fish we always say that as long as they are engaged in discharging they will not absorb, unlike what we wrote in section 6; rather, the reason for the prohibition is because after the discharge of the fish they will absorb from the fowl and will not discharge further.

But it is impossible to say so, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled in section 6 that even meat that was already salted and discharged all its blood, which was salted with meat that was not salted at all, the salted meat is not forbidden post facto, provided that he salts it afterward and returns it to its permitted status, see there; even though it has no blood of its own, and all the more so regarding fish which are still occupied with discharging, that they should not be forbidden by what they absorb from the poultry. And regarding the Tur, it is not so difficult, for in truth he forbids in this law, see there; and even though regarding meat that was not salted at all he also permits, as is explained there, nevertheless, one could say that this is superior to fish, for since it must discharge its own blood, it will also discharge what it absorbed, but with fish, in a short time their discharge will cease. However, on our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is very difficult, and I am wondered at the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch who did not remark on this [see the Smag there, who wrote that according to this reasoning we do not say "as it absorbs, so it discharges," and his words are astonishing as is proven from what I wrote]:

However, in truth, this logic which they wrote regarding fish—that they discharge all of their brine before the poultry discharges its blood—is explicitly explained in the Gemara [112b]. And thus it is stated there: fish, because their membranes are soft, they discharge early; and poultry are firm, and after the fish rest, the poultry discharge and then [the fish] swallow from them, see there. Therefore, they were forced to write so. And in truth, those poskim who hold that unsalted meat which absorbed blood from pieces that were salted is forbidden and that salting no longer avails, indeed bring proof from fish, as the Mordechai wrote in the name of Sefer HaChokmah. This is his wording: I was asked regarding pieces of unsalted meat etc. and I forbade etc. for blood that is absorbed in a piece does not exit anymore etc. for fish and poultry etc. the fish are forbidden etc. Behold for you, since the fish absorbed from the poultry they have no remedy, and the same applies here. Thus far his words. And the Rashba wrote similarly in Torat HaBayit HaKatzar [brought in the Bach].

Therefore, it appears to me that the poskim who permit meat that was not salted when it absorbed blood from another through salting—because it will also emit what it absorbed—hold that there is no proof at all from fish, as the Rashba wrote in the long Torat HaBayit. This is his wording: And it is possible that fish are different, and since they are very soft, they absorb a great deal, and the blood that comes to them from the outside clings to them more, and the salt does not have the power to extract it. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch. Therefore, that which they wrote regarding the reason in fish—because they emit all their brine before the poultry finishes emitting its blood—this is only to explain the opposite of meat and meat, which they wrote previously, that they do not finish emitting their brine until the upper one finishes emitting its blood. And for this, they said that in fish it is not so. But in truth, for the core of the law, it is necessary to add matters: that in meat and meat, we do not need this reason at all, for even if the lower one finishes emitting first, nevertheless, it is not forbidden by the absorption from the upper one because it will return and emit it. Rather, this reason that they wrote adds a permission, that we do not need to wait for the lower one until the upper one finishes its emission, since it does not absorb at all. This is not the case if we say the reason is that it will return and emit it, for then one must wait, as I wrote in section 3 [and the Tosafot wrote this as their primary answer for this reason, see there]. And also regarding the prohibition of fish, where they wrote that they emit before the emission of the poultry, one must add that in fish we do not say that they will emit afterward for the reason we explained. It is only because they had not yet mentioned these laws at all, for at the end of the siman they wrote these laws regarding whether salting is effective for blood absorbed from another; therefore, they were not concerned with elaborating on this and wrote only a thing and its opposite: that in meat and meat, the lower one will not absorb at all from the upper one because the emission of their brine continues for a long time, which is not the case in meat and fish. However, according to the truth, in meat and meat, even if the lower one finishes its emission first, there is no concern in this, for "as it absorbs, so it emits," as will be explained later, and they relied on the laws that will be explained regarding this [and so too in fish there is a prohibition even if the emissions finish at the same time, for the reason that in them we do not say "since they are occupied with emitting, they do not absorb," as I wrote. And with this, one can settle the difficulty of Tosafot on Rashi in the heading "And fish," see there and examine it. And so wrote the Shach in subsection 6 and the Taz in subsection 8, that the Beit Yosef holds that in fish we do not say "since they emit their own blood, they will emit the blood they absorbed," see there. And that which we said, that in fish we do not say "since they are occupied with emitting, they do not absorb," is only when their scales have been removed, but while they are still in their scales, they are firm and their law is like meat, as will be explained with the help of Heaven].

If one transgressed and salted them together, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled that the birds are permitted, but from the fish one must remove a finger's breadth. If their scales were not removed when they were salted, they are permitted. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that some forbid all the fish if there is not sixty against the birds, for we measure in salting by sixty, and such is the custom. This is specifically when they do not have scales, for their skin is soft and they discharge immediately. But if they have scales, they are permitted, for they do not discharge immediately and they do not absorb from the birds, for we are dealing with a case where they are occupied with discharging and do not absorb, just as is the law for two pieces of meat that were salted together. Thus far his words.

And behold, that which they ruled that the birds are permitted, this is the opinion of Rashi and the Rambam. However, the opinion of the Rashbam, the Rosh, and the Tur is that the birds are also forbidden, because the fish return and emit the blood they absorbed and cause it to be absorbed into the birds [Tur]. The explanation of the matter is that since the forbidden fish become nevelah, they return and forbid the birds with their forbidden brine, which became forbidden because of the blood of the birds. And even if we do not say chanan regarding other prohibitions aside from meat and milk [furthermore, that we only say chanan in a place where the prohibition itself absorbed within it travels and spreads with its emitted flavor], nevertheless there is a prohibition here, for also from the blood absorbed in the fish a bit goes out by means of the salting, which makes it like boiling, and it is absorbed with the brine of the fish into the birds. For even though the fish do not emit all the blood of the birds so as to be permitted by means of this, nevertheless they emit a portion of it, and the birds absorb from it after the conclusion of their emission and are forbidden by this. And it is not relevant to say regarding this "blood slides off," for we only say this when the blood is greater than the brine; but here, where most of the blood remains in the fish and a little of it is absorbed with much brine, it is absorbed with the brine into the birds, and it is not relevant to say "it slides off" [Rosh there]. And regarding brine, we do not say "since they are preoccupied with emitting, they do not absorb" [Bach]. And those who permit hold that there is no concern in this, and also in this we say "it slides off," and regarding the absorption of the portion of blood, we certainly say "since they are preoccupied with emitting, they do not absorb." And thus the authors of the Shulchan Aruch decided. And there is one who was concerned for the opinion of those who forbid [ibid.], but it is not the primary view, for most of our teachers hold like Rashi and the Rambam, and also the Tosafot wrote so. And also in the opinion of the Rosh there is no definitive proof, and it appears more likely that he holds in practice like Rashi, see there [see Beit Yosef], and so ruled the great Acharonim.

And that which they ruled that without removing the scales they are permitted is for two reasons: one, that they stand in place of the peeling; and furthermore, even according to the one who requires sixty in salting, they are nevertheless permitted, for since they have scales upon them, they are wrinkled and do not absorb, and their law is like meat and meat, where we say since it is occupied with discharging it does not absorb. And even if the fish were salted with another forbidden substance that is not of blood, where we do not say regarding them "since it is occupied with discharging it does not absorb," nevertheless they are also permitted, for regarding another forbidden substance that has no fattiness, according to everyone one does not require sixty in salting and peeling is sufficient, as will be explained in siman 105, and therefore the scales stand in place of peeling [Shach, subsection 5]. And know that this fact that we do not forbid the meat and the fish that were salted together due to the reason of danger as in cooking, as I wrote in siman 117, is because in salting together there is no danger, as I wrote there [Taz, subsection 3].

Regarding the matter of the prohibition of the fish, there is no difference whether they were salted together one next to the other, or whether the poultry was placed upon the fish, or whether the fish was placed upon the poultry. And even though blood does not diffuse upwards, nevertheless, they are prohibited in any case, just as it is with meat that is within the brine, where that which is outside the brine is permitted, and nevertheless it requires a kelipah as written in siman 69 [Shach and Pri Chadash]. However, in such a case, a kelipah is sufficient even according to the one who requires sixty in salting. And if one carried them on a single board one above the other: if the poultry was above and the fish was below, the fish are prohibited either with a kelipah or with sixty according to the opinions that have been explained, for the blood flows from above to below. And if it was the opposite, the fish are completely permitted, and even if they were adjacent and attached together, a kelipah is sufficient at the place of their attachment [Ateret Zahav subsection 5, that in a case of doubt one should prohibit].

In what case are the fish forbidden? When one salted both of them together, or even if only the poultry is salted and the fish is unsalted. And it is not only necessary to say that if the fish was already salted and discharged its brine that it is forbidden, but even if it was not yet salted it is also forbidden, because it absorbs from the poultry. We do not say that when he salts it afterwards and it discharges its own blood, it will also discharge what it absorbed from the poultry; for we do not say this regarding fish because the meat is very soft and the blood becomes entangled in them, as I wrote in section 11 in the name of the Rashba, see there. And so the great Acharonim agreed [Shach subsection 6 and Taz subsection 8]. However, if the fish is salted and the poultry is unsalted and he placed them next to each other or one on top of the other, even the fish are permitted without peeling, for the salted item heats the unsalted item such that it causes it to absorb, but not so much that it causes it to discharge. And even though regarding treifa we are stringent in such a case to require peeling, as will be explained, nevertheless regarding the matter of blood we are not so stringent. Treifa is different, for any of its brine forbids and it will easily discharge even if it is unsalted, which is not the case with the discharge of blood, which is impossible when it is unsalted [ibid. subsection 7].

The words of our teacher, the Rema, are perplexing in what he wrote in section 2, that this which we say—that if the fish is unsalted and the birds are salted they are forbidden—this is specifically where the fish has already discharged its blood and was rinsed. However, if it has not yet discharged its blood and was never salted, it is permitted, for just as it discharges its own blood, it will also discharge the blood that it absorbs from the birds, like a piece of meat that fell into brine before its blood was salted for this same reason, as will be explained later in this siman. Thus far his words. The great later authorities have already challenged him, for regarding fish without scales we do not say this, as has been explained, and in the words of the Rashba that we brought in section 11.

It appears to me that he holds that the Rashba, of blessed memory, only wrote this reasoning to resolve the approach of his teachers who hold thus, as is proven from his words there; but he himself does not hold thus, see there in Torat HaBayit, gate 3 [the third house]. Our teacher, the Rema, was forced to this by the sugya of the Shas which says: fish, because their membranes are soft, they discharge early and emit, and birds are firm; after the fish rest, the birds emit and [the fish] then absorb from them. Behold, from this language it is explicitly proven that at the time the fish are emitting, they do not absorb from the birds. Now, if it is true that fish are very soft and thin, to the extent that for this reason we do not say regarding them that "since they emit their own blood they also emit the blood they absorbed," if so, also regarding the matter of "since they emit they do not absorb," we should also say that it does not apply to fish, as we indeed wrote in section 6. Rather, certainly this reasoning was not definitive to the Shas. We have already written in section 5 that which some say, that fish and birds that were salted together, the fish finish their emission before the birds begin to emit, and that the Rashba wondered at this reasoning. This is his wording there in the Torat HaBayit: Nevertheless, it does not seem likely that birds would not begin to emit at all until after the completion of the emission of the blood and brine of the fish. Thus far his words. However, against this he wrote there that the language of the Shas supports this reasoning, since it says "after the fish rest, the birds emit," implying that they [then] begin to emit, for if not so, it should have said "the birds have not yet rested." But because it did not seem so from the perspective of logic, he did not finalize it as halacha, see there.

And regarding this I say, our teacher, the Rema, holds that this is the matter: that certainly due to the actual softness of the fish and their thinness, their law is not changed from that of meat. It is only for another reason that their law is changed—because their exudation is minimal, for since they grow in water, they lack warmth, and their blood and brine are very minimal, to the point that it is impossible to calculate in how much time they exude. It is possible to say that even in a few moments they exude completely. Regarding this, the Gemara says: fish and fowl that were salted together, the fish are forbidden because their skin is soft and they exude first; meaning, it is possible that they precede themselves to exude completely in a short time. And fowl are firm; meaning, they must necessarily remain for a few moments until they begin to exude. Therefore, after the fish rest, the fowl exude, etc.; meaning, it is possible that the fish have already finished their exudation, and afterward the exudation of the fowl begins. We do not say this with certainty, but rather that it is possible to be so. According to this, this is only when they were at least salted together. However, when the fish have not been salted at all yet, even if they absorb from the fowl, they will exude afterward when he salts them, and their law is not changed from the law of meat in this at least. And when they are in their scales, exudation is difficult for them, and they are entirely equal to meat even if they were salted together [so it appears to me].

He further wrote that if the fish are placed on top of the poultry, they are permitted even if they were salted together, for blood does not diffuse from below to above, and it is no worse than a piece placed in tzir where that which is above the tzir is permitted. Thus far his words. And we have already written in section 15 that it nonetheless requires kelipah; see there. And he further wrote: And so too, if he did not place the fish next to the poultry until after the poultry had remained in their salt for the duration of salting, even the fish are permitted even though both are salted. Thus far his words. And behold, from this there is clear proof for what I wrote in the previous siman, section 109, regarding the incident of Rashi, that even according to those who are stringent, it is not because they hold that the tzir is forbidden, but rather because of the blood that is in the salt and that is upon the surface of the meat; see there. And here the concern is only because of the tzir, for he did not place them one upon the other but rather one next to the other, and therefore he was precise and wrote "next to the poultry." But on top of it is forbidden according to his approach there, as he is stringent regarding the incident of Rashi [see Shach, subsection 11, who was pressed regarding this and follows his approach there, subsection 65; and see what I wrote there]. And know that even if the fish remained in their salt, nevertheless, since the poultry also remained in their salt, they are permitted. And so too, if the fish are much thicker than the poultry, even if they were salted one next to the other, whatever is higher than the poultry is permitted, just like fish above and poultry below [Shach, subsection 9].

He further wrote: And if fish were salted in vessels in which meat was salted, the fish are permitted, for fish do not absorb the blood that is in the vessel, as "salting does not apply to vessels." Thus far his words. And his intention is a vessel that is not perforated. It is implied from his wording that only ex post facto is it permitted, yet from the Responsa of the Rashba [cited in the Beit Yosef] it is explained that it is permitted even ab initio. And there is one who says that his reason is because, in any event, rinsing is required, and we fear perhaps he will forget to rinse, as is written at the beginning of siman 91, and it is not the way of fish to be rinsed. But the Rashba is dealing with fish that are salted for preservation, which it is the way to rinse before cooking because they are placed in the vessel for a long time [Shach, subsection 13]. And it seems to me that certainly regarding the prohibition it is permitted even ab initio, as the Rashba wrote, and the intention of our teacher, the Rema, is because of a concern of danger. For while in the salting of meat with fish they do not prohibit ex post facto due to a concern of danger, nevertheless, it is certainly forbidden to do so ab initio, for it is no less than "aroma" which will be explained in siman 116, that ab initio it is forbidden, see there; and all the more so regarding salting. And a clear proof for this is from what the Tur wrote there, that there are those who are stringent to designate for fish separate vessels alone, see there.

Even though it has already been explained that we are not concerned during salting when pits full of brine are found between one piece and another, on the grounds that as long as they are engaged in discharging they will not absorb, and according to this, a piece that has a receptacle, such as a whole flank and the like, if they salted it and the receptacle is facing upward we do not forbid it; nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that any piece that has a receptacle, we overturn it so that the blood will flow out, and only ex post facto is there no concern, and every head of a household should supervise this.

He further wrote: A piece that one salted twice is permitted, and we do not fear that the second salt will cause the absorption of the blood remaining from the first salting. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is, for example, if he salted it properly, and during the duration of the salting, before it remained for the duration of a salting, he salted it again; or even if it remained for the duration of a salting and he did not rinse it and salted it again, we do not fear that the second salt will cause the absorption of the blood remaining from the first salting. For the general rule is that as long as it is engaged in discharging, it will not absorb. And it is not similar to actual blood that fell upon the meat in the middle of salting, which is forbidden, as will be explained, for there the prohibition is not because of the salt, but because of the meat itself, which is hot and will absorb the blood into itself. This is not the case here, where the prohibition is because of the salt; it will not cause absorption as long as it is engaged in discharging [Taz, subsection 2]. And it is also not similar to meat that was salted without a first rinsing, which we forbade in siman 69, for there it is not yet occupied with discharging [ibid.]. However, this is all when he salted it within twelve hours, which is the time of the discharge of brine, or a full day according to the opinions that will be explained. But after this time it is forbidden, for since it is not occupied with discharging, it absorbs. And it is not similar to not having been rinsed at all after salting even for several days, which is permitted, and we do not fear that the salt will cause the absorption of the blood upon it, for that is because this salt has already lost its strength; whereas other salt will certainly cause absorption. And there is one who permits post facto even after the duration of discharging, on the grounds that it is not the way of salt to cause absorption but rather to cause discharge [Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 2]. But this does not seem correct, for we have already explained that we do not hold in accordance with this reasoning; and the proof is that we forbid when it was salted without a first rinsing [and so wrote the Havat Daat].

Regarding all that has been explained—that fish were forbidden through the salting of poultry, and likewise all that will be explained regarding the salting of a treifah with a kosher animal and a pure animal with an impure one—the measure of salting required to forbid is even if it was not salted in the manner of salting for a pot, but rather even in the manner of salting for roasting it also forbids. As will be explained in siman 91, the tzir that drips from such a measure of salting is also very hot and forbids. And there are those who distinguish that if the poultry was above the fish, it is sufficient to forbid the fish even with such a salting, because the tzir drips directly in its heat upon the fish; but when they are placed side by side, where the prohibition is because the exudations meet together, the discharge of the poultry does not forbid the fish unless they were salted with the measure of salting for a pot. However, it is possible that specifically with a mere touching it does not forbid, but if they are placed side by side until we see with our eyes that the tzir flowed from this one to that one, the fish are certainly forbidden even with salting for roasting [Bach], and likewise with kosher and treifah and pure and impure. And the Ran, of blessed memory, wrote that the fish are not forbidden except with the measure of salting for a pot, see there. And regarding the law, in a case of great loss one should rule accordingly, and in a case that is not a great loss one should forbid with any type of salting, see there. And know that the fish are not forbidden immediately, but rather when we see that a little tzir was discharged from them; but if the discharge has not yet begun at all, it is permitted [ibid.], and such is the law with kosher and treifah and pure and impure. Therefore, if they were immediately removed from one another, it is permitted; and see what I wrote in section 45.

Meat of a slaughtered animal that was salted with meat of a treifa is forbidden, for even though it does not absorb from the blood of the treifa since it is occupied with emitting its own blood, nevertheless, it absorbs from its tzir. We do not say "since it is occupied with emitting, it does not absorb" except regarding blood, which is slippery, and not regarding tzir and juice of a treifa, which are viscous. Only in a case of great emission, such as liver, do we say this, and not regarding ordinary meat [Rashba in Torat HaBayit]. And the tzir of a treifa is like the treifa itself [Gemara 112b], as it was taught: "The unclean" (Leviticus 11:31) serves to forbid their tzir, their juice, and their kipa; see there. And kipa is that which congeals at the bottom of the pot, spices and minced meat [Rashi].

In this, there is no difference whether the treifa is on top or the kosher is on top; for even though regarding fish and birds we said that when the fish are on top they are permitted, that is regarding blood because it does not diffuse upward, but the tzir of a treifa diffuses even upward [Bach]. And similarly, if they are placed side by side they are forbidden, even if they are not touching each other, but rather as long as they are placed near each other in a manner that the exudations touch together, it is forbidden [Shach, subsection 17]. And this is when both are salted, or the treifa is salted and the kosher is unsalted; but if the kosher is salted and the treifa is unsalted, it is kosher, for the salt does not have the power to cause absorption into the treifa to such an extent that it would subsequently exude into the kosher. And there are some of our teachers who hold that when they are placed literally next to each other, then it is forbidden even in such a case, because the heat of the salt of the kosher will heat the treifa until it exudes into the kosher [Ran]. And only if they are not placed next to each other, but rather only the exudations reach from one to the other, then it is permitted in such a case, and then even rinsing is not required [Shach, subsection 19]. And that which will be explained in siman 105, that regarding a salted permitted item and an unsalted prohibited item rinsing is required, that is when they are touching each other [ibid.].

And how much does it forbid the kosher [meat] when the treifah is salted? To the extent of a kelipeh. However, this is when both of them are lean, but if one of them is fat, even if the treifah is lean and the kosher is fat, the prohibition spreads through the whole of it, for the kosher goes and fattens the treifah until it too is considered fat. And this is if the salted treifah was on the bottom, for the bottom prevails. But if the salted treifah was on top and the kosher was on the bottom, even though the treifah is fat, nevertheless it only forbids the kosher to the extent of a kelipeh, because the bottom prevails and the lower unsalted kosher [meat] cools the upper one. And regarding kelipeh, there is no difference whether the treifah is on the bottom or the kosher is on the bottom, for it always absorbs to the extent of a kelipeh. And if the kosher is also salted, it appears that even if it is on the bottom, the salted treifah forbids it in its entirety, for in this case "the bottom prevails" is not applicable since it too is salted; therefore, if one of them is fat, the kosher is forbidden in its entirety [so it appears from the Shach, subsection 22]. And there are those who say that we are not experts in distinguishing between lean and fat, and we measure every salting with sixty. Also, there is no difference between when the salted treifah is placed on the bottom or when the unsalted kosher is placed on the bottom, for in every case it forbids the whole of it. And all of this will be explained in siman 105 with the help of Heaven, and here there is no need to elaborate on this.

And all this applies if they touched one another within the duration of meliha, but if they touched one another after the duration of meliha, one may rely in a case of great loss or a seudat mitzvah on the opinion of those who hold that after the duration of meliha, the salt is no longer considered as boiling, for the power of the salt has already ceased. However, where there is no great loss, one should not be lenient in this [Levush]. And something similar to this has already been explained in siman 69 regarding the incident of Rashi; see there in section 103.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: There are those who say that meat which has been salted is forbidden to be left in its salt after all its tzira has been emitted, which is twelve hours, because it returns and absorbs from the moisture of the blood that is upon it and upon the salt. And there are those who permit leaving it in its salt even for several days. Ab initio, one should be concerned for the words of those who forbid, but post facto, it is permitted. Thus far his words. And the reasoning of those who permit is because the blood upon it is minimal and is absorbed in the salt, and it cannot exit from it, for the salt does not emit it from itself; on the contrary, the way of salt is to emit the blood from the meat and pull it after it, and it remains within it and does not return to the meat [ibid.]. And even the one who is stringent regarding the case of Rashi, this is because it is placed in tzira, but here, where it is placed in a perforated vessel, we have no concern [Taz and Shach]. And the primary ruling is according to the opinion of those who permit, and the Levush did not bring the opinion of those who forbid at all, see there. Nevertheless, ab initio, one should certainly be concerned for the opinion of those who forbid, as written in siman 69, section 51, see there. And since according to the law the primary ruling is like those who permit, therefore, if they salted meat on the eve of Shabbat and forgot to rinse it before Shabbat, it is better that he leave it thus in its salt until the conclusion of the holy Shabbat and then rinse it himself, rather than permitting it through a non-Jew to rinse it on Shabbat [Be'er Heitev], unless there is a concern that the meat will spoil, for then it is permitted through a non-Jew or to rinse his hands as written in siman 68, section 81 regarding the matter of three days, see there [and so too when there is a pit of tzira].

He further wrote in section 6: There are those who forbid placing meat that has not been salted before its discharge of blood, because meat that has not been salted, or that was salted and discharged all its blood, returns and absorbs from what its fellow discharges. And there are those who permit it by means of salting, that he should salt it afterwards, for then it will discharge all the blood it absorbed. And there are those who permit in all this. And initially, one should be concerned for the words of those who forbid. Thus far his words. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: that even after the fact, it is the custom to forbid it if meat that already discharged all its blood and its brine fell near meat that has not yet remained for the duration of salting. Thus far his words.

He further wrote that there are those who say that for a full twenty-four hour period after it is salted, it emits tzir, and if it touched meat that was salted but had not yet remained for the duration of salting within this time, it is not forbidden, and such is the custom. However, in a place where there is no great loss, one should forbid it after twelve hours, but prior to this one should not be stringent at all. And all the more so if it was not salted at all, for even if it fell into actual tzir, one should not forbid it, as we say that by way of emitting its own blood, it will also emit what it absorbed from elsewhere. And even if the meat was salted but had not yet remained for the duration of salting and fell into tzir, there is grounds to permit it if it was not pickled within it for a full day. However, if it remained for the duration of salting and fell into tzir, there are those who forbid it even though the time of its tzir emission has not yet concluded. Nevertheless, for the sake of a great loss, one may permit even this during the entire time of its tzir emission, which is within twelve hours, by means of washing it again and salting it again. However, if he salted it without washing after it fell into the tzir, it is permitted ex post facto. And all this only refers to tzir which is like boiling, as explained above in siman 69. But actual blood that fell onto meat that is within its duration of salting, which is considered like boiling as explained below in siman 91, the meat is forbidden, for regarding actual blood we do not say "since it is occupied with emitting it does not absorb" or "as it absorbs, so it emits." And that which we said regarding it when it fell into tzir refers specifically to what is inside the tzir, but what is above the tzir is permitted. However, what is inside the tzir is forbidden immediately and there is no minimum measure for the matter. Thus far his words. And all their words require clarification.

And behold, regarding this matter there are four opinions among the Rishonim. The opinion of Rabbeinu Tam is that regarding all blood during salting in meat, it glides away, and the blood is not absorbed into another piece when it is salted in a perforated vessel, and the blood exits through the perforations; and only regarding fish, whose skin is soft, do we forbid it, but not regarding meat [Ran and Rabbeinu Yerucham, and he said in my name, see Beit Yosef]. And according to this, even meat that has already discharged its blood and its brine that was salted with meat that has not yet remained in its salt for the duration of salting is permitted, for it does not absorb at all [and the Rosh in siman 37 agreed with the reasoning of Rabbeinu Tam, but in siman 39 he brought the words of the Sefer HaTerumah that only regarding meat that was not salted is it permitted for the reason that he will return and salt it, see there].

And the teachers of the Rashba [in Torat HaBayit, Bayit 3, Shaar 3] hold that the meat certainly absorbs, but they have a permit through melichah; and even with meat that was already salted and rinsed, nevertheless melichah is effective, for "as it absorbs, so it emits," and just as it emits its own blood through melichah, so too it emits blood that it absorbed from others, for this too is emitted blood. It is only fish, which are very soft and thin, that the blood is attached within them and does not exit through melichah, but not meat.

The Rashba himself disagrees with them and holds that certainly meat that has not yet been salted is permitted by means of the salting that he will perform afterwards, for just as it will emit its own blood, so too it will emit the blood of its fellow; however, when it has already been salted and rinsed, such that the pores of emission have been closed, or if they remained in their salting for the duration of the emission of all the brine, which is twelve hours, such that they no longer have their own emission, if so, they will not emit the blood they absorbed from others. And this is the opinion of the Sefer HaTerumah and the opinion of the Rosh [siman 39] and the Tur, see there.

And there are those among the early authorities who said that even if it has not yet been salted, if it was placed near meat that was salted, and within the duration of salting, the unsalted meat is forbidden and further salting does not avail it; for even though through salting it will emit its own blood, nevertheless, the blood it absorbed from others is like actual blood and does not exit further through salting [the Ran and the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit there]. According to this, Rabbeinu Tam is the most lenient of them all, for he holds that it will not absorb from another at all; and this system is the most stringent of them all, for salting does not avail it at all. The Rashba himself, and the Sefer HaTerumah, and the Rosh, and the Tur hold that when it has not yet been salted, salting avails afterward; but when it has already been salted and emitted its blood and its brine, salting does not avail afterward. And the teachers of the Rashba hold that even in such a case, salting avails [see the Beit Yosef who brought all the systems].

And with this we come to the explanation of the words of the Shulchan Aruch, who wrote: There are those who forbid placing meat that was not salted at all, etc. And this is the fourth approach, the most stringent of them all. And there are those who permit it by means of salting, that he should salt it afterwards, etc. And this is the approach of the teachers of the Rashba, that even regarding that which was salted, they permit it by means of salting. And there are those who permit in all of this, meaning that there is no need for salting at all, and this is the approach of Rabbeinu Tam, the most lenient of them all. And this is what he wrote: And initially one should be concerned for the words of those who forbid, meaning that initially one should be concerned for all the stringencies, and after the fact he ruled like Rabbeinu Tam. And so he wrote explicitly in his great work in the name of the Agur, and this is his wording: And the Agur wrote the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that it is permitted and the opinion of the one who forbids, and he wrote afterwards that the world is careful initially and they permit after the fact. Thus far his words. And for this, our teacher, the Rema, came to disagree with him, that even after the fact we are accustomed to forbid if it already emitted its blood and its brine, and this is like the Rashba, and the Sefer HaTerumah, and the Rosh, and the Tur.

The commentators of the Shulchan Aruch understood that what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, "and some permit by means of salting etc.," this is the opinion of the Rashba, and they interpret it as referring to when it has not yet been salted. And that which he wrote, "and some permit in all this," this refers to the teachers of the Rashba, and they permit by means of salting afterward; see there. And I wonder, for if so, the primary point is missing from the book: both regarding the "some permit by means of salting," he should have explained that it deals with when it has not yet been salted, and regarding the "some permit in all this," he should have clarified that the permission is by means of salting. Furthermore, if it enters your mind that the second opinion is the opinion of the Rashba, if so, why did our teacher, the Rema, need to elaborate so much? He should have said: "and even post facto we practice according to the second opinion." Rather, it is certain that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not mention the opinion of the Rashba at all, for indeed they already wrote in siman 69 in several places that our teacher holds the reason is that it slides off, and our teacher, the Rema, does not hold this; see there, and they follow their own reasoning [and also from the Gra, subsection 26, it is implied that he interpreted as I have written; see there].

And know that regarding what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, "or that it was salted and discharged all its blood," his intention is that it discharged all its blood and its juice, which is to say after twelve hours, or that it was rinsed after the duration of salting, for then the pores of discharge are closed [Shach, subsection 26]. For if not so, it is obvious that there is no prohibition here according to all opinions, for as long as it is occupied with the discharge of juice, it will not absorb from another, as has been written several times. And there is one who wishes to explain his intention as being that it discharged its blood but not its juice, and also was not rinsed, and nevertheless it is prohibited because we do not say regarding the discharge of juice "since it is occupied with discharging it does not absorb" nor "as it absorbs so it discharges" [Pri Megadim in Shiftei Da'at, subsection 26]. And these words are astonishing, for even if we were to say that there is one who holds this [as written in the Darchei Moshe, sign 12, that it is the opinion of the Ri of Orleans in Tosafot 112 and the Issur V'Heiter], nevertheless it is known that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch and almost all the poskim did not mention this opinion at all. And it is a great principle among all the poskim that as long as it discharges juice it does not absorb [and even in the Ri of Orleans there is no necessity to say so, and only regarding fish did he write so, as written in section 5; and similarly, regarding what the Bach wrote that if it was rinsed there is no one who permits, the Shach already refuted him there].

It has already been explained that the time for the discharge of tzir lasts twelve hours. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that some say it discharges tzir for a full twenty-four hour period, and the twenty-four hour period begins after it has been salted. Consequently, all that has been explained—that within the time of the discharge of tzir it does not become forbidden by touching salted meat that has not remained for the duration of salting—this applies throughout the twenty-four hour period. This is in a case of great loss, but where there is no great loss, one should not permit it after twelve hours. There is one who says that even without a great loss one should be lenient until twenty-four hours, but it is not so, for the opinion of most poskim is only until twelve hours [Shach, subsection 33]. The Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote in Torat HaBayit [ibid.] that this is what was received from his teachers; see there.

And behold, our teacher, the Rema, elaborated here on the law of one that fell into tzir, meaning into tzir that is within the duration of melihah, for its law is as if it were placed next to meat that has not remained for the duration of melihah. And just as in that case we say that if the meat was within the time of discharging its tzir it is not forbidden, for as long as it discharges tzir it does not absorb, so too here regarding one that fell into tzir. However, according to this, he should not have elaborated, and he should have written with brevity that one that fell into tzir is like one placed next to meat that has not remained for the duration of melihah; rather, it is certain that they are not equal to each other in every matter, as is evident from the length of his words, and a reason is required as to why:

And the truth is so, for certainly when it is placed next to meat that has not remained for the duration of the salting period, even though the discharge from the brine goes toward it, nevertheless there is open space, and as long as it has some discharge of its own, it will not absorb from another. This is not the case when it falls into brine, for the brine surrounds it and it is placed in the brine and the space is constricted; we do not say in this case "since it is occupied with discharging it does not absorb" unless it has a strong discharge. And that is when it itself has not yet remained for the duration of the salting period and still needs to discharge blood, or if it has not yet been salted, for then even if it fell into brine it will not be forbidden, because when it discharges its own blood it will also discharge the blood of its fellow, for its discharge is strong and it will not absorb at all from the brine since it is occupied with discharging. However, after the duration of the salting period, when it falls into brine it is forbidden, for since it only discharges brine after the duration of the salting period, its discharge is weak, and when the brine surrounds it, it will absorb from it and will not discharge further. But for the sake of a great loss one may permit even in this case within twelve hours and say that as long as it is occupied with discharging it does not absorb; but after twelve hours one should not permit at all even in a case of great loss. Even though it was explained previously that in a case of a multiple loss one may permit up to a full day, that is when there is open space and not when it fell into brine, for not only in a case of a multiple loss should one not permit, but even in a case of a great loss one should not permit. And also up to twelve hours one should not permit in a case of a multiple loss, only in a case of a great loss, and therefore he changed his wording here to write "great loss" and not "multiple loss" as is his way everywhere; and see in section 43.

But if it fell into brine, it is necessary to rinse it once more and return and salt it, because the brine washed the salt off it. And it is not only necessary if it is still before the duration of salting, where it is certainly necessary to rinse it and salt it a second time, but even if it is after the duration of salting within twelve hours, which we permitted in a case of great loss, it also requires rinsing and salting a second time. And the reason is because we do not rely on this reason alone—that since it is occupied with emitting brine it does not absorb—except with an additional reason to this: that as it absorbs, so it emits. Therefore, it requires rinsing and a second salting. And one should not ask that if so, in any case it should be forbidden, for if he rinses it, the pores of emission will be closed and it will no longer emit; and it is well if it did not stay the duration of salting, for then the pores of emission will not be closed, but after the duration of salting, what benefit is there? And if so, how did he write that it is possible to permit it as long as it is emitting its brine by rinsing it and returning and salting it? And there are those who indeed rejected his words for this reason [Bach]. And there are those who answered that this rinsing is minimal, only to remove the filth of the brine [Shach subsection 39]. But if so, he should have specified that he should not perform a complete rinsing, and furthermore, who can estimate this? And there are those who answered that in truth our teacher, the Rema, does not hold this reasoning at all that rinsing closes the pores of emission [Taz subsection 16], and he truly wishes to reject the essence of this matter [Pri Chadash subsection 23]. And while it is true that in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch this reasoning was not explicitly mentioned, nevertheless, since it is common in the mouths of the poskim, and he himself in his book Torat Chatat also wrote that after rinsing the pores of emission are closed, it is difficult to say that here he would disagree with this. Therefore, it seems to me that this is what he meant: since according to the essential law it does not require a second salting at all, just as when it was placed near meat that had not stayed the duration of salting, for since it is occupied with emitting it does not absorb, and only because of the stringency did he require a second salting so as not to rely on this reason alone as I wrote, and salting is impossible without rinsing as is understood; therefore, we are concerned for this, that perhaps there will be a minimal rinsing and the pores of emission will not be closed, and even if there is a thorough rinsing, it will also be rendered fit according to the poskim who do not hold that by rinsing the pores of emission are closed, and for those who hold they are closed, we will rely on the reason that since it is occupied with emitting it does not absorb. And his main intention is to exclude the opinion of those who hold that in such a case it is absolutely forbidden, as the Maharshal wrote in Yam Shel Shlomo [section 77]. And it is a simple matter that this which we permit within the duration of the emission of brine is when it was not rinsed after the salting, for if not so, the pores of emission have been closed [and see Shach subsection 37 who also wrote that the essence of the permission is because since it is occupied with emitting it does not absorb].

And that which he wrote, that if it fell into brine we do not permit it unless it was not soaked within it a full day, the reason is simple: for in a full day it is considered soaked, and "soaked is like cooked." And if it is difficult, for it has already been explained that in brine it is considered soaked in the time it takes to place it on the fire and for it to begin to boil, and why is a full day required here? It is not difficult at all, for that is in a vessel that is not perforated, as in siman 69 when they salted the meat in a vessel that is not perforated. But here it is in a perforated vessel, and one could say that even in a full day the status of "soaked" does not apply, but nevertheless, in a full day he was stringent to consider it "soaked" [Shach and Pri Chadash and the Gra]. And know that regarding what we wrote in section 41, that the "great loss" mentioned here is not the "loss of a large amount" mentioned everywhere, the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch did not explain it so, and they explained it as the "loss of a large amount" of everywhere. In my humble opinion, it appears as I have written.

And that which he wrote, that if one salted it without rinsing after it fell into tzir, it is permitted post facto, thus far his words, the reason is that even though it is soiled with tzir, nevertheless it does not impede the expulsion [of blood]. For even without the tzir, there is expelled blood on the meat while it is in its salting prior to rinsing, and this tzir is also like expelled blood. For if we considered it like actual blood, it would not help at all, as he concludes that actual blood that fell on meat within the duration of salting—which is considered like boiling—is forbidden entirely. For regarding actual blood, we do not say "since it is busy expelling, it does not absorb," nor "like it absorbs, so it expels." Rather, we certainly consider the tzir like expelled blood, and if so, we do not care if he did not rinse it, as I have written. And actual blood that fell on meat after the duration of salting but before rinsing depends on the dispute regarding the incident of Rashi, as has been explained in siman 69 [and this is the intent of the Shach, subsection 44, as the Pri Megadim wrote]. And know that this which we permitted regarding meat that was not yet salted when it fell into tzir, or next to meat that had not remained in its salt for the duration of salting, this is when the meat was rinsed. For if it was not rinsed, it would be like meat that was not rinsed before salting, which he already ruled in the beginning of siman 69 to be forbidden, see there. And some permit even without rinsing [Shach subsection 29 and Taz subsection 18]. And that which he wrote, that all this only deals with falling into tzir that is like boiling, this refers to tzir that is within the duration of salting. And according to those who disagree with the incident of Rashi, even tzir after the duration of salting is considered like boiling. And we have already explained in siman 69, section 109, that even those who disagree with Rashi do so not because of the prohibition of the tzir, see there [and so wrote the Darkhei Moshe in this siman, sign 6, see there]. And know that here we are dealing with a case where it fell into tzir in a perforated vessel in a manner that the tzir has a place to flow out, for in a vessel that is not perforated, there is a different law, and it was explained in siman 69 [Shach subsection 40].

And regarding that which he wrote, that what is above the brine is permitted, it has already been explained that in any case it requires peeling. And regarding that which he wrote, that what is within the brine is forbidden immediately, his intention is in a case where a second salting is not effective, such as after the time of the discharge of brine or after the duration of salting and it was rinsed [Taz, subsection 4]. But in a case where a second salting is effective, it is not forbidden except after the duration of kavishah, as has been explained. And regarding that which is forbidden immediately, the reason is that "salted is like boiling," for even though for kavishah time is required and it is impossible for it to be forbidden immediately, as the Rosh wrote [Siman 49] and we explained in siman 69, section 90, see there, nevertheless regarding "salted is like boiling" no time is required and it is forbidden immediately. And it appears to me that this is only when it fell into brine, but in the mixing of discharges or even in actual contact with forbidden salted meat, it requires some small duration, for there is no logic at all that in one moment it would absorb from the forbidden substance, as I wrote in section 24. It is only when it is in brine and the brine surrounds it, then certainly there is logic that the brine is immediately absorbed within it, but not when they are adjacent to one another; and the world is at ease.

He further wrote: Meat that fell into brine that is on the ground, its law is as if the brine were in a vessel. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matter is that regarding the ground, there is a doubt whether it is like a perforated vessel or like a non-perforated vessel, for we are dealing with a place where there is no floor at all. Therefore, there is a reason to say that it is like a non-perforated vessel, for the brine collects in the ground and has no place to flow out; and there is a reason to say that it is like a perforated vessel because it is absorbed into the ground. Since there is a doubt, we follow the stringent view. However, regarding the matter of forbidding even that which is above the brine, we follow the lenient view, because our forbidding even that which is above the brine when it falls into a non-perforated vessel is also merely a stringency, as I wrote in siman 69, section 91, see there. Therefore, here one should not be stringent at all, and thus one should only forbid in the place where it touches the ground and no more, even in a case where it is forbidden, such as after the duration of salting and it was rinsed, as has been explained. And all the more so in a case where a second salting is effective, such as before the duration of salting, or if it was not salted at all, or after the duration of salting within the duration of discharging in a case of great loss, where he rinses it and salts it and it is sufficient [see Shach, subsection 47]. And our floors, which are completely paved, certainly their law is like a perforated vessel. And floors of bricks, if there is a gap between layer and layer and it fell there, it is like a non-perforated vessel [see Kreiti U'Pleiti].

He further wrote: Meat that touched a piece that was salted in a vessel that is not perforated and became forbidden, its law is as if it touched tzir. Thus far his words. That is to say, previously it was explained when they placed it near meat that had not remained for the duration of salting or near tzir, and now he explains when they placed it near the piece that was salted in a vessel that is not perforated while it was still in its heat of salting; nevertheless, it is not more stringent than touching tzir. And in a place where there it is permitted through subsequent salting—for example, if this meat had not yet been salted at all or had not yet discharged all its tzir according to the laws that were explained—so too here. And just as there, that which is above the tzir is not forbidden, so too here. And we do not say: behold, the meat that was salted in a vessel that is not perforated was forbidden even that which is above the tzir, as I wrote in siman 69, and if so, the meat touching it should also be forbidden in its entirety. For it is not comparable; for there the reason is because the place is cramped for it and it is like it moved from place to place, as I wrote there. This is not the case for the piece touching it in its heat of salting—namely, when they took it from the vessel that is not perforated within the duration of salting and placed it in a perforated vessel or on a board and placed other meat near it in a manner that the discharge goes toward it. However, after the duration of salting, it depends on the dispute of Rashi that was explained there in section 109; see there.

He further wrote: A doubt whether it is brine or water is permitted, for brine is a rabbinic prohibition and a doubt is ruled leniently. Thus far his words. And he means because blood that has been salted is not a Torah prohibition. He further wrote: Brine mixed with water, even a small amount, is no longer considered boiling and does not prohibit. Thus far his words. And there are those who explained that his intention is that sixty parts of water against the brine are not required, but nevertheless, it requires a majority of water [Shach, subsection 30]. And some say that even if the water is less than the brine, it nullifies its strength [Magen Avraham, siman 447, subsection 39]. And behold, regarding ritual impurity, a majority of water is required as is stated in Bekhorot [22a]; nevertheless, there is no proof, for it can be said that regarding nullifying the sharpness of the brine, even a small amount of water nullifies it. And it is possible to uphold the words of both of them: that if the brine fell into the water, even a small amount of water nullifies the strength of the brine, for each bit is nullified as it falls; but if the water fell into the brine, a majority of water is required, for something similar to this is found regarding water and wine later in siman 134. And it requires further study, because one cannot compare them to each other, for here they did not touch upon it because of nullification, but rather if it nullifies the essence of the sharpness of the brine. And since there is a dispute regarding this and it is a rabbinic prohibition as he wrote, perhaps one should be lenient.

It is a simple matter that all that has been explained—that one piece of meat is forbidden by another—this is when they are placed one upon the other or one next to the other for some small amount of time, or close to one another such that the discharge of the forbidding brine reaches the piece being forbidden. But if they are not so close to one another such that, according to the estimation, the discharge from the forbidding piece will not reach the piece being forbidden, and all the more so if they are placed on a board and the board is placed at a slight incline and the piece being forbidden is placed higher than the forbidding piece, it is completely permitted. And so too if both are placed even close to one another, but they are placed on an object that is entirely perforated and the perforations are frequent to one another in a manner that the brine flowing from each piece will flow beneath it and will not go to the sides, it is also completely permitted. [And whatever is forbidden for salting is forbidden for roasting in these laws].