Siman 71

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote: One cuts the head into two and salts it well on the inside, and then salts it again over the hair, for the hair does not prevent the salt from extracting the blood. Regarding the hooves, one cuts them slightly at the bottom and salts them, and he shall place the site of the cut facing downward, and he shall salt over the hair as well. The membrane over the brain contains veins, and the brain itself contains blood, and it does not exit its state of bloodiness through the salting of the head because the bone of the head surrounds it and stands before it, and there is no place for the blood to flow. Therefore, one who comes to salt it tears it and removes the brain, tears the membrane, and salts it. And if he desired to salt the head with the brain inside it, he shall puncture the bone opposite the membrane, and puncture the membrane as well, and salt it, and place the puncture facing downward, and it is permitted even for a pot. Thus far his words.

And all the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch explained that what he wrote previously, that one should cut the head in two, is not from the essential law but rather for a choice fulfillment of the mitzvah. However, from the essential law, it is sufficient that he pierce the bone opposite the membrane and also pierce the membrane, and salt it upon the hair, and place the piercing downward so that the blood will flow out through there, as he concludes at the end of his words. And salting has the same law as roasting over the fire that was explained in siman 68, that he should pierce the bone and its cut should be downward, see there. Except that there, piercing the membrane is not necessary, for since the bone was pierced, the blood no longer collects in the pot-like bone of the skull. And even though there are veins of blood in the membrane, the fire draws it out; but the salt will not draw out the blood that is within the veins of the membrane. And just as with all veins of blood, for roasting cutting is not necessary and for salting for a pot cutting is necessary, as was written in siman 65 [Beit Yosef]. And for this reason, it is not sufficient that he place it upon the site of the slaughter as with roasting there, because it is necessary to pierce the membranes.

And according to this, regarding salting upon the hair of the head, it is sufficient even ab initio, and this is not considered salting from one side which is not proper to do ab initio as was written in siman 69, for as long as it has not been opened, it is like a thick piece of meat that one does not need to cut in two, for the sages did not distinguish between a thick piece and a thin piece [ibid.]. And for this reason, he juxtaposed the law of the hooves, that one also salts upon the hair. And that which is required for hooves—cutting below—is because of the "shoe," for it is like a vessel that is not perforated, and also regarding roasting it is so, as was written there. Therefore, he interrupted with the law of the hooves between the laws of the head because previously he explained that even when one opens the head, nevertheless, salting upon the hair is also required in order to salt it from two sides; and afterwards he explained that when one does not open it, salting the hair alone is sufficient, provided that he pierces the bone along with the membrane. And for this, he wrote in the middle the law of the hooves to tell you that just as with hooves you have no other salting except upon the hair, so too with the head. And that which he wrote regarding hooves, "and he shall salt also upon the hair," means to say: aside from what he salts at the place of the cut below and the place of the joint above, he shall salt also upon the hair, which is the main length of the hooves.

And according to what has been explained, behold, because of the skull bone alone its law would not have changed at all from roasting, to place it on the place of slaughter and to salt upon the hair; and the entire essence of the matter is because of the brain. Therefore, for the performance of the mitzvah in the most choice manner, one should cut the head into two, etc. And according to the essential law, it is sufficient, as he concludes, to pierce the bone and the membrane and to salt upon the hair.

And according to the explanation that has been explained, the language is not well-ordered and also the sequence of his words is puzzling; for if so, he should have written at the beginning that the essential law is that one should puncture the nerve and the membrane and salt upon the hair, and afterwards write that one who wishes to perform the mitzvah in the most choice manner should cut the head in two. Furthermore, since the essential law of cutting the head is because of the brain, what is this that he wrote afterwards, "the membrane that is upon the brain contains vinegar, etc.," as if until now he had not spoken regarding the membrane and the brain? Behold, the entire essential law is because of the membrane and the brain, and he should have reversed the order and begun with the brain and its membranes and concluded, "and therefore one should do such and such." And if we say that his intention is that also because of the head itself it is better to cut it than to leave it upon the place of the shechitah out of concern lest it turn on its sides, as we were concerned about this regarding roasting in siman 68, it is impossible to say so, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, even there was not concerned for this, and all the more so regarding salting where it is placed in one spot, that one should not concern himself with this concern.

The words of the Tur also must be understood, for he wrote, and this is his wording: The Rashba wrote, one who salts the head, how should he act, given that the hair intervenes between it and the salt, etc.? He cuts the head in two and salts the head very well on the inside, and then salts upon the hair, for the hair does not prevent the salt from extracting the blood that is in the meat of the head, for even the marrow in the bones is rendered fit through salting and the bone does not intervene, all the more so the hair on the head. Thus far his words. Afterward he wrote: The membrane upon the brain contains filaments, etc., therefore one who comes to salt it tears it and removes the brain and tears the membrane and salts it, etc. And the Rambam wrote that one may not cook it or roast it until it is first singed in fire, and so wrote the Bahag, that it may only be eaten roasted. And my father, the Rosh, would permit cooking it by means of salting with the brain, provided that he pierces the bone opposite the membrane and also pierces the membrane, etc. Thus far the wording of the Tur.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, raised a difficulty against the Rashba: since he holds that salting upon the hair is sufficient, if so, why did he require cutting the head in two? And he also answered that he required this because of the brain, see there. And this is also perplexing, for the Tur spoke afterwards regarding the matter of the brain. Furthermore, he raised a difficulty: since one cuts the head in two and salts it from the inside, why is it necessary to salt upon the hair from the outside? For he himself ruled above in siman 69 that salting from one side is sufficient. And he answered that ab initio one must salt from two sides. And I am astonished, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote explicitly above in siman 69 that the Tur holds that according to the opinion of the Rashba, even ab initio salting from one side is sufficient, see there.

Therefore, it appears to me that the Rashba, of blessed memory, who required cutting the head in two, did so not because of the brain but because of the head itself. The reason is that it is true that we hold that salting upon the hair is like salting upon the meat, for even upon the hair it extracts blood that is in the limbs, just as salting upon the bones extracts the blood from the brain [and for this there is proof from Pesachim 84a, as the Bach wrote, see there]. However, all of this is not certain, for it can be said that the brain is not presumed to contain blood at all and does not require salting at all [and so wrote the Da'at Pesharim], and salting the bone truly does not help at all, and that which we salt is because of the doubt. If so, even upon the hair it does not help to extract its blood, and that which we salt the hooves upon the hair, we shall also say that it is because of the doubt, and the primary salting is what they salt at the place of the cut below and the place of the joint above. And proof for this is from what our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman, that initially one should not salt bones with meat, see there; and like the matter they wrote in siman 75 regarding intestines, not to salt them initially with meat for the reason that we do not presume there is blood in the intestines, and here too it is not clearly presumed that there is blood in the brain, for if not so, why should they not salt them together initially? And it appears to me that in this the Rishonim did not disagree at all, and everyone holds that they do not fulfill the obligation with the head through salting upon the hair even after the fact.

And the words of the Tur are explained very well according to this. This is his wording: The Rashba wrote: One who salts the head, how shall he act, for the hair intervenes between it and the salt? Some say that he salts upon the hair, and afterward places it on the fire until he removes the hair, and then returns and salts. But I do not see their words; rather, he cuts the head into two, etc. Thus far his words. And from this wording that he wrote, "how shall he act, for the hair intervenes," it is explicitly clear that it is a simple matter that by salting the hair alone, he has not fulfilled the obligation of salting. Therefore, some say that he salts and places it on the fire, and returns and salts upon the meat. But to the Rashba, this reasoning did not seem correct due to the concern that the fire will move the blood from place to place, and afterward it will not emerge through salting. Therefore, he ruled that he cuts the head into two and salts it from the inside, and returns and salts upon the hair from the outside. And even though in his opinion, even ab initio, salting one side is sufficient, this is when one salts upon meat; but here, when he salts inside the skull, which is entirely bone, certainly one side is not sufficient. Therefore, he must also salt upon the hair from the outside. And he adds to say that you should not wonder what benefit salting upon the hair provides, as it has no substance at all; it is not so, for it is possible that it is a good salting, just as we salt bones and it benefits the marrow, and just as we salt upon the hair of the hooves, likewise it is good to salt upon the hair of the head. And although even there it is not certainly clarified that it is a good salting, for perhaps it does not require salting at all, as I have written, nevertheless, even due to the doubt we require salting. And the Rashba elaborated so that the matter would not be so puzzling, and not that it is certainly so. However, with salting on both sides of the head, it is certainly sufficient, even though one side is bones and the second side is hair, for from both sides the salt will certainly perform its action.

And now the Tur begins to investigate the law of salting the brain and its membranes, that one tears it and removes the brain and tears the membrane and salts it, and he brings that in the place of the Rambam they did not practice to eat it except roasted, and so wrote the Ba'ag. But the Rosh, of blessed memory, permits cooking it by means of salting the head with the brain, and he should puncture the bone and the membrane. And regarding the salting of the head he does not deal at all, and it is possible that the Rosh holds like the "there are those who say" that one places it on the fire to remove the hair and afterwards salts it. And so it appears, for the primary concern of the Rashba is due to the blood that migrated from place to place, and the Rosh holds that regarding blood that migrates from place to place after shechitah we have no concern with it, as we explained in siman 69, section 91, see there [and so wrote the Pri Chadash, siman 67, subsection 2]. However, in any event, there is no one who explicitly holds that post facto salting upon the hair is sufficient, and it appears clear to me that one should not be lenient in this.

And according to this, we shall also interpret the Shulchan Aruch in this manner, even though in his great work he did not write so, and this is the explanation: "The head, he cuts it in two, etc." for this is an essential requirement regarding the head itself, as salting upon the hair is due to doubt. Therefore, his wording regarding the hooves is well-settled, where he wrote "and he shall salt also upon the hair," meaning that the primary salting is upon the place of the cut and the place of the joint, but due to doubt he shall salt also upon the hair. Afterwards, the law of the brain and its membranes begins. And that which he concludes, "And if he desired to salt the head with the brain inside it, he shall puncture, etc.," this is for the rectification of the brain, but regarding the essence of the salting of the head, he is not dealing with it here, and one must remove the hair before the salting. [And although he did not intend this himself, it is known that from Heaven our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, were merited to write according to the halacha even if they did not intend it, as I wrote in siman 10, section 3; see there].

It has already been explained in siman 68 that initially it is the custom to remove the brain from the skull before salting and to cut the skull lengthwise and crosswise, see there. Also, the membrane upon the brain must be cut because it contains threads of blood. If one did not cut it before salting, he should remove the membrane after salting and discard it, and it is not necessary to salt the brain a second time, for the membrane does not prevent the blood in the brain from being emitted. If the head was salted whole without piercing the bone, the membrane and the brain are forbidden because they are like that which was salted in a vessel that does not drain, and there is no difference between an animal and a bird [Shach, end of siman 67]. The rest of the head is permitted, and certainly the rest of the meat with it, because the bone of the skull separates between the blood within it and the meat; and even if some of the blood was emitted into the meat, "as it absorbs, so it emits." However, according to this, if the meat was already salted and rinsed, such that it no longer has its own emission, it is forbidden. Some permit even in such a case [ibid. subsection 8] and some forbid [Chavat Da'at subsection 1], and so it appears primary. And know that even though regarding roasting it is effective if one places it on the place of slaughter or the nostrils and pierces it with something, as written in siman 68, nevertheless regarding salting it is not effective without piercing the membrane as has been written. And if one cooked the head whole without piercing the bone, it has been explained in siman 68, see there.

Regarding the hooves, it has already been explained that one cuts them slightly at the bottom, and if he did not cut them before the melikhah, he shall cut them after the melikhah and salt them once more. And if he placed them in boiling water before returning to render them permissible via a second melikhah, there must be sixty against the hooves; so wrote one of the great authorities [Yesh Omrim]. But it does not seem correct to me to be so stringent, for behold, many great authorities rule to permit even what is inside the hooves based on the reasoning that we say the blood exited through the length of the hooves [Shach siman 68, subsection 13]. However, we are accustomed to being stringent as was written there, and if so, why should we be so stringent? Therefore, it appears to me that sixty against the tips of the hooves is sufficient. And know that it has already been explained that when one cuts the hooves slightly at the bottom before the melikhah, one salts upon the hair. The Maharshal wrote [Yam Shel Shlomo, Perek Gid HaNasheh, siman 12] that the preferred way to perform the mitzvah is to singe them beforehand and afterwards to salt them, but the custom is not so [Taz, subsection 2].

The thigh bone and other bones that contain marrow require melichah, and the melichah of the bones is effective for the marrow that is inside the bones. And behold, even when one performs melichah upon the meat and there are bones hidden inside the meat, it is effective for the marrow within them; therefore, also when one performs melichah upon the bones, it extracts the blood that is within the marrow, and there is no need to puncture the bones. It is not similar to the marrow in the head, where one must puncture the bone and the membrane as we have written, for there it is because of the veins of blood in the membrane of the brain, and it is like collected blood within it, but the blood that is to be discharged is discharged and drained with a small amount of melichah (Shach, siman 71 in the name of the Rashba). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that ab initio one should not perform melichah on the bones with other meat, but only alone, and ex post facto it is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say, bones that have no meat upon them and one performs melichah on them in order to cook them because of the marrow within them, he should not perform melichah on them with other meat. And the reason we have already explained: because it is not a clear matter that the marrow is presumed to contain blood, and there is a concern that they will absorb from the meat. But regarding bones that are in the manner of meat, it is obvious that one performs melichah together, for since it is together, the blood is occupied only with discharging and not with absorbing [see Pri Chadash who wrote that they are accustomed ab initio to perform melichah on bones with meat because it is presumed to him that there is blood in the marrow, see there; however, we have not seen that they buy bones without meat, but if it happened so, one should not transgress the words of the Rema and should perform melichah on them by themselves like intestines in siman 75].