Siman 72

There are two types of blood in the heart: one is absorbed in the meat of the heart as in all meat, and this blood is like all blood of the organs—when it has not separated it is permitted, and when it has separated there is a negative prohibition, and the salt expels it outward. The second blood is the blood in its cavities that gathers from outside of it at the time of slaughter, and for this blood one is liable for koret, as I wrote in siman 65. The salt does not expel it outward because it is actual blood and is like that collected in a vessel, and even fire does not expel it outward. Therefore, the sages taught [109a]: The heart, one tears it and removes its blood. One tears it before salting and pours out the blood, and afterward salts it like other meat, and then it is permitted even to cook it. There are those who are stringent regarding cooking it even after salting, and they only roast it, for the reason that we fear perhaps one will cook it without tearing; rather, they only roast it by means of tearing and a bit of salting like other meat, as I wrote in siman 76, and afterward they cook it. However, many are lenient in this, for we do not find this decree in the Gemara, and so the great authorities agreed [Yam Shel Shelomo, and Taz subsection 1, and Pri Chadash], and such is the custom to be lenient. Only males do not eat the heart because it is stated at the end of Horayot that it is detrimental to memory, and also the heart of a bird they do not eat for this reason [Shach subsection 2]. When it is permitted to cook it, it is permitted even together with meat [ibid. subsection 1], and it is simple and there is no novelty in this at all.

If one did not tear it before the salting, it is not forbidden thereby, and one tears it after salting and it is permitted. And even though at the time of salting it absorbed from the blood of the cavity, nevertheless we say regarding this that just as it absorbed, so it emitted. And even though regarding visible blood we do not say "as it absorbs, so it emits," as I wrote in siman 69 and in siman 70, nevertheless regarding the heart we do not require this, for the meat of the heart is different from all other meat in that it is very smooth and does not absorb at all. And so it is stated in Pesachim [74b]: The heart is different because it is smooth. For this reason the sages, of blessed memory, said that even if one cooked it and did not tear it, one tears it after its cooking and it is permitted. And regarding cooking, it is certainly not relevant to say "as it absorbs, so it emits," for the cooking confuses; rather, it is because it is smooth both from the inside and from the outside and does not absorb at all. The Rambam, of blessed memory, rules accordingly as the halacha in chapter 6, see there. However, we do not hold accordingly, as will be explained; nevertheless, regarding the matter of salting, there is certainly no concern in this, as I wrote. And similarly regarding roasting, if one roasted it and did not tear it, one tears it after its roasting and it is permitted.

And there is a question regarding this: if the reason is because the heart is smooth, if so, why did the Tur and Shulchan Arukh and all the poskim write the reason as "as it absorbs, so it emits"? However, the truth is indeed so: certainly, based on the reason of "smooth" alone it would be impossible to permit it, for it is inescapable that it would absorb a small amount; rather, the primary reason is because "as it absorbs, so it emits," and the reason of "smooth" is necessary because this renders it like discharged blood and not like blood in its essence [see Shach, subsection 3], for regarding the heart itself it is considered discharged blood [Pri Chadash, subsection 3, and Kereti U-Peleti]. And there is another reason why it is considered discharged blood: because the blood in its cavity dries out through melichah and roasting [Tosafot 111a, s.v. Dama]. And some say that in truth there is no need at all for "as it absorbs, so it emits," for regarding roasting and melichah it is certainly smooth such that it does not absorb at all; even according to the poskim who wrote that regarding cooking the reason of "smooth" does not exist, nevertheless, in melichah and roasting this reason remains [Shach ibid. in the name of the Ramban, and so wrote Yam Shel Shelomo, siman 48]. And know that regarding "smooth," some say that only from the inside is it smooth and not from the outside, and some say that also on the outside it is smooth, and some say that even if one cut the heart into small pieces it is also smooth and does not absorb [Ran in the name of "some say"]. And know that the poskim agreed that the reason of "smooth" only applies regarding blood and not regarding other prohibitions [and so wrote the Pri Megadim, subsection 3].

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 6: The heart, whether for roasting or for a pot, one tears it and removes its blood and afterwards salts it; and if one cooked the heart and did not tear it, one tears it after its cooking and it is permitted. Thus far his words. And the reason is because the heart is smooth and does not absorb even during cooking, and so wrote Rashi [109a] and so wrote the Rashba. However, our teachers the authors of the Tosafot, and the Ra'avad, and most of the poskim hold that we only permit this regarding roasting and not regarding cooking. And even according to the opinion of the Rambam, this is only regarding the heart itself, but regarding the rest of the meat that is with it, it is certainly forbidden in cooking; for granted that it is smooth and does not absorb, nevertheless it certainly emits, and they absorb the blood.

If one cooked the heart without tearing it, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that one requires sixty against the heart, for we do not know how much issued from it. Thus far their words. This means that it is impossible to estimate against the blood alone, for we did not know how much blood was in it, and this law is like any meat that was cooked without salting, where they ruled in siman 69, section 11, that one requires sixty against the entire piece of meat. And there as well the reason is because we do not know how much issued from it, as the Rosh wrote [siman 45]. However, one must understand why the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not explain this reason there, yet here they explained it. And it seems to me that they wrote it here intentionally, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

For behold, it is certainly so that if the heart was not salted at all, it is obvious that one requires sixty against the entire heart, and it is no less than other meat that was not salted. However, if the heart was salted, such that all the blood within the meat of the heart was extracted through salting and there remained only the actual blood collected within its cavity, in this case some say that one does not require sixty against the entire heart, but rather against the blood within the cavity, for it is easy to estimate how much the cavity holds [Yam Shel Shlomo siman 49, Teshuvot Maimoni siman 10, and Pri Chadash subsection 5], and they explain that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch are dealing with a case where the heart was not salted. And some say that even if it was salted, one requires sixty against the entire heart because in this case as well it is impossible to estimate; and the proof is that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch are also dealing with such a case, for they wrote "if one cooked the heart without tearing it," which implies that aside from this, the heart emerged through the fitness of salting [Shach subsection 5 and Taz subsection 4].

And according to this, I say that according to both opinions they were compelled to explain the reason here; for according to the first opinion, their intention in this is to explain that it deals with where they did not salt the heart, and therefore they were precise to say that we do not know how much issues from it, for if they had salted it, it would be possible to estimate how much the cavity holds. And according to the latter opinion, it is said on the contrary, that for this reason they wrote the reason to inform us that even when they salted it, nevertheless we do not know how much issues from it. For if they had not written the reason, as in siman 69, I would have said that it deals with where they did not salt it, and if so, the reason is simple as it is there. Therefore, they intentionally wrote the reason here, meaning to say that even when they salted it, we can say this reasoning. And it appears to me that in a case of great loss one may rely on the first opinion, and so wrote the Shearim in siman 27, see there [and also the Taz, who was stringent, wrote that his mind inclines toward the opinion of the Yam Shel Shlomo, except that in practice he was stringent, see there].

And even if there is sixty, nevertheless the heart itself is forbidden, for the heart itself becomes nevelah since the prohibition is attached to it and it is quick to absorb from the other items in the pot. And even if we say that since the heart is smooth it does not absorb quickly and the absorption travels equally to everything in the pot like in the heart, nevertheless it is forbidden for another reason: for sometimes the blood in the heart is cooked and entirely dried within the cavity of the heart and does not exit outside [Taz and Shach]. And if the heart is attached to the chicken and there is sixty against the heart, the chicken is permitted and the heart is forbidden, and one should peel a little from around the heart. And if there is not sixty against the heart, the chicken is forbidden because it is quick to absorb from the other items in the pot and becomes nevelah, and one requires sixty in everything in the pot against the bird. And even if there is sixty, the bird itself is forbidden according to the law of chanan. The Tur disagrees with this, for he follows his reasoning later in siman 92 that we do not say chanan except regarding meat in milk, but we do not rule accordingly as was written there, and so our teacher, the Rema, decided [however, if the bird was salted, perhaps one may rely in a case of significant loss that one does not need sixty against the entire heart, but only against the collected blood, as was written in the previous section].

And according to this, if they forgot and cooked the heart without tearing, if it is not attached to a piece of fowl but is by itself, one joins everything that is in the pot—the water and the cooked food—to sixty. And if there is in all of them sixty against the heart, one throws away the heart, and the pot and everything within it is permitted. And if it is attached to the fowl, one requires sixty in the fowl against the heart; and when there is sixty, one throws away the heart and peels from around the heart, and the rest of the fowl and everything in the pot is permitted. And if there is not sixty in it, the chicken is forbidden, and one requires sixty in everything that is in the pot against the fowl. And if there is not sixty, the pot and everything within it is forbidden.

Our teachers wrote that there is no bird that does not have sixty against its heart, even if it does not have the head and the lower legs. And there are those who are more lenient, that even when it is without wings and legs, but only the body of the bird, it has sixty against the entire heart. Therefore, when they cooked a whole chicken as has been explained and the heart was found attached to it, one throws away the heart and peels a little as I have written, and it is permitted. And in a goose, even if the skin was stripped, it also has sixty against the heart when it is in its completeness according to what has been explained [Taz, subsection 9]. And know that even though our teacher, the Rema, wrote in this wording: And every bird has sixty even if it does not have the head and the lower legs as is the custom to remove them, that is, until the lower joint, etc. Thus far his words. Nevertheless, one should be lenient like the opinion of those who are lenient that we wrote, for in this there is another leniency, since it was attached to the chicken, it was salted together with the chicken; if so, according to the first opinion in section 6, one does not need sixty against the entire heart, but rather against the blood in its cavity [and therefore we omitted the opinion of those who disagree with the aforementioned Taz].

And know that there are those who err in saying that when the chicken is not whole, but rather half or less, there is certainly not sixty against the heart. But it is not so; on the contrary, our teachers gave the rule that when it is whole, according to what has been explained, there is no need to measure at all—whatever species of bird it may be, it contains sixty against the heart. And when it is not whole, then the posek must measure if there is in the attached piece sixty against the heart or not. And we have already seen that if the bird is large and fat, and the heart is not so large, there is even in its half sixty against the heart, and all the more so according to the first opinion in section 6 as I wrote, and see what I wrote at the end of section 7 [and so wrote in the Responsa Panim Meirot, section 29, that he would measure sixty even if the bird was not whole, see there].

An incident occurred involving a bird that was roasted inside a basin, and there was gravy in the basin, and the heart was found attached to the bird. They were in doubt, for while it is true that in a whole bird there is sixty as has been written, nevertheless, the entire bird was not covered in gravy, and perhaps it is impossible to measure against the whole bird, but only against the portion of it that was within the gravy, and in that there is not sixty against the heart. And behold, if there is also a doubt that perhaps the heart itself was not within the gravy—meaning that the gravy did not reach the place where the heart was attached—it is certainly permitted, for it would be a doubt regarding a rabbinic law and we rule leniently, as blood that was salted and cooked does not involve a Torah prohibition. But even if it is known that the part where the heart was suspended was within the gravy, several great authorities also permitted it, because we establish the law according to the opinion of Ri, the author of the Tosafot, that the gravy mixes, and also the portion that is outside the gravy joins with what is within the gravy. And even though according to the opinion of Rashi it is not so, as will be explained in siman 92, nevertheless, most poskim rule like Ri, see there. Therefore, in this case, even though there are those who were concerned for the opinion of Rashi, nevertheless, in combination with the first opinion in section 6, it is simple that one should not be stringent in this. [See Be'er Heitev subsection 11 and Pitchei Teshuvah sub-sections 1 and 11, and examine carefully]:

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that you have no animal that will have sixty against its heart, thus far his words. And the Levush wrote that this is certainly an error from an erring student, for according to a simple estimation we see that there are sixty and more than sixty, see there. And from the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch, they wrote that this is not an error, for since it is the way with an animal to remove its head, its legs, and its entrails, and they remove the skin, the fat, and the gid hanasheh, if so, on the contrary, according to the estimation there is not sixty here [Shach, subsection 19]. However, the truth is that the intention of our teacher, the Rema, was not to say that there is no animal in which there is sixty against its heart, but rather regarding what they said of a bird, that you have no bird that does not have sixty against the heart—meaning that when it is whole it does not require estimation, but only in a piece of a bird does it require estimation if there is sixty against this—he says that in an animal it is not so, meaning that in it one requires estimation whether there is sixty or not. and this is what he meant: You have no animal that will have this general rule, that there is certainly sixty against its heart [Pri Megadim in the name of Minchat Yaakov].

It has already been explained that regarding the matters of salting and roasting, we judge the collected blood only as blood that was emitted and not as blood in its essence, and this is regarding the heart itself. However, regarding other meat that was salted or roasted with the heart, there are arguments for both sides. For if we say the primary reason regarding the heart is because it is smooth, then regarding other meat it must be judged as blood in its essence, and the meat that was salted or roasted with it is forbidden according to the law of blood in its essence that fell upon meat, which is not removed through salting nor through roasting. However, if the primary reason regarding the heart is because the blood dried within it and is not quick to be emitted, then even regarding other meat it is like blood that was emitted [it appears to me].

And with this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are clarified, who wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who are stringent regarding it even in salting, to forbid the rest of the meat that was salted with it, and they say that we do not say "as it absorbs, so it emits" regarding the blood of the heart collected within it, for it is actual blood and is not called blood of emission; but the custom is to be lenient, and such is the primary ruling, for this too is called blood of emission, and it is appropriate to say regarding it "as it absorbs, so it emits," just as it is regarding the blood in the veins, as I wrote above in siman 22. And there are those who are stringent to peel the place where the heart was attached, and it is good to be concerned for their words and to peel a bit around the heart, and then everything is permitted; and there is no difference between the meat that is with the heart or the heart itself, and there is no difference whether the heart is closed or open at the top. And we are accustomed ab initio to cut the membrane of the heart and to cut the tendons that are inside, and it is nothing but a mere stringency and caution. Thus far his words.

And behold, in that which he wrote, "just as it is with the blood in the veins" in siman 22, he hinted at the reasoning we explained; for behold, there too we explained in section 8 that the reason we do not say it is "attached forbidden matter" is because the veins intervene and the chicken does not hasten to absorb more than other items in the pot, and here too it is similar to this, because the blood dried inside the heart and does not hasten to discharge as I wrote. And this is why he concludes once more that there is no difference between the meat that is with the heart or the heart itself; thus far his words. And this is superfluous language, for he already wrote this; rather, his intention is to explain the reason, and this is the explanation: because there is no difference regarding the discharge between the meat that is with the heart or the heart itself, for just as regarding the heart itself one considers it blood of discharge because it dries, etc., so too regarding the rest of the meat, as I wrote. And that which he wrote, that there are those who are stringent to peel a bit in the place where the heart was attached, there is a question on this: for behold, the heart itself stands in place of the peeling since the prohibition is only because of the collected blood [the Atzei Gofna questioned this]. And it appears to me that therefore he concludes that it is good to be concerned for their words, meaning that even though according to the essential law there is no concern here, nevertheless it is good to be concerned. And there is one who says that in a roast, it requires the removal of the area around the heart [Shach, subsection 9]. And that which he wrote, that there is no difference whether the heart is closed or open at the top, this is the explanation: that even if it were closed at the top, tearing it after salting and roasting is effective for it, and even if it were open at the top, one must return and tear it, for that which was open is not considered a tearing [ibid. subsection 13]. And in that which he wrote to cut the "orlah" of the heart, its meaning is the point at the top which is like an orlah, and there is a reason for this, because the brit is the archetype of the heart, therefore they cut its point to remove the forces of impurity from there, and this is what is written: "And you shall circumcise the orlah of your heart" [ibid. subsection 14].

And know that there is one who wishes to be stringent regarding a heart attached to a bird that was cooked and there was sixty against it, and they poured the chicken into a bowl while it was still boiling and cut a portion from it in a manner that in the remainder there was no longer sixty; for since it is still boiling and a solid mass (davar gush) is like a first vessel (kli rishon), and if so, it now absorbed from the heart. And there is no reason for this at all, for behold, according to the essential law even the heart is permitted when there is sixty, rather we are stringent in this, and how can we add a prohibition based on such a weak reason, for behold there is no sauce here to transport the absorption [some say]. And besides this, the matter is not agreed upon that a solid mass is like a first vessel. And likewise there is one who wishes to be stringent when the heart itself was cooked in a pot, that one requires sixty in the pot against the heart as has been written, that the teacher should ask perhaps they poured into the bowl beforehand and the heart remained with a small amount of cooked food in the pot that did not have sixty, similar to what will be explained in siman 107. And all these matters are stringencies without reason, as is understood, and especially regarding a rabbinic prohibition. And know that if there is not in the piece of chicken sixty against the heart, even though they stuffed the chicken with eggs or with other meat, nevertheless we do not join this to the sixty, and their law is like other things in the pot [Taz, subsection 10]. And this is only when they stuffed between the skin and the meat, but if they stuffed inside it with eggs or meat, it is known that the heart is hidden inside the stuffing and the stuffing is within the body of the chicken, and we join this to the sixty [ibid.]. And there are those who disagree on this [ibid.]. And when there is in the bird itself sixty, even the stuffing is permitted [ibid.]. And there are those who are concerned to be stringent regarding the stuffing even when there is sixty in the bird, because there is a concern that all the blood was absorbed in the stuffing alone, and it is an excessive stringency [ibid.]. And more will be explained regarding this at the end of siman 73 regarding a liver, see there.

The lung does not require cutting, as it is like any other meat. Nevertheless, it is the custom to tear it and open the tubes within it, specifically the large tubes, and this is a fine custom. However, regarding the small tubes, there is no concern at all in this matter. And even regarding the large ones, if they did not open them and did not tear the lung, there is no concern after the fact if they cooked it thus in its entirety.