Siman 73

The liver has an abundance of blood, for it is entirely blood, but the Torah permitted it, for the Torah only forbade blood that is poured like water, as it is said: "you shall pour it upon the earth like water" (Deuteronomy 12:14), and the liver is congealed and stands in the body of the animal and is not poured like water [Levush]. And behold, the abundance of blood is clear to the eyes of all, for much blood is poured from it, and in its composition it is entirely blood. There is also an aspect that when the liver spoils and is dissolved, it melts and turns entirely into blood, and that is when the blood exits through the mouth and the living creature dies (Gittin 69a). And this is what the prophet said in his lamentation: "my liver is poured upon the earth for the breach of the daughter of my people" (Lamentations 2:11). And also in Chullin (Chullin 109a) it is explained that it is literally like blood, for it counts there what the Torah permitted in contrast to what it forbade: He forbade us blood, He permitted us liver; see there. Behold, it is literally like blood.

And from where do we know that the Torah permitted it? We learned this from all the sacrifices eaten by the priests, as it is written in the portion of Korach: "This shall be yours from the most holy things, from the fire: every offering of theirs, every meal-offering of theirs, every sin-offering of theirs, and every guilt-offering of theirs... it is most holy for you and for your sons" (Numbers 18:9). Its explanation is that which remains from the fire-offerings that ascend to the altar—namely the fat, the kidneys, and the diaphragm of the liver—you shall eat. And behold, the liver is also among that which remains from the fire, for they only offered the diaphragm of the liver. Furthermore, it is written: "But the firstborn of an ox... you shall sprinkle their blood... and their flesh shall be yours" (Numbers 18:17-18); and behold, liver is also included in "flesh," as is explained in the Shas (Nedarim 54b). Furthermore, regarding the bird sin-offering, we learned in the sixth chapter of Zevachim (Zevachim 64b) that the altar receives only its blood, and the remainder is eaten by the priests, see there; if so, they also ate the liver. And there is no difference between the liver of a bird and the liver of an animal, for even in a fat goose where the liver is white because of its fat, nevertheless, its essence and foundation is blood.

And since it is entirely blood, much dispute has increased among our teachers, the Rishonim, regarding how to render it fit for eating. There are those who hold that it has no permission through melichah at all, for due to the abundance of blood within it, the salt will not extract its blood from it, and it has no permission except through roasting over fire; and one must leave it for approximately half its roasting, and afterwards it is permitted to cook it, as is now the custom in all the dispersions of Israel. This is the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam in chapter 6 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, and so wrote the author of the Halakhot Gedolot. And even though with chalitah in boiling water or in vinegar it is certainly permitted, for it constricts the blood as is explained in the Gemara (Chullin 111a), nevertheless the Rif wrote that they sent from the Mesivta that we are not experts in chalitah, see there; and it will be explained in section 15 with the help of Heaven.

And there are those who hold that by means of salting there is no doubt that it is permitted to cook it, for salting is like roasting, as salted is like the heat of roasting, and it emits by means of salting just as it emits by means of roasting; and on the contrary, the Talmud is uncertain there that perhaps even salting is not required. And this is also without doubt, that for the liver itself nothing is required, for it is entirely blood and the Torah permitted it, and it is permitted to cook the liver without anything, and the doubt is regarding other meat that is cooked with the liver that was not salted, whether the emission of the blood of the liver prohibits other meat, for perhaps since it is entirely blood and the Torah permitted it, it does not prohibit, or it is possible that after the blood has separated outward it prohibits by rabbinic decree. And this is what the sages taught in the Mishnah of Terumot (Terumot 10:11): The liver prohibits and is not prohibited; meaning, its emission prohibits others, and it itself is not prohibited even from the emission of other blood, because it is always preoccupied with emitting and does not absorb. And this is the system of Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot and the Rosh there. [And if we say that its emission does not prohibit others, it is not difficult from this Mishnah that it prohibits others, for we can establish it as a treifah liver as the Talmud rejects there, and even in such a case it does not absorb even from treifah, because of the greatness of its preoccupation with emitting; but from the perspective of the prohibition of blood even others it does not prohibit. And why does the Talmud press itself to establish it in such a case? Because since it itself does not require salting at all, there is no logic that its emission should prohibit others, see there and examine carefully]:

And there are those who hold that without melichah it is certainly forbidden, and it is the Gemara that is in doubt because since there is a great abundance of blood in the liver, perhaps it does not all exit through melichah; and regarding the liver itself, certainly melichah permits one to cook it, and the doubt is regarding whether it forbids meat that is cooked with it after its melichah. And this is the interpretation of the Mishnah in Terumot that we cited, and it deals with after melichah in the manner that one salts all meat, or perhaps after melichah it does not forbid other meat either, and the Mishnah deals with a treifah liver as I wrote according to the previous approach. [And this is the approach of the Tosafot, see there; and the Rosh and the Rashba wrote that this is the approach of Rashi, but in truth it is not explicitly stated in Rashi that it deals with after melichah, and the Peri Chadash and the Maharshal in the glosses to Sha'arei Dura wrote that the approach of Rashi is like Rabbeinu Tam, see there]:

And in truth, these two opinions are explicit in the Yerushalmi Terumot (Yerushalmi Terumot 6), and this is the wording of the Yerushalmi: Rabbi Zeira never ate liver in his life; Rabbi Ba boiled it and fed it to him, and some say Rabbi Ba salted it and fed it to him. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that according to the first version, he boiled it without any salting at all, like the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, and according to the second version, he salted it and boiled it, like the opinion of the Tosafot; and I am astonished at the poskim for not citing this Yerushalmi. [And it is further stated there: Rabbi Yirmeyah inquired, if one boiled it in milk, what is the law? Meaning, if the liver does not absorb other prohibited substances as well, such as milk and the like, and as it is stated in our Gemara, "perhaps there it refers to prohibited liver," and the commentator explained this with a strange explanation, see there; and so wrote the Kereti U'Peleti]:

It results from this that according to Rabbeinu Tam, it is permitted to cook liver without any melihah at all, but to cook it with meat is forbidden; and if one cooked it with meat, the liver is kosher and the meat is treif, and consequently, even when cooked alone, the pot is forbidden, as it absorbs from the blood of the discharge. And according to the Tosafot, if one cooked the liver without melihah, it is treif, and when one salted it, it is kosher; and if one cooked it after melihah with meat, the liver is kosher and the meat is treif, and consequently, even when cooked alone after melihah, the pot is forbidden as I have written. But according to the Rif and the Rambam, even the liver is treif when cooked by means of melihah, and it has no permit except by means of roasting, [for they rejected the Mishnah in Terumot from the halakhah, as the Rambam wrote there in the Commentary on the Mishnah, see there; and also in the Gemara 111 (Chullin 111a) it concludes that it is like a dispute of Tannaim, see there; and in the Tosefta Terumot (Tosefta Terumot 9:4) chapter 9, the version even in the words of Rabbi Eliezer is "it forbids and becomes forbidden," and the Gra emended this also in the Gemara as he wrote in subsection 12, see there; and according to this, the system of the Rambam is clarified. And the Pelati wants to suggest that the Rambam interprets that the Mishnah is not dealing at all with the prohibition of blood, but rather with the prohibition of terumah to non-priests, and that the liver does not absorb from terumah, see there; but it requires further study what "it forbids" refers to, and the matter is most clear according to the words of the Gra. However, the Yerushalmi that we brought is explicitly against the Rambam, and it requires further study why they did not bring it]:

And know that according to all interpretations, this is only regarding the blood of the liver itself, but the blood in the vessels of the liver is like actual blood, and even for roasting, if they did not remove the blood of the vessels by opening the vessels, the blood does not exit them through roasting. Therefore, they said in the Gemara there: tear it crosswise and the cut downward, so that its cut should be downward when they place it in the oven to roast, so that the blood will flow and exit (Rashi). And even though regarding veins of blood we maintain that for roasting one does not need cutting, for the fire draws it out as written in siman 65 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 65), the vessels of the liver are different, as they contain an abundance of blood, and therefore even for roasting one needs cutting. And some say that in truth for roasting one does not need cutting, just as in siman 65 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 65), and the Gemara which required cutting, that was for boiling (Tosafot, and more will be explained regarding this in section 17).

The Tur wrote: The liver contains a multitude of blood, therefore it has no remedy to be cooked by means of melichah, and one may not cook it unless he tore it lengthwise and crosswise and placed its cut side downward and roasted it, and afterwards he may cook it. Rabbenu Tam permitted cooking it by means of tearing and melichah, but we do not practice so; however, post facto it is permitted. Thus far his words. And even though according to the opinion of Rabbenu Tam there is no need for melichah at all, the commentators wrote that his intention was to cook it with meat, for in this case melichah is required even according to the opinion of Rabbenu Tam, as was written in section 4 [Beit Yosef, and Bach, and Derishah and Perishah]. And this is what the Tur wrote later regarding the matter of chalitah, that according to the law of the Gemara it is permitted, but the Geonim prohibited it because we are not experts; he wrote, and this is his wording: And the Geonim wrote that we are not experts in chalitah, therefore one should not permit it through chalitah; but if it was done post facto, or even if it was cooked alone in a pot, it is permitted post facto, for it emits and does not absorb, but the pot is prohibited. Thus far his words. And here it deals with no melichah at all [ibid.], and according to this he ruled entirely like Rabbenu Tam, except that only ab initio they practiced according to the words of the Rambam.

And in my humble opinion, it appears that the Tur did not permit, even ex post facto, other meat that was cooked with it via salting, and according to their words, the primary point is missing from the words of the Tur, for he should have said that Rabbeinu Tam permitted cooking it with other meat. Furthermore, the Tur himself, in the Abridged Rulings of the Rosh [section 27], wrote, and this is his wording: One should not cook the liver at all without roasting, and if one cooked it with the meat, it renders it forbidden and it is not eaten; and Rabbeinu Tam permits cooking it after salting, and the halakha is not so except ex post facto. Thus far his words. And according to the commentators, one must say that here too his intention is to say that Rabbeinu Tam permits even the meat that was cooked with it, and here he certainly should have concluded that he permits cooking it with meat just as he began with this in the second clause; and since he wrote "to cook it" without qualification, it implies explicitly that it refers back to the first clause. Furthermore, one who examines the Rosh there will see explicitly that he did not decide at all like Rabbeinu Tam against Rashi regarding the meat that was cooked with it; rather, in this he decided like Rabbeinu Tam based on the Mishnah in Terumot that we cited, that the liver itself is never forbidden even without salting, for the reason that it does not absorb, and this is also according to the interpretation of Rashi. But that salting should be effective regarding other meat, in this he did not decide at all, see there. And in truth, most of our teachers decided so based on the Mishnah in Terumot and disagree with the Rambam, but that salting should be effective, many disagree, for the reason that salting in liver neither helps nor hinders, because due to the abundance of its blood, the salt will not effect anything upon it [Ran]; and more than this they wrote, that the salt causes the liver to decay [Beit Yosef and Bach in the name of the Agur and Agudah], and since the senses testify so, it is difficult to permit it in practice against the senses.

Therefore, it appears to me that while it is true that Rabbeinu Tam permits even the meat that is with it by means of salting, nevertheless the Tur cited his words only regarding the liver itself, and he ruled in practice only regarding the liver itself—that it is permitted whether they salted it or did not salt it. This is as he wrote at the end of his words, that if it was cooked alone, the liver is permitted and the pot is forbidden, and he does not distinguish between salted and unsalted; rather, he is speaking in all cases, for the liver is permitted even without salting, and the pot is forbidden even with salting. Consequently, the same law applies to the meat that is with it, for it is the same reason: because the discharge of the liver forbids them. And that which he wrote at the beginning of his words, that Rabbeinu Tam permitted cooking it by means of salting, but we do not practice so, yet after the fact it is permitted—this is regarding the liver itself. And although Rabbeinu Tam permitted the liver even without salting, nevertheless it is impossible to say that Rabbeinu Tam permitted cooking it initially without salting, for how could he do so? Behold, the pot would become forbidden, and a son of Israel would not do so initially. Therefore, he was forced to say that Rabbeinu Tam permits cooking it by means of salting, for according to the system of Rabbeinu Tam, salting is completely effective. But the Tur did not accept his words as halacha except regarding the liver itself, and so as not to err by saying that the liver is permitted only by means of salting, he concluded at the end of his words that the liver is always permitted and the pot is always forbidden, as I have written. [Furthermore, that which "some say" in the Yerushalmi, that Rabbi Ba salted it, is explicitly against the system of Rabbeinu Tam, for it is impossible to interpret it as referring to the meat that is with it, as is proven from the first formulation; and examine it carefully].

And there is further proof that the Tur does not hold like Rabbeinu Tam to permit meat that is with it by means of melichah, for he wrote at the end of this siman: And if the liver is found in the bird, its law is like the law of the heart; in roasting it is permitted, and in a pot one requires sixty against the liver. Thus far his words. And its explanation is when it is found attached to the bird, as will be explained, and perforce the bird was salted and the liver was also salted, and despite all this he requires sixty against it; behold, it is explicit not according to the system of Rabbeinu Tam, [and it is a forced interpretation to say that it deals with one salted on one side, as the Pri Megadim wrote in subsection 23].

And also our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in the Shulchan Aruch did not bring at all the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam to permit the meat that is with it by means of melichah. This is his wording: The liver contains a great deal of blood, therefore, ab initio there is no remedy to cook it by means of melichah; rather, one tears it across its length and width and places its cut side downward, and roasts it until it is fit for eating—and this means like half of its roasting [Shach]—and afterwards he may cook it. And ex post facto, it is permitted if it was cooked alone in a pot without roasting [Rema], but the pot is forbidden, for it emits and does not absorb; and there is one who forbids. Thus far his words. And the "one who forbids" is the opinion of the Rambam. However, even according to the first opinion, he only explained regarding the liver alone, but that which is with the liver, such as the pot and other meat, is forbidden even with melichah, since he did not explain that by means of melichah the pot is permitted. And this is the intent of our teacher, the Rema, who emended "without roasting," meaning even if it was salted, but the liver alone is permitted even without melichah [ibid. subsection 7].

And it appears clearly that his opinion regarding the halacha is not like the Rambam, and therefore he brought his opinion in the name of "and there is one who forbids" according to his custom. However, our teacher, the Rema, wrote on this that such is the custom to forbid everything, even if the liver was salted before its cooking. Thus far his words. Meaning, that the custom is according to the opinion of the Rambam, of blessed memory, who rejected the mishna in Terumot from the halacha. Nevertheless, they wrote that if it happened that the posek ruled to permit after salting even the meat that was cooked with it according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, we do not reverse the act [ibid. subsection 9], and specifically when they tore it crisscross as I have written, and certainly the liver alone is permitted without salting if the posek so ruled, for we do not reverse the act. And some say specifically when there is sixty in the cooked dish against the liver, for if not so, the cooked dish which was forbidden returns its fattiness and is absorbed into the liver, and the liver is also forbidden [ibid. in the name of Yam Shel Shlomo]. And even though through the forbidden matter itself—namely the discharge of blood—the liver is not forbidden, and if so, how can that which was forbidden by it be more stringent than the forbidden matter itself? And indeed, they challenged this for the reason we explained [ibid.]; nevertheless, there is a basis also for this opinion in the halacha [see Pri Megadim ibid.]. And it appears to me according to what we explained according to the opinion of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, that one should not permit the meat with it and the pot even by means of salting, and we do reverse the act, and it requires further study. [See Shach subsection 8 who wrote regarding the Rema on the reason for the custom to forbid everything because of the distinction between parboiling and cooking, but the Taz subsection 4 wrote as I have written; furthermore, the Shach wrote that the bowl in which they ate the liver is kosher, and see Pri Megadim]:

If they scalded it in vinegar or in boiling water, and he pierced it and removed the blood vessels within it, according to the law of the Gemara it is permitted to cook it afterwards even with meat, for the scalding constricts the blood and it will no longer exit. However, the Geonim forbade it, because we are not experts in scalding regarding the degree of the water's heat, and how long to linger the liver within the water. Therefore, they forbade every type of scalding even in vinegar. Nevertheless, post facto, if they tore it across its length and width to remove the blood in the vessels, and afterwards they scalded it in boiling water or in vinegar, and afterwards they cooked it even with meat, one should not forbid it post facto. Since this is a complete permission even according to the Rambam, even though the Geonim forbade it, there is no reason that their decree should apply also to a post facto case. And thus they ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah siman 73, section 2. Therefore, even though our teacher, the Rema, in his book Torat Chattat, wrote to forbid it even post facto, nevertheless, we have only his words in the Shulchan Aruch, and thus the great Acharonim agreed, and such is our established law. [And the Shach, subsection 10, gave reasons for his words in the Torat Chattat, see there, and his words are strained, for his primary foundation is based on what the Tur wrote, that it emits and does not absorb, and in truth it refers to cooking and not to scalding as he himself wrote, and thus the Pri Chadash and the Chagorat Shmuel ruled]:

Some say that for us, who practice a prohibition regarding liver that was cooked according to the opinion of the Rambam, if so, even if it was soaked for twenty-four hours in water it is forbidden, for soaking is like cooking [Tzemach Tzedek and Minchat Yaakov]. Many disagree with this, as it is an excessive stringency; since according to the essential law it is permitted even in cooking according to the opinion of most poskim, but the custom was to be stringent, if so, one should not be stringent regarding soaking, which is not exactly like cooking regarding several matters, and "give it [the law] and do not add to it" [Pri Chadash subsection 9, and Sha'ar Ephraim, and Me'il Tzedakah, and Makom Shmuel]. Furthermore, even according to the opinion of the Rambam who forbids in cooking, there is a reason to permit in soaking, for some say that his reasoning is because in the Talmud there are those who distinguish between parboiling and cooking, and we are not experts in this [Shach subsection 8]; according to this, it is obvious that soaking is permitted, for soaking is like cooking and not like parboiling, for regarding the latter there is one who forbids in the Gemara. And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi Terumot chapter 10, that there is a distinction between soaking and parboiling [Kreiti U'Pleiti]. And know that there is one who says that soaking in water for twenty-four hours is only when the water was not changed within the twenty-four hours, but when they were changed it is not considered soaking [Minchat Yaakov in the name of Maharash of Prague, and Chagorat Shmuel subsection 3], and it is not understood what distinction there is in this. [And liver that was not soaked in water for three days, one should not cook it after roasting like meat in siman 69, unless it was subsequently blanched in boiling water; however, it can be said that regarding liver it is permitted in any case, and what was written in siman 69, section 70, see there]:

It has already been explained that even for roasting, one requires a horizontal and vertical cut, and if he did not cut it before roasting, he should cut it afterward, and we do not fear that perhaps the liver absorbed blood that was in the vessels, for as it absorbs, so it emits. And there are some of our teachers who hold that for roasting, no cutting is necessary at all, for the fire draws out the blood that is in the vessels [Tosafot 111a (Chullin 111a) and the Rosh], and our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that such is the custom even ab initio, not to cut horizontally and vertically. And according to this, it is a wonder regarding what he himself wrote in section 1, that if one pierces it many times with a knife it is like a horizontal and vertical cut, and similarly if he removed the gallbladder from there and a piece of meat from the liver, for it is possible for the blood to flow from there—meaning that he cut from it the veins and the tendrils on that side where the gallbladder is suspended, and cut a bit of the liver meat with them. Nevertheless, if he did not do so, he removes the vessels after roasting and cooks it, and all this is with a whole liver, but when it is cut, nothing is necessary. Thus far his words. And it is difficult, for is it not that for roasting nothing is necessary, as he ruled in section 3? And it must be said that he wrote this according to the first opinion in section 3, that even for roasting one requires a horizontal and vertical cut [Taz, subsection 5]. And there is one who says that in section 3 it deals with where his desire is to eat it roasted, and in section 1 it deals with when he comes to cook it after the roasting [see Pri Chadash, subsection 11]. And behold, according to this, as a matter of law for us, when one wishes to cook liver after roasting, cutting is required, yet they have not practiced so. And behold, in the liver of a beast there is no concern, for they do not cook it while it is whole due to its size, but in the liver of a bird there is a concern, and indeed there is one who was concerned regarding the liver of a goose that was divided into two parts, to pierce it in both parts, and it seems to me that they have not practiced so, and we rely on those who hold that for roasting nothing is necessary even when they cook it afterward [and the Rambam did not mention a horizontal and vertical cut, only cutting, see there in chapter 6 (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 6:7) of Forbidden Foods, and see Beit Yosef]:

It is the custom to salt the liver after rinsing and immediately thereafter to roast it over the fire; and it is not due to a concern of prohibition that one does not leave it in its salt, but rather because it is prone to decompose when left in salt [Beit Yosef and Bach in the name of the Agur]. And if one desires to cook it after the roasting, he must rinse it after the roasting prior to the cooking, because of the salt adhering to it which is full of blood and will discharge during cooking; however, if he did not rinse it and cooked it thus, it is permitted, but for eating as a roast, rinsing is not required even ab initio, and nevertheless, the custom is to rinse:

The manner of its roasting is upon coals when they are burning like fire, and he shall place the liver upon the coals so that there will be space for the blood to flow beneath it. It is forbidden to place it in a swept, hot oven, for even though the oven is very heated because the fire is burning at a distance, or many glowing coals are at a distance, nevertheless, since it is placed upon the oven floor and the blood flows beneath it, there is concern that it will itself reabsorb the emitted blood. Nevertheless, post facto it is permitted, because the fire draws the blood and does not allow it to be absorbed, and consumes it and dries it. There are those who hesitate regarding this even post facto [see Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 1], but the matter is simple that one should not forbid it post facto. However, if they wrapped it in paper and roasted it, it is forbidden even post facto, unlike the one who wishes to permit this, and we have already explained this in siman 65. And to hang the liver in the air of a hot oven so that it shall roast, this is certainly fine:

If one roasted the liver with meat in the ovens of the days of the sages of the Gemara, whose openings were at the top, the liver should be at the bottom and the meat at the top, for if the liver were at the top, the meat would absorb from it due to the abundance of blood within it, and it is not similar to meat with meat. However, post facto it is permitted even when the liver was at the top, for blood slides off and is not absorbed into the meat, and also based on the reasoning of "as it absorbs, so it emits" it should be permitted. Except that here it is not relevant to mention absorption, for it falls from the outside, and it slides off, and is not absorbed at all [Pri Chadash, subsection 12]. Furthermore, it is possible that regarding liver, which contains an abundance of blood, when it is absorbed into meat perhaps we do not say "as it absorbs, so it emits," and it is not similar to the heart in siman 72 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 72) which also has much blood in its cavity, and despite this we say "as it absorbs, so it emits" as is written there, because the blood dries in its cavity, which is not the case with liver [Shach, subsection 12].

Therefore, in our ovens whose openings are from the side, and when one inserts the meat to roast he turns the spit this way and that, up and down, it is forbidden ab initio to roast liver with meat, because the liver will be above the meat, and ex post facto it is permitted for the reason that has been explained. However, if the liver was salted, for its blood was diminished when it remained in its salt for the duration of salting, it is permitted ab initio to roast it together with meat, and only in this regard some say that on the contrary, the liver must specifically be above and not below, for according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam its blood has already ceased, and its law is like meat that was salted which is forbidden to be under meat that was not salted so that it does not absorb from it, as is written in siman 70 [Taz subsection 6], and some say there is no concern in this, for this law is also not agreed upon as is written in siman 72, and since according to most poskim salting does not avail for liver, we are not concerned for this, and it is permitted to roast it under the meat even when the liver was salted [Shach subsection 14, and Pri Chadash], and in our regions it is not the way at all to roast meat over the fire, and there is no need to elaborate on this.

And so too if one wishes to salt meat with liver, he should also not salt it initially on top of the meat but rather beneath it. And if the meat was already salted and rinsed and they placed it next to liver that was salted, it is obvious that the meat is forbidden, for even with meat the law is so as I wrote in siman 70 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 70), and all the more so with liver [Shach subsection 15]. However, our custom is not to salt the liver at all for three reasons: first, so as not to equate it to meat, and they might come to err that it is permitted to cook it by means of salting; and second, that the fire returns and causes the blood it emitted through salting to be absorbed when one did not rinse it after the salting; and third, not because of the prohibition but because of decay, as I wrote at the end of section 10, see there. And one should not change the custom, only one should salt it a little when it is fixed on a spit or placed on the fire to roast it. However, post facto when one salted the liver, whether he salted it alone or with meat, even on top of meat, everything is permitted. And some say that one should peel a little around the liver when it is attached to the fowl, and it is nothing but a mere stringency. And regarding an animal, "attached to the animal" is not applicable as is understood; therefore, even when the liver is placed inside the meat, since it is not attached, it does not require peeling even as a mere stringency [see Shach subsection 17].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: It is the custom to rinse every liver after its roasting because of the blood adhering to it; however, if one did not rinse it, it is permitted. Thus far his words. That is to say, even if one wishes to eat it roasted, for by the law it does not require rinsing as has been written in section 18, nevertheless the custom is to rinse as has been written there. And that which he wrote, that if one did not rinse it, it is permitted, the intention is not after the roasting, for if so, even when one cooked it after the roasting and did not rinse it, it is permitted, as he himself wrote in section 1, and as we explained in section 18. Rather, his intention is that even if one did not rinse it before the roasting, it is permitted [ibid. subsection 19]. And even if one salted it without rinsing beforehand, and roasted it thus, it is permitted, provided it did not remain in its salt, as will be explained regarding all roasting in siman 76.

If a liver is found in a roasted bird, it is permitted; and even though it absorbed from the blood of the liver, as it absorbs, so it expels. There are those who are stringent to peel a bit around the liver, but it is merely a general stringency, for behold, regarding "liver above meat," it does not require peeling as has been written. Therefore, if they did not peel it and it was cooked thus, there is no concern at all, and it does not require peeling after the cooking [Shach, subsection 21]. And even though regarding a heart they were stringent to require peeling even after the cooking, they were stringent regarding actual blood, but liver is not considered actual blood.

And if a liver is found in a cooked bird, sixty is required against the liver, and you do not have a bird that contains sixty against the liver when it is whole. Therefore, if the liver is whole and attached to the bird, the bird becomes a piece of neveilah, and we require sixty from the other items in the pot against the entire bird. The same law applies if a piece of liver is attached to a piece of bird and there is not sixty against it, for we maintain regarding all prohibitions that a piece becomes neveilah, as will be explained in siman 92. And if the liver is by itself and not attached to the bird, everything in the pot joins together to nullify the liver, and if there is sixty, everything is permitted; however, the liver itself is forbidden, as with the heart in siman 72. And some say that even the liver is permitted, for here it was salted since it is attached, and according to the method of Rabbeinu Tam there is no prohibition here at all, and that which we forbid regarding the heart is also a stringency; therefore, one should not be stringent in this. And even if it was not salted beforehand, since according to many poskim the liver is not forbidden at all, one should not be stringent with the stringency we applied in siman 69 regarding meat that was cooked without salting to forbid that piece even when there is sixty. And in a time of need one should be lenient. And see what I wrote in section 12. And the words of the Taz in subsection 8 have no understanding, as the Pri Megadim wrote; see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman: A bird that was stuffed with eggs, and a heart or liver was found within it, its law is like that which is cooked, and we require sixty from the bird without the stuffing, and if not, everything is forbidden; and if they stuffed it with meat and there are no eggs there which congeal and obstruct the blood, its law is like that of roasted meat. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, that we require sixty from the bird against the heart, this refers to when the bird is not whole, for if it were not so, you have no bird that does not have sixty against its heart, as is written in siman 72; and regarding the liver, it refers to when the liver is not whole, for if it were not so, you have no bird that would have sixty against the liver, as is written.

And the explanation of his words is this: that congealed eggs prevent the blood from being emitted, and the blood remains within them even during roasting. Therefore, the stuffing does not join to provide sixty, for because of its congealed state, it is as if it stands on its own. Therefore, one requires sixty in the bird without the stuffing, and even when there is sixty, the stuffing is forbidden because the blood is congealed within it. However, in a stuffing of meat, where the meat does not congeal, the meat also joins to provide sixty, and when there is sixty, the stuffing is also permitted. According to this, our teacher, the Rema, is dealing with a case where the heart or the liver is not attached to the bird [as is implied in the Levush]. According to this, it can be said that when they are attached to the bird, in any event one requires sixty from the bird itself, according to the law of an attached forbidden substance.

But some say that his intention is specifically when they are attached to the bird, for when they are not attached, even the eggs combine for the sixty, for since he wrote that its law is like cooked, it follows that just as in cooking one combines the entire pot for the sixty, so too here. However, when they are attached to the bird, since the eggs congeal and are like cooked, it follows that we judge this as a case of an attached forbidden substance, and one requires sixty from the bird alone, because it is quick to absorb, and the eggs are forbidden in any event. But in a filling of meat alone without eggs, even when the heart and the liver are attached, nevertheless we combine the filling, because the bird is not quick to absorb [as is implied from Shach, subsection 24]. And in siman 72, section 17, we wrote that there is one who distinguishes regarding the filling when it was between the skin and the meat, for then no filling combines for the sixty, from when the filling was inside the hen, for then it combines; and that there are those who permit the filling when there is sixty in the bird itself even when the filling does not combine, and that there are those who disagree on this, see there. And more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven in siman 77, and if it is permitted to cut the liver with a knife at the time it is being roasted on the fire and has not yet expelled all its blood, it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 76.