Siman 75

Our sages, of blessed memory, said (Chullin 113a): We do not presume blood to be in the intestines, for they are not under the presumption of containing blood such that they would be forbidden if they were not salted [Rashi]. And they explained in the Gemara that this refers to the rectum, and the intestines, which are the abomasum and the rumen and the other small intestines [ibid.], and the coils of the intestines, and these are the small intestines surrounding the fat, and the fat itself is the fat of the intestines; but the heart and the lung and the liver and the fat itself contain blood and require salting [ibid.]. And behold, within the rumen are also included the omasum and the reticulum, for the reticulum is at the end of the rumen as is written in siman 48 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 48), and the omasum and the reticulum are one matter [and the proof is from the Ran who wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Tam to forbid the rumen as will be explained, and he brought proof from a needle found in the reticulum, see Taz subsection 1; thus they are considered as one]:

And there are some of our teachers who hold that the rumen is not included in this, for there is blood in the rumen, and the same law applies to the omasum and the reticulum. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote according to this opinion, that even post facto it is forbidden in the rumen and the reticulum like other meat. Thus far his words. And he did not mention the omasum, and ostensibly it appears that it is one matter [and so it is implied from the Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 1], or perhaps since they are all included in the intestines, and only this opinion reasons that since we find in the Gemara a drop of blood in the reticulum (Chullin 51a), we learn from this that there is blood in it, and this is only a proof regarding the rumen, which is truly one with the reticulum, and not regarding the omasum which is separate, and in it we do not find explicitly in the Gemara that a drop of blood was found upon it. Nevertheless, the primary view appears to be that they have one law [and so wrote the Torat Chattat and the Ma'adanei Yom Tov, but the abomasum even according to this opinion is included in the intestines, and we do not presume there is blood in it]:

There is one who says that according to the first opinion that the stomach is included in the category of intestines, also the gizzard in a bird is not presumed to contain blood, for the gizzard in a bird corresponds to the stomach in an animal [Derishah], that is to say, it corresponds to the omasum in an animal, for the omasum grinds the food, and the gizzard grinds [Berakhot 61b, Rashi explained the gizzard corresponds to the omasum, see there]. Many disagree with this, as it is not included in the category of intestines, and our eyes see that the gizzard is red and contains blood [Shach, Taz, Pri Chadash], for in truth there is no proof at all from the term "intestines," for sometimes many things are included in the term "internal organs," and sometimes few, and everything is according to the context [Pri Chadash]. There is one who wrote that if there is another factor for leniency, one should rule thus that the gizzard is not presumed to contain blood, but this does not seem correct, for it is certainly presumed to contain blood according to the opinion of the great Acharonim, and such is the primary ruling in halacha.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 7 of Maakhalot Assurot, law 15: And all intestines through whose cavity the food circulates, we do not assume they contain blood. Thus far his words. And the Maggid Mishneh explained his words, that his intention is only regarding the coiled small intestines, and not regarding other things, see there, and this is the meaning of the phrase "the food circulates through their cavity," meaning because they lie in a circle, to exclude the rumen, the omasum, and the reticulum; even though the food descends into their cavity, nevertheless it does not circulate there, and consequently the same law applies to the abomasum, for there too it does not circulate. And we will have to say according to this that what the Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding the rectum, the intestines, and the loops of the small intestine, that "intestines" also refers to the small intestines, and there are small intestines besides those that circulate around the fat of the intestines.

And I am very much astonished, for according to this, even in the karkasha the food does not circulate in its cavity but rather goes straight as in the kers, for the karkasha is the rectum, which is the intestine attached to the anus, and it goes straight and not in a winding fashion. Furthermore, the other intestines besides the hadra de-kanta are also laid out straight, for only those that surround the kanta go in a circle, which is why they are called hadra de-kanta. Furthermore, according to this, the keivah would also not be included in the category of intestines, and it has already been explained that according to all opinions the keivah is included in the category of intestines, and so it stands to reason, for the keivah extends from the intestines and they are as one. Therefore, in my humble opinion, it appears correct to say that the intention of the Rambam refers to all the intestines into which the food enters, such as the kers, the omasum, the reticulum, the keivah, and the intestines, and to exclude the heart, liver, and spleen as Rashi explained. And he necessitated this because in the language of the sages they too are sometimes included in the term "intestines," as we learned in the Mishnah (Chullin 56a): "If it fell into fire and its intestines were scorched," and they said there in the Gemara (Chullin 56b): "Regarding which intestines did they say? Regarding the heart, gizzard, and liver." And also in the language of the Torah it is so, for everything in the cavity of the body is called "intestines," as it is written: "And two nations shall be separated from your intestines" (Genesis 25:23), and many like it. And in the language of the Mishnah, even regarding a species of plant, everything inside the food is called by the term "intestines," such as "the intestines of a watermelon" (Mishnah Eduyot 3:3). And that which he wrote the language of "circulates" is because the truth is so, for all the organs within the cavity of the animal are not all laid out lengthwise one after the other, but rather most of them circulate one around the other and are bundled and wrapped, and therefore he wrote that the food circulates in them.

And regarding the law, behold Rashi and the Rosh and the Ran and the Semag wrote explicitly that the stomach is not presumed to contain blood, and such was the custom of the ancients, as the Mordechai wrote that the early authorities would not salt the stomach of an animal, see there. And the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and the Rashba and the Ra'avan in the Mordechai is that the stomach is presumed to contain blood, and so it is implied in the Hagahot Maimoniyot [Chapter 6, letter 90], who wrote "the fat-tail and the abomasum and the intestines etc.," and did not include the stomach. And in the Rambam there is no definitive proof as I have written. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1, and likewise the Tur, cited the first opinion without qualification, and only our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who disagree regarding the stomach, etc.:

And one should be in doubt whether his intention was to rule definitively for prohibition like the latter opinion, or if this is only to be stringent ab initio, as is apparent from the words of the Levush who omitted this entirely, see there. And that which he wrote that even post facto it is prohibited in the stomach etc., this is not his personal determination, but rather this is the opinion of those who disagree that even post facto it is prohibited. However, from the words of the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch it is explained that this is his determination for the halacha (Shach subsection 6, and Pri Chadash, and Kreti U'Pleti), and they ruled accordingly as the law:

And I have a question regarding this: behold, the entire essence of the proofs of those who disagree is based on two matters. The first is from that which we learned: if a speck of blood was found upon the beit hakosot, which implies that there is blood within it [the Ran in the name of Rabbeinu Tam]. And since they ruled in the Shulchan Aruch that if it turned red it is forbidden, as will be explained, it implies that occasionally there is blood in them, and only in the ordinary case is there no blood in them; if so, there is no proof from there. Furthermore, there are those among the Rishonim who explained that this is what we say: "we do not presume there is blood in them," meaning that the very small amount of blood that is in them will not exit even through boiling, and it is blood of the organs that has not shifted and is permitted; consequently, there is no proof from "a speck of blood was found upon it" [the Ran]. And they brought a second proof from the fact that the Gemara specified "me'aya," from which we learn that only in them is there no blood [the Mordechai]. And we have already clarified that under the name "me'ayim" everything is included. And now it is difficult according to the words of our teacher, the Rema: for if he accepted as the halacha the second opinion that the kers contains blood, and the primary proof is from the speck of the beit hakosot, if so, how did he rule that in those which contain no blood it is forbidden if it turned red? For according to this, the proof of the one who forbids is removed. And one must say that he primarily relied on the second proof, and he holds that since the Gemara specified "me'aya," "karkasha," and "hadra dekanta," presumably "me'aya" is similar to "karkasha" and "hadra dekanta," in that everything refers only to the small intestines and also to the stomach adjacent to the small intestines, and no more. [And it is a great difficulty, and it appears to me that the intention of the Rema was not to decide the halacha, and in a case of great loss, if they did not salt the kers, one may rely on the opinion of those who permit; and so wrote the Chachmat Adam].

And since we do not presume the presence of blood in the intestines, therefore if one cooked them in a pot without melichah, it is permitted, unless it turned red, meaning that the blood became collected in that place, for then it requires melichah and the melichah is indispensable. And it appears to me that not only the place that turned red, but even that entire intestine, the melichah is indispensable, since it was revealed that there is blood in it, and so it is implied from the wording of the poskim.

And all this is ex post facto, but initially they require salting like other meat, and also rinsing first, and only ex post facto is it permitted when they were not salted; and all the more so if he salted them in a vessel that is not perforated, they are permitted by default if they did not turn red. And the reason that they require salting initially is because, for the most part, there is a bit of fat upon them, and fat requires salting by law. Therefore, it is sufficient if he only salted the outer side where the fat is [Shach, subsection 5]. And the fat that is upon them has the law of other meat; therefore, when one salts the rectum and other intestines, one does not salt them on the inner side, the side of the food, but rather on the outer side where the fat is attached. And even if they knew there was fat in it, it is only necessary to salt on the outer side and not on the inner side. And even though every fat certainly should be salted from two sides, nevertheless, when the fat is attached to the intestines, it is sufficient on one side, and it is not necessary to peel it from the intestines and salt it from two sides, because it is a small amount, and the salt draws out the blood even from one side.

And if one salted the rectum or other intestines from the inner side alone, it is as if it were not salted at all, for it does not avail for the fat that is on the other side. And even though the salting of bones avails for the marrow within them, this is because the bone has thin natural pores through which the salt draws the blood that is in the marrow; this is not the case with the intestines, which are very smooth on the inner side and have no pore at all, for thus the Holy One, Blessed be He, created the nature of the intestines in order to hold the waste within them without it exiting, and therefore it does not avail for the fat at all.

Therefore, in a case where it was salted from the inner side only, and fat was found upon it, it is treifah if it was cooked in this manner. However, in an ordinary case, we do not presume that there was fat upon it, for perhaps even if there was a small amount, there would be sixty in the thin walls against the fat; and only if it was known that there was much fat upon it is it treifah. Nevertheless, post facto, we combine everything in the pot with the intestines to nullify the fat by sixty. And even though it is an attached prohibition, they were lenient in this, because the fat immediately melts in the water, and the absorption travels equally to the intestines and to everything in the pot. And if it has not yet been cooked, he should go back and rinse it and salt it from the outside and it is permitted. And even after twelve hours, or after twenty-four hours, it is permitted to go back and salt it; for even though with other meat that was salted on one side it is forbidden in such a case, because the time of the discharge has ended as written in siman 69 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 69), nevertheless, since intestines are not in any event presumed to have so much blood, one should not be stringent regarding them [ibid. subsection 11].

Intestines without the fat upon them, even though they do not contain blood, nevertheless it is permitted to salt them with meat, and we do not fear that they will absorb from the blood of the meat since they are occupied with emitting. For even though they do not have blood, nevertheless they have brine, and they are occupied with emitting and do not absorb. Furthermore, blood slides off. Therefore, even according to the one who is concerned and holds that regarding the emission of brine we do not say "since it is occupied with emitting it does not absorb," nevertheless when the reason that it slides off is added, there is no concern at all [see Taz subsection 6, and Shach subsection 13, and examine carefully]. There are those who forbid salting them with meat, and our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that this is how we practice ab initio, to salt them by themselves, but post facto it is permitted. Thus far his words. There is one who says that intestines that were salted with liver, even post facto there is concern, because it is abundant in blood [Pitchei Teshuva siman 73 subsection 5 in the name of the Radbaz], but it seems to me that this is not the custom. Since our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, were non-specific in this, one should not distinguish between abundant blood and minimal blood. Furthermore, according to the reason that it slides off, certainly one should not forbid, as is understood.

It appears to me that according to the opinion of those who forbid salting intestines with meat, even when there is fat on part of the intestine, one is obligated to remove the fat and salt them by themselves; for if not so, there is concern that the intestine will absorb from the blood of the fat's discharge. I am surprised that they did not mention this, as it clearly implies from their wording that they were only concerned regarding salting with other meat. Therefore, it seems that even according to this opinion, they were only concerned regarding meat, and not regarding the fat that is upon the intestines, because it is visible to the eye that there is not much blood in the fat. Regarding the fat, even this opinion admits that there is no concern in the matter, whether due to the reason that it slides off, or due to the reason of the discharge of brine. Logic dictates this, for since they salt it because of the fat which contains blood, the pores of discharge automatically open in the intestines themselves as well, and they discharge brine.

The fat of the omentum, which is the fat that is inside near the intestines and is called "platster," is full of thin threads full of blood. Therefore, some prohibit it for a pot even by means of cutting and salting. And so they wrote in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, that there are thin and small veins in them full of blood, and due to their extreme thinness, the blood does not exit even by means of cutting and salting [Hagahot Maimoniyot chapter 6]. Nevertheless, the Rashba, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch wrote that now it is the practice to permit the matter, for when a person is expert in those threads of blood, he pulls them and they are removed well until not one of them remains. Thus far his words. And it must be said that now everyone is expert in this, and this requires investigation. And it has already been explained that all fat is presumed to contain blood like meat, whether the fat of an animal or of birds.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: Eggs found in birds after slaughter—if their albumen is not finished but only the yolk alone, they require melichah like other meat, and it is permitted to salt them with meat. And if even the albumen is finished, even if the hard shell is upon it as it is sold in the market, it is the custom to salt them, but one should be careful not to salt it with meat; however, post facto, there is no concern. Thus far his words. And some prohibit even post facto if they were salted with meat, and even if only the yolk alone was finished, because our eyes see that they contain neither blood nor juice [Yam Shel Shlomo, chapter 8, section 2], and the great Acharonim agreed to this [Shach, subsection 12, and Taz, subsection 5]. But the world follows the words of our teacher, the Rema, and so our teacher, the Beit Yosef, testified in his great book in siman 87, that such is the custom of the world to salt with meat when only the yolk is finished, see there [and the Peri Chadash, subsection 11, agrees to this]. And all the more so when the hard shell is finished, one should not prohibit when it was salted with meat, for the shell acts as a partition [and so wrote the Kereti U-Peleti]. And certainly, ab initio, it is proper to conduct oneself according to the opinion of those who are stringent [and so wrote the Pri Megadim].

An incident occurred involving a large intestine that had much fat upon it, and they turned it to the food-side and filled it with flour without salting, and they scalded it with boiling water via pouring—that is, they poured the boiling water into the place of the filling—and they permitted it. We do not say that the fat which was not salted was absorbed into the filling, for since pouring only cooks to the depth of a peel, and it itself is held to contain blood, it itself separates between the fat and the food. Therefore, one must cut the fat and salt it by itself, and everything is kosher [Pri Megadim in Siftei Da'at, subsection 13]. And know that since intestines are not held to contain blood, therefore all the leniencies that we apply regarding salting when it fell into brine and the like—based on the reasoning that they are preoccupied with discharging and do not absorb—do not apply to intestines [see Pri Megadim in Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 6, and examine it closely].

It has already been explained that the gizzard is presumed to contain blood, and likewise the crop. If the gizzard was salted with the dung inside it, such that they did not open it and it was salted in this manner, some say that if they cooked it in this manner, it is forbidden unless there is sixty against the dung, for the dung absorbs blood since it has nothing to emit, and it becomes nevelah [Minchat Yaakov in the name of Maharash]. And some say that one need not be concerned for this, for the dung is merely dust, and no prohibition takes effect upon it. However, in the crop in such a case, one should be stringent, for in the crop the food has not yet been digested [Chachmat Adam, Klal 34]. Nevertheless, one should not be stringent to require sixty except against the peel of the food that was in the crop, for in this one may rely on the one who holds that salting only forbids up to the thickness of a peel. All this applies if it was cooked in this manner, but if it was not yet cooked, nothing is required; he throws away the crop and the chicken is permitted. And if it is because a peel is required, the crop stands in place of the peel [ibid.].