Siman 76

When one wishes to eat roasted meat over fire or over coals without cooking in a pot, the meat does not require salting, because the fire draws the blood and brings it outside. And it is not only if it was roasted well, for then all the blood is emitted outside, but even if it was not roasted well, and all the blood has not yet been emitted outside, if he wishes to eat it thus without cooking, it is permitted; for what has exited has exited, and what has not exited is blood of the organs that has not moved and is permitted. And even if perhaps the blood was stirred to exit but has not yet exited outside, behold, there are some of the poskim who hold that moving from place to place is not forbidden except when it moved during life, like the blood of a bruise in siman 67, and not what moved after slaughter [the Rosh, as the Beit Yosef wrote there]. And even according to those who hold that this is also called moving from place to place and is forbidden, nevertheless here we do not concern ourselves with this, because the power of the fire is strong, and if the fire only stirs the blood from its place, it will certainly exit outside completely, and if it did not exit outside, it is a sign that it did not stir it at all. [And this is the intention of the Perishah, and the difficulty of the Shach in subsection 2 is settled; and although he wrote according to the Rosh, nevertheless his intention was to the Responsa of the Rashba who replied to the Rosh as the Beit Yosef wrote there, and so is the primary view, and examine it]:

And even the rinsing that precedes the salting is also unnecessary for roasting [the Rosh, chapter 1, siman 19], and only scrubbing from the fat of chelev is required, because the butchers do not have a specific knife for fats [ibid.]; however, ex post facto, if he did not scrub, it is permitted, and we do not presume a prohibition [Ma'adanei Yom Tov, ibid.]. And if they have a specific knife, even initially scrubbing is unnecessary. And the reason that rinsing is unnecessary is because [the fire] draws everything out, even what is on the surface of the meat, and it is not similar to salting.

And some say that a roast requires rinsing first, because the blood on the surface of the meat is considered somewhat like blood in its own right, and our teacher, the Rema, wrote that some say it requires a bit of salting first [Rashi], and the custom is to rinse it first, and also to salt it a bit when it is skewered, and one roasts it immediately before the salt becomes filled with blood; however, if one did not rinse it and did not salt it at all, or salted it without rinsing first and it was roasted thus, it is permitted, provided that it did not remain thus in its salting without rinsing for the duration of its salting, but if it remained that long before one roasted it, it is forbidden, and there is no distinction in all this between geese and other hollow fowl, provided that they are not stuffed with eggs or other meat, but if they are stuffed, their law is like cooking, and they require salting first like for a pot. Thus far his words.

And behold, regarding what he wrote that some say it also requires a bit of salting first, so wrote the poskim in the name of Rashi, of blessed memory, and they wondered about him, for what does a bit of salting avail [Tosafot and the Rosh 14a], and furthermore, behold the fire certainly extracts the blood more than salt. And in my humble opinion, it appears that even Rashi, of blessed memory, never said it because of the law of salting, but rather because such is the way of people to salt a bit, and this matter is explicit in the Gemara [Beitzah 11a], and not because of the prohibition, but rather to give flavor to the meat [Tosafot ibid.], so that it should not be eaten bland without salt. And also regarding kodashim where we find salting for roasting [Menachot 21a] according to the version of our teacher Gershom Meor HaGolah, it is not because of the prohibition of blood, but because it is a mitzvah to salt kodashim, as it is written: "And every offering of your meal-offering you shall salt with salt" (Leviticus 2:13) [Ran, first chapter of Chullin in the name of the Ra'ah]. And also in the words of the Rambam chapter 6 (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 6:12), it can be explained thus:

Therefore, regarding that which he wrote that the custom is to rinse it first and also to salt it a bit, etc., it could be that the rinsing is certainly a requirement according to the law, to be concerned for the opinion that holds that this is like blood in plain sight; however, from the fact that they were accustomed to salt it a bit, there is no proof that the custom is because of the law, but rather because of the reason, as it was in the time of the sages of the Shas as I have written. And that which he wrote, "and he roasts it immediately before the salt is filled with blood," the reason is simple, for if the salt were filled with blood, it would become forbidden, and as our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also wrote in this language, and this is his wording: If one desired to salt a roast and eat it without rinsing, he may do so, [without the rinsing that follows the salting before the roasting], and one need not be concerned for the blood that is upon the salt; and there is one who says that these words apply when he salts it and roasts it immediately, but if it remained in its salt, the salt absorbs and it becomes forbidden, therefore he rinses it well before roasting. Thus far his words. And if he did not rinse it before roasting, he rinses it after roasting [Shach subsection 7], and our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is also dealing with a case where he rinsed it before the salting [Taz subsection 4], and our teacher, the Rema, his reason is also because of this reason, and all this is ab initio, but ex post facto there is no prohibition in this, for the fire draws out even the blood that is within the salt, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

However, that which he wrote, that if one salted it without rinsing and it did not remain for the duration of salting and was roasted thus, it is permitted—there are those who disagree with this, and they hold that even if it did not remain for the duration of salting it is forbidden, as we maintain at the beginning of siman 69 that it is forbidden immediately, and further salting is of no avail. Our teacher, the Rema, holds that "the fire draws out," for the power of the fire is strong, and as long as it did not remain for the duration of salting, it was not forbidden by that which he salted it without rinsing first, and it is not comparable to salting, and in several matters we are more stringent regarding salting than regarding roasting. But when it remained in its salt for the duration of salting, it is certainly forbidden in all cases, because the salt causes the visible blood upon it to be absorbed, and it is forbidden even for roasting. [And from the wording of the Beit Yosef it appears that even in such a case it is permitted by means of rinsing, but the Rema forbids it; and see Shach subsection 9, and see Levush, and the Shach contested him; and examine this closely]:

And that which he wrote, that there is no difference in all this between geese and other hollow birds, the language is not precise, and he should have said as follows: that there is no difference between these and other meat, and his intention is also thus. And the novel point is that we should not say that hollow birds, which have two sides, are like two pieces of meat, and the blood separated from one to the other; for it is not so, but rather it is like one piece. And even if it were not like one piece, we are not concerned about it in roasting next to the fire, for as it absorbs, so it emits [Taz, subsection 6]. And that which he wrote, that when they are filled with eggs or other meat their law is like cooking and they require salting as for a pot, he was brief here, and their laws are not equal; for certainly regarding a filling of eggs, its law is like for a pot, but regarding a filling of meat, there is no concern except ab initio and not ex post facto, as will be explained in siman 77 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 77) [Shach].

Some say that all roasted meat requires rinsing after its roasting because of the blood adhering to it, and some are stringent to require three times rinsing, and some say that even ab initio one rinsing is sufficient [Rashal], and all this is ab initio, and such is the simple custom. However, ex post facto, if they did not rinse it, and even if they cooked it thus, it is permitted, whether it was not salted at all initially, or whether it was salted and did not remain in its salt, or even if it remained in its salt for the duration of salting when it was rinsed before the salting, and was not rinsed after the salting before the roasting, it is permitted, and we do not fear for the blood and salt upon it, for the fire draws everything out.

It is the custom to be stringent when roasting meat without melikhah, or if it was salted but did not remain for the duration of melikhah, not to turn the spit constantly when roasting on a spit, so that the blood may flow out; for if one turns it constantly, he will not allow the blood to flow out properly. However, ex post facto, one need not be concerned regarding this, for blood glides away, and the fire draws it out wherever it is found. And know that in all that has been explained in these laws, there is no distinction whether one desires to eat it thus roasted, or desires to cook it afterwards. Only when one desires to cook it, he must be careful to roast it so that it is fit for consumption, which is like half its roasting, and some say until a third of its roasting; and one should be stringent until half its roasting, for thus our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Arukh, stated without qualification.

And know that although we have been lenient in several matters regarding roasting with respect to the blood that is upon the surface of the meat, as we did not consider it as blood in its essence, nevertheless, regarding actual blood in its essence—meaning blood from another location that fell upon the meat, whether it fell upon the meat while it was near the fire, or whether it fell upon cold meat and was not rinsed and he roasted it over the fire, even if the blood is cold—we do not say that the fire draws it out, and it forbids from it a peel's thickness, and according to our practice it is forbidden up to sixty, as is written in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105):

One may roast either over the fire, or over glowing coals, or in a hot oven; if one heated the oven and raked out the coals, he may roast from the oven (Pesachim 75a). And if meat or poultry was placed near a very hot oven, and part of the meat or poultry was roasted from the heat of the oven, he must be careful to immediately cut away the roasted part, and the remainder he shall salt and cook. And if he did not do so, but rather salted it all, the roasted part is forbidden, for from this place its blood has already been emitted by the heat of the oven, and now during the salting that place will absorb the blood from the rest of the piece, and it will not emit it since it has no blood or juice of its own. And see what I wrote in siman 77 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 77), section 5, that there is an opinion to permit even in such a case.

And there is one who says that if they placed a goose or a chicken near a very hot oven after the feathers were removed, and part of it touched the clay of the oven until it became red on the outside and the blood became bound by the heat of the oven until that place was almost roasted, that one must forbid salting and boiling the entire bird, and one may only roast it over the fire, for there is concern that the heat caused the blood to be absorbed throughout the entire body, and it will no longer exit through salting; and furthermore, there is concern that the heart and the liver and the blood within the body were heated and absorbed elsewhere [Har HaCarmel]. Certainly, ab initio, one should be stringent in this and roast it entirely; however, ex post facto, there is no concern if he cut away the roasted place and salted and boiled the remainder as we have written, for since we see that the entire body of the bird, except for the place that was near the heat of the oven, is cold, we do not need to be concerned for these apprehensions [see Yad Ephraim].

There is also one who wrote that those who are accustomed to roast in an oven without a spit so that the meat would hang in the air, but rather it is placed upon the floor of the oven, and in the oven there was no fire or coals but only that the heat remained, they do not act properly, for there is concern that after the blood is emitted, the meat returns and absorbs the blood, since there is no fire in the oven to burn the blood [Knesset HaGedolah]. This too is correct ab initio, but post facto there is no concern, for the heat of the fire is like the fire itself [ibid.], and furthermore, the blood glides away [see Tosafot Pesachim 74a]. And it is a simple matter that to roast meat in a vessel, which is to say pot-roasting, its law is like cooking, and it requires melichah just like for cooking, for if not so, the meat is forbidden like melichah in a vessel that is not perforated, for the blood is emitted and returns into it, and even in a short time the meat is forbidden; therefore, one must be careful in this.

It has already been explained in siman 22 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 22) that regarding a bird, one must slaughter the veins or pierce them while it is still convulsing and the blood is still warm, so that it will exit and not cool within it. And if he did not do so, he may not roast it whole; and if he roasted it whole, he must cut the veins and discard them, and cut around them a k'dei netilah, which is like the thickness of a finger, see there.

Therefore, if one did not pierce the veins in a bird at the time of shechitah or close to it, it is forbidden to eat it even roasted until one cuts it limb by limb and roasts it. And even if one wishes to eat raw meat, which in other meat is permitted because it is blood of the limbs that has not moved, nevertheless here it is forbidden until one cuts and salts it, because the blood within the veins is considered like gathered blood. And if one de-veined the meat of the blood filaments, one may eat it even without salting, raw or roasted, and even the whole of it as one, for since one de-veined it, the veins were certainly cut. And some say that de-veining is not effective, and it is forbidden to eat it all as one even roasted except after cutting the veins and the majority of the two simanim, if at the time of shechitah only one siman was slaughtered, for in a bird they validated this; however, for us it is forbidden to cut the second siman with a knife after shechitah as is written in siman 23. Therefore, for us there is a better remedy, and that is to cut off the head, for it has already been explained in siman 22 that after the head is cut off we are not concerned for the veins, see there.

The Tur wrote, and this is his wording: It is written in the Sefer HaMitzvot that it is forbidden to cut with a knife roasted meat that is by the fire which has not been salted, as long as it is not fully roasted, because of the blood within it that is absorbed into the knife; and the Rashba forbade the spit, for he wrote that a spit upon which one roasts meat without salting absorbs from the blood and becomes forbidden; and one of the great authorities instructed that it is forbidden to leave the roast on the spit after it has been removed from the fire, lest the hot meat return and absorb from it, but it is permitted to roast with it and to leave it on as long as the meat is dripping, for as long as it is dripping and emitting, it does not absorb from the blood that is in the spit; and my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that the spit is permitted, for the fire draws out and does not allow it to absorb the blood, and according to this, the same law applies that a knife is also permitted. Thus far the words of the Tur.

The explanation of the matters is that the author of the Sefer HaMitzvot prohibits cutting with a knife roasted meat that is near the fire before the measure of its roasting regarding the discharge of blood—and this is like half of its roasting—for the reason that the knife will absorb from the blood. And even though we hold that blood slides off, this is regarding the meat itself, and not for another vessel. And one should not ask that if so, why did he need to teach this law regarding a knife, for according to this even the spit upon which they roast is forbidden, and he should have said that the spit is forbidden as he wrote in the name of the Rashba, and all the more so for a knife; rather, it is certain that he holds that the spit is not forbidden and the knife is forbidden. And the difference between this and that is that regarding the spit upon which they roast, we say "as it absorbs, so it emits," since the spit is also constantly on the fire, and therefore just as we say this reasoning regarding the meat, so too regarding the spit, since it is on the fire like the meat. But the knife, which is cold, absorbs from the blood and does not emit. And see what I wrote in siman 77 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 77) section 4.

But the Rashba forbids even the spit, for he holds that regarding it we do not say "as it absorbs, so it expels," because the meat, which has its own expulsion, certainly expels also what it absorbed, but not so the spit which has no expulsion of its own; it absorbs but does not expel. Therefore, the meat is not forbidden by the spit, for as long as the meat flows and expels, since it is occupied with expelling, it does not absorb. Therefore, one of the great authorities wrote that this is only when it is on the fire, but after it is removed from the fire, at which point the expulsion from the meat has ceased, the meat again absorbs from the spit and is forbidden. Consequently, one must be careful that immediately upon being removed from the fire, he should remove the meat from the spit, [and this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, in Orach Chaim siman 509 section 5, meaning for one who wishes to be concerned for this opinion, and they wondered about him in vain, and examine it closely]:

But the Rosh disagrees with all of this, and holds that the nature of fire is to draw the blood to itself and not to cause it to be absorbed into any object. Therefore, both the spit and the knife with which he cut are permitted. And even though the Rosh wrote this only regarding the spit, nevertheless the Tur inferred from his reasoning that the knife is also permitted [Beit Yosef], for since the fire does not allow it to absorb the blood, what difference is there to me between a spit and what difference is there to me between a knife? For this and that are the same reasoning. And there is one who wrote that even according to the opinion of the Rosh, if the spit was removed from upon the fire, the spit, the meat, and the knife with which he cut are forbidden if it has not yet discharged all of its blood [Bach]. And logic dictates this, for since his primary reasoning is because the fire prevents absorption, this is only relevant while it is still upon the fire, and not when it has been removed from upon the fire. And there is one who permits the meat because while it is boiling it discharges and does not absorb, and when it has cooled it does not discharge and does not absorb, but the spit is forbidden [Taz, subsection 9]. And know that as long as the meat is near the fire, even though the blood has already ceased to flow, nevertheless the meat is not forbidden even according to the one who forbids the spit; for regarding meat we certainly say "as it absorbs, so it discharges" even after the discharge of the blood, unlike the one who disagrees on this [Shach, subsection 22], and even if it also does not discharge juice [Pri Megadim]. And the reason must be because the meat is more prone to discharge than the spit, and it requires further study.

And our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, brought all these opinions, and they decided leniently according to the opinion of the Rosh, and they wrote in section 4 that we are careful ab initio, and we permit post facto. Thus far their words. And this means that ab initio we are careful not to leave the meat on the spit after it has been removed from the fire, and all the more so not to cut with a knife before the completion of the roasting due to the discharge of blood, and likewise the spit is forbidden even to roast further meat upon it without libun [Pri Megadim, subsection 23], and post facto everything is permitted; but if one cut with a knife the roast that was removed from the fire, even granted that regarding the meat there is one who permits as was written in the previous section, nevertheless the knife is certainly forbidden, for it is no less than a knife with which one slaughtered, which is forbidden to cut hot food with as was written in siman 10 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 10), and all the more so in the heat of the fire after it was removed from the fire, [and a spit with which one roasted treif is forbidden immediately, and likewise the knife with which they cut].

Roasted meat that was not salted, and one cut it upon a loaf of bread, even though there is a red appearance on the loaf, and even if it passed through the entire loaf from one side to the other, and even if the fluid is thick, it is permitted, if it was roasted to the extent that it is fit for consumption for most people, which is half its roasting, for this is not a type of blood but merely fluid. Therefore, even the fluid without the loaf is also permitted. There is one who wishes to be stringent regarding thick fluid, but it is not the primary view [Shach, subsection 24].

The Tur wrote: Meat that is roasted without salting, one may not place a vessel beneath it to collect the fat dripping from it, until it is roasted to the extent that it would be fit for eating through this roasting. And it says in the Gemara [Chullin 112a] that if one places two or three grains of salt in the vessel, it is permitted, because the salt by its nature draws all the blood to the bottom of the vessel, and the fat floats on top, and after roasting one pours the fat from the top gently, and discards the blood remaining at the bottom of the vessel. However, the vessel is forbidden, because it absorbs from the blood. In what case does this apply? To meat; but with liver it is forbidden in any case to place a vessel beneath it to collect fat, because the blood of the liver is thick, and it does not descend to the bottom of the vessel, and it mixes with the fat. And the Geonim wrote that they only permitted it through the placement of salt with two or three grains, but if there is much salt, it is forbidden, because it breaks the strength of the blood and makes it like water and it mixes with the fat. Therefore, Rashi wrote that we are not experts in the matter of not increasing or decreasing, and one should not place a vessel beneath the roast until one salts it and it waits the duration of salting for a pot. And the Rashba wrote that if one transgressed and placed even much salt, it is permitted, for there is no Torah prohibition since the blood has been cooked, provided that it was cooked a bit until its vapor rises—meaning, until the sparks that splatter from it onto the coals emit smoke, for this is a sign that there is no more blood, as it is not the way of blood to emit smoke. Thus far the words of the Tur.

And his words require further study, for how is it permitted according to the law by means of salt crystals? For the fat is forbidden from the blood while it is boiling, and likewise the fat is forbidden from the vessel, since he wrote that the vessel is forbidden; so how is the fat permitted? And in truth, there are some of our teachers, and they are the Rashba and the Ran, who explain that the permission to place the vessel by means of salt crystals is only after it has been roasted to the extent of the food of Ben Drusai, which according to the law is completely permitted, and it is only because of the appearance of the eye since the juice is visible. And it is not similar to the loaf of bread upon which one cut meat in section 21. And there is one who wished to say that the Tur also intended this [see Beit Yosef], but it is impossible to say so, for the words of the Tur refer to the beginning of the roasting, and this is the opinion of the Rosh [chapter Kol HaBasar, section 36], and this is the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam as well, as he wrote in chapter 6 of Maakhalot Assurot, law 15, see there, [Bach and Derishah]. Furthermore, this is not according to what was written in section 21, that even when the juice is visible it is permitted, see there, and we do not fear for the appearance of the eye because everyone understands that it is merely juice, like the juice that we see after the duration of salting. [Also the words of the Bach are puzzling, for he challenged the Beit Yosef, and he explained that it deals with after half of its roasting, see there, and the Taz in subsection 11 and the Shach in subsection 25 have already challenged him]:

And they wrote that for this reason the fat was not forbidden, for since the vessel is not placed upon the fire, even though it absorbs from the blood dripping into it while hot, nevertheless it is not sufficient to forbid the fat [Beit Yosef and Derishah]. And these matters are not understood, and it appears to me that this is the explanation: behold, the blood dripping into the vessel drop after drop is no more stringent than a kli sheni, since the flow is interrupted, and therefore the blood and the vessel do not forbid the fat. And according to this, the Rashba and the Ran follow their own reasoning, as they hold that even a kli sheni causes absorption, as is written in siman 105 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 105), and they were forced to explain that it refers to after it has been roasted a little:

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: Meat that is roasted without salting, one may not place a vessel beneath it to collect the fat dripping from it until it is roasted to the point that it is fit for eating through this roasting. Thus far his words. And he omitted entirely this matter of "salt crystals," for the reason that the Tur wrote in the name of Rashi, that we are not experts. And know that in the Gemara there, they said previously that from the time the smoke rises it is permitted to place the vessel beneath it, and the Gemara asks: perhaps the bottom side of the meat was cooked but not the top side, and this matter was rejected, see there. However, that which our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote "until it is roasted to the point that it is fit for eating," it is simple that his intention is that it should appear that all the meat was cooked until it is fit for eating, both the top side and the bottom side. And two great authorities challenged our teacher, the Beit Yosef, based on the Gemara's sugya that we wrote, that being fit for eating is of no avail without "salt crystals" [the Bach, and the Ma'adanei Yom Tov in Divrei Chamudot there, sign 185], and they wrote that there must be a scribal error in the Shulchan Aruch. But it is not so, for this is a different matter entirely from what was said in the Gemara as I have written [and also the Taz and the Shach challenged the Bach, see there, and they did not mention the Ma'adanei Yom Tov].