Siman 77

The halakha was decided in the Gemara (Pesachim beginning of chapter 7) that this stuffing is permitted, even if the opening is facing upward. The explanation of the matter: when one stuffs poultry or small livestock with a meat stuffing and roasts them over the fire, even if the opening is facing upward, it is permitted. And if both are salted according to the law of salting for a pot—with rinsing, and salting for the required duration, and rinsing afterward—there is no novelty in this at all, and what would it be coming to teach us? Rather, it deals with a case without salting, as will be explained [Rashi]:

And it is true that the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 6 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, law 17, and this is his wording: Birds that one left whole, and filled their cavity with meat and eggs, and cooked them, are forbidden, for behold, blood exits into them, and even if he salted them very well, and even if the meat within them was boiled or roasted. But if he roasted them, behold these are permitted, even if the meat within them was raw, and even if their mouth was facing upward. Thus far his words. And according to his words, that which the sages permitted mulyata for roasting is only when they were salted according to the law, and even so in cooking it is forbidden; and already the sages of the generations wondered about him, what he saw in this and what reason there is for this. However, the Rambam, of blessed memory, follows his own reasoning that through melikhah not all the blood exits, and one requires after the melikhah a scalding in boiling water as we explained in siman 69, section 36. But all our teachers disagree with him, and the whole world did not adopt his opinion in this, and therefore they all explained that the Gemara is dealing with where it was not salted, for then in roasting it is permitted, and in cooking it is forbidden.

This is the wording of the Tur: Birds or kids that are stuffed with meat that has not been salted—if for roasting, it is permitted even if their opening is facing upward, and even if the outer part was salted, such that it is not now occupied with discharging, for just as it absorbs the blood of the stuffing, so it discharges it; but for a pot, it is forbidden until the outer part is salted by itself and the inner part by itself, but if after it was stuffed one salted the outer part, it does not cause the blood in the inner part to be discharged. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, also wrote according to his wording in the Shulchan Aruch:

And the explanation of the matters is that it is not only if the outer one was also not salted, for then both of them emit their blood through the fire and we are not concerned that one will absorb from its fellow, for since they are occupied with emitting, they do not absorb; but even if the outer one was salted and rinsed after the salting, such that the pores of emission have already been closed and it has no blood of its own to emit, nevertheless we say that just as the outer one absorbs from the blood of the inner one, so too it emits it immediately. And even though meat that remained for the duration of salting and was rinsed, when it fell into brine it is forbidden for this reason, because it has no blood of its own to emit as is written in siman 69 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 69), nevertheless here it is different, because the absorption and the emission come as one, and we say effectively "as it absorbs, so it emits." This is not the case when it fell into brine where it absorbed the blood, and after a duration we would permit it through salting so that it would emit what it absorbed; we do not say so except when it has blood of its own to emit [Beit Yosef].

And know that according to this, one should also permit a goose, part of which was roasted near a hot oven, to be salted entirely afterwards; and if it is because the roasted part will absorb the blood, since the expulsion occurs at the time of the absorption, we say "as it absorbs, so it expels." And unlike what we wrote in siman 76 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 76) section 11, see there, nevertheless there is no proof from here, as one could say that we only say this regarding raw meat, and not regarding roasted meat, and it requires further study as a matter of law. [And likewise one should not raise a difficulty from this against the Rashba there in section 18, as this applies only to foodstuffs and not to vessels, and all the more so regarding an iron spit, and examine this carefully]:

And our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all the more so if the inner one was salted and not the outer one it is permitted, for the fire draws out the blood from the outer one and it is not absorbed into the inner one. Thus far his words. That is to say, since even when the outer one was salted and not the inner one—where the blood of the inner one must necessarily pass through the outer one, as it has no other path, and nevertheless it is permitted based on the reasoning of "as it absorbs, so it emits"—all the more so in the reverse case, where the inner one was salted and not the outer one, it is permitted; for we say that the fire will draw the blood of the outer one from the outside, and the blood will not go at all to the inner one, for the fire surrounding the outer one will draw it to itself and will not allow it to enter the other side.

And there are those who disagree on this and say that the inner one is worse than the outer one, for we do not say at all that the fire will not allow the inner one to absorb from the outer one, and it certainly absorbs, and it has no place to expel since it is on the inside, and it is like being placed in brine; for specifically regarding the outer one when it absorbs from the inner one, we say regarding it "as it absorbs, so it expels," because it is toward the outside, but this is not so for the inner one, and regarding it we do not say "as it absorbs, so it expels," and only if it expels on its own and is occupied with expelling, then we rightly say regarding it that it does not absorb, and in this too there are distinctions of laws as will be explained with the help of Heaven:

If the outer and the inner are both unsalted, both are permitted, for when does the inner absorb from the outer? At the time it is hot through roasting, and at that time it is occupied with its own discharge, and since it is occupied with discharging, it does not absorb. The outer is also permitted, and even though it is certain that the blood of the inner will pass through it, nevertheless, since the discharge and the absorption occur simultaneously, we say "as it absorbs, so it discharges." And all the more so if both are salted and remained for the duration of salting, even if they were not rinsed after the salting, for both are permitted. And even though the salt becomes forbidden, nevertheless, regarding the salt of the inner, there is sixty in the stuffing and the bird, and the salt of the outer one rinses after the roasting, and everything is permitted [Shach, subsection 2, according to the explanation of the Pri Megadim, and such is the opinion of the Yam Shel Shlomo].

When the inner one is unsalted and the outer one has not remained for the duration of meliha, the inner one is forbidden immediately; because before the inner one is heated by the fire such that it would emit its own blood, it absorbs from the outer one which has not remained for the duration of meliha and is emitting, and the inner one is forbidden immediately, for regarding it we do not say "as it absorbs, so it emits," as I have written. But if both of them have not remained for the duration of meliha, both are permitted, for both are occupied with emitting, and the inner one does not absorb from the outer one; and as for the outer one, even though the inner one must pass over it, "as it absorbs, so it emits." And if the outer one is unsalted and the inner one has remained for the duration of meliha, the inner one is forbidden, because it will absorb from the outer one and the blood will remain there, for it is like falling into tzir, as I have written. And even if the inner one has not yet been rinsed, such that it is still emitting tzir—for in such a case regarding meliha we do not say that it absorbs from a piece next to it—nevertheless here it absorbs, for this is similar to a piece that fell into tzir, where it necessarily absorbs since it is in a cramped place inside; and only when it is emitting the primary blood do we say that it does not absorb from the outer one, and not during the emission of tzir [ibid.]:

And also this, that we permitted the outer [meat] based on the reasoning that "as it absorbs, so it emits," this is when it is unsalted, or it was salted but did not remain for the duration of salting, or even if it remained but was not yet rinsed after the salting; however, if it was salted and rinsed, such that the pores of emission were closed, or even if it was not rinsed but it remained twelve hours or twenty-four hours in a manner that its brine was completely emitted, for then it is forbidden if it absorbs from the inner [meat] and the fire does not extract it immediately—for example, where the inner [meat] did not remain for the duration of salting, for then the outer [meat] absorbs from it before it is heated by the fire and it does not exit further. But when the inner [meat] is unsalted, the outer [meat] is permitted, for as it absorbs, so it emits [Shach there]. And there are those who disagree on this and hold that the outer [meat] is always permitted even if the inner [meat] did not remain for the duration of salting [Taz, subsection 1, and this is the opinion of the Yam Shel Shlomo, and the Shach struggled with his words, see there].

However, the great later authorities disagree with the previous opinion and uphold the words of our teacher, the Rema, for there are clear proofs that even the inner one, although it has no discharge of its own, nevertheless the fire draws from it even when it absorbs from the outer one, or it does not absorb at all for the reason that the fire draws outward and does not allow it inside. First, from what has been explained in siman 76 regarding the law of a spit which does not become forbidden, and yet it is inserted inside the meat, and it is like an inner one placed within an outer one; and although one could distinguish between meat and a vessel, nevertheless, who shall compel us to distinguish in this to be lenient regarding a spit [and see what I wrote in section 5 that there is a logic to the contrary, and delve into this]:

And there is further proof from the words of the Rambam, chapter 6 of Forbidden Foods, who wrote, and this is his wording: Birds that he left whole, etc., and we brought his words in section 2, and he wrote that in a roast it is permitted, even though the meat within them has no blood at all, we do not say that they absorb from the bird, and so too at the end he wrote even though the meat within it is raw, meaning and all the more so when it is roasted that everything is permitted, whether the birds were salted or whether they were not salted [Pri Chadash, and Kereti U-Peleti]. And nevertheless, one can reject this, that it deals with a case where the bird was also salted, but according to his system the salting is not completely effective as I wrote in section 2, and therefore regarding the small amount of blood that remains we are not concerned [Pri Megadim]. But it does not imply thus, for if so, he should have explained explicitly that the birds were salted, but rather it is certainly like the words of our teacher, the Rema:

And there is further proof, for we maintain that we do not assume the presence of blood in the intestines, and regarding the Pesach sacrifice we learned in a Mishnah that one places the intestines inside it [beginning of the chapter "Keitzad Tzolin" (Pesachim 74a)], and even the one who disagrees in this matter does so for the reason that it is like boiling, as is explained there in the Mishnah. And if it were according to the words of those who disagree, it would anyway be impossible to place them inside the Pesach sacrifice, according to the law of an inner piece that is salted and an outer piece that is not salted. Rather, certainly the primary ruling is according to our teacher, the Rema. And also that which they say, that when the inner piece was salted but did not remain for the required time, and the outer piece was salted and rinsed, it is forbidden because it absorbs from the inner piece, this is also not certain; for the power of the fire is strong regarding the outer piece and it extracts the blood, even that which it absorbed before it was heated [see Kereti U-Peleti], and this has already been explained at the end of section 10, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that all this is post facto, but initially one should not make any filling unless both were salted. And all this refers to when there is in this filling only meat or herbs, but if there are eggs there that congeal, its law is as if it were cooked in a pot, and even post facto it should be forbidden if both were not salted. Thus far his words. For eggs are like actual cooking, and therefore if the eggs also have meat in that same filling, it is also completely forbidden, unlike one who wishes to be lenient in this; and even if the meat is more than the eggs, everything is forbidden even post facto, unless there is sixty in the entire filling against the forbidden matter in the filling, but without this everything is forbidden [Shach, subsection 5].

And that which the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote, that for a pot it is forbidden until he salts the outer one alone and the inner one alone, but if after he filled it he salted the outer one, it does not extract the blood that is in the inner one. Thus far his words. Meaning, it is not only necessary before filling, where one salting does not suffice—the inner one alone or the outer one alone—and he must salt both of them, each one alone, and rinse them before the filling; but even if he transgressed and filled it and did not salt either one of them, and comes now to salt, we do not say that the filling is considered as if it is of the body of the bird, and it would be like a thick piece which one does not need to split in two, but rather the salting of the outer one does not avail for the inner one [Bach]. And even if he salted the outer one from both sides, it does not avail for the inner one, for if he salted the outer one from the outside and not from the inside, even for the outer one it does not avail, even if the inner one was salted beforehand and he rinsed it, and he filled the outer one with it before he salted the outer one, and afterwards he salted the outer one from the outside, the salting of the outer one does not avail for a pot, since the inner side of the outer one was not salted, and even though in siman 69 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 69) we permit post facto if it was salted from one side, here it is much worse, because the filling of the inner one blocks the inner side of the outer one and does not allow it to emit, and furthermore the inner one will absorb from the outer one and forbid it [ibid., and so wrote the Taz and the Shach, subsection 4], and so is the primary ruling, that there is no permission regarding filling for the matter of cooking in a pot unless he salts each one alone beforehand and rinses it, and afterwards he may do as he wishes.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding meat that was neither salted nor rinsed that was roasted with meat that was salted and rinsed, it is permitted ex post facto, but initially it is forbidden to roast salted meat with meat that was not salted, even if it was rinsed. Thus far his words. And the reason it is permitted ex post facto is because we say "as it absorbs, so it emits," for the blood that falls from the one that was not salted onto the one that was salted is emitted blood, and not blood in its essence, and even if the one that was not salted was also not rinsed with the rinsing that precedes salting, it has already been explained that regarding roasting we do not consider the blood on the surface of the meat as blood in its essence, but rather as emitted blood, and we properly say regarding it "as it absorbs, so it emits."

An incident occurred where they roasted meat that had not been salted on one spit with onions, and one of the great authorities forbade the onions, while some permitted it post facto according to the law of meat that had not been salted with meat that had been salted which was explained previously, for blood glides off, and furthermore, just as it absorbs, so it emits, and furthermore, the fire draws the blood to itself and does not allow it to be absorbed by something adjacent to it. And even if we say that by raising the spit the blood flows and adheres to the onions, nevertheless, just as it absorbs, so it emits [Pri Chadash, subsection 5]. And in my humble opinion, it appears like the words of the one who forbids, for perhaps the sharpness of the onions causes the blood to be absorbed like the fire, and due to their sharpness they do not emit. And it appears to me that the primary ruling is to give it to a non-Jew to taste if there is a taste of blood in the onions, and without this one should not permit it, [the one who forbids is the Rashdam], for perhaps its law is like a coating of flour which will be explained in siman 78 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 78):