Yoreh Deah "Seder Melicha

Said Shmuel, "Blood does not come out of meat unless you salt it very well (yaffe yaffe) and you rinse it very well (yaffe yaffe)"
It was said that Rav Huna said, "Salt it and rinse it".
It was taught in a Braitah, "Rinse it, salt it and rinse it.
There is no disagreement. One statement applies where it was washed in the slaughter-house and the other where it was not washed in the slaughter-house.

The order of salting :

1. The Gemora tells us that the order of salting has three stages. The view of Rav Hunah which only refers to salting and rinsing does not differ from the Briatah. His statement refers to the normal process in his time i.e. meat was washed thoroughly in the slaughter house after it was slaughtered. Therefore meat did not require an additional rinsing at home before salting. The Braittah, on the other hand, which says "rinse, salt and rinse" refers to a case where it was not washed thoroughly in the slaughter-house.

I. The Initial Rinsing (hadacha rishonah). The Rishonim explain two principal reasons for the initial requirement of rinsing meat very well before salting. Each of these explanations, in turn, will be divided into into a number of other reasons (svorot)

1. The first is to soften the meat in order to enable the salting process to work.
2. The second is to remove the dry crusted blood from the surface of the meat.

II. Salting. The required time of salting according to the earliest authorities (the Gaonim) is the time it takes to walk a "mil" which is between 18 to-20 minutes. Everyone nowadays holds that it is proper to salt the meat for an hour except in the case of special need, such as Erev Shabbos or for hospitality to important guests, where if in such a case there is not time to leave the meat in salt for an hour, the shorter period of 18-20 minutes may be relied upon.

III. The Second Rinsing (hadacha shniah). The purpose of this rinsing is to remove the salt and blood from the surface of the meat after salting and to close the passages of exit of the blood (nikvei p’lita).

2. The Rishonim disagree about the degree to which blood expelled from meat by cooking or salting is forbidden (osser) .

A. The Rambam holds that this type of expelled blood is ossur from the Torah (m'd'oraissa). It is included within the definition of the type of blood that the Torah forbids us to eat .

B. The Ran holds that it is only Rabbinically forbidden (ossur m'd'rabbonon). He holds that the Torah only forbids blood that comes out of the animal at the time of slaughter. Blood which is expelled subsequently i.e. during salting or cooking, is not within the Torah definition of forbidden blood. Therefore it is only forbidden by a Rabbinical decree.

3. No matter what the source of the issur, the Ran asks: We clearly observe that blood continues to come out of meat even after the salting process is over. Indeed this blood is sometimes even redder than the blood that was originally expelled. Why do we permit this meat after the required time of salting, even though there blood still appears to be inside?

He gives two explanations :

A. The liquid which comes out of the meat after the period of salting is not blood but is called mohul (juice). The Gemora refers to it as chamra boser (the wine of the meat). In other words, although it may have the appearance of blood, it is not in reality blood that is ossur at all.

B. The issur of blood that comes out through the salting process is only forbidden Rabbinically, and the Rabbis limited their prohibition to blood that comes out of the meat during the period of salting . After that time, anything that comes out of the meat, although it may be blood, it is not within the Rabbinical enactment. Therefore it is blood of heter and not of issur.

4. The Rambam learns when the Gemara refers to "the wine of the meat" it means the juice which comes out of the meat after roasting. The liquid which comes out after the period of salting is actually blood and according to his opinion (Shita) such blood is forbidden by the Torah (ossur m'd'oraissa). According to the Rambam, we are forced to explain how we are permitted to eat meat after salting. For it appears that blood continues to come out of the meat even after the period of salting, and according to the Rambam any such blood would be osser.

The Rambam's Opinion (Shita).

Laws of Forbidden Foods: Chapter 6. Halacha 10

"How is it done? Rinse the meat initially. Afterwards, salt it very well. Leave it in its salt for the time it takes to walk a "mil". Afterwards, rinse it very well until the water turns clear and then immediately throw it into boiling water, not warm. (This is done) in order that the water will "close it up" (cause chalita) so that the blood will not come out."

1. According to the Rambam's Shita, even after it has been salted properly, it is necessary to throw the meat into boiling water. This process is called chalita and was at one time one of the three possible ways of removing the issur of blood from meat. The others ways are roasting and salting. The effect of chalita is variously described as "locking the blood into the meat", or as "solidifying it in its position in the meat so that it will not move during the cooking process". The blood which is forbidden, either by the Torah or Rabbinically, according to the different views mentioned above, is only the blood which is "porush". That means the blood which moves in the meat during cooking. This prohibition exists if the blood comes out completely, or even if it moves from its original place to another place in the meat. Blood which stays in the same place is not forbidden even if the meat is cooked with such blood still inside. The process of chalata, accordingly, prevents the blood from moving inside the meat and consequently such blood does not become osser.

2. From as early as the time of the Gaonim, it was decided that we were not able to do chalita on its own since this process requires a great amount of expertise. One must know the required degree of heat and the required time of immersion of the meat. However, the Rambam, although not relying on chalita on its own, does require chalita after salting. According to the Rambam's position chalita is not a mere chumre (strictness) but a halachic requirement, without which salted meat is forbidden .

3. Several authorities raise difficulties (kashos) against the Rambam's ruling.

1. According to the simple meaning (pshat) of the Gemora on page 113, salting alone is sufficient. Not one word is said there about chalita.

2. The Rashbah asks why the Rambam requires both salting and chalita. If we are experts in chalita, why require salting. On the other hand, if we are salting because we are not experts then why require chalita afterwards.

3. The Ravad states that no-one has ever seen or heard of anyone doing chalita (although some communities such as the Tamanim [Yemenite community] apparently follow the shita of the Rambam until today).

The Halachic Authorities (Poskim)

1. The Tor states that we are not nohag (accustomed) to follow the Rambam.

2. The Beis Yosef on the other hand says :

"So far as the halacha is concerned, since all these important authorities disagree with the Rambam, we hold like them. However, in a place where it is possible to do so, it is good to take account of the opinion of the Rambam."

3. In the Shulchan Oruch (Simon 69:19) ) the M’chaber, who is of course the Beit Yosef, states that after salting we may put the meat even in warm water and adds "there is one (authority) who requires (us) to put the meat in boiling water first". This opinion follows Rambam's opinion.

4. The general rule in the Shulchan Oruch is that stam followed by "there are those who say" means the M’chaber holds that the halachah is like the first unlimited view. This occurs when the M’chaber brings two opinions, stating the first view without limiting the statement (stam) and the second view limiting the statement by the words "there are those who say" or some similar limitation. We say that the M'chaber brings the second view only to give respect (kavod) to that view and not because holds it, or not even that he holds it as a strictness (chumra) that would be good to act accordingly where possible.

The Shach, however, who is the Commentator who propounded the above rule in the Shulchan Oruch, adds that where the M'chaber in another publication, or in another place in the same publication brings the second view, then, according the M'chaber holds it is proper to take the second view as a chumrah. In our case, since the M'chaber himself holds in the Beis Yosef, that where possible it is good to follow the view of the Rambam, the Shach's rule tells us to take the "there is one who says" as a chumrah, i.e. where possible it is good to adopt this view. In other words, it would seem that according to this rule that the M'chaber holds that optimally, it is advisable to do chalita.

5. Explanation of the Rambam's Shitah

1. The Rambam view is that salting does not remove all the blood and he is concerned about the blood which remains in the meat after salting. The proof is that we see blood coming out of the meat after salting. The Ran agrees that something like blood still comes out after salting, but the Rambam rejects the Ran's explanations as to why this is permitted.

2. The Rambam's view is that salting only extracts blood that is close to the meat's surface. This blood is called "the exterior blood." (not literally the exterior blood, but the dried blood on the surface which is removed by the first hadacha. The blood that is close to the surface.) The interior blood does not come out by salting as we see from the fact that blood continues to be expelled after salting has finished. Therefore it has to be frozen in position by chalita.

6. Proofs for the Rambam.

1. The Ran brings the following proof for the Rambam:

The Gomora (page 112) states that it is forbidden to salt chicken (and all the more so meat) together with fish, even though it is permitted to salt chicken together with other chicken or meat.

The reason is that a piece of chicken during the salting process will not absorb the expelled blood from the other pieces of chicken being salted, as long as it is actively expelling its own blood and tzir (the watery solution that comes out during and after it has ceased to expel blood). This is based on the rule "since it is busy in expelling it will not absorb" (eidi d’tored l’flot, aino bolea)

There are also other explanations. For instance: The blood of the other meat runs off and is not absorbed (misrak sarek). Alternatively, that even if the meat will swallow blood that is expelled from the other sources, since it expels its own blood, it will also expel that which it absorbs from the other piece of meat (c’mo boleah, kach polto).

None of these explanations apply to fish because it finishes its own expulsion of blood and tzir sooner than that of chicken, and thus will absorb the blood from the chicken. Since fish skin is thin and light it is easier for the fish to absorb the blood that comes out of the chicken and this blood will not run off. Once absorbed it will not come out again. therefore the fish is oser.

The Ran asks: Granted that fish will swallow blood from the chicken, why not simply salt the fish again and then it will expel the blood it absorbed from the chicken. According to those opinions (shitas) that hold that salt can only remove the blood of the food itself, whether meat or fish, but not blood absorbed from an other source, then resalting cannot work. The Rambam, however, rejects this view and holds that salting also removes the blood absorbed from another source. In that case the only reason why re-salting the fish will not remove the blood absorbed by the fish from the chicken is because salting does not remove all the interior blood. This is the proof for the Rambam that we require chalita to remove the possibility of the interior blood from moving.

It is possible to reject this proof:

Firstly, if we hold like the Ran that salting does not remove blood from another source, then that is the reason why the fish is osser and resalting will not help.

Secondly, even if we hold like the Rambam whose position is that salt could at least remove the surface blood swallowed from another source, this would be only refer to the initial salting when the piece has its own blood and the other blood will come out with it. Who says that the Rambam would hold a second salting would remove the blood from another source if the original surface blood had already been removed.

2. The second proof for the Rambam is brought by the Vilna Gaon in the name of the Rivash. It is based on the Gemora, Pesachim (page 74). The Gemora states, a kid or fowl stuffed with ground meat is oser if cooked and mutar only for roasting. The Rambam explains this case to be one where the kid has been salted, and even so the stuffing (which has also already been properly salted to remove its blood) will absorb blood from the outer covering of the kid during covering. This is proof that the salting of the outer covering of meat will not remove all of its blood. However it is possible to reject this proof and to learn that the case in the Gemora is one where the outer covering has not been salted properly for cooking, but only lightly salted as required for roasting. This is the meaning of the Gemora as explained by Rashi and Tosefos.

7. The Rambam's answers to these difficulties (Kashas).

1. The Rambam will explain the Gemora on 113 (where no mention is made of chalita) as talking about the surface blood. That is what requires the seder of salting described. The internal blood, however, surely requires chalita. The Gemora took this for granted and did not mention it.

2. As to why both are needed, salting and chalita. Salting can not get out the interior blood and thus we need chalita. Since we are not experts on chalita, however, the Rambam will say that we need salting for the blood close to the surface. Chalita may not seal in this blood immediately. He is therefore concerned that this external blood may be poresh (will move and come out) in the cooking process. This is why we also need salting.

3. We must explain why no-one follows the system of the Rambam, even the S'fardic Jews. The S'fardic Jews generally follow the Beit Yosef who stated that it is good to follow the opinion of the Rambam where possible. However, in this case, even they are not in the practice of doing chalita. The Netsiv and the Aruch HaShulchan explain that the Rambam's concern that salting will not remove all the blood is based on the period of salting of the Gaonim which is from 18 to 20 minutes. This time period is stated by the Rambam himself. If however the meat is salted for an hour, which is the custom of the world to do initially, then even the Rambam would agree that the salting for this longer period removes all the blood and no further process of chalita is required. This is the position of the Shulchan Oruch who brings down the period of salting as a "mil" i.e. 18 to 20 minutes. That is why he is concerned about the view of the Rambam as a strictness (chumra). If, however, the meat would be salted for an hour, then the M’chabar would agree that chalita is not necessary.

Source Material

shuir05.gif (9112 bytes)

Back

Table Of Contents

Diaspora Yeshiva

Box 6426 Mt. Zion Jerusalem 91063, Israel
Tel 02-671-6841 FAX 02-672-9493
From the USA 011-972-2-671-6841
Rav Avraham Goldstein 02-672-1501
For more information contact diasporayesh@yahoo.com

Application for Admission

You will need Adobe Reader on your computer to read this file.
Click here to download Adobe Reader.