Introduction to the Laws of Salting (Meliché) - Rabbi Shlomo Giladi shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to “Lema’an Yishme’u,” a podcast from Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 Today’s class is an introduction to the laws of salting meat. Since salting makes meat permissible by removing the blood it contains, I’d like to begin with a brief overview of the different types of blood and their prohibitions, whether from the Torah or from the Sages. The Torah’s prohibition against blood applies equally to the meat of animals and birds. This is unlike meat and milk, where the established halacha is that the Torah prohibits only the meat of animals with milk; the prohibition against poultry with milk is only rabbinic. But with blood there is no distinction between the blood of animals and the blood of birds. This is an explicit verse in the Torah: “You shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether of bird or animal.” The prohibition includes not only the blood of kosher animals and birds, but also that of non-kosher animals and birds. In other words, besides the prohibition against their meat, their blood is subject to a separate prohibition, just like the blood of kosher animals and birds. The blood of sheratzim—creeping creatures of the land or water—is not subject to the Torah’s specific prohibition against blood. Their blood is forbidden because it is part of their bodies, but there is no separate prohibition against their blood. Human blood: blood that has left the human body is not forbidden by the Torah, only by the Sages, because of maris ayin—it looks like blood. Blood in eggs: this depends on the circumstances. If the hens were raised with a rooster and the blood is found on the yolk, the yellow part of the egg, that shows that an embryo has begun to form, and the entire egg is forbidden, not just the spot with the blood. If the blood is found on the white, an embryo has not yet begun to form, so only the blood and the spot it occupies are forbidden. The rest of the egg is permitted, but the Sages forbade it because of maris ayin. The Rema rules that even when blood is found on the white, it renders the entire egg forbidden, because it is not always easy to tell whether the blood touched the yolk, the yellow

04:29 Speaker 2 part, or not. If it did touch the yolk, an embryo has already begun to form and the entire egg is forbidden. He therefore always forbids the whole egg; the whole egg is thrown away. All this concerns eggs laid by hens raised with a rooster. But hens that were not raised with a rooster nevertheless lay eggs through the warmth of the ground. In the language of the Gemara, this is called safna me’ara. According to Torah law, blood in these eggs is permitted, since an embryo cannot form in such eggs. Nevertheless, the Sages forbade it because of maris ayin. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is enough to discard the blood alone, and the rest of the egg is permitted. Later halachic authorities, such as the author of Igros Moshe and the author of Yabia Omer, ruled that nowadays, since a single egg is inexpensive, it is preferable to discard the entire egg. In any case, there is no need to open a hard-boiled egg to check for blood and remove it; one may eat the egg whole without checking it. I had the privilege of seeing the Rebbe do just that on Seder night: he ate the egg without opening or checking it. Fish blood is entirely permitted by law. Only when it is collected by itself in a vessel did the Sages forbid it because of maris ayin. So far, we have briefly discussed the laws concerning the different types of blood. But since the laws of salting deal only with removing the blood of kosher animals and birds, we will focus on the laws concerning their blood. Within the prohibition against the blood of kosher animals and birds, there are several types of blood, with different levels of prohibition and liability. Dam hanefesh, “the blood of life,” is the blood on which the animal’s life depends: when it gushes out, the animal ceases to live. Usually, when an animal or bird is slaughtered, a great deal of blood gushes from the site of slaughter. The blood that comes out first is dam hanefesh. This is the blood on which life depends. This blood

08:12 Speaker 2 is forbidden by the Torah, and its violation carries not only the penalty associated with a negative commandment but also kareis. Blood that is found collected in the cavities of an animal’s or bird’s organs after slaughter—for example, blood collected in the cavity of the heart—is not dam hanefesh, because it remains in the heart even after the animal has died. But because it is collected there, it too is forbidden by the Torah. Its prohibition, however, is only a negative commandment, carrying lashes but not kareis. Then there is blood that was not collected in the animal’s cavities but was absorbed in its organs and flesh, and drips out of the flesh after slaughter. In halacha, this is called dam hatamtzis, blood that flows out on its own. It too is forbidden by the Torah, and its violation carries lashes but not kareis. Blood within the organs: blood found in the cells of the meat, absorbed within it, that did not drip out at slaughter but left the meat afterward because of pressure from a knife or the like, is also forbidden by the Torah, with lashes but not kareis. What about blood within the organs that did not leave at all, but remained absorbed in the cells of the meat? According to most of the Rishonim, blood that remains absorbed in the meat and has not left it is permitted. It is not forbidden at all, either by the Torah or by the Sages. Therefore, in their view—the view of most of the Rishonim—one may take raw meat, wash off the blood that has come out onto its surface, and eat it raw, because blood within the organs that has not left the meat is permitted. Why is it permitted? Because until it leaves the meat, it has not yet acquired the status of blood. It is still part of the meat. In Chassidic terms that we can apply here, when does the blood become forbidden, with the three completely impure kelipos resting upon it? Only when it leaves

11:40 Speaker 2 and becomes

11:40 Speaker 3 something unto itself,

11:42 Speaker 2 separate from what is permitted, from its source. But as long as it remains within its source, it has no independent existence. The three completely impure kelipos do not rest upon it, and it is permitted. Therefore, according to their view, one may eat raw meat. The Rambam, however, wrote: “One who wishes to eat raw meat should salt it thoroughly and rinse it thoroughly, and then eat it.” According to the Rambam, it is forbidden to eat raw meat. Why? Mahari ben Chaviv and the Kesef Mishneh disagree about this. Mahari ben Chaviv says that the Rambam, too, agrees that as long as blood has not left the meat, it does not have the status of blood and is permitted. Why, then, did the Rambam forbid eating raw meat? Simply because when a person chews and bites into the meat, the blood might come out, and he might swallow and consume it. Once it has come out, it has acquired the status of blood and become forbidden. So the Rambam forbade eating raw meat for a practical reason. According to Mahari ben Chaviv, then, if a person were to take a piece of meat and swallow it without chewing it, even the Rambam would permit it. Why? Because the blood within the cells of the meat does not yet have the status of blood, is not forbidden, and is permitted. The Kesef Mishneh, in his commentary on the Rambam, explains it differently. He says that the Rambam also agrees with the principle that blood that has not left the meat does not have the status of blood and is permitted. But he holds that blood which could be drawn out through salting is considered as though it has already left. Therefore, according to the Kesef Mishneh’s understanding of the Rambam, it is forbidden even to take a piece of raw meat and swallow it, because it contains blood that could be drawn out through salting. According to the Rambam, such blood is considered as though it has already left and is forbidden. What blood does the Rambam permit? Blood that would not leave even through salting, but only through cooking. Since, uh, such blood

14:48 Speaker 2 cannot be drawn out through salting, the Rambam too agrees that it is permitted and is forbidden neither by the Torah nor by the Sages. The Rambam’s view, as we said, is a minority view: that one may not eat raw meat, either because chewing it would cause the blood to leave, or because it contains blood that could be drawn out through salting and is therefore forbidden. But I saw in Rabbi Kapach’s commentary on the Rambam that he cites a responsum by one of the Rishonim who lived even before the Rambam. His name was Rabbi Yitzchak ben Rabbi Shmuel HaSefardi, and he too writes that one may not eat raw meat without salting it, because even blood that has not yet left the meat is forbidden if it could leave. What is the status of blood that has not come out but has moved inside the meat from one place to another? In the language of the Gemara, this is blood that moved “from one side to the other,” but did not come out. The Gemara in Chullin, page 112, says: “Rav Nachman said in the name of Shmuel: A loaf of bread on which meat was cut may not be eaten.” The loaf became forbidden to eat. But this implies that the meat is permitted. What is the case there, and what is the problem? Tosafos and the Rosh explain that the meat had been roasted, but not fully roasted. It therefore still contains blood and has already become soft, so when it is cut on a loaf of bread, blood comes out and is absorbed by the loaf, making the loaf forbidden. The meat itself, however, is permitted. Why? Because the blood has not come out of the meat. It is blood that has not left. One may therefore eat the meat, even though the pressure of cutting certainly moved the blood from its place, from one side to the other. Nevertheless, this is considered blood that has not left, as long as it has not come out into the loaf.

18:12 Speaker 2 It is permitted. But the Rashba disagrees there with Tosafos and the Rosh and says that the discussion concerns meat that has been fully roasted. No forbidden blood remains in it at all, only meat juices. In the language of the Gemara, this is called chamar basar. Nevertheless, if he cuts it over a loaf of bread, the loaf may not be eaten because of maris ayin: people see that the loaf is red, full of what looks like blood. They do not know that it is no longer blood but chamar basar. The meat, however, is permitted. Maris ayin does not apply to the meat, because people can see that it is roasted. But if he actually cut meat that had not been fully roasted, it still contains blood. Then not only is the loaf forbidden, but the meat is forbidden too, because the pressure of the knife causes the blood to move from one side to the other, even though it does not come out. What is the status of blood that has already been cooked or salted and then separates from the meat after cooking or salting? Is that blood forbidden by Torah law or only by rabbinic law? The Rishonim disagree. Rashi’s view is that when the Torah forbids blood—and, in the case of lifeblood, even imposes kares—it does not mean only fresh blood. It includes cooked or salted blood, since salting is also like cooking. As the Gemara says, “Salting is like boiling.” Although the blood has changed, it is still blood and is subject to all the Torah prohibitions concerning blood. The Rambam writes that blood that has been cooked or salted is forbidden by Torah law, but does not incur kares. The Torah imposes kares only for fresh blood. The Rashba, citing the Baal Ha’Itur, says it is forbidden by Torah law, but not under a prohibition that carries lashes. It is like the prohibition against eating less than the prescribed measure: a prohibition, but without lashes. Tosafos and the Rosh

21:10 Speaker 2 hold that the Torah forbids eating only fresh blood. Blood that has been cooked, or blood that has been properly salted—what is called salted blood—is forbidden only by rabbinic law. It should be emphasized, though, that blood released through soaking in cold water, without salt, is forbidden by Torah law according to all opinions. That is what the Pri Megadim writes in his introduction to the laws of salting. Although we hold that “soaking is like cooking,” this does not mean that the blood released through soaking is cooked. It is not cooked or changed; it remains fresh. Soaking merely has the power to draw out and transfer substances, as cooking does. Since the blood remains fresh, everyone agrees that it is forbidden by Torah law. Now let us discuss another question. Is the obligation to salt meat—in other words, all the laws of salting—intended to remove a Torah prohibition, so that the obligation to salt is itself from the Torah? Or is salting intended to remove only a rabbinic prohibition, so that all its laws are rabbinic? In his introduction to the laws of salting, the Pri Megadim connects this question to the earlier disagreement we discussed. According to the Rishonim who hold that blood remains forbidden by Torah law even after the meat has been cooked or properly salted, it is clear that if the Torah permitted us to eat cooked meat, it must also have told us how to make the meat permissible by removing its forbidden blood. One of those ways is salting. Yet nowhere in the Torah do we find an explicit statement that salt draws out blood. The Torah does say, “And every one of your offerings you shall salt with salt,” but that is not meant to make the meat permissible to eat. The author of Arugas Habosem therefore writes that the method of making meat permissible through salting was apparently given orally to Moshe Rabbeinu at Sinai, and Moshe passed it on to the Jewish people.

24:43 Speaker 2 We have many laws like that—halachos given to Moshe at Sinai, transmitted from person to person from Moshe Rabbeinu, who received them all at Sinai. But according to Rishonim such as Tosafos and the Rosh, who say that Torah law permits eating cooked or salted meat, the fact that the Torah permitted us to eat cooked meat does not mean it taught us how to draw out the blood through salting. No. By Torah law, one may cook meat with its blood. The Torah forbids only fresh blood; blood after cooking is permitted. So by Torah law, meat may be cooked without salting. The entire requirement to make meat permissible through salting is rabbinic, because the Sages also forbade cooked blood. The Sages examined the matter and determined on their own that salt draws blood out of meat. It was not a tradition given to Moshe at Sinai. That is what the author of the Sefer HaChinuch writes. Now let us discuss another question. Whether the fact that salt draws out blood is a tradition given to Moshe at Sinai, or something the Sages determined by examining how salt draws out blood, the question is: How does salt draw out the blood? Let me explain the question. The Gemara in Chullin says: “Shmuel said: Soaking is like cooking; salting is like boiling.” As we said earlier, soaking food in cold liquid for twenty-four hours is like cooking with respect to the transfer and absorption of substances. But if a forbidden food is salted and placed together with a permitted food, “salting is like boiling.” Like what kind of heat? The heat of roasting, not cooking. And the established halachah in the laws of mixtures, in siman 105, is that salting causes transfer and absorption only to the depth of a peel. It does not affect every layer of the meat. So if permitted meat was salted together with

27:53 Speaker 2 forbidden meat, the permitted meat becomes forbidden only to the depth of a peel. That layer is peeled off, and the rest is permitted. So the question is: How can we say here that salt draws all the blood out of every layer of the meat? After all, the effect of salting is only to the depth of a peel, no further. So how does salt draw out all the blood? The Pri Megadim explains in his introduction to the laws of salting that salt has two properties. One is that salting is like boiling: it softens and acts upon the meat, but only to the depth of a peel. Salt has another property: it draws out blood. It acts like a pump. Thus, in terms of salting being like boiling, its effect reaches only the depth of a peel. But through its second property, it draws out all the blood, even from every layer of the meat. Blood thickens, becomes viscous and congeals, and then the salt cannot draw it out. Blood that can be drawn out is blood absorbed within the meat’s cells, within the cells of its tissues. That blood is thin and has not yet become thick, congealed and viscous. Salt can draw out that blood, and as long as the blood it draws out has not come to rest on its own, it is still considered blood being expelled from the meat. Therefore, salting makes meat permissible only by removing blood that can be expelled, not blood already present as a separate substance. The Gemara, the Shulchan Aruch and the halachic authorities describe several other distinctive properties of blood being expelled. We say of it, “Because the meat is occupied with expelling, it does not absorb.” A person might salt two pieces of meat side by side, and as long as they are in the process of expelling blood, they do not absorb it. Another property is, “As it absorbs, so it expels.” Blood being expelled might be absorbed into the second piece, but just as it was absorbed, it will be expelled. A third property stated about blood being expelled is, “Blood slips off.” Because of its oily nature, blood slips off and is not absorbed.

31:32 Speaker 2 All three of these properties—“Because it is occupied with expelling, it does not absorb,” “As it absorbs, so it expels,” and “Blood slips off”—apply only to blood being expelled, not to blood already present as a separate substance. Blood that has collected and is on its own, separated from the meat, is thick blood. It congeals and becomes viscous. None of those properties apply to it; instead, it tends to cling, like other liquids in food. Another question: Does salting really draw all the blood out of every layer of the meat, even the innermost layer, or not? The halachic authorities disagree about this too. The Rambam holds that salting for the required length of time does draw out most of the blood, but not all of it. The blood in the innermost layer of the piece does not come out through salting. Therefore, the Rambam holds that it is not enough to put the meat into cold or lukewarm water and heat it gradually until it cooks. During cooking, the heat would cause the blood remaining in the innermost layer to separate. That blood would become forbidden and make the meat forbidden as well. The Rambam therefore requires taking the meat after salting, bringing water to a boil and putting the meat directly into the boiling water. The heat of the boiling water then scalds the blood together with the meat. This is called chalitah. The blood will no longer separate on its own; it becomes an inseparable part of the meat. Then, even during cooking, it will not separate on its own, and the meat will not become forbidden. The Ran in [unclear] also agrees with the Rambam that salting does not draw out all the blood, and that a little blood remains in the innermost layer. Nevertheless, he does not require scalding in boiling water. He holds that since the blood is only in the innermost layer, even if the meat is placed

34:47 Speaker 2 Into a pot of water and heat it slowly. As the water warms, as long as it has not reached a temperature at which the hand recoils, the meat does not release blood. Once it reaches that temperature, the heat immediately seals the blood inside before it comes out. So even ordinary cooking will produce this sealing effect. But there is a practical difference between the Ran and the Rambam. According to the Rambam, after salting a large piece of meat, one may not cut it into smaller pieces, into smaller portions. If you do, what was the inner layer is now on the outside, and it contains blood. And the moment it is cooked—even... Sealing will not help either, because here the blood is on the outside. It will come out before the heat can seal it in, and it will be absorbed into the meat before that happens. So one may not cut meat into smaller portions after salting it. The Ran also agrees that one may not cut it, because then cooking will not seal the blood in. Since the blood is on the outside, in the outer layer, it will come out and be absorbed before the heat seals it in. Another point: according to the Rambam, one cannot take the meat after salting and pound it, grind it, or make it into meatballs or sausage, because then the blood in the inner layer of the meat comes out and renders the meat forbidden. The Ran agrees with this too. But according to the Ran, if someone cut a large piece of meat after salting it, so that an inner surface is now exposed, salting will help: he should salt it, and the blood will come out. Likewise, according to the Rambam, if he cut a large piece after salting, he must salt it again. Most of the Rishonim disagree with both the Rambam and the Ran. They hold that salting removes all the blood, even from the inner layer. After salting, the meat is completely free of blood, and the red liquid we see coming out is not blood; it is meat juice. Therefore,

38:20 Speaker 2 nowadays, people grind meat and make meatballs or sausage, or cut up meat at home after buying it already koshered. Usually, meat and poultry processing plants kosher large pieces of meat and almost whole chickens, and at home people cut them into smaller portions before cooking. According to the Rambam, this is forbidden, and according to the Ran as well. We do this because most of the Rishonim hold that salting removes all the blood completely.