Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/70

דין מליחת הרבה בשר ביחד

Contains 6 Seif ובו ששה סעיפים:

1
One is permitted to salt many pieces of meat together, one on top of the other, even though the lower pieces will finish releasing their blood before the upper pieces. We do not assume that the lower pieces will now absorb blood from the upper pieces. This is because meat releases tzir for a long period of time and as long as (1) it is releasing it can not absorb. Even if a lot of tzir is gathering and sitting in the crevices of the meat, it is permitted. When do we say this rule? When meat is being salted with other pieces of meat, even if it is meat from one animal with the meat of another animal, even if it is poultry [1] which can not expel all its tzir before the meat of an ox can expel its blood.


 * Rema: Nevertheless it is customary to initially be stringent with a piece of meat that has a pocket and invert it inside out as to allow the blood to flow out, however post facto one need not worry, [2] A piece of meat salted twice is permitted [3] and we are not worried that this second salting will cause it to absorb any remaining blood from the first salting.

However meat with fish, and even poultry with fish are forbidden to be salted together for fish release all their tzir before even poultry can release its blood. [4] If one did salt them together, the poultry is permitted, but the fish must have a klipah removed [5] and if (3) one did not remove the scales when they were salted - it is permitted.


 * Rema: There are those who forbid all the fish if there is not sixty against the poultry for we measure all cases of salting with sixty, and this is the custom. This is only if there are no scales, for they are soft and immediately release tzir, bur if there are scales it is permitted for they do not release immediately nor absorb from the poultry because as long as they are in the process of expelling they won't absorb and it is like any other case of meat being salted together

Shach

[1]            See note 24 regarding what it says about meat that is expelling blood that it is nevertheless permitted because the blood flows.

[2]            For example, one did not wash it off after the first salting. This is only post facto, for initially it is forbidden to do this and it must be washed well before any subsequent salting

[3]            Regarding the case in section 69, where we forbid meat that was salted without first being washed for we assume that it absorbed the blood on its surface, here it is not an identical case because the blood was always sitting on the surface of the meat. The principle of meat not absorbing anything while it releases, and "as it absorbs so will it release", does not apply in that case.

[4]            Meaning whether salted beside each other or one on top of the other, the fish are always forbidden to the extent of a klipah, and the poultry are permitted for while they are releasing they don’t absorb.

[5]            The reason they are permitted is that the scales are in place of the klipah. Regarding that which we said that all salting is measured against sixty, that is specifically in a case where fat is involved and it caused it to spread throughout the whole piece, however in a case where fatty residue is nonexistent, only a klipah is required.

Taz

(1)           Even if you want to say that they did absorb, nevertheless they are permitted for they will release it when they release the tzir.

(2)           The reason is because salt does not cause absorption, it only releases. However, we have established that one of the reasons for the initial washing of the meat is because the salt can absorb what’s on its surface. Then we must say let that the reason that it won’t absorb over here is since the meat is in the process of releasing tzir the second salting can not cause it to absorb. This is indeed not the same case in sec. 69 where meat that was salted without a primary washing and the meat will absorb from the salt since it is not in the process of releasing. In a case later on, where we do forbid meat that had blood fall on it while it was in the process of releasing we should also be able to say that it didn’t absorb! The answer is that in this case the reason that it is forbidden is not because it was absorbed by the salt, but rather because the meat is considered roseiach and because of that reason it absorbs the blood.

(3)           The reason is that as long as the scales are on and did not absorb, they remain entirely forbidden. Also, the fish are not forbidden because they were salted with meat, as there is no danger in salting.

2
In which cases is this said? When they were salted together, or if the poultry was salted and the fish was not. (4) However if the fish is salty and the poultry is not and they were placed beside each other [6] or on top of each other, even the fish is permitted without removing a klipah.


 * Rema: (5) [8] And so too if the fish [9] are placed on the poultry they are permitted even if they were salted together since the blood does not flow from bottom to top, and it is no worse then a piece placed in the tzir in which what is protruding from the tzir is permitted. If the fish were placed beside the poultry [11] only (6) after the [12] poultry lay in their salt for the required salting time, then even the fish are permitted even though they are both salty. [13] If fish were salted in a vessel in which meat was salted, the fish are permitted (7) for the fish do not absorb the blood in the vessel because the salting has no effect on a vessel [14] That which we say that the fish are forbidden if salty and the poultry is salty, is only when the fish [15] had released all of their blood and have been washed, (8) but if they still did not release their blood and were never salted, they are permitted because when they release their own blood, they will release the blood they absorbed from the poultry just like a piece that fell into tzir before being salted. It is permitted for this reason as will be explained below. [16] See further in section 91 regarding which salting is considered as roseiach.

Shach

[6]            From the words of the Mechaber it seems that we are referring to a case of fish that was not salted yet, and even so it is forbidden and salting it will not help, for with fish we don't say the rule that while it releases its own blood it will release other blood. They are soft and will absorb a lot that will not come out through salting. Not like the Rema who holds that we do say that the fish will release other blood that has been absorbed.

[7]            From the words of the Mechaber it seems that even if they are touching they are permitted. This is difficult to understand for in the case of non-kosher meat that is not salty, touching kosher meat that is salty, the Mechaber brings the opinion that forbids them! The answer is that nevertheless, the non-salted one is not considered roseiach enough to release blood for here the only problem is because of blood that the poultry releases and may be absorbed in the fish. This is not the case over there where it releases non-kosher tzir which is forbidden,

[8]            This is only if we are certain that the fish did not fail to the bottom, if we do not know this for sure it is forbidden, for it is common during salting that items on top fall to the bottom.

[9]            The same is true in a case where they were placed on the same side, that if the fish Is higher than the meat what is above is permitted and what is beside it is forbidden. Even what is on top is forbidden to the extent of a klipah.

[10]        Nevertheless one must remove a klipah. The reason that this was left out is because the Mechaber holds that all problems through salting require a klipah, whereas the Rema wrote this law for us who forbid the fish unless there is sixty. However when placed on the poultry it is permitted with only a klipah being removed.

[11]        Even though it says later on in section 91, that even after the required salting time it is still considered roseiach, the case over there is dealing with meat and cheese. This is not the case here where we are dealing with the prohibition of blood, which is non-existent after the required salting time. In the case of Rashi in section 69 where we forbid the meat even after the required salting time, is also a different case for over there the meat is sitting in tzir, which is not the case over here.

[12]        This is even if the fish sat as well since the beginning of the required salting period, that they are permitted. They should not be declared forbidden because of tzir coming from the poultry unless they were placed in the tzir,

[13]        This is only post facto. Initially one is forbidden to salt fish in a vessel used for salting meat, for in any event they must be washed and we are worried that it will be forgotten. This is referring to fish salted in order to be cooked immediately in which it is not common to wash them off. However, with fish being salted for preservation in which it is common to wash off before cooking, it is permitted even initially to salt them in a vessel used for salting meat. See later on in section 91 where we say that if the vessel was wiped well one need not wash them.

[14]        The Rema is explaining his own opinion, however according to the Mechaber it is not so for he does not hold that by fish we say that as it releases its own blood, it releases other blood.

[15]        Not necessarily simply washed, for even if washed, the fish are forbidden because even though the pores do not close up, the fish releases all it’s tzir before the poultry releases it’s blood. The word “washed” over here, is defining that meat washed off of its salt and is considered saltless.

[16]        It is explained over there in section 5 in the Rema, that tzir from salted meat, even if only salted for the purpose of roasting, is considered roseiach, and this is indeed the law. The Issur V’heter writes that one should not forbid fish salted with poultry for there is no danger through salting. This is referring to a case where there are no problems of blood as when salting for preservation, however when blood is involved it is forbidden.

Taz

(4)           The Bais Yosef writes in the name of the Rashba that the reason is that the salty item heats up the unsalted item and causes it to absorb, but not to the point of causing it to release, therefore the poultry doesn’t release blood, and the fish are permitted.

(5)           In a case of doubt we forbid it.

(6)           The reason we are strict in the case of Rashi in section 69 regarding juice after the required salting time, is only when the juice is visible and the meat is sitting inside it. This is not the case here. Regarding any wetness on the meat one need not be stringent and it suffices to wash the fish.

(7)           The Rashba writes that only regarding blood, do we say that salting has no effect on vessels to bring it up, however in the case of the fish it would be forbidden. The Rashal holds that even for biblically prohibited items, salt has no effect to bring out the taste.

(8)           It seems that they should be forbidden as the Mechaber holds that regarding fish we do not say that while they release their blood, they will release other blood for four reasons: a) Fish are a permitted entity and once absorbed with blood, become forbidden. How can they go back to permitted status? b) Blood of fish is not considered blood for these purposes rather, tzir. In that case we can not say that while it releases its own blood it will release other blood. c) Since there is very little blood in fish, we can’t assume it will release all other blood absorbed. d) Since the fish covering is soft, the blood is more saturated and the salt can not bring it out.

3
(9) Kosher meat that was salted with non-kosher meat, or non-kosher meat that is salty with kosher meat that is not salty, [17] require the removal of a klipah if they are touching [18] because even though it does not absorb from the non-kosher blood, it absorbs from it’s tzir. However, if the kosher meat is salted and the non-kosher meat is non-salty then it is permitted even without removing a klipah as long as it is washed. This is true whether the kosher piece is on the top or on the bottom. (10) There are those who forbid it if they touch ,[19] and rule that the meat is not permitted even if they were merely standing close to each other if it allowed for their juices to touch.


 * Rema: When the non-kosher meat is salty and the kosher one is not-salty it is still forbidden. [20] See later in section 105 regarding these laws.

Shach

[17]        And if the kosher piece is salty and the non-kosher piece is not, it is permitted even if they are touching. However, if the non-kosher piece is salty and the kosher piece is not then even if they are not touching but are merely close together allowing for their respective juices to touch, it is forbidden. This is because the tzir of the non-kosher meat will touch the kosher meat, and therefore it does not matter if they actually touched or not.

[18]        The reason is because kosher meat that was salted with non-kosher meat will easily absorb tzir even thought it won’t absorb blood since it is in the process of expelling its own blood. While meat is being salted to remove its blood, it can not absorb any other blood but it can absorb other liquids. Non-kosher tzir is biblically forbidden, but tzir from non-kosher fish, or tzir of meat that is forbidden because of blood is of rabbinical origin. The practical difference would be in a case of doubt.

[19]        It seems that even a washing is not needed since they are not touching.

[20]        The Rema ruled over there that one should be stringent if the case is not one of a great loss.

Taz

(9)           In a case of doubt whether they were salted together or not, we should be stringent for it is a doubt of a biblical nature in which we always rules stringently.

(10)       This is the view of the Ran, that when touching, the salt of the kosher piece heats up the non-kosher piece, causing it to release juice that gets absorbed in the kosher piece. However, when they are apart, it is permitted. If the non-kosher piece is salty then it is forbidden even if they are far apart, because the tzir flows to the kosher piece.

4
(11) That in which we say that it is only forbidden to the extent of a klipah is dealing with cases where the pieces of meat are lean. However if one of them is fatty, [21] even if the non-kosher piece is lean and the kosher piece is fatty, the forbidden juice spreads throughout the meat [22] if the non-kosher salty piece was on the bottom. This is based on the rules of tatai gavar. [23] (See later on in section 105 how one should act.)

Shach

[21]        The reason is that the kosher piece spreads around the non-kosher piece.

[22]        But if the non-salty kosher piece was on the bottom, even if the non-kosher fatty piece is on top it does not disqualify the meat more than the klipah. However, if they are both lean it is still assur to the extent of the klipah.

[23]        It says over there that in a case of fatty meat, it makes no difference whether the salty piece is on top or bottom. It also says that we cannot properly differentiate between fatty and lean, and all these calculations should be against the sixty ratio.

Taz

(11) It is explained in section 105 that we are unable to differentiate between fatty and lean foods and all problems in cases involving salt should be measured against sixty.

5
[24] There are those who say that meat that was salted is forbidden to remain sitting in the salt after all its tzir has been released, which is after twelve hours. This is because it begins to absorb from the drops of blood that are upon it and on the salt, (12) There are also those that permit it to lay in its salt for even several days. Initially one should follow the stricter opinion. (12) but post facto it is permitted.

Shach

[24]        And we are not worried that the meat will absorb the salt that is upon it. It seems that the case here is dealing with meat in a vessel with holes in which the blood will flow away, therefore it is permitted, post facto. This is not similar to the case of Rashi in section 69 where we are stringent and require the klipah to be removed. There the reason is because the meat is in a vessel without holes in it, and is sitting in the tzir. Over here, there is no tzir since the meat is in a vessel with holes.

[25]        The reason is that now it does not release blood or tzir, it only absorbs.

Taz

(12)       The reason is because the blood flows away. Also because salted meat will release tzir forever and not absorb blood, for as the rules goes, once meat is releasing, it can not absorb.

(13)       And one need not worry that it will absorb from the salt that is upon it, for even according to those who rule stringently in the case of Rashi nevertheless they would agree that since there is no tzir here, one need not worry. In the case over there, the problem was because the vessel did not have holes and the meat was sitting in the tzir which absorbs along with the salt, into the meat.

6
There are those who forbid placing meat [25] that was not salted at all, [26] or that was salted and had released all of its blood, with already salted meat prior to its releasing of its blood. This is because the meat that wasn’t salted or that was salted and had already released all of its blood now absorbs what the other piece releases. [27] There are those who permit it if another salting will take place later since then it will release all of this newly absorbed blood. (14) [28] And there are those who permit it in any case. [29] Initially one should follow the stricter opinion.


 * Rema: (15) [30] Even post-facto we customarily forbid meat [31] that has released all of its blood and tzir and fell into meat that still did not complete the required salting time. Some say that meat can release tzir for an entire twenty four hour period after being salted. (16) [32] If during this time it touched meat that had not completed the required salting time period, the meat is not forbidden, and this is indeed the custom. [33] However, if there is no great loss it should be forbidden if it is after 12 hours, but before this time one need not be stringent at all, and surely if it had not been salted yet for even if it had fallen into actual tzir it wouldn’t be forbidden for we say [34] that when it releases it’s own blood, it will release anything else that it could have absorbed. Even if the meat has been salted but has not sat for the required salting time and fell into tzir [35] it may be permitted,[36] if it did not sit in the tzir for an entire day. [37] If it had sat for the entire salting time and then fell into tzir, some forbid it even though the releasing of tzir has not been completed. Nevertheless, in a case of great loss it may be permitted during the entire time that the meat releases tzir [38] which is twelve hours [39] if it is re-washed and salted. [40] If it fell into tzir [41] before the end of the required salting period re-wash and re-salt it. (18) [42] However, if it was salted without being washed after it had fallen into tzir [43] it is permitted post facto. All these cases are referring to tzir that has the status of roseiach as explained in section 69. but blood (dam b’eyn) that fell on meat [44] during the salting period that is considered roseiach as explained later on in section 91, causes the meat to be forbidden, for regarding this blood we don’t say that since the meat is now in the process of releasing blood, it will release this blood as well, nor do we say that “as it absorbed so will it release." (19) Regarding the case in which we forbid it when it fell into tzir is only true for the part that is actually in the tzir [45] but whatever is protruding from the tzir is permitted, [46] however (20) what is in the tzir becomes forbidden immediately.


 * Meat that fell into tzir that is on the ground [47] is as if it was in a vessel without holes.
 * Meat that touched a piece that was salted in a vessel without holes and became forbidden [48] has the same law as if it had touched tzir.
 * In a case of doubt of water or tzir, it is permitted, [49] for tzir is of rabbinical origin so in a case of doubt we are lenient.
 * Tzir mixed with water, [50] even with only a little water, is no longer considered roseiach and cannot cause meat to become forbidden.
 * For the laws of soaking see section 105.

Shach

[25]        The reason is because it no longer releases blood or tzir, it only absorbs.

[26]        This is if it was washed off thereby causing the pores to have closed. If it wasn’t washed, then even though it may have released all of its blood, it still does not absorb, for it is still releasing tzir. It may also be speaking of a case where all of the blood and tzir was released and the reason is because its pores have closed.

[27]        Meaning, that there are those who permit it with meat that has not been salted at all because when it is later salted it will release its own blood and it will also release other blood.

[28]        Those who permit it do so even with meat that was salted and has released all of its blood. Even in this instance it is permitted by salting it later.

[29]        Meaning that initially one should be careful not to place meat that has not been salted at all, or that was salted and has released all of its blood, with meat that is salted but did not conclude the required salting period. Post facto it is permitted. That in which the Mechaber and the Rema wrote regarding meat that was not salted and placed beside a salted piece or that fell to tzir and is permitted by washing and re¬-salting it, is dealing with meat that underwent the preliminary washing. If it did not then it is forbidden even post facto. The Maharshal and Bach ruled that our case can even be dealing with meat that did not undergo a primary washing, for the tzir only has the strength to absorb itself into the meat but not the blood upon it.

[30]        Even for roasting it is forbidden. The reason is that a piece of meat that has no tzir to expel is not subject to the rules of releasing. We do say k'bolo kach polto for meat that has tzir in a case of great loss according to the Rema. When it becomes forbidden, however, it becomes forbidden immediately.

[31]        This is the law even if it completed the required salting period and it was washed and then fell beside meat that did not conclude the required salting period: it is forbidden even post facto because the pores have closed and will now only absorb.

[32]        The reason is because as it releases tzir, it does not absorb, therefore it need not be salted a second time.

[33]        The Rema is to be followed. Therefore, after 12 hours it is forbidden unless there is a great loss. One should not follow the Maharshal who ruled that it may be permitted for up to 24 hours even without a great loss.

[34]        Meaning that when it is washed and re-salted it will release its own blood and the blood it absorbed.

[35]        Meaning that it should be washed and re-salted. The reason is that since it did not go through the required salting period it still has blood to expel, and then the principle that as it expels its own blood it will expel other blood as well applies.

[36]        Why did the Mechaber rule in section 105 that it is considered cooked if it soaked in tzir for as long as it takes water to boil, and here he says that the time is a whole day? It is because over there we are dealing with a different case such as kosher and non-kosher fish that was soaked together. However regarding meat, a whole day is required. Another possibility is because here we are dealing with a case of a vessel with holes, in which any other way would make it prohibited even post facto even according to the Rema. But in a vessel with holes all would agree that it would require a full day. This requires further study.

[37]        This is the view of the Maharshal. Even though in the case of meat salted on top of other meat that was already salted, one need not go back and re-salt it because we say that as long as it expels its tzir it won’t absorb and blood, it is not the same in a case where it fell into tzir. The Maharshal holds that re-washing and re-salting it won’t help. However, according to the Rema one should go back and re-wash and re-salt it, and if it was cooked without a second washing one can permit it in a case of great loss. According to everyone, if the meat was washed off, thus closing it's pores, and then falls into tzir, a second washing and salting won’t help, for now it absorbs the tzir

[38]        The reason is because during the first twelve hours we rule that it is releasing tzir even if it is not a case of great loss. So we can permit it in a case of great loss and say that as it expels its tzir it will expel blood as well. However, after twelve hours it is forbidden even in a case of great loss.

[39]        This washing requires great caution that it not be washed thoroughly, rather just enough to remove any dirt on its surface. If one is not careful, the pores will close since it is after the required salting time, We do not follow the Bach who rules that even a light washing will close its pores.

[40]        That is if it has room to flow, as in a vessel with holes. If it doesn’t have where to flow then even within the required salting period it is forbidden and another salting will not help. Even if the tzir has nowhere to flow, what protrudes from the tzir is nevertheless permitted, and what is in the tzir is forbidden.

[41]        Even the Rashal would agree over here that as it releases its own blood, it will release other blood, since it did not sit for the required salting period. Even if it was washed before it fell into the tzir, the pores don’t close because it hasn’t gone through the required salting period.

[42]        The Maharshal writes that even initially one need not re-wash it. Even those who want to be stringent need only pour a little water over it, for it already underwent the primary washing. The Rema would hold like this as well.

[43]        It is not similar to meat that was salted without a primary washing, for only regarding blood (b'eyn) do we say this since it is thick, but regarding tzir, which is similar to blood, we can say “as it absorbed, so will it release.”

[44]        However, after the required salting period it can be permitted in a case of a great loss or for a meal in honour of a mitzva, but if not, we rule that it is roseiach even after the required salting period,

[45]        The reason is because blood does not flow upwards. Even the part that is in the fatty tzir is permitted, and we don’t say that it flows upwards. One should just remove the klipah from what is sticking out of the tzir.

[46]        The view of the Rema should be followed that if it went through the required salting period and it is not a case of great loss, or if it is after twelve hours, it is forbidden and a second salting will not help even if a great loss is involved. Anything in the tzir becomes immediately forbidden.

[47]        It seems that we are dealing with a case of meat that fell onto the ground before the passage of the required salting time. Nevertheless, one need not be more stringent than to remove the klipah from the place where it touched the ground in the tzir. This is because we are unsure if the ground is considered to be a vessel with holes and may then be rectified with another salting, or if is considered a vessel without holes in which a second salting will not help. Furthermore, if meat that had already expelled all its blood fell into tzir that is on the ground, in which case it would absorb the tzir even in a vessel with holes, it therefore becomes forbidden. However, meat that wasn’t salted at all is permitted even if it fell into a vessel without holes because tzir can’t flow from place to place.

[48]        A salting will rectify it, and it will release it. Only meat that is in the process of being salted that fell into a vessel without holes is forbidden immediately. However this does not apply to meat that was never salted and then became mixed with salty pieces in a vessel without holes which can be made permissible by salting it,

[49]        Even though we ruled stringently regarding meat that fell into tzir that is on the ground as a precautionary measure (and of doubt) so that one will not come to be lenient in a case of meat that fell into blood that is on the ground. This is not the case here, rather the doubt is regarding the tzir, that it might not be present.

[50]        A small amount, meaning that there is not a ratio of sixty against the water, however we do require a majority against the tzir.

Taz

(14)       Even with regards to meat that had already expelled all its blood and tzir, we say that a second salting will cause the blood presently absorbed to be released. The first “there are those who permit” is referring to a case of meat that wasn't salted at all. The “those who forbid” at the beginning rule that salt can only expel its own blood but not blood absorbed from something else.

(15)       The reason is that it has nothing to expel, for it has already expelled all its blood.

It will only absorb what the next piece releases.

(16)       The reason that it is not forbidden is because as it releases its own blood, it will also release whatever it absorbed from the piece that was not salted. This is only if the meat was not washed after salting. However if it was washed off after its salting, then a second salting will not help to release its tzir since its pores are now closed up. This is only if it was washed after the required salting period, however if it was washed before the required salting period we do not say that the pores have been closed, and another salting will suffice. The Rema seems to rule over here that a washing does not close up the pores just as the Tur rules as well, but previously he ruled they did. It seems that if meat that has completed the required salting time fell into meat that is in the process of being salted, it is permitted because of the rule that “as it absorbed, so will it release." As it absorbed from the pieces it fell into, it will release it as it releases its own tzir. However, if it fell into tzir it is forbidden, even if the meat did not finish the process of salting and was in it for the amount of time that is considered as "cooking" to take effect. This is not as the Rashal who permitted the meat if it had not gone through the required salting time and fell into tzir and even remained in it for the length of time of “soaking”, if re-washed and salted. Rather, we follow the opinion that the amount of time to effect “soaking” is considered as “cooking" and another salting will not help.

(17)       The “entire day” measurement is actually a printing error. It should say “if it did not soak in it for the prohibition of ‘soaking’ to take effect,” If it did soak for this amount of time than it is forbidden even if it didn’t soak for a whole day. It seems that we are dealing with a case regarding a vessel with holes. For the purposes of halacha, the ruling should be that if it fell into tzir during the salting period but was immersed for less than the soaking’ period, one should re-wash and re-salt it. If not, it is forbidden and there is no way of permitting it. If the meat did conclude the salting period and fell into tzir, it becomes immediately forbidden for it is considered roseiach.

(18)       The reason is because it was washed before its first salting. One need not soak the meat in water, simply pouring water over it will suffice. We don’t say that it is like meat that was salted without its primary washing.

(19)       Meaning that it fell into tzir after it had already released all of its own tzir. That is, after an entire day, or after being washed off after been salted, or even if it is within twelve hours and is not a case of great loss which is forbidden according to the Rema.

(20)       Meaning after it sat the required salting time in a case in which a second salting will not help. For example: when there is no great need or loss. However, in a case where a second salting is permitted it only becomes forbidden if it sat for the 'soaking’ period regarding tzir, which is the time it takes water to boil.

סעיף א
מולחין הרבה חתיכות זו על גב זו אף על פי שהתחתונה גומרת פליטתה קודם לעליונה -- לא אמרינן שחוזרת ובולעת מדם העליונה לפי שהוא שוהא הרבה לפלוט ציר וכל זמן שפולטת צירה אינה בולעת. ואפילו מתקבץ הרבה ציר ועומד בגומא שבין החתיכות -- מותר.

במה דברים אמורים, במולח בשר עם בשר. ואפילו בשר שור עם בשר גדיים וטלאים. ואפילו עם עופות שאי אפשר להם לגמור כל פליטת צירן עד שיגמור בשר שור לפלוט את דמו.


 * הגה: ומכל מקום נוהגין להחמיר לכתחלה שכל חתיכה שיש לה בית קיבול כגון דופן שלימה -- מהפכין אותה שיזוב הדם. אבל בדיעבד אין לחוש (א"ו הארוך)   חתיכה שמלח אותה ב' פעמים -- מותרת, ולא חיישינן שמלח השני מבליע הדם הנשאר ממליחה הראשונה (פסקי מהרא"י סימן סז)

אבל בשר עם דגים -- אפילו בשר עופות עם דגים -- אסור למלוח, לפי שהדגים פולטים כל צירן קודם שיפלוט העוף את דמו. ואם עבר ומלחן יחד -- העופות מותרין אבל הדגים צריך ליטול מהם כדי קליפה. ואם לא ניטלו קשקשיהם כשנמלחו -- מותרים.


 * הגה: ויש אוסרין כל הדגים (ארוך כלל י"ג) אם אין ששים נגד העופות, דאנו משערין במליחה בששים. והכי נהוג. ודוקא דלית בהו קשקשים דרפו קרמייהו ופלטי מיד. אבל אי אית בהו קשקשים -- מותרים, דאינן פולטים מיד ולא בלעי מן העופות (הרא"ש ושם). דאיידי דטרידי לפלוט לא בלעי; מידי דהוי אשני חתיכות שנמלחו יחד.

סעיף ב
במה דברים אמורים כשמלח שניהם יחד או שהעוף מליח ודג תפל. אבל אם דג מליח ועוף תפל ונתנם זה אצל זה או זה על גב זה -- מותרים בלא קליפה.


 * הגה: וכן אם הדגים מונחים על העופות מותרים אפילו נמלחו יחד; דדם אינו מפעפע מלמטה למעלה ולא גרע מחתיכה המונחת בציר דמה שלמעלה מן הציר שרי (ארוך כלל י"ג.)   וכן אם לא הניח הדגים אצל העופות אלא לאחר ששהו העופות במלחן שיעור מליחה אף הדגים מותרים אף על פי ששניהם מלוחים (ד"ע. וכן משמע בארוך).


 * ואם נמלחו דגים בכלי שמלחו בו בשר -- הדגים מותרים דאין הדגים בולעים הדם שבכלי דאין מליחה לכלים (ב"י בשם רשב"א סימן קכט).


 * והא דאמרינן דאם הדג תפל והעופות מלוחים אסורים -- היינו דוקא שהדג פלט כבר דמו והודח. אבל אם עדיין לא פלט דמו ולא נמלח מעולם -- מותר, דאגב דיפלוט דם דידיה יפלוט גם כן הדם שבולע מן העופות (סברת עצמו. וכן משמע בארוך כלל י"ג בשם הסמ"ק). כמו חתיכה שנפלה לציר קודם מליחה דמותר מהאי טעמא כמו שיתבאר לקמן סימן זה. ועיין לקמן (סימן צא) באיזה מליחה אמרינן דהוי כרותח.

סעיף ג
בשר שחוטה שמלחו עם בשר טריפה, או שהטריפה מלוחה והכשירה תפלה, והם נוגעים זה בזה -- אסור כדי קליפה. שאף על פי שאינו בולע מדם הטריפה -- בולעת מצירה. אבל אם הכשירה מלוחה והטריפה תפלה -- מותרת בהדחה בלא קליפה; בין נתן כשירה למעלה בין נתנה למטה. ויש מי שאוסר בנוגעים זה בזה וסובר שלא הותרו אלא בעומדים בסמוך בכדי שפליטה של זה נוגעת בזה.


 * הגה: וכשהטריפה מלוח וכשר תפל אפילו בכהאי גוונא אסור. ועיין לקמן (סימן קה) מאלו דינים.

סעיף ד
הא דאמרינן דאינו אוסר אלא כדי קליפה -- היינו כששתיהן כחושות. אבל אם אחת מהן שמינה, אפילו אם חתיכת הטריפה כחושה וחתיכת הכשרה שמינה -- מפעפע האיסור בכולה אם היתה הטריפה המלוחה למטה משום דתתאה גבר. (ועיין לקמן (סימן קה) כיצד נוהגין)

סעיף ה
יש אומרים שבשר שנמלח אסור להשהותו במלחו לאחר פליטת כל צירו, דהיינו י"ב שעות, לפי שחוזר ובולע מלחלוחית דם שעליו ושעל המלח. ויש מתירים להשהותו במלחו אפילו כמה ימים. ולכתחלה יש לחוש לדברי האוסרים ובדיעבד מותר.

סעיף ו
יש אוסרים ליתן בשר שלא נמלח כלל או שנמלח ופלט כל דמו עם בשר שנמלח קודם פליטתו דם, לפי שהבשר שלא נמלח או שנמלח ופלט כל דמו חוזר ובולע ממה שחבירו פולט. ויש מתירים על ידי מליחה שימלחנו אחר כך, כי אז יפליט כל דם שבלע. ויש מתירים בכל זה. ולכתחלה יש לחוש לדברי האוסרים.


 * הגה: ואפילו בדיעבד נוהגין לאסרו אם נפל בשר שכבר פלט כל דמו וצירו אצל בשר שלא שהה עדיין שיעור מליחה (מהרא"י בהגהות ש"ש). ויש אומרים שכל מעת לעת לאחר שנמלח פולט ציר ואם נגע תוך זמן זה לבשר שנמלח ולא שהה עדיין שיעור מליחה אינו אוסר. וכן נוהגין (ש"ד בשם הגאונים ומהרא"י וסה"ת ומרדכי בשם ר"י).
 * אך במקום שאין הפסד מרובה יש לאסרו לאחר י"ב שעות. וקודם לזה אין להחמיר כלל. וכל שכן אם לא נמלח כלל דאפילו אם נפל לציר ממש אין לאסרו דאמרינן על ידי שיפלוט דם דידיה יפלוט גם כן מה שבלע ממקום אחר. ואפילו נמלח הבשר ולא שהה עדיין שיעור מליחה ונפל לציר -- יש להתיר (ארוך כלל ה) אם לא נכבש בתוכו יום שלם. אך אם שהה שיעור מליחה ונפל לציר יש אוסרים אותו אף על פי שלא כלה זמן פליטת צירו עדיין (רש"ל בא"ו שלו). ומכל מקום לצורך הפסד גדול יש להתיר גם בזה כל זמן פליטת צירו דהיינו תוך י"ב שעות על ידי שיחזור וידיחנו (הג"ה ש"ד) ויחזור וימלחנו.
 * וכן אם נפל לציר קודם ששהה שיעור מליחה -- ידיחנו ויחזור וימלחנו. מיהו אם מלחו בלא הדחה לאחר שנפל לציר -- שרי בדיעבד (ארוך כ"ה).
 * וכל זה לא מיירי אלא בציר שהוא כרותח כמבואר לעיל (סימן ס"ט). אבל דם בעין שנפל על בשר שהוא תוך שיעור מליחתו והיא חשוב כרותח כמבואר לקמן (סימן צא) -- נאסר הבשר; דלגבי דם בעין לא אמרינן איידי דטריד לפלוט לא בלע, ולא כבולעו כך פולטו (שם).
 * והא דאסרינן אותו כשנפל לציר היינו דוקא מה שבתוך הציר. אבל מה שלמעלה מן הציר שרי. מיהו מה שבתוך הציר נאסר מיד ואין שיעור לדבר.


 * בשר שנפל לתוך ציר שעל הקרקע -- דינה כאילו היתה הציר בכלי (ב"י בשם ש"ד ואו"ה שם).
 * בשר שנגע בחתיכה שנמלחה בכלי שאינו מנוקב ונאסרה -- דינה כאילו נגעה בציר (ד"ע).
 * ספק ציר ספק מים -- מותר, דציר דרבנן וספיקא להקל (מרדכי פכ"ה)
 * ציר מעורב עם מים, אפילו היו המים מועטים -- לא חשיבי עוד רותח ואינה אוסרת (ב"י בשם אגור).
 * דין כבוש עיין לקמן (סימן קה)


 * }