Pesachim 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

The blood drips [

it drips from it].

That is: When the Pesah offering is suspended in the oven, with the opening of its slaughtering place facing downward, the blood in the legs and intestines that were placed inside it is not absorbed into the Pesah offering. Rather, it exits through the hollow of the neck and trickles through the slaughtering place. Therefore, this is why it is permitted to do so, and not because we say: whatever absorbs, emits in the same manner.

Let us say that this supports him

Rabba, who said: “Whatever absorbs, emits in the same manner,” from a Mishna in tractate Hullin:

As we learned:

The heart,

since it contains pooled blood, which collects inside it at the time of slaughter, because the animal groans then, and the heart draws in the blood outside it and becomes filled with it, this blood does not leave the heart either through salting, as with other meat, or through roasting [according to Meiri].

Therefore:

One cuts it open

before cooking it [that is, before roasting it, as the Gemara proceeds to explain],

and removes its blood.

And if

he did not cut it open

at the outset, he

cuts it open

even

after cooking it, and it is permitted.

And it might have been thought that the statement is not to be understood literally, as meaning that he should cut it open after cooking it in a pot. For if the heart were cooked while its blood was still inside it, it would absorb, through the cooking, some of the blood pooled inside it, and cutting it open after cooking would not help remove the blood absorbed into the heart.

Rather, it is necessarily the case that what we learned—“he cuts it open after its ‘cooking’”—means after its roasting, since roasting too is called cooking. (\10)

And since this is so, we can use it to support Rabba:

For indeed,

what is the reason

that cutting it open after roasting is effective, even though cutting it open helps only to remove the blood that is still pooled in the heart, and not the blood that was absorbed from it into the walls of the heart through the heat of roasting?

Is it not,

does this not mean

because we say that

when roasting,

whatever absorbs

the blood pooled inside it

emits it in the same manner?!

We see, then, that we say “whatever absorbs, emits in the same manner,” in accordance with Rabba’s view.

The Gemara rejects this: The Mishna in Hullin cannot prove that we say “whatever absorbs, emits in the same manner,” because the heart does not absorb anything at all from the blood pooled inside it, for

the heart is smooth

[it is smooth] and does not absorb. Therefore, it is permitted, and not because the fire expels what was absorbed in it, since it does not absorb at all.

Since we say that the heart is smooth and does not absorb, we no longer need to say that “its cooking” means “its roasting,” as we initially thought.

Rather, the statement in the Mishna, “after its cooking,” is indeed to be understood literally, and this is what it says: Even if they did not cut it open at the outset, but salted it in order to remove from the heart the blood absorbed in it, as with other organs, and cooked it in a pot, the heart is permitted by cutting it open, since no blood from that pooled inside it was absorbed into the walls of the heart.

We can further use this to support Rabba:

But Ravin the Elder kneaded that young bird

[which had not been salted; this is the view of all the commentators except Rambam]

for Rav

[he rolled a small bird in dough before salting it, for Rav] and baked it in an oven.

And Rav said to him,

to Ravin the Elder:

If your pastry is good

[if the pastry you made is tasty],

give me some and I will eat

[give it to me and I will eat some of it].

We see, then, that although the bird’s blood was absorbed into the dough, we say: Just as the dough absorbed the blood, it emits it through the heat of the oven, which is in accordance with Rabba.

The Gemara rejects this: From

that pastry one cannot prove this, since its dough was kneaded

pastry there is no proof, since it had been smeared with

with semida

[semolina dough],

which crumbles

[it breaks apart, from the language of “crumbs”], and does not adhere well to the bird but crumbles. Consequently, the blood leaves it through the fire [Tur, Yoreh De’ah, section 78].

But with regard to other substances into which blood was absorbed, it may be said that the blood does not leave them through the fire.

Now we seek to prove from Rava that he does not accept Rabba’s view, that whatever absorbs emits in the same manner:

But Rava happened to be at the house of the Exilarch

[he was a guest at the Exilarch’s],

and they made pastry for him from a duck

[they made him pastry from a small duck that had not first been salted], and

Rava said

:

Had I not seen that it was clear like a white zuz

[clear like white glass, Rashi],

I would not have eaten from it.

[Had I not seen that the meat juices running into the dough were clear, without any reddish appearance of blood, I would not have eaten from it.]

Thus, Rava did not rely on the dough’s expelling the blood through the fire unless he saw with his own eyes that there was no redness of blood there.

And if it should enter your mind

that Rava held that we say

whatever absorbs, emits in the same manner,

then:

Why specifically when it is clear

[why did he permit it only when he saw that it was clear]?

For

even if it was not clear, it should also have been permitted

to him.

It must be, then, that Rava does not agree with Rabba.

The Gemara rejects this: Rava does indeed hold that we say “whatever absorbs, emits in the same manner.”

Rather,

there

the case involved

white

flour,

which is fine flour

[clean flour like ours, which is not semolina, Rashi],

and firm

[the dough was hard], and it does not emit blood even according to the one who says “whatever absorbs, emits in the same manner.”

And the Gemara concludes,

and the halakha is:

a. Meat pastry

made with semida

[kneaded with semolina]:

Whether the liquid becomes red

[the juices inside the dough become reddish], or

whether

they

do not become red, it is permitted, since the blood certainly leaves through roasting; necessarily, this redness of the juices is not blood.

b. Meat pastry

B. Regarding a meat pastry made with

made with white flour

[kneaded with clean flour, not semolina]: Even if there is no reddish appearance at all [Beit Yosef, section 78],

if it is clear like a white zuz

[the juices have a clear appearance like white glass; in the Tur’s wording, “pure like silver”],

it is permitted.

And if not, it is forbidden.

c. Meat pastry

made with other flours: If it becomes red

[the juices in the dough become reddish],

it is forbidden, but if

it

does not become red, it is permitted.

And now we return to the law of mulyata [unsalted meat placed inside lambs or chickens, which are then roasted]:

This mulyata:

The one who forbids

it [Abaye, above on page 74a] holds that

even if its opening

[its mouth, meaning the open side of the mulyata] is

downward

[facing downward] during roasting, it is forbidden. We do not say that the blood exiting the filling flows downward through its opening and is not absorbed into the outer meat.

And the one who permits

the mulyata [Rabba, above on page 74a] holds:

Even if the opening

of the mulyata is

above

[facing upward] during roasting, it is nevertheless permitted. We need not permit it because the blood flows outward through its opening; rather, even if the blood is absorbed into the outer meat, it is expelled by the fire, for whatever absorbs emits in the same manner.

And the halakha is: Mulyata is permitted even when its opening is above,

because we say: Whatever absorbs emits in the same manner, in accordance with Rabba’s view.

With regard to these three matters, namely:

raw meat, eggs, and veins

[the Gemara explains each below],

Rav Aha and Ravina disagree about them!

Although

throughout the entire Torah,

when Rav Aha and Ravina disagree and the Gemara does not clarify which of them is lenient and which stringent, you should adopt this principle:

Rav Aha

is the one who follows

the stringent position, while

if

Ravina

follows

the lenient position.

Likewise, adopt this principle:

The halakha follows Ravina in leniency.

This applies in other places,

apart from these three

[apart from the three matters mentioned],

for with regard to Rav Aha,

in these three matters it is he who rules

leniently.

While

if

Ravina

rules

stringently,

and

in all three

the halakha follows Rav Aha in leniency.

The Gemara now explains their dispute concerning these three matters.

At first, the Gemara explains the law of each of the three, and the point concerning which everyone agrees; afterward it explains the matter of their dispute:

Raw meat:

This raw meat

[a piece of meat]

that has become red

[that has reddened], being extremely red, so that it is evident that the blood has congealed within it, caused by an injury sustained by the animal while alive [Rosh, chapter 7 of Hullin, section 11], has the following law:

a. If one intends to eat it as ordinary meat, by salting it and placing it in a pot, it is forbidden to do so, since, because the blood has congealed, it has no outlet through which it can leave the meat by salting [Tur and Meiri].

b. But if

he cut it

open, making many cuts in the meat to create outlets for the blood [Tur],

and salted it,

[salted it with salt],

even to

place it in a

pot, it is permitted.

c. And if

he skewered it on a spit

[the version in Hullin 93b is

“suspended” rather than “he skewered it”], suspending it on a spit inside the oven to roast it,

rather than “skewered,” meaning that he hung it on a spit inside the oven to roast it], it is

it is permitted

even without cutting or salting, because the congealed blood

drips from it

[it flows out of it]. Since it is suspended, this is effective [Rashi, Hullin].

d. And if

he placed it on the coals

[he placed it on top of coals to roast it],

Rav Aha and Ravina disagree about it.

One

[Ravina, as stated above]

forbids, and one

[Rav Aha]

permits.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

The one who forbids

does so because

the coals seal

the blood in the meat; they seal it in place, preventing its blood from leaving, and it is roasted within it, which is forbidden [Rashi, Hullin].

And the one who permits

does so because

the coals draw it out:

the coals draw the blood from the meat, and it is permitted.

Eggs:

Likewise,

the same law and dispute apply to

eggs

[the testicles of a male animal] that have become red [Rashi].

a. If one comes to eat them by salting and cooking them like ordinary meat, it is forbidden, since the blood has congealed, as was explained with regard to raw meat [Meiri].

b.

If he cut them and salted them, they are permitted even for a pot

[the eggs are permitted].

c.

If he suspended them on a spit, they are permitted,

because

the blood drips from them

and leaves them.

d. And if

he placed them on the coals, Rav Aha and Ravina disagree about it; one

[Ravina]

forbids, and one

[Rav Aha]

permits.

The Gemara explains it as above:

The one who forbids

does so because he holds

that the coals seal it; and the one who permits

does so because he holds

that the coals draw it out.

Veins:

Likewise,

the same law and dispute apply to

veins

[thick cords, which are the veins in the slaughtering place, Rashi].

a. If one comes to eat them by salting and cooking them, it is forbidden, because the blood pooled in the veins is not expelled through salting.

b.

If he cut it

into cords

and salted it, it is permitted even for a pot.

b.

Suspension on a spit, with

the

slaughtering place below

[facing downward], so that there is a place for the blood to flow,

is permitted, because

the blood

drips out,

flowing through the slaughtering place.

The early authorities nevertheless disagree concerning the preparation of the veins by roasting them on a spit. Some say that they are permitted without cutting, and this is the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh.

Others say that even when they are roasted, they are not permitted without cutting [this view is cited in the Tur, section 65, and is also the approach of Tosafot in Hullin 93a. They wrote that this was also Rashi’s view].

c. And if

he placed them on the coals, Rav Aha and Ravina disagree: one forbids and one permits. The one who forbids

does so because he holds

that the coals seal it, and the one who permits

does so because he holds

that the coals draw it out.

This piece of meat that became red [a piece of meat that became red because of a blow and was roasted; Meiri, and see note]:

For although it is permitted to eat the meat, as explained above, nevertheless

its liquid [its red juice, which emerges and drips from it],

is forbidden. "

Because, since the blood is concentrated within it, it is impossible that some blood does not still remain there" [Meiri in the name of some commentators, apparently referring to Rashi].

But if

it did not become red,

then

its liquid is permitted

since it has reached the measure of roasting, from this point onward it is merely fat [Meiri].

Ravina said

he disagrees:

Even if it did not become red as well,

then

its liquid is forbidden,

because

it is impossible that there are not

blood streaks in it, [moisture of blood; Ran, Hullin 31b in the pages of the Rif].

[moisture of blood, Ran, Hullin 31b in the pages of the Rif].

Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Abba [

Ameimar]

would sip it repeatedly,

he would customarily sip the juice that emerged from a piece of meat that had not become red, for he held in accordance with the one who says that its liquid is permitted.

Some say: Rav Ashi himself [

himself]

would sip it repeatedly.

Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi:

Abba [

Ameimar] was accustomed:

This vinegar [

vinegar]

in which he steeped [

the soaking of meat in vinegar is called ḥalita]

it

meat

once, [

in which he had steeped meat one time],

he would no longer steep meat in it [

he would not steep meat in it a second time], because the vinegar no longer had any strength.

The early authorities disagreed in their interpretation. According to Rashi:

The steeping in vinegar takes place after roasting, in order to extract its blood.

The Ran in Hullin [31b in the pages of the Rif] explains:

The steeping refers to raw meat, since according to the law of the Gemara [Hullin 111a], once it has been steeped in vinegar, the vinegar congeals the meat so that the blood will not be extracted from it. It is permitted to cook it without salting [Derisha, end of section 67], since as long as the blood has not been extracted from it, it is permitted [because “blood of the limbs,” meaning blood that has not separated from its place, is permitted, even rabbinically].

We challenged this: Is that so?

What difference is there

between vinegar whose strength has weakened because meat was steeped in it once

and weak vinegar [

vinegar that was weak from the outset]

in which we steep meat [

it is permitted to steep meat in it]?!