Pesachim 74b — the Talmud in English

It drips continuously [

the blood flows out].

That is: When the pesah is hung in the oven, with the opening of its slaughtering-house below, the blood—which is in the legs and intestines that were placed inside it—is not absorbed into the pesah, but exits through the hollow of the neck and trickles through the slaughtering-house. Therefore, it is this that permits one to do so, and not because we say, “As it absorbs, so it emits.”

Let us say that this supports him,

Rabba, who said: “As it absorbs, so it emits,” from a Mishna in tractate Hullin:

For we learned:

The heart,

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

Therefore:

one cuts it open

before cooking it [that is, before roasting it, as it explains below],

and removes its blood.

And if

he did not cut it open

at first, then

he cuts it open

even

after its cooking, and it is permitted.

And it might have entered our minds that the intention is not literally that he should cut it open after cooking it in a pot; since if the heart were cooked while its blood was still inside it, it would absorb—through the cooking—from the blood gathered inside it, and cutting it open after cooking would not help to 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, for roasting too is called cooking. (10)

And since this is so, we support Rabba from it:

For indeed,

what is the reason

that cutting it open after roasting is effective, even though cutting it open is effective only for removing the blood that is still gathered inside 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—

did it not happen

because we say that

at the time of roasting

as it absorbs

the blood gathered inside it,

so it emits it?!

We see, then, that we say, “As it absorbs, so it emits,” in accordance with Rabba’s position.

And we reject this: From the Mishna in Hullin it cannot be proven that we say, “As it absorbs, so it emits,” because the heart does not absorb at all from the blood gathered 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—for it does not absorb at all.

And 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, in fact, what they said in the Mishna, “after its cooking,” is even literally after its cooking, and this is what it says: Even if they did not cut it open initially, and salted it in order to remove from the heart the blood absorbed in it, like the other organs, and cooked it in a pot, the heart is permitted through cutting it open, since no blood from the blood gathered inside it was absorbed into the walls of the heart.

We further support him, Rabba:

But Ravin the Elder stuffed that young bird [

which was not salted; this is the opinion of all the commentators except Rambam]

for Rav [

he rolled a small young bird in dough before it was salted, for Rav] and baked it in an oven.

And Rav said to him,

Rav to Ravin the Elder:

If your stuffing is good [

if the pastry you made is tasty],

give it to me and I will eat [

give it to me and I will eat from it].

We see, then: Even though the blood of the young bird was absorbed into the dough, we say, “As it absorbs the blood, so it emits it” through the heat of the oven, which is in accordance with Rabba.

And we reject this: From

that

pastry it cannot be proven, because its stuffing was

with semida [

dough made of fine flour],

which crumbles [

it crumbles, from the expression “crumbs”], and it does not adhere well to the young bird but crumbles; consequently, the blood exits from it through the fire [Tur, Yoreh Deah, section 78].

But concerning other things into which blood was absorbed, it may be said that the blood does not exit from them through the fire.

And now we prove from Rava that he does not hold like Rabba, who says, “As it absorbs, so it emits”:

But Rava once came to the house of the exilarch [

he was a guest at the exilarch’s],

and they made for him a pastry with a duckling [

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

Rava said:

:

Had I not seen it clear like white glass [

that it was clear like white glass, Rashi],

I would not have eaten from it. [

Had I not seen, by the appearance of the meat juices that flowed inside the dough, that they were clear and contained no redness of blood, I would not have eaten from it.]

It follows that Rava did not rely on the dough’s expulsion of 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 holds that we say

“As it absorbs, so it emits,”

then:

Why specifically when it is clear [

why did they permit it specifically when he saw that it was clear]?

For

even when it is not clear, also

he should have permitted it.

And necessarily, Rava does not hold like Rabba.

And we reject this: In fact, Rava holds that we say, “As it absorbs, so it emits.”

Rather,

there

it is speaking

of

white

flour [

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

that is firm [

that the dough is hard], and it does not emit even according to the one who says, “As it absorbs, so it emits.”

And the Gemara concludes,

and the halakha is:

A. A meat pastry

of semida [

stuffed with semolina]:

whether it becomes red [

the juices inside the dough became red], or

whether

it

does not become red, it is permitted, since, as the blood certainly exits through roasting, this redness of the juices is necessarily not blood.

b. Meat pastry

B. A meat pastry

of white flour [

stuffed with clean flour, which is not semolina]: Even if it contains no appearance of redness at all [Beit Yosef, section 78],

if it is clear like white glass [

the appearance of the juices is clear like white glass, and in the wording of the Tur, “pure as silver”],

it is permitted.

But if not, it is forbidden.

C. A meat pastry

of other flours: If it becomes red [

the appearance of the juices in the dough became red],

it is forbidden, and if

it

does not become red, it is permitted.

And now we return to the law of mulyata [unsalted meat that is placed inside lambs or chickens and roasted]:

This mulyata:

The one who forbids it [Abaye above, on the first side] holds:

[Abaye, earlier on page 74a] holds that

even if its mouth [

its mouth, that is, the open side of the mulyata] is

below [

facing downward] at the time of roasting, it is forbidden, and we do not say that the blood issuing from the stuffing flows downward through its mouth and is not absorbed into the outer meat.

And the one who permits the mulyata [Rabba, above, on the first side] holds:

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

Even if the mouth

of the mulyata is

above [

facing upward] at the time of roasting, it is also permitted, since we do not need to permit it because the blood flows outward through its mouth; rather, even if the blood is absorbed into the outer meat, it is expelled through the fire, for “as it absorbs, so it emits.”

And the halakha is: mulyata is permitted even when its mouth is above,

because we say, “As it absorbs, so it emits,” in accordance with Rabba.

With regard to these three things, which are:

meat, eggs, and blood vessels [

it explains them below],

Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed about them!

And although

throughout the entire Torah

where Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed, and it was not explained in the Gemara which of them is lenient and which stringent, hold this rule in your hand:

Rav Aha

is the one who proceeds

stringently, while

if

Ravina

proceeds

leniently.

And likewise, hold this rule in your hand:

The halakha follows Ravina leniently.

This applies in other places,

apart from these three [

apart from the three matters mentioned],

for Rav Aha

in these three matters is the one who rules

leniently.

While

if

Ravina

rules

stringently.

And

in all three of them,

the halakha follows Rav Aha leniently.

And now we explain their disagreement concerning these three matters.

At first the Gemara explains the law of each of these three, and in what all agree, and afterward it explains in what they disagree:

Meat:

This meat [

a piece of meat]

that has become red [

that has reddened], which is exceedingly red and it is evident that the blood has clotted inside it, and it results from a blow that the animal received while alive [Rosh, chapter 7 of Hullin, section 11], has the following law:

A. If one intends to eat it like other meat, to salt it and place it in a pot, it is forbidden to do so, since, because the blood has clotted, it has no opening through which to exit the meat by salting [Tur and Meiri].

B. And if

he cut

the meat, making many cuts in it in order to make openings for the blood to exit [Tur],

and salted it, [

he salted it with salt],

even to

place it in a

pot is permitted.

C. And if

he skewered it on a spit [

the version in Hullin 93b is

“he hung it”

and not “he skewered it”], hanging it on a spit inside the oven to roast,

it is permitted

even without cutting and without salting, because the clotted blood

drips continuously [

it flows out from it]. Since it is hanging, it is properly permitted [Rashi, Hullin].

D. And if

he placed it on coals [

he placed it upon coals to roast it],

Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed about it.

One [

Ravina, as we said above]

forbids, and one [

Rav Aha]

permits.

And we explain their disagreement:

The one who forbids,

his reason is because

it seals tightly:

the coals seal the blood in the meat, and it does not expel its blood; rather, it is roasted inside it, and it is forbidden [Rashi, Hullin].

And the one who permits,

his reason is because

it draws out:

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

Eggs:

Likewise,

the same law and disagreement apply to

eggs [

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

A. If one comes to eat them through salting and cooking like other meat, it is forbidden, since the blood has clotted, as was explained concerning meat [Meiri].

B.

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

the eggs are permitted].

C.

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

because

the blood drips continuously

from them.

D. And if

he placed them on coals, Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed about it; one [

Ravina]

forbids, and one [

Rav Aha]

permits.

And we explain it as above:

The one who forbids,

because he holds

that it seals tightly; and the one who permits,

because he holds

that it draws out.

Blood vessels:

Likewise,

the same law and disagreement apply to

blood vessels [

thick cords, which are the veins in the slaughtering-house, Rashi].

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

B.

If he cut

the cords

and salted them, they are permitted even for a pot.

B.

Hanging them on a spit, with

the slaughtering-house

below [

facing downward], so that there will be a place for the blood to flow,

is permitted, because

it

drips continuously,

the blood flowing through the slaughtering-house.

However, concerning the preparation of the blood vessels through roasting on a spit, the early authorities disagreed: Some say that they are permitted without cutting, and this is the ruling in the Shulhan Arukh.

And some say that even when one roasts them, they are not permitted without cutting [this opinion is cited in the Tur, section 65, and it is also the method of Tosafot in Hullin 93a. They wrote that this is also Rashi’s opinion].

C. And if

he placed them on coals, Rav Aha and Ravina disagreed; one forbids and one permits. The one who forbids,

because he holds

that it seals tightly, and the one who permits,

because he holds

that it draws out.

This piece of meat that reddened

[meat that reddened because of a wound and was roasted, Meiri, see note]:

Even though it is permitted to eat the meat, as was explained above, nevertheless

its juice

[its red liquid, which comes out and flows from it],

is forbidden. "

For since the blood is collected, it is impossible that there is not still blood there" [Meiri in the name of some interpreters, and apparently his intention is to Rashi].

But if

it did not redden,

then

its juice is permitted,

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

Ravina said

he disputes:

Even if it did not redden as well,

then

its juice is forbidden,

and because

it is impossible that there not be

streaks of blood in it,

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

Mar bar Amemar said to Rav Ashi: Father

[Amemar]

would gulp it down in gulps,

he would customarily gulp down the liquid that came out of a piece of meat that had not reddened, because he held like the one who says that its juice is permitted.

Some say: Rav Ashi himself

[himself]

would gulp it down in gulps.

Mar bar Amemar said to Rav Ashi:

Father

[Amemar] was accustomed:

this vinegar

[vinegar]

in which he blanches

[placing meat in vinegar is called blanching]

in it

meat

once

[in which he blanched meat one time],

he would no longer blanch in it

[he would not blanch in it a second time], because there is no longer any strength in the vinegar.

The early authorities disputed the interpretation of this: According to Rashi:

Blanching in vinegar is after roasting, in order to extract its blood.

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

The blanching is with raw meat, for according to the law of the Gemara [Hullin 111a], once they have blanched it 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].

And we objected to it: Is that so?

What is the difference

between vinegar whose strength has weakened because they blanched in it once,

and weak vinegar

[vinegar that was weak from the outset]

in which we blanch

[it is permitted to blanch in it]?!