Monday, June 15, 2009

Siman 69, Halacha 19

I was wondering this afternoon, "What in the world shall I write about for tonight's post?" A few minutes later I learned the following Halacha, and I knew that my question had been answered.

Tur Shulchan Oruch: The Rambam writes that even after meat has been properly salted it's necessary to put it in boiling water before cooking it in order that all the blood remaining inside the meat will be "sealed in" and won't come out afterwords.

(The Rambam is concerned that the remaining blood in the meat will come out when the meat is cooked. If the blood is "sealed in" then the meat is kosher, because any blood remaining inside is kosher [It's generally not known {except by those who happen to be learning smicha} that meat does not have to be salted in order to be kosher. As long as all visible blood is washed off the meat it's permissible to take a bite, right then, right there. However, in order to be able to cook the meat it must be salted.])

The Tur writes that we don't have this custom (to put the meat in boiling water after salting), because once it's undergone proper salting we assume that there's no blood remaining inside the meat.

The Beis Yosef writes that since many argue with the Rambam we don't hold like him, but if it's possible to follow his words than it's good to.

Shulchan Oruch: After meat has been salted and washed it's permitted to put it even into water that is not boiling, and some require that it be put into boiling water. The Ramah says that the minhag is like the first opinion, which is the primary opinion.

The Shach, after explaining all that I said previously, says that any liquid which comes out of the meat after it's been salted is just juice, even if it's red in color.

52 comments:

e said...

What would you do if you needed a fourth level of nested parens?

e said...

(Subscribing [These brakets are a pain {i'm on my phone.}])

The Real Shliach said...

|?|

C said...

e-I'm having trouble understanding your first comment, as well as trouble understanding why you need parentheses at all?

(I have nothing to comment on the actual post.)

sarabonne said...

Well that's nice. Glad I'm not a shochet.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

I remember being surprized by a similar sugya in the seventh chapter of Pesah'im.

During my working in a slaughterhouse I noticed some people liked to munch on the hanging tenders after their removal from the cow (since they're still warm). I always thought it'd probably be assur for me to munch on them as well, but I guess I was mistaken about there being a blood issue..

About the liquid just being "juice", I always felt that that's just a benign way of phrasing it, but that it's obvious that it is in fact blood.

Crawling Axe said...

During my working in a slaughterhouse I noticed some people liked to munch on the hanging tenders after their removal from the cow (since they're still warm).

On raw ones?

About the liquid just being "juice", I always felt that that's just a benign way of phrasing it, but that it's obvious that it is in fact blood.

1) Or, it could be myoglobin (not to be confused with its cousin, hemoglobin, present in blood cells; function of both is to transfer oxygen) making it literally meat juice. When muscles damage and cells rupture, myoglobin comes out.

2) If Torah says it’s not blood, then it’s not blood. As in all cases, Torah is not a science (history, warfare, politics) book. It’s a book of law. “Blood” (just like insects, kashrus or Shabbos) is a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one.

[Here was a long post about importance of learning nistar together with nigleh, but TRS deleted it because it was too offensive.]

Crawling Axe said...

Here, read this: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-05/957733677.Bc.r.html

It’s a bit goyish (literally and figuratively), but the part that needs explaining it explains.

e said...

C: I was asking trs what he would do if he needed a fourth level of nested parens, seeing that he ably does up to three.

The second comment was just to subscribe, but for fun I put in some parens.

e said...

Every time I see my profile pic, I'm flooded with gratitude for CA!!

Crawling Axe said...

In Russia, instead of brackets, they sometimes use < these >.

(Of course, everyone knows that Russian «quotations marks» and „nested quotations marks“ are much cooler than American ones, but that’s beside the point.)

e said...

cool=a matter of opinion.

Crawling Axe said...

As anyone knows, taste is objective.

You welcome.

Modeh B'Miktsas said...

<>are called chevrons.

The Real Shliach said...

Sara: what does this have to do with shechita? Back in the day regular housewives did this shtuff!

Shriki: yup, as long as they were washed and the animal was kosher...

CA: what did I delete?

e said...

@trs #sara back in the day they used to.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

CA: Yeah, raw..

Thanks for the link and the clarification man, sometimes I'm amazed at how ignorant I am of the most basic things.

And I'm not sure what you're saying in "2)". I suppose you mean that "blood" in this context is not the physical definition of blood, but rather the "legal". that's what I was saying..?

The Real Shliach said...

e: if you're going to use twitted notation then it behooves you to use twitter!

Shriki: there are two different things here. The first is that there are two different types of blood-external and internal. External blood is prohibited. Internal blood is fully permitted to be eaten-that's why you can eat totally raw meat, once it's been washed, of course.

The second concept here is of mohel, the liquid that comes out after meat has been salted. This is not blood at all-it's the meat's liquid. It too is, of course, totally kosher, even if it's red.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Right. Halachically. The only question was is there really any physical distinction between them.

Crawling Axe said...

There is a difference between sacroplasm and blood. But my point was: all the phenomena in Torah are spiritual. Physical objects or phenomena are only vessels for them. So, Shabbos is not really a time period that starts on a sun...down?..set? (always confuse the two). It’s a spiritual phenomenon, for which the specific time (or whatever physical events) are simanim. So, if Torah tells you that in certain circumstances, Thursday afternoon is a start of Shabbos, then it is so, even though it makes no sense astronomically.

sarabonne said...

e-what's that you're trying to say?

The Real Shliach said...

Sara: he's trying to say that you don't have to know this shtuff.

e said...

You said you're glad you don't need to deal with this stuff, b/c you're not a shochet. TRS pointed out that back in the day even simple housewives knew this stuff. I pointed out that back in the day they needed to, but today they don't. So your assertion that your non-shochet career choice exempts you from knowing this stuff is valid.

sarabonne said...

Oh, excellent.

The Real Shliach said...

Yup, we're lucky to be living nowadays. Aside from the lack of salting knowledge required for housewomen, there's also the small matter that most places have ceased stinking to the highest of heavens.

le7 said...

Yum.

The Real Shliach said...

What's yum?

{and yes, I know that was a "subscribing..." comment, but for some reason I want to continue the conversation with you :)}

C said...

le7-You must be really hungry!

TRS-another "aaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww" moment!

le7 said...

The pasta Sarabonne made me. (I do feel awful about standing up Raiza and everyone today...)

Crawling Axe said...

And suddenly TRS’s comment section turns into a minefield.

The Real Shliach said...

C: re: hungry: why, rare steaks are very popular.
re: moi+le7: I try.

le7: you're forgiven.

CA: how so?

Crawling Axe said...

TMI.

C said...

With some that is true. I have not yet developed a proper taste for raw meat.

The Real Shliach said...

CA: eh?

C: hufuch bah v'hufuch bah...

Crawling Axe said...

Just from my point of view. I am sure others disagree.

The Real Shliach said...

Ahh. Right. For example, I think it's quite entertaining.

Crawling Axe said...

But this time it’s not about you, is it? Remember the story with Shach?

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Man, you guys are so concerned about people giving "the rebbe" a proper title, and you won't even call one of the great Talmudic minds of our day "rav"..

Crawling Axe said...

There was only one Shach in the history of Jewish people worth talking about.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

Ha. Yeah, I had a hunch you were talking about the Shach as in 'siftei cohen', but your comment still goes to show that you're not "gores" rav shach.

I mean, just because he didn't like the Lubavicher Rebbe doesn't mean he's not a rav, you know what I mean?

Crawling Axe said...

A lot of people did not like the Rebbe. The person that you are talking about went beyond that. He does not deserve the virtual ink that I am wasting right now on replying to that. There are not many occasions when I call myself a chossid of the Rebbe, since I feel I don’t deserve that title. Nevertheless, this is one.

The Real Shliach said...

CA: I don't remember which story you're talking about. Please expound.

Shriki: We don't not like Eliezer Man because he didn't like the Rebbe; we don't like him because he said terrible things about the Jewish people.

Crawling Axe said...

He had a financial argument with a Jew in some French (or German) town, and they went to Beis Din. The rav of the Beis Din was arguing with Shach (who, I think, was incognito), and Shach was presenting argument after argument against the rav’s arguments. Eventually the rav said: “Obviously you are a much greater talmud chochom than me, but here is a book published by an even greater chochom [and here he took out Shach’s own book which Shach had just recently written], and in here he describes a situation just like yours, and he rules against you.”

I.e., when Shach had to rule about himself, he was biased and could not rule objectively (or something more ruchniyusdik and eideleh — like with Noideh B’Yehuda story or the like).

Modeh B'Miktsas said...

You hate the late shach because he said bad things about your rebbe. I dislike him because he could have stopped the car-stonings in bnei brak and didn't.

Crawling Axe said...

Hate another Jew? Chv"sh. I ignore him.

The Real Shliach said...

CA: Right, I do recall.

Modeh: Hate is a strong word. But it's probably apropos in this situation.

CA: At this point it's not hard to do that.

הצעיר שלמה בן רפאל לבית שריקי ס"ט said...

CA: "Talmid" chacham.

It's relatively unlikely the Shach had an argument with a Jew in a French town.

e said...

CA, I don't know about you, but most Lubavitchers hate him. As far as I know, there are only two people whom chabad calls "oso ha'ish": Rav Shach and Jesus Christ.

Crawling Axe said...

Just because most Lubavitchers will spend extra time in hell for hating another Jew doesn’t mean I should.

The Real Shliach said...

Who is spending time in hell for hating him? It's a mitzvah!

e said...

TRS, you're joking, but some people take this "mitzvah" very seriously.

The Real Shliach said...

afilu poshei yisroel milayim mitzvos k'rimon