Probably it’s my short attention span, but I try not to get bogged down in a topic. My way of saying this is our last time studying Yoreh De’ah 91, meaning I am, by far, not covering it all. I don’t even do what I can, let alone what I should.

Salted Foods and Absorption

Starting at se’if twenty-two, the Gemara considered salted foods (heavily, although there is a debate about how much salt we mean) to mimic the function of heat somewhat. We do not say teta’ah gevar, the bottom one rules the top one, for the example we had been discussing, because heat produces steam, which rises, affecting the upper food. Salted foods emit a taste kedei kelipah, into the first peelable layer of the other food, regardless of position.

They do not change the other food, though. Nor does the salt stop absorption (different from meat salted in order to remove its blood; there, we say its focus on emission stops absorption, and even if it did re-absorb some blood, ke-vol’o kach polto, it will re-emit it. AH is limiting the idea to meat and blood). Based on this, if meat and cheese touch, both salted, both need kedei kelipah, peeling at the spot they touched. If only one were salted, the other needs to be peeled, washing is enough for the salted one.

Se’if 23-4 introduces some extra factors: were the meat salted to the point of being inedible, and then falls into a liquid, Rema thinks the two absorb from each other. With the milk, the kedei kelipah will spread throughout the liquid, there is no way to peel the one layer, and all the milk will be prohibited. Shach said it is because we do not say teta’ah gevar for salting, which AH took to mean that since the meat is salted, even though it fell into unsalted cold milk, there’s absorption. Rema thought salted foods cause real absorption, requiring full nullification, not just as a rabbinic worry.

How Much Salt?

To define the level of salting for these issues, we need to understand Chullin 112’s definition of meli’ach that counts as rotei’ach, hot. Tur cites several views: Rashi held it is how people salt food for storage (back when they didn’t have refrigeration), some say salted to last for a long trip, where Rabbenu Tam thought it was already enough if it was salted to cook in a pot, so it is not currently edible.

AH says Rabbenu Tam is the most accepted view, salting meat for roasting is not considered hot, but to cook it in a pot, where they apparently salted it more, the salt would have to be well washed after that for us to think it no longer conveys taste. With higher levels of salting, like for storage or a journey, the food would need to be soaked to stop its being considered hot and salted.

How Long?

Se’ifiim 27-30 wonder how long the salt continues its effect, as well as when it starts. Shach and Taz agreed salted kosher meat would have to be considered hot for days, in contrast to siman 69, where Rashi held that raw meat stopped being considered hot once it had been salted for enough time to remove the blood. AH resolves the conflict, Rashi said what he did because the salt there had used up its power to heat in removing the blood, the salt on already kosher food has nothing else to do.

Most views think the heat starts right away. Rema instead cites an opinion (Ran in the name of R. Yehudah al-Bartzeloni, of Barcelona) that the salt must have been on the meat for a shi’ur melichah, the time needed to remove the blood were this yet unkashered. It is surprising, because Rema himself had rejected that view back in siman 69. Shach thinks Rema agreed with Rashi about salt expending its energy to remove blood, but here, where it is not doing anything, it doesn’t even get started until it has been on the meat for that time.

AH isn’t satisfied, thinks we do not accept this view, we hold the salt begins acting right away and continues to act past the time it would have been on for blood-removal purposes.

The Juices

When salting causes juices to extrude (not blood, as this meat has already had its blood salted out of it), those juices are considered hot, despite the meat itself not being so, because the salt led to these juices coming out. (He seems to mean that whenever salt produces motion, those substances would be considered rotei’ach. If I’m right, it gives an interesting insight into the Talmudic phrase meli’ach ke-rotei’ach, salting is like boiling. Rather than meaning salt heats food, it could mean salt causes motion in particles similar to the motion caused by heat).

Here again, we encounter the debate about the power of salting. For those who held the salt only affects a kedei kelipah, the food on which the juices fell would need only be washed; for Rema and those who agree with him, that it needed sixty, here it would need netillat makom, the whole place would have to be dug out. Along the same lines, AH thinks if such juice fell on a pot or dish, the utensil would need hag’alah, boiling water in it to leech out whatever taste had been absorbed.

For clay pots, we usually do not accept hag’alah, although Peri Megadim suggested (AH quotes it in se’if 32) that if the juice fell on the outside, we could use it in cases of great need (because the absorption on the outside doesn’t go all the way through). Fattiness promotes greater spread of absorption with heat, but not for salted foods in pots and pans.

Although we often say irui, pouring hot water onto a food or surface, impacts a kedei kelipah, a pot which had had salted food in it requires hag’alah. The irui idea is a stringency, not a leniency.

Cold or Raw Meat

Se’ifim 33-36 review cold meat that falls into hot dairy. Shulchan Aruch accepted Rashi’s view, the meat needs only washing, even if it is cooked, and therefore softer than raw meat, and has grooves in it (that might expedite absorption). Rema adopted the view of Rosh and Semak, cold roasted meat needs a layer taken off, if it also had grooves and/or been spiced, it would all be prohibited. Rema did allow relying on Rashi in cases of hefsed merubah, great loss, telling AH Rema thought Rashi had captured the base halachic requirement, thought it better to be stringent for Rosh/Semak’s view.

[AH’s version assumes Rema couldn’t allow relying on Rashi’s view even in cases of monetary loss unless it was “really” correct. I could have imagined the idea of elu va-elu, all views held by competent halachic thinkers have some viability, would allow us to use a rejected view in she’at ha-dechak, situations of stress.

In this second version, which AH doesn’t seem to accept, we don’t think those are “really” the law, we think they have enough backing that if circumstances call for it we can rely on it. I know of rabbis who accept some conversions in certain situations they would not have in others.]

As always, more to say, but we will stop here, and start next time with the need for a woman’s consent to kiddushin, along with two valid witnesses.

Adapted from articles previously published on Torah Musings