Talmud - Pesahim 74b פסחים ע״ד ב׳

the blood flows out. However, in the case of regular stuffing, which is closed on all sides, there is no way for the blood to drain.

The Gemara suggests further: Let us say that the following mishna supports him: With regard to the heart of an animal, one must tear it and remove its blood before one roasts or cooks it. And if he did not tear it beforehand, he tears it after it is cooked, i.e., roasted, and it is permitted. What is the reason the heart is permitted although there is presumably still blood inside? Is it not because we say that as it absorbs it, so it emits it, and therefore as the heart is roasted the blood is absorbed in the meat and then discharged, so that no blood is left in the meat, and whatever is still inside the hollow part of the heart can be removed when it is torn open? This would support the opinion of Rabba.

The Gemara refutes the proof: A heart is different because it is smooth and does not absorb much blood. However, generally one does not necessarily rely on the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Ravin the Elder wrap a particular young dove in dough for Rav and roast it, and Rav said to him: If its dough tastes good, give me some and I will eat? Apparently, according to Rav, although the breading absorbed blood, it also certainly discharged it during the roasting. The Gemara refutes this point: That incident involved fine flour [semida], which is crumbly and allows the blood to flow through it.

The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rava happen to come to the house of the Exilarch, and they breaded a young goose for him, and he said: If I had not seen that the breading is as clear as a white, i.e., new, coin, I would not eat from it out of concern that it absorbed some of the blood? And if it should enter your mind to accept the principle that as it absorbs it so it emits it, why note that he ate it particularly because it was clear? Even if it was not clear, it should also be permitted. The Gemara responds: There, it was talking about white flour, which is firm and does not allow the blood to pass through; Rava ate it only because its color indicated that no blood remained in the breading.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that if one makes the breading of fine flour, whether it turned red from blood or did not turn red, it is permitted. The following rule applies to breading of white flour: If it is clear like a white coin, it is permitted; if not, it is prohibited. With regard to breading of other types of flour, which are not especially firm or crumbly, if the breading turned red, it is prohibited; if it did not turn red, it is permitted.

With regard to this meat stuffing in an animal: The one who prohibits one to eat it, Abaye, does so even if the opening is facing downward, allowing the blood to escape more easily. And the one who permits one to eat it, Rabba, does so even if the opening is facing upward. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that stuffing is permitted even if the opening is facing upward, in accordance with the lenient opinion.

The Gemara quotes a further discussion concerning the topic of blood absorbed in meat and the preparation of meat permitted for eating. The Gemara addresses three cases: Raw meat [umtza] that is eaten without being salted, testicles of an animal, and the large veins of the neck. Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this. The Gemara points out: In all their discussions about the Torah, whenever there is a dispute between them and there is no explanation as to which of them holds which opinion, the opinion of Rav Aḥa is stringent and the opinion of Ravina is lenient, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina to be lenient. This applies to all their disputes except for these three, in which Rav Aḥa is lenient and Ravina is stringent, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa to be lenient.

The Gemara explains: With regard to this piece of raw meat that became red from the blood inside it, if one cut it and salted it, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot because it is clear that salt removes blood from meat. If one put it on a spit in order to roast it, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about the halakha in this case; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that the coals cause the meat to shrivel and harden, trapping the blood inside. And the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, leaving only the meat. And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood.

And, so too, with regard to testicles: If one cut them and salted them, they are permitted even to be cooked in a pot. If one hung them on a spit in order to roast them, they are permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed them on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood.

And, so too, with regard to large veins: If one cut them and salted them, it is permitted even to cook them in a pot. If one hung them on a spit and the place of the incision of the slaughter is facing downward, it is permitted because the blood flows out. With regard to a case where one placed it on coals, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagreed about this matter; one prohibited it and one permitted it. The one who prohibited it reasoned that it shrivels, and the one who permitted it reasoned that the heat draws out the blood. And the halakha is that the heat of the coals draws out the blood, and it is permitted.

The Gemara raises another discussion with regard to blood absorbed in meat. People would soak raw meat (Tosafot) in vinegar in order to ensure that none of the blood would separate from its original place and prohibit the meat from being eaten, as it is permitted to eat blood that has not separated from its original place. This piece of raw meat, whose vinegar became red due to the blood absorbed in it, is forbidden. If its vinegar did not become red, it is permitted. Ravina said: Even if its vinegar did not become red, it is forbidden; it is impossible that it does not have streaks of blood. Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: Father, i.e., Ameimar, would swallow the vinegar and was unconcerned that there may be blood in it. Some say Rav Ashi himself would swallow it.

Mar bar Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: The practice of my father, Ameimar, was that with regard to vinegar in which he had soaked meat one time to keep in its blood, he would not soak meat in it again. It could no longer keep the blood in the meat. The Gemara asks: In what way is vinegar that has been used once different from weak vinegar, in which we soak meat without concern that it will be unable to keep the blood in the meat? The Gemara explains: There, the

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Pesachim 74b discusses whether meat releases absorbed blood during roasting, examining cases involving hearts, breaded doves, and geese.