Clarification: The reason that one sticks the spit-rod through the mouth, the Ri explains, is because one holds the thick end (of the spit-rod)at the bottom, to prevent the Pesach from falling off. And that being the case, the location of the Shechitah needs to be at the same end, to enable the blood to drip into the fire.

Halachah: The Riva explains that although roasting it Mekulas is a Mitzvah, it is not crucial.

Proof #1: Since the Gemara later in Perek ha'Ishah (Daf 88:) in connection with 'Five people whose Pesachim got mixed up' asks 'But there is one who is not Yotzei?'

Proof #1 (cont.): And it answers 'Because there is no other way. How should we doit? If each one were to bring a Pesach and stipulate that "If the blemished animal is mine, then let this animal be the Pesach'; and if it isn't, Let it be a Shelamim!' But how about the Chazeh ve'Shok?

Proof #1 (cont.): Then the Gemara asks 'Let each one bring a Kohen with him?'

Proof #1 (cont.): Now how can they do that? Seeing as there is the Chazeh ve'Shok, which is forbidden to Zarim, they cannot be roasted together with the Pesach, and they would need to cut out, in which case it will no longer be 'Mekulas'?

Conclusion: Unless we say that this not disqualify the Korban.

Proof #2: And so we learned in a Beraisa later (Daf 75.) 'If one cuts it and places it on the coals, Rebbi says "I say that this is considered "Tz'li Eish!" '

Proof #2: (concl.): This implies that one cuts it up into pieces.

Refutation: However, Rashi there interprets 'cuts it up' to mean that one did not divide it into pieces, but that one simply made cuts in two or three places.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this speaks even though it was only salted for roasting.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam maintains that meat for roasting does not need to be salted at all.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Let alone there where the meat is roasted thoroughly, so that it exudes all its blood, which it does via fire better than via salt ...

Support: It happens every day that one cooks liver after roasting, even though one is strict not to cook it after salting.

Conclusion: But even if it not thoroughly roasted, where it has not exuded all its blood, it is permitted ...

Implied Question: In spite of the Gemara in the first Perek of K'risus (Daf 4:), which declares that there the blood in the limbs is subject to a La'av ...

Answer: That speaks specifically where it emerged (from the body), but as long as it has not done so, it is permitted ...

Proof #1: As is evident in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, Daf 128.) which permits moving unsalted mean on Shabbos, since it is fit to be eaten in its raw state.

Proof #2: Furthermore, the Gemara says in Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin, Daf 111.) that once one has scalded liver in boiling water or in vinegar, one is permitted to cook it, because they cause the blood to contract, and do not let it be exuded.

Proof #2 (cont.): Because the Gemara relates there that Rav Huna caused it to contract by placing it in vinegar; whereas Rav Nachman scalded it in boiling water.

Proof #2 (cont.): When Rav Papa in the presence of Rava, theorized that the its vinegar should be forbidden, the latter said that if the vinegar is forbidden, then it is forbidden, too, since 'If it exudes, it will also absorb'.

Conclusion: Consequently, there is no doubt that its vinegar is also permitted, because it causes the blood to contract and does not allow it to be exuded, in spite of which it may be eaten.

Refuted Suggestion: Neither can one prohibit roasted meat that has neither been salted nor properly roasted due to the fact that, because of the fire, the blood moves inside from one side to the other ...

Refutation: Since the blood that emerges slips off the meat, whereas what remains inside, even though it has moved from one side to the other, does not have the same Din as the blood of the limbs that has emerged.

Proof: Because there is an opinion in Maseches Chulin (Daf 112.) which prohibits eating a loaf on which one cut meat, due to the blood of the meat that entered it ...

Proof (cont.): Yet it implies that the meat itself is permitted, despite the fact that not all its blood emerged.

Question on Explanation #1: There is a Kashya on Rashi however: Of what use is a partial salting for roasting, seeing as meat does not exude all its blood until it has been thoroughly salted?

Conclusion: It is therefore certain that roasting does not need salting at all. And this is also what the Ri learned from Rabeinu Tam.

Changing Text: The Gemara in 'ha'Kometz Rabah (Menachos 21.), in connection with the salting of Kodshim, asks what one must do; and it explains that one brings one limb and salts it, then one turns it over and salts it on the other side and brings it up on the Mizbe'ach.

Changing Text (cont.): There are some texts there that citing Abaye, add 've'Chein li'Tzeli!

Changing Text (concl.): One needs to change the text from 've'Chein li'Tzeli!' to 've'Chein li'Kedeirah'. And that is the text that appears in most versions.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara says in the first Perek of Beitzah (11.) 'And they agree that one may salt meat on it for roasting' ...

Answer: This is not because roasting requires salting, but because it is customary to do so.

Implied Question: The Gemara in 'Kol ha'Basar' (Chulin 113.) citing Rav Sheishes, who salted one bone at a time, asks 'Why not two?' and answers 'Because the blood exudes from one and is absorbed by the other'.

Implied Question (cont.): Then it asks that if one salts one bone too, the blood exudes from one side and is absorbed by the other side?

Answer: When it says that the blood 'exudes from one side', it means that it actually comes out of the flesh completely, because, as long as it is still inside, it is permitted, as Tosfos explained.

Implied Question: In Perek Kol ha'Basar (Chulin 111.) the Gemara permits liver on top of meat Bedi'eved, because the blood slips off.

Answer: There the reason of 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' is not applicable at all, since the blood there falls outside the meat and slips off without becoming absorbed.

Implied Question: However, even if the reason there was 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto', it would only be permitted there by the case of liver Bedi'eved.

Implied Question (cont.): Even though here by the case of Pesach, the Gemara permits it Lechatchilah, despite the fact that its innards, including the liver, are placed inside it ...

Answer: The Chachamim did not want to extend the stringency to Pesach ...

Reason: Seeing as the Torah specifically writes there "Its head, with its legs and with its innards".

Implied Question: In fact, even the opinion that forbids by 'the liver on top of the meat' has no problem with the Mishnah regarding Pesach ...

Answer #1: Since the Isur is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan were not strict with regard to the Pesach.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he will establish the case of Pesach where they salted the innards thoroughly, in which case one is even permitted to cook them, according to Rabeinu Tam.

Implied Question: And even according to the accepted custom not to cook liver even after it has been salted, irrespective of how thorough the salting was ...

Answer: Nevertheless once it has been salted for the pot, its blood has been diminished, and it does not render Asur any more than other meat that has not been salted ...

Source: Since meat on top of meat is unanimously permitted.

Halachah: And one can learn a Heter with regard to forcemeat, even if the outside meat has been salted and remained with the salt the Shi'ur Melichah, whereas the stuffing has not been salted (See Maharsha) ...

Source: From the fact that the Gemara brings a proof from the stuffed goose that was permitted - because of 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto'.

Implied Question: Even though it happens every day that one forbids meat that has fallen into fish-juice, and salt that has been exuded.

Implied Question (cont.): More than that, Rabeinu Tam declared Asur a chicken that has been salted in a dish, despite the fact that it did not remain there the Shi'ur of roasting, and did not manage to exude even half of its blood; yet he forbade then eating it roasted.

Reason: Since, regarding the prohibition against salting meat in a receptacle unless it is holed, Shmuel did not distinguish between where it remained there for a long time or for a short time.

Clarification: It would seem that on the outside is even more slippery.

Qualification: The Riva holds that it is specifically in connection with blood that we apply the S'vara that it is slippery, but not in connection with the fat of Isur, which spreads.

Consequence: As a result, by the heart, we do not say that 'It renders Asur, but does not itself become Asur', like we do with regard to the liver.

Reason: And the reason there is not because 'it is smooth', but rather 'because since it is busy exuding, it cannot simultaneously absorb.

Conclusion: The Ri however, citing Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara's conclusion declaring the heart different because it is slippery is merely a Dichuy

Conclusion (cont.): And the Gemara will shortly Pasken like Rabah, that Mulaysa is permitted.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is a Pashtida (a pie).

Question #1: Rabeinu Tam and the Riva however, maintain that the Lashon 'Tafeil' does not imply that, but rather a smear (a thin layer), like we learned earlier (Daf 43.) 'One smears the daughters of the wealthy with flour'.

Question #2: Moreover, we cannot apply 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' to Pashtida, since we can see that it does not exude, as much as its location in the oven remains dry.

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that it refers to the what one tends to smear the food with a liquidy dough; In fact one smears liquidy dough round the chickens stomachs or the innards that one sticks on to a spit-rod, like 'Parpaish'.

Implied Question: Even though we said earlier that 'the area of the Beis ha'Shechitah is different inasmuch as it is hollow, and is therefore permitted even if we do not say 'ke'Bol'o Kach Polto' ...

Answer: It is different there, since the hollow is extremely wide, and does not compare the (narrow) opening of the Mulyasa.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it became red due to a blood-clot.

Refutation: This is unnecessary, however ...

Explanation #2: Since Rabeinu Chananel explains that they arecovered by a membrane that is Asur on account of the blood ...

Source: As the Gemara says in 'Gid ha'Nasheh' (Chulin 93.) 'There are five membranes: ... , one of eggs, because of blood'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this is the juice that flows from it when it is cut open ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And he rejects the text 'It and its juice'.

Question #1: How does it speak, asks the Ri? If the meat is fully roasted, then even the juice is permitted, since it is no worse than where one salts it, about which we said above that it is even permitted to cook in a pot?

Question #1 (cont.): Whereas if it is not fully roasted, why is the meat permitted?

Question #1 (cont.): The fact that he (Rashi) does not have the text 'It', implies that he maintains that the meat is permitted.

Question #1 (cont.): But why should it be permitted, since even though the blood of the limbs is permitted, once it becomes red it is Asur ...

Question #1 (cont.): This is because according to the opinion which holds that coals cause the meat to close up, and therefore renders it Asur', one is forced to explain that it is forbidden because it turned red, and by cutting it, it is impossible to extract all the blood.

Question #2: Moreover, since the Gemara will shortly talk about 'Vinegar with which one has already 'pickled' meat once', it is clear that up to that point, the Gemara is talking about real vinegar (and not juice)?

Question #3: And Rashi's second explanation, where he explains that 'Chala (vinegar)' in which one pickles the meat after roasting it, and which is subsequently squeezed into it, is also difficult ...

Question #3 (cont): In that we ought then to say that if the vinegar is forbidden, the meat is forbidden too, as we conclude in 'Kol ha'Basar' (Ibid 111.), regarding the liver, as Tosfos discussed earlier

Question #4: And besides, it is implied there that vinegar causes the meat to close up and not to exude.

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore accepts the explanation of the Riva in the name of the Halachos Gedolos, who establishes the case by raw meat.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And what happens is that when one places raw meat in vinegar and does not leave it there, not only does it not exude, but it also causes the blood to contract inside the meat. Consequently, everything is permitted, since the blood has not exited the meat.

Explanation #2 (cont.): However, if one leaves the meat in the vinegar long enough for it to turn red, this indicates that the blood has exited the meat and exuded into the vinegar.

Clarification of Sugya: And when the Gemara says 'That piece of meat that caused it to turn red', it means that it remained in the vinegar until it turned red, then both it and the vinegar are forbidden; but if it didn't, then they are permitted.

Clarification of Sugya in Chulin: And the Gemara in 'Kol ha'Basar' speaks where the meat did not remain long in the vinegar.

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): Whereas Ravina declares the vinegar Asur even if the vinegar did not turn red, even if the meat remained in the vinegar only for a short time ...

Clarification of Sugya (cont.): Since the blood is exuded in the form of specks of blood (that are not easily visible) ...

Clarification of Sugya #2 (cont.): Though not sufficient for the meat to be forbidden via such a small amount as this.

Clarification of Sugya #2 (concl.): Whereas Rav Ashi drank the vinegar, like the conclusion of the Gemara in 'Kol ha'Basar', which permits it.