A “moral” dilema in the community has occurred which I would like advice on. A shop once sold nonkashered liver then went to sell only kashered liver now the Rabbi of the city has done a u turn to allow non kashered liver. His reasoning is that if the shop only sells kashered liver people won’t buy it because it is not cooked to the “customer standards” and that they will go to a non kosher shop and buy trief liver. However my understanding is that if one bought non kashered liver and cooked it then then according to the Rama everything is assur( I think Hilchos melicha Siman 73).

Link about Kashering liver https://www.star-k.org/articles/articles/1133/kashering-liver/

What the best situation buy kosher but unkashered and assur everything or buy trief?

  • 2
    I'm a little confused by your post. Can you add more clarity?
    – robev
    Sep 4, 2018 at 0:46
  • Every place has different customs- in Spain most kosher butchers sell unsoaked, unsalted meat, in the US or Israel that would be unheard of. As long as unkashered liver is labelled as such so people know to broil it, what's the issue? A friendly reminder (You know that's not kashered, right?") Might come in helpful, particularly on Friday afternoons Sep 4, 2018 at 0:59
  • 1
    Can you add clarity to the post itself. I get what you're saying now. Although you're title should remove "kashered liver" as that doesn't seem to be your question. Maybe explain non/kashered for the uninitiated. Thanks
    – robev
    Sep 4, 2018 at 1:23
  • 1
    @DanielRoss you can edit any of your posts by clicking the edit link at the bottom of the post
    – Double AA
    Sep 4, 2018 at 1:32
  • 1
    There is absolutely a clear-cut answer to this. It doesn’t require speculation at all. What is that answer? I don’t know. But these kinds of questions almost always have a simple, source answer. Therefore I edited out your final paragraph (fixed up your tags while I’m at it), and I am voting to leave open.
    – DonielF
    Sep 5, 2018 at 12:22

1 Answer 1


"Therefore, I said to the children of Israel: None of you shall eat blood, and the stranger who sojourns among you shall not eat blood."

(Vayikra 17:12)

"The blood of a domesticated or wild animal, whether it is a pure or impure animal, is forbidden. This includes the blood of an embryo (shalil), but the blood of fish and locusts is permitted."

(Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 66:1)

The Gemara (Talmud, Chulin 109a and 120a) features an argument between Rashi and Tosfos as to the Kashrus status of cooked blood.

Rashi maintains it is forbidden by Torah Law (D'Oraisa).

Tosfos argues that it is forbidden by Rabbinic Law (D'Rabbanan).

(Of course, everyone agrees it is forbidden!)

However, a liver which comes from a non-kosher animal or which came from a kosher animal which was not ritually slaughtered properly, is forbidden by Torah Law according to all opinions.

Therefore, your local Rabbi of that town is to be praised.

He is the expert on the ground who knows what people in his town will most likely do. If he fears people will seek non-kosher liver, and he can save them by offering raw, kosher liver instead; then it is the best approach to offer the uncooked kosher liver.

This is because the one buying (eating) non-kosher liver is certainly transgressing Biblical Law (even if cooked!). The one who buys raw kosher liver may broil it properly and eliminate the blood; or may wrongly transgress, and ignore that chore. But, even if he cooks the liver with its blood without broiling (searing/kashering the blood) first, the maximum he is violating is Rabbinic Law when he eats it. This is because he relies on Tosfos over Rashi to avoid Biblical punishment; since he is only eating cooked blood, not raw blood.

Similarly, eating Biblically forbidden food is worse than unkoshering a pot on a Rabbinical level.

  • 1
    Blood in meat is not forbidden mi'd'oraita or d'rabanan; only blood that exits the animal while it's nefesh is leaving(while the animal is dying) is forbidden by karet while stam blood is d'oraita as an issur lav. Blood that was in the meat and then parash or on the meat is forbidden d'rabanan. The liver(without kashering it) is permitted both mi'd'oraita and mi'd'rabanan(after washing it from the blood on it); however, we are stringent because it is full of blood. Stated from memory; will double check(if wrong, will delete and upvote). Sep 4, 2018 at 9:31
  • @chachamNisan If you are in doubt about something, I would suggest you do not vote until you ask the poster or surely verify? :) Before I answer you (I do think you may have a mistake here), what do you think I said that differs with what you wish to say? Sep 4, 2018 at 10:04
  • The problem is here "But, even if he cooks the liver with its blood without broiling (searing/kashering the blood) first, the maximum he is violating is Rabbinic Law when he eats it." There is no prohibition because the blood is still in the liver and is not forbidden by the Torah or Chazal. The disagreement between Rashi and Tosafot is stam blood. All agree that dam sh'parash is forbidden mid'rabanan; so they weren't arguing there. Not that I'm for eating blood. Ichs! Sep 6, 2018 at 18:53
  • @chachamNisan OK, my response to you: The OP didn't ask for particular breakdowns of the levels of blood Halachah. My answer still shows that the idea of the Rabbi wanting to offer raw is better than risking the people buying treif. That's all. 2) My words that you quote say "maximum". I never said there is no case where you might be totally ok. The risk is a) a raw liver may easily produce dam shepirash. b) The bloody fresh liver came from a contact point smeared with topical non-liver blood as well. If someone throws it into a pot as is, cooking reduces sin. not misleading. :) Sep 6, 2018 at 20:37
  • Correct, what the rabbi did was great. Sep 6, 2018 at 21:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .