(2) How could it be permitted over here because of the rule “as it absorbs, so will it release“? We only say that rule concerning blood that was released not from blood that is present before us. The answer is that since the blood dries up from the roasting it is considered to be as blood that was released. It is possible to say that as a result of salting as well the blood dries up.
(3) Not like the Rambam who rules that it should be permitted.
(4) As for the halacha, it seems that one should be stringent as the Rema in Toras Chatas, that sixty is required against the heart, even in a case of salting. The Maharshal writes that a goose whose skin has been removed, salted whole, and then cooked is forbidden for there is not even sixty against the blood in the heart.
(5) The reason is because the blood in the heart dries up and will not come out.
(6) Even though we said earlier that blood that was gathered is as blood that was released, that is true only in regards to the heart, however with all other meat it is as actual blood.
(7) Meaning that the custom to be lenient is true for meat salted with the heart, and the heart itself is permitted. This is because it is considered as blood that was released, and due to the rule “as it absorbed so will it release”. However, if it was cooked, even if there would be sixty, the heart remains forbidden. When the Rema wrote in sub-¬section 3 that if the poultry was whole everything is permitted, his intention was that everything except the heart is permitted.
(8) Meaning that even if the top was closed during the salting, cutting it afterwards will rectify the situation. Even if it was open on top, it must now be cut open, because what was open is not considered equal to it actually having been cut open. If the heart's opening was placed facing down, allowing for blood to escape, some say that it is as if it had been cut open, and is permitted.