Daf Ditty Beitza 8: Kissui haDam

The Gemara further states: If before the Festival one brought earth into his garden or his ruin
to use for various needs, it is permitted to cover blood with it. And Rav Yehuda likewise said:

1
A person may bring in a basketful of earth the day before the Festival and use both the basket
and the earth it contains for all his needs on the Festival.

With regard to this case, Mar Zutra added and taught in public in the name of Mar Zutra the
Great that the application of this halakha is limited: And that is the case only if one designated
a corner for this earth, thereby demonstrating that he intends to use it for all his requirements,
rather than merely bringing earth in to scatter over the floor of the house. In that case, the dirt is
nullified. It is considered part of the floor, which means that it is once again classified as muktze.

The Gemara raises an objection against this from a mishna (Bikkurim 4:9): In the case of a koy,
a kosher animal with characteristics of both domesticated and non-domesticated animals, one may
not slaughter it on a Festival, as it is uncertain whether or not its blood requires covering. And
if one did slaughter it, he may not cover its blood. And if it is so, that one may use his basket
of earth as he wishes, as claimed by Rav Yehuda, even if a koy is definitely a domesticated animal,
let him cover it, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

The Gemara expresses surprise at this objection: And according to your reasoning, one could
equally suggest: Let him cover the blood of the koy with ashes of a stove or with earth dug up
with an embedded shovel. Rather, this mishna must be referring to a situation where one does
not have prepared earth to use for covering the blood; here too, one can say that he does not
have a basket of earth ready for all his needs.

RASHI

2
Steinzaltz

The Gemara asks: If so, if the mishna is referring to a situation where one does not have prepared
earth, why discuss specifically the case of a koy, where there is uncertainty whether there is a
mitzva to cover its blood? Even in the case of an undomesticated animal, whose blood must
certainly be covered, slaughter should also not be permitted, as the halakha is in accordance with
the opinion of Beit Hillel that one may not slaughter if he does not have prepared earth.

The Gemara explains that this baraita is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, as
follows: It is not necessary to state the halakha with regard to definite undomesticated animals
and birds, that it is not permitted to slaughter them; however, with regard to an uncertainty,
one might say: Due to the joy of the Festival let one slaughter it and not cover its blood, as
there is uncertainty whether there is a mitzva to cover its blood, and therefore it is overridden by
the mitzva to rejoice on a Festival. The baraita therefore teaches us that one should not slaughter
it ab initio if he does not have something prepared with which to cover the blood.

3
The Gemara challenges this: From the fact that the latter clause teaches: And if he slaughtered
it one may not cover its blood, it may be inferred that in the first clause we are dealing with
a situation where he does have something with which to cover the blood. If he does not have
anything he can use, why is it necessary to state that one may not cover it? And consequently, if
he does in fact have material with which to cover the blood, why may he not do so, either with his
basket of earth, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, or with the ashes of a stove?

Rather, Rabba said that the ashes of a stove, which the mishna stated are prepared, are prepared
only for covering the blood in a case of a definite obligation, but they are not considered
prepared for a case of uncertainty. Although his intention was to use these ashes to cover the
blood of any animal he slaughters, whether in a definite or an uncertain case, they are nevertheless
not considered prepared for an uncertain case.

Summary

4
Are we allowed to slaughter an animal on the Festival?1 If so, are we permitted to cover the
blood? What if we prepare the pile of earth in advance, with this purpose in mind? What are the
differences if we are in a home (with dirt floors, of course) or on a field? Is an act of destruction,
digging a hole, always prohibited on Shabbat and Festivals? What if that act of destruction is done
to allow the performance of a positive mitzvah of covering (blood)?

Again we are faced with the difficult task of measuring intention against action. One of the
examples used by the rabbis is what we do when a baby's foreskin is leprous. It is prohibited to
remove leprous skin; however, we must remove the foreskin regardless of its state, as that is a
mitzvah. We are not intending to remove the leprous skin; we are intending to circumcise the
baby. So this act should be permitted.

The rabbis look to other examples, including whether or not ashes can be used for a number of
purposes, including covering blood. The intention of the person who prepares the ashes for use on
the Festival or Shabbat is important.

One of the appeals of Jewish thought is its hesitancy to evaluate thought. In many other religions,
we must think certain things and believe specific precepts. Judaism does not want us to judge our
thoughts; we evaluate actions. And so any time that the Talmud offers us our Sages' reflections
on that unmeasurable, intention, I take notice.

We learn about this question of intention with a particularly informative example. If we bring
earth into the home to cover a baby's excrement, we can also use it to cover a bird's blood. This is
because the earth was prepared in advance from a place of uncertainty: we didn't know that the
baby would have an accident in the home though we knew that the bird would be slaughtered. If
we prepared the earth only to cover the bird's blood, however, it cannot be used to cover the
excrement.

The rabbis look to the koi, a disputed animal, and its slaughter to further understand this
point. However, they are unclear as to whether or not the koi is in fact comparable to the example
of excrement. Intentions were different in these different cases. The Gemara wonders about what
impressions we might give regarding the koi as a domesticated or undomesticated animal if we
cover its blood on a Festival. We hear related concerns, including the importance of timing (what
could be done at a later time), the number of thrusts taken to cover the blood, and the prohibition
on covering a mixture of bloods on a Festival.

So much packed into one daf! Learning about hermeneutics, new (to me) principles, halachot
regarding Festivals in comparison with Shabbat, the importance of the appearance of consistency

1
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/04/beitza-8-b.html

5
in practice, the management of baby digestive issues, housekeeping, the maintenance of yards and
dung heaps, the slaughter of birds inside a home... and more. My favourite (next to the baby
excrement, of course), is a note that teaches that if the blood is located in a place that disturbs
people, it can be covered. This suggests that people were disturbed by these blood rites, even
though they are presented in the Talmud as commonplace and uninteresting. Perhaps people had
similar, complex thoughts about the treatment of animals in ancient times, too.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

We learned in the Mishnah (2a) that Bais Hillel agrees that if one already slaughtered the wild
animal or bird on Yom Tov and he had not previously prepared earth to cover the blood, he digs
with a spade and covers the blood with earth. The Gemara qualifies this ruling to mean that it is
permitted if one has a spade that was already placed in the ground prior to Yom Tov. This will
obviate the prohibition of plowing, which is prohibited on Yom Tov, and he will also avoid the
prohibition of muktzeh, because placing the spade in the ground prior to Yom Tov is a form of
preparation. There is no prohibition of crushing, which is a toldah, a derivative, of the av melacha,
a primary act, of tochein, grinding, because we are referring to lose earth which does not require
crushing. Although he is making a hole in the ground, which is an act that falls under the
prohibition of binyan, building, he is exempt in this case because he dug the hole for the earth and
not for the purpose of the hole itself. He is exempt from a prohibition, because by digging a hole
where he does not require the hole, it is deemed to be kilkul, a destructive act, which he is not
liable for.

We learned in the Mishnah (2a) that the ashes of a stove are deemed to be prepared for use on Yom
Tov and are not muktzeh. The Gemara qualifies this to mean that ash from wood that was burnt
before Yom Tov can be used, but ash from wood that was burned on Yom Tov is prohibited. Yet,
if the ash is sufficiently hot to roast an egg on it, then the ash that was burned prior to Yom Tov
can be used both for cooking and for covering the blood of a slaughtered animal.

One cannot slaughter on Yom Tov a koy, which is a specie that the Chachamim were uncertain
whether it is categorized as a beheimah, a domestic animal, or a chaya, a wild animal. If one
slaughtered a koy, since it may be a beheimah, one cannot cover its blood. The Gemara qualifies
this ruling to mean that not only can one not slaughter on Yom Tov an animal whose status is
certain, but even an animal whose status is not ascertained, such as a koy, one cannot slaughter it
on Yom Tov. One would have thought that an animal whose status is uncertain can be slaughtered
for the sake of being joyful on Yom Tov.

The Gemara states that the reason one cannot cover the blood of a koy that was slaughtered on
Yom Tov is because one may come to crush clods of earth, whereas regarding a certain
requirement to cover the blood we are not concerned about crushing the earth. The reason there is
no concern is because the positive commandment to cover the blood overrides the negative
commandment of crushing something on Yom Tov.

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Beitzah_8.pdf

6
A Blessing for a Completed Mitzvah

One cannot slaughter on Yom Tov a koy, which is a specie that the Chachamim were uncertain
whether it is categorized as a beheimah, a domestic animal, or a chaya, a wild animal. If one
slaughtered a koy, since it may be a beheimah, one cannot cover its blood. There is a concern that
one who observes someone else covering the blood of a koy on Yom Tov will assume that a koy
is a chaya, as we would not permit one to exert himself on Yom Tov for an uncertain specie and
one would then permit the cheilev of a koy to be eaten, when in fact, because of its uncertain status,
one is prohibited from eating the cheilev of a koy.

The Rambam writes that one who covers the blood of a beheimah that is kelayim, an animal that
was bred from a chaya and a beheimah, one does not recite the blessing that is normally recited
for the mitzvah of covering the blood. Rav Chaim Brisker wonders why one does not recite a
blessing in such a case as there is reason to say that the animal that was slaughtered was a chaya
which requires that its blood be covered. Rav Chaim answers that although there is reason to
require that its blood be covered, the converse is also true, as there is reason to exempt one from
covering the blood of this animal. The mitzvah is thus lacking a full requirement and for this reason
one does not recite a blessing when covering the blood.

Rav Chaim likens this ruling to a different ruling of the Rambam. The Rambam writes that when
a child is born circumcised, or if a convert to Judaism was already circumcised prior to his
conversion, we draw some blood, known as hatafas dam bris, but one does not recite a blessing
on this procedure, although this is not a case of uncertainty.

The reason for this ruling is because the mitzvah cannot be performed completely, so one does not
recite a blessing when performing such a mitzvah. Rav Soloveitchik in Harerei Kedem likens this
case to sitting in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres, as there is a requirement to sit in the Sukkah on
Shemini Atzeres, yet there is also reason to exempt one from sitting in the Sukkah on Shemini
Atzeres. Given the fact that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of sitting in the Sukkah completely, he
will not recite a blessing for sitting in the Sukkah.

Performing a Positive and Negative Commandment Simultaneously

The Gemara states that a positive commandment will override a negative commandment when
both commandments are performed simultaneously. It is noteworthy that the Gemara in Sotah
states that a mitzvah cannot extinguish an aveira, a sin, yet an aveira can extinguish a mitzvah.
Apparently, the principle that a positive commandment can override a negative commandment is
not a contradiction to this Gemara. Perhaps the idea is that when one performs an aveira
intentionally, he has rebelled against HaShem, and it is not possible for one to appease HaShem
with a mitzvah when he has just committed an act of rebellion. When one is simultaneously
overriding the negative commandment by performing a positive commandment, however, he is
demonstrating that he is fully aware that he is performing a negative commandment, yet he is
permitted by the Torah to override the negative commandment. This principle allows him to
perform the positive commandment and be rewarded for its performance.

7
 USING EARTH FOR "KISUY HA'DAM" ON YOM TOV

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:

In the Mishnah (2a), Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue about whether one may slaughter an animal on
Yom Tov l'Chatchilah when he intends to cover the blood with earth (to perform the Mitzvah of "Kisuy
ha'Dam"). Beis Shamai permits one to slaughter the animal l'Chatchilah, and Beis Hillel prohibits it.
However, both agree that b'Di'eved if one already slaughtered the animal, he is permitted to cover the
blood with earth.

The Gemara (7b and 9b) explains that one is permitted to slaughter the animal and cover its blood with
earth -- l'Chatchilah according to Beis Shamai, and b'Di'eved according to Beis Hillel -- only when a
shovel was placed into the earth ("Deker Na'utz") before Yom Tov.

What prohibition does the shovel remove? Why is it necessary to insert the shovel into the ground
before Yom Tov, such that without the shovel the earth may not be used for Kisuy ha'Dam on Yom
Tov (l'Chatchilah according to Beis Shamai, and b'Di'eved according to Beis Hillel)?

Moreover, why does Beis Hillel permit one to use the earth for Kisuy ha'Dam only b'Di'eved and not
l'Chatchilah, even when the shovel was inserted into the earth before Yom Tov? What prohibition
remains after the condition of "Deker Na'utz" has been fulfilled?

RASHI (9b, DH Aval Heicha) explains that without the shovel in the ground from before Yom Tov,
there is a "Tzad Remez Chafirah" (a slight semblance of the act of digging). This means that although
there is no act of digging (Chafirah) mid'Oraisa, the person's act still looks like an act of digging.
"Deker Na'utz" removes the appearance of digging.

Rashi explains that according to Beis Hillel, who maintains that one is prohibited l'Chatchilah to use
the earth for Kisuy ha'Dam even with the "Deker Na'utz," one may not dig l'Chatchilah because of a
Gezeirah that perhaps, next time, he will use earth that is not soft and will crush it, thereby transgressing
the Melachah of Ketishah (crushing) on Yom Tov. Therefore, l'Chatchilah one should not perform
Kisuy according to Beis Hillel (the Gemara suggests a similar Gezeirah on 8b).

TOSFOS (DH v'Eino) suggests that "Deker Na'utz" is necessary is in order to remove the prohibition
of Muktzah. Soil is Muktzah on Yom Tov because it is not inherently prepared for any use on Yom
Tov. "Deker Na'utz" shows that one has prepared the soil for use before Yom Tov.

The reason why Beis Hillel prohibits one from slaughtering an animal l'Chatchilah on Yom Tov, even
though the earth is no longer Muktzah (because of "Deker Na'utz," is because the act of picking up the
earth from the ground is an act of Melachah (digging) which is Mekalkel (it is not done for the sake of
constructing a pit), which is Asur l'Chatchilah. Beis Shamai, though, permits this act of Mekalkel
because it is being done for the sake of Simchas Yom Tov. (Simchas Yom Tov, however, does not
override the problem of Muktzah, because Simchas Yom Tov cannot permit two prohibitions

8
d'Rabanan, and therefore it is still necessary to have "Deker Na'utz" according to Beis Shamai. -
MAHARSHA)3

The RE'AH and the RASHBA explain, like Tosfos, that "Deker Na'utz" is necessary to remove the
prohibition of Muktzah. They differ with Tosfos in their reason for why Beis Hillel does not permit
one to use the earth l'Chatchilah even with "Deker Na'utz." They say that even with "Deker Na'utz,"
the earth is not completely prepared for use on Yom Tov but only "somewhat" prepared, and it is not
prepared enough to be permitted l'Chatchilah because it is still "somewhat" Muktzah.

"KISUY HA'DAM" ON YOM TOV FOR A "SAFEK CHAYAH"

The Gemara says that one may not cover the blood of an animal which is a Safek Chayah (such as a
"Koy") on Yom Tov, but one may cover the blood of an animal which is a Vadai Chayah (such as a
deer). What is the difference between a Safek and a Vadai Chayah? Whatever factor prohibits covering
the blood of a Safek should also prohibit covering the blood of a Vadai. The Gemara suggests that
covering the blood of a Safek Chayah is prohibited because of the Melachah of Ketishah (the act of
crushing dirt). Ketishah is not permitted on Yom Tov for the sake of a doubtful requirement to perform
Kisuy, but it is permitted for the sake of a definite requirement to perform Kisuy (because of the
principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh").

The simple meaning of the Gemara is that Ketishah is permitted in the case of a Vadai Chayah because
of the principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" -- the certain fulfillment of the Mitzvas Aseh of Kisuy
ha'Dam overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of doing Melachah on Yom Tov.

However, RASHI writes that the blood may not be covered in the case of a Safek Chayah for fear that
one will crush the clods of earth and transgress the Melachah of Ketishah. In the case of a Vadai
Chayah, there should also be a Gezeirah d'Rabanan to prohibit Kisuy ha'Dam lest one do Ketishah.
Nevertheless, the Rabanan did not prohibit Ketishah in the case of a Vadai Chayah because even if one
does Ketishah he transgresses no Isur d'Oraisa; the Mitzvas Aseh of Kisuy ha'Dam overrides the Lo
Ta'aseh of Melachah.

Rashi's explanation here is difficult to understand. Rashi should say that Ketishah is permitted
even l'Chatchilah in the case of a Vadai Chayah because of the principle of "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh."
Why does he assume that there should be an Isur d'Rabanan of Ketishah even in the case of a Vadai
Chayah?

Perhaps Rashi's intent is to address the question of the PNEI YEHOSHUA. The Pnei Yehoshua points
out that the Gemara at this stage explains the opinion of Rav Yehudah who permits the use of earth
which one brought in a sack into his home or courtyard before Yom Tov. Rav Yehudah says that such
earth is considered prepared for use on Yom Tov (such as for Kisuy ha'Dam). Why, then, may one not
cover the blood of a Safek Chayah? It cannot be because the earth is Muktzah, because Rav Yehudah
maintains that people normally keep in their homes earth that was prepared for use before Yom Tov.
The Gemara suggests that the reason why one may not do Kisuy ha'Dam for a Safek Chayah is because
one might transgress the Melachah of Ketishah while he handles the earth. One may do Kisuy ha'Dam

3
The Gemara on 9b seems to contradict this explanation when it says that the allowance to perform Shechitah and Kisuy ha'Dam
on Yom Tov when there is a "Deker Ha’etz" does not derive from the Mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov. Perhaps Tosfos agrees that
the Gemara on 9b maintains that there is a different reason for why Beis Hillel prohibits slaughtering the animal l'Chatchilah --
either the reason given by Rashi (in (a) above) or the reason given by the Re'ah (in (c) below). See Insights to Beitzah 9:3 for more
discussion on this issue.

9
for a Vadai Chayah because the Mitzvas Aseh of Kisuy ha'Dam overrides the Lo Ta'aseh of doing
Melachah (Ketishah) on Yom Tov.

How can the Gemara suggest that Rav Yehudah maintains that Ketishah is permitted because of "Aseh
Docheh Lo Ta'aseh," when it is Rav Yehudah himself (7b) who says that in order to permit Kisuy
ha'Dam on Yom Tov, a shovel must have been inserted into the earth before Yom Tov ("Deker Na'utz")
and the earth must be soft ("Afar Tichu'ach"). Rashi (7b, DH v'Ha Ka Avid) explains that Rav Yehudah
maintains that "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" does not permit one to cover the blood with earth on Yom
Tov in this case (either because the Aseh is not being done at the same time as the Lo Ta'aseh, or
because Yom Tov is both an Aseh and a Lo Ta'aseh, as the Gemara here concludes), and that is why
he requires "Deker Na'utz" and "Afar Tichu'ach" in order to permit Kisuy ha'Dam on Yom Tov.

If Rav Yehudah maintains that "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" does not apply, then how can the Gemara
here explain his opinion by suggesting that the difference between a Safek and a Vadai Chayah is that
for a Vadai Chayah, "Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" permits Kisuy ha'Dam? Rav Yehudah maintains that
"Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" does not apply in this case!

This is the problem which Rashi here addresses. Rashi answers that the Gemara means that, mid'Oraisa,
"Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh" would apply to permit Ketishah. However, Ketishah would still be
prohibited mid'Rabanan. The Rabanan decreed that an Aseh does not override a Lo Ta'aseh in this case
(because the Kisuy ha'Dam can be done the following night, after Yom Tov, as the ROSH mentions).
Nevertheless, one is permitted to cover the blood of a Vadai Chayah even l'Chatchilah with earth that
does not need Ketishah; the Rabanan did not make a Gezeirah to prohibit Kisuy ha'Dam lest one do
the Melachah of Ketishah in another instance (when he uses hard earth), because even if he does
Ketishah with hard earth he transgresses only an Isur mid'Rabanan. In a case of a Safek Chayah,
however, the Rabanan did make a Gezeirah lest one do the Melachah of Ketishah.

ITEMS WHICH ARE MUKTZAH FOR ONE PURPOSE BUT

PERMITTED FOR ANOTHER
Rava concludes that "Efer Kirah" (the ashes in an oven) may be used only to cover the blood of a Vadai
Chayah but not that of a Safek Chayah, because prior to Yom Tov the person designated the "Efer
Kirah" only for use with a Vadai Chayah. For use with a Safek Chayah, however, it remains Muktzah.

What is the logic behind Rava's answer? Any item which is not Muktzah on Shabbos may be used for
any purpose and not only for the specific purpose for which it was designated. The "Efer Kirah" is not
Muktzah since it was designated for use with a Vadai Chayah. Why, then, may it not be used for a
Safek Chayah? (Although Rebbi Nechemyah in Shabbos (123a) rules that an item designated for one
purpose remains Muktzah for other purposes, the Halachah does not follow his opinion.)

The Gemara later (33a) records a similar case. According to some Tana'im, wooden logs may be used
as fuel for a fire on Yom Tov, but they may not be used for other purposes (such as to support a door).
Why do these items, wood and "Efer Kirah," differ from all other cases of Muktzah? (CHIDUSHIM
U'VI'URIM)
The difference is that all other objects are utensils (Kelim). Wood and ashes (or dirt) are not utensils,
regardless of whether or not they were designated for use on Yom Tov. A utensil (Kli) that is
designated for a certain use is not included in the prohibition of Muktzah and may be used for any
purpose on Shabbos or Yom Tov. In contrast, an object that is not a utensil may not be used for any

10
purpose, but only for the purpose for which it was designated. In the case of an object which is not a
utensil, the Rabanan agree with Rebbi Nechemyah's logic that the object may be used only for the
purpose for which it was designated.

Perhaps the reason for this difference is that a utensil does not need to be prepared for all possible uses
because a person knows that it has many uses, and thus he always has in mind to use it for any need
that might arise. (This is similar to the logic proposed on 6b that if an item is fit for animal food, a
person does not remove from his mind the possibility of giving it to a person to eat should that
possibility arise.) In the case of an object which is not a utensil, a person does not have in mind to use
the object for purposes other than the one for which it was designated.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

On yesterday’s daf we were introduced to the mitzvah of kissuy ha-dam – the obligation to cover
the blood of fowl or wild animals that are slaughtered (see Vayikra 17:13). Thus, someone who
performs shechita (ritual slaughter) on chicken or venison would be obligated to cover the blood,
whereas shechita on cattle – e.g. cows, sheep, goats – would not be obligated in this mitzvah.

The Gemara on our daf introduces a koy – an animal that has the features of both a wild animal
and a domesticated one – and rules that such an animal cannot be slaughtered on Yom Tov, since
it is not clear whether slaughtering a koy obligates the shochet in kissuy ha-dam. Were it not Yom
Tov, we could simply cover the blood without reciting the blessing. Since it is Yom Tov, however,
we cannot permit a melacha to be done if there is doubt as to whether it is truly an obligation in
this case.

Identifying the koy is a difficult task. Even though it is mentioned many times in the Mishnah and
Talmudic literature, that is not because it is a common animal, rather because its status between a
wild and domesticated animal allows it to be a test case for many halakhot. The disagreement as
to its identification began in the time of the Mishnah, when some of the Sages argued that it is the
offspring of a deer or similar animal with a goat. Others claim that it is a unique type of animal –
an Ayal ha-bar.

The ayal ha-bar can be identified with the ovis musimon, which, according to many, is the
forerunner of domesticated cattle. It is distinguished by its short hair and grey color, and it lives in
mountainous regions, where it is a nimble climber – today mainly in uninhabited areas in Europe.
It is likely that the clear similarities between a koy and a sheep, together with its being a wild
animal, led to the Sages’ confusion about its classification.

Its name – koy – and even the pronunciation of the name, are themselves the subject of
disagreement.

4
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_beitzah_713/

11
Mark Kerzner writes:5

Having exhausted on the previous six pages the question of an egg laid on a Holiday (Yom Tov),
the Talmud turns to the next question in the group - earth. Both questions deal with muktzeh -
objects set aside from use, which should therefore not be used on Shabbat or Yom Tov.

One can slaughter, cook, and eat animals on a Yom Tov, because although work in general is
prohibited, preparing food is permitted. Furthermore, if one slaughters foul or wild animals, he
needs to cover their blood with earth. However, digging earth on a Yom Tov is prohibited, because
it is akin to plowing or building, and in addition earth is muktzeh - set aside and not prepared for
use on a Yom. Nevertheless, Beit Shammai permit one to dig with a spade and cover the blood
with earth, whereas Beit Hillel require earth to be prepared on the previous day.

But how can digging be allowed? - It turns out that there are limiting conditions: the spade has to
be inserted into the ground on the previous day. But he is crumbling the clods of earth, which is
akin grinding? - We are talking about loose earth. And yet, why did Beit Shammai permit this
outright, seeing that it is so close to violating Yom Tov and that Beit Hillel tell him not to? -
Because they did not want to withhold from people the joy of a Yom Tov, which is a mitzvah in
itself.

The Baraisa taught that a ‫ כוי‬cannot be slaughtered on Yom Tov. It is undetermined whether a ‫כוי‬
is a ‫בהמה‬or ‫חיה‬.6

The mitzvah of covering the blood is only prescribed for a ‫ חיה‬,and not for a ‫ בהמה‬.The Mishnah
taught that unless one has prepared soft soil in advance, it is prohibited to slaughter a ‫ חיה‬on Yom
Tov. In case the ‫ כוי‬is in fact a ‫ חיה‬,it would require the mitzvah of covering the blood to be done,
and this is prohibited.

The ruling in the Baraisa implies that the problem of ‫ כוי‬is insurmountable due to the status of this
animal being uncertain. However, if we would have an animal which is definitely a ‫ חיה‬,it would
be allowed to be slaughtered.

The analysis of the Gemara suggests that the case must be where we are concerned that the dirt,
which was prepared might harden, and the person might grind it in order to cover the blood, which
would involve the

5
https://talmudilluminated.com/beitzah/beitzah8.html
6
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Beitza%20008.pdf

12
Rashba points out that the rule that a positive mitzvah defers a negative one is only applied when
the two actions necessarily conflict (see Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Shabbos 133a).

Here, however, the blood may be left uncovered until after Yom Tov, at which time the dirt can
then be taken and used to cover the blood without having to crush the clods of dirt on Yom Tov.
Rashba posits a fundamental principle.

At the moment the ‫ חיה‬is to be slaughtered, there is no way it can be done without covering its
blood now, even if it might entail crushing some of the clods of dirt. It is at this moment that we
evaluate the need to access ‫ תעשה לא דוחה עשה‬.

In fact, if we were to wait, the positive mitzvah might never take place, as the person might become
distracted. Therefore, the mitzvah may be performed. Other Rishonim also note that if we were to
wait until after Yom Tov, the blood might become absorbed into the ground, thus precluding
fulfillment of the mitzvah altogether.

Tosafos (1) explains that one is exempt from liability for digging a hole to obtain the dirt is because
it is a ‫שאינה מלאכה‬- a melachah that is performed for a purpose other ‫לגופה צריכה‬than that for which
it was performed in the Mishkan. Tosafos asks, as a ‫ לגופה צריכה שאינה מלאכה‬shouldn’t the activity
be rabbinically prohibited? He answers that for the sake of the mitzvah of rejoicing on Yom Tov
it is permitted even ‫ לכתחילה‬. Since the discussion in the Gemara relates to obtaining dirt for the
purpose of covering the blood of a slaughtered bird, Tosafos’ comment indicates that eating meat
from fowl fulfills the mitzvah of eating meat on Yom Tov (2).

The Gemara (3) later in the masechta also refers to the fact that eating fowl is a fulfillment of the
mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov. Elsewhere, however, the Gemara4 indicates that one does not fulfill
the mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov by eating fowl. This is also the ruling of Rambam5 where he
writes that one does not fulfill the mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov by eating fowl because it is not a
meat that generates joy.

13
Rav Avrohom Avli Gombiner (6), the Magen Avrohom, also states in the name of the Bach that
only animal meat generates simchah.

A community whose shochet was ill asked Rav Yair Chaim Bachrach (7), the Chavos Yair,
whether a person knowledgeable in the halachos of Shechitah but lacking practical experience
could slaughter animals for the upcoming Yom Tov. Chavos Yair ruled that he could slaughter
birds in the presence of the ill shochet, since with the fowl they will be able to fulfill the mitzvah
of simchah a little bit. It is not an actual fulfillment of the mitzvah since it is not meat from an
animal, but it is a bit of the fulfillment of the mitzvah since people commonly serve fowl at fancy
dinners.

On our daf we find that if a person brought earth into his garden he may use it on Yom Tov for
the mitzvah of ‫ הדם כיסוי‬.

The Mekor Chaim, zt”l, explains that this earth symbolizes humility. Our Gemara is alluding to
the concept that the “earth” is that which is brought into one’s garden, one’s portion in Gan Eden.
As Chazal said: “He who made himself near to earth in his lifetime will merit to rise for the
resurrection of the dead.” (Sotah 5a)

The Nodah B’Yehudah, zt”l, would always pray N’eilah for the congregation in Prague every year
on Yom Kippur despite the fact that he wasn’t an accomplished singer. In fact, it was well known
that the gadol could barely carry a tune. Even so, in deference to the prevailing custom in Prague
and at the insistence of the roshei hakahal, he faithfully led the N’eilah prayers from year to year.
One year, a certain poor man prayed in the great shul and heard the Nodah B’Yehudah sing the
N’eilah service, and after Yom Kippur he went from door to door to collect. Instead of offering
the regular pitch, however, he decided that he would capitalize on his natural gift of impersonation.

While speaking to one ‫ בעל הבית‬, he made a little routine out of mimicking the Rav’s characteristic
nusach and saw that the man found him quite entertaining and proved willing to give him more
money than usual. Since it had worked once, the beggar decided to try it again, and when this
imitation was considered hilarious by all who heard it, he made it a part of his regular pitch. When
the leaders of the community got wind of his disrespectful behavior they were furious and
threatened to forbid the man from collecting charity.

14
The poor man ran to plead before the Rav, “Everyone knows how poor I am, and people are giving
me so much more money now! I mean no offense to the Rav; I’m just trying to be entertaining so
that people will open up their hearts and pockets a little.” The Nodah B’Yehudah was completely
unconcerned with his own honor. Not only did he allow the poor man to continue his antics, he
even gave him a letter of approbation: “This man is free to support (l’chalkel) himself by imitating
my m’chalkel!”

Rabbi Seth Goren writes:7

Halakhic decision making can be, at times, a bit convoluted. New rules are sometimes born
awkwardly from older ones, and rabbinic thinking can fly in the face of contemporary logic or
knowledge. But on today’s daf, we find one of those occasions when you can trace a rule directly
from Torah through the Mishnah to a page of Talmud to see how one or two biblical verses can
grow into something far bigger.

We begin with this law from Leviticus 17:12-13:

“No person among you shall partake of blood, nor shall the stranger who resides among you
partake of blood. And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an
animal or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.”

So far, pretty easy stuff: It’s forbidden to eat the blood of an animal and the blood that results from
a slaughtered animal should be covered with dirt. That said, in the context of slaughtering an
animal on a holiday, things get a bit more complicated due to festival work restrictions, which
normally would prohibit digging in the earth to cover spilled blood.

In the mishnah that opened this tractate back on Beitzah 2, we encountered a dispute between
Hillel and Shammai about how to handle such a situation. Shammai said that it’s permissible to
use a shovel on a festival to cover the blood, but Hillel — in one of the rare instances of taking a
more restrictive position than Shammai — says it’s not permitted: The blood must be covered by
earth that had been dug in advance. Both agree, however, that ashes from a stove generally may
be used for covering the blood.

On today’s daf, the Gemara picks up on this last item related to stove ashes:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: They only taught (that the ashes of a stove are considered
prepared if the stove was ignited) on the festival eve, (so that the ashes had already formed at
the start of the festival). However, if it was ignited on the festival itself, the ashes are prohibited.
And if the ashes (are still hot and fit) to roast an egg in them, (they are not considered muktze),
and therefore it is permitted to use them for covering as well.

This teaching implies that Hillel and Shammai only agreed on the permissibility of using ashes to
cover the spilled animal blood in a case where the stove was lit prior to the festival. But if the stove

7
Myjewishlearning.com

15
was lit on the festival, those ashes would not be permitted. It further tells us that if the ashes are
warm, they may be used for covering the blood.

The logic of this last point is a bit confusing: Sure, ashes that at least partly formed before the
holiday begins don’t violate rules restricting work on holidays. But what’s the problem with cold
ashes?

The answer relates to muktzeh, a topic we explored in detail in Tractate Shabbat. Muktzeh refers
to items that may not even be touched, let alone used, on Shabbat or festivals. Among those items
is something that is nolad (literally “born” — i.e., created) on Shabbat or a festival. (Strangely
enough, muktzeh rules are stricter for festivals than for Shabbat, but that’s a topic for another
day.)

We’ve seen this concept already in the Gemara’s discussion of whether an egg laid on a festival is
permitted to be eaten (it’s not). Now we see it with ashes from a fire burning on a festival. Hot
ashes, as Rashi explains (and the Rambam confirms), still have enough of their original woodiness
that they’re not nolad and therefore not muktzeh. Cold ashes, however, are something new and are
therefore forbidden. (A more complete explanation is available here.) As a result, you can touch
all the hot ashes you want on a festival (with a utensil of some kind, please!), but leave those cold
ashes alone.

This position — that warm ashes from the festival may be used — is solidified in the Shulchan
Arukh, a 16th-century code of Jewish law. Indeed, the Tur, a 14th-century rabbinic authority, and
the Shulchan Arukh both add explicitly that if one has already slaughtered the animal, one may
cover its blood even with cold ashes, since that’s the lesser of two possible transgressions.

Lest we think everything settled, later commentators analyze what constitutes sufficient warmth,
revealing that there’s always more to consider. See the Chafetz Chaim’s Biur Halakhah for one
great discussion.

The idea that Jewish practice is conveyed in a chain of tradition, passed down uninterrupted from
generation to generation, is a key concept in Judaism. Today’s page illustrates that concept in
action and shows the important link that the Talmud plays in it.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

Among the laws discussed in the two dapim we studied over Rosh Hashanah (Beitzah 7-8) is the
mitzvah of ‫( כיסוי הדם‬the requirement that blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal spill onto
earth and be covered by earth so that it is, in a manner of speaking, ‘buried’ within the earth – see
Vayikra 17:13-14), and while various different reasons have been offered as a rationale for this
law, it seems clear that by covering blood that we have spilled we are meant to be humbled by fact
that – notwithstanding that it may have been permitted for us to do so – life is fragile and we have
still spilt blood.

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

16
Clearly this a sobering thought as we ebb away from Rosh Hashanah and as we dedicate the
coming ‫( ימי תשובה‬days of repentance) to reflection, growth and the petitioning of forgiveness, but
it is particularly resonant since one of the most heinous sins identified by our Sages is ‫הלבנת פנים‬
(literally, ‘the whitening of a face’ i.e. shaming someone), which is given this name because, by
shaming someone, it is as if we have drawn and spilt their blood.

Yet in contrast to the blood that is spilt from an animal which can be treated with dignity and
respect and, in some way, ‘buried’, we don’t have the independent capacity to bury the feelings of
shame, pain and anguish of someone else who has been hurt by something we have said or done
to them. Instead, what we must do – wherever it is appropriate to do so – is approach that person
and, in the best way that we can, ask their forgiveness. By doing so, we should be humbled by our
need to petition another, and through doing so, we should be reminded that life is fragile, and that
through what we say and do, we too have the capacity to spill blood.

At the same time, the very act of approaching someone and seeking their forgiveness also remind
us that just as words can hurt, they can be used to heal, and just as they can spill blood, they too
can contribute to helping covering over and healing that blood which we have shed – knowingly
or otherwise.

In this spirit, while I believe that personal grievances should be addressed personally, and personal
apologies should be delivered personally, if I have unknowingly hurt, upset or embarrassed you,
please know that I am truly sorry and I would be grateful if you would message me directly and
let me know - so I can have the chance to ask your forgiveness directly.

Love Is Stronger Than Fear

“A positive mitzvah overrides a negative mitzvah.” (“Aseh docheh lo ta’aseh.”)

Rabbi Moshe Newman writes:9

In a situation where there is a mitzvah to refrain from a certain act, but at the same time there is a
different mitzvah to do that particular act, the rule is to do the act based on the principle of aseh
docheh lo ta’aseh. A possible example would be wool tzitzit on a linen garment. Although the
Torah forbids mixing wool and linen in a garment (shatnez), in certain cases and according to
certain opinions the positive mitzvah to put tzitzit on a four-corner garment would override
the shatnez prohibition, permitting the linen garment to have wool tzitzit.

The Ramban in his commentary on the Chumash explains the reason for this principle. An act done
to fulfill a mitzvah (aseh) shows a person’s love for Hashem. Refraining from an act due to a
mitzvah to refrain shows a person’s fear of Hashem. Showing love for Hashem is a loftier way for
a person to be close to Hashem than by refraining from certain acts due to fear of Him. Therefore,
a positive mitzvah is “stronger” than a “negative mitzvah” — and will push it off and override it.

9
https://ohr.edu/9524

17
 Kisui Hadam

Rabbi Ari Enkin writes:

Following the shechita, the ritual slaughter of an animal, one will often be obligated to perform
the mitzva of "kisui hadam", covering the blood. The Torah commands one who has slaughtered
a bird or wild animal to cover the initial blood which pours out at the time of slaughter with dust
or earth.[1] Domesticated animals are excluded from the mitzva of kisui hadam. The use of earth is
believed[2] to be a symbolic act of humility, reminding us of the fragility of life and that we
ourselves are but earth and dust.[3] It is the consensus of most halachic authorities that kisui hadam
is an independent mitzva actually unrelated to the shechita, though others insist that it is a
component or extension of the mitzva of shechita.[4]

The Midrash teaches that after Cain killed Abel, he didn’t know what to do with the body. God
then showed Cain two birds, one of which went and killed the other. The surviving bird then dug
a hole and buried the dead bird. It is from this episode that Cain, and by extension all mankind,
learned that a dead person must be buried. In reward for this educational demonstration, the birds
were rewarded with the honor of having their blood covered following shechita.[5]

One recites the blessing "al kisui dam" or "al kisui dam b'efer" before performing the kisui
hadam.[6] It is a matter of dispute whether or not one who performs the mitzva of kisui hadam for
the first time should recite the blessing of "shehecheyanu". Some authorities encourage one to do
so, while others suggest that it be omitted.[7] A "shehecheyanu" is never recited on the actual
shechita. Indeed, shehecheyanu is not recited upon the performance of any mitzva which takes a
life - even if doing so may be a mitzva from the Torah.[8] One who does not have earth handy to
cover the blood following the shechita should not slaughter in the first place.[9] While the blood
should be covered immediately after the shechita,[10] if, for whatever reason, one was unable to do
so, the kisui hadam may still be performed and should be done as soon as possible.[11]One should
not spit or urinate upon or in the area where kisui dam is performed.[12]

It is taught that the mitzva of kisui hadam is intended to dignify the mitzva of shechita. It is believed
that merely allowing the blood to remain uncovered would shame ("bizui mitzva") the mitzva of
shechita. In fact, it is from none other than the mitzva of kisui hadam that we learn to show respect
and sensitivity for all the other mitzvot of the Torah.[13] The act of covering the blood should be
performed in a dignified manner, such as with one's hand or a shovel designated for this
purpose.[14] One must not simply kick some earth on to the blood.[15] One who steals the mitzva of
kisui hadam from the one who is intended to perform it is obligated to reimburse that person
financially.[16] Indeed, such is the ruling any time one steals a mitzva belonging to another. A child
should not be permitted to perform the mitzva of kisui hadam.[17]

Commentators suggest that the mitzva of kisui hadam is intended to appease the angel charged
with watching over wildlife. There is some concern that should this angel see the blood of his
subjects being spilled, he would complain to God and possibly arouse Divine displeasure over the
perceived murder.[18] It also shows a measure of mercy and compassion for an animal whose life

18
we have just taken for our own needs.[19] It is interesting to note that we are forbidden to eat blood
because it is considered the life of the animal. So too, it is taught that eating blood can cause one
to became like an animal in one's behavior. It is also inappropriate to eat blood as it serves to atone
for us on the altar of the Beit Hamikdash and it is something which we actually reap great spiritual
benefits from.[20]

It is somewhat perplexing as to why domesticated animals are excluded from the mitzva of kisui
hadam. According to some interpretations, the mitzva of kisui hadam is intended to be reserved
exclusively for those animals which are not offered upon the altar. Although there are occasions
when birds are indeed offered upon the altar, their slaughter is not performed in the regular
manner.[21] Domesticated animals, such as bulls and sheep, however, are routinely offered upon
the altar and as such, it is not fitting for their blood to be covered. It is suggested, therefore, that
kisui hadam is to remind us that the proper place for an animal's blood to flow is on the altar when
slaughtered as an offering to God. It is only blood which, for whatever reason, isn't offered upon
the altar that should be covered.[22]

Furthermore, it is noted that God permitted the consumption of animals because doing so allows
the animals to actually become a part of the one who consumes them. One is in effect raising the
creature to a higher spiritual level. This is only true, however, when the one who eats animals does
so with the proper intentions. Those who eat meat merely in order to fulfill their desires do not
raise the animal's spiritual level. Since a bird is generally eaten by one person who may lack these
proper intentions, we cover its blood in order to award it an added measure of esteem and
sensitivity.
It is taught that although God permits man to eat meat, it is not the ideal arrangement. Indeed,
before the flood in the era of Noah, eating meat was actually prohibited. The mitzva of kisui hadam
is intended to impart upon a person, that one should hesitate somewhat before spilling the blood
of a living being for one's own use. It is only due to the lowly state of humanity that God conceded
and allowed man to eat meat.[23]

The Ba’al Shem Tov, in the years that he was a hidden mystic, would make his livelihood
slaughtering chickens and cows for Jewish communities before the holidays. When he left this
occupation, a new slaughterer took his place. One day, a Gentile assistant of one of the Jewish
villagers brought a chicken to the new slaughterer. As the new shochet began to sharpen his knife,
the Gentile watched and began to laugh. “You wet your knife with water before you sharpen it!”
he exclaimed, “And then you just start to cut?” “And how else?” the slaughterer asked. “The Ba’al
Shem Tov would cry until he had enough tears to wet the knife. Then he would cry as he sharpened
the knife. Only then would he cut!”

[1] Vayikra 17:13

[2] Likutei Sichot Vol. 37 pp. 48-53.
[3] Bereishit 18:27
[4] Shach Y.D. 19:5, Taz Y.D19:6
[5] Tanchuma Bereishit
[6] Rambam Shechita 14:1, Y.D. 28:2, Darkei Teshuva Y.D. 28:16-18
[7] Mateh Ephraim 602:8, Rema Y.D. 28:2
[8] Rema Y.D. 28:2
[9] Y.D. 28:21, Rambam Yom Tov 3:1

19
[10] Kreiti Upleiti Y.D. 28:1
[11] Pri Megadim Y.D. 28:13, Arugot Habosem Y.D. 31
[12] Sefer Chassidim 825, Mishna Berura 92:33
[13] Shabbat 22a
[14] Rambam Shechita 14:16
[15] Y.D. 28:7
[16] Shach Y.D. 28:14
[17] Darkei Teshuva Y.D. 28:2, Kaf Hachaim Y.D. 28:51
[18] Sefer Chassidim 372
[19] Maharsha to Bava Kama 117a
[20] Ramban to Vayikra 7:26
[21] Ramban to Vayikra 17:13, Sefer Hachinuch 187, Moreh Nevuchim 3:46
[22] Likutei Sichot Vol.37 pp. 48-53
[23] Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook. See Ein Ayah Shabbat 2:15

The Mitzvah of Kisui Hadam

Rabbi Josh Flug writes:10

The Torah (Vayikra 17:13) states that after slaughtering a bird or a non-domestic animal (chaya),
one must cover its blood with dirt. The Mishna, Chullin 83a, states that a domestic animal
(beheimah) is excluded from the mitzvah of kisui hadam.

The Relationship between Shechitah and Kisui Hadam

The Tosefta, Berachot 6:16, states that one recites a beracha when performing kisui
hadam. Rabbeinu Asher (c. 1250-1327) quotes the opinion of R. Yehudai Gaon (8th century) that
the beracha should be recited after the performance of kisui hadam because kisui hadam is the
conclusion of Shechitah. The rule that one must recite a beracha before performance of a mitzvah
only applies when one can recite the beracha at the beginning of the mitzvah. Since the beginning
of kisui hadam is the middle of the overall mitzvah, one should recite the beracha after the
conclusion. Rabbeinu Asher notes that common practice is to recite the beracha before the
performance of kisui hadam. He explains that this practice views Shechitah and kisui hadam as
two separate mitzvot (or concepts).

R. Eliezer ben Yoel (Ra'aviah, 13th century), Avi Ha'Ezri no. 1090, writes that one should not
speak between the beracha on the Shechitah and the beracha on the kisui hadam. Rabbeinu
Baruch (12th-13th century), Sefer HaTerumah, no. 39 (2), writes that it is permissible to speak
between the two berachot. Rama (1520-1572), Yoreh De'ah 19:4, rules that it is permissible to
speak but it is preferable not to speak. R. David HaLevi Segal (c.1586-1667), Taz, Yoreh
De'ah 19:5, explains that the dispute between Ra'aviah and Rabbeinu Baruch is contingent on
whether Shechitah and kisui hadam are two separate concepts or whether kisui hadam is the
conclusion of the Shechitah. Rama is of the opinion that they are two separate concepts and

10
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/756318/rabbi-josh-flug/the-mitzvah-of-kisui-hadam/

20
therefore, it is permissible to speak between the two acts. However, out of deference for the
opinion that kisui hadam is the conclusion of Shechitah, Rama rules that it is preferable not to
speak.

One indicator that kisui hadam is the conclusion of the Shechitah is the rule of the Beraita (cited
in Chullin 87a) that the same person who slaughters should be the one who performs kisui
hadam. Rambam (1138-1204), Hilchot Shechitah 14:15, seems to be sensitive to this issue and in
presenting the rule that the slaughterer should perform kisui hadam, writes that kisui hadam is an
independent mitzvah as indicated by the rule (Mishna, Chullin 87a) that if the slaughterer neglects
to perform kisui hadam, it is a mitzvah that is incumbent on every individual.

If kisui hadam is the conclusion of Shechitah, one can understand that the rule that the slaughterer
should perform the kisui hadam is an application of the general principle (Talmud
Yerushalmi, Rosh HaShanah 1:8) that one who begins a mitzvah should be the one to complete
it. If one views kisui hadam as an independent mitzvah, the rule that the slaughterer should be the
one to perform kisui hadam is a function of a special right that is given to the slaughterer.

R. Shlomo Kluger, Ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo, Yoreh De'ah no. 23, discusses whether it is permissible
for the slaughterer to honor someone else with the performance of kisui hadam. He notes that the
concern is the principle that one who is obligated to perform a mitzvah should not hire an agent
unless he cannot perform it himself (Kiddushin 41a). R. Kluger suggests that if the bird (or non-
domestic animal) is owned by the slaughterer, the slaughterer should perform the kisui hadam. If
the bird is owned by someone else, then the slaughterer is acting as an agent of the owner when
slaughtering the bird and the owner is the one who should perform the kisui hadam. A similar idea
is expressed by R. Naftali Z.Y. Berlin (1816-1893), Meishiv Davar 2:64.

R. Kluger's idea seems to follow the approach that Shechitah and kisui hadam are two
independent mitzvot. The slaughterer has the special right to perform kisui hadam and therefore,
he shouldn't allow someone else to perform it. However, if the slaughterer was initially acting on
behalf of the owner, the owner is given this unique right. If one assumes that kisui hadam is the
conclusion of the Shechitah, it is logical that even if an agent performed the Shechitah, the agent
should complete the mitzvah by performing kisui hadam as well.

The Nature of the Mitzvah

The Mishna, Chullin 87a, teaches that if someone covered the blood and it later became uncovered,
there is no requirement to cover the blood again. By contrast, the Gemara, ad loc., teaches that if
the blood was covered by a gust of wind that blew dirt onto the blood, there is no requirement to
uncover the blood and there is no mitzvah to perform kisui hadam. Yet, if the blood that was
covered through wind became uncovered, there is a requirement to perform kisui hadam.

21
The Mishna's ruling regarding the blood that was properly covered and then became uncovered
indicates that the goal of kisui hadam is not to ensure that the blood is covered permanently, but
rather that a process of covering it takes place. Yet, the Gemara's ruling seems to indicate the
opposite. If the blood was covered by natural means and underwent the process of covering, why
is there a requirement to perform kisui hadam if it later became uncovered?

This question is addressed by a number of Acharonim in discussing two questions about blood that
was covered through natural means. First, the Mishna, Chullin 87b, states that according to R.
Yehuda, there is no requirement to cover all of the blood. Even if some of the blood is covered,
one fulfills the mitzvah. R. Yosef Babad (1801-1874), Minchat Chinuch no. 197, queries whether
this applies to the exemption of blood that was covered naturally. If some of the blood was covered
naturally, is the rest of the blood exempt from kisui hadam? Second, R. Alexander Schor (d.
1737), Tevu'ot Shor 28:16, discusses the case of blood that was covered by a material that is invalid
for kisui hadam. Is there a requirement to uncover the blood in such a situation and cover it with
dirt?

R. Yosef Engel (1859-1920), Otzrot Yosef to Yoreh De'ah 28:21, suggests that perhaps the reason
why there is no requirement to cover blood that was covered naturally is that there is no blood to
be covered and the mitzvah no longer exists. The exemption is not based on the fact that the blood
underwent the process and the mitzvah was fulfilled. As such, it doesn't matter what is covering
the blood. As long as there is no blood to be covered, the exemption exists. If the blood is
subsequently uncovered, the exemption is removed and one has an obligation to perform kisui
hadam. While R. Engel doesn't address the question of blood that was partially covered, one can
apply his reasoning and claim that the if there still remains some blood to be covered, the
opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah still exists and therefore, one is obligated to cover the remaining
blood.

R. Engel also presents a variation of his original explanation. He suggests that since there is an
insistence that the blood is specifically covered with dirt, if the blood is covered by a different
material, it is still considered "uncovered" for the purpose of kisui hadam and there is a
requirement to cover it with dirt. According to this understanding, the two questions presented
above are not directly linked. If part of the blood is covered by dirt, there is still an obligation to
cover the rest of the dirt. At the same time, if all of the blood is covered by another material there
is an obligation to cover it with dirt. R. Engel prefers the second explanation.

Showing respect for Mitzvot

Philip Baigel writes:11

11
https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/233632?lang=bi

22
 ‫י״ג‬:‫ויקרא י״ז‬

(‫ ֶאת־ָדּ֔מוֹ ְוִכָ֖סּהוּ )יג‬z֙‫שַׁפ‬

ָ ‫ְו ִ֨אישׁ ִ֜אישׁ ִמְבּ ֵ֣ני ִיְשׂ ָרֵ֗אל וִּמן־ַהֵגּ֙ר ַה ָ֣גּר ְבּתוָֹ֔כם ֲאֶ֨שׁר ָי֜צוּד ֵ֥ציד ַח ָ֛יּה אוֹ־֖ﬠוֹף ֲאֶ֣שׁר ֵיָאֵ֑כל ְו‬
‫ֶבָּﬠ ָ ֽפר׃‬

Leviticus 17:13

(13) And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an animal or a
bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.

This is the source of the Mitzva of Kisui Hadam - that you have to cover the blood when you have
shechted a wild beast or fowl. In practice it is rare to shecht a chaya (occasional venison) but very
common to shecht chickens

The Gemara makes a drosha and says that you connect the shechita to the covering in that the
instrument with which you did the shechita should be the same one that you use to do the covering
i.e. your hand (or a knife). The Gemara tells us the reason - to do it with your foot would be a
denigration of the Mitzva. A person has to do a Mitzva in a dignified manner.

Incidentally this Gemara also tells us the din as to what happens if someone comes along and steals
your Mitzvah - another Shiur!

‫ד׳‬:‫חולין פ״ז א‬

‫תניא אידך ושפך וכסה במה ששפך בו יכסה שלא יכסנו ברגל שלא יהיו מצות בזויות עליו תניא אידך ושפך‬
‫וכסה מי ששפך הוא יכסנו מעשה באחד ששחט וקדם חבירו וכסה וחייבו רבן גמליאל ליתן לו י' זהובים‬

Chullin 87a:4

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with
earth,” indicating that with that which he poured out the blood he shall cover it, i.e., he must use
his hand, and he may not cover it with his foot, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. It
is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it with
earth,” indicating that the one who poured out the blood shall cover it. An incident occurred
involving one who slaughtered an undomesticated animal or bird and another individual
preempted him and covered the blood, and Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to give ten gold
coins to the one who performed the act of slaughter.

‫ט״ז‬:‫ הלכות שחיטה י״ד‬,‫משנה תורה‬

(‫שׁלּ ֹא ִי ְנֹהג בּוֹ ִמ ְנַהג ִבָּזּיוֹן ְו ִיְהיוּ ִמְצוֹת ְבּזוּיוֹת ָﬠָליו )טז‬

ֶ ‫שְׁמַּכֶסּה ל ֹא ְיַכֶסּה ְבּ ַרְגלוֹ ֶאָלּא ְבָּידוֹ אוֹ ְבַּסִכּין אוֹ ִבְּכִלי ְכֵּדי‬
ֶ ‫וְּכ‬.

‫ֶשֵׁאין ַהָכּבוֹד ְלַﬠְצָמן ֶשׁל ִמְצוֹת‬

‫ הוּא‬z‫שִׁצָּוּה ָבֶּהן ָבּרוּ‬

ֶ ‫ֶאָלּא ְלִמי‬

23
 z‫ְוִהִצּיָלנוּ ִמְלַּמֵשּׁשׁ ַבּחֶשׁ‬

‫ אוָֹתנוּ ֵנר ְלַיֵשּׁר ַהַמֲּﬠַקִשּׁים‬z‫ְוָﬠ ַר‬

‫ ְואוֹר ְלהוֹרוֹת ְנִתיבוֹת ַהיֶּשׁר‬.

‫)תהילים קיט קה( ְוֵכן הוּא אוֵֹמר‬

"‫"ֵנר ְל ַרְגִלי ְדָב ֶר• ְואוֹר ִל ְנִתיָבִתי‬:

Mishneh Torah, Ritual Slaughter 14:16

... For the mitzvot in and of themselves are not worthy of honor. Instead, [the honor is] due He,
blessed be He, who commanded us to observe them and [thus] saved us from groping in darkness
and thus granted us a lamp to straighten crooked paths and a light to illumine the upright ways
And so [Psalms 119:105] states: "Your words are a lamp to my feet and a light for my ways.".

Why does the Mishneh Torah launch here into a mussar shmooze?

The Chatam sofer gives us an answer.

First he quotes a Ramban who gives us Ta'amei Mitzvah for Kisuy dam.

‫חתם סופר מסכת חולין דף פז עמוד א‬

‫ומ"ש דרמזו קרא הכא י"ל עפ"י מ"ש רמב"ן בתורה טעם לכיסוי הדם מפני שהיו המצריים והכשדיים רגילים‬
‫לשפוך דם ע"פ השדה ולאסוף ולאכול שם ואומרים שהרוחות והשדים מתקבצים על רוח חמימות דם בעל החי‬
‫ומגיד להם עתידות ע"כ ציוה הקדוש ברוך הוא בחי' ועוף שרוב פעמים נשפך דמם בשדה לכסותם בעפר‬

So we see that the Egyptians and the Chaldeans were much involved in Avodah Zara.

So then he goes on to explain that this was Rambams reference to light and dark. He was saying
that Hashem has shown us how to sidetrack all that darkness of Tumah and how to navigate
through it to approach the lightness of Torah.

‫וא"כ לכאורה יהי' משמע אדרבה יכסה ברגל לנהוג בזיון במה שנהגו הם כבוד ואם נכסה ביד נראה כנותן כבוד‬
‫להדם לכן כ' רמב"ם שלא להמצוה אנו נותנים כבוד אלא למי שציוה אותנו זה להאיר מתוך חשכת סכלותם של‬
‫או"ה ההמה‬:

Now we see another makor for this concept of respect for Mitzvos.

‫ג׳‬:‫שבת כ״ב א‬

:‫ ָאַמר ִלי‬,‫ ִכּי ַאְמ ִריַתהּ ַקֵמּיהּ ִדְּשׁמוֵּאל‬.‫ ָאסוּר ְלַה ְרצוֹת ָמעוֹת ְכֶּנֶגד ֵנר ֲחנוָּכּה‬:‫ָאַמר ַרב ְיהוָּדה ָאַמר ַרב ַאִסּי ָאַמר ַרב‬
z‫ … ְוִכָסּה״ — ַבֶּמּה ֶשָׁשַּׁפ‬z‫ ְוִכי ָדּם ְקדוָּשּׁה ֵישׁ בּוֹ? ְדַּת ְנָיא ״ ְוָשַׁפ‬:‫ְוִכי ֵנר ְקדוָּשּׁה ֵישׁ ָבּהּ? ַמְתֵקיף ַלהּ ַרב יוֵֹסף‬
‫שׁלּ ֹא ְיהוּ ִמְצוֹת ְבּזוּיוֹת ָﬠָליו‬ ֶ ,‫ ָהָכא ָנֵמי‬.‫ ֶשׁלּ ֹא ְיהוּ ִמְצוֹת ְבּזוּיוֹת ָﬠָליו‬,‫ ֶשׁלּ ֹא ְיַכֶסּנּוּ ָבּ ֶרֶגל‬.‫ ְיַכֶסּה‬.

24
Shabbat 22a:3

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said that Rav said: It is prohibited to count money opposite a
Hanukkah light. Rav Yehuda relates: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me:
Does the Hanukkah light have sanctity that would prohibit one from using its light? Rav Yosef
strongly objected to this question: What kind of question is that; does the blood of a slaughtered
undomesticated animal or fowl have sanctity? As it was taught in a baraita that the Sages
interpreted the verse: “He shall spill its blood and cover it with dust” (Leviticus 17:13): With
that which he spilled, he shall cover. Just as a person spills the blood of a slaughtered animal
with his hand, so too, he is obligated to cover the blood with this hand and not cover it with his
foot. The reason is so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. Here too, one should treat
the Hanukkah lights as if they were sacred and refrain from utilizing them for other purposes,
so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him.

‫ד׳‬:‫שבת כ״ב א‬

‫ ֲה ֵרי ָאְמרוּ ָאסוּר ְלַה ְרצוֹת ָמעוֹת‬:‫ ַמהוּ ְלִהְסַתֵּפּק ִמנּוֵֹיי סוָּכּה ׇכּל ִשְׁבָﬠה? ֲאַמר ֵליהּ‬:‫שַׁﬠ ֶבּן ֵל ִוי‬
ֻ ‫ְבּעוֹ ִמיֵנּיהּ ֵמ ַרִבּי ְיהוֹ‬
‫ְכֶּנֶגד ֵנר ֲחנוָּכּה‬.....

‫ֲאבוּהוֹן ְדּכוְּלּהוּ ָדּם‬.

Shabbat 22a:4

The Gemara relates that they raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: What is the
halakha with regard to using decorations of a sukka all seven days of the festival of Sukkot? He
said to them: They already said in a similar vein that it is prohibited to count money opposite
the Hanukkah light, which proves that one may not use the object of a mitzva for another
purpose. the paradigm of them all is blood. The verse with regard to the covering of the blood
of slaughter is the original source from which the prohibition to treat mitzvot with contempt is
derived.

So "Bizui Mitzvos" is used as the reason behind - not counting money by the Chanukah lights
and also not having hana'ah form the Succot decorations.Kisuy dam is the source of both of
these.

Does this make it doriatha.

‫א׳‬:‫אורח חיים תער״ג‬

‫שמנים ופתילות הכשרות לחנוכה ובו ד"ס‬:

‫לפי שאסור להשתמש בנר חנוכ' בין בשב' בין בחול ואפי' לבדוק מעות‬

‫ו׳‬:‫יורה דעה כ״ח‬

(‫מכסה בידו או בסכין או בכלי אחר אבל לא ברגלו כדי שלא יהיו מצות בזויות עליו )ו‬:

25
Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 28:6

(6) One covers it with his hand or with a knife or with another utensil, but not with his foot so
that the commandments aren't denigrated on account of it.

The Darchei Teshuva brings a machlokes rishonim about whether this is DeRabbanan or Doraitha.

He says that the Rambam holds it is doraitha.

The Sha'agaz Aryeh asks - What violation are you o'ver if yoy have a shinas aray in your tefillin
and you were mafiach. He says this would be a bizui Mitzvah - which is a doraitha.

The Tevous Sor says - We also learn from the Gemara which said mi sheshachat - hu yechaseh
that the same person who shechted he should be the one to cover the blood (and remember we
learnt that if someone chappped arine and took the Mitzvah they were chayav asarah zehuvim).

The Chidush from this is that you can't make a shaliach for Kisuy Hadam.

It's also because of bizui Mitzvos. It's like you are saying - I don't want to bother getting down - I
don't want to get dirty etc.

There was a sha'ala on the Tevuous Shor - How could the Gemara learn 2 inyanim from one pasuk.

How could it learn from mi sheshachat - hu yechaseh both kisuy dam and no shaliach ?

We can see that you are actually only learning one concept - i.e. respect for MItzvos - but two
manifestations of that one concept.

‫ספרא אחרי מות פרשה ז פרק יא‬

( ‫ ושפך וכסה מי ששפך הוא‬,‫ לא יכסנו ברגל שלא יהו מצוות בזויות עליו‬,‫ז( ושפך וכסה במה ששפך בו יכסה‬
‫יכסה ולא יקפיד אם אחר יכסה ומנין שאף אחרים מוזהרים עליו‬

This is a stira?

The Malbim and the Korban Aharon quote a different girsa - velo yakpid - he shouldn't designate
anyone else.

‫קרבן אהרן אחרי מות פרשה ז פרק יא‬

‫ שירצה שלא ימנה אחר תחתיו‬,[‫ ג‬,‫ ומפרשי ליה מלשון ויפקד המלך פקידים ]אסתר ב‬,‫ואית דגרסי ולא יפקיד‬
‫לכסות‬

Tevuous shor says you can't have someone be your shaliach because that bliebs of bezayon.

However he says that you could decide to be mezacheh someone with the Mitzva.

26
A shochet may have done this Mitzva a thousand times so he wants someone else to have the
zechus.

Why is kisui hadam (covering of the blood) only done for a bird & wild animal, but
not for a domesticated animal?12

Leviticus 17:13 teaches us about the mitzvah of kisui hadam (covering of the blood) after an
animal undergoes shechitah:

‫ ֶאת־ָדּ֔מוֹ ְוִכָ֖סּהוּ ֶבָּﬠ ָ ֽפר׃‬z֙‫ְו ִ֨אישׁ ִ֜אישׁ ִמְבּ ֵ֣ני ִיְשָׂרֵ֗אל וִּמן־ַהֵגּ֙ר ַה ָ֣גּר ְבּתוָֹ֔כם ֲאֶ֨שׁר ָי֜צוּד ֵ֥ציד ַח ָ֛יּה אוֹ־֖ﬠוֹף ֲאֶ֣שׁר ֵיָאֵ֑כל ְוָשַׁפ‬

And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an animal or a bird that
may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.
However this mitzvah ONLY applies to birds & wild animals (see Sefer HaMitzvot Mitzvah
#147).

Why doesn't kisui hadam also apply to domesticated animals?

According to the "Klei Yakar" (Vayikra 17-13):

The main reason for the Mitzvah of "Kisui Ha'Dam" is to make a distinction that one should not
come to eat blood - "Dam Ha'Nefesh" (violating the prohibition of eating blood). but
for Beheimot there is no such need because they are sacrificed on the Mizbeach, and that's already
a sign (and a reminder) that the blood is coming from the Nefesh (- the Nefesh of the sacrifice is
a Kaparah for the human's Nefesh).

The Chinuch explains that the blood domestic animals is offered on the altar so cannot be covered,
and God didn't trouble us to distinguish in this way between animals offered on the altar and
animals slaughtered privately. Yes, birds are also offered on the altar, but very few, so we cover
their blood and wild animals'.

I was reminded of a more recent example of burying in the dirt…

From Auschwitz, a Torah as Strong as Its Spirit

James Barron writes:13

12
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/104305/why-is-kisui-hadam-covering-of-the-blood-only-done-for-a-bird-wild-
animal-b
13
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/nyregion/30torah.html

27
The back story of how a Torah got from the fetid barracks of Auschwitz to the ark of the Central
Synagogue at Lexington Avenue and 55th Street is one the pastor of the Lutheran church down
the street sums up as simply “miraculous.”

It is the story of a sexton in the synagogue in the Polish city of Oswiecim who buried most of the
sacred scroll before the Germans stormed in and later renamed the city Auschwitz. It is the story
of Jewish prisoners who sneaked the rest of it four carefully chosen panels into the
concentration camp.

It is the story of a Polish Catholic priest to whom they entrusted the four panels before their deaths.
It is the story of a Maryland rabbi who went looking for it with a metal detector. And it is the story
of how a hunch by the rabbi’s 13-year-old son helped lead him to it.

This Torah, more than most, “is such an extraordinary symbol of rebirth,” said Peter J. Rubinstein,
the rabbi of Central Synagogue. “As one who has gone to the camps and assimilates into my being
the horror of the Holocaust, this gives meaning to Jewish survival.”

On Wednesday, (2008) the restored Torah will be rededicated in honor of Holocaust Remembrance
Day, which for more than 20 years the congregation of Central Synagogue has observed in
conjunction with its neighbor, St. Peter’s Lutheran Church, at Lexington Avenue and 54th Street.
The senior pastor, the Rev. Amandus J. Derr, said that next to Easter, the Holocaust memorial is
“the most important service I attend every year.”

The Torah from Auschwitz “is a very concrete, tactile piece of that remembrance of what people,
some of whom did it in the name of Christ, did to people who were Jewish,” Pastor Derr said, “and
the remembrance itself enables us to be prepared to prevent that from happening again.”

A Torah scroll contains the five books of Moses, and observant Jews read a portion from it at
services. Its ornate Hebrew must be hand-lettered by specially trained scribes, and it is considered
unacceptable if any part is marred or incomplete. For years, Jews around the world have worked
to recover and rehabilitate Torahs that disappeared or were destroyed during the Holocaust,
returning them to use in synagogues.

28
 Rabbi Menachem Youlus removes dirt from a Torah that had been buried in
a Polish cemetery to keep it from the Nazis

This Torah remained hidden for more than 60 years, buried where the sexton had put it, until Rabbi
Menachem Youlus, who lives in Wheaton, Md., and runs the nonprofit Save a Torah foundation,
began looking for it about eight years ago. Over two decades, Rabbi Youlus said, the foundation
has found more than 1,000 desecrated Torahs and restored them, a painstaking and expensive
process. This one was elusive. But Rabbi Youlus was determined.
Editors’ Picks

He had heard a story told by Auschwitz survivors: Three nights before the Germans
arrived, the synagogue sexton put the Torah scrolls in a metal box and buried them. The
sexton knew that the Nazis were bent on destroying Judaism as well as killing Jews.

But the survivors did not know where the sexton had buried the Torah. Others interested in
rescuing the Torah after the war had not found it.

As for what happened during the war, “I personally felt the last place the Nazis would look would
be in the cemetery,” Rabbi Youlus said in a telephone interview Tuesday, recalling his pilgrimage
to Auschwitz, in late 2000 or early 2001, in search of the missing Torah. “So that was the first
place I looked.”

29
With a metal detector, because, if the story was correct, he was hunting for a metal box in a
cemetery in which all the caskets were made of wood, according to Jewish laws of burial. The
metal detector did not beep. “Nothing,” the rabbi said. “I was discouraged.”

He went home to Maryland. One of his sons, Yitzchok, then 13, wondered if the cemetery was the
same size as in 1939. They went online and found land records that showed that the present-day
cemetery was far smaller than the original one.

Rabbi Youlus went back in 2004 with his metal detector, aiming it at the spot where the g’neeza
a burial plot for damaged Torahs, prayer books or other papers containing God’s name had been.
It beeped as he passed a house that had been built after World War II.

He dug near the house and found the metal box. But when he opened it, he discovered the Torah
was incomplete. “It was missing four panels,” he said. “The obvious question was, why would the
sexton bury a scroll that’s missing four panels? I was convinced those four panels had a story
themselves.”

Rabbi Menachem Youlus of the Save a Torah foundation.Credit...Brendan

Hoffman for The New York Times

They did, as he learned when he placed an ad in a Polish newspaper in the area “asking if anyone
had parchment with Hebrew letters.”

30
“I said I would pay top dollar,” Rabbi Youlus said. “The response came the next day from a priest.
He said, ‘I know exactly what you’re looking for, four panels of a Torah.’ I couldn’t believe it.”

He compared the lettering and the pagination, and paid the priest. (How much, he would not say.
The project was underwritten by David M. Rubenstein, a co-founder of the Carlyle Group. Mr.
Rubenstein was tied at No. 165 on the Forbes 400 last year with a reported fortune of $2.5 billion;
in December, he paid $21.3 million for a 710-year-old copy of the Magna Carta, a British
declaration of human rights that served as the foundation for the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution.)

The priest “told me the panels were taken into Auschwitz by four different people,” Rabbi Youlus
said. “I believe they were folded and hidden.” One of the panels contained the Ten Commandments
from Exodus, a portion that, when chanted aloud each year, the congregation stands to hear.
Another contained a similar passage from Deuteronomy.

The priest, who was born Jewish, was himself an Auschwitz survivor. He told Rabbi Youlus that
the people with the four sections of the Torah gave them to him before they were put to death.

“He kept all four pieces until I put that ad in the paper,” Rabbi Youlus said. “As soon as I put that
ad in the paper, he knew I must be the one with the rest of the Torah scroll.” (Rabbi Youlus said
that the priest has since died.)

Rabbi Youlus said that nearly half the Torah’s lettering needed repair, work that the foundation
has done over the past few years. Thirty-seven letters were left unfinished: 36, or twice the number
that symbolizes “life” in Hebrew, will be filled in by members of the congregation before the
service on Wednesday, the 37th at the ceremony.

Rabbi Youlus called it “a good sturdy Torah, even if it hasn’t been used in 65 years.” The plan is
to make it available every other year to the March of the Living, an international educational
program that arranges for Jewish teenagers to go to Poland on Holocaust Remembrance Day, to
march from Auschwitz to its companion death camp, Birkenau.

“This really is an opportunity to look up to the heavens and say, he who laughs last, laughs best,”
Rabbi Youlus said. “The Nazis really thought they had wiped Jews off the face of the earth, and
Judaism. Here we are taking the ultimate symbol of hope and of Judaism and rededicating it and
using it in a synagogue. And we’ll take it to Auschwitz. You can’t beat that.”

31