QUESTION: In the Mishnah, Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue about whether one must perform Kisuy ha'Dam for the blood of a Chayah or bird which was Chayav Sekilah ("Chayah v'Of ha'Niskalim") but which was slaughtered before it was put to death with Sekilah.
RASHI (DH Chayah) explains that the Chayah and bird in this case are Chayav Sekilah because there were "Nirve'u" -- a person had relations with them. Generally, when the Mishnah or Gemara refers to an animal that is Chayav Sekilah, it refers to an animal that killed a person (such as the "Shor ha'Niskal" mentioned in the Mishnah on 81b). The Mishnah in Eduyos (6:1) discusses the case of a bird that is Chayav Sekilah because it killed by pecking a baby on its fontanel. Why does Rashi here not explain that the Mishnah is discussing such a case?
ANSWER: The CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER explains that there is a Machlokes Tana'im with regard to whether a bird is Chayav Misah for killing (see TOSFOS YOM TOV to Eduyos 6:1). Rashi here seeks to avoid that Machlokes, and therefore he explains that the Chayah or bird that is Chayav Sekilah refers to one that was "Nirva." (Z. Wainstein)
The Gemara discusses the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon with regard to whether a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah is considered a valid Shechitah in the case of Kisuy ha'Dam and the Isur of "Oso v'Es Beno."
What is the Halachah?
(a) With regard to "Oso v'Es Beno," the SHACH (YD 16:18) rules that when an animal was slaughtered and found to be a Tereifah, it is still forbidden to slaughter that animal's child (or mother). This is in accordance with the view that a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah is considered a valid Shechitah.
(b) With regard to Kisuy ha'Dam, the SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 28:17) rules that when a Chayah or bird was slaughtered and found to be a Tereifah, one is exempt from performing Kisuy ha'Dam, in accordance with the view of Rebbi here who rules like Rebbi Meir with regard to "Oso v'Es Beno," and like Rebbi Shimon with regard to Kisuy ha'Dam, as the Gemara explains. (Z. Wainstein)


QUESTION: Rebbi Meir maintains that a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, such as the Shechitah of a Tereifah, is a valid Shechitah with regard to Kisuy ha'Dam and "Oso v'Es Beno." Rebbi Aba asserts that even according to Rebbi Meir, that such a Shechitah cannot permit the meat of the Tereifah to be eaten. The Gemara asks why Rebbi Aba had to point that out. It is obvious that the Shechitah of a Tereifah animal does not permit its meat to be eaten! The Gemara answers that Rebbi Aba meant to say that the Shechitah of a Tereifah does not permit a live, nine-month-old fetus found inside of it. The fetus needs its own Shechitah in order to be permitted.
Why does the Gemara limit Rebbi Aba's teaching to a live, nine-month-old fetus? Even with regard to a dead nine-month-old fetus, or to a live seven-month-old fetus, his statement would be true. That is, even thouigh Rebbi Meir says (74a) that the Shechitah of a healthy mother animal permits any fetus found inside its womb, the Shechitah of a Tereifah does not!
ANSWER: RASHI (DH Ben Tesha Chai, DH v'Savar Lah k'Rabanan) and TOSFOS (DH Eima) suggest that the Gemara does not explain Rebbi Aba's statement this way, because it is obvious that a dead nine-month-old or live seven-month-old fetus does not become permitted through the Shechitah of its Tereifah mother. Such a fetus is considered no more than "the thigh of its mother" (Yerech Imo), and thus it cannot be more permitted than the mother itself. It is only a live nine-month-old fetus that one might have thought is permitted due to the Shechitah of its Tereifah mother, since it is a separate entity with an identity distinct from its mother.
QUESTION: The Beraisa states that when one slaughters an animal of Chulin in the Azarah that "is [known to be] a Tereifah, or that is found [after Shechitah] to be a Tereifah," one is permitted to derive benefit from the animal according to Rebbi Shimon. According to the Chachamim, one may not derive benefit from the animal.
What is the difference between an animal that is known to be a Tereifah, and an animal that is found after Shechitah to be a Tereifah? Why is it necessary for the Beraisa to mention both types of animals?
ANSWER: The Beraisa mentions both types of animals because one might have thought that in the second case, when it was not obvious at the time of Shechitah that the animal was a Tereifah, that even Rebbi Shimon prohibits deriving benefit from it. People who do not know that it was found to be a Tereifah will assume that one is permitted to derive benefit from a normal, Kosher animal that was slaughtered in the Azarah. The Beraisa emphasizes that even if the animal was found to be a Tereifah only after the Shechitah, it nevertheless is Mutar b'Hana'ah, and there is no concern that people mistakenly will assume that a normal, Kosher animal that is slaughtered in the Azarah is Mutar b'Hana'ah. (M. KORNFELD)
QUESTION: The Gemara records an incident in which a flax-eating worm fell into Rebbi Chiya's soaking flax. Rebbi suggested that he slaughter a bird over the soaking flax, since blood is a natural pesticide and would drive away the worm. The Gemara asks that this would not solve the problem, because the blood needs to be covered with earth and it cannot be poured directly into water. The Gemara suggests that Rebbi's suggestion was either to do Nechirah, or make the bird a Tereifah before the Shechitah.
The SHULCHAN ARUCH (YD 28:15) rules that when there is blood from the bird or Chayah besides the blood that is on the knife, it is not necessary to remove the blood from the knife and cover it. The Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam can be fulfilled with even part of the blood. Why, then, does the Gemara not suggest simply that Rebbi Chiya do Kisuy ha'Dam with part of the blood and use the rest for his infested flax?
(a) The PISCHEI TESHUVAH (YD 28:9) explains that the reason why the Gemara does not make this suggestion is that Rebbi Chiya needed to use all of the blood for his infested flax. Had he needed only part of the blood, he indeed could have performed Kisuy ha'Dam on part of the blood and used the remainder to disinfect his flax.
(b) RAV SHLOMO EIGER (in GILYON MAHARSHA to Shulchan Aruch YD 28:15) explains that the Shulchan Aruch means that although one is not required to scrape off the blood from the knife or wait for all of the blood to come out of the neck before doing Kisuy ha'Dam, one does have to cover all of the blood that has already collected in the pool of blood. Moreover, l'Chatchilah one should try to collect as much blood as possible in the pool of blood that will be covered (but there is no requirement to scrape off blood from the knife). This is why the Gemara does not suggest that Rebbi Chiya should have covered some of the blood to fulfill the Mitzvah and then used the rest for his infested flax. (Z. Wainstein)
Both of Rav Shlomo Eiger's rulings need further explanation. In his first ruling, he says that all of the blood that has collected in the pool of blood must be covered. Why, according to the opinion that interprets the word "Damo" to mean "Miktzas Damo," is it necessary to cover all of the blood in the pool?
A similar ruling is cited by the DARCHEI TESHUVAH (YD 28:5) in the name of the DA'AS KEDOSHIM, who writes that one should cover the blood until there is no impression of blood left on the dirt. Why is this necessary? Even when there is some impression of blood left in the dirt, some of the blood has been completely covered and is not discernible!
The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 14:6) gives a similar ruling when he writes that when the blood of Shechitah mixes with other blood, one must cover "all of the blood," and it does not suffice to cover enough of the blood such that one is certain that some of the Shechitah blood has been covered.
Similarly, the SEFER HA'CHINUCH (Mitzvah 187) writes, "It therefore is proper to cover the blood and to conceal it from any seeing eye."
Why must all of the blood be covered?
The Darchei Teshuvah explains the ruling of the Da'as Kedoshim based on the words of RASHI (83b, DH v'Chisahu). Rashi writes that had the Torah said, "v'Chisahu Afar," one would have learned that it is necessary only to place earth on top of the blood. However, the Torah says, " v'Chisahu b'Afar" (Vayikra 17:13) -- one must cover the blood "in earth," implying that it must be entirely surrounded (or "wrapped," as Rashi writes) by earth.
Accordingly, if one merely places a small amount of dirt on the blood and the blood is discernible in the dirt, then none of the blood is surrounded. Rather, the dirt was thrown into the blood and it was not wrapped around the blood. Therefore, it is necessary for there to be no impression of blood left.
The Darchei Teshuvah's words also explain the ruling of the Rambam and the Sefer ha'Chinuch, as well as the ruling of Rav Shlomo Eiger, who rules that one should cover all of the blood that is collected in one place. If one covers only some of the blood, then he merely will be throwing some dirt into the blood, and this is not considered "wrapping the blood in dirt," as the impression of the blood is still visible.
The second ruling of Rav Shlomo Eiger also needs explanation. He says that Rebbi Chiya did not use part of the blood for his flax and leave part of it for Kisuy ha'Dam because of the Mitzvah l'Chatchilah to slaughter with the intent of covering all of the blood. The Shulchan Aruch rules that one does not need to cover the blood on the knife or that splashed elsewhere, and he makes no mention of any necessity to cover all of the blood l'Chatchilah. Why, then, does Rav Shlomo Eiger say that it is a special "Hidur" to slaughter with intention to cover all of the blood?
The answer seems to be that the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam is fulfilled by covering whatever blood has collected in one place. It is not necessary -- and it would not be a "Hidur" -- to cover the blood that is in other places, since the Mitzvah has already been fulfilled in the first place. However, l'Chatchilah one should try to ensure that all of the blood collects in one place so that he can fulfill the Mitzvah with as much blood as possible. This is considered a "Hidur Mitzvah." This is why Rebbi Chiya did not intentionally save any of the blood for use with his flax (and the blood left on the knife was not sufficient for his purposes). (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)