The Mitzvah of Kisui HaDam

In the previous issue, we discussed the concept of shechitah and whether it is a mitzvah or a means of rendering the animal as kosher.  In this issue, we will discuss the mitzvah of kisui hadam.  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 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.

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.