Siman 28

It is a positive commandment from the Torah, when one slaughters a chaya or a bird, to cover their blood with earth, but not the blood of a behema, as it is written in Parshat Acharei Mot: "And any man of the house of Israel... who eats any blood, I will set My face... and I will cut him off from among his people. For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls..." and "And any man of the children of Israel... who hunts a prey of a chaya or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the soul of all flesh, its blood is in its soul, and I say to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh..." The explanation of the verses appears to me to be that the Torah prohibited blood and gave the reason that the blood is for the altar for atonement. This reason is also written regarding chelev in Parshat Vayikra, as it is written: "All chelev is for Hashem... any chelev and any blood you shall not eat." And similarly in Parshat Tzav it is written: "For anyone who eats the chelev of the behema from which one may bring an offering..." And for an offering, only behemot alone were fit and not chayot, as is known, and also of birds only turtledoves and young pigeons are fit. And chelev was only prohibited in behemot and not in chayot and birds. Thus I would have said that regarding blood it is also so, that only the blood of behemot was prohibited. For this the Torah said: "And any man... who hunts a prey of a chaya or a bird... and he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth," meaning: I command you to cover the blood of the chaya and the bird and they are prohibited for eating, and the reason is "for the soul of all flesh...", and "I say to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh," and not like chelev which is only prohibited of behemot, but regarding blood I have prohibited to you [the blood] of all flesh. And in Midrash Bereshit, Parsha 22, they gave a reason for the commandment of covering because the pure chayot and birds buried Abel; therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave them [the merit] that their blood should be covered. See there.

And even though we find in the Torah that a wild animal is included in the category of a domestic animal and a domestic animal is included in the category of a wild animal [Chullin 70b], nevertheless, here it is impossible to say that a domestic animal is included in the category of a wild animal to require covering for the blood of a domestic animal as well. For it is explicitly written in Parshat Re'eh in the verses, "When Hashem your G-d shall enlarge your border... and you shall slaughter of your herd and of your flock etc. Only be steadfast not to eat the blood etc. you shall pour it upon the earth as water." Just as water does not require covering, so too the blood of a domestic animal does not require covering [ibid. 84a].

And even though it is written "any man from the children of Israel," it does not come to exclude women. And so we learned in the Torat Kohanim, Parshat Acharei Mot: "Among them" to include women and slaves. And why is it said "any man"? Since it is said "who hunts," I only have the one who hunts; from where do I know one who bought, inherited, or was given it as a gift? The Torah teaches "any man." Thus far the words of the Torat Kohanim. And that which is said "from the children of Israel" and it is not written "from the house of Israel" as in the previous matter, it can be said that it is because it is not the way of women to engage in hunting, and also it is not their way to engage in shechitah. And even though they are valid to perform shechitah, nevertheless it is not their way to do so, as I wrote in siman 1, and the verse spoke of the common occurrence [it appears to me].

And that which is written, "and he shall pour out its blood," and not the language of shechitah, is because regarding blood the language throughout the entire Torah is "pouring," as it is written, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed," and likewise, "you shall pour it upon the earth like water," and likewise, "blood shall be imputed to that man; he has shed blood," and likewise, "and for the land there can be no atonement... but by the blood of him that shed it," and likewise throughout the entire Tanakh, and likewise in the language of our sages of blessed memory, "shefikhut damim." And furthermore, it comes to teach us that even though he does not perform shechitah for the sake of the meat, and his entire intent is for the blood—such as if he needs the blood for medicine or for dogs—nevertheless, since he performed shechitah, he is obligated to cover, as is taught in the Tosefta of Chullin, chapter 6, see there; and it will be explained in this siman with the help of Heaven. And furthermore, it teaches us that if he performed shechitah and no blood emerged, he is exempt from the kisuy and it is permitted for eating, as will be explained with the help of Heaven, and he is not obligated to cut the veins so that blood will emerge [Kereiti U-Peleiti, subsection 28].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [chapter 6]: Kisuy hadam applies in the Land and outside the Land, in the presence of the Temple and not in the presence of the Temple, with chullin but not with kodashim, and it applies to a chayah and to a bird, whether prepared or not prepared. Thus far its words. And kisuy hadam is a commandment that is an obligation of the person and not an obligation of the land; consequently, it applies in every place and at every time. And with kodashim it does not apply because one must place the blood upon the altar, and for kisuy one requires earth below, and it is impossible to place earth upon the altar. And even though it is possible to scrape the blood from the altar after the application of the blood and place it upon the ground and cover it, nevertheless the verse says, "and he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth"—one who requires only pouring and covering; this excludes that which requires pouring, scraping, and covering [Gemara]. And it is not similar to what will be explained regarding blood that splattered or that is on the knife, where one scrapes it and covers it, for there it is an accident and is not by necessity, for if there is other blood, one does not need to scrape this blood, as will be explained; this is not the case with kodashim, for if we were to require kisuy, it would always be impossible without scraping. And so too, if one consecrated it for the repair of the Temple and slaughtered it, it does not require kisuy in any case: for if he slaughtered it before redemption, it is forbidden for benefit and is a slaughter that is not fit and is not called a slaughter; and if he slaughtered it after redemption, it indeed requires kisuy, for it is like chullin. And if we were to say to require kisuy even when he slaughtered before redemption, and that he should redeem it after the slaughter and afterwards cover it, we also learn from this derivation: "and he shall pour and cover"—this excludes that which lacks pouring, redemption, and covering. Furthermore, since it is written "chayah or bird," and standard kodashim are for the altar, and a chayah does not go up to the altar, and similarly with a bird, even with turtledoves and young pigeons that go up to the altar, it is not dealing with them, similar to a chayah; and since it is not dealing with kodashim of the altar, all the more so it is not dealing with kodashim for the repair of the Temple. And we learned in the Tosefta [chapter 6] that if one slaughtered chullin and afterwards consecrated the blood, he is obligated in kisuy because the commandment of kisuy preceded the consecration. See there.

And that which we learned, that it applies to that which is prepared and that which is not prepared, meaning to domestic birds and to desert birds, this is the explanation: Even though it is written "when he hunts," which implies specifically those that require hunting and not domestic birds, nevertheless it is not so. And thus the sages, of blessed memory, expounded [page 84a]: "That he hunts"—I only have "that he hunts"; from where do we know those that are already prepared of their own accord, such as geese and chickens? The verse teaches "game" in any case. If so, why is it said "that he hunts"? The Torah taught proper conduct, that a person should not eat meat except with this preparation, as if he is hunting that which is not prepared for him; meaning, he should not eat meat constantly so that he does not become impoverished [Rashi]. And they explained there in the Gemara that this refers to the early generations who were healthy, but as for us, we borrow and eat; meaning, we require the eating of meat for the health of the body. Nevertheless, one should not eat much and in a gluttonous manner, but rather for the sustenance of the body [Yam Shel Shelomo, chapter 6, section 3]. [And the sages, of blessed memory, did not mention a domestic chayah because a pure domestic chayah is not found at all, as is known. And with this, one can answer that which they expounded from this verse, "the Torah taught proper conduct," for we already know this from the verse "when He shall enlarge," as is stated there in the Gemara. Rather, this was written because of a chayah, whose way is only through hunting, and so that we should not say that with birds it is also so, it was necessary to write "game" to include them, and automatically we also know the exposition of proper conduct from this verse. And with this, the words of the Rambam in chapter 14 are settled, where he wrote that "that he hunts" was only stated regarding the common occurrence, see there. And this is the opposite of the exposition of the sages, of blessed memory, and see the Lechem Mishneh who labored greatly in this, and according to what I wrote it is settled, and he intended what I wrote, and examine it closely]:

The covering is a mitzvah in its own right, even though it is the completion of the mitzvah of shechitah according to the opinion of those who hold that one should not speak between shechitah and covering, as I wrote in siman 19, section 8, see there [Ateret Zvi, subsection 2]. Nevertheless, it does not pertain to the validity of the shechitah, for the shechitah is kosher even without covering. Therefore, it is not only if he inadvertently failed to cover that it is permitted for eating, but even if he intentionally did not cover, the shechitah is kosher and permitted for eating, and the shochet himself is permitted to eat [Shach, subsection 3]. This is unless the people are lax regarding this mitzvah, for then, for the sake of "fencing the matter," it is possible to forbid the shochet himself, such that it is forbidden for him to eat from it [ibid.]. Furthermore, his shechitah is not to be disqualified on the grounds that he is a transgressor regarding the mitzvah of covering, for even a transgressor regarding one matter, his shechitah is kosher, as I wrote in siman 19, section 3 regarding the blessing of shechitah, see there.

Most of the poskim agreed that regarding the blessing of kisuy, one must bless over it before he covers, like all the mitzvot over which we bless prior to their performance. However, the Bahag wrote to bless after the covering, for he holds that the shechitah and the kisuy are one matter; the shechitah is the beginning of the mitzvah and the kisuy is the completion of the mitzvah, and before the kisuy is in the middle of the mitzvah, and we do not find a blessing in the middle of a mitzvah. Therefore, one should bless over the shechitah before the mitzvah and over the kisuy afterward [Tur]. His words were not accepted, for we consider kisuy a mitzvah unto itself [Rosh, section 6]. And so ruled the Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch. Nevertheless, it appears to me that if he did not bless before the covering, he should bless afterward. And even according to the opinion of the Rambam that we wrote in siman 19, section 4 regarding the blessing of shechitah—that when he did not bless beforehand he should not bless afterward—nevertheless, regarding kisuy he should bless afterward; for since it is the opinion of the Bahag to bless specifically afterward, one is able to rely on his words at least ex post facto [and so wrote the Pri Chadash, and see the Tevuot Shor who disagrees with him, and I do not see the necessity of his words, see there].

The Tur wrote the text of the blessing as "upon the covering of blood with earth," but in the Rambam the word "with earth" is absent, and likewise in the Semag. It would seemingly appear like their words, for in all blessings we only mention the general principle of the mitzvah and not its details, and this is similar [Bach]. The reason of the Tur can be said to be because it is written thus in the Torah: "and he shall cover it with earth" [ibid.]. Furthermore, because one requires earth below and earth above, and we derive this from "with earth" as will be explained; therefore it is necessary to clarify this in the blessing [Taz]. Furthermore, because in the Holy Tongue, "covering" is sometimes used in the sense of concealment, such as "and we shall conceal his blood," therefore it is necessary to clarify that this covering is a literal covering [Tevuat Shor]. Furthermore, so as not to err by saying that a covering with a vessel or a board is sufficient, as it is written regarding a pit, "and he does not cover it," and most coverings in the Tanakh are thus, such as "the covering of the Ark," "and she covered herself with a veil," "for she had covered her face," "a covering of tachash skin," and those similar to these; and "covering with earth" has no parallel in Scripture except for one other, and so as not to err in a matter transmitted to the masses, it is therefore necessary to clarify [it appears to me]. And so it is implied in the Gemara [88a]. And even though one may cover with gold filings as will be explained, this is because it is called "earth," as will be explained with the help of Heaven [and the difficulty of the Peri Chadash is well-settled].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: One who slaughters for the first time recites the blessing of shehecheyanu over the kisuy and not over the shechitah, for it causes harm to a creature. Thus far his words. And furthermore, regarding shechitah, one is not obligated to slaughter, but regarding kisuy, one is obligated once he has slaughtered [Shach]. However, it appears that even over kisuy one should not recite shehecheyanu, for only over a mitzvah of joy or one that comes from time to time do we practice reciting shehecheyanu, and over a mitzvah that is not from time to time and has no joy in it, we do not recite shehecheyanu, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 22, that over tzitzit one recites the blessing upon purchasing the tallit and not over the mitzvah alone; see there. And only according to the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 11 of Berakhot, that over tzitzit and tefillin one recites shehecheyanu, is it possible that over kisuy one also recites the blessing; but we do not rule like the Rambam. Therefore, one should not recite shehecheyanu over the kisuy [Shach and Pri Chadash]. And there are those who wish to uphold the words of our teacher, the Rema [Kereti U-Peleti and Tevuot Shor], but a doubt regarding blessings is ruled leniently, and it seems to me that such is the common custom, not to recite the blessing.

A koy, which is a doubt whether it is a wild animal or a domestic animal, requires covering its blood but one does not recite a blessing. Even though the doubt is from the Torah, nevertheless, regarding the blessing which is rabbinic, we do not find that the sages instituted a blessing over such a doubt which is not a constant obligation [see the Rosh at the beginning of the chapter "Kisu HaDam" and delve therein]. Similarly, shaatnez that comes from a domestic animal and a wild animal, where its father is a wild animal and its mother is a domestic animal, such as a deer that mated with a female goat, where there is a doubt whether we are concerned for the seed of the father or not, as written in siman 16, one covers without a blessing. But when its mother is a wild animal and its father is a domestic animal, such as a male goat that mated with a female deer, one covers with a blessing; for even if we are concerned for the seed of the father, nevertheless we maintain "a lamb, and even a partial lamb," as written there, and so too we say "a deer, and even a partial deer," and so it is in the Gemara [79b]. Therefore, when from its mother's side it is a wild animal, it is obvious that one covers with a blessing. And that which the poskim wrote, that with shaatnez coming from a domestic animal and a wild animal one covers without a blessing, this is when from its father's side it is a wild animal [Shach and Taz].

The koy and kilayim, one may not slaughter them on Yom Tov because, due to the doubt, it is impossible to cover their blood because of the handling of muktzah earth. And even if he has stove ash or prepared earth where there is no muktzah, one may not slaughter them on Yom Tov. Furthermore, even post facto when he has slaughtered, one may not cover its blood [Beitzah 8a]. Even if there is no prohibition of muktzah, it is a decree lest the onlookers say: since they trouble themselves on Yom Tov to cover, conclude from this that it is a chayah, and they will come to permit its chelev. Therefore, due to the pitfall of a doubt of a prohibition of karet, the sages did not permit covering at all on Yom Tov [ibid.]. And what should he do when he has slaughtered? He should wait until the night, and if at that time the mark of the blood is still recognizable, he should cover; and if not, he should not cover. And the covering does not delay the eating, as I have written. And one should not receive the blood in a vessel and leave it until the evening, for it has already been explained in siman 11 that one does not receive the blood in vessels [Tur]. And there is one who wrote to put a little earth into the vessel [Bach], for in such a case it is permitted as I have written there, but there are those who hesitate regarding this [Shach, subsection 10]. And so it appears to be the primary view, for behold we have seen that the sages, of blessed memory, were very stringent in this because of the decree of permitting its chelev. And they were so stringent on Yom Tov that they said even if the blood of a definite chayah was mixed with a behemah, where he is obligated by law to cover—for example, where the blood of the chayah is much more—nevertheless they should not cover on Yom Tov, as I have written in Orach Chaim siman 498. And they pushed aside the mitzvah of covering through "sit and do not act" [Tosafot, Beitzah ibid.], and all the more so regarding a doubtful chayah, where there is a decree of a prohibition of karet, that one should not perform any action regarding this.

The re'em is a chayah and its chelev is permitted and it requires kisuy, as it is written: "the wild goat, the pygmy goat, and the antilope," and we translate as "ya'ala and rima." And those buffles which we call re'em in error, it is a behemah and its chelev is forbidden, for the re'em is very large as is proven in the Shas, and the buffles are small in comparison to them. Furthermore, in Iyov [39] it is written: "Can you bind the re'em in the furrow with his rope? Or will he harrow the valleys after you?" Behold, it is impossible to perform labor with it, and the buffles are creatures of labor [Tosafot Zevachim 113b]. According to this, it does not require kisuy as it is not a doubtful chayah. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote likewise in section 4: The buffles, it is the custom not to cover their blood. Thus far his words. Nevertheless, there are some of the early authorities who were uncertain regarding this, and therefore our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who are uncertain regarding the buffla, which is the wild ox, lest it is a chayah; therefore it is good to cover it without a berakhah, or to slaughter a bird as well and then he can recite the berakhah over the kisuy because of the bird. Thus far his words. And he should be careful not to mix the blood of the bird with its blood, for if they are mixed, the small amount of bird blood will be nullified in its greater amount of blood and it will be a berakhah in vain; rather, he should slaughter the bird near it [Taz and Shach].

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [83b]: One who slaughters must place dust below and dust above, as it is said [Leviticus 17]: "and he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." "Dust" is not said, but rather "with dust" (be-afar); for if it had been written "and cover it dust" (afar), it would imply covering from above, but "with dust" implies that it should be entirely buried in dust [Rashi]. And regarding the dust that is above, it is a mitzvah that he himself should place it, and the proof is that we hold that if he himself covered the blood and afterwards the blood was revealed, he is exempt from covering it again; but if the wind covered it and it was revealed, he is obligated to cover it, as will be explained. Behold, he has not fulfilled his obligation when he did not cover it himself. However, regarding the dust that is below, it is not necessary that he place it, and if he slaughters upon loose dust, it is as if he placed the dust [Tosafot]. And that which our sages, of blessed memory, said, "he must place dust below," this is when he does not slaughter in a place of loose dust. However, there are some of our teachers who hold that even regarding the dust below some action is required, either that he place it with his hands on the place where he slaughters there, or when there is loose dust there, he should designate it verbally for this [Rashi 31a], that he should say: "This is for the covering of the blood," for if not so, he has done nothing. And all this is ab initio, but post facto it is obvious that it does not invalidate, for behold, even regarding the dust above it will be explained that if the wind covered the blood and it was not revealed, he is exempt from covering, and all the more so in such a case [Shach subsection 12]. And there is one who is stringent, when he did not designate it verbally and has not yet covered above, to scrape the blood and place it on another spot with designation; and this is an excessive stringency, and scraping the blood is only done in a case of great necessity, and particularly since most poskim do not hold of this designation at all [see Pri Chadash subsection 13].

If one slaughtered in a place where there was no earth below, he is obligated to scrape the blood immediately and place it upon loose earth and cover it with loose earth and recite the blessing. And even if he slaughtered on the ground, but the earth there is not loose, he must scrape it and place it upon loose earth. And if it is impossible to scrape, he is nevertheless obligated to place loose earth from above; for although it is impossible to fulfill "earth from below," nevertheless, "earth from above," which is possible to fulfill, he is obligated to fulfill [Tevu'ot Shor]. This is similar to what will be explained regarding one who slaughtered a domestic animal and afterwards a wild animal, that he is obligated to cover [as the Shach wrote in subsection 21]. And it appears to me that he covers without a blessing, since he is not performing the mitzvah according to its proper enactment [and the Tevu'ot Shor wrote "with a blessing," and I do not know from where he has this; and what he wrote in subsection 12 based on the reason of "fit for mixing," I am astonished, for the Gemara only stated a mere example, that therefore regarding the Altar, when it is not fit for earth below, the mitzvah of covering is nullified, but it does not seem correct to say that earth below is not indispensable. And this is what the Gemara meant: since it was fit for earth below, it does not prevent the earth from above from fulfilling even half of the mitzvah; and so it appears from the Shach, subsection 21].

The obligation of the covering is upon the shochet, as it is written: "and he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth"—the one who poured shall cover. Nevertheless, if the shochet did not cover, the obligation is upon all of Israel, whoever sees the blood, to cover, for the mitzvah of covering is like other positive commandments in which all of Israel are obligated. And the Rabbis based this on the verse written in the portion of covering: "And I said to the children of Israel," a warning to all of Israel [Gemara chapter 87]. However, the shochet takes precedence over any person, and it is forbidden to cover without the will of the shochet. And it is brought in the Gemara there: An incident occurred where one person slaughtered and his fellow preceded him and covered, and Rabban Gamliel obligated him to give him ten gold coins as the reward for the blessing that he took from him. And we do not collect this in the Diaspora, and it was explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 382. And if the shochet wishes to honor someone with the mitzvah of covering, the authority is in his hand [Tevuat Shor], and specifically when his intention is only for the honor of the one being honored and not for the sake of money [ibid.]. And so is the simple custom, to honor with the mitzvah of covering, even though there are those who hesitate regarding this [see Shach, Choshen Mishpat siman 382 subsection 4, and also regarding milah the custom is not according to his words, and as the Tevuat Shor wrote].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [chapter 6]: If one slaughtered one hundred wild animals in one place, one covering suffices for all of them; one hundred birds in one place, one covering suffices for all of them; a wild animal and a bird in one place, one covering suffices for all of them. And that which is written, "a wild animal or a bird... and he shall pour out its blood," the intention is not that for every wild animal or bird one must cover individually, for this is the name of the species and implies even many. Similarly, the expression "its blood" does not intend one, for "its blood" implies many, as it is written: "For the soul of all flesh, its blood is in its soul" [Gemara ibid.]. However, this is not a general rule, for this is specifically when he intended for all of them, and then he fulfills the obligation with one blessing. But if he intended for one and recited the blessing, and before the covering they brought him another, he must cover the first and afterwards slaughter the second and cover it individually. And so too if he interrupted with speech. And all these laws were explained in siman 19 among the laws of the blessing of shechitah; see there.

One who slaughters and the blood is absorbed into the ground, if the impression of the blood is discernible, he is obligated to cover it with a blessing; and if its impression is not discernible, he is exempt from covering. And it appears to me that this "impression is discernible" requires the impression of the substance of the blood itself and its tangible presence, and not merely the appearance of a red color. For in a similar case regarding letters that were erased, where we require that "their impression is discernible" as explained in Orach Chaim siman 32, we require that the substance of the ink be somewhat discernible [Magen Avraham ibid. subsection 39]. And there is also proof for this from what the Tur wrote regarding this law, that if its impression is not discernible he is exempt from covering; and what does this come to teach us? It is obvious, for what would he cover? Rather, it is certainly that he means to say as follows: even though the appearance of a red color is discernible, he shall not cover when some impression of the substance of the blood itself is not discernible [and with this it is well-settled in the Gemara, page 87a, which challenges Rav Papa: "How is this different from that which was taught in a baraita, etc." and answers: "where its impression is discernible," see there. And it is a wonder how it entered the mind of the questioner that it deals with a case where its impression is not discernible, for what would he cover? But according to what I have written, it is well-settled; and examine this carefully].

If the wind covered it, he is exempt from covering, for it is already covered, and he is not obligated to uncover it and return to cover it. However, if he desires to uncover it and cover it, the permission is in his hand, and he shall cover it without a blessing [Pri Chadash]. And it is simple that this is specifically when the wind covered it with earth, but if it covered it with something that one may not cover with, it is not called a covering, and he is obligated to uncover it and cover it with earth. And likewise, if below there was no loose earth, he is obligated to uncover it and cover it [Tevuat Shor].

If after the wind covered it, it became revealed again on its own or by a person, one is obligated to cover it, and we do not say that it was pushed aside from the mitzvah of covering when the wind covered it, for we hold that there is no "pushing aside" regarding mitzvot [Gemara ibid.]. And "pushing aside" only applies to something that is holy, like a sacrifice; and since he did not fulfill the mitzvah of covering, when it is revealed and its mark is recognizable, he is obligated to cover it. And it appears to me that he must recite a blessing, for here regarding the matter of covering, the Sages of blessed memory explicitly said that there is no "pushing aside" regarding mitzvot. And there is one who says that he should cover it without a blessing [Pri Chadash and many agreed with him], and his reason is because this matter of "no pushing aside regarding mitzvot" is a doubt raised in the Gemara [Sukkah 33a]. And in my humble opinion, it appears that therefore in this law of covering, the Shas stated it without qualification and did not mention that it is a doubt and that he should not recite a blessing, because we say in the Gemara [Zevachim 34b] that anything that is within his power is not considered "pushed aside," and here it is within his power to reveal it. And even though in the Gemara it is compared to other cases of "pushing aside" on the grounds that since he is not obligated to reveal it, it is as if it is not within his power [Tosafot ibid.], nevertheless, since after it is revealed he is ultimately obligated to cover it, why should he not recite a blessing? And nevertheless, since many great authorities ruled not to recite a blessing, one should not recite a blessing [see Magen Avraham siman 586, where it implies his opinion is also to recite a blessing, but his words are obscure, see there].

If one covered the blood properly and it became uncovered again, he is not required to cover it further; only in a case where the wind covered it, when it becomes uncovered, he is obligated to cover it, for he has not yet fulfilled the mitzvah of covering. However, when he has already fulfilled it, he may even uncover it himself afterward. Nevertheless, it is not proper to uncover it afterward, and one should also not cover it in a place where many people walk due to the disparagement of the mitzvah; rather, he should cover it in a place where they do not walk, or after the covering, he should scrape it all to a place where they do not trample, for the mitzvot were given for honor and not for disparagement [and see the Tevuot Shor]:

Water that fell into the blood, if it has the appearance of blood, one is obligated to cover it, and if not, he is exempt. And similarly with blood that fell into water, and we do not say that since the blood fell into the water, each bit is nullified as it falls, for there is no "rejection" regarding mitzvot; and when the blood increases until there is the appearance of blood in the water, it returns and is seen [Shach]. According to this, one should not recite a blessing over the covering according to the opinion of the great authorities in section 20, and it requires further study. If the blood was mixed with red wine or with the blood of a domestic animal, such that it is impossible to clarify by appearance, they must estimate the wine and the blood of the domestic animal as if they were water; and if it were mixed with water of this amount and it would have the appearance of blood, he is obligated to cover it, and if not, he is exempt. And similarly the reverse, when the blood of a wild animal or a bird fell into wine or the blood of a domestic animal, as has been written. And so it appears that one must estimate when the blood of a bird before covering fell into the blood of a bird where some of its blood was already covered; even though both are of the types of obligation, nevertheless, ultimately, the obligation has already been removed from one of them. And it appears to me that the amount by which they estimate wine and blood as if they were water should be estimated only in proportion and not that they be equal in measure, for wine and blood are thicker than water, and water is very thin. And even if in such a measure of water the blood of the wild animal or bird would be recognizable, nevertheless, in wine and blood of such a measure it would not be recognizable even if it were possible to clarify by appearance; and similarly wine compared to blood is very thin [Shabbat 88b]. However, the Gemara in Chullin [87a] and in Zevachim [76b] left their words unspecified, and so it is implied from the wording of the poskim that they estimate by the measure of water, and it requires further study. And perhaps since it is impossible to recognize by appearance and the appearance always shows the appearance of blood, it is sufficient that we estimate the disqualified substance in water by its measure, and this requires deliberation.

It is stated in the Gemara [83b]: If one slaughtered a wild animal and afterwards slaughtered a domestic animal, he is exempt from covering, for behold the blood of the domestic animal is on top, and what shall he cover? [Rashi]. And one cannot say he should cover over the blood of the domestic animal and automatically the blood of the wild animal will also be covered, and if it is because there is an intervention between the earth and the blood of the wild animal, behold "kind with its own kind" does not intervene; for it can be said that although blood with blood is called "kind with its own kind," nevertheless regarding the matter of covering, where this one is exempt and this one is obligated, it is called "kind with that which is not its own kind" and it intervenes [Kereiti U-Peleiti]. But if he slaughtered a domestic animal and afterwards slaughtered a wild animal, he is obligated to cover, even though there is no earth below between it and the blood of the domestic animal [Rashi], for nevertheless, the earth above that he is able to fulfill, he shall fulfill.

The Rishonim asked regarding this: why should he not scrape away the blood of the chayah that is on top and also place dust beneath it, like the blood that spatters and the blood on the knife which will be explained? And similarly, if he slaughtered a chayah and afterwards a behemah, why is he exempt from covering? He should scrape away the blood of the behemah and cover the blood of the chayah [Tosafot]. And in truth, there are some of our teachers who wrote that if the blood has congealed and it is possible to scrape it, he must scrape it [Rashba in Torat HaBayit]. And when it has not congealed, scraping is not applicable because they will become mixed with one another. And some say that when the blood of the chayah is on top, scraping is not required even if the blood has congealed; and also regarding spattered blood, scraping is not required except for the blood on the knife, because for that which is on the knife, covering is not applicable and he is forced to scrape it. But for that which spatters, he covers from above upon the place of the spatter, and the dust that is below does not hinder, since previously it was fit to place dust below, as it is stated in the Gemara there: anything that is fit for mixing, the lack of mixing does not hinder it [Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit]. However, most of the poskim do not hold this way regarding spattered blood.

The Rif, the Rambam, and the Rosh did not write at all this law of a chayah and then a behemah, or a behemah and then a chayah, and in the Shulchan Aruch this law was brought in section 14, see there. There are those who wrote that indeed, because of this reason, they rejected this from the halacha, as it requires dragging like blood that spatters [Shach and Taz]. And there are some of the great authorities who took issue with this. In my humble opinion, their reason appears to be that it is well known that any liquid substance mixes with one another, and even regarding prohibited items it is so; if so, what difference is there between if he slaughtered a behemah and then a chayah, or a chayah and then a behemah? Furthermore, we learned in the Mishnah [87a]: If it was mixed with the blood of a behemah, we view it as if it were water, and this is the law that we wrote in section 22. And this mixture is presumably at the time of slaughter; if so, the Mishnah should have distinguished between the blood of the chayah being below and being above. Therefore, it appears to me that behold, in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says blood does not nullify blood—meaning, even if the blood of the chayah is minimal, and if it were water the blood would not be discernible in appearance, nevertheless one must cover it. And we do not rule like Rabbi Yehuda. And the author of this statement holds like Rabbi Yehuda that blood does not nullify blood, and therefore when the blood of the chayah is above, one must cover it even when it is minimal and mixed. Nevertheless, when the blood of the behemah is above, he holds that one does not need to cover it, for since it is plentiful and above, the dust will not reach the blood of the chayah even though they are mixed together. Therefore, our teachers did well to omit this after they established the law of the Mishnah as the halacha [and with this one can also settle the words of the Tur, who brought this in the name of the Ittur, meaning that he holds that it does not contradict the law of the Mishnah].

And for the law, since the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch brought this, one should rule accordingly. And one should also be stringent like the Rashba: when the blood of a chayah is on top and has congealed, it is necessary to scrape it and cover it with earth below and above. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: If one slaughtered a bird or a chayah and afterward slaughtered another bird and it became a nevelah in his hand, if he knows that the blood of the latter covered the blood of the former, he is exempt from covering, but ordinarily he is obligated to cover. Thus far his words. And he should cover without a berakhah.

The sages taught in the Mishnah [chapter 7, 87b]: Spattered blood—meaning, that which spattered outside the place of the shechitah—and that which is on the knife, one is obligated to cover. Rabbi Yehuda said: When is this so? At a time when there is no blood there other than it; but if there is blood there other than it, he is exempt from covering. Thus far the words of the Mishnah. For the obligation is not to cover all of the life-blood, and one fulfills his obligation when he covers a portion of the life-blood; therefore, when there is other blood there from the blood of the shechitah, there is no need for the spattered blood or that which is on the knife. And there are some of our teachers who hold that Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the first Tanna, and we establish the law like the first Tanna, that even if there is other blood, one must also cover the spattered blood and that which is on the knife [the Ra'avad in chapter 14 and the Me'or], for they hold that the obligation is to cover all of the life-blood. However, most of our teachers do not hold so, and they ruled accordingly in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 15.

From the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch there, it is explained that even ab initio one does not need to cover all of the dam hanefesh, for they wrote regarding the law of blood that spatters, and this is their wording: Blood that spatters etc. but if there is other blood there, one does not need to cover it, for one does not need to cover all of the blood; therefore, one does not need to wait to cover until all of the blood has exited. Thus far their words. And it is explained that even ab initio one does not need to wait in order to cover all of the blood. And one must deliberate on this, for according to the opinion of some of our teachers in the previous section, even ex post facto it is a hindrance, and so it is explained from the words of our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, whose opinion inclines toward this [88a, s.v. Rabbanan etc. and however according to Rami bar Chama etc. see there]. And if so, in any case, ab initio it is certainly proper to do so, and particularly since in the Baraita in the Gemara there, the Sages and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel hold that we require all of the dam hanefesh. And granted that according to the opinion of most of our teachers we do not rule accordingly, nevertheless, ab initio perhaps one should be concerned for these opinions. And in Likkutei Maharil it is written in this wording: And Maharil said those who hasten to cover the blood before the dam hanefesh has exited completely act not according to the law. Thus far his words. And this is as I have written. However, from his words that were brought in the book Darkhei Moshe and from the words of our teacher, the Rema, it does not imply so, as will be explained.

This is the wording of our teacher, the Rema, in section 15: However, he should wait until it begins to fall in drops so that he covers some of the dam hanefesh. Thus far his words. And in his book Darkhei Moshe, letter 5, he wrote in the name of the Maharil: There are ritual slaughterers who hasten to cover the blood, and they do not act properly before the dam hanefesh has exited. And I found in old laws of shehitah that one must wait until all the blood of the stream ceases, which is to say until it falls drop by drop. Thus far his words. From this it is clear that some of the dam hanefesh is required and not all of it; and although regarding the words of the Maharil in the book Darkhei Moshe it could be said that his intention was for all of the dam hanefesh, nevertheless our teacher, the Rema, does not interpret it so.

And also the essence of their words is puzzling, for from where do we know that these drops are the dam hanefesh and not earlier? For if we come to compare it to blood from bloodletting, it is explained in the Gemara [Keritot 22a] that the blood of the stream is the dam hanefesh, see there. And so wrote the Rambam, chapter 6 of Ma'achalot Assurot, law 3. And their words follow only Rashi, of blessed memory [Chullin 33a], while the Tosafot and the Rambam disagree with him [and as the Tevuot Shor wrote in subsection 30]. And also Rashi himself did not write so in another place [Keritot ibid.]. However, all this is regarding blood from bloodletting, but regarding blood of shechitah, it appears explicitly from the Rambam there that it is not similar to blood from bloodletting, and all red blood that descends at the time of shechitah is dam hanefesh, see there, and it requires further study. [And in truth, were it not for the words of the Rema, we would have interpreted the intent of the Maharil as I have written, that one requires ab initio all the dam hanefesh, and everything would be well-settled, and delve into this.]

And we have already written in section 24 that blood that splattered and that which is on the knife, one must scrape the blood and place earth below and above when it did not splatter onto loose earth. And even though there is one who holds that for splattered blood one does not require scraping, as I wrote, nevertheless most of the poskim do not hold so, and such is our established ruling.

One who slaughters for a sick person on Shabbat shall not cover the blood, even if he has a shovel stuck from before the onset of the day in loose earth, for on Yom Tov it is permitted to cover. If so, even on Shabbat we should have permitted it in order to fulfill the positive commandment of covering, since he slaughtered permissibly and in the covering there is only a rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh; nevertheless, the sages did not permit doing so [Chapter 4]. They set aside this mitzvah through "sit and do not act" in order to create a distinction, that this day is forbidden for slaughtering, and they only permitted that which is for the needs of the sick person, and the covering is not for the needs of the sick person [Ran ibid.]. And at night, at the conclusion of Shabbat, if its impression is still recognizable, he shall cover it, and if not, he is exempt. And we learned in the Tosefta [Chapter 6]: One who slaughters on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, even though he incurs the death penalty, once it becomes dark, if the blood was still extant, he is obligated to cover. Thus far its words. And it means to say that we do not say that since he transgressed during the slaughtering with a prohibition of stoning or kareth he should be exempt from covering, for they have no connection to one another since the slaughtering is valid, as I wrote in siman 11. And it is obvious that in a case where the slaughtering is invalid, according to what I wrote there, he is exempt from covering.

Regarding one who slaughters for a sick person on Shabbat, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 16 that there is one who says that if he had ash prepared to cover excrement with it, he must cover the blood with it even on Shabbat. Thus far his words. And it appears that this opinion holds that only when there is a rabbinic prohibition, such as a "plunged spade," the sages did not permit it; but when there is prepared ash which is not muktzeh, one must cover. However, according to the reason that has been explained, that the sages wanted to make a distinction, even in such a case they did not permit it. But in his great book, he wrote that it is possible that in this case everyone agrees, and it requires further study. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, wrote explicitly in his book Mishmeret HaBayit that even in such a case they did not permit it; see there. [And the Tevuot Shor also wrote with simplicity that he should cover with a berakhah, but to me this is a very great difficulty, and such is the apparent opinion of the Pri Chadash and the Kereti u-Peleti. And I saw in the Pitchei Teshuvah that he also brought from the book Turei Even who disagreed with the Beit Yosef on this and did not bring his reason, and this book is not in my possession; therefore, in practice it requires further study. And also what the Tevuot Shor wrote, to slaughter on Shabbat on a bare rock so that the blood will remain until the conclusion of Shabbat, I also do not know, for when one slaughters due to pikuach nefesh, which requires extra speed and alacrity, to search for a bare rock and the like; and it requires a bit further study.]

One who slaughters and it becomes nevelah by his hand during the slaughtering, such as if he paused or pressed or performed one of the other disqualifications of slaughtering, or if he slaughtered and it was found to be treifah in any organ, is exempt from covering because it is not fit for eating, and regarding the covering of the blood it is written: "prey of beast or bird which may be eaten." Therefore, a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor who slaughtered and others did not see them—for there is a presumption that the majority of their actions are flawed, as written in siman 1—is exempt from covering. And even if he wishes to be stringent and cover without a blessing, we do not allow him, so as not to lead to a pitfall, for those who see may say that since they are covering the blood, it is presumably a kosher slaughtering and they will eat from it [Bach and Shach]. And there is one who says that the same applies to an adult who does not know the laws of slaughtering who slaughtered by himself, that we do not cover the blood [Taz subsection 14]. And some say to cover without a blessing [Tevu'ot Shor]. And it appears to me that according to the reason that was explained, so as not to lead to a pitfall, it is better not to cover; even though there is one who questions this reason [ibid.], nevertheless this appears to be the main point. But when others see him, the matter is simple: that we cover with a blessing, for behold it is a kosher slaughtering as written in siman 1. And even a minor who slaughtered and others see him requires covering with a blessing [Shach subsection 23]. And specifically in a case where his slaughtering is kosher ex post facto, such as if he is able to steady his hands as written in siman 1; but when ex post facto his slaughtering is not kosher, he covers without a blessing [ibid.]. But to not cover at all is impossible, for since others see that he slaughtered well, granted that we are stringent regarding eating, nevertheless it is impossible to exempt from a positive Torah commandment. And it is not similar to when others do not see him, where there is a presumption that he slaughtered improperly [as mentioned above to distinguish why in this case we do not decree lest it lead to a pitfall, which the Shach himself was concerned about in subsection 24, because here it is impossible to exempt oneself].

One who slaughters for medicinal purposes, because he needs the blood for medicine or for dogs, and his intent is not for the meat, nevertheless, since he slaughters properly and the meat is fit for eating, he is obligated in kisuy. And so we learned in the Tosefta [chapter 6], and he should cover with a blessing. And we do not say that since it is written "which may be eaten" we require his intent to be for eating, for it is not so; rather, it must only be fit for eating [Bach]. Therefore, if he wishes to be exempt from kisuy, he may perform nechirah or ikur [the Derishah proved from this that it is permitted to kill an animal not by means of shechitah when there is a need for it, see there]. And one who slaughters chullin in the Azarah, or those whose judgment was finalized for stoning, is exempt from kisuy like a nevelah or a tereifah, because they are forbidden for benefit [Gemara].

One must examine the simanim and the knife before the covering, for if a disqualification is found in the simanim, there is no covering here at all. And even if a nick is found in the knife, where there is a doubt that perhaps it was nicked by the neck bone—even though it is forbidden to eat as a certain nevelah, as written in siman 18—nevertheless, ultimately it is only a doubt, and it is impossible to exempt it from the Torah obligation of covering. But even so, he should not cover with a blessing. This is not similar to the blessing of the shehitah, where we bless beforehand and do not fear that there might be a disqualification, for it is impossible otherwise, since one must bless prior to their performance; but covering, where it is possible to wait with the covering until after the examination, one should not cover beforehand [Taz subsection 15].

And similarly, one who slaughters a chaya should not cover until he inspects the lung for the reason that has been explained. And if it is found to be a doubtfully treifa, he covers without a berakha. And the same applies to any disqualification that is due to doubt, such as a nick where we are concerned that perhaps it was nicked by the skin, and similar cases; he covers without a berakha. And there is one who wishes to say that whenever the doubt is in the shechita and it has not clearly left its status of prohibition, one does not need to cover at all [Bach]. But it is not so, for ultimately it is only a doubt, and how is it possible to uproot a Torah positive commandment because of a doubt [Shach, subsection 27]. And behold, there are things that are completely kosher according to the core law, but it has become the custom to be stringent, such as cutting the entire neck bone and similar cases; they are obligated to cover with a berakha [ibid.]. And it appears to me that regarding a delay of any duration, even though according to most poskim it is kosher, nevertheless, since we hold like Rashi as was written in siman 23, he should cover without a berakha. And similarly regarding a delay in the final minority. And to not cover at all is impossible, since most poskim rule it kosher. And know that in a place where they are accustomed to inspect the esophagus, as will be explained in siman 33, nevertheless one should not wait with the covering until after this inspection, which is in the owner's house and by the inquiry of a chacham, and in the meantime they will forget about the covering. And it is not similar to the inspection of the simanim, the knife, and the lung, which are all at the place of the shechita. And similarly with wild geese where blisters are common in their intestines, one should not wait with the covering until they are inspected for the reason that has been explained. And the same applies to anything similar to this [Pitchei Teshuva in the name of Tzemach Tzedek].

The sages taught in the Mishnah [33a]: One who slaughters a beast, a wild animal, or a bird and no blood emerged from them, they are kosher. The plain meaning of the language implies that this was not taught at all regarding the matter of kisuy hadam, for a beast was taught alongside them; rather, it was taught regarding the validity of the shechitah and regarding the matter of ritual impurity and purity, as is explained there. However, regarding the matter of kisuy, it could be that one is obligated to obtain the life-blood, such as by cutting the veins, to fulfill the mitzvah of kisuy. Nevertheless, our teachers the Rishonim inferred from here that also regarding the matter of kisuy it is valid, meaning that one does not need to strive to find the life-blood and cover it, for the Torah only obligated when blood emerged. This is what the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 22: One who slaughters a wild animal or a bird and no blood emerged from them, they are permitted. Thus far their words. Meaning, one does not need to strive to extract blood by cutting the veins [Kereiti U-Peleiti]. Their reasoning, it appears to me, is that if you were to think that for kisuy one is obligated to find the life-blood, the Tanna would not have omitted mentioning this, for a wild animal and a bird are obligated in kisuy. Since he taught "they are kosher," it implies explicitly that for all matters they are valid and do not require rectification [and I am wonderstruck by the objection of the Shach in subsection 30, see there and reflect].

It is written, "and he shall cover it with dust," and our Sages of blessed memory received as a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai [Sotah 16a and Yerushalmi chapter 1 of Kiddushin end of halacha 2] that even with things that are similar to dust in name, such as ash, which the Torah called dust, as it is written regarding the Red Heifer, "from the dust of the burning of the sin offering"; and similarly gold is called dust, as it is written, "and it has dust of gold," even though they do not possess the property of dust, for dust is used for sowing and it causes growth, whereas ash and gold are not fit for this—nevertheless, since they are called dust, one may cover with them, as will be explained. And similarly, things that possess the property of dust, such as those in which one sows and they cause growth, even though they are not called dust, one may cover with them.

And also from the verse "and he shall cover it," our sages, of blessed memory, derived this, and thus our sages, of blessed memory, said [88a]: I only have earth; from where do we include fine manure, etc.? The Torah teaches, "and he shall cover it," which is expounded independently since it is not written "and with earth he shall cover it," which would imply earth and not another thing, etc. But now, "and he shall cover it" is expounded on its own [Rashi], for "and he shall cover it" implies a break in the matter, for if it were not so, it should have written "and they shall cover it with earth," as it is written at the end of Numbers, "and they shall cover it with a covering of tachash skin," and many times it is written in this language. And since it is written "and he shall cover it," it implies something similar to earth, for in every place where it is written in this language, it comes for an exposition [as on Yom Kippur, "and he shall make it a sin offering," we expound in Yoma: the lot makes it a sin offering and not the Name, etc. And also from the cantillation marks this is explained, for "and he shall cover it" is with a disjunctive accent and not a conjunctive accent, implying that it is separated from "with earth"].

Therefore, the sages taught that one may cover with manure, and with very fine sand such that the potter does not need to crush it at all, nor even to crumble it by hand to separate it; and with lime that is separated; and with clay, which is also a type of separated lime [Pri Chadash], or the mud from which they make earthenware vessels and it is separated; and with a brick that he crushed, and with the stopper of an earthenware vessel that he crushed; and with the scrapings of other earthenware vessels, and with the scrapings of stones; and with fine flax tow, which is that which they shake out from the flax; and with wood sawdust that comes from that which is cut with a saw, which is fine like flour; and with black pigment, which is crushed charcoal or the soot of a furnace; and with kohl, which is a dye that they put into the eye; and with the pickings of millstones, which is the dust that they pick from the millstones. For regarding all of these, the rabbis established that when one sows in them, they cause growth.

But one may not cover with coarse manure nor with sand that still requires separation, for even with actual earth one may not cover with clods of earth, but only with loose earth that is fit for growth. And even though clods of earth also grow plants on their own, or when one places within them plants and herbs that have already grown they grow further, nevertheless this is not called growth, for we require that one may place seeds within it and they will grow, and this is only in loose earth. And one may not cover for this reason with earth moist from water, which is called "metunta," and certainly not with mud, nor with flour, nor with fine or coarse bran, nor with metal filings except for ground gold because it is called earth, as has been written. And specifically with metal filings that are not burnt, but with those that are burnt, they have become ash, and it has already been explained that one may cover with ash because it is called earth. And the same applies to all things that were explained that one may not cover with them; when they are burnt into ash, one may cover with them. And one may not cover with snow, even though it is written: "For He says to the snow, 'Be earth'" [Job 37], we require earth, and furthermore, the intention is not that the snow is earth, but that it falls upon the earth [Beit Yosef]. And similarly, there is one who wishes to say that one may cover with ground iron because it is written [ibid. 28]: "Iron is taken from earth," but it is not so, for all metals are taken from earth and we require that they themselves be called earth, and they are not called so except for gold [ibid.]. And one may cover with the earth of an apostate city, and similarly with any earth of prohibited benefits, for commandments were not given for benefit [Gemara], for there is no actual physical benefit in this but rather a mitzvah, and commandments were not given for benefit, and therefore it is not applicable to say that he benefits from prohibited benefits.

It is stated in the Gemara [ibid.] that one may not cover with the dust of the desert because it does not cause the seeds sown in it to grow, as it is written: "it is not a place of seed." Thus the Tur and Shulchan Aruch ruled. The Rishonim wondered about this, for since we hold that one may cover with ash and crushed gold even though they do not cause growth, yet because they are called "dust" one may cover with them as has been written, certainly one should be permitted to cover with actual dust even though it does not cause growth [Rashba in Torat HaBayit and Ran at the end of chapter "Kisu HaDam"]. From this, some say that it refers to when it is also sand and he has no way to crumble it, but with fine sand it is fine [ibid.]. However, from the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it is clarified that in any case one may not cover with it. The reason must be because in the language of the verse it is not called "dust," and even though in the language of people it is called "dust," this is nothing [Beit Yosef and Shiltei HaGiborim]. Or it can be said that a thing which is not dust at all but the Torah called it "dust" is superior to actual dust that lacks the property of dust in that it does not cause growth [ibid.].

And this reason is very strained, and the first reason is even more puzzling, for in the chapter of Sotah it is written: "And from the dust that shall be on the floor of the Mishkan," etc., and the Mishkan was in the desert. And one must say that during the time that Israel was in the desert, the nature there was changed [and as the Tosafot wrote there, beginning with the words "But regarding growth," see there]. And in the Rambam, this law was indeed not mentioned, and also that which one sows in it and it grows, he did not mention at all. And he had another version of the text in the Shas, like the version of the She'iltot that the Rishonim, of blessed memory, brought, and he holds that for the final conclusion it depends only on something that is called "dust" [in the She'iltot before us this is not found].

One who does not have earth should not slaughter, but rather should wait until he has earth [Tur], unless it is needed for a sick person, for then he should not wait. And it is stated in the Gemara [ibid.]: If he was traveling in the desert and does not have earth to cover, he grinds a gold dinar and covers; if he was traveling on a ship and does not have earth to cover, he burns his garment and covers. And there is no concern of bal tashchit in this, for instance, if the gold or the garment is not worth as much as the bird, and there is no concern of bal tashchit [Shach in the name of Darkei Moshe]. Therefore, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 21: And if he is traveling in the desert or on a ship, and the bird is not worth the loss of the garment that he would burn to ash or the gold that he would grind, the sages instituted for him to slaughter and to squeeze the blood into a garment or a sandal and recite the blessing, and when he reaches a place of earth, he shall wash the garment or the sandal so that the blood comes out and cover it without a blessing, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And its source is from the Mordechai in the name of the Geonim. And one should not wonder how he can recite a blessing when he squeezes the blood into a garment or a sandal, given that this is not a covering at all, for it can be said that this is also called the beginning of the covering [Darkei Moshe]. Therefore, he should only recite the blessing "upon the covering of blood" and should not say "with earth" [Shach]. But many have completely rejected this matter from the halacha [Beit Yosef and Taz and Rashal and Pri Chadash], for this is not the beginning of the covering at all, and how can he recite a blessing? Furthermore, since this institution was not mentioned in the Shas, it proves that one should not do so. [And I also wonder at what the Rema wrote, "and such is the custom," for how does custom apply to a matter that is remote in reality? And the main point is according to the opinion of those who disagree].

When one covers the blood, he should not cover it with his foot, but rather with his hand, or with the knife—with the handle and not with its tip so that he does not damage it—or with a vessel, so that he does not perform the mitzvah in a contemptuous manner, but rather in a respectful manner. For the respect is not for the mitzvot themselves, but for He who commanded them, blessed be He, and saved us from groping in the darkness, and prepared for us a lamp to straighten the obstacles and a light to show the paths of uprightness; and so it says, "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" [the Rambam].