Siman 67

The obligation of kareth for blood applies only to the blood of the soul, as it is written in Acharei Mot regarding blood, "and I will cut her off from among her people, for the soul of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:10-11) etc. The verse made the prohibition of kareth dependent on the blood of the soul, but for that which is not the blood of the soul, such as the blood of the limbs and the blood of exudation that exudes and is squeezed and flows as it exits after shechitah, this is subject to a negative commandment but not to kareth. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said (Keritot 4b): The three mentions of kareth stated regarding blood—two in Acharei Mot and one in parashat Tzav (Leviticus 7:27)—one is for the blood of chullin, one is for the blood of kodashim, and one is for the blood of covering; meaning, so that you should not say regarding a wild animal or a bird that since he covered the blood it was nullified to the dust, and if he uncovered it and ate it he is not liable for kareth, it comes to teach us that he is liable for kareth. And five negative commandments are stated regarding blood: one in Vayikra, "all fat and all blood you shall not eat" (Leviticus 3:17); and one in Tzav, "and any blood you shall not eat in all your dwellings" (Leviticus 7:26); and one in Acharei Mot, "the blood of any flesh you shall not eat" (Leviticus 17:14); and two in Re'eh, "only the blood you shall not eat" (Deuteronomy 12:16), "you shall not eat it, upon the earth you shall pour it like water" (Deuteronomy 12:24). And these five negative commandments: one is for the blood of chullin, one is for the blood of kodashim, and one is for the blood of covering—for even though they carry kareth, nevertheless, for every punishment a warning is required—and one is for the blood of limbs and one is for the blood of exudation. Thus, in these two there is no kareth but only a negative commandment. And this will be explained, that in the blood of the heart there is kareth because the primary blood of the soul is in the heart; and the blood in the veins that was explained in siman 65 is included in the blood of the limbs.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter 6 of Maakhalot Assurot, law 3: One is not liable for kareth except for blood that exits at the time of shechitah, stabbing, or decapitation as long as it contains redness, and for the blood collected inside the heart, and for the blood of bloodletting for an animal as long as it gushes and exits. However, the blood that flows at the beginning of bloodletting before it begins to gush, and the blood that flows at the end of bloodletting when the blood begins to cease, one is not liable for it, and it is like the blood of the organs; for the gushing blood is the blood with which the soul departs. The blood of exhaustion and the blood of the organs, such as the blood of the spleen, the blood of the kidneys, the blood of the testicles, the blood that collects in the heart at the time of shechitah, and the blood found in the liver—one is not liable for kareth for it, but one who eats a kezayit of it is lashed, etc. Thus far his words.

And since he wrote regarding blood of bloodletting "as long as it spurts," and regarding slaughter he did not write so, we learn from this that he holds that for the blood of slaughter and stabbing one is liable for kareth even for blood that flows, as he wrote himself, "as long as it has redness." And if it is difficult, for the tamtzit also has redness? For the liability of kareth is only for that which flows on its own and not for that which they drain and squeeze out. And the reason for the difference between the blood of slaughter and the blood of bloodletting is that since this is from the place where the soul departs, any blood that exits on its own is dam hanefesh, which is not the case with the blood of bloodletting. But our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, did not write so, for they explained regarding that which was taught in the fifth chapter of Keritot (Keritot 20b): blood of stabbing, blood of tearing, blood of bloodletting with which the soul departs—that also in slaughter and stabbing we require that the soul departs with it, and that is the spurting blood, see there. And it must be said according to their words that flowing blood is included in the blood of tamtzit, for if not so, why did the Tanna need to say that for the blood of tamtzit one is not liable for kareth, for even for flowing blood there is no kareth? Rather, it is certain that this is included in the blood of tamtzit.

And regarding that which he wrote concerning the liability of karet for the blood of the heart, that this refers to the blood collected in the heart, but the blood that collects into the heart at the time of shechitah does not carry karet but is rather like the blood of the limbs—there are those who did not write thus, but rather wrote that the blood found in the cavity of the heart comes from the place of shechitah, for the animal inhales at the time of shechitah and brings blood from the place of shechitah into the cavity of the heart, and one is liable for it for karet [R' Ovadia of Bartenura at the beginning of chapter 5 of Keritot]. And the words of the Rambam are very puzzling, for in the Gemara (Keritot 22a) it is explicitly stated not like his words; for Rav said there that for the blood of the heart one is liable for karet, and it challenges him from a Baraita where we learned that the blood of the heart is only subject to a negative commandment, and it answers that the Baraita deals with its own blood and Rav deals with blood that comes to it from elsewhere, and it asks from where does it come to it from elsewhere, and it responds that at the time the soul departs, it draws—meaning the heart pulls the blood from the place of shechitah, see there. Furthermore, it is difficult to me that according to his words there are two types of blood collected within the heart: one of its own and one from shechitah, and for its own one is liable for karet and for that of shechitah for a negative commandment; if so, who could distinguish which blood is its own and which is from shechitah, for they are mixed within the cavity of the heart? However, the Rambam's version of the text in the Gemara was the opposite: that Rav deals with its own blood and the Baraita with blood that comes from elsewhere, and this is also the version of the Rif in the chapter "Kol HaBasar," see there. [And regarding the second difficulty, it can be said that in truth it is impossible for us to know, but before Heaven it is revealed; for regarding the matter of warning there is no practical difference, as those liable for karet do not require warning].

And blood that one cooked or salted, the opinion of most of our teachers, the Rishonim and Acharonim, is that there is in this only a rabbinic prohibition. And this is an explicit Gemara in Menachot (Menachot 21a) that it is only called blood if it is fit for the sprinkling of sacrifices, as it is written: "And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement" etc. (Leviticus 17:11), and when one cooked it, it departed from the category of blood, and salted is like boiling hot; for so the verses of the sprinkling of sacrifices imply, that he shall sprinkle the blood as it comes out of the animal, as it is written: "And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar" etc. "and they shall sprinkle" etc. (Leviticus 1:11). And furthermore, everything that ascends to the altar must be without change, for even cooked wine is invalid for libations, as our Sages, of blessed memory, said regarding another matter, that we require sacrifice and libations without change (Bechorot 17a), and when it was cooked, certainly its taste and smell changed. And furthermore, part of the blood changed into water, for such is the nature of blood even when it congeals (Chullin 87b), that its surroundings are clear like water. [See Rashi in Menachot ibid. who wrote: blood that one cooked etc. for the Torah only obligated etc. that which is fit for atonement, and blood hardens when one cooked it etc. and it departed from the category of blood, and salted is etc. Thus far his words. And this compelled me to elaborate on this reason, see there, and examine it closely]:

And behold, in the Rambam this law is not found at all, and also regarding sacrifices he did not write this law that if one boiled it or salted it, it is unfit for sprinkling; and furthermore, it is somewhat implied by his words in chapter 9 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, where he wrote that if one cooked blood in milk he is not lashed neither for its cooking nor for its eating on account of basar be-chalav, see there, and it is somewhat implied that on account of blood he is lashed [and so wrote the Pri Chadash at the beginning of siman 69]. And in Rashi it is also explained in two places that one is liable for blood that he cooked [Chullin 109a, s.v. "ha-lev," and Chullin 120a, s.v. "ha-kofeh etc. al gabbei ha-or," and see Tosafot there]. And it must be said that he holds that this statement in Menachot does not stand according to the conclusion there, which distinguishes between the outer sin-offerings, in which blood that was cooked is valid for sprinkling, and the inner sin-offerings, and Rava holds there that even in the inner ones it is valid, see there; and if so, all the more so regarding chullin one is liable for karet for cooked blood. And it is true that our teachers, the Tosafot, explained there that it refers to one who cooked it in the sun and not in fire, see there, but Rashi explains that it refers to cooking in fire, and it must be said that this is also the opinion of the Rambam [Kereti u-Peleti, beginning of siman 69]. However, the opinion of most of the poskim is like the Tosafot. [And in the Rambam chapter 6, halacha 6, regarding the heart it is explicit like Rashi, as he wrote: one tears it after he cooked it etc., but regarding the heart of a beast he is liable for karet, see there; behold, he holds one liable for karet for blood that he cooked]:

The blood of the limbs that has not separated is permitted, for it is thus explained in the Shas in several places that it is permitted to eat raw meat without melichah by rinsing it all around from the visible blood upon it and eating it so, and it is called in the language of the Shas umtza. The reason is that since this blood is still absorbed in the meat, it is like meat. Therefore, this is specifically when it has not been stirred at all to exit from the meat, but when it has been stirred to exit from the meat, even though it has not yet exited—for example, if there was a blow to the meat and much blood gathered there, and this is because the blood came from other places to the site of the blow, or if the blood separated from its place and was stirred to exit and was absorbed in another place—it is forbidden. For since it had a displacement from the meat, the name "blood" is upon it, and all the more so when it separated entirely from the meat, for this is the blood of the limbs for which one is lashed. From the Tur it is implied that for those that were stirred to exit and have not yet exited, one is also lashed for them; see there, and it requires further study. However, it is also the opinion of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit that one is lashed for blood that separated from place to place; see there. And know that this which is permitted to eat without melichah when the blood has not separated at all is when one removes the blood veins from the animal, for the blood within them is like visible blood.

And behold, the words of the Rambam in this matter are also perplexing, for he wrote in chapter 6, law 12: One who wishes to eat raw meat must salt it very well and rinse it very well, and afterwards he may eat. Thus far his words. And this is against the Gemara and all the poskim, for regarding a raw cut of meat it is permitted without salting, and the Ra'avad already challenged him. Furthermore, he himself wrote afterwards: And if he blanched it in vinegar, it is permitted to eat it while it is raw. Thus far his words. And behold, this too is blood of the organs that has not departed because the vinegar constricts the blood so that it does not exit; if so, why did he require salting beforehand?

However, his opinion clearly appears to be that he holds that this which they permitted regarding raw meat is specifically when one places the meat in vinegar and contracts it, but without this it is forbidden. And there is a great reason for the matter, for it is well and good that when one contracts it in vinegar it will no longer exude at all, but without this, behold when he begins to chew it between the teeth blood emerges and it is blood that has exuded. Therefore, he explains that this which the Gemara permitted as raw meat is specifically when one places it in vinegar. [See Kesef Mishneh there, and according to what I have written it is well understood; and examine it closely]:

And know that in Shabbat (Shabbat 128a) it is explained that only the meat of a bird, like a goose and its like, is fit for raw meat, but not the meat of an animal, see there; for it implies that it is impossible for a person to eat animal meat while it is raw, and not one of the poskim mentioned this. And perhaps since the Sages said without qualification in Chullin (Chullin 15b), "One who slaughters for a sick person on Shabbat, it is permitted for a healthy person as raw meat," and they did not say "one who slaughters a bird," we learn from this that even with an animal the law is so. However, this is not absolute proof to reject a matter explicitly stated in the Talmud, and on the contrary, the standard case is that one feeds a sick person bird meat, and the Talmud did not need to specify. And perhaps for this reason the Rambam did not permit it without vinegar as I have written, and there is a great logical basis to distinguish between a bird and an animal, for the meat of a bird is white due to the small amount of blood in it and there is no concern that the blood will emerge when he chews, but an animal's meat is red due to the abundance of blood. And the reason he did not write that with a bird it is permitted even without melichah is because this is not explicitly stated in the Talmud. And perhaps even with a bird one requires vinegar, and it is not his way to bring a law that is not explicitly stated in the Talmud, and it requires further study for the practical law. However, for us there is no practical difference in this, as has been explained.

It is stated in the Gemara (Chullin 33a): One who wishes to eat from an animal before its soul departs, cuts a kezayit of meat from the place of its shechitah, salts it very well, rinses it very well, and waits for it until its soul departs, see there. And regarding the waiting, we explained in siman 27, see there. The Rishonim scrutinized what this is dealing with: if for cooking, why was it necessary to say "and waits until its soul departs," and if for raw meat, why is salting required? They answered that even for raw meat salting is required, because since he cuts from the place of the shechitah before its soul departs, the blood is aroused to exit and it is as if it separated [Ran]. And according to the words of the Rambam, it works well with simplicity, and perhaps from this he ruled that salting is required:

It is further stated in the Gemara (Chullin 113a): One who breaks the neck of an animal before its soul departs, this makes the meat heavier and robs the public and causes blood to be absorbed into the limbs, because at the time of its shechitah it is occupied with expelling blood, and when one breaks its neck, due to its distress it does not have the strength to groan and expel blood, and it rests and becomes still, and the blood is absorbed into its limbs and makes the meat heavy, and it turns out he robs the public because he makes its weight heavier and causes blood to be absorbed into the limbs and it no longer exits and he eats blood [Rashi]. And it is implied from this language that even with melichah it is forbidden, for the salt does not expel it and the dam hanefesh remains in it, and so wrote the Tur in the name of the author of the Ittur, see there, and when he cooks it the blood exits into the pot. And some say that according to this opinion it is even forbidden for roasting [Beit Yosef and Bach]. And the reason must be that even if it does not exit the piece it is forbidden, as it is like it separated outward since it was stirred to exit. Or it is possible that with dam hanefesh they were more stringent, for that which they permitted when it did not separate was regarding blood of the limbs and not dam hanefesh. [And perhaps for this reason the Tur was precise to say "and there remains in it from the dam hanefesh"]:

But the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote there (Rambam, Laws of Forbidden Foods 6:9): One who breaks the neck of an animal before its soul departs, the blood is absorbed into the limbs and it is forbidden to eat raw meat from it even if he scalded it; rather, how shall he act? He shall cut the piece and salt it very well and afterwards cook or roast it. Thus far his words. And this is the opinion of all the Rishonim, and thus the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled in section 3. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that for roasting it is permitted even without salting, but from the wording of the Rambam it is clear that even for roasting it requires salting. And it appears to me that for this reason our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And they practiced stringency to cut it and salt it even for roasting. Thus far his words. And his reason is because in the Rambam it is explicitly stated so. [And the Shach in subsection 6 wrote that he was concerned for the position of Rashi and the Ittur, and his words are puzzling, for if so, to cook it in any case would be forbidden, and he, of blessed memory, combined the words of Rashi with the Rambam, and it requires great further study, and delve into this]:

He further wrote: And the same law applies if one cuts meat from the place of slaughter before its soul departs. Thus far his words. That is to say, just as he ruled regarding one who breaks its neck, that it requires cutting and salting even for roasting, so too regarding one who cuts from the place of slaughter before its soul departs, because through the slaughter the blood is aroused to discharge as it is with the breaking of the neck [Shach subsection 7. And Atteret Zahav subsection 2, who wrote that this gloss belongs to section 4, see there; but it is not definitive, and the primary view is like the Shach, and examine carefully]:

He further wrote: Some say that one should be careful ab initio not to break the animal's neck or to thrust a knife into its heart in order to hasten its death, because this causes blood to be absorbed into the limbs. Thus far his words. And it is not understood what his intent is in this; for he already explained that it requires cutting and salting, and what concern is there in this? And there is one who explained that we fear perhaps it will not be roasted well and all the blood will not exit [Levush]. And these are wonderous things to make such decrees; and furthermore, for he ruled that even for roasting it requires cutting and salting. And it appears to me that his intent is to be concerned for the opinion of Rashi and the Ittur that it is forbidden forever, and if it is for sale, he is robbing the public by increasing the weight, as the sages, of blessed memory, said; and nevertheless, there is no difference between an animal and a bird.

And there is a question regarding this: for he himself wrote in siman 23 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 23) that if after the shechitah the animal or the bird lingers in dying, one may strike it on its head; see there. And there is one who answered that the blood is not drawn after the head as much as it is after the neck and the heart, and there is no concern here of the absorption of blood into the limbs [Shach, subsection 9]. And there is one who says that there it is dealing with a case where it lingered a long time and the blood that was to exit has already exited [Taz, subsection 2]. And there is one who answered that there it is not dealing with the matter of this prohibition, and in truth regarding this matter it is prohibited [Derishah]. However, the truth is that there is no comparison between one and the other, for only in the breaking of the neck is its pain great and it does not have the strength to groan and expel blood, and it absorbs blood into the limbs, and likewise with the thrusting of a knife into its heart; but with a blow upon its head, it is confused and its pain is not great, and it expels blood as before [Pri Chadash, subsection 9, and thus wrote the Taz in the name of the Hagahot Ashri. And that which he questioned from the thrusting of a knife, this is simple, for cutting is like breaking; and thus wrote the Pri Chadash in the name of the Sefer HaTerumah, who wrote "he may strike it on its head provided that he does not break its neck," see there; and regarding the thrusting of a knife, the senses testify that it is worse than cutting and striking, and it is like breaking].

A piece of meat that is very red and it is evident that blood has been collected within it due to a blow, that blood has already been stirred to exit by means of the striking and has returned and been absorbed within it and has congealed and hardened, and it does not exit from it by means of meliha until one makes an opening for it to exit, which is that he should cut it and salt it very well, and afterwards it is permitted to cook it. And all this is for cooking, but for roasting it is permitted without cutting, whether to roast it on a spit or on coals, because the fire will draw out the blood, for so the halacha was decided in the Gemara (Chullin 93b). And regarding cooking, some say that one should be stringent for this reason even in the place of the beit shechita, even if he does not cut before the soul departs, but rather because this place is like one where blood is collected due to a blow; therefore, one should peel the beit shechita or cut into that meat before meliha, since the blood was collected there at the time of shechita. [See Be'er Heitev subsection 6 in the name of Beit Hillel, that if one cooked it without cutting and after the cooking it was found that blood was collected, one requires sixty against the entire piece because the piece becomes neveila, and it requires further study]:

In the time of the sages of the Talmud, it was the way of the world to place raw meat in vinegar, which constricts the blood, and they would eat it. According to the opinion of the Rambam that has been explained, there was no other way to eat raw meat without meliha, as I wrote in section 9; and even according to the rest of the poskim, one could say they did this because otherwise the soul would be repulsed by raw meat. And some say that when they have constricted it with vinegar, it is permitted even to cook it without meliha according to the opinion of the Tur [Taz subsection 3]. I am astonished, for the Tur wrote explicitly to the contrary, that to eat it raw is permitted, see there, and it implies clearly that to cook it is forbidden; and so it is explicitly explained from the language of the Rambam, see there. And in my humble opinion, even meliha will not avail for cooking, for after the vinegar constricts the blood, there will be no power in the meliha to extract it, yet through cooking it will be extracted. And there is no proof from what the Tur wrote regarding meat that turned red, that there is no permission for the pot except through cutting and meliha, and it is explained that through cutting and meliha at least it is permitted; for one could say that turning red is different, for we see that the blood was stirred to exit, and for this reason the vinegar is forbidden as will be explained, and automatically the meliha will also extract the blood. But where it did not turn red, who is to say that the meliha will extract the blood? However, it is certainly simple that without meliha it is forbidden to cook. [And from the liver there is no proof, see siman 73 and delve there].

Therefore, raw meat that was not salted which was placed in vinegar in order to contract its blood within it, if the meat became red, this is a sign that the blood was uprooted from its place and mixed into the vinegar and returned and was absorbed into the meat. Therefore, the vinegar is forbidden and the meat is also forbidden to be eaten raw, but rather he should either eat it as a roast—and it does not require cutting and salting—or by cooking through cutting and salting. And if the meat did not become red, then certainly its blood was contracted within it and was not uprooted from its place, and the meat is permitted to be eaten raw and the vinegar is also permitted to be drunk. And it is a simple matter that when contracting with vinegar, one must rinse the visible blood that is upon the meat. And know that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote (Pesachim 74b) that contraction in vinegar is specifically when immediately upon placing the meat in the vinegar they remove it from it, for in this the blood will not be aroused to exit; but when they leave it inside, the blood is aroused to exit, see there. And I wonder at the poskim who did not bring this. And for us there is no practical difference, for we are not experts in this and we do not practice this permission, as will be explained.

Vinegar into which one has placed meat once to contract the meat, one may not contract meat in it a second time to eat it raw, for its strength has already weakened through the first time and it no longer has the power to contract. And since it does not have the power to contract the blood that is within the meat, the blood exits the meat through the soaking in the vinegar and is then reabsorbed into it, and the vinegar is forbidden as well as the meat, even though the meat did not turn red [Levush]. However, vinegar in which one has not performed chalitah at all is permitted for chalitah even though it is not strong, for since one has not yet performed chalitah in it, the acidity of the fruit within it is strong and contracts the blood even though it is not strong in its essence. And there is reason to doubt regarding our vinegar, for perhaps the vinegar in the time of the Talmud, which was wine vinegar, had the power to contract even if it was not so strong because it contained the acidity of the fruit, whereas our vinegar which is made from compound substances perhaps does not have this power at all; however, for us there is no practical difference, as I have written and as will be explained:

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of this siman that in this time we are not experts in chalitah and it is forbidden to shrink with vinegar, and so we practice in these lands that we do not shrink meat with vinegar prior to melichah and one should not change, and nevertheless, post facto it is permitted. Thus far his words. And with our vinegar, perhaps even post facto it is forbidden, and one must deliberate on this.