Kisui Hadam on Yom Tov

Beitzah (1:2) | Yisrael Bankier | 10 months ago

Masechet Beitzah opens with various debates between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. One debate (1:2) relates to kisui ha'dam. This refers to the mitzvah of covering the blood that falls to the ground when slaughtering a chaya (wild animal) or ohf (bird). Beit Shammai explains that one can slaughter one of these animals even if one does not have soil prepared for use. Instead, one can remove a deker (mattock or shovel) from the ground and use the soil that came out along with it. Beit Hillel, however, disagree. Instead, this solution is only allowed after the fact. In other words, the animal was already slaughtered and only then one realized that that is the only way to find soil for kisui ha'dam. We shall try to understand this debate.

Rav Yehuda in the Gemara (7b) explains that the deker had to have been in the soil prior to yom tov. The Gemara then asks that even if the deker was in the soil, one would not be allowed to crush the clods of earth. Rashi explains that crushing the soil would constitute a toladah (derivative) of the melacha of tochen (grinding). The Gemara answers that this case is where the soil is already soft and fit for use. The Gemara then asks that removing the soil would create a hole. Rashi explains that this would be the melacha of boneh (construction). The Gemara explains that according to Rav Abba, if one dug a hole for the purpose of the soil, they would be exempt. Rashi explains that since one does not want the resulting hole in one's house or chatzer (courtyard), the act would not be considered boneh or choresh (ploughing) but rather mekalkel -- a destructive act for which one is patur (exempt).

The Tosfot however notes that according to the Gemara's conclusion, this case is a melacha she'eina tzricha le'gufa. In other words, even though the hole was dug, the motivation was for taking the soil. The Tosfot Yom Tov notes that even though we rule like R' Yehuda that one would be liable in a case of melacha sheina tzricha le'gufa, since in this case it is also mekalkel, one is patur. Now even though the term patur means exempt, this only relates to the biblical prohibition and these cases would nontheless still be rabbinically prohibited. Why then can the deker be pulled from the ground? The Tosfot answers that due to simchat yom tov, the Chachamim allowed this rabbinic prohibition to be overridden. Why then does the deker need to have been in place prior to yom tov? That is so that the soil is considered prepared prior to yom tov -- so that there is not an additional rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh.

Accordingly, Beit Shammai permit slaughtering the chaya or ohf with the intention of using that soil. It follows that Beit Hillel disagree, arguing that simchat yom tov alone is not a justification to override the rabbinic prohibition. Instead, it is only after the fact, where one already has the obligation to perform kisui ha'dam, that the rabbinic prohibition of taking the soil is overridden. Alternatively, the Rashba explains that according to Beit Hillel, having the deker in the soil is not enough to make it considered prepared for yom tov. Consequently, there are two rabbinic prohibitions that cannot be overridden by simchat yom tov.

The Tosfot Rid however understands the conclusion differently. Having the deker already in soft soil prior to yov tov alleviates the issue of digging a hole -- there is no appearance of digging. How then do we understand the end of the Gemara cited above? Indeed, the way the Shita Mekubtzet understand Rashi is that in a case where it is a melacha sheino tzricha le'gufa and mekalkel it is not just patur but mutar (permitted).

What then is the debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel? Returning to the Tosfot Rid, he explains that it is whether that soil, the soil in one's chatzer, is considered muktzeh. Beit Shammai maintain that all the soil in one's chatzer is considered muchan (prepared for yom tov). Beit Hillel however argue that it is muktzeh, and one would need prepared soil to perform the slaughter. After the fact, the obligation of kisui hadam would override the issue of muktzeh.

It would seem however that Rashi has a different understanding of Beit Hillel's concern. Rashi understands the Beit Hillel is concerned that if we permit this case, one might take clods of soil and crush them for use, which is prohibited.

Download