Komentarz do Kapłańska 17:13

אשר יצוד WHO HUNTETH — I seem to have here only the law that the blood of hunted beasts and fowls caught now by hunting must be covered with dust. Whence do I know that this applies also to geese and fowls which have been kept in the house having already been caught? Scripture therefore states יצוד] ציד], “who hunts a hunted thing"— hunted under any circumstances whether now or before. If this be so why does Scripture at all state אשר יצוד (let it merely state 'אשר ישחט וכו‎)? But it uses the term “hunting” to teach that one should not eat meat except after such toilsome preparation (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 2; Chullin 84a).

אשר יצוד ציד. Seeing that in the main, these free roaming beasts’ habitat is in desolate regions of the earth, areas in which the kind of demons we mentioned are at home, (compare Isaiah 13,21 “there ostriches shall make their home and there shall satyrs (demons) dance.”) the Torah therefore forbids to leave the blood of these beasts exposed and ordered us to cover it with earth in order to forestall any chance that this blood be used to feed the demons. It goes on to say:

אשד יצוד ציד חיה או עוף, who hunts any beast or fowl, etc. We need to analyse why the Torah had to write this whole introduction instead of merely writing that if someone slaughters or otherwise kills a free-roaming animal or fowl he has to cover its blood with earth. Furthermore, if it is a decree without the Torah revealing its rationale, why does the Torah not merely write יכסהו, "he shall cover its blood with dust," instead of writing וכסהו, which implies that he had to fulfil another commandment prior to covering the blood of the creature in question.

וכסהו בעפר, for then it will no longer be fit as food.

אשר יצוד ציד חיה או עוף אשר יאכל, “who will trap a beast of bird of the kind that may be eaten;” seeing that the eating of any kind of blood is prohibited, and such blood cannot be offered on the altar either, it would be insensitive to leave such blood uncovered. The Torah therefore decrees burial of a kind for the lifeblood of such pure animals. Moreover, unless the blood of such animals is covered, anyone seeing it might conclude that this blood was the remainder of blood poured out after part had been sprinkled on an altar as a sacrificial rite dedicated to idolatry. Ibn Ezra is convinced that here too resident strangers in the Land of Israel are forbidden to eat such impure animals as donkeys, horses or birds of prey.

[That one should not eat meat without this] preparation. Rashi (Chulin 84a) explains, “As if one hunted [it], that it was not [always] prepared for him. I.e., one should not eat meat constantly lest he become poor.”

ציד חיה, “this is an allinclusive term, including all free roaming beasts.”

אשר יאכל THAT MAY BE EATEN — This is especially mentioned to the exclusion of unclean animals (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Chapter 11 4).

Except for [ritually] unclean. You might ask: Perhaps it comes to exclude [even] טריפה [a “torn” animal], for example, if the brain membrane was pierced or if it became טריפה while being slaughtered. The answer is: Here it is written “he shall spill its blood and cover it,” and earlier (verse 4) it is written “he has spilt its blood.” Just as there it is speaking of an unfit slaughter [outside the Temple courts, so here it is speaking of an unfit slaughter], such as slaughtering a טריפה. And even so, it is written, “Cover it with earth.” If so, what does “that is permitted to be eaten” come to exclude? It must come to exclude the ritually unclean. This is in accordance with R. Meir but not the Sages. The halachah however is according to the Sages, and this requires [further]analysis.

I believe that by writing the words אשר יצוד the Torah intended to forbid the hunting of any species that are impure, i.e. whose meat is forbidden for Jews to eat although it may be used in another context. I have discussed this in my book פרי תואר item 117 in accordance with the view of Maimonides in his treatise Maachalot Assurot chapter 8 where he writes that permission to hunt is dependent on one's intention to hunt those free-roaming animals which we are allowed to eat. The fact that amongst the herd of animals one hunts there are some which do not qualify as food for Jews does not pose an halachic problem to the hunter in such an instance. This is the true meaning of the expression כי יצוד אשר יאכל, i.e. the activity of hunting is permissible only when its object is to provide you with permissible food. The Torah continues with וכסהו, [the emphasis being on the conjunctive letter ו Ed.] to draw our attention to the preceding מצוה, namely not to engage in hunting animals for sport but only for food. The Torah writes that the permission to eat, i.e. אשר יאכל, is contingent on the covering of the blood of such animal by earth once it has been spilled i.e. ושפך את דמו. In Deut. 12,24 the Torah warns that blood of free-roaming animals must not be consumed either. This teaches that already in our verse the Torah was concerned with our not eating the blood even of free-roaming animals or fowl by writing כי נפש כל בשד, that the life-force of all flesh, not only that of pure domestic animals, is situated in its blood. As a result of what we have just described you find three distinct commandments in our verse. 1) Not to hunt impure animals for one's pleasure; 2) Not to eat the blood of either חיה or עוף; 3) To cover the blood of such animals instead of pouring it down the sink, etc.

או עוף, “or fowl;” regardless if few or many; from this expression our sages derived that if one killed 100 or one beast or bird in one location the covering of their blood can be combined into a single operation. [They do not need to be interred in individual graves. Ed.] (Sifra)

I believe we can also detect in the expression ושפך וכסהו an allusion to the need to cover only some of the blood with earth whereas the rest may be poured down the sink, compare Chulin 88.

חיה או עוף, “four legged free roaming beasts or birds;” the two categories of creatures are lumped together to teach that they share a common denominator, i.e. this legislation applies to creatures that are not acceptable as potential sacrifices on the altar. By the same token, in order that we should not think that the blood of domesticated beasts that are permitted as food has not been forbidden, the Torah adds:

וכסהו בעפר, “its blood is to be covered,” as it is clear from that that it will not be fit to be eaten.