Acharei: Sparking Our Energy and Vitality

Rambam relates the laws regarding using earth to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or fowl that was slaughtered at the end of the Hilchos Shechitah. Afterwards, he concludes the entire Sefer Kedushah, the Book of Holiness, stating:2

When one covers [the blood with earth,] he should not [use] his foot to cover it. Instead, [he should use] his hand, a knife, or [another] utensil so that he will not treat [the mitzvah] in a demeaning manner, [thereby causing] the mitzvos to be degraded [in his eyes.]

Rambam’s source is a beraisa,3 which refers to a Scriptural verse,4 “who sheds… he shall cover its blood,” and then states, “With whatever he shed [its blood] (such as his hand, Rashi), he should cover [it]. He should not cover it [using] his foot, so that the mitzvos not be degraded in his [eyes].”

However, Rambam modified the wording of the beraisa:

a) He begins by stating the prohibition, “he should not [use] his foot to cover it,” unlike the beraisa itself, which after quoting the relevant verse begins, “With whatever he shed [its blood], he should cover [it].”

b) He omits the words of the verse “who sheds… he shall cover its blood,” from which the prohibition is derived.5

c) He specifically mentions “his hands, a knife, or [another] utensil.”

Rambam’s words can be explained by comparing them with those of Bach:6

The fundamental emphasis is that [a person] should not cover [the blood] by [kicking the earth with] his foot, for that is demeaning. However, any [way] that is not demeaning, e.g., [moving the earth] with a knife, another utensil, or with chips of wood is acceptable, since he is using his hand…. At present, it is customary [to move the earth] to cover [the blood] with the handle of the [slaughtering] knife.7 This also can be inferred from Sefer Mitzvos Gadol8 – that, fundamentally, the mitzvah is to cover [the blood with earth,] using the knife that shed [the blood].

It appears that according to Bach’s understanding of Sefer Mitzvos Gadol, the intent of the commandment is the obligation to cover the blood using the utensil that shed it.9 Accordingly, the reason for excluding using one’s foot to move the earth to cover the blood is fundamentally because one would not be covering the blood with the object that shed it. It is only afterwards that the beraisa adds a further concept – the rationale for the matter10 – that covering the blood by moving the earth with one’s foot demeans the mitzvah.

It would seem that this understanding is reflected in the wording of the beraisa in Toras Kohanim,11 “With whatever he shed [the blood], he shall cover it. He should not cover it [using] his foot, so as not to treat the mitzvos degradingly.” Toras Kohanim uses different wording than the beraisa in the Talmud, which states “He should not12 cover it [using] his foot.” The implication of the version in Toras Kohanim is that the prohibition against using one’s foot to cover the blood lest one denigrate the mitzvos, is an additional concept. Primarily, the verse is teaching that the slaughterer should use his hand to cover the blood, because that is what he used to shed the blood.

By precisely choosing his words and beginning, “When one covers [the blood with earth,] he should not [use] his foot,” Rambam sought to negate this approach. The phrasing he uses emphasizes that the fundamental purpose of this law is to exclude using one’s foot to cover the blood because that is degrading to the mitzvah.13

Therefore, Rambam did not cite the teaching, “who sheds… he shall cover its blood,” because that verse allows for the possibility of thinking that one is obligated to cover the blood specifically with whatever
he shed it. He lists “his hands, a knife, or [another] utensil” to emphasize that, fundamentally, the objection to covering the blood using one’s foot14 is “so that the mitzvos not be degraded [in his eyes].”

It is possible to say that Rambam’s source is the statement of the Talmud which, after mentioning several safeguards instituted “lest the mitzvos be degraded [in his eyes],” concludes,15 “The paradigm of all of them is [covering] the blood,” i.e., covering the blood is the source from which the prohibition against treating all mitzvos in a degrading manner is derived. It is apparent from this that the sole intent of the phrase,16 “[who] sheds… he shall cover [its blood]” – and the teaching derived from it – is to prohibit fulfilling the mitzvos in a degrading manner.17

On this basis, it is possible to appreciate the precision of the wording Rambam proceeds to use in that source, “For the honor is not being given to the mitzvos in their own right, but to the One, blessed be He, Who commanded them18 and saved us from groping in the darkness…,” thereby stating a teaching that applies to the honor of the mitzvos as a whole. True, Rambam concludes every one of the books of the fourteen books of the Mishneh Torah with an encompassing ethical teaching applying to our Divine service. However, it is obvious that there is a connection between that ethical teaching and the theme of the given mitzvah19 with which the specific book concludes.

Similarly, with regard to the present instance, Rambam chose to relate a teaching of a general scope regarding the honor due mitzvos as a conclusion to the laws of covering the blood based on our Sages’ statement that “the paradigm of them all is covering the blood.” The mitzvah of covering the blood teaches the prohibition against degrading the mitzvos – and thus the importance of honoring them – that applies to all the mitzvos.

The rationale for this choice requires analysis: Why is it that the Torah explicitly mentions the prohibition against degrading the mitzvos with regard to the mitzvah of covering the blood? Why is the need for care in this regard derived specifically from this mitzvah?

These questions lead to the understanding that this mitzvah possesses a unique dimension that causes it to be the source teaching the obligation to honor all the mitzvos.

Clarification is also necessary regarding the wording of the Talmud. True, the Talmud uses concise wording. However, it would appear that instead of saying, “The paradigm of them all is blood,” the Talmud should have
emphasize the fundamental point, by saying, “The paradigm of them all is covering20 the blood.” This is particularly true based on the emphasis of the Talmud, which asks rhetorically, “Is there sanctity to the blood?” thus indicating that the reason the blood is treated with honor – although even when it must be covered, it does not possess sanctity – is only because a mitzvah is being fulfilled with it.21 This concept receives greater emphasis based on Rambam’s words cited above, “For the honor is not being given to the mitzvos in their own right, but to the One, blessed be He, Who commanded them.” Accordingly, it seems that the emphasis should have been on the covering of the blood.22

After stating, “For the honor is not being given to the mitzvos in their own right, but to the One, blessed be He, Who commanded them,” Rambam describes three specific benefits that the mitzvos which we have been commanded lead to: G‑d a) “saved us from groping in darkness,” b) “provided us23 with a lamp to straighten crooked ways,”24 c) “and a light to illumine the upright paths.” He then concludes, “And so it is written,25 ‘Your words are a lamp to my feet and a light for my paths.’ ”

It is obvious that by citing these three phrases, Rambam is not merely using flowery wording, but is alluding to three different dimensions of G‑d’s mitzvos, The elements of our world are divided into three categories:26 a) forbidden entities, which a person must avoid entirely; b) permitted entities, which a person may use as long as he does so in accordance with the Torah’s instructions; c) holy matters.

Accordingly, there are three categories of mitzvos: a) negative commandments that distance a person from forbidden entities; b) actions that enable permitted entities to be used according to the Torah’s intent, for example, the mitzvah of ritual slaughter that makes meat fit to be eaten; c) deeds whose entire focus is on drawing down holiness to the person fulfilling them.

These three categories are reflected in the three phrases used by Rambam:

a) “Saved us from groping in darkness” reflects how the mitzvos separate man from forbidden entities, saving him from concealment and darkness.

b) “Provided us with a lamp to straighten crooked ways” describes how the lamp of the mitzvos brings about an effect within an entity that in and of itself is “crooked,” i.e., the opposite of straight.27 This refers to the mitzvos that involve mundane entities and, like a lamp, shed light upon them, enabling them to be “straightened.” These entities are not, in and of themselves, “straight” – i.e., since these entities are material in nature, there is a fundamental tendency for a person to use them for a purpose that is not directed toward G‑dliness. It is only by carrying out the Torah’s guidelines regarding them that they are “straightened” and made fit for use in a desirable manner.

c) “A light to illumine the upright paths” refers to the light of the mitzvos that is not intended to “straighten crooked ways,” but rather to show “upright paths,” ways of acting that are inherently holy and upright.28

These explanations enable us to understand the connection this teaching shares with the Book of Holiness which it concludes. The definition of holiness emphasizes these three elements:

a) The word kedushah, “holiness,” implies separation and distance, as our Sages comment in Toras Kohanim on the verse,29 “You shall be holy” – “you shall set yourself apart.” The intent is to set oneself apart from forbidden matters, as Rashi comments on the above verse, “Distance yourself from forbidden intimate relations and sin.” Indeed, the first set of laws in Sefer Kedushah are the laws concerning forbidden intimate relations, and afterwards, follow the laws concerning forbidden foods.

b) The obligation “You shall be holy” also includes the obligation to “sanctify yourself with what is permitted to you,” i.e., man’s mundane activities as mentioned above.30

c) The ultimate expression of holiness is manifest – as implied – in entities or activities that are inherently holy31 to the extent that, like the sacrifices offered on the Altar, their physical substance is holy.

Since Rambam alludes to these three categories of mitzvos following his mention of the obligation to honor the mitzvos, which is derived from the mitzvah of covering the blood, it is logical to say that these three dimensions are highlighted in this mitzvah.

The above concept can be clarified by first citing Ramban’s explanation32 of the reason why the mitzvah of covering the blood applies only to the blood of an undomesticated animal and of a fowl, but not of a domesticated animal:

[G‑d] commanded… that the blood of all undomesticated animals and fowl be covered, because their blood would not be offered on the Altar. [Although the blood of doves and turtledoves was brought upon the Altar,] nevertheless, these are only two species. [As a whole,] fowl would not be brought [on the Altar] and even [fowl from these species when offered on the Altar] were not slaughtered.33 By contrast, most of the [species of] domesticated animals found [among the Jewish people] were slaughtered for the sake of G‑d, He Who is [most] revered, and their blood [was presented on the Altar] for atonement. It was not befitting to cover such blood.

[There is no command] to cover the blood of non-sacrificial animals [that were slaughtered] because non-sacrificial [animals] were not slaughtered [during the Jews’ sojourn] in the desert34 and, [even] afterwards, [there was no such command because the Torah’s laws] were given [to govern] the majority [of the situations that apply].35

Ramban’s conception is that the obligation to cover the blood is dependent on the possibility of offering the blood on the Altar. This approach appears to be supported by the sequence of the verses in the relevant passage:36

For the life of the flesh is in the blood. I have assigned it to you [to present] upon the Altar…. Therefore, I said to the Children of Israel, “No person among you shall partake of blood…. Every person… who traps [an undomesticated animal or a fowl…] shall shed its blood and cover it with earth.”

From these verses, it is apparent that the prohibition against partaking of blood and the mitzvah to cover it results from the fact that “I have assigned it to you [to present] upon the Altar.”

According to this conception, the two distinctions that apply regarding the covering of the blood – that the mitzvah applies only to the blood of: a) an undomesticated animal and a fowl, but not to that of a domesticated animal, b) non-sacrificial animals that are slaughtered, but not sacrificial ones37 – are motivated by the same principle. The blood of an undomesticated animal and a fowl – in the overwhelming majority of instances – is not to be presented on the Altar, but rather is non-sacrificial blood to which the mitzvah of covering the blood applies. By contrast, regarding the blood of domesticated animals, “Most of the [species of] domesticated animals found [among the Jewish people] were slaughtered for the sake of G‑d, He Who is [most] revered, and their blood [presented on the Altar] for atonement.” Thus, their blood is equated with the blood of sacrificial animals that is not required to be covered because their blood was presented on the Altar.

Ramban’s approach teaches us that the purpose of the mitzvah of covering the blood is to compensate for a lack. Blood is an entity that is fit solely to be presented on the Altar. Therefore, any blood that is not fit to be presented on the Altar must be covered with earth. By doing so, one nullifies its presence.38

The counterpart of the above concepts in terms of our personal service of G‑d can be explained as follows: Blood is identified with vitality, as the verse states,39 “The blood is the soul.” The ultimate purpose is to use our vitality and energy, (the blood) for holy matters, because all holy matters should be carried out with energy, vitality, and excitement that is apparent.

This is also the inner reason why the mitzvah of covering the blood does not apply to the blood of sacrificial animals – both animals sanctified to be offered on the Altar and animals sanctified to be sold and the proceeds used for the upkeep of the Beis HaMikdash.40 This exclusion applies even though the blood of the latter category of animals was not presented41 on the Altar.42 The rationale is that all matters of holiness should be carried out with energy that is apparent.

By contrast, a person’s personal and mundane affairs should be carried out without such vitality, without putting one’s heart into them.43 On the contrary, “All [one’s] deeds should be for the sake of Heaven,”44 carried out not for the sake of physical satisfaction, but in order to serve the Creator. This is the inner dimension of the mitzvah of covering the blood – that while involved in ordinary matters, one must cover the blood, i.e., carry them out without apparent excitement.

On this basis, we can understand why the blood must be covered specifically with earth. Earth
connotes humility and self-effacement, as reflected in the phrase,45 “I am but earth and ashes.” When a person involves himself in his personal mundane affairs, he must arouse bittul and humility within his soul, being wary not to be drawn after the desires of his heart. Rather than involve himself in his personal affairs for his physical satisfaction, his intent should be solely for the sake of Heaven.

It is possible to say that there is an allusion conveyed by the explanation that the mitzvah of covering the blood does not apply to the blood of non-sacrificial domesticated animals, because the majority of these species of animals are fit to be offered on the Altar. The connection with sacrificial animals implies that one should follow an even loftier path of Divine service while involved in his ordinary affairs. Not only should they be carried out “for the sake of Heaven,” they should be carried out in a manner reflecting the Talmudic practice,46 “ordinary food prepared with the purity appropriate for sacrificial food”; one’s ordinary mundane activities should be carried out “with the purity appropriate for sacrificial food.”47 The fact that the entire category of domesticated animals are governed by the same laws as the majority of such animals that are fit for the Altar indicates that even the lesser portion of such animals which are used for ordinary purposes share a connection with the level of consecrated animals whose blood need not be covered.

The spiritual counterpart of that law can be explained as follows: When a person is permeated by devotion to G‑d’s service – to the extent that he need not take extra precautions lest he slip into involvement in the pleasures of this material world because nothing is of importance to him other than serving G‑d – his entire involvement in his personal affairs is nothing more than one further dimension of his service of G‑d. He transforms his material activities into holy endeavors. As such, even his ordinary activities may be carried out with energy and excitement. There is no need for him to “cover the blood.” For regarding everything he does, his entire vitality is focused on the holiness invested in that activity and these activities are carried out solely “for the sake of Heaven”; he has no other intent.

Based on the above, it follows that the Torah is providing three types of directives regarding blood, which parallel the three dimensions of the mitzvos alluded to in Rambam’s statements cited above:

a) The blood of non-sacrificial fowl and undomesticated animals that one is obligated to cover – This corresponds to the manner in which the mitzvos save one from “groping in the darkness,” i.e., saving and separating a person from those matters which could cause him to stumble into sin.

b) The blood of a non-sacrificial domesticated animal that one is not obligated to cover – This correlates with mundane activities carried out by a person who has already refined his ordinary conduct to the extent that it is solely an expression of holiness and justice, as indicated by the phrase, “a lamp to straighten crooked ways.”

c) The blood of sacrificial animals – This refers to activities that from the outset are holy. In this regard, “blood,” i.e., apparent and vibrant energy, is fundamentally necessary, as suggested by the phrase, “a light to illumine the upright paths.”

The above also enables us to understand the wording our Sages use – “the paradigm of them all is blood,” and not “the covering of the blood.” When considering the spiritual paradigm involved, covering the blood is not a mitzvah in its own right, but one element of the Torah’s general directives regarding “blood,” which represents a
person’s energy and vitality. The fundamental purpose and goal is not to cover the blood, but rather that “the fat and the blood be offered to Me [G‑d],”48 that the blood be presented on the Altar, i.e., that all holy activities be carried out with energy and excitement. This concept leads to the mitzvah of covering the blood, i.e., that when it comes to ordinary, mundane activities, the blood – the vitality and the energy – must be covered and reduced.

This is the allusion in the statement, “The paradigm of them all is blood”– the foundation of all the mitzvos is blood – meaning that they, the mitzvos, be fulfilled with energy and excitement. Consequently, a person will honor them as a matter of course. This honors G‑d, for, as Rambam states, “For the honor is not being given to the mitzvos in their own right, but to the One, blessed be He, Who commanded them.”