Sefer HaChinuch ספר החינוך

That we not eat the blood of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird: That we not eat the blood of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird (Keritot 20b), as it is stated (Leviticus 3:17), “And any blood you shall not eat.” And it is stated in another place (Leviticus 7:26) — “from a bird or a beast” — and a [wild] animal is included in “beast” (Chullin 71a). And the prevention of blood is repeated in many places in the Torah.

I have already written what I think on the level of the simple understanding about forbidden foods, in the prohibitions of the “torn” [animals] (Sefer HaChinukh 73) and of forbidden fat (Sefer HaChinukh 147). But it is also possible to say about blood that besides the bad constitution [that it brings] — as it is of bad constitution — there would be in its eating a little acquisition of the trait of cruelty. As a man swallows from living beings, like him in the body, that thing in them that life is actually dependent upon and to which their spirit is connected. As it is well-known that beasts have spirits, which the wise men call a living spirit, meaning to say it is not an intelligent spirit. We can also see that their spirits have that aspect to guard from falling into one of the traps, and in a few other things. And Ramban, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Ramban on Leviticus 17:11) about the reason of blood, that it is well-known that that which is eaten returns to (dwells within) the body of the eater. And [so] if a man eats blood, there will be density and coarseness in the spirit of the man, just like the beast is dense and coarse. And he further wrote similar to that which I said, myself — that is not fitting for a spirit to eat a spirit.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Keritot 21a) that one is not liable for excision on account of blood, with the blood of fish, locusts, disgusting animals and creeping animals, nor the blood of people. And therefore they said that the blood of fish and locusts is permissible, that it is permissible to eat their blood — and even if he put it into a vessel. And that is when it is recognizable to all that it is the blood of fish. And, like they said in the Gemara (Keritot 21b), that there be a few of the scales of the fish in the vessel. But the blood of forbidden fish is forbidden, since it is like the milk of an impure beast, which is forbidden from the principle that is in our hands — food that comes out of the impure is impure. As we see that the Torah forbade the egg of an ostrich, since it came out from the impure (ostrich).

But the Sages forbade the blood of people because of appearances. And therefore they said (Keritot 22a), “Blood that is between the teeth, he should suck and swallow; and that is on the bread, he should scrape it off of it and eat the bread.” And so [too] is the blood of eggs permitted — as I do not call it the blood of the fowl, and it is not from the meat, even if it has started to form. And such is the opinion of our teachers, the Masters of the Tosafot on Chullin 64b, s.v. vehu, and as is implied from the simple meaning of the bereita in Keritot 21a. This is the law of the Torah. But the Sages forbade an egg that has [been] formed, and supported the thing with the verse of “the swarming creature that swarms” (Leviticus 11:42). And hence they forbade the blood of eggs on account of the doubt — that [perhaps] it formed. But anything that does not have a doubt of formation, they only forbade on account of appearances. And so, [regarding] blood of eggs found in the white, one should throw out the blood and eat the rest. But there are those that are stringent when it is found on the union and outside of the union [of the egg], to forbid the whole egg.

And [of] the blood that is forbidden by Torah writ, there is some the prohibition of which is with excision and some with a negative commandment. Lifeblood is with excision — as in the place that excision for blood comes in the Torah, there it is stated life (literally, spirit), as it is stated (Leviticus 17:11), “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” But the prohibition of that which is not lifeblood, but rather the blood of the limbs, is only with a negative commandment — since about it is it stated (Leviticus 7:26), “And any blood you shall not eat.” And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated and said (Keritot 22a) that we are liable for excision with the blood that comes out at the time of slaughter, stabbing or decapitation, so long as it has redness in it; with blood stored in the heart; and blood that is let, so long as it flows and comes out — as it too is lifeblood, and therefore we are liable for it. And specifically flowing — to exclude the dripping at the beginning of the letting and at its end, which is not lifeblood, such that we are not liable excision [for it]. And so [too,] the concentrated blood — meaning to say the blood that oozes a little at a time at the time of slaughter, after the pouring blood came out; and so [too,] the blood of the limbs, such as the blood of the spleen, the blood of the kidneys, the blood in the testicles and the blood that lodges in the heart at the time of slaughter — we are not liable excision for it, but rather lashes. And that is when he eats a kazayit of it.

The blood that is absorbed in the rest of the meat, which is also called blood of the limbs; so long as it has not separated, it is permitted to eat the meat with [this] blood absorbed inside it. As this blood is considered like meat for us, so long as it has not separated from the meat. And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, allowed [us] to eat raw meat without salting it; so long as it was properly rinsed, that there should not be actual blood on its surface. But at the time when the blood absorbed in the meat separates and goes out, we are liable for it with a negative commandment — as with the blood of the limbs that we enumerated above, which are with a negative commandment.

And therefore, the Sages obligated one who wants to eat meat cooked in a pot to extract the blood from it [that it not] (that it) separate from it and go out into the broth in the cooking. And the only scheme they found to take it out was salt, as it draws the blood and dries it naturally. And its power is great and goes into the meat — and even with a very thick piece, it has the power to extract the blood from [its] thickness. And so is this thing well-known and tried — that if a man salts a piece of meat properly according to the measure that the Sages gave for salting, he will find the taste of the salt in all of the meat, even in a big piece of a fattened ox. And since the thing is clearly so and recognizable to the eye, it is permissible to put all meat that has been salted according to its measure in a pot — whether the water is boiling, lukewarm or cold. [This is so] since we see the meat after salting according to its measure, as if — for all purposes — all forbidden blood was drained from it. And even if after the salting, we see a little blood that comes out from it; it does not have the status of blood, but rather it is considered as red brine. And about that which is similar to it, it is said in the Gemara (Chullin 112b), “Rabbi x called this, ‘the wine of meat’ and permitted it.”

And there are a few limbs in the beast [with] much blood, which all of Israel is accustomed to extract the blood in them with the power of fire before they cook them in the pot, and they did not want to rely on salting alone for them — and these are the brain and the liver. They roast them a little on the fire and afterwards cook them — whether they wanted to cook them on their own or with other meat. And the custom of Israel is Torah. If he transgressed and cooked them with other meat after salting alone, it is all permissible — and [that is] so long as he did not plan to do so at the outset, so that the matter return to [be permitted] for him ex post facto after the cooking. As with regards to anyone who does this with prohibitions, we forbid it all for him, as if it were at the outset. And I read upon him, “one who breaches a fence will be bitten by a snake.”

And the order of salting is like this: He rinses the meat properly from the blood on it, and afterwards places medium salt upon it — not very thick, so that a little will cling, and not very fine (so that it not cling more than necessary — Venice edition). And he leaves it in its salt enough to walk a mil; and it is enough with that even for a thick ox. And after it sits in its salt this measure [of time] on a diagonal place upon which the blood can properly flow or on a vessel with holes, he takes the meat in his hands and raises it and shakes off the salt from upon it, and then rinses it properly with water in the vessel three or more times, until the salt is removed and the water that he rinses the meat with is clear. And if the meat stays in its salting more than the fitting measure for salting, we do not concern ourselves lest the meat went back and absorbed from the blood on the surface of the salt; as we say that after the meat expunged its forbidden blood, it expunges its brine — meaning to say the meat’s liquid, and that is the moisture in the meat. And so long as the meat expunges this brine, it is not its nature to be able to absorb blood, since blood is very smooth by nature and is only absorbed slowly — meaning to say, [only] all of the time that the meat is not expunging anything, not blood and not brine.

And how long is this staying [with salt] that we can assume that the meat is still exuding brine? The rabbis said that it is up to twelve hours. If it stays more than this in its salt, it is forbidden to eat it until he peels the entire surface of the meat. And nonetheless it is sufficient with peeling, since we hold that salting is like the heating of a roast; and with a prohibited [food] that touches a roast, we hold [it is enough with] peeling, when there is not a prohibition that gushes — and blood does not gush. And if he did not want to peel the meat, it is permitted to eat it with roasting. As even though we say that salt does not have the power to extract the blood that comes to the meat from another place, the power of fire to extract it is stronger than salt. And therefore it is permitted to eat meat that sat in salt longer than is necessary, roasted without peeling; and with peeling, even in a pot, as we said.

And the rest of the many laws of salting — such as fish and poultry that were salted one with the other; pure fish salted with impure fish; what is the law about ceramic vessels or wooden vessels that were salted in; what is the law of the salt itself that was [used] to salt; and the rest of the many details of salting are elucidated in Chullin in the chapter [entitled] Kol HaBasar. (See Tur, Yoreh Deah 69.) And the laws of blood and the differences between lifeblood and blood of the limbs is also elucidated in the fifth chapter of Keritot.

And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and ate a kazayit of lifeblood volitionally is liable for excision; inadvertently, he brings a fixed sin-offering. And if he ate a kazayit of blood of the limbs volitionally, he is lashed; inadvertently, he is exempted.