OPINIONS: The Gemara cites the Mishnah in Chulin (109a) which teaches that one who wants to eat the heart of an animal must first tear it open in order to remove the blood. If he eats it without tearing it open to remove the blood, he is not Chayav Kares. Rebbi Zeira in the name of Rav says that this applies only to the heart of a bird, which contains less than a k'Zayis of blood, an amount for which one is not Chayav Kares. The heart of an animal, however, contains more than a k'Zayis of blood, and thus one who eats it without tearing it open is Chayav Kares.

(With regard to the Shi'ur of blood for which one is Chayav Kares, see RASHASH to Yevamos 114b, MINCHAS CHINUCH 148:13, TESHUVOS BINYAN TZIYON #49, and AFIKEI YAM 2:13.)

The Gemara questions the statement of Rebbi Zeira in the name of Rav from a Beraisa that says that only a Lo Sa'aseh prohibits eating the heart (with its blood) of an animal, but one is not Chayav Kares. The Gemara answers that the Beraisa refers to the blood of the heart itself, while Rav refers to circulating blood that entered the chambers of the heart.

There are two ways to understand the Gemara's answer.

(a) RASHI explains that the blood of the heart itself is not forbidden with Kares, but only with a Lo Sa'aseh. The Chiyuv Kares applies only to blood that enters the heart from the rest of the body. Rashi (DH Dam) explains that there is no Chiyuv Kares for the heart's own blood that is absorbed in the flesh of the heart, just as there is no Chiyuv Kares for eating blood absorbed in other limbs. (See TIFERES YISRAEL #5, who points out that although there are many veins in the heart full of blood, their status is the same as blood absorbed in other limbs, and their blood is forbidden only with a Lo Sa'aseh). The reason why the blood in the heart is not forbidden with Kares is that it is not blood that leaves the body when the soul departs (and only for such blood is one Chayav Kares, as the Mishnah (20b) teaches; see Rashi there, DH Ein). Rashi (DH d'Asi) writes that one is Chayav Kares for eating the blood in the hollow (chamber) of the heart, because that blood comes from outside the heart.

Rebbi Zeira says that the "blood that comes from outside" refers to the blood that is "Misraf Sarif" at the time the soul departs. Rashi (DH Misraf) explains that the blood is drawn by the animal's breathing from the neck (where it was slaughtered) into the heart. The word "Sarif" refers to something swallowed through the breathing process. Here, it refers to the blood on which the animal's life depends, and therefore one is Chayav Kares for eating it.

Rashi clearly understands that there are two types of blood in the heart. The first type is the blood that enters the heart at the moment of Shechitah; one is Chayav Kares for eating this blood. The second type is the blood that is absorbed in the flesh of the heart, which is forbidden only with a Lav.

(b) The RIF in Chulin (39a of the pages of the Rif) has a different text of the Gemara's answer here, which is the opposite of the text of Rashi. According to the Rif's text, the Gemara resolves the contradiction by saying that blood that comes from outside of the heart is prohibited only with a Lav, while the heart's own blood is prohibited with Kares. Rebbi Zeira explains that the blood reaches the heart from outside, because when the soul leaves the body, the blood is "Matzrif" (as opposed to "Misraf," as the word appears in our texts). The RAN explains that according to the Rif, the blood that entered the heart from outside is blood that had been absorbed in the other limbs. The Ran cites the Gemara earlier in Kerisus (4b) that says that blood that was absorbed in the limbs but left the limbs is forbidden with a Lav. The heart's own blood is blood that is always present in the chamber of the heart. This blood is considered "b'Ein" -- blood that is not absorbed but on the surface, for which one is Chayav Kares. The Ran explains that "Matzrif" means that when the soul leaves, the blood is "Metzaref" -- it collects together and enters the heart from the limbs.

The PRI MEGADIM (in MISHBETZOS ZAHAV YD 72:1, DH v'Da, and cited by the CHESHEK SHLOMO here) explains that according to the Rif, there are three types of blood in the heart. The first type is blood that is always inside the heart; one is Chayav Kares for eating this blood. The second type is blood that is drawn towards the heart from the limbs at the time of Shechitah; this blood is forbidden with a Lav. The third type is blood absorbed in the flesh of the heart; this blood is also forbidden with a Lav.

The Pri Megadim cites the KNESES HA'GEDOLAH who says that it is possible to distinguish between the heart's own blood and the blood that entered from outside. The heart's own blood is clearer and more liquidy, while the blood from outside is thicker.

(Although the Halachah permits one to eat the heart of an animal if the blood has been removed properly, it is advisable not to eat the heart because the Gemara in Horayos (13b) says that eating the heart of an animal causes one to forget his learning. The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 170:45) adds in the name of the MAGEN AVRAHAM that one also should be careful not to eat the heart of a Chayah or a bird. The Pri Megadim (in SIFSEI DA'AS YD 72:7) writes that although there are certain situations in which one may be lenient in certain details of the Halachos of Kashrus for the honor of guests, with regard to the heart of an animal one may not be lenient. The "honor of guests" refers to guests who study Torah, and such guests do not eat the heart of an animal because they do not want to forget their learning.) (D. BLOOM)

OPINIONS: Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree with regard to what blood constitutes the Dam ha'Nefesh when bloodletting is done to an animal. Rebbi Yochanan says that this is the blood that gushes forth from the animal when its blood is let. Reish Lakish says that this is the blood that flows from the first "black drop and onwards." What is the meaning of the first "black drop" of blood?

(a) RASHI (DH mi'Tipah) explains there are different stages of the flow of blood from an animal when its blood is let. At first, the blood drips out slowly and has a black tinge. Then, it continues to drop slowly, but it becomes red. Finally, it gushes out. Reish Lakish explains that from the first black blood and onwards it is considered Dam Hakazah (even though it is dripping red and has not yet started to gush).

(b) RASHI in Chulin (36a) mentions that at first the blood drips out slowly and has a red color. Then, the blood gushes out. Finally, it trickles out as black blood. According to this, Reish Lakish is saying that any blood of the blood-letting that comes out before the blood becomes black is considered Dam Hakazah.

(c) RABEINU GERSHOM explains that the blood first trickles out red, and then black. Afterwards, it gushes out. Even later, it again trickles out, but this time it trickles first as black blood and then as red blood. Reish Lakish rules that the first trickle of red blood (before the first black blood), and the last trickle of red blood (after the last black blood), together with the gushing blood, are considered Dam Hakazah. (See Chart #7.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah discusses the case of a woman who brought a Chatas ha'Of out of doubt about whether she had given birth to a properly-formed fetus (see Mishnah, 7b). When she brings a sheep as a Korban Olah, she stipulates that if the fetus necessitated a Korban, then this sheep is the Olah that she is obligated to bring, but if she is not obligated to bring a Korban, then this sheep is a freewill offering. The Chatas ha'Of, however, is brought without a stipulation (since a Chatas cannot be brought as a freewill offering), but it may not be eaten.

The Mishnah states that if, before the Melikah of the bird, she found out that she indeed was obligated to bring a Korban Yoledes, she must perform the rest of the offering of the bird in the same way that it is offered for a woman who knew from the beginning that she was obligated to bring a Korban Yoledes. (This is possible to do because the Korban that is brought for a Safek is the same Korban that is brought for a Vadai.) RASHI (DH Te'aseh) writes that the Kohanim are permitted to eat the Korban.

Why does the Mishnah state that she found out that she was obligated "before the Melikah"? Even if she found out after the Melikah, the Kohanim should be permitted to eat her Korban! The answer cannot be that since she did not know for certain at the time of Melikah that she was obligated to bring the Korban it is not a valid Korban, because the Gemara earlier (7b) says that Rebbi Yosi agrees that one who is Mechusar Kipurim does not need to know -- at the time that he brings his Korban -- whether he is bringing it because of a Safek or a Vadai obligation (this is because he is not bringing the Korban to atone for a sin, but only to permit him to eat Kodshim).

Similarly, the reason why the woman must know before the Melikah cannot be that if she finds out only after Melikah, then it would still be forbidden to eat the Chatas, due to a Gezeirah to prevent people from eating the Chatas even when it never became known that she was obligated to bring a Korban. This in fact is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan later (26b) who maintains that such a Gezeirah was enacted to prohibit eating the Chatas. Rav there, however, maintains that even if it became known after the Melikah that she was obligated to bring a Korban, it is still permitted to eat the Chatas! Why, then, according to Rav, does the Mishnah here say that it is permitted to eat the Chatas only when she found out about her obligation before the Melikah?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Im) answers that even if she found out after the Melikah, the Korban still may be eaten. The reason why the Mishnah says that she found out before the Melikah is that if she finds out after the Haza'as ha'Dam on the Mizbe'ach, then even Rav would agree that a Gezeirah prohibits eating the bird (because if it would be permitted at such a late stage, people certainly will think that it is permitted to eat the Chatas even when it was never known whether she was obligated).

The SHITAH MEKUBETZES (#32) explains that the reason why the Mishnah does not mention that she found out before the Haza'ah is that since the time period between the Melikah and Haza'ah is so short, those two stages of the offering of the bird are considered identical.

(b) The ARUCH LA'NER writes that the RAMBAM gives a similar answer to that of Tosfos, but for a different reason. Tosfos, who cites the view of Rebbi Yosi, implies that there is no dispute between Rebbi Yosi and the Tana Kama (7b), and that the Tana Kama agrees that at the time she brings her Korban, it is not necessary (mid'Oraisa) for her to know that she has a Vadai obligation to bring a Korban. (See also RASHASH to 7b.) The Rambam, however, understands that there is a dispute between Rebbi Yosi and the Tana Kama. Moreover, the fact that the Rambam does not mention Rebbi Yosi's opinion implies that the Rambam maintains that the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yosi.

Accordingly, the Rambam's position is difficult to understand. If the Halachah follows the Tana Kama, who maintains that the woman must know that she is Vadai obligated to bring a Korban, then why does the dispute between Rav and Rebbi Yochanan (on 26b) involve only whether there is a Gezeirah in a case where she found out after the Melikah? It should be prohibited according to both Rav and Rebbi Yochanan, since the Halachah follows the Tana Kama!

In order to resolve this problem, the Aruch la'Ner writes that the Rambam maintains that even though the Halachah follows the Tana Kama that she must know whether her obligation is Vadai or Safek at the moment that she offers the Korban, nevertheless -- since the atonement of the Korban is attained at the time of Haza'ah and Mitzuy ha'Dam -- it suffices mid'Oraisa for her to know at that stage that she must bring a Korban, even if she did not know at the time of Melikah. Consequently, the question of Tosfos is valid, even according to the Rambam, because even though the Rambam maintains that the Halachah does not follow Rebbi Yosi, the Tana Kama agrees that she does not need to know at Melikah. The Rambam answers Tosfos' question in a way similar to the answer of Tosfos. The Rambam says that, in fact, it is not necessary to know at the time of Melikah, but it suffices to know at the time of the Haza'ah. However, unlike Tosfos, who says that there is a Gezeirah if she did not know at the time of Haza'ah, the Rambam maintains that the Korban is invalid mid'Oraisa if she was unsure at the time of Haza'ah that she was obligated to bring the Korban. (D. BLOOM)