Sotah 101

1:
Our mishnah is concerned with the fate of the calf should the murderer be apprehended. We must bear in mind that the calf is offered in expiation of the blood guilt that adheres to all until it is expiated. Ideally this expiation is achieved by the shedder of blood forfeiting his life. The calf is only needed when there is no known offender.

2:
Several commentators express their opinion that all the 'fuss' made in preparation for this ceremony is designed to make people aware and thus help apprehend the real culprit – the arrival of bigwigs from Jerusalem, the business of measuring the distance, the procession down to the stream – all these might help jog someone's memory. Therefore, it is not surprising that it may well occur that the murderer is discovered before the animal is killed.

3:
In such a case the animal is released to graze with the herd and resumes its former status. It is necessary for our mishnah to make this point clear because there is a 'maĥloket' among the rabbis as regarding the precise point when the animal becomes 'selected': is it from the moment it is taken down to the site or is it only from the moment it is killed?

4:
If the murderer is apprehended after the calf has been slaughtered the calf must be buried where it is, since it is now definitely 'selected' and therefore no material benefit may be derived from it.

5:
The slaughter of the animal was intended to remove blood-guilt from the innocent who had nothing to do with the death of John Doe. It does not remove the blood-guilt from the actual murderer if he is discovered, and he must be brought to justice and punished as any other murderer: he may not claim that the hapless calf has expiated his blood-guilt.

Concerning the manner of the death of the 'decapitated calf', Orin Rotman writes:

The execution of the heifer by hatchet blow to the back of the neck seems to be an incongruity with the care otherwise taken to take an animal's life with a minimum of pain and with a maximum of dignity. Is there discussion or commentary or comparison to this method of execution in relation to the themes of shechita?

I respond:

The short answer to Orin's question is no – at least there is no discussion or commentary by classical sources of which I am aware. I think that the reason for this is because the 'decapitated calf' is not unique in the Torah: we are instructed to kill other animals in a manner which is different from Sheĥitah. For example: the Torah [Leviticus 5:7-9] gives a very explicit instruction as to how a bird which is a sin-offering is to be killed:

Much – rightly – has been made in more modern times of the fact that Sheĥitah, which is the Jewish mode of slaughter of animals for human consumption, causes minimal pain to the animal. (Rambam grudgingly notes that since humans need to kill for food it is best that it is done in the most humanitarian manner: he obviously had no conception of vegetarianism and veganism.) I suppose that it is inevitable that from this much stated observation people may derive the impression that humane slaughter is the purpose of Sheĥitah. But this is not the case. The purpose of Sheĥitah is to drain the carcass of as much blood as possible because Jews are not permitted to eat meat with the blood. It is undeniable that in order to reach that end halakhic development requires several matters which certainly will reduce the pain caused to the animal. But anyone who visits a modern slaughterhouse and sees the Shoĥet perform his task will realise that all this is relative. Indeed, there is a specific midrash [Bereshit Rabba 44:1] which boldly states that Sheĥitah is not in order to save the animal pain:

Having said this, let me add that in the case of the 'decapitated calf' the slaughterer is required to ensure that his one blow severs both the windpipe and the gullet, just as in slaughter from the throat.