QUESTION: Rav Nachman states that the "Beis ha'Rechem" poses no concern for
crushed limbs. RASHI (DH Beis ha'Rechem) explains that this refers to a
newborn calf. Rav Nachman is saying that we are not afraid that its limbs
may have been crushed during birth as it passed through the narrow birth
canal. Accordingly, the newborn calf is not considered to be a Tereifah and
one may slaughter it right away without waiting.
The RAN notes that Rav Nachman is referring to a case in which the calf was
born at term. If the calf was born prematurely, then we must suspect that
the calf is a Nefel, a non-viable fetus, in which case we would have to wait
eight days before slaughtering it (see Shabbos 135b).
The Ran cites "Rishonim" who explain that Rav Nachman is permitting the calf
in a case in which the mother cow had a difficult birth. If Rav Nachman is
referring to a case of a normal birth, then there would be no reason for him
to teach that the calf is permitted, because it is obvious that in such a
case the calf is permitted; if we must be concerned for crushed limbs in
every case of a normal birth, then it should follow that most births are
fatal. The Ran disagrees with this logic and asserts that it is still
necessary for Rav Nachman to teach that we are not concerned for crushed
limbs in a case of a normal birth.
How, though, does the Ran answer the logic of the "Rishonim" who argue with
him? Why is it necessary for Rav Nachman to teach that there is no concern
for crushed limbs even in a normal birth? It is obvious that we have no such
concern, because if we were concerned for such a thing, then we would say
that most baby animals do not survive more than a year, which obviously is
not true!
ANSWER: The RAN answers that certainly it is obvious that most baby animals
are not born with crushed limbs. However, there might be a "Mi'ut
d'Shechi'ach" -- a frequent or significant minority of animals whose limbs
are crushed in the process of birth. (Some say that if one out of every ten
animals are born as Tereifos, then this is considered a "Mi'ut d'Shechi'ah";
see TESHUVOS MISHKENOS YAKOV YD 17, cited by the DARCHEI TESHUVAH 39:3 and
TESHUVOS SHEVET HA'LEVI 4:81.) Accordingly, since it is possible to
determine whether or not the animal is a Tereifah (that is, by waiting 24
hours before slaughtering it), we should not rely on the fact that the
majority of animals are born healthy. Indeed, this is the reason why the
lungs of every animal must be examined for Sirchos, even though a majority
of animals do not have Sirchos. Since lungs with Sirchos are a "Mi'ut
d'Shechi'ach," a frequent minority, we must examine all lungs and we may not
rely on the Rov.
Therefore, Rav Nachman teaches that we are not concerned at all that an
animal's limbs were crushed during birth. Such an occurrence is a "Mi'ut
d'Lo Shachi'ach," an infrequent minority.
(The Ran earlier (3b of the pages of the Rif, DH Garsinan) cites a proof for
this principle from the Gemara later (51b) that says that an animal must be
examined only when it fell from a roof. The accident created a doubt
regarding the animal's health. In a normal case, though, the animal does not
need to be examined (besides the examination of the lungs). In addition,
from the fact that the Gemara here says that an animal that drags its hind
legs does not need to be examined (because we assume that it merely has a
cramp), we see that certainly a perfectly healthy animal does not need to be
examined.) (D. Bloom)
QUESTION: Rav Nachman (50a) rules that a newborn calf may be slaughtered
immediately, and it is not necessary to wait 24 hours out of concern that
its limbs were crushed during birth rendering it a Tereifah. The Gemara
attempts to prove Rav Nachman's ruling from a Beraisa that states that when
a firstborn animal is born on Yom Tov, even if it has a blemish it is not
Muktzeh and may be slaughtered on Yom Tov. We see from there that we are not
concerned that an animal was born with crushed limbs. The Gemara refutes
this proof and says that in the case of the Beraisa, the animal was "Hifris
Al Gabei Karka." RASHI (DH Kegon) explains that this means that the calf
shook itself in an attempt to stand, and thrust its hooves into the ground.
Rashi says that this in accordance with the Gemara later that says that if
an animal fell off of a roof but afterwards was able to stand up, this is
sufficient proof that the animal is not a Tereifah and one need not wait 24
hours before slaughtering it. If the animal that fell off of a roof shook
itself and thrust its hooves into the ground (but did not succeed in
standing up), then one must wait 24 hours before slaughtering it.
Why does Rashi explain that in the case of the Bechor born with a blemish,
the animal attempted to stand up unsuccessfully, and this suffices to prove
that the animal is not a Tereifah? Why does he not explain simply that the
animal succeeded in standing, as in the similar case in the Gemara later
that Rashi cites? The Gemara there implies that an unsuccessful attempt to
stand does *not* indicate that the animal is not a Tereifah!
ANSWER: The LEV ARYEH explains that it must be that when the Gemara attempts
to cite proof for Rav Nachman's ruling, it understands that Rav Nachman
permits the newborn calf even if there is some "Rei'usa" -- some weakness or
negative condition that gives reason to assume that the animal is a
Tereifah. The Gemara assumes that this is Rav Nachman's intention because,
otherwise, Rav Nachman is not teaching us anything new.
Accordingly, the Gemara's proof for Rav Nachman must also be a case in which
the animal has a "Rei'usa" and yet the animal is considered to be Kosher and
there is no need to wait before slaughtering it. In the case of the Bechor
born on Yom Tov, the Gemara originally assumes that it is considered Kosher
even if it has some "Rei'usa." The Gemara refutes this proof by saying that
the animal was "Hifris Al Gabei Karka." Rashi does not explain that this
means that the animal stood up successfully, because this would mean that
the animal had no "Rei'usa" at all. If the Gemara is answering that the
Beraisa's case is not a proof for Rav Nachman because the animal had no
"Rei'usa," then the Gemara should have answered simply that the animal that
was born on Yom Tov was observed to have no blemish at all. The fact that
the Gemara answers that it was "Hifris Al Gabei Karka" suggests that there
was some slight "Rei'usa," but one smaller than the one that Rav Nachman
permits. Rav Nachman would have permitted the animal to be slaughtered on
Yom Tov even if it could not move at all. (D. Bloom)