Siman 58

A fallen animal is treifah, and it is one of the treifot told to Moses at Sinai, as I wrote in siman 29. The sages taught in the Mishnah: These are the treifot in an animal: if it fell from the roof [42b]. If they slaughtered it immediately, it is treifah even if no fracture is visible in it; we fear that its organs were crushed and dislocated, and there is no reasoning for the treifot, for they are a law to Moses from Sinai [Rashi]. We require that it stand and walk a proper gait, as will be explained before us. And it is not specifically when it fell from a high place, for the same applies if a person or an animal trampled it with its feet until it cannot stand, or if he struck it against a wall or with a stone, or if an animal struck and crushed it until it cannot stand, it is subject to the law of a fallen animal. This is what the sages taught in the Mishnah regarding the treifah of a bird [56a]: if he trampled it or struck it against a wall, or if an animal crushed it, see there. And that which the sages taught regarding an animal "fell from the roof" and regarding a bird "trampled it etc.," it is not that there is a distinction between a bird and an animal, but rather it taught the common way of the matter, for a bird is not accustomed to fall from a high place since it has wings, and an animal is not accustomed to be unable to rise through trampling and striking [Rashba in Torat HaBayit 30a]. But regarding the law, they are the same. And this is what we learned in the Tosefta [chapter 3]: if it fell from the roof and its organs were crushed, or its fellow crushed it and its organs were crushed, etc., see there, for both are stated regarding an animal.

And know that that which we wrote, that there is no reason in the laws of terefot for they are a halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai, so wrote Rashi on the Mishnah. And the intention is not that the terefah has no reason, for behold there is an obvious reason for this due to the crushing of limbs, and you have no greater terefah than this. However, the intention is as follows: for behold, it will be explained before us that regarding the halakha, if it walks well it does not require inspection, and if it stood and remained for twenty-four hours it requires inspection, and if it did not walk and did not stand and did not remain for twenty-four hours, inspection is of no avail. And the Rishonim asked a great question: why should inspection not avail, since we saw that its limbs were not crushed [Ran and Rashba in Torat HaBayit]? And regarding this, Rashi, of blessed memory, said that there is no reason in terefot, for so did Moshe Rabbeinu receive from Sinai: that in such a case it does not require inspection, and in this manner it requires inspection, and in this manner inspection is of no avail. And this is the intention of Rashi [and I learned this from the words of the Rashba, see there].

However, there are some of our teachers who gave a correct reason for this, for behold, in a fallen animal there are two concerns: one is for the crushing of organs, and this is certainly not recognizable through examination; and furthermore, there is a concern lest an organ was torn away or severed, or the majority of its ribs were broken, or a vertebra was displaced, and this matter is possible to determine through examination. And this is what the sages said, that if it stood and remained for twenty-four hours, we have left the concern of the crushing of organs, for were it not so, it would not have been able to stand and remain for twenty-four hours; and since it stood and remained, it is proven that its organs were not crushed, and the examination is due to the second concern. And when it did not stand and remain for twenty-four hours, even though we can examine for this, nevertheless the crushing is not known to us [Ran]. And in a case where it walked, an examination is not required even for the second concern, for were any organ damaged, it would not have walked well. And according to this reason, the examination is not due to the crushing of organs, yet it does not imply such from the language of the Shas and the poskim [and know that that which we learned in the Mishnah 56a regarding a bird that is struggling, it means that it cannot walk, and examine this closely]:

And there are those who explained another reason, that whenever it fell and did not tarry and did not stand, we are concerned lest its organs were crushed and its nature has not yet strengthened to show and reveal the change from the crushing; but after it has tarried and stood, the nature has already returned somewhat to its strength, and if there is damage and crushing of organs, it will be revealed and seen. And this is seen and revealed always through experience [Rashba in Torat HaBayit], for we see even in human beings that through a blow the pain is not felt at that moment, and after several hours or after a day the pain will begin and the flesh will redden.

And something similar to this is explained from the words of the Rambam, who wrote in chapter 9, law 8: How is a fallen animal defined etc., and what is the nature of the crushing? That the organ is shattered and becomes ill due to the fall until its form and appearance are ruined; even though it was not perforated, nor split, nor broken, this is a terefah. And so too, if one struck it with a stone or a staff and shattered one of its organs, this is a terefah. Regarding which organs did they say this? Regarding the organs within the body cavity. Thus far his words. And in law 17 regarding the examination, he wrote: If he found in it one of the terefot that we enumerated, or if an internal organ was crushed and its form was ruined, this is a terefah. Thus far his words. Behold, he made the crushing dependent upon the ruin of the form of the organ, and it is a known matter that the ruin of an organ's form is not recognizable immediately at the time of the impact until after some time, for through the blow the blood flow is corrupted, and then the ruin of the form is recognizable in the organ that the fall dominated and was crushed. [The Ran also wrote according to the opinion of the Rambam that the crushing is not recognizable immediately etc., and also in Torat HaBayit, the Rashba wrote that within twenty-four hours the change of ruin is not recognizable, see there; however, in this the Rambam is equal to the Ran, that there is a concern even in a simple terefah as is explained from his words, and in the halacha we are certain that nothing was corrupted, as I have written, and examine this closely].

And one should not ask: since there is a concern regarding other types of treifot as well, if so, of what benefit is an inspection? Let us be concerned for a minute perforation in some organ, and it is impossible to inspect the entire body for a minute perforation—for it is for this reason that we forbid in the case of a thorn or a needle that perforated into the body cavity, because there is no inspection for a minute perforation in the entire body, as I wrote in siman 51. For this is no question at all, as a perforation caused by a fall cannot be a minute perforation, but rather a large tear, and it would be noticeable [Ran].

There is a stringency regarding a fallen animal that does not exist in other terefot, for in other terefot it only forbids in organs upon which life depends, but in a fallen animal it is not so, for even if an organ from the organs upon which life does not depend was crushed—such as the spleen and kidneys, which we hold that if they were removed it is kosher—if they were crushed it is a terefah. For so wrote the Rambam there, and this is his wording: Even if an organ from the organs that if they were removed it is kosher was crushed, such as the spleen and kidneys, this is a terefah, except for the womb, for if it was crushed it is permitted. Thus far his words. Because the crushing pains it more than their removal [Ran]. And this is similar to what was written regarding the spleen in the explanation of siman 43, that if the flesh was removed or perforated it is a terefah because it pains it more, see there. And according to this, also the liver, if it was crushed even not in the place of the gallbladder or the place of life, it is also a terefah for this reason [Taz, subsection 4]. And also the mother-organ, if it was crushed it is a terefah even according to the one who permits when the mother-organ is removed in siman 45 [Chidushei HaGershuni, subsection 8], except for the womb, because it is soft and spongy, crushing does not take hold in it. And so too regarding the simanim we are not concerned, as will be explained [according to the Pri Megadim in the Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 4, regarding what he wrote on the crushing of the mother-organ; and his words were not clarified to me, and his foundation is based on what the Taz wrote that it takes hold in the entire organ, but in truth it does not appear so from the Rambam as was written by the Gaon Rav Baruch Fraenkel in his glosses, and therefore it seems to me that the primary view is like the Chidushei HaGershuni that crushing of the mother-organ is a terefah, and delve into this].

And behold, even though there are some among the early authorities who doubt the law of the crushing of the spleen and the kidneys [the Ra'avad], and also from the wording of Rashi, of blessed memory, it is implied that the examination for crushing is only for organs that render it treifah, such as the spinal cord, the breaking of the majority of the ribs, and the displacement of a vertebra [Niddah 11a, s.v. "aval," see there], and there are some among the early authorities who wrote explicitly to the contrary [the Kol Bo and the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit], nevertheless, since the Rambam ruled so, and the Ramban, the Rashba, and the Ran cited his words and agreed with him [as the Rashba wrote in Mishmeret HaBayit], and the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled so, it is a certain treifah, and we shall not judge it as a doubtful treifah but rather as a certain treifah.

How much must the height be for her to be rendered treifah from such a fall? Ten tefachim, for this is the measure of a pit mentioned in the Torah regarding damages, as in a pit of ten, when the animal enters it, she can die, as is explained in Choshen Mishpat siman 410. Therefore, if the animal fell from a place ten tefachim high, or if she fell into a pit ten deep and did not stand and walk, we are concerned for crushed limbs. However, with less than ten, we are not concerned for it, and we attribute her not standing to another cause.

And know that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 1, wrote that these ten tefachim are measured from the belly of the animal; that is to say, if she fell while she was lying down, the place must be ten tefachim high, and similarly the pit ten tefachim deep. But when she fell while standing, the ten tefachim are measured from her belly, for so the sages, of blessed memory, said in Bava Kamma [51a] that from her belly to the ground there are four tefachim, and if she fell into a pit six tefachim deep, she could die. And even though the legs of the animal are much more than four tefachim, nevertheless the belly hangs much lower than the tops of the legs, and there are only four tefachim from the end of the belly to the ground.

The Rif and the Rambam did not mention this at all, neither here regarding terefot nor in chapter 12 of Laws of Monetary Damages regarding damages. The Tur likewise did not mention this regarding damages in Choshen Mishpat siman 410. And his reason seems clear to me, for behold, regarding damages they disagreed there in the Gemara whether the pit for which the Torah made one liable, if the liability is only because of the pit's air or also because of the impact. And this law only applies if the liability is also because of the impact, for the air is not relevant to that which its belly reaches the ground, as is understood. And behold, although the Tur wrote there that it appears to be the opinion of his father, the Rosh, to rule also for its impact, nevertheless, one who examines the Rosh [chapter 5 of Bava Kamma, section 8] will see that he was in doubt. And so the Tur himself wrote in the Remazim. Therefore, regarding damages, where the burden of proof is on the claimant, the Tur did not obligate the owner of the pit in such a case, whereas regarding terefot, a doubt concerning a prohibition is resolved stringently. But the Rif and the Rambam evidently appear to have rejected this law from the halacha, and the commentators labored over this and did not produce a clear matter. And according to the Rambam it is more difficult [for it is he who ruled like Shmuel, for its air and all the more so for its impact; but for the Rif there, who ruled like Rav, for its air and not for its impact, it is not difficult at all, see there, for the Rif ruled there that there is impact for less than ten, and therefore also here he did not mention that ten handbreadths are required, see there; but the Rambam ruled that ten handbreadths are required both here and there, yet he omitted this and ruled there like Shmuel, and it requires great study, and examine it closely].

And in my humble opinion, it appears that the Rambam rejected this from the halacha based on an explicit Gemara there, where Rava and Shmuel disagree; for Rava holds that for a pit, the Torah obligated liability for its air-pressure and not for its impact, and Shmuel holds for its air-pressure and all the more so for its impact. And the Gemara asks: what is the difference between them? And it is very wondrous, for there is a practical difference in the primary law of a pit, as according to Rava the pit must be exactly ten handbreadths deep, and according to Shmuel a pit of six is sufficient when the ox falls while standing, as is the way of most falls. Why then did it seek other distinctions that are not regarding the matter of the pit itself? Rather, it is certainly because we do not rule according to this interpretation. Nevertheless, for the law, we rule like the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch that when it falls while standing, a pit of six is sufficient, for so ruled the Rosh, the Rashba, the Ran, and all the Rishonim, and they wrote that the Bahag also rules accordingly [the Beit Yosef wrote that the Rambam also holds this way and did not need to specify because everyone sees that from its belly there are four handbreadths, see there, and his words are astonishing; and the Yam Shel Shlomo in Bava Kamma chapter 5, section 25, labored to settle this in another manner, as did the Bach, and in my humble opinion it appears as I have written]:

There is one who wishes to say that even regarding a stone that falls upon an animal, it must fall from a height of ten tefachim, and with less than ten we are not concerned for it. These are astonishing words, for who can provide a fixed measure for a stone that fell? For everything is according to the stone, whether it is large or small [Beit Yosef in the name of the Kolbo]. Specifically when the animal fell, where "the living carries itself," is there a distinction in this, for from a low place its organs will not be crushed; but a stone that fell upon it, if it is a heavy stone, even close to it, it is treifah [Darkhei Moshe] if it cannot walk. And so all the great authorities agreed [Yam Shel Shelomo, Shach, Taz, and Pri Chadash].

Therefore, an animal that fell from a high place or fell into a pit, if there are ten tefachim from its belly until the place where it fell—and that is when the pit is six tefachim deep, for usually there are four tefachim from the lower parts of its belly until the ground, but there is no fixed rule in this, for sometimes there are more than four tefachim and then the pit does not need to be six deep [and with this the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch are understood, and examine this closely]—if the animal is lying down and did not stand up and walk, and they slaughtered it, it is treifah, for we concern ourselves that perhaps its organs were crushed even though we see no change in it. And if there are not ten tefachim here in combination with the distance from its belly to the ground, we do not concern ourselves with the crushing of organs, and it is only like any other animal in danger whose law was explained in siman 17, see there.

And so too anything similar to this, such as if it was slammed against a wall, or he trampled it with his feet, or another animal trampled it with its feet, or he struck it with a stone across its entire body, and so too if it was struck by a beam or by another load and it remained lying in its place and they slaughtered it, it is treifah, for we concern ourselves with the crushing of limbs. And so too regarding a bird, anything similar to this, its law is equal to an animal. And so too a bird that was struck against a hard object, such as a cloth that was stretched, or upon nets that have knots, or upon fine flax refuse, or upon the dust of the roads, or upon the branches of a palm tree, we concern ourselves with it. But if it was struck against a soft object, such as upon a folded garment or upon coarse sand and anything similar to this, we do not concern ourselves with it. And know that it is stated thus in the Tur, that for coarse sand we do not concern ourselves with it, but in the Gemara before us the version is: for fine sand we do not concern ourselves, for coarse sand we do concern ourselves. And Rashi explained that fine sand slides and is never compacted, and coarse sand, such as the large stones within it, crushes the bird when it falls upon them [page 52b].

It is further stated in the Gemara there: Wheat and barley straw that is made into bundles, and the bird fell upon them, we are concerned for risuk eivarim; but if it is not made into bundles, we are not concerned. Wheat and all species related to wheat, we are concerned because they are hard; barley and all species related to barley, we are not concerned. And there is a version that we are concerned, and according to this, in all species of grain we are concerned when the bird fell upon them and remained lying in its place. All species of legumes do not have the concern of risuk eivarim because they slide from one another and are not compressed together, except for rubya, which is tiltan. Chimtzi, which they call "pishlesh" in the foreign tongue, does not have the concern of risuk eivarim; chaptzi, "tzidrosh" in the foreign tongue, has the concern of risuk eivarim. And in the Aruch the version is that even in chimtzi there is the concern of risuk eivarim, and he explained chimtzi as peas and chaptzi as gallnuts, see there. And it concludes in the Gemara: The general rule of the matter is, anything that slides, separating one from another and they are not compressed together, and the one falling upon them slips away, and there is no impact here, it does not have the concern of risuk eivarim; if it does not slide, it has the concern of risuk eivarim.

A bird that was struck upon the surface of the water: if it swam the length of its stature from below to above against the flow of the water, we do not concern ourselves with the crushing of limbs. However, if it swam from above to below with the flow of the water, we concern ourselves with it and it requires inspection. And for us, who are not experts in inspection, it is treifah unless it walked a proper gait, as will be explained; for this swimming with the flow of the water is not from its own strength, but rather the water carried it. Therefore, not in the waters of a river—for example, in the waters of a pond which are gathered together and do not have a flow of water like the waters of rivers—even if there is one high place and one low place, there is no distinction, and as long as it swam in it the length of its stature, it is sufficient. And so too, even in a river, if it swam with the flow of the water from above to below and preceded straw or stubble that are moving upon the surface of the water equal to it, this is as if it swam by its own power, and we do not concern ourselves with it.

If its wings became stuck with glue at the time of hunting and it was struck—if both its wings became stuck to the trap with which they hunt it, meaning that they smear pieces of wood with glue and when the bird rests upon it its wings become stuck to it, and when it wants to fly it falls with them to the ground, we are concerned for the crushing of limbs and it requires examination, as has been written. And if only one of them was stuck to it, we are not concerned for the crushing of limbs because it flies a little with the second wing and is not struck. It has already been explained that in a case where it fell on its own, it requires a height of ten tefachim, but if they cast it down, it does not require a height of ten tefachim, but rather everything is according to the weight.

And that which we permit where it did not fall from a height of ten tefachim is specifically where it fell on its own, but if others threw it down, a height of ten is not required, for then the impact is hard and the crushing prevails even in less than ten. Therefore, rams that gore one another and fell to the ground and did not stand and walk, we are concerned for crushing of the limbs even in less than ten, due to the impact with which they strike each other to the ground. But if they did not fall, we are not concerned even if their faces are grim and they appear anxious and in pain, for this is merely heat [Gemara]. And the same law applies if they fell and stood and walked, we are not concerned for them.

Sometimes there is even when others throw it down and from a height of more than ten tefachim, and nevertheless we do not concern ourselves with risuk eivarim. This is, for example, when it knew they wanted to throw it down and it strengthens itself against them, and when it crouches to fall it digs its hooves into the ground and strengthens itself with them until it does not fall except truly close to the ground. Therefore, the sages, of blessed memory, said [51a]: A slaughterhouse does not have the concern of risuk eivarim; that is to say, when they throw it to the ground to slaughter it, even from a high place, we do not fear risuk eivarim. Even if a sound of wailing is heard from it when it falls to the ground, we do not care, for the reason we wrote, that it strengthens itself with its hooves. And the Rishonim brought the Yerushalmi in this language: One who falls with knowledge is not similar to one who falls without knowledge. In the days of Rabbi Pinchas, they would strike the ox with force, that is to say, they would strike the ox for slaughter with a large group. Rabbi Pinchas said to them: By your lives, release it; that is to say, I ask of you that you release it to be free and we shall see what it does. They released it from the ropes and it fled. He said: Blessed is He who chose them and their words, for they say those who strike the ox with force, there is no concern of risuk eivarim. And it is not similar to rams that gore one another, where each one also knows that the other wants to throw it down, and nevertheless we fear risuk eivarim. For here, when it feels that they want to throw it down, it digs its hooves and strengthens itself, but there, each one wants to throw down its fellow and does not strengthen itself for its own rescue, but rather strengthens itself to throw down the other, and automatically, the one who falls has not strengthened itself for the essence of its rescue.

Regarding that which we are not concerned in the slaughterhouse for the crushing of limbs, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 10 that this is specifically when they did not tie all its legs when they cast it down, but if all its legs are tied at the time they cast it down, we are concerned for it. Thus far his words. And from this wording it is implied that specifically when all its legs are tied is it forbidden, but when three legs are tied, we have no concern regarding it. And even against this the great authorities cried out [Yam Shel Shlomo siman 64 and Taz subsection 11], because with one leg it is difficult to steady oneself, and one who fears the word of Hashem should only tie two legs, and two should be free so that it may steady itself with its two legs. And know that when they tied all its legs, we are concerned for the crushing of limbs even in less than ten, since others cast it down [Shach subsection 46].

There are those who find merit for the places where they tie all the legs and no one protests against them, because they do it in a manner where the rope does not bind the legs except at the moment the ox falls to the ground, and previously the rope is loose and it is able to steady itself on its legs, and only at the actual moment of its falling are the legs tightened to one another; and they only forbade if the tightening is before it fell to the ground [Taz, subsection 11]. However, the more correct permission is to tie only two of its legs, as has been written [ibid.].

The butchers who carry a lamb on their shoulders and cast it to the ground—there is a concern of crushing of limbs in this, for from the shoulder there is more than ten handbreadths [Shach, subsection 14]. Furthermore, when others drop it, ten handbreadths are not required as has been written. However, it is possible to say that since their intention is not to drop it but rather to lower it to the ground, it is not similar to the dropping of others and we require ten handbreadths [Kereti u-Peleti]. Nevertheless, if so, even in more than ten there is no need to be concerned, for regarding lowering, it is not relevant to be concerned for crushing of limbs, as he will certainly be careful not to strike it, and it requires further study. And it is simple that if the butcher holds the legs of the lamb in his hands until it lies on the ground, even though he holds only two legs and the entire body is struck against the ground, we are not concerned for crushing of limbs; since he holds the legs in his hands until it lies on the ground, it is impossible for there to be a hard strike. [This is the intention of the Shach, subsection 14, and as the Pri Megadim wrote there; and even though the Shach wrote that we calculate from the place of holding in his hands, see there, the language is stuttered, but nevertheless this is his intention, and this is what the Pri Chadash stuttered about in subsection 2, but according to what I have written it is well-settled. And see the Kereti u-Peleti who explained it as holding it in his hand at less than ten handbreadths, see there; and it must be said that he bows himself, for if not so, it would certainly be ten handbreadths, and delve into this.]

And just as we said regarding where others threw it down and it knew that they intended to throw it down, it braces itself and there is no concern of risuk eivarim, so too if it jumped of its own volition from some high place, even a height of more than ten tefachim, and even if it is very high, and even if we see that it cannot walk, nevertheless there is no concern of risuk eivarim in this and we attribute it to another matter. And there is no difference between whether it jumped from a window in the wall or from a window in a chimney in the middle of the roof. And the sages, of blessed memory, explained the reason ibid. because whenever it acts of its own volition, it assesses itself so that it will not be crushed, for so the Holy One, Blessed be He, implanted in the nature of all living creatures to flee from manifest damage. Therefore, even if it jumped from a chimney in the roof where there is nothing for it to grasp, we do not concern ourselves with it. And therefore the sages, of blessed memory, said that when one left an animal above and came and found it below, there is no concern of risuk eivarim even when it is not standing; for while it certainly jumped, nevertheless in a jump of its own volition there is no concern, as I have written. And we do not concern ourselves that perhaps a person threw it down, for one should not attribute it to a matter that is against logic, for why would he do such a thing? And we do not concern ourselves with another living creature that pushed it, for there is no other. Therefore, if there are other oxen there, we certainly concern ourselves [so it appears to me].

And so our Sages, of blessed memory, said [51a] that thieves who stole sheep from the pen, even if they cast them over a fence that is very high, we do not concern ourselves with the crushing of limbs because the thieves are careful not to drop them on the ribs, as it could be that the bones would break and they would not be able to walk, for they want the sheep to be able to run before them; therefore, they are precise to drop them on the loins so that they will not be damaged. Therefore, if the thieves returned them to the owners out of fear and threw them into the pen of the owners over the fence and they cannot stand, we certainly concern ourselves with the crushing of limbs, for then they do not care how they cast them and they throw them on the ribs and the limbs are crushed. Therefore, if they did not return them out of fear but rather out of repentance, they are permitted, for certainly since they desire repentance, they will intend that no loss reach the owners and will cast them on the loins. And if there is a doubt in this regarding why they returned them, it is forbidden [Shach, subsection 18]. And certainly it is so, for there is a clear impairment before us in that they cannot walk, and how could we permit them without clear knowledge that there is no concern of crushing in this.

And even though regarding thieves we distinguished between if they threw it upon its loins or upon its ribs, and according to this there is one who wishes to say that even if it fell on its own suddenly from a height of nineteen handbreadths there is also this distinction, that if it fell upon its loins there is no concern of risuk [see Shach there]; however, one of the great Rishonim did not write so [there in the name of the Rokeach], and so it appears to me to be the primary view, for if it were not so, the poskim would not have avoided mentioning this law regarding one that fell on its own. And the distinction is simple: certainly a fall caused by a person—in any event, he does not cause damage intentionally and exerts himself so that the fall will not be with great force, and therefore when they threw it upon its loins we are not concerned. This is not the case when it fell suddenly on its own with complete damage; it is certainly possible that even though it fell upon its loins, its organs were crushed because of the shock of the fall [see Pri Chadash who wrote also that it is permitted and that in the Rokeach it is a scribal error, but in my humble opinion it is not so, and also the Shach wrote this only tentatively, and as for the law one should not be lenient].

And know that this which we said regarding one struck by a stone, that we concern ourselves with the crushing of limbs, this is when the stone dominated the entire body; but if it was struck by a stone in one place, it does not require inspection except opposite that place where it was struck there, and not in another place. And the practical difference for us is that in the inspection of the entire body we are not expert, but in the inspection of one organ we are expert. Therefore, if a bird was struck opposite the lung, for us, since we are not expert in the inspection of the lung of a bird, it is treifah [Shach, subsection 4]. And also walking is of no avail since the deficiency is only in one organ [Dagul Mervavah]. Nevertheless, an assessment is required as to whether this blow has the capacity to damage the lung which is hidden between the ribs, since there is no other deficiency before us, as it walks a proper gait.

The Tur wrote: A fetus that was born, even though the womb is a narrow place, we do not concern ourselves with it for risuk eivarim even if we see a defect in it that it cannot stand, and it is permitted to slaughter it immediately if it is known that its months were completed. Thus far his words. And this is what they said in the Gemara there: The womb is not subject to risuk eivarim, as Rashi explained there. However, the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch omitted this law because they interpret with a different explanation, that the intent is that in a case of a fallen animal, we do not concern ourselves with the organ of the womb for risuk eivarim because it is soft and spongy, as I wrote in section 7 [and the sugya of the Shas requires investigation according to his explanation, and see the Kesef Mishneh chapter 9 who settled this]. And according to the opinion of the Tur, even in a case of difficult labor the law is so. But in Tur Orach Chaim siman 498 he did not write so, and above in siman 15 section 6 we elaborated on this. And for the halacha, whenever there is a defect, we concern ourselves with risuk eivarim as I wrote there.

One of the Rishonim wrote: if they struck it on the gid hanasheh so that it would fall on its own and they were slaughtering it, even though even if they slaughtered it, it would have died from the blow, nevertheless, since if they were to apply remedies it would have been healed, it is kosher [Gemara 54a]. And nevertheless, specifically with a staff, but with an arrow no, for there is concern for tzomet hagidim [and Rashi explained there with arrows or with a staff, see there; however, he wrote regarding the kidney that they would intend that it not descend below the kidneys, see there, and so too it can be said regarding the gid hanasheh, and so wrote the Pri Chadash in subsection 20; he further wrote that for us, since regarding tzomet hagidim of an animal we are experts, even with an arrow it is permitted, see there; and the law of when they struck an animal with a staff on the spine was explained in siman 32].

And know that according to the law that has been explained, that in a slaughterhouse there is no concern of crushed organs because whenever she knows that they wish to throw her down, she strengthens herself with her hooves and there is no fear of crushing even at a height of more than ten tefachim, as I wrote in section 20. If so, the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 1 are puzzling, as he wrote: And that which we require a height of ten tefachim specifically refers to when she fell on her own, or others threw her down and she knows they wish to throw her down, etc. Thus far his words. And it is difficult, for in such a case it should be permitted even at more than ten tefachim. Therefore, there is one who rejected his words [Taz], and there is one who answered that he holds that only in a slaughterhouse, where she has a place to dig in her hooves, do we permit it even at more than ten tefachim; but in another place where she has nothing in which to dig her hooves, and she only strengthens herself with her body alone, this is not like falling all at once, and at less than ten tefachim it is permitted, but at ten tefachim and certainly more than this, it is forbidden [Shach and Pri Chadash]. But the matters are puzzling, for since in the Gemara they stated the permission in a slaughterhouse is because she digs in her hooves, then without this it is forbidden; and if so, when there is no place to dig in the hooves, it should be forbidden even at less than ten, according to the law of throwing her down all at once, and from where do we have the authority to permit this [Palti subsection 3]? And perhaps even in a slaughterhouse he holds that it is specifically at less than ten tefachim, for in the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch it is not explicitly stated that even at a great height we are not concerned in a slaughterhouse, see there; but in his great book he wrote this explicitly, and it requires further study.

How is the law of a fallen animal and its examination? Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 3: A fallen animal of which we said we are concerned for it, if it did not stand up, it is forbidden to slaughter it until it tarries twenty-four hours. And if he slaughtered it within this time, even if they examined it and found it whole in all its organs, it is treifah. And if it tarried twenty-four hours and afterwards he slaughtered it, he must examine it against the entire cavity, from the crown of the head until the thigh [and the brain is also included]. If there is found in it a treifah from the treifot that the sages enumerated, or if an organ from the internal organs was crushed and its form was ruined, behold, this is treifah. Even if an organ was crushed from the organs that if they were removed it is kosher, such as the spleen and kidneys, behold, this is treifah, except for the womb, which if it was crushed, behold, it is permitted. And the simanim do not require examination, for the fall does not crush them. And if it was struck by a stone in one place, it does not require examination except against the place where it was struck there, and not in the rest of the organs. If it stood up within twenty-four hours, an examination is sufficient for it; and specifically that it stood up on its own, but if they stood it up, it is nothing. There is one who says that whenever it stood and walked, even if a change is found in its organs, we are not concerned for it as long as the change does not render it treifah in any other animal. If it walked, it is kosher and does not require examination, even though it did not tarry twenty-four hours. In what case is this said? When it walked a good walk in its usual manner, but if it walked and it is limping, it requires examination. And some say that we, nowadays, are not experts in examination, and it is not to be permitted except by walking, and so is the custom. And it is not called walking except when it walked four cubits, a good walk, as it walked before it fell or like any other animal. And if it walked and afterwards it is unable to walk, its law is like any other animal in danger. Thus far their words.

And this is simple: that a change and loss of the form of a limb does not render it treifah except in a case where it fell, due to the concern of crushed organs, but where it did not fall, we do not concern ourselves with the loss of the form of a limb [Taz, subsection 3]. And even if it fell and stood up and walked, we do not concern ourselves with this, for they wrote that as long as it stood up and walked, even if a change is found, it is kosher when the change does not render it treifah in any other animal; and since where it did not fall this change does not render it treifah, it follows that the same applies where it stood up and walked.

And that which they wrote, that if she stood within twenty-four hours, an examination is sufficient for her, implies a complete standing. However, the Tur wrote even if she stretched out her hand to stand. From the wording of the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh, it does not imply so. And that which they wrote, "if she stood within twenty-four hours," the intention is not that after twenty-four hours standing and examination do not avail, for what logic is there in this? What does it matter to us if she stood after several days? Rather, this is the explanation: if she stood, examination avails for her even if they slaughtered her within the twenty-four hours, and certainly if she also survived twenty-four hours. And the same applies if she stood and survived twenty-four hours, she is not rendered kosher without an examination. Therefore, for us, who are not experts in examination, she is treifah in every case, except for walking [Shach, subsection 5].

And regarding that which they wrote specifically "stood up on its own" and not "where others stood it up," there is one who says that if others stood it up and it lay down and afterwards it stood up on its own, it is not effective. I do not know the reason for this, for what does it matter to us that they previously stood it up, since now it stood up on its own [according to Pitchei Teshuvah subsection 3]. And there is a doubt as to what is called "others stood it up"—whether they stood it up with their hands, or even if it was struck and stood up, or they shouted at it and it stood up, it is also called "others stood it up." The language implies more that they stood it up with their hands, and also from the perspective of logic it is so, for since it has in any case the strength to stand on its own, even though the awakening for this was through striking or through shouting, nevertheless, ultimately it has the strength to stand on its own. However, for us there is no practical difference in this, for for us it is only effective if it walks well [and so wrote the Kereti U-Peleti].

And know that there is one who says that it is not called "walking" unless it stood up on its own and walked, but if others stood it up and it walked, it is of no avail even if it walked a fine walking. These are astonishing words, for regarding walking, we do not care at all how its standing was; rather, as long as it walked a fine walking, it is kosher without examination. And so agreed all the great authorities [Shach and Taz and Ma'adanei Yom Tov and Pri Chadash]. And if its walking is not fine, such as if it limps, or even if it does not limp but it walked with heaviness and not like its walking from before, this is not considered walking. For even though where it did not fall we are not concerned for a limp and we attribute it to rheumatism, as I wrote in siman 32, see there, where it fell it is different, for we require a fine walking. And we have already explained that regarding the examination of a single limb, we too are proficient; therefore, if a stone fell on one place and it stood up, we examine it. See what is written there in section 27.