QUESTION: Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak maintains that if an animal quivered even at the beginning of the Shechitah, the Shechitah is valid. He proves this from the Mishnah (37a) that states that when an animal is slaughtered at night, it may be eaten as long as it has signs of "Zinuk." If movement is required at the end of the Shechitah in order for the animal to be permitted, then how can signs of Zinuk permit the animal? Perhaps the Zinuk occurred at the beginning of the Shechitah and not at the end! It must be that the animal is permitted even when the Zinuk occurred at the beginning of the Shechitah.

How, though, do Rava and the other Amora'im -- who require signs of life at the end (or middle) of the Shechitah -- explain the Mishnah? Even if signs of Zinuk are found, perhaps the Zinuk occurred at the beginning of the Shechitah!

(a) TOSFOS (DH Rava) answers that it very uncommon for Zinuk to occur at the beginning of Shechitah, and therefore Rava is not concerned that the Zinuk occurred at that point and not at the end of the Shechitah.

(b) The RASHBA explains that when the Mishnah says that an animal slaughtered at night is permitted when blood is found the next day on the "walls," it refers to the walls of the room in which the Shechitah was performed. By analyzing the height of the blood on the walls, one can assess whether the blood came at the beginning of the Shechitah (when the animal has more strength) or at the end of the Shechitah. Alternatively, the Mishnah refers to a case in which the beginning of the Shechitah was done in one place, and the animal was moved to a different place where the Shechitah was completed. The blood of the walls of the two places reveal when the Zinuk occurred.

(c) The RE'AH rejects the Rashba's answer, because the Gemara makes no mention of the walls of the room in which the animal was slaughtered. Instead, the Re'ah explains that Zinuk is a stronger form of "Pirchus" than the other forms, and thus all of the Amora'im agree that it is a valid sign of life even when it occurs at the beginning of the Shechitah. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

OPINIONS: Rava maintains that only when an animal quivered at the end of the Shechitah is it permitted. Rava proves this from a Beraisa that discusses the animals that may be brought as Korbanos, as derived from the verse, "When an ox or sheep or goat is born, it shall remain with its mother for seven days, and from the eighth day and onward it will be acceptable as a Korban, a fire-offering to Hash-m" (Vayikra 22:27). The words "Tachas Imo" ("with its mother") exclude an orphaned animal. Rava asserts that this must refer to a case in which the mother died at the moment that the calf was born.

How does this Beraisa prove Rava's opinion that an animal must show some signs of life at the end of the Shechitah in order for the Shechitah to be valid?

(a) RASHI explains that this verse teaches the requirement that the mother live at least until the moment after the birth in order for the calf to be eligible to be offered as a Korban. The Torah is teaching that when the life of a creature is required for a certain Halachah (for example, the mother must be alive at the moment of the calf's birth), it is necessary for there to be life throughout the entire time (of the birth). Accordingly, in order for the calf to be eligible as a Korban, the mother must remain alive until and including the end of the birth. Similarly, since the Torah requires that an animal be alive in order for the Shechitah to be valid, it must have life until the end of the Shechitah. This is proof for Rava's view that the animal must show signs of life at the end of the Shechitah.

(b) The CHAZON ISH (Hilchos Shechitah 3:5) questions this explanation. According to Rashi's explanation, how can Rava compare these two Halachos -- the necessity that the calf be born to a live mother, and the necessity that the animal being slaughtered be alive? There is an obvious difference between the two cases. For an animal to be eligible to be offered as a Korban, the mother must remain alive even after the birth so that the calf not be considered an orphan. For the purposes of Shechitah, however, the animal does not need to be alive after the Shechitah. The animal needs to be alive only during the Shechitah. Perhaps it suffices to have "Pirchus" at the middle of the Shechitah in order for the animal to be considered alive during Shechitah!

The Chazon Ish suggests a different way to understand the Gemara. He explains that the necessity to have "Pirchus" at the end of Shechitah is not because -- without signs of life until the end -- the Shechitah is considered to have been done on a dead animal. Rather, the dispute concerning when the animal must show signs of life (at the end of Shechitah or even at the beginning of Shechitah) depends on a different question. When the signs of life cease, is the death assumed to occur immediately, or is the death assumed to occur gradually thereafter? Perhaps there is always some time left after the "Pirchus" ends when the animal still is definitely alive.

Rav Chisda maintains that the life of the animal gradually leaves, and thus "Pirchus" in the middle of the Shechitah is sufficient to show that the animal was alive until the end of the Shechitah (unless the Shechitah was done very slowly). Rava maintains that it is possible for the life to end abruptly, as soon as the signs of life cease. Therefore, he requires that there be "Pirchus" at the end of the Shechitah in order to ascertain that the animal was alive at that point.

Accordingly, the Gemara's proof is clear. If the mother animal's life would end gradually after the signs of life have ceased, then her calf would not be considered an orphan, because the process of birth itself is no less a sign of life than any other sign of life. The birth process itself constitutes "Pirchus." However, if -- after the birth is finished -- the life of the animal gradually leaves, as Rav Chisda maintains, then the calf is considered to have had a living mother for some time after its birth, and it is not considered an orphaned calf. Therefore, it must be that the death occurs immediately when the signs of life (in this case, the birth) cease, and thus the calf is an orphan and is not fit to be a Korban.

This is proof for Rava's opinion that there must be "Pirchus" at the end of the Shechitah, for only then can one be sure that the animal was alive until the end. If the "Pirchus" stopped before the end of the Shechitah, then perhaps the animal died right away, and the end of the Shechitah was done to a dead animal. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)

QUESTION: Rava maintains that only when an animal quivered at the end of the Shechitah is it permitted. Rava proves this from a Beraisa that discusses the animals that may be brought as Korbanos, as derived from the verse, "When an ox or sheep or goat is born, it shall remain with its mother for seven days, and from the eighth day and onward it will be acceptable as a Korban, a fire-offering to Hash-m" (Vayikra 22:27). The words "Tachas Imo" ("with its mother") exclude an orphaned animal. Rava asserts that this must refer to a case in which the mother died at the moment that the calf was born. Such a calf is not eligible to be offered as a Korban.

Rava says that "Tachas Imo" must be teaching that the mother must remain alive until after the end of the birth in order for its calf to be a valid Korban, because if the mother would die before the end of the birth, then the calf would be a Yotzei Dofen and no separate teaching of "Tachas Imo" would be necessary to exclude it from eligibility as a Korban.

Perhaps "Tachas Imo" refers to a case in which the mother died before the end of the birth, but this is not a case of Yotzei Dofen because the calf emerged through the regular birth canal (as opposed to a case of Yotzei Dofen), and that is why the verse is needed to teach the case of "Tachas Imo"!

ANSWER: RABEINU GERSHOM (DH Ela) explains that the reason why the words, "Ki Yivaled" -- "[When an ox or sheep] is born," excludes a Yotzei Dofen is that a Yotzei Dofen is an irregular birth. These words exclude any type of irregular birth. If the mother would die before the end of the birth, this would be considered an irregular birth even if the calf was born through the birth canal. (Z. Wainstein)