Siman 45

The sages taught in the Mishnah [54a]: If its mother-organ was removed, it is kosher. This is the womb in which the fetus is placed, and therefore it is called "mother" (em). It has several names: em, tarpachat, and shalpuachit [55a]. Similarly, if two mother-organs were found in it, it is kosher. There is no distinction between an animal and a bird; in a bird, the em refers to the intestine in which the egg is placed. This is the opinion of most of the poskim, that in a bird it is also kosher.

And nevertheless, some say that in a bird, because its vitality is minimal, it is treifah if the womb is removed, and similarly with two it is treifah, for "anything extra is considered as if it were removed" [Shach subsection 1 and Pri Megadim]. And behold, in a case of great loss, it is simple that one may rely on the majority of the poskim, for so it clearly appears from the Shas, which did not mention that there is a distinction between an animal and a bird; however, when it is not a case of great loss, it is proper to be stringent [ibid.].

According to the rule that will be explained in siman 50, that any organ which is kosher if removed is certainly kosher if perforated, if so, if the womb was perforated it should also be kosher by an a fortiori argument from its removal. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who are stringent to forbid in a case of perforation or decay, and one should be stringent except in a case of great loss; thus far his words. And the reason is that since we find regarding the spleen that if removed it is kosher but if perforated it is treifah, one could say that the same applies to the womb, and also decay is worse than removal. However, according to the law, the primary view is that it is kosher both in a case of perforation and in a case of decay, for if it were not so, the author of the Shas should have explained this explicitly. Therefore, he was only stringent when it is not a case of great loss.

And behold, many times there is found in a hen, within the cluster of eggs, that it has dissolved and the eggs have spilled out, which are called "geshvollene" eggs, and the simple custom is to permit it. According to the opinion of the one who prohibits in a case of dissolution, the hen should be prohibited, and even according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema, we should have prohibited it in any case when it is not a situation of great loss. It is possible that in our times we consider a hen to be a situation of great loss; however, the primary reason is because we hold the primary law to be that if it is perforated or dissolved, it is kosher.

There are some among the early authorities who forbade when the bladder, in which urine collects, is removed, and likewise when the urinary sac is perforated. And there are those who permitted, and the Rosh agreed with the words of those who permit, for we are not to add to the terefot that which was not explicitly mentioned in the Gemara. The place of connection for this bladder is between the attachment of the thighs near the rectum, and the liquid waste of the body drains into it. Even when it is removed, nevertheless the urine drains to its place and does not have the power to return to the body, but rather exits to the outside like a rectum that was perforated, and the thighs support it. Likewise, there are several people whose urine exits constantly, and the doctors say that their bladder was perforated or removed, and the water draining from the body exits immediately when it reaches the place of the bladder, and those people live many years [ibid.]. Those who forbid hold that one cannot learn an animal from a human, for a human has a guiding star.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the custom is to declare treif if the bladder was removed, and even if it was perforated, the custom is to declare treif, see there, for we hold the halacha like those who forbid. According to this view, in oxen that urinate blood, one must examine the bladder to see if it was not perforated. It seems to me that the custom is not so, because the urination of blood is not proof of a perforation of the bladder, for we see many times that an animal urinates blood and afterwards it stops, and also in man it is sometimes so. Likewise, an animal that drips urine, we have no concern with it, and we do not fear a perforation of the urinary sac.

If water is found in the body cavity, this is not among the terefot, and one is only obligated to examine the intestines and all the organs to see if there is any damage in them. Thus ruled the great poskim [Tevuot Shor]. Therefore, a hen whose belly was swollen and they opened it and a stream of water flowed from it, they examine the intestines and the rest of the organs; if they are healthy and whole, it is kosher. And one need not fear that perhaps this came through a perforation of the bladder from the urine, according to the opinion of those who rule it a terefah in this case as I have written, for we should not presume a defect in this, and it more likely comes from some illness as is known to doctors. However, in an animal it is proper to examine the bladder, and even if the water is turbid, we have no concern regarding it [ibid.].

It is a simple matter that if a needle is found in a cluster of eggs, the hen is treifah, for this is like a needle found in the body cavity [Taz in the name of the Rashal].