Siman 60

An animal that was seized by blood and became ill, or where the blood overcame it until it was suffocated [the Rambam], or where smoke entered its body and it became endangered [Rashi 58b], or where the black bile overcame it [the Rambam, ibid.], or where it became ill due to cold [Rashi], or where the white phlegm overcame it until its senses were nullified [the Rambam]—but red bile is not common in animals [ibid.]—or if it ate oleander, which is a poison for the animal, and this is a tree that grows on the riverbank and produces flowers similar to lilies and they are extremely bitter and it is a poison for the animal [Aruch], and there is one who explained that this is what is called in the Roman tongue "rhododaphne," a type of tree whose flower is like a rose, which is called in the Greek tongue "roson," and its leaves are like the leaves of "daphne," and it is a poison for animals, and there are some physicians who say that it also harms man, and some wrote that it is beneficial for one bitten by a snake [Musaf HeAruch], or if the animal ate other types of poisons that kill animals, or if it ate chicken excrement or peppers, for this too harms animals, or if it drank uncovered water in places where snakes are common, as there is danger in this—all of these, even though they are a danger to the animal and it cannot live further, nevertheless we do not consider it a treifah, for a hole or a defect has not yet been made in the body of the animal; rather, it is endangered because of them, and an endangered animal is kosher, as I wrote in siman 17.

But if it ate a poison lethal to humans, or if a snake bit it, or if a rabid dog bit it, or the like, it is permitted regarding the laws of terefah but forbidden due to danger to human life. And that which we do not concern ourselves with the snake regarding piercing, we explained in siman 57; see there. And perhaps you will ask: why did we categorize uncovered water among poisons lethal to animals, when there is also a danger for a human to drink uncovered water in places where snakes are common, as is well known throughout the Shas? For certainly it is so: if we saw some defect in the animal after its drinking the uncovered water, we would forbid it to a human due to danger to human life, as with poisons lethal to humans. But this case where we permit it, we are dealing with a situation where we do not see any defect in the animal after its drinking. And it is not similar to all those we enumerated where we see a defect, such as if it was seized by blood-congestion and the rest, and nevertheless we permit it. But regarding the drinking of uncovered water, we only permitted it when there is no defect in it. And this is why we compared it to poisons lethal to animals, which are also permitted because certainly the snake did not drink from them, for had it drunk, some defect would be recognizable in the body of the animal [Taz, end of siman 116].

Below in siman 116 it will be explained that a dangerous animal, even though it is permitted according to the law, nevertheless there are those who refrain from eating it, and above in siman 17, section 3, we mentioned this as well, see there. And there are those who were accustomed to forbid the sheep in which there grew an affliction of lesions from which they are accustomed to die, due to the reason of danger. The Maharshal, of blessed memory, wrote that in his days they forbade all sheep of this species until the plague ceased, and it will be explained there with the help of Heaven [the Taz there brought this]. And specifically one must be careful during a time of pestilence that is common among animals not to slaughter anything but the healthy ones. And there are those who inspect the gallbladder, if it is swollen or empty, for this is a sign that the plague has taken hold of it, and also according to the law there is a concern of a prohibition in this, and we explained it in siman 42, section 24, see there. And in our days there is oversight regarding this from the government so that they shall not slaughter sick animals. And the law of hiltit was explained in siman 51.

An animal or wild beast whose legs were severed and we do not know the cause, the sages, of blessed memory, commanded [59a] not to eat it except by means of an examination. How so? That they should not eat it except by means of roasting and not to cook it, because there is reason to be concerned for a snake bite, and through roasting it will examine itself; for if a snake bit it, it will fall into pieces, and if it does not fall, it is a sign that it is not bitten by a snake. Therefore, there are those who wrote that now in our lands where snakes are not common, and therefore we are not careful regarding giluy, likewise there is no concern for this. And there are those who distinguish between this and giluy because we see a defect [Shach, subsection 6].

The Rambam wrote at the end of chapter 10 that one may not add to the terefot that the sages, of blessed memory, enumerated. Even if it becomes known to us through the way of medicine that it will die from this illness, nevertheless, since the sages, of blessed memory, did not enumerate this, it is kosher. And similarly the opposite: all the terefot that the sages, of blessed memory, enumerated, even though it is possible that through the way of medicine in our times it is known to us that there is a cure for this, it is a terefah, for you have nothing but what the sages enumerated, as it is written: "according to the Torah which they shall teach you." Thus far his words. For our teachers, of blessed memory, received all the laws from person to person until the law of Moses from Sinai, and the Torah is eternal and shall not change forever and for all eternity.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: An animal that was fattened with forbidden items is permitted, but if it was fattened all its days only with forbidden items, it is forbidden. Thus far his words. And he explained his words in his book Darkhei Moshe, for the Mordechai wrote in the seventh chapter of Yevamot that it is permitted, and Tosafot in Temurah [31a] wrote that it is forbidden; and for this reason, he distinguished between if it was fattened all its days, which is what Tosafot are dealing with, see there, and if it was not fattened all its days, which is what the Mordechai is dealing with, see there. And in truth, in Temurah there, they are dealing with regard to a sacrifice and where it ate vetch of idolatry, and Tosafot wrote that at first glance even for a commoner it is forbidden because its primary growth is from them, see there. And if so, one could say that they were only stringent regarding the prohibition of idolatry and not regarding other prohibitions, or at least they were stringent regarding items from which benefit is forbidden and not regarding items forbidden for eating, for there is no reason to forbid since the food is digested in its innards. And all the great Acharonim agreed to permit [Shach, and Peri Chadash, and Kereti U-Peleti, and Maharit, and Keneset HaGedolah]. Furthermore, the Rambam ruled at the end of the third chapter of Issurei Mizbe'ach that an animal fattened with vetch of idolatry is permitted even for the Altar, and all the more so for a commoner, and he did not distinguish between all its days or not. And we explicitly learned at the end of Terumot that one may feed vetch of terumah to animals, and that which was forbidden there for an Israelite to feed his animal vetch of terumah is because it is forbidden for an Israelite to benefit from terumah in a manner of destruction, see there [Peri Chadash]. And there is clear proof for this, for we learned there: An Israelite who rented a cow from a Kohen may feed it vetch of terumah. And presumably the Israelite eats the milk from his animal, and it is explained that it is permitted to feed it continuously, for if we were to say that the Israelite is forbidden to eat the milk, the Tanna should have specified. And if you say that milk is permitted and meat is forbidden, what difference is there between one and the other?

And the majority of the great authorities agreed that only with the karsine of avodah zarah is it forbidden, and not with other prohibitions of benefit, for there is no logical reason to forbid it, and you have no greater instance of "not in the manner of their benefit" than this. For is it possible to say that this is the manner of their benefit, to give it to an animal, and when the animal eats it or one eats its milk, this constitutes the manner of their benefit? There is no logical reason to say so. Therefore, regarding chametz on Pesach, when the animal eats chametz, such as when the animal belongs to a non-Jew, it is permitted to eat its milk on Pesach or to slaughter it and eat its meat [Kereiti U'Peleiti and so too in the Maharit]. And only regarding the prohibitions of avodah zarah did the Torah act stringently, that even its waste is forbidden because of "nothing shall cling to your hand," etc., but not regarding other prohibitions of benefit. And according to the Rambam, even with the karsine of avodah zarah it is permitted, even for the Altar, as I have written. And even according to those who disagree, at any rate, with other prohibitions of benefit it is permitted [and also the opinion of the Shach and the Pri Chadash inclines toward this, see there].