2,535. A Doubtful Mauling

Hilchos Shechita 5:11

If there’s a doubt as to whether or not an animal was attacked, we don’t allow it unless it’s checked the same as we would check an animal that was definitely attacked. Therefore, if a lion goes among the oxen and a claw is found in one of their backs, we suspect that the lion may have attacked it; we don’t justify that it might have scratched itself on a wall. Similarly, if a fox or a mongoose goes silently among birds and they squawk, we suspect that it may have attacked. However, if the predator is roaring while the birds are squawking, we assume that they’re squawking out of fear. If he severs one of their heads, we assume his ferocity has abated. Similarly, if both the predator and the birds are silent, we don’t suspect an attack; if the predator had attacked, the birds certainly would have squawked.

Hilchos Shechita 5:12

If there’s a doubt as to whether or not a predator came, or if we saw something come but we couldn’t tell if it was a predator, we don’t suspect an attack. Similarly, if a bird goes into the woods or among the reeds and it comes out with its head or neck dripping blood, we don’t suspect an attack. Rather, we say that it might have been wounded in the trees.