Beitzah 7a — the Talmud in English

As in that incident involving

a man who wanted to purchase eggs,

who said to them

and announced before the egg sellers:

“Eggs ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

that have been laid by a live hen [

as in defa'ya ] —

for whom?!

Who is there to sell eggs from a live hen, which cries out when laying them?

The sellers gave him

the sellers gave him

eggs

eggs

от

of a

slaughtered hen.

The purchaser came

the purchaser

before Rabbi Ami,

to bring a legal claim against them.

Rabbi Ami said to them

Rabbi Ami to the sellers:

“It is a mistaken purchase, and he returns.”

The purchase is annulled, and they returned his money to him in exchange for the eggs.

And we raise an objection concerning this: surely this ruling

is obvious

is obvious, and what is there to teach us? For he explicitly stipulated with the sellers that he was purchasing specifically eggs from a live hen!

And we answer: this teaches us:

one might have said

that this is not a mistaken purchase, but only such ona'a as does not annul the purchase; rather, it is only necessary to return the difference of the ona'a.

For

this

man

wanted them for eating

for he wants to eat eggs, and for the purpose of eating eggs, eggs inside their mother are also suitable for him,

and the fact that he said

that he wanted eggs from a hen

that has laid them" -

is because they are more fully formed,

for they are better because they are more mature.

И

what practical difference is there

between one who purchases eggs for eating and one who purchases eggs for raising chicks? In any event he did not receive what he wanted, so the purchase should be annulled —

to give him the difference,

for if he wanted them for eating, the seller needs to return to him only the small difference between the value of more mature eggs and that of less mature eggs; but the purchase is not annulled, since his desire was for eggs for eating, and a purchase is not annulled on account of a difference in quality.

It teaches us

that it is an annulment of the purchase, and all the money is to be returned, since one who specifically wants eggs laid by a live hen, and not eggs from a slaughtered hen, intends to raise chicks from the eggs, and eggs from a slaughtered hen are worth nothing to him.

A certain

purchaser of eggs

said to the egg sellers

to the egg sellers:

“eggs of a male,”

eggs of a hen produced through the mating of the hen with the male rooster —

“For whom?

Eggs of a male —

for whom!”

for whom is there to sell them?!

The sellers gave him

the sellers gave him

eggs produced from the ground,

eggs that the hen laid without mating with a rooster, but merely through being aroused by wallowing in the earth’s dust; and they are unfit for raising chicks.

He came before Rabbi Ami.

Rav Ami said to them

Rav Ami to the sellers:

“It is a mistaken purchase, and he returns.”

And we raise the difficulty:

“It is obvious!”

for he purchased eggs fit for raising chicks, and for this purpose he requested eggs formed after the hen mated with a male, since chicks emerge only from them.

And we answer:

one might have said

that

this

man

wanted them for eating. And the fact that he said

that he wanted eggs

of a male

specifically

is because they are fatter,

for they are fatter.

И

what practical difference is there

whether he wanted the eggs for eating or for raising chicks? If he wanted eggs for eating, the seller must

give the difference to him,

give the purchaser only the difference in value between the fatter eggs and the less fat eggs.

It teaches us

that he purchased the eggs for the purpose of chicks, and this is a mistaken purchase.

And if you wish, say

to explain Rabbi’s words above differently: “An egg is completed upon its emergence”:

What is

an egg

“completed upon its emergence”" —

it is completed upon the emergence of most of it, and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: An egg whose majority emerged on the eve of a festival, and it returned

to the hen’s womb and was laid on the festival —

it is permitted to eat it on the festival,

when it returned and was laid on it, since the emergence of its majority before the festival is considered a complete birth.

And there are those who say

that Rav came to dispute Rabbi Yohanan:

What does Rav mean by “it is completed upon its emergence"

that Rav said? Specifically,

“It is completed upon the emergence of all of it!”

“Upon the emergence of all of it” —

yes; but [upon the emergence of] most of it —

no; and this excludes Rabbi Yohanan’s view.

With regard to the matter itself: one who slaughters a hen and finds fully formed eggs inside it —

they are permitted to eat with milk.

Rabbi Yaakov says

if the

eggs

were attached

attached to the cluster

by sinews —

they are prohibited

to eat with milk, since they are still considered meat.

And the Gemara explains:

who is the tanna for that which the Sages taught:

The carcass of a kosher bird does not impart ritual impurity through contact or carrying to the person who eats it, except when it is in his swallowing passage.

One who eats from the carcass of a kosher bird,

but does not eat its flesh, does not become impure according to the law of one who eats the carcass of a kosher bird.

And for example, one who eats

from the “cluster” of eggs

inside it, collecting eggs attached by sinews within the hen’s cavity, which are not considered the hen’s flesh but rather eggs.

And similarly, one who eats

from the bones

which are not flesh.

И

And one who eats

from the sinews,

according to the one who says that sinews contain no taste.

И

And one who eats

from flesh torn from

the bird

while alive,

which is not the flesh of a nevela —

he is

pure,

since he did not eat anything from the flesh of the carcass of the kosher bird.

But one who eats flesh

from the cluster of eggs,

from the flesh of the spine to which the cluster of eggs is attached, or one who eats

from

the flesh of

the gizzard and the intestines.

Or one who liquefied the fat

of the carcass of an impure bird,

and swallowed it —

he is

impure.

And the Gemara explains:

Who is the tanna [of the statement]

“one who eats

from the cluster of eggs

he is

pure?”

Rav Yosef said: [it is] not in accordance with Rabbi Yaakov.

For it is according to Rabbi Yaakov -

for he said: If they were

the eggs

interwoven with sinews, they are forbidden

to eat them with milk, because they are considered meat; and according to his view it follows that one who eats them from the carcass of a pure bird must become impure as one who eats from the flesh of a carcass!

Abaye said to him: From where

do you derive that one should compare the law of meat with milk to the law of eating the carcass of a pure bird?

Perhaps Rabbi Yaakov said so only there

that it is forbidden to eat them with milk

only with regard to prohibition,

for the Sages prohibited eating them with milk because they are close to being meat.

But with regard to impurity -

no,

the Sages did not decree concerning them that they should impart impurity like meat.

And if you would say: With regard to impurity as well, let us decree

just as we prohibited them from being eaten with milk.

One can answer: Such a decree

is increasing

and multiplying

impurity,

for they would come to render impure all the pure items that this person touches.

And increasing

and multiplying

rabbinic impurity -

we do not increase.

And some say

that the eshkol of the eggs refers to the eggs interwoven with sinews, whereas the shelal refers to eggs that are not actually interwoven, because their white shell has already been completed.

And thus we learned:

Who is the tanna “

the one who eats

from the eshkol of eggs

of the carcass of a pure bird -

is impure”?

Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Yaakov,

for he said: If they were interwoven

the eggs

with sinews -

they are forbidden,

and it is implied that according to him eggs interwoven with sinews are considered meat.

Abaye said to him: From where do you know that “

one who eats from the

eshkol”

means one who eats

from those

eggs

that hang from the eshkol?

Perhaps

it means one who eats from the

eshkol itself!

And only it is considered meat, but with regard to eggs interwoven with sinews, he concedes that they are permitted and pure.

And if you would say

that it is impossible to reject it in this way, because

what is the point of saying “the eshkol itself,”

what novelty is there in saying that one becomes impure through eating it? Is it not obvious, since it is the flesh of a carcass?

One can reject this: There is a novelty in the eating of the eshkol that renders one impure, lest we err and say that eating the flesh of the eshkol does not render one impure.

As is the case

as we find

with the gizzard and the intestines, for although they are meat, since there are people who do not eat them,

one might have reason to say that they are not considered complete meat and do not render one impure like other meat.

And therefore

it was necessary to inform us

that the flesh of the gizzard and the intestines is actual meat, and therefore it renders one impure.

Here too,

with regard to the flesh of the eshkol,

since there are people who do not eat it -

it was necessary to inform us

that nevertheless it is complete meat, and one who eats it becomes impure.

The Sages taught: Every

living creature

whose intercourse is during the day -

is born

it gives birth

during the day.

Every creature whose intercourse is at night -

is born at night.

Every creature whose intercourse is both during the day and at night -

is born both during the day and at night.

And we explain:

“Every creature whose intercourse is during the day is born during the day” -

this is a chicken,

Every creature whose intercourse is at night is born at night -

this is a bat,

Every creature whose intercourse is both during the day and at night -

a human being, and anything similar

that resembles

it.

And the Gemara explains what is stated in the beraita:

The Master said: “Every creature whose intercourse is during the day is born during the day” -

this is a chicken.

What practical difference is there?

For the ruling of Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana.

For Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: He checked the

i

nest [

in the nest]

of chickens on the eve of the Festival

during twilight,

and did not find an egg in it.

And the next day he rose early

before dawn

and found an egg in it -

it is permitted.

For certainly the egg was born yesterday before twilight, since the hen does not lay eggs at night, and as stated in the beraita, every creature whose intercourse is during the day gives birth only during the day.

And we raise an objection:

But he checked

during twilight and did not find an egg in it, which proves that it did not lay the egg yesterday!

And we explain:

a.

Say: He did not check thoroughly.

b.

And even if he checked thoroughly -

say:

yesterday

“it was a case where most of it emerged and then returned,”

and then that hen also lays the egg at night, for the egg had already “been born” during the day, except that it returned.

And

it is permitted

in accordance with what

said

Rabbi Yohanan,

who considers it like an egg whose majority emerged.

The Gemara wonders about the ruling of Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, for we find that Rav prohibits in such a case, and it is not reasonable that he came to disagree with Rav:

Is that so? But Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rav said: He checked the

i

nest of a hen on the eve of the Festival and did not find an egg in it, and the next day he rose early and found an egg in it -

it is forbidden.

And we answer:

There

in Rav’s statement, the case is

of a

hen

that is impregnated from the ground,

for since its mating is from the earth of the ground, and not through intercourse with a rooster during the day, it lays eggs even at night.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

since at times it lays at night, when it is impregnated from the ground, then in

Rav Mari’s case as well, say: “It was impregnated from the ground,”

and then it lays eggs at night as well; how was Rav Mari certain that this egg was not born at night but on the previous day?

And we answer: Rav Mari was certain that it was not impregnated from the ground, because the case was

that there was

a rooster

with it,

with it.

But it is still difficult, for even

when there is a rooster as well, say: “It was impregnated from the ground,”

for from where do we know that it was impregnated only from him?

Ravina said: It is received tradition,

it is a tradition in our possession, transmitted from generation to generation, that

wherever there is a rooster -

it is not impregnated from the ground.

And how far,

at what distance is the rooster considered to be near it?