Chullin 58a — the Talmud in English

It follows that

the first series of eggs,

the cluster of eggs that was inside the hen when she became a tereifa

is forbidden.

This is because the embryo is considered part of its mother, and the eggs themselves are considered to have become tereifa when the event that rendered the hen tereifa occurred.

But with regard to the eggs that formed in her

from that point onward, it is a case of “two factors producing the result”

[as they were formed through both the female hen and the male rooster that fertilized the eggs],

and they are permitted.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar

from that which we learned in tractate Eduyot [5:1]:

And they agree,

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis, who disagree concerning the offspring of a tereifa animal,

with regard to the egg of a tereifa—

that it is forbidden, because it grew while subject to a prohibition?!

And we answer:

There,

the case concerns an egg that was not fertilized by a male rooster, but rather

that absorbed heat from the ground,

as the hen warmed herself on the ground. It follows that she alone is the factor responsible for producing the egg.

And we challenge this:

Why should he not answer him

that there the case concerns

the first series of eggs,

the eggs that were inside her when she became a tereifa, and which are forbidden? And we answer:

If so,

what is the meaning of the phrase “because it

grew

while subject to a prohibition”? This implies that all its growth took place while subject to a prohibition. But the phrase should have been:

“completed its growth

while subject to a prohibition,”

which is what was required.

And we challenge this: According to your explanation, that everyone agrees that an egg that absorbed heat from the ground is forbidden, and that they disagree only concerning two factors producing the result—

Rather, what of that which was taught in a beraita: The offspring

born from a

tereifa—

Rabbi Eliezer says: It may not be brought near the altar. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: It may be brought near the altar.

With regard to what do they disagree?

It must be that the case is

where the animal became a tereifa and only afterward became pregnant.

And they disagree concerning two factors producing the result.

Rabbi Eliezer holds: Two factors producing the result are forbidden.

And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Two factors producing the result are permitted!

If so, instead of their disagreeing with regard to what is offered to the Most High, let them disagree with regard to what is permitted to ordinary people.

And we answer:

This is to convey the strength of Rabbi Yehoshua's position—that even what is offered to the Most High is also permitted.

And we challenge this:

Let them disagree with regard to what is permitted to ordinary people, to convey the strength of Rabbi Eliezer's position—that even what is permitted to ordinary people is also forbidden?!

And we answer:

The strength of the lenient ruling is preferable to emphasize.

And they agree that an egg of a tereifa is forbidden—

when it absorbed heat from the ground, since there is only one factor producing it.

Rav Aḥa follows the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya'akov, and he transmits Ameimar's teaching as we stated.

The eggs of a tereifa must be distinguished between the first series and the subsequent series, even in the case of an animal that is certainly a tereifa.

Ravina does not follow the opinion of Rav Aḥa bar Ya'akov, and he transmits Ameimar's teaching in the following wording:

Ameimar said: With regard to these eggs, from the first series of an animal that is possibly a tereifa, we wait for them.

If she subsequently returns and lays eggs,

if she again lays eggs, she is not a tereifa; therefore, even the first eggs

are permitted. But if not—

they are forbidden.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to Ameimar: And they agree

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis

that an egg of a tereifa is forbidden, because it grew while subject to a prohibition?!

He said to him: There, the case is of the first series of eggs.

And he challenged him:

If so,

what is the meaning of

“grew

while subject to a prohibition”? But it should have said

“completed its growth

while subject to a prohibition,”

which is what was required?!

And he answered him:

Indeed,

teach,

you should read

“completed its growth.”

And we challenge this:

Rather, what of that which we learned

in tractate Temura [32]:

The offspring of a tereifa—

Rabbi Eliezer says: It may not be brought near the altar.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: It may be brought near the altar. With regard to what do they disagree? When the animal became pregnant and only afterward became a tereifa.

Rabbi Eliezer holds: The embryo is considered part of its mother. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: The embryo is not considered part of its mother.

If so, instead of their disagreeing with regard to what is offered to the Most High, let them disagree with regard to what is permitted to ordinary people?!

To convey the strength of Rabbi Yehoshua's position!

Let them disagree with regard to what is permitted to ordinary people, to convey the strength of Rabbi Eliezer's position?!

The strength of the lenient ruling is preferable to emphasize.

And they certainly agree that an egg of a tereifa is forbidden when it is from the first series of eggs.

What is the reason?

It is part of the animal's body!

Because the embryo is considered part of its mother.

And the halakha is:

With regard to a male,

an animal that is possibly a tereifa and that survives

a full twelve months

is certainly not a tereifa

! With regard to a female—

any one that does not give birth

is a tereifa. But if she gives birth, she is certainly not a tereifa!

Rav Huna said:

Every

creature that has no bone does not survive twelve months.

An insect or worm whose formation began inside a fruit, and which did not crawl on the ground, is not forbidden to eat. But if it came into being while the fruit was still attached to the tree, and therefore attached to the ground, its coming into being inside the fruit is considered as though it came into being on the ground, and it is consequently forbidden to eat.

Rav Pappa said: Learn from Rav Huna with regard to

the

law

law

stated by Shmuel: A cucumber that became worm-infested while still in its formation,

while it was attached to the ground,

the worm is forbidden to eat [that is, the worm's movement within the cucumber, which is attached to the ground, is considered as though it came into being on the ground]—

to eat the worm [that is, the worm's crawling within the cucumber, while it was attached to the ground, is considered as though it had formed upon the ground] —