Chullin 64a — the Talmud in English

concerning the laws of

eggs: These are the signs of eggs

that are kosher:

1.

Any egg that is rounded and globular

—every egg whose middle is round in thickness like a ball. It is not completely round like a ball, however. Rather,

one end

is

“jug-shaped,”

wide, like the broad base on which a jug rests;

and one end

is

“pointed,”

narrow, so that it is round and broad at one end and becomes narrower at the other;

it is pure

.

But if

both ends are jug-shaped,

wide and round like the bases of jugs,

or both ends are pointed,

then these eggs are

impure.

2. If the

egg white

[the white part of the egg] is found

on the outside,

on the outer side of the egg,

and the yolk is on the inside,

the egg is

pure.

But if the

yolk is on the outside and the egg white is on the inside—it is

impure

.

3. And if the

yolk and egg white are mixed together—

it is certainly the egg of a creeping creature,

such as a tortoise or a lizard, which lay eggs. This concludes the wording of the beraita.

Since it is possible to determine by these signs whether an egg comes from a kosher bird, why can one not purchase eggs on the basis of examining their signs?!

And we answer:

No, it is necessary

—the beraita requires one to rely on the gentile rather than on an examination of the signs because it is speaking of a case

in which the eggs had been cut open

and it was impossible to determine their signs.

And we challenge this: It is indeed impossible, once they have been cut open, to determine whether they are rounded and globular or not. But

let him examine the yolk and the egg white,

and on that basis determine whether they are pure or not.

And we answer: The case here is

of

eggs

that had been beaten,

and were mixed

in a bowl,

so that the signs of the yolk and egg white could not be distinguished.

And we reject this answer:

In such a case,

when the eggs have been beaten,

do we purchase them from them,

that is, is it permitted to purchase them from gentiles?!

But it is taught in a beraita: One may not sell the egg of a bird with a fatal defect,

that is, of a bird rendered non-kosher, whose egg is prohibited for consumption,

to a gentile,

because perhaps he will later resell it to a Jew,

unless

the egg is

beaten,

mixed

in a bowl,

in which case there is no concern that another Jew might purchase it from the gentile.

Since it is permitted to sell a beaten egg to a gentile,

therefore, one does not purchase from them

from gentiles

beaten eggs in a bowl,

because perhaps they are eggs of a bird with a fatal defect, which the gentile purchased from a Jew. If so, how could you have established the case as one in which a Jew purchases a beaten egg in a bowl directly from a gentile?

And we answer:

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: The signs

of eggs

are not of Torah origin.

They were not given as a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Therefore, they are not definitive signs on which one can rely; rather, one relies only on knowing from which bird the eggs were laid [and therefore, when purchasing eggs directly from a gentile, the gentile must tell him that they are from a particular kosher bird, while the signs merely support his statement].

For if you do not say so,

but say that the signs of eggs are of Torah origin,

then what of the statement of Rav Asi

above, that

there are eight doubtful species

of birds—that with regard to eight species of birds, we are uncertain whether they are kosher or non-kosher? What uncertainty could he have?

Let him examine their eggs,

and from the eggs determine whether the birds are kosher or not.

Rather,

since we do not rely on examining the signs of eggs,

infer from this—

the signs

of eggs

are not of Torah origin!

The Gemara asks: Since you have said that we do not rely on the signs of eggs,

for what legal purpose did the beraita state

these signs?

And we answer:

This is what

the tanna of the beraita says: If

both ends

of the egg

are jug-shaped, or both ends are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the egg white is on the inside—

certainly

the egg is

impure.

Then, even if the seller says—and even if he is a Jew whose reliability regarding kosher food is established— that this egg comes from a particular kosher bird, he is certainly lying.

But if

one end is pointed,

meaning that one end of the egg is

pointed, and one end is jug-shaped,

with the other end shaped like a

jug, and the egg white

of the egg is

on the outside, and the yolk

is

on the inside, and he tells you

the gentile that this egg is

from a particular bird, and that it is kosher—

rely on him!

The signs of the egg support the gentile’s statement that the eggs are from a kosher bird.

But

in an unspecified case,

when the gentile does not say that the eggs come from a particular kosher bird,

do not rely on them

on the signs, because

there are

eggs

of a raven that resemble

eggs

of a dove,

and one must be concerned that these eggs may be raven eggs. A raven is a non-kosher bird, even though its eggs resemble those of a kosher bird.

The master said

: We learned above in the beraita:

If the egg white and yolk are mixed together—

it is certainly the egg of a creeping creature.

The Gemara discusses this:

For what legal purpose

did the beraita state that this is the egg of a creeping creature? What difference does it make to us whether it is the egg of a non-kosher bird or the egg of a creeping creature?

And we answer:

Rav Ukva bar Hama said:

The beraita said, “It is certainly the egg of a creeping creature,”

to teach

that if the egg

developed

and a young creeping creature formed inside it,

and it was pierced

so that one can touch the developing creature inside,

the egg renders impure

anyone who touches it when it contains a measure of

the size of a lentil

—

the measure at which a creeping creature renders something impure. Ravina challenged this: But perhaps

this egg is

the egg of a snake?

It resembles the egg of a creeping creature, but a snake’s egg does not impart the impurity of creeping creatures, since only the eight specified creeping creatures impart this impurity, and the snake is not included among them?!

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said:

The beraita comes to teach us

that if the egg developed

the egg

and one ate it, he is liable to lashes

because of the prohibition of

a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth.

As it is written: “And every creeping creature that swarms upon the earth is an abomination; it shall not be eaten.”

If the tanna of the beraita had not taught us that it is the egg of a creeping creature, I would have said that it is prohibited because it comes from a non-kosher bird. And we would have said that, with regard to liability for lashes, one must warn a person who eats it that he is violating the prohibition against a creeping creature that flies. If he was warned that he was violating the prohibition against a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth, he would not receive lashes. The tanna therefore teaches us that one must warn a person who eats it on the grounds that it is a creeping creature of the land, and not on the grounds that it is a creeping creature that flies. And we challenge this:

If so,

that the beraita comes to teach that one receives lashes for eating it because it is a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth,

why specifically

because

this egg is impure

is he liable to lashes for eating it? Even for eating a young creature found inside an egg

that is pure,

that is, from a kosher bird,

also

he is liable to lashes for eating it because it is a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth.