Chullin 64a (סד.) — the Talmud in English

And

further

it was taught concerning

the laws of

eggs: These are the signs of eggs

that are kosher:

a.

Any egg that is rounded and spherical,

that is, any egg whose middle is round and thick like a ball. It is not entirely round like a ball, however; rather,

one end

is

“jug-shaped,”

broad, like the base of a jug, whose base is broad;

and the other end

is

“pointed,”

narrow, so that it is rounded and broad at one end and tapers toward the other side;

it is pure

.

But if

both its ends are jug-shaped,

broad and rounded like the bases of jugs,

or both its ends are pointed,

then these eggs are

impure.

b. If the

albumen

[the white of the egg] was found

on the outside,

on the outer side of the egg,

and the yolk was on the inside,

the egg

is pure.

But if the

yolk was on the outside and the albumen on the inside—it

is impure

.

c. And if the

yolk and albumen were intermingled with one another—

it is certainly the egg of a creeping creature,

such as a turtle or lizard, which lay eggs. This concludes the language of the beraita.

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

And we answer:

It is necessary—

the fact that the beraita requires one to rely on the gentile rather than on an examination of the signs refers to a case

where the eggs had been cut open,

so that it is impossible to discern their signs.

And we challenge this: Although when they have been cut open it is impossible to determine whether they are rounded and spherical or not,

let him examine the yolk and albumen,

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

And we answer: The case here is

of

eggs

that had been beaten,

having been mixed

in a bowl,

so that the signs of the yolk and albumen cannot be discerned.

And we refute this:

But in such a case,

where the eggs had been beaten,

do we purchase them from them,

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

But it was taught in a beraita: One may not sell the egg of a tereifa,

of a bird that became a tereifa and whose egg is prohibited for consumption,

to a gentile,

because perhaps he will in turn sell it to another 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 may not purchase from them

from the gentiles

eggs beaten in a bowl,

because perhaps they are eggs of a tereifa, which the gentile purchased from a Jew. If so, how could you establish 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 biblical authority.

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

For if you do not say so,

but say that the signs of eggs are of biblical authority,

that which Rav Asi said

above, that

“there are eight cases of uncertainty”

among birds—that is, we are uncertain regarding eight species of birds whether they are pure or impure—what is the basis of his uncertainty?

Let him examine their eggs,

and from the eggs determine whether they are pure birds or not.

Rather,

from the fact that we do not rely on an examination of the signs of eggs,

conclude—

the signs

of eggs

are not of biblical authority!

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

for what halakhic purpose did he teach them

these signs in the beraita?

And we answer:

This is what

the tanna of the beraita

said: If

the two ends

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

certainly

the egg

is impure.

And then, even if the seller says—and even if he is a Jew presumed to be observant of the laws of kashrut —that this egg is from a particular pure bird, he is certainly lying.

But if

one end is pointed,

meaning that one end of the egg is

pointed, and the other end is jug-shaped,

and its other end is shaped like a

jug, and the albumen

of the egg is

on the outside, and the yolk

is

on the inside, and

the gentile tells you that this egg is

from a particular bird, and that it is pure—

rely on him!

For the signs of the egg support the gentile’s statement that the eggs are eggs of a pure bird.

But

without specification,

when the gentile does not say that the eggs are from a particular pure bird,

do not rely on them,

on the signs, because

there are

eggs of

a raven that resemble

eggs that resemble

those of a dove,

the eggs of a dove. And one must be concerned that these eggs may be eggs of a raven, which is an impure bird, even though they resemble the eggs of a pure bird.

The Master said:

We learned above in the beraita:

The albumen and yolk intermingled with one another—

it is certainly the egg of a creeping creature.

And the Gemara discusses this:

For what halakhic purpose

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

And we answer:

Rav Ukva bar Hama said:

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

to say

that if

it had developed,

meaning that the offspring of the creeping creature had taken shape and formed inside it,

and it was punctured,

so that one can touch the developing offspring inside it,

the egg renders impure

the one who touches it when it contains a measure of

the size of a lentil

[which is the measure at which a creeping creature renders one impure].

Ravina raised an objection: 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 ritual impurity of creeping creatures, since only the eight creeping creatures explicitly enumerated in the Torah impart this impurity, and a snake is not included among those eight creeping creatures that impart impurity!?

And we answer:

Rather, Rava said:

The beraita came to teach us

that if it had developed

the egg

and one ate it, he is flogged for it

because 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.”

And had the tanna of the beraita not taught us that it is the egg of a creeping creature, I would have said that it is prohibited because it is the egg of an impure bird. And we would have said that with regard to liability for lashes, one must issue a warning to a person who eats it on the grounds that it is a creeping flying creature. But if he was warned on the grounds that it is a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth, he is not flogged. The tanna of the beraita therefore teaches us that one must warn someone 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 flying creature! And we refute this:

If so,

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

why specifically

because

it is impure,

does he receive lashes for eating this egg? After all, even for eating an offspring found inside an egg

that is pure,

of a pure bird,

also

he is flogged for eating it on the grounds that it is a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth.