Chullin 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught:

It is stated: [Leviticus 11:

“Every creeping creature that creeps

upon

the earth,]]

“you shall not eat them, for they are an abomination,” and we derive from the word “every” [the inclusion of]

chicks

of a kosher bird

whose eyes have not opened!

Since their eyes have not opened, they are considered like a creeping creature. If so, every chick inside an egg, even one of a kosher bird, once the egg has begun to form, would incur lashes for eating it. What, then, is the practical difference of the baraita’s statement: “when it is known that it is an egg of a creeping creature”?

And we answer: The inclusion of kosher chicks whose eyes have not opened applies only

by rabbinic decree, and the verse is merely an асמachta

—a scriptural support. But eggs of creeping creatures that have developed, their status is that of a fully formed creeping creature, and one incurs lashes for eating them by Torah law. This is what the baraita teaches us: that one incurs lashes for eating them by Torah law.

The Sages taught: “Eggs rendered repulsive,”

that is, impure eggs that were cooked together with kosher eggs—

are permitted

to eat the kosher eggs, since they do not become prohibited through the transfer of taste, because the impure egg does not impart taste to the kosher egg, as it is merely water.

Infertile eggs,

that were not fertilized by a male chicken and will not produce a chick [and the expression “infertile” means that they have spoiled and become stuck together like spun material]—

a refined person may eat them!

One who is not fastidious may eat them, even eggs upon which a hen has already sat for many days and which have begun to spoil.

If there is found upon it

on the egg

a speck

of

blood—

he discards the blood and eats the rest!

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This statement, “he discards the blood and eats the rest,”

applies when the blood is found

on

its chalaza,

that is, the rooster’s seed attached to the upper, wider end of the egg, from which the chick begins to form. Since the blood is found on the chalaza and has not spread to the rest of the egg, he discards the blood and eats the rest of the egg. But if the blood has spread beyond the chalaza into the albumen, the entire egg is prohibited, as we are concerned that the blood may have spread throughout the egg.

Dostai taught, the father of Rabbi Aftoriki: “They taught”

that when blood is found on the chalaza, one discards the blood and eats the rest,

only when it is found

on the blood

on its albumen,

since the blood did not emerge beyond the chalaza, the rest of the egg is permitted.

But if it is found

the blood

on

the chalaza

of its yolk—

even the entire egg

is

prohibited.

What is the reason?

Because

the corruption has spread throughout it.

The deterioration has spread throughout the entire egg.

Rav Geviha of Bei Katil said to Rav Ashi: The tanna taught an opposite version before Abaye,

for the tanna who taught before Abaye taught it as follows: “They taught only when it is found on the yolk of the egg; but if it is found on its albumen, the entire egg is prohibited”

! And it was Abaye who resolved it for him,

telling him

as follows,

in accordance with our version: “They taught only when it is found on its albumen; but if it is found on the yolk, even the entire egg is prohibited.”

Hezekiah said: From where is it derived that an egg of an impure bird,

an impure bird,

is prohibited by Torah law?

And Tosafot explain that it is necessary to derive the prohibition from the verse, and it cannot be derived from the general principle, “Whatever emerges from an impure creature is impure,” since an egg of a kosher bird should also have been prohibited as a limb taken from a living creature. The Torah nevertheless permitted it, and one might have said that since the Torah permitted one prohibition in the case of an egg—that of a limb taken from a living creature—it also permitted the other prohibition, that whatever emerges from an impure creature is impure. And Maimonides [ Laws of Forbidden Foods 3:11] wrote that the source of the prohibition “whatever emerges from an impure creature” is derived from this verse, in which the Torah prohibited the egg of an impure bird. Whereas Halakhot Gedolot wrote that the derivation from the ostrich teaches that only its egg is prohibited, thereby teaching that the egg of a kosher bird is permitted.

As it is stated

in Parashat Shemini, in the passage concerning impure birds: “

And the daughter of the ostrich. But does an ostrich have a daughter!?”

It lays eggs and does not give birth, so it is impossible that the expression “daughter” should be written regarding it. Moreover, the daughter of the ostrich would not differ in its legal status from its mother, so why did the Torah write “daughter”?

Rather, what is

the “daughter” of the ostrich?

It is its impure egg

itself.

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps “daughter of the ostrich” is its name?

Perhaps this is the name of the bird, “daughter of the ostrich,” and the Torah does not mean the daughter of the ostrich?

And we answer:

That cannot enter your mind,

that this is its name,

as it is written

in the Book of Lamentations [chapter 4]:

“The daughter of my people has become cruel, like ostriches in the wilderness.”

We see that it is called an ostrich, and not “daughter of the ostrich.”

And we challenge this:

Is that so!?

Do we not find that it is called “daughter of the ostrich”?

For it is written

in the Book of Micah [chapter 1]:

“I will make a lament like jackals, and mourning like the daughters of the ostrich.”

And if the reference is to eggs, do eggs have mouths with which to weep and mourn? Rather, certainly this is its name: “daughter of the ostrich.”

And we answer: No; its name is ostrich, and the verse means that I will mourn

like this ostrich, which mourns for its young.

And the Gemara continues to challenge this:

For it is written

in the Book of Isaiah [chapter 13]:

“And the daughters of the ostrich will dwell there.”

Certainly the meaning of the verse is that the birds called “daughters of the ostrich” will dwell there.

And we answer: The meaning of the verse is that ostriches and their young will dwell there,

like this ostrich

whose way it is

to dwell with its young.

And it again challenges:

But it is written

in the Book of Isaiah [chapter 43]:

“The beasts of the field will honor Me

—jackals and daughters of the ostrich.” And if it enters your mind

that the reference is to an

egg,

then

is an egg capable of uttering song!?

Can it sing and honor the Holy One, blessed be He!?

Rather, it is written “the ostrich,” and it is written “the daughter of the ostrich,”

and therefore there is no proof that the reference is to the egg of the ostrich [rather, it may be that this is its name].

But here it is different, for the scribe divided the word,

that is, the scribe writing the word divides it

into two words,

so that the expression “daughter of the ostrich” is written as two words.