Chullin 64b — the Talmud in English

As it is taught in a beraita:

It is stated: [Leviticus 11:

“Every creeping creature that creeps

on

the earth,

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

to include 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 that is inside an egg—even one of a kosher bird—is prohibited, and one is liable to lashes for eating it once the egg has begun to develop. What, then, is the practical difference of the beraita writing: “It is known that it is the egg of a creeping creature”?

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

by rabbinic decree, while the verse is merely a supporting reference

. But eggs of creeping creatures that have begun to develop are considered a complete creeping creature, and one is liable to lashes for eating them by Torah law. This is what the beraita teaches us: that one is liable to lashes for eating them by Torah law.

The Sages taught: Eggs tainted by contact,

meaning impure eggs that were cooked together with kosher eggs—

are permitted

the kosher eggs for eating, because they do not become prohibited through the transfer of flavor. The impure egg does not impart flavor to the kosher egg, since it is merely “water.”

Unfertilized eggs,

which were not fertilized by a male chicken and cannot produce a chick [the expression “unfertilized” means that they have spoiled and become clumped together like spun fiber]—

a person with a healthy appetite may eat them!

One who is not particular about such things is permitted to eat them, even eggs on which a hen has already sat for many days and which have begun to spoil.

If there is found on it

on the egg

a speck

a grain

of blood—

he discards the blood and eats the rest!

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

This statement that “he discards the blood and eats the rest” applies

when the blood is found

on

its cord,

which is the chicken’s seed attached to the head of the broad end of the egg, from which the chick begins to form. Since the blood is found on the cord 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 cord into the egg white, the entire egg is prohibited, because we are concerned that the blood may have spread throughout the egg.

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

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

only when it is found

the blood

on its white,

since the blood did not extend beyond the cord, the rest of the egg is permitted.

But if it is found

the blood

on

the cord of

its yolk—

even the egg

in its entirety

is prohibited.

What is the reason?

Because

the corruption spread throughout all of it.

The defect spread throughout the entire egg.

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

There was a tanna—a sage of the Mishnaic era—who recited the teaching before Abaye in the opposite form, as follows: “They taught only when it was found on its yolk; but if it was found on its white, the entire egg is prohibited”

! And it was Abaye who corrected it for him,

saying to him

as follows,

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

Ḥizkiya said: From where is it derived that an impure egg,

of an impure bird,

is prohibited by Torah law?

As it is stated

in the portion of Shemini, in the section concerning impure birds: “

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

It lays eggs rather than giving birth, so it is not possible to use the expression “daughter” with regard to it. Furthermore, the daughter of the ostrich would not differ in law from its mother, so why did the Torah write “daughter”?

Rather, what is

the “daughter” of the ostrich?

It is its impure egg

.

The Gemara inquires:

Perhaps that is its name?

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

And we answer:

That cannot be accepted

as 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.”

The Gemara challenges this:

Is that so!?

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

But it is written

in the book of Micah [chapter 1]: “

I will make mourning like jackals, and lamentation like daughters of the ostrich.”

And if the reference were to eggs, can eggs have a mouth with which to cry and mourn? Rather, this must certainly be its name: “daughter of the ostrich.”

And we answer: Not so. Its name is “ostrich,” and the verse means that I will mourn

like this ostrich, which mourns for its young.

The Gemara continues to challenge this:

But it is written

in the book of Isaiah [chapter 13]: “

And daughters of the ostrich will dwell there.”

The verse certainly means that birds called “daughters of the ostrich” will dwell there.

And we answer: The verse means that ostriches and their young will dwell there,

like this ostrich

whose practice it is

to dwell with its young.

The Gemara then challenges this again:

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 you would think

that the reference is to an

egg,

can

an egg utter 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 ostrich’s egg [rather, it may be the name of the bird].

But here it is different, because the Torah scroll’s scribe divides the word

that is, the scribe who writes the word divides it

into two words,

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