Talmud Bavli Hullin 64a-b - translation by Tzvee

D.            And it was taught on Tannaite authority with regard to eggs: These are the tokens [of cleanness] for eggs: Any [egg] that is arched and rounded, [that is] with one end broad and one end narrow, is clean. [Any eggs that have] both ends broad or both ends narrow are unclean. [Any egg] with the white on the outside and the yolk on the inside, is clean. [Any egg] with the yolk on the outside and the white on the inside, is unclean. [T. has this version: Any [egg] that is arched (on top, not pointed) and rounded, one may be certain, derives from an unclean bird, and any that is not arched and rounded, one may be certain, derives from a clean bird [T. 3:23 C].]

E.            [If we have tokens of cleanness for eggs, why then does the hunter need to state that the eggs come from a clean bird?] It is necessary for him to state it for eggs that were cut up [and the external tokens would not be visible anymore]. But then let him inspect the white and the yolk [to see if the egg is clean]. [He cannot do this if we speak of a case where the eggs were already] scrambled in a bowl.

F.             But because of this very matter do we buy [eggs] from them [i.e., gentiles]? For lo it was taught on Tannaite authority: [They purchase eggs from any source and do not scruple lest they are of carrion- or terefah-birds.] They do not sell eggs [of carrion- birds or] of terefah-birds to a gentile unless they were cracked open into a dish. Therefore they said, “They do not purchase from a gentile eggs that are cracked open into a dish [T. 3:24 A-C].”

G.            But said R. Zira, “The tokens [for eggs] do not derive from the authority of the Torah. For if you do not maintain this view, lo [consider] that which, said R. Assi, `There are eight cases of doubt [regarding these kinds of birds]...' [above V.6 D]. [In those cases] let him inspect their eggs [and if they have the tokens of cleanness, then the birds are clean]. But we may derive from this [i.e., from the fact that they do not suggest this course of action] that the tokens [of cleanness for eggs] do not derive from the authority of the Torah.”

H.           Then [if they are not based on the authority of the Torah] what is the legal implication [of the statement of these tokens for eggs]? This is how you should state the matter: If both its ends were broad or both its ends were narrow, or if the yolk was on the outside and the white on the inside, it is surely unclean. If one end was broad and one end was narrow, or if the white was on the outside and the yolk on the inside, and he said to you, “This comes from such-and-such a bird and it is clean,” you may rely on them [i.e., the tokens along with the statement].

I.              In ordinary circumstances [where he says nothing] you may not rely on them [i.e., the tokens alone are not sufficient]. For there are eggs from a raven that resemble the eggs of a dove.

A.            Said the master, “[Any egg] with the yolk and the white intermingled, it is known that this is an egg from [an unclean] creeping thing [D, above].” What is the legal implication of this [statement that is is from a creeping thing]? Said R. Uqba bar Hama, “This tells us that if [the embryo in the egg] formed and [the shell] was pierced, it conveys uncleanness in [any amount more than] a lentil's-bulk.”

B.            Rabina posed an objection, “But perhaps it is [the egg of] a serpent [and that does not convey uncleanness].” Rather said Raba, “If it [the embryo] formed and he ate it, he is flogged for eating it on account of [the prohibition against eating] any creeping thing that crawls on the earth.”

C.            If this is the case, then why specify that it is an unclean [creeping thing]? [If he eats from] even a clean one [he should be flogged].

D.            For it was taught on Tannaite authority: “Every creeping thing that crawls upon the earth” (Lev. 11:41) — [64b] this [use of the word `all'] includes [under the prohibition] chicks whose eyes are not yet opened. [But this is not probative.] [The ruling is] based on the authority of the rabbis and the verse is merely a [secondary] support for it.

A.            Our rabbis taught: [Clean eggs] boiled together with [unclean] eggs are permitted [because the unclean eggs do not contaminate the clean ones in this manner (Rashi)]... Eggs that were addled [by the mother] — one with a strong constitution may eat them. If a drop of blood was found upon it, he may wipe away the blood and eat the rest. [T. Ter. 9:5 D, K-L].

B.            Said R. Jeremiah, “And this is so if [the drop of blood] was found on its knot [in the tip of the white of the egg (Rashi)].”

C.            Taught Dostai the father of R. Aptoriqi, “They taught this [rule] only where it [the blood] was found in its white. But if it was found in its yolk, all of the egg is prohibited.” What is the basis for this? The taint has spread throughout [the egg].

D.            Said R. Gabihah of Be Katil to R. Ashi, “A Tanna taught the opposite before Abayye. But Abayye rejoined him [in accord with our rule].”
A.            Said Hezekiah, “What is the source of the assertion that an unclean egg is prohibited by the Torah?” As it states, “The ostrich” (Lev. 11:16) [bt hy`nh, lit.: the daughter of the Ya`anah]. And does the Ya`anah have a daughter? [No.] But what then is this [that the verse refers to]? This is an unclean egg.

B.            But perhaps this is the name [of a kind of bird]. No, you cannot have concluded that. For it is written, “[Even the jackals give the breast and suckle their young,] but the daughter of my people has become cruel, like the ostriches [y`nym, not bt y`nym] in the wilderness” (Lam. 4:3).

C.            Is it not the case [that a verse does refer to bt, the daughter]? But lo, it is written, “For this I will lament and wail; I will go stripped and naked; I will make lamentation like the jackals, and mourning like the ostriches [here: bnwt, daughters]” (Micah 1:8). [That does not prove it is the name of a kind of bird. It could mean here]: as the ostrich that mourns over its offspring.

D.            But lo, it is written, “[But wild beasts will lie down there, and its houses will be full of howling creatures;] there ostriches [here again: bnwt, daughters] will dwell, [and there satyrs will dance]” (Isa. 13:21). [It could mean here]: as the ostrich that dwells with its offspring.

E.            But lo, it is written, “The wild beasts will honor me, the jackals and the ostriches [again: bnwt]; [for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people]” (Isa. 43:20). [Now this must be the name of a kind of bird.] For if you wish to conclude that this is an egg, can an egg sing [praise]?

F.             But it is written both ways [in that verse, i.e., two scribal alternatives]: the Ya`anah and the daughter of the Ya`anah. And this case is different because the scribe left a space between the two words. And since the scribe left a space [65a] between the two words, we may derive from this that there are two separate names [in the verse].

No comments: