Siman 66

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the sixth chapter of Ma'achalot Assurot: One who eats a kezayit of blood intentionally is liable for karet; if unintentionally, he brings a fixed sin-offering. It is explicitly stated in the Torah that one is only liable for the blood of domestic animals, wild animals, and fowl, whether impure or pure, as it is said: "And you shall eat no blood in any of your dwellings, whether of fowl or of animal," and wild animals are included in the category of domestic animals, as it is said: "These are the animals that you may eat: the ox, etc., the ayal and the tzvi, etc." If one ate the blood of fish, locusts, creeping things, swarming things, or human blood, he is not liable on account of blood, etc. Thus far his words. [In the laws of covering the blood, karet is explicitly mentioned regarding the blood of a lamb, and this requires further study]:

And it is explained from his words that even though blood is a liquid and is not included in the category of food regarding impurity, as he himself wrote in the first chapter of Hilkhot Okhalin, and it is an explicit Mishnah in the eighth chapter of Eduyot, see there; nevertheless, regarding the measure of drinking to be liable for karet, its law is a kezayit just as with eating. And it appears to me that the reason is that since the Merciful One expressed blood with the language of eating—granted that drinking is included in eating as is explained in many places in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud—nevertheless, the measure for drinking is like eating for this very reason, since it was expressed with the language of eating, and standard eating is a kezayit. And so it is explicit in the Gemara [Keritot 22a] that the measure of blood is a kezayit, see there. And it is difficult to say that the Rambam and the Gemara there are dealing with congealed blood, as we say [Chullin 102a], "If one congealed the blood and ate it, he is liable," for in any such case, he should have specified.

Furthermore, from where do we know to obligate him with a revi'it? Only regarding the prohibitions of a nazir, where the Torah wrote the language of drinking, and "anything soaked in grapes he shall not drink," do we maintain that the measure is a revi'it. However, regarding all prohibitions that the Torah expressed with the language of eating, even though drinking is also included, nevertheless, it is impossible to change the measure. A proof for this is that regarding terumah we also learned in the Tosefta Terumot chapter 7 that just as eating is with a kezayit, so too drinking is with a kezayit. And so the Rambam ruled in chapter 10 of Terumot, see there. And the reason is clear, because the Torah expressed terumah with the language of eating, and only regarding a nazir is there a distinction, as I have written. And so too regarding Yom Kippur, because the language of eating is not written in its regard. If so, in all prohibited foods, the law is thus.

And so it is explicitly implied from his wording at the beginning of chapter 14 there, where he wrote: All forbidden foods in the Torah, their measure is a kezayit, etc., and he did not distinguish between eating and drinking. And that which he wrote there in law 9, that if one drank of the blood little by little, if he drank from beginning to end within the time of drinking a revit, they join together, etc. Thus far his words. The intention is not that the measure is a revit, but rather that the measure is a kezayit; however, regarding the interval, in eating the liability is within the time of eating a pras, and in drinking it is within the time of drinking a revit, for such is the system of the Rambam, of blessed memory, as is known. And there is further proof from what he wrote there in law 4: A kezayit of chelev, etc., that one left in the sun and it diminished, one who eats it is exempt. Thus far his words. But when there is a kezayit, he is liable even though it melted in the sun and became a liquid, and as we say in Chullin there, "nefesh" to include one who drinks; nevertheless, the liability is like that of eating. And regarding the essence of the matter of the prohibition of blood, it appears to me that there is no difference between a revit and a kezayit, for so the sages, of blessed memory, said [Shabbat 77a] that a revit of blood, when it congeals, will stand at a kezayit, see there; behold, it is a single measure. [And perhaps because of this, it is stated at the end of chapter 14 of Yevamot: "one who ate blood," until there is a revit, see there, for it implies that a revit is required, and it is impossible to say so; but because it is a single measure, and regarding impurity one specifically requires a revit, and the Gemara there is not dealing with the details of prohibitions, it therefore employed this wording, and the words of the Maharsha there require further study].

The Tur wrote: A koy, one is liable for its blood, and a fetus, even though its chelev is permitted, its blood is forbidden. Thus far his words. And one is liable for its blood kareth [Beit Yosef], and this is explicitly stated in the Gemara [74b] that even though its chelev is permitted, its blood is forbidden, and it is explained there that this is regarding the liability of kareth, see there. And it implies that there is no difference between a fetus and an animal, and if so, all blood that is in an animal is liable for kareth, such as the blood of shechitah and the blood of chelev as will be explained in siman 67, so too in a fetus. However, the Rambam there, law 5, wrote: A fetus found in the womb of an animal, its blood is like the blood of one born; therefore, for the blood found collected within its heart, one is liable for kareth, but the rest of its blood is like the blood of the limbs. Thus far his words. And the commentators wrote that for the blood of its shechitah one is not liable for kareth because it does not require shechitah and is as if slaughtered, see there. And from the Tur it does not imply so. And in my humble opinion, it would seem that the intention of the Rambam is also only when it is found dead in its mother's womb, where automatically there is only the blood of the heart; but if it is found alive and they performed shechitah or stabbed it, one is liable for the blood of the soul, and it is not relevant to the fact that it does not require shechitah, for ultimately it is the blood of the soul, like an impure animal which does not require shechitah [and the objection of the Ra'avad there which the Maggid Mishneh and the Rama MiPano cited, it is impossible to understand his intention as the Maggid Mishneh and the Lechem Mishneh wrote, see there; and in my humble opinion it seems possible to align his words as well with what I wrote, and I intended for the blood of the place of the shechitah after its death, and with this his words will be understood, see there and examine closely].

Regarding the blood of eggs, the opinions of the poskim are numerous, for in the Mishnah in Keritot we learned that one is not liable for the blood of eggs, and several other types of blood were learned there for which one is not liable, such as the blood of the spleen, the blood of fish, and the blood of exudate, see there. And among these, there are some for which one is only not liable but a prohibition nevertheless exists, such as the blood of the spleen and exudate, and there are some that are entirely permitted, such as the blood of fish. And so too in the Baraita there, it enumerates the blood of man, the blood of eggs, and the blood of fish, see there; and it is also so, that the blood of man is at least prohibited and the blood of fish is entirely permitted. And now there is doubt regarding the blood of eggs as to what it is. [And I am very much astonished by the Tosafot in Chullin 64b, s.v. "ve-hu," who questioned Rashi, and this is their wording: However, it is difficult according to his explanation from that which is said in Keritot, "the blood of eggs is excluded etc., the blood of locusts is excluded etc.," and it implies that just as the blood of locusts etc. is permitted, so too the blood of eggs. Thus far their words. And this requires great study, for it also enumerates there the blood of man, and in the Mishnah the blood of the spleen and the blood of exudate; and what did you see to learn from locusts more than from the blood of man or the spleen? And the Tosafot in Keritot there explicitly wrote the opposite, and this is their wording: "One is not liable for the blood of fish," implying that there is a prohibition, and it is difficult etc., and it can be said etc., and it could have said "and according to your reasoning." Thus far their words. Behold, they inferred that there is a prohibition upon all of them, see there. And it must be said that they inferred this from the reason that it is not a type of flesh, like fish, and so it appears from the Rosh].

And behold, in Chullin [64b] the sages, of blessed memory, said: If a speck of blood is found on the egg, one casts away the blood and eats the remainder. R. Yirmeya said: And this is specifically when it is found on its knot. Dustai taught: They only taught this when it is found on its albumen, but if it is found on its yolk, even the egg is forbidden. What is the reason? Because the decay spreads through the whole of it; see there. And according to the explanation of Rashi, they do not disagree with one another. And the matter is thus: that the blood itself is forbidden wherever it is found in the egg. For granted that according to the Torah there is no liability in it, because the egg is not a type of meat, as is found in Keritot there; nevertheless, the sages forbade it [Tosafot] as a decree on account of the blood of a bird, from which the egg comes and the chick is formed there, for this is close to the blood of meat. And even though according to the Torah this too is permitted because now, at any rate, there is no meat upon it at all, nevertheless the sages forbade it [ibid.]. And this is not like a decree upon a decree, for because not everyone is expert in distinguishing between the place of the knot from which the chick is formed and other places, it was necessary to forbid every type of egg blood in whatever place it is found. And even in the case of an egg from the ground [safna me-ar'a] not produced by a rooster, from which there will be no chicks, nevertheless the rabbis did not differentiate because they are not expert in this [it appears to me]. For behold, even an egg of one day, in which the formation of a chick certainly does not apply, nevertheless the consensus of the great later authorities is to forbid the egg according to our custom which will be explained, and all the more so regarding the blood itself; and if so, the same applies to an egg from the ground.

And if so, since regarding the blood itself it is always forbidden, consequently that which Rava said, "and this is when it is found on its knot," is not regarding the blood itself, but rather regarding what they said, "and he eats the rest," he explains that this is specifically when it is found on the knot. And the knot is the seed of the rooster which is tied at the head of the vessel of the egg, and from there the formation of the chick begins [Rashi]. And behold, in truth this place is more stringent than other places, as is understood. And for this Rashi was forced to explain that this is what he is saying: and this is when it is found only on the knot and has not yet spread to the rest of the egg; therefore, he eats the rest. But if it is found on its yolk, the whole egg is forbidden, for the spoilage spreads throughout the entire egg [ibid.]. That is to say, that initially the blood is formed in the knot of the albumen, and afterwards the blood descends until it reaches the inside of the yolk, and then the chick begins to take shape [this is proof for the Kereti U'Peleti subsection 2, and not like the Re'ah, and examine carefully]. And according to this, in the yolk, in whatever place it is found, the egg is forbidden; and in the albumen, even when it is found on the knot, the blood is forbidden and the egg is permitted, and certainly when it is found in the albumen not on the knot. And this is what Dustai came to explain: they only taught this when it was found on its albumen, but if it was found on its yolk, even the egg is forbidden. And this is the same as that of Rava [and what Rashi wrote, "on the albumen, on the knot, as we said," his intention was: even on the knot; for one cannot say that when it is not on the knot even the blood is permitted, for if so, what forced Rashi to explain that of Rava regarding the permissibility of the egg? Let us explain it regarding the prohibition of the blood. Rather, it is certain that the blood is always forbidden, as is clear above].

And know that all this which we explained according to the approach of Rashi is according to the commentary of Rashi before us, and if so, it is exactly like the approach of the Rif and the Rambam in chapter 3 of Ma’akhalot Assurot. For the Rif wrote: If a speck of blood is found upon it, one casts away the blood and eats the rest, and this is when it is found upon its white; but if it is found upon its yolk, the whole of it is forbidden. And the Rambam wrote similarly there. And they do not distinguish between a knot and not a knot, for regarding the blood, in any location it is forbidden, and regarding the egg, there is no distinction except between the white and the yolk. And the poskim wrote that the Rif and the Rambam interpret that Dostai disagrees with Rabbi Yirmeya, see there in their words. And according to what I wrote regarding the approach of Rashi, there is no necessity for this, and it can be said that they also hold that they do not disagree, and they interpret the Gemara as I wrote according to the approach of Rashi.

But the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote according to the approach of Rashi that that which Rabbi Yitzchak said, "and specifically when it is found upon the knot," this is the explanation: that when it is found only upon the knot of the albumen, the blood is forbidden and the egg is permitted, and if it spread outside the knot, even the egg is forbidden even if the blood did not reach the yolk. And that which Dostai says, "this was only stated when it is found on the albumen, but if it is found on the yolk even the egg is forbidden," this is all regarding the knots; for when it is found in the knot of the albumen only the blood is forbidden, and when it is found in the knot of the yolk even the egg is forbidden, for since it is found on the knot of the yolk and it is aligned opposite the knot of the albumen, it is a sign that the blood descended from the knot of the albumen to the knot of the yolk, and this is like one that spread outside the knot of the albumen. But if it is found in the albumen or in the yolk not in the place of the knots, the blood is forbidden and the egg is permitted, unlike the approach of the Rif and the Rambam. And similarly wrote the Rashba and the Ran according to the approach of Rashi, see there. And it appears that they had a different version in the commentary of Rashi. And according to this, the egg is not forbidden unless the blood is found on the knot of the albumen and spread outside the knot, or if it was found on the knot of the yolk, for this is also like spreading outside the knot for the reason we explained; but when found outside the knot alone, whether in the albumen or in the yolk, the blood is forbidden and the egg is permitted.

There is another approach of our teachers that blood upon the knot is forbidden by the Torah, for it is considered a type of meat since the chick is formed from it. And that which they said in Keritot there, that the blood of eggs is permitted, this is when the blood is not knotted but is in another place; and it is frequently found even immediately close to birth that blood is found upon it, for in such a case the concept of formation does not apply at all. And in such a case, one could say either that the blood is forbidden at least rabbinically, or that even the blood is permitted, for it is thus explained in the Yerushalmi, chapter 10 of Terumot, that when it is found upon the albumen the blood is permitted, and upon the yolk the blood is forbidden, but the egg is always permitted, see there. However, in our Talmud it is explained that upon the yolk the egg is forbidden, and its explanation is because this comes from the albumen which descended into the yolk and was in formation, and the worm has spread through the whole of it [see there in Tosafot, starting with the words "And it is," for they wrote two excuses and the Rosh combined them into one, and also the Rashba did not write as in Tosafot, see there; and regarding the law there is no difference, and examine carefully].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch adopted this approach, that blood of formation is forbidden by the Torah, and that in other places the blood is forbidden by rabbinic law and the egg is permitted. This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef: Regarding the blood of eggs, if it is known that it is from the formation of the chick, one is liable for it; but if it is not known that it is from the formation of the chick, one is not liable for it, but the sages forbade it. If a speck of blood is found upon it, one throws away the blood and eats the rest, and this is when it is found in the albumen; but if it is found in the yolk, the entire egg is forbidden. Thus far his words. And it must be understood, for the distinction between the albumen and the yolk is the approach of the Rambam and the Rif, and they do not hold that there is a Torah liability for any blood of eggs, as he himself wrote in his great work, see there. For the Rambam wrote in chapter 3: An egg of a pure bird in which the bird has begun to form, and one ate it, he is given lashes of rebellion. Thus far his words. And this is only a rabbinic prohibition. And since he ruled that blood of formation is forbidden by the Torah, he should have ruled that even when it is found in the knot of the albumen and spread outside the knot—and this is the essence of formation—that even in such a case the entire egg is forbidden according to the approach of Rashi, the Tosafot, the Rosh, the Rashba, and the Tur.

And it appears to me that he holds that while it is true that it seems more likely that the Rambam does not maintain a Torah prohibition regarding blood of formation, nevertheless there is no necessity for this, as it can be said that while it is still blood it is prohibited by the Torah, and when it has turned into flesh its prohibition is rabbinic [as the Taz wrote in subsection 1]. Nevertheless, the sages only prohibited the entire egg when it descended to the yolk, for then it casts a blemish upon the whole of it; but as long as the blood is still in the white, even if it spread outside the knot and the blood is prohibited by the Torah, nevertheless they did not prohibit the egg [and perhaps he means to say that in this R. Yoshiyah and Dustai disagree; see there carefully and reflect].

And in truth, these matters are far-fetched, and therefore our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who say that if it is found on the knot of the albumen and also outside, that is, it spread from the knot, that the entire egg is forbidden. Thus far his words. And this is the approach of our teachers, and he adopted both stringencies: the stringency of the Rambam, that in the yolk, wherever it is found, the egg is forbidden; and the stringency of our teachers, that even on the albumen, when it spread even outside the knot, that the egg is forbidden. But when it is found on the albumen on the knot alone, and certainly when not on the knot alone, the blood is forbidden and the egg is permitted.

However, he further wrote: And there are those who are even more stringent, that whenever it is found on the knot of the albumen, even if it has not spread at all, it is forbidden; and from this the custom spread in these countries to forbid any egg that has blood in it. And in a place where they are accustomed to be lenient to discard the blood and permit the egg, one must take a peel's thickness from the permitted area along with the blood when discarding it. Thus far his words. And in truth, this opinion is not found at all among the early authorities, and therefore he wrote "and there are those who are more stringent," meaning that this is merely a stringency. And the reason for the stringency is that we decree on account of the knot of the yolk [Shach, subsection 7]. And there is also a dispute as to what is called the "knot": some say it is the rounded side at its head, and some say it is the pointed side. And it is also difficult to be precise as to until which point it is called the "knot." And because of all these reasons, they were accustomed to forbid the egg in every case [ibid., subsection 8]. Furthermore, one of the early authorities disagrees with all the poskim and holds that the primary prohibition is in the albumen, for this is the seed from which the chick is formed; and all the stringencies that we applied to the yolk, he applied to the albumen [Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit]. And according to his words, it is exactly the opposite: that in the albumen, in any location, the egg is forbidden, and in the yolk, it is only when it has spread outside the knot, and he explains the Sugya of the Shas there accordingly [like the one who says "he taught the opposite," see there]. And according to this opinion, our teacher, the Rema, certainly spoke well to forbid the egg wherever blood is found, for in the yolk it is forbidden according to the method of the Rambam and the poskim, and in the albumen it is forbidden according to this method. And while it is true that one of the great authorities rejected this method of being more stringent in the albumen than in the yolk—for on the contrary, since the primary formation comes from the albumen, who is to say that it has already begun to form? But when it descends to the yolk and we assume it descended from the albumen, then the formation has begun [Kereti U-Peleti]—nevertheless, several of the great authorities rule like this opinion [and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo, siman 102]. And according to this, our custom was established based on the essential law according to the reasoning of all these poskim, for we must be concerned for all of them.

Know that there are those who say that all these stringencies should be practiced even with an egg of the same day, for although it is certainly not the forming of an embryo, nevertheless the sages did not differentiate [Shach, subsection 6]. However, from the words of the Rashba, of blessed memory, it does not appear so, for he wrote, and this is his wording: And these words, that the egg is forbidden, apply to an egg that was not fertilized from the ground; but an egg fertilized from the ground is always permitted, for anything not born from a male does not grow a chick and this is not the blood of embryo formation. Thus far his words. Behold, it is explicit that anything which is certainly not the blood of embryo formation, one should not be stringent to forbid the egg, and it is sufficient to forbid the blood alone; and automatically, the same applies to an egg of the same day. Also, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled like the Rashba in section 7, and if so, why should we be so stringent with an egg of the same day? And so it is explained from the words of the Levush, that this which they were stringent even with an egg of the same day is regarding the blood alone and not regarding the egg, for he wrote, and this is his wording: And if it is found in the white not on the knot etc. he throws away the blood and eats the rest, and there is no difference between an egg of the same day and one not of the same day etc. Thus far his words. However, I found that the Maharshal wrote [in Yam Shel Shlomo, subsection 20] that it is not comparable to one fertilized from the ground which is not fit to grow a chicken, but an egg that is fit to grow, they made one of the same day like one not of the same day; see there. Nevertheless, it is an excessive stringency, and one who is lenient in a time of need has not lost out, for so it is explained explicitly from the Tosafot and the Rosh and most of the poskim, that anything in which there is no concern of embryo formation, one should not forbid the egg at all [and so wrote the Pri Chadash and the Kereti U-Pleti].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 4: If eggs were beaten in a bowl and blood was found on the yolk of one of them, even though one throws away the yolk upon which the blood is found, they are forbidden; because since they are beaten in the bowl, the albumen, which is thin, mixes together and everything is forbidden. But if eggs were broken together into a bowl and not beaten, and blood was found in the yolk of one of them, one should take the kosher yolks each one individually and they are permitted, and that one which has the blood shall remain in the bowl with the albumens of the rest and he should throw them away. Thus far the wording of the Shulchan Aruch.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: And all this is when we know that the blood was in a place that renders it forbidden; but if there was a doubt whether it was in a place that renders it forbidden or not, the mixture should be permitted, since in any event one is nullified in two. However, if the egg is alone, it is forbidden. And so too, if an egg was cooked or roasted and we do not know if it is in the forbidden place. Thus far his words. And all this requires explanation.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great work, explained that "beaten eggs" refers to when the whites were completely beaten with the yolks, and only the yolk upon which the blood is found has not yet been completely beaten, and it is recognizable that the blood is within it [and so wrote the Yam Shel Shlomo there]. Therefore, they are all forbidden since they were mixed together. He also wrote that this is due to the concern that perhaps the blood was in the place of the embryo, which is forbidden by the Torah. Therefore, according to the opinions of the poskim that by the Torah no egg blood is forbidden, it is a rabbinic doubt and the mixture is permitted; see there. Our teacher, the Rema, in his work Darkhei Moshe, wrote that even according to these poskim the mixture is forbidden, for we do not require a Torah prohibition for this; since it was found on the yolk, according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam the egg is forbidden, and even though it is a rabbinic prohibition, nevertheless, the mixture is forbidden when it is a certain prohibition, and here it is a certain prohibition according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam [see there in Darkhei Moshe, letter

Regarding broken eggs, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explains that they broke them and emptied them from their shells into a bowl, for then the whites mix together and the yolks each remain separate, as this is their nature as is known. Therefore, he ruled that if blood is found on the yolk of one of them, he should take the kosher yolks since each remains separate and they are permitted, but all the whites are forbidden along with the yolk that has blood upon it because the whites have mixed. [And that which was printed in the Shulchan Aruch regarding broken eggs where blood was found in the white of one of them is a scribal error, as the Pri Megadim wrote in Mishbetzot Zahav subsection 3; and that which the Taz wrote in subsection 4 requires further study, for that follows the explanation that will be clarified, and examine this closely].

But there are those who explained that "mixed" refers to when one broke them and poured them into a bowl, and the yolks remain separate, and he concluded that all of them are forbidden when the blood is found on the yolk of one of them [Damesek Eliezer and Shach subsection 9]. And the reason must be because it is unavoidable that much of the whites adhere to the yolks. And "broken" they explained as meaning that they are all still in their shells, only that he opened the eggs and placed them into one bowl, and blood was found in one of them; he should not take this egg to cast it away and eat the rest, because it is unavoidable that a little from it fell into the bowl upon its opening. Rather, he should take the kosher eggs each one individually and leave in the bowl the one that has blood in it along with what dripped a little from all of them and cast them away [ibid.]. The language "that blood was found in the yolk of one of them" does not apply, nor does the language "he should take the kosher yolks" that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote. In truth, in the Mordechai, which is the source of the law, this language is not present, but rather this is how our teacher, the Beit Yosef, explained it, and this is unnecessary [see there in Damesek Eliezer]. And it appears to me that our teacher, the Beit Yosef, did not want to explain it thus, for it is a wonderous thing to forbid in "mixed" eggs all the yolks that stand individually because of the adhesion of the whites. And so too the second law regarding "broken" eggs would be a stringency without reason in such a light prohibition. Therefore, he explained "mixed" as being when the yolks also became mixed, and "broken" as being when the whites became mixed but not the yolks. And he explained regarding "broken" what they explained regarding "mixed," and the primary view is like the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef [and perhaps even the Shach in subsection 9, who noted to see the words of the Damesek Eliezer, did not intend to agree with his words; see there].

However, that which our teacher, the Rema, wrote, that all this is when we knew that the blood was in a place that forbids it, but if there was a doubt, etc., the mixture should be permitted, thus far his words; it must be understood what his intention was in saying that the blood was in a place that forbids it. For according to the Rif and the Rambam it is the yolk, and according to the rest of our teachers it is when the blood is on the knot of the albumen and spread outside the knot, or on the knot of the yolk, as has been explained. And the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch [the Shach, subsection 2, and the Taz] explained that in any place it is found it is only a doubt, for when it is found on the yolk it is permitted according to the opinion of the rest of our teachers, and when it is found on the knot of the albumen and spread outside it, it is permitted according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam. Therefore, the mixture should be permitted, and the mixture is not forbidden unless it was found on the knot of the albumen and also on the yolk. But if so, it is difficult, for according to this he disagrees with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who forbids when it is found in the yolk as I have written, and he should have written it in the language of "there are those who say," and from his wording it implies that he does not disagree with him.

And furthermore, from his words in his book Darkhei Moshe [letter 5], what he brought in the name of the Issur Ve-Hetter, it is clear that his intention is this: that if the eggs are all beaten and a speck of blood is found, it is impossible to recognize in which place the blood was, and perhaps it was in a place that according to everyone is permitted, such as if it was only on the knot of the albumen alone or in another place in the albumen, for then we permit the mixture; see there. And according to this, he does not disagree with our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who prohibits when it is found in the yolk, for this is prohibited according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam. But if so, it is difficult to the contrary: since the primary reason for the permission is because, regardless, one is nullified in two according to the Torah, as will be explained, if so, in every place where it is found it is a doubt whether perhaps we do not hold like that opinion, and consequently it is a doubt regarding a rabbinic law and we rule leniently, like the words of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch.

Therefore, it appears to me that certainly the primary view is like the words of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch, and the reason he did not write in the phrasing of "there are those who say" is because the prohibited location depends on the opinions that have been explained. Consequently, since our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already ruled like the Rif and the Rambam that the yolk is the prohibited location, then according to him, the yolk is the prohibited location. And our teacher, the Rema, already wrote the opinion of the rest of our teachers as well; if so, nevertheless, according to him it would not be a doubt in every location. For this, the phrasing of "and there are those who say" is not applicable, because in this law they do not disagree, and all of them hold that specifically the prohibited location is required, rather they disagree as to which is the prohibited location. And the stringency that he applied to be concerned for the opinion of the rest of our teachers is a leniency regarding this matter, and this dispute has already been explained. Therefore, here the phrasing of a dispute is not applicable, though in the final law he disagrees with him as I have written.

The reason for this leniency is as follows: for there is a doubt whether even the blood itself is forbidden by the Torah, as according to the Yerushalmi even the blood is permitted by the Torah, and so it appears is the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, as I wrote in section 12. Also, several of our teachers hold this way, as I wrote. And even according to those who hold that the blood is forbidden by the Torah, it is only in the case of blood of formation with certainty. And even with blood of formation with certainty, nevertheless, the prohibition of the egg according to most poskim is rabbinic, and by the Torah, even with a certain prohibition, one is nullified in two. And here there are further doubts: perhaps even rabbinically the egg is permitted since it is not a place that is forbidden according to all the poskim, as I wrote. Therefore, in a mixture such as this where there are doubts and double doubts, it is obvious that one should permit it, unless the blood was also on the knot of the albumen and spread outside of it and also onto the yolk, for then one must forbid the mixture; but without this, one should not forbid it. And so is the simple custom to permit the mixtures like the words of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch, and there is no hesitation in this. And in a mixture of one in one, there are those who forbid [Taz, subsection 5] and there are those who permit [Shach, subsection 10]. And my custom is to forbid for a wealthy person and to permit for a poor person, for in truth, according to the reasons that were explained, one should be lenient by the law; however, for a wealthy person, since the loss is small, one should not be lenient ab initio [and see what I wrote at the end of section 57].

And all this is regarding like with like, where this egg was mixed with other eggs, for according to the Torah it is nullified by a majority even in a Torah prohibition. However, in like with unlike, such as if they made dough from this egg or placed it in meat or in fish and the like, certainly one requires sixty against the entire egg. Since in like with unlike according to the Torah one requires sixty for a Torah prohibition, it is impossible to be lenient even in this prohibition. And do not wonder at what we said, that when it was mixed with other eggs it is like with like, for behold the prohibition is because of the blood, and blood in eggs is like with unlike; and so wrote the later authorities in siman 107, see there, for in truth it is not so. Specifically regarding an egg that has a chick which was mixed with other eggs, it is like with unlike, because the chicks have substance; but a drop of blood has no power to prohibit, for it is a mere nothing, and the prohibition is because of the egg, for if the blood was in a place that prohibits the egg, the egg is also prohibited, and an egg among eggs is properly like with like [Pri Chadash, subsection 10].

And some say that even if it was mixed with its own kind and not its own kind, such as where they made a dough with several eggs and a drop of blood was found upon one of them, it is also permitted; for we say "remove that which is not its own kind as if it were not there, and its own kind increases over it and nullifies it," just as it says later in siman 98, where we say "remove its own kind as if it were not there, and that which is not its own kind increases over it and nullifies it," and here too we say the opposite [Taz, subsection 5]. And even though there are those who disagree on this law there [Pri Chadash], nevertheless, regarding the prohibition of blood in eggs, one may rely on this [Pri Megadim]. And although it is not similar to there—for it is well and good when we say "remove its own kind as if it were not there," since like with like does not impart flavor, but how is it possible to say "remove that which is not its own kind as if it were not there" when it has indeed imparted flavor into it? However, nevertheless, since it is a rabbinic prohibition and there are several doubts regarding it, one should not be stringent even in such a case. However, in a mixture of only that which is not its own kind, where there is a doubt if there is sixty in it, one should not be lenient, because a doubt resulting from a lack of knowledge is not considered a doubt at all [Pri Megadim]. And so too in a mixture of one against one of its own kind and not its own kind, one should also not be lenient [perhaps in any mixture of one against one, perhaps one should be lenient to add one more, and this is not like nullifying a prohibition ab initio when they do so to fulfill the requirements of all the poskim and in a light prohibition such as this; for regarding every rabbinic prohibition, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, ruled so in siman 99, section 6, and even the Rema who disagrees on this might admit to it here, for it is no worse than muktzeh, regarding which we forbid at the beginning of Beitzah, "one increases prepared wood upon them and kindles them," see there].

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 5: If blood is found in an egg in a place where it does not forbid the whole egg, and he did not throw away the blood and forgot and beat the egg with the blood, it appears to me that it is permitted. Thus far his words. And the reason is that the drop of blood does not have the power to forbid, as I wrote in section 26, and since he did this inadvertently, one should not be stringent in this. And regarding our custom, it appears that there is no practical difference in this law, for behold, our custom is to forbid the egg wherever blood is found, as has been explained. And the fact that our teacher, the Rema, did not gloss this is because it is understood on its own. And even though there is one who says that even according to our custom the law is so, that they only forbade the egg when the blood is distinct and not when it was mixed without the intention of nullification, nevertheless, it is not logical at all to say so; for what of it that it was mixed? For even if he had thrown away the blood, the egg would be forbidden according to our custom, and all the more so when the blood was mixed into the egg. Nevertheless, even for us there is a practical difference in this law regarding an egg from the ground where we do not forbid the entire egg, and similarly regarding a day-old egg according to what we explained in section 16, one should be lenient in such a case where the blood was mixed inadvertently.

Regarding this prohibition of the blood of eggs, there is no difference whether it was mixed with others while cold, or if he boiled or fried them together. And even though one could say that through cooking it imparts more flavor, nevertheless, against this one could say that according to most poskim, blood that has been cooked is only a rabbinic prohibition. Therefore, even in boiling or frying, in a case of the same species with the same species, it is nullified by a majority, and in a case of different species, it requires sixty. And in a case of the same species and a different species, we say "remove," etc., and as I wrote in section 26, that in cooking an additional leniency is added, as I wrote, that regarding actual blood it is only rabbinic according to most poskim, and all the more so regarding the blood of eggs.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: If blood was found in an egg that was placed upon hot food to shrink, since there is no broth in the place of the egg, all the hot food is permitted. Thus far his words. For since there is no broth in the place of the egg, it is no more stringent than roasted meat, which only forbids up to the thickness of a peel, and here the shell of the egg serves in place of the peel. Therefore, some say that according to what we are stringent about later in siman 105, that even with roasted meat one requires sixty, one should forbid here as well until there is sixty [Shach, sub-section 13 in the name of Rashi]. And even according to this view, one should only be stringent when the blood was in a place that certainly forbids, and not in a place that forbids only out of doubt [Taz, sub-section 6]. It has already been explained in section 22 which place certainly forbids, and this is not a common matter; therefore, one should rule like our teacher, the Beit Yosef [see Shach there, that the Rashba was lenient even with a peeled egg since there is no broth, and he wrote that the piece upon which the egg is placed is forbidden, see there].

He further wrote in section 7: Addled eggs—meaning they have spoiled and become agitated like a bed—even if the hen sat upon them for many days, it is permitted to eat them, provided that one throws away the blood. Thus far his words. The explanation of these matters is that these are eggs that the hen did not produce from a male, but rather they were "warmed from the ground," and a chick will never be born from them. In the Gemara [64b] it was stated that this is a law for a "fine soul" who is not fastidious; he may eat them even though they are repulsive due to the hen sitting for many days and the eggs spoiling and becoming murky until they form threads. Nevertheless, they do not carry the prohibition of "do not make yourselves detestable," and whoever is able to eat them may eat them [Rashi's commentary there]. However, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch naturally infer from this that they contain no prohibition regarding the blood found upon them, as is common with eggs upon which the hen sits for a long time. Even if the blood is found in a place that would normally forbid it, it does not forbid the egg, because the formation of an embryo is not applicable here since it will never discharge a chick. Nevertheless, one throws away the blood according to the law of any other egg where blood is found in a place that does not forbid the egg, as has been explained. Similarly, eggs that come from a male are permitted when they are addled if they contain no blood. They wrote in the name of the Geonim that eggs upon which a hen sat for three days involve a concern of detestability for one who is fastidious [Shach subsection 15, and the difficulty of the Beit Yosef is resolved, see there].

It is permitted to eat boiled or roasted eggs even though it is impossible to check afterward if they contain blood, for we follow the majority that do not contain blood. Similarly, when beating eggs into a food or a dough, it is not required by the law to see if they contain blood or not. Nevertheless, the widespread custom in all the dispersions of Israel is to be stringent when beating eggs to see if they contain blood or not; but if they did not see, it does not hinder. And know that the custom among us is to grease the Shabbat challot with eggs, and if after the greasing blood is found in the egg or on its shell, one must remove the grease. And if it is after the baking, one scrapes the challot slightly like a thin peel in the place where they greased it, and we do not forbid the challot because greasing is merely a negligible amount. And this reasoning is in Pesachim [10a] regarding the greasing of the Pesach offering; see there.

Fish blood is permitted for consumption, and even though it is permitted, nevertheless, if one collected it in a vessel it is forbidden due to the appearance of the eye. Therefore, if it is recognizable that it is fish blood, such as if there are scales in it or the like, it is permitted. And know that the prohibition of the appearance of the eye applies even to a rabbinic prohibition if it is in public, and regarding a Torah prohibition it is forbidden even in the innermost chambers [Bach], and so it appears in the Shas in many places. And the blood of locusts is like the blood of fish.

And know that the words of the Rambam are very puzzling in what he wrote in chapter 6, and this is his wording: Therefore, the blood of kosher fish and grasshoppers is permitted to be eaten, and even if one gathered it in a vessel and drank it, it is permitted. Thus far his words. And this is against an explicit Gemara in Keritot [21b], that specifically when there are scales in it is it permitted, and without this it is forbidden. And the sages of the generations have already questioned him, and there are those who wished to justify his words, but there is no substance to them, unless he had a different version of the text, for indeed the plain meaning of the Gemara's words there is puzzling, as our teachers the Tosafot wrote there. Or perhaps because the author of this statement there is Rava, and he follows his consistent reasoning throughout the Shas that whatever they forbade due to marit ayin is forbidden even in the innermost chambers. And there are some of the early authorities who ruled not in accordance with Rava [Tosafot Shabbat 65a and Avodah Zarah 12 in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, see there]. And also in the Yerushalmi it is found that several Mishnayot disagree with Rava [Tosafot Chullin 41a]. And the Rambam in chapter 23 of Shabbat ruled like Rava, and in chapter 5 of Yom Tov ruled not like Rava, see there. And perhaps his opinion is that we do not establish the law so except in severe matters regarding Shabbat and Avodah Zarah, as one of the poskim wrote [Shach in the name of Rabbeinu Yerucham in the first chapter of Avodah Zarah]. And therefore, regarding blood, which one does not drink in public, and also a person's soul is repulsed by other types of blood, therefore he was not concerned for it. And it still requires further investigation.

Human blood is forbidden by rabbinic law if it has separated, and one is struck with a lash of rebellion, but the blood of the teeth one may swallow and need not refrain. If one bit into bread or into another type of food and found blood upon it, he scrapes away the blood and afterwards eats, for it has separated. This is the wording of the Rambam there, and it implies that it is a complete rabbinic prohibition. However, the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch is that the prohibition is only because of marit ha-ayin, see there. And there is a practical halachic difference for the poskim who rule not in accordance with Rav, as I wrote in the previous section; if so, according to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it would be permitted in private, but according to the Rambam who prohibited it as a complete prohibition, it is forbidden even in private. And this is how we hold. Furthermore, most of the poskim ruled like Rav in every place. And this blood does not render a mixture forbidden.

And know that there are animals where occasionally in the milk that was milked there are drops of blood, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. And there is one who wishes to forbid all the milk on the grounds that since blood is decomposed and becomes milk, and here the blood has not yet transformed into milk, therefore all the milk still has the status of blood upon it [Sefer Tuv Ta'am ve-Da'at]. And these are astonishing words, for if so, all the milk would have to be red. Furthermore, many times we see with our own senses that from one teat it is blood and from the other three teats it is complete milk, and in truth it is some illness that prevails in this teat. Therefore, when this occurs, one lets the milk stand for several hours until all the redness falls to the bottom, and afterwards one pours the milk into another vessel until the point close to the redness, and the blood with all the redness is poured out and the vessel is rinsed. And if the blood stood with the milk for a full twenty-four hour period, it is considered kavush like cooked, and all the milk is forbidden along with the vessel if there is not sixty in the milk against the blood [and so I have received according to the ruling of the giant of the generation in my youth, not to rule like the aforementioned Sefer Tuv Ta'am ve-Da'at, and so I rule consistently as I have written].