Siman 86

Our sages, of blessed memory, examined the difference between the eggs of a tahor bird and the eggs of a tamei bird and found that if both its ends are rounded or pointed, or if the albumen was on the inside and the yolk was on the outside, it is certainly the egg of a tamei bird. And even if the seller says that they are from such-and-such a bird, and we recognize that bird to be tahor, we do not rely on him; even if he is presumed to be of upright character, for he is lying because it is impossible for it to be so. And even if two witnesses come and swear that it is from a tahor bird, they are false witnesses and wish to cause a stumbling block through a prohibition. And likewise, if the albumen and the yolk are mixed with one another, it is the egg of a sheretz [Gemara], and no testimony in the world is effective to permit it. And if its one end was rounded and its other end was pointed, and the albumen is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside, this is the egg of a tahor bird. Nevertheless, it is not an absolute sign because there are also some species of tamei birds that are equal to tahor ones in this sign, as our sages, of blessed memory, said [64a] that there is the egg of a raven which is similar to that of a dove; that is to say, there is a difference between them in their form and they are recognizable as to which is from the tahor and which is from the tamei, but in the sign of rounded and pointed they are equal, and likewise in the albumen being on the outside and the yolk on the inside. And it is possible that there are other tamei species that are equal to tahor ones in the sign of rounded and pointed and in the albumen and yolk, and therefore this is not an absolute sign.

A case came before one of the great authorities regarding an egg that was albumen without a yolk, and he declared it treif [Pri Chadash subsection 5 in the name of Rikash]. However, one of the natural scientists wrote as follows: When a hen ceases to lay, the final egg will be very small and contains only albumen alone, and sometimes a small egg is found inside a large one. According to this, an egg that has only albumen alone, or one that has two albumens and yolks, should be permitted [ibid.]. Most birds lay only once a day, but there is a hen that produces eggs twice a day and dies quickly. There are some that produce two yolks, which are from two seeds, and from those eggs twin chicks with two heads and four legs will emerge, but they will not emerge alive. This is if there is a membrane separating the two yolks; however, if there is no membrane between them, it will produce one chick with one head and four legs. Some say that if there is a membrane between them, separate twins will be born [ibid. in the name of Sha'ar HaShamayim]. Most hens do not lay more than one egg at a time, but on rare occasions there are those that lay two eggs, and there are those who are careful not to eat it according to the testament of Rabbi Yehuda HeChasid, of blessed memory.

The mating of the rooster with the hen is only by day and not by night, and therefore she only lays eggs by day and not by night. But the egg that is not from a rooster, but rather she warms herself in the ground and produces eggs—those eggs she produces both by day and by night. And the eggs from a rooster are better than eggs from the ground [Beitzah 7a]. And in a place where there is a rooster, she does not produce from the ground, only from the rooster [ibid.]. And up to sixty houses from the rooster she hears his voice and will not produce from the ground, provided that a river without a bridge does not intervene [ibid.]. And sometimes she crosses even without a bridge if there is a small passage over the width of the river [ibid.].

And since there is no definitive sign in eggs, the Tur therefore wrote, and this is his wording: The signs of eggs to recognize that they are from a pure bird are that one end is blunt and rounded and its other end is sharp and rounded, and the white is on the outside and the yolk is on the inside; and this is not a definitive sign to rely upon to purchase from the gentiles, but rather it is effective for this: that if they possess a sign of purity, we ask the seller from what bird they are; if he says from such-and-such a bird, and we recognize it to be pure, we purchase from him. But if he said generally "from a pure bird" and does not mention its name, we do not purchase from him. And the Rambam wrote that even if he said "from such-and-such a bird and it is pure," it is only effective to purchase from an Israelite, but from a gentile one does not purchase unless we recognize it and have a definitive recognition regarding them that they are the eggs of such-and-such a pure bird. And it appears that one should not distinguish between a gentile and a suspect Israelite. Thus far his words.

The explanation of the matters is as follows: below in siman 119, the Tur ruled that an ordinary person from Israel is trusted even regarding a Torah prohibition to sell meat and cheese and the like, and only if he is suspected is he not trusted. This is the opinion of most of the poskim. However, the Rambam in chapter 11 of Ma'achalot Assurot, law 25, ruled that regarding an ordinary person, if he is not established in kashrut—meaning that we know clearly that he is a kosher man—one may not buy wine, meat, or cheese from him; see there. According to this, here too they follow their respective positions: for the Tur, regarding an Israelite, nothing is required, and that which they said in the Gemara [ibid.] regarding one who says "this is from such-and-such a pure bird," this refers to Kutim according to the version of the text in the Gemara there; see there. The Rambam, according to his position, requires even an ordinary Israelite to say "this is from such-and-such a pure bird," and he holds that for a Kuti this is of no avail. Regarding a suspected Israelite, even the Tur agrees, as he wrote in siman 119. This is why he concludes: "And it appears that one should not distinguish between a Kuti and a suspected Israelite." And this is the explanation: that regarding a suspected Israelite, he agrees that he must say "this is from such-and-such a pure bird" like a Kuti [and this is similar to the second explanation of the Beit Yosef in the name of the Ran, and the words of the Bach are astonishing, and also the words of the Derisha are not understood and are forced, and it is clear as I have written, and examine it closely].

And the reason that when he says generally "of a pure bird" he is not believed is because it is impossible to clarify if he lies, and he is not afraid; but when he says "of such-and-such bird," and when it is clarified that it does not resemble that bird he will be caught in his lie, and he will be afraid to lie. And even though it has been explained that even among the impure there are those that resemble the pure, this is only regarding being blunt and sharp and the white and the yolk; but nevertheless, in their form they are different, as I wrote at the end of section 1. [So wrote the Ran, and also the Rashba wrote similarly; see the Beit Yosef].

And there are those who were precise regarding the Tur in this, for he wrote: If he says, "from such-and-such a bird," and we recognize it as being tahor, we purchase from him; but if he said generally, "from a tahor bird," and does not mention it by name, we do not purchase from him. Thus far his words. And why did he not state a greater novelty—that even when he said, "of such-and-such a bird," if we do not recognize it as being tahor, we do not purchase from him? For this would be similar to the first clause, a matter and its opposite. And there is one who answered that presumably when he mentions its name, we recognize it [Perishah, for birds are not similar to fish, as birds are known]. And there is one who wrote that the Tur intentionally wrote thus to instruct us that two requirements are needed: that he say "of such-and-such a bird," and second, that the bird be common among us; but when it is not common, even if they know it is tahor, he is not afraid and will lie [Taz, subsection 2]. And behold, it is possible that this law is true, that regarding birds that are not common we do not rely on his words; but the words of the Tur are simple, for this is a greater novelty: it is not only when he says "of such-and-such a bird" and we do not recognize it, for it is obvious that we have nothing at all to rely upon, but even if he says explicitly "of a tahor bird," if he does not mention it by name, it is forbidden [and so wrote the Bach]. And furthermore, the first clause of the Tur teaches us a novelty: that even though he does not mention "tahor," nevertheless, since he mentions its name and we recognize it, it is permitted; and the latter clause teaches us a novelty: that even if he mentions "tahor," if he does not mention the species, we do not rely on him. But in the opposite of the first clause, where he says "of such-and-such a bird" and does not mention "tahor" and we do not recognize it, it is obvious and clear that it is forbidden, for behold, he himself does not even say that it is tahor, and upon what do we have to rely and to eat?

And know that the words of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, require investigation, for our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote, and this is his wording: Therefore, one asks the Israelite hunter who sells them; if he said to him, "it is from such-and-such a bird," and we recognize that this bird is tahor, he relies upon him. But if he said, "it is from a tahor bird," and did not state its name, he does not rely upon him. Therefore, one does not take eggs from the idolaters unless he recognizes them and has a distinct recognition of them that they are the eggs of such-and-such a tahor bird, etc. Thus far his words. And this is according to the system of the Rambam. Yet later, at the beginning of siman 119, he ruled explicitly that only regarding a suspected Israelite is he not to be believed, but an ordinary Israelite is believed; see there. And also regarding our teacher, the Rema, who emended "or an idolater," meaning that even an idolater is believed when saying "it is from such-and-such a tahor bird" and we recognize it to be tahor, and it does not require a distinct recognition [Shach, subsection 2]. And this is not like the Tur and not like the Rambam, for according to the Tur, regarding an Israelite nothing is required, and according to the Rambam, this is not effective regarding an idolater, as has been explained. However, for him it can be said that regarding the law, he holds like the Tur, as this is the opinion of most poskim [ibid.]; but because at the beginning of siman 119 he was concerned for the opinion of the Rambam, where he wrote there: And some say even from one who is not suspected, only that we do not recognize him as being established in fitness, it is forbidden to buy from him wine or other things where there is concern for a prohibition, thus far his words; therefore, he was concerned here as well for the opinion of the Rambam. But regarding our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is difficult.

And also regarding the words of the Rambam, which are the same as the wording of the Shulchan Aruch, I have a difficulty with what he wrote: "he asks an Israelite hunter who sells it," etc. What is the relevance of a hunter here? In the Gemara [63b] and in the Tosefta chapter 3, a hunter is not mentioned at all regarding eggs, only regarding birds was a hunter mentioned in the Gemara, see there. And it is not the way of the Rambam to change from the wording of the Shas without reason. Therefore, it appears to me that another intention is hidden in his words, and automatically the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is also correct [and even though he did not intend this, as is apparent from his great work, we have already written in siman 10 that with the help of Heaven our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, were assisted to align with the halacha]:

For behold, the early authorities raised a difficulty: since the Sages, of blessed memory, said [ibid.] that we do not concern ourselves with eggs lest it be the egg of a nevelah or a terefah, as will be explained, due to the reason that the majority of eggs are kosher, if so, why do we concern ourselves with those of impure birds? And they answered that we combine the minority of impure birds with the minority of terefot and it becomes a majority or half-and-half [the Ran, and see the Rashba ibid. who rejected this]. And in truth, this is not sufficient, for behold, in both cases there is a majority of pure birds and a majority that are not terefot; if so, it is two minorities against two majorities. However, our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote [ibid.] that it is possible that within one species of impure birds there are many types, as the Sages, of blessed memory, said: there are one hundred impure birds in the East and all of them are of the species of ayah [ibid.]. Furthermore, behold the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch and all the early poskim wrote that nowadays we buy eggs from any person because the eggs of impure birds are not common among us. And it must be understood: has the world changed since the time of the Shas? Behold, the world follows its custom. And they wrote this because we see in the whole world that they buy eggs without specification, and they were forced to say so; but how much difficulty is there in this.

Therefore, for the Rambam all of this was difficult, and he explained the words of the Gemara and the Tosefta as not dealing at all with ordinary eggs, but rather dealing with a hunter who hunts birds in the forests and in the deserts. And just as regarding the bird itself it was explained in the Gemara that the hunter must be expert in them and in their names, so too regarding eggs from species that are hunted, it follows that expertise in the birds is required, and they did not touch upon this because of trustworthiness. And one should not ask according to this: if so, why do we need to recognize that it is a pure bird, for behold it is enough when he says that it is a pure bird? For in truth, in the Rambam this wording is not clarified, as the Rambam wrote in this wording: "If he said to him, 'It is of such-and-such bird and it is pure,'" see there. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote this wording from the Tur which deals with a Cuthean, and already one of the great Acharonim [Pri Chadash, subsection 3] criticized him on this matter. And so it is explicitly proven from his wording where he wrote: "And if he said to him that it is of a pure bird and did not tell him its name, he does not rely on him," thus far his words; but if he told him its name, he relies on him. And perhaps our teacher, the Beit Yosef, would explain that since he told him its name, it will automatically become known to him whether it is pure or not. Therefore, regarding a Cuthean, nothing is effective until he recognizes it with a distinct sign. And all of this is regarding eggs that are not common, but regarding ordinary eggs, nothing is needed, and the time of the Talmud has not changed from this time. [And I wondered at the Peleti, subsection 2, who wrote: "This is the opinion of the Rambam, who holds that specifically a suspected Israelite is afraid etc.," thus far his words. Where did he see that it deals with one who is suspected? For behold, the Beit Yosef explicitly wrote in the name of Rabbi Levi ibn Habib to divide into three categories: one who is suspected, an ordinary Israelite, and one presumed to be of upright status. And the Rambam does not have the version "from the idolaters," and in the Tosefta it is also not present, see there. Nevertheless, it also deals with an idolater, and each according to his law as the Rambam wrote. And this is why the Baraita concludes, "and we do not concern ourselves neither because of nevelot etc.," and regarding an Israelite this is not applicable. Therefore, the Gemara rightly asks on page 64: "And in such a case, do we buy from them? But was it not taught: We do not sell the egg of a terefah etc.?" For this is an overt contradiction to the Rambam, as the Lechem Mishneh and the Kreiti U'Pleti wrote, and they did not provide a healing, see there. And so in the end of the chapter "Kol HaBasar" it is explicitly proven that it deals with an idolater, and to this the Shach hinted in subsection 2. And according to this, everything is settled, and everything refers to eggs that are not common; and delve into it].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch and all the Rishonim wrote that now we are accustomed to take eggs without specification from any person, whether an Israelite or a gentile, because the eggs of an unclean bird are not common among us, and it is not the habit of any person to sell them because the unclean species are not common among us [Magid Mishneh in the name of the Rashba]. Furthermore, we only take the eggs of a chicken or a goose, and they are recognized by their appearance [ibid.]. This is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2: that this applies specifically to common eggs, meaning the eggs of a chicken or geese and the like; but one may not take eggs from birds that are no more common than unclean birds until one sees the signs, as has been explained. Thus far his words. And according to the Rambam, from a gentile, signs are of no avail, only appearance, as I have written [the intention of the Beit Yosef is also like the Rema and he comes to explain, but the Shach in subsection 6 understood that he comes to disagree; and so the Taz in subsection 5 understood regarding the Rema that when it was broken unintentionally in our presence one should not buy from the gentile, and he challenged him, see there; and all of this is not compelling, for his words are like the words of the Magid Mishneh that we brought, and examine this].

The egg of a nevelah, such as if it died and they found eggs in it, or if it became nevelah through slaughtering, and similarly the egg of a terefah, such as if they slaughtered it and it was found to be terefah and eggs were found in it—even if it became terefah close to its slaughtering—the eggs are forbidden. Even if the egg was completely finished with a hard shell, it is forbidden. Similarly, if it laid an egg and they slaughtered it immediately and it was found to be terefah in a manner where there is no doubt that at the time it laid the egg it was terefah, the egg is forbidden. Know that the egg of a terefah is forbidden by Torah law, as we learned in Eduyot [Chapter 5], because it was finished in a state of prohibition and the egg is considered like her body; when the hen becomes terefah, the egg is also forbidden. This is not similar to the offspring of an animal, for when it is born from a terefah it is permitted because it has its own slaughtering. However, regarding the egg of a nevelah, the prohibition is rabbinic when it was finished in its shell, for it is impossible that it was finished after death, but they were stringent regarding the prohibition of nevelah. And even though regarding the matter of meat and milk they were not stringent—for the sages, of blessed memory, said [Beitzah 6b]: one who slaughters a hen and finds finished eggs in it, they are permitted to be eaten with milk—nevertheless, regarding nevelah they were stringent. Furthermore, we decree it on account of the egg of a terefah [Tosafot Chullin 58a]. Also, regarding a terefah, when it becomes terefah close to its slaughtering, the prohibition is rabbinic, for it was not finished in a state of prohibition, but the rabbis did not differentiate [Beit Yosef in the name of the Rashba].

Since an egg from a nevelah is of rabbinic origin and an egg from a terefah is from the Torah, therefore, in a case of doubt whether it is an egg from a nevelah or an egg from a slaughtered bird, it is permitted, as it is a rabbinic doubt and we rule leniently. However, in a case of doubt whether it is from a terefah or from a slaughtered bird, it is forbidden, as a doubt regarding a Torah prohibition is ruled stringently. According to this, in a case where it became a terefah close to the time of slaughter, where the prohibition is of rabbinic origin, one should be lenient; however, it appears more correct to say that we judge it as a Torah prohibition, for the sages did not establish their words according to varying measures [Nimukei Yosef]. And since a doubt regarding an egg from a nevelah is permitted, therefore, any doubt regarding slaughter where we maintain that it is like a nevelah, its egg is permitted [Shach, subsection 11].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 3: An egg of a nevela or a terefa, even if they were mixed with a thousand, all of them are forbidden and it is not nullified by a majority or by sixty, because an egg is a "thing that is counted" and is not nullified. And there is one who wrote the reason is because of "beriah," [Levush] but in siman 100 it will be explained that only when it contains a chick is it a beriah, for there is no beriah without a soul, see there. Our teachers, the latter authorities [Shach subsection 10 and Taz subsection 7], wondered: Did not our teacher, the Beit Yosef, rule later in siman 110 that a thing whose way is to be counted is nullified? And even according to the one who holds it is not nullified, nevertheless, eggs, which are sometimes sold by count and sometimes not by count [Rashi, Beitzah 50b, s.v. Mai], certainly are nullified, as is explained there. However, regarding this it is possible to say that since nowadays everyone sells by count, it is not nullified [Pri Chadash subsection 9]. But regarding our teacher, the Beit Yosef, it is difficult [perhaps he holds that since some say an egg is also a beriah, even though we do not rule so, nevertheless, since it is also a "thing that is counted" they were stringent regarding it, and it requires further study]. And in siman 110, section 5, more will be explained regarding this with the help of Heaven.

And there is a question regarding this: why did they act stringently regarding an egg of a nevelah, which is rabbinic, in a mixture? Granted that something that is not nullified, such as a biryah or a piece worthy of being served to guests and the like, which are not nullified even in a rabbinic prohibition, is not nullified, as I wrote in siman 110; nevertheless, regarding an egg, where even in a treifah, which is from the Torah, it does not possess a proper flavor, why is it not nullified as I have written? And what did they see to act stringently even in a nevelah, which is rabbinic? And it seems to me that since the sages, of blessed memory, acted stringently regarding an egg of a nevelah even if it was completed in its shell—which they did not act stringently upon regarding meat and milk, as I wrote in section 13—and equated it entirely to a treifah, therefore the poskim also acted stringently regarding this in a mixture as well, just as in a treifah.

And know that there is one who says that in a case of a doubtful terefah that was mixed, it is also not nullified; for even though regarding a matter that will become permitted they were not stringent with the egg of a doubtful terefah, as I wrote in siman 102, nevertheless regarding a matter that is counted one should be stringent, just as the Tur was stringent at the end of siman 57 regarding a doubtful animal clawed by a predator that was mixed, see there [Bach], and as will be explained in siman 110 that whenever the initial doubt is forbidden by the Torah, it is not permitted in a mixture, see there. However, from the wording of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch it is explicitly clear that only a certainty is forbidden and not a doubt. And it appears to me that their reasoning is that since the entire principle that the egg is not nullified has no sound reason, as I wrote, therefore we should not be stringent in its doubt, and it is nullified by a majority according to the law of a dry substance in a dry substance; and it requires further study for the practical law.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 4: If one struck a hen on its tail and it dropped its egg before it was finished, it is permitted and there is no concern of ever min hachai. And the Rashba wrote: In what case does this apply? When it is not attached to the sinews; but if it were attached to the sinews, it is like flesh that separates from the living and is forbidden. Thus far the words of the Tur. And when it is not attached to the sinews, even if it was not finished with its outer shell, it is not like flesh from the living. And even though regarding the matter of meat and milk we permit it when the albumen and the yolk are finished even if they are attached to the sinews, as I wrote in siman 87, nevertheless regarding the matter of nevelah they were more stringent, as I wrote in section 13 [see Pri Chadash subsection 11 who brought the Yerushalmi at the end of the tenth chapter of Terumot: Eggs that have formed a skin, behold these are forbidden; however, in the Rokeach siman 447 the version is "permitted," and as the Tosafot in Chullin 64b, starting with the words "Giyulei," brought the version: Eggs that have rotted are forbidden, meaning that it rotted into a chick, see there].

A chick that was born from the egg of a terefah is permitted, because the chick is not formed from the egg until after it has decomposed, and then it is merely dust. So it is stated in the Gemara [Temurah 31a]. And there is a question regarding this: how do you find a case for this law? For behold, the sages, of blessed memory, said in Beitzah [6b] that an egg found in the entrails of a hen does not grow chicks, for the growing of chicks is only from an egg that emerged during life from the entrails of its mother, see there. And it must be said that you find a case where she laid the egg and they slaughtered her immediately and she was found to be a terefah, and the terefah status existed previously. And according to this, the words of the Tur and Shulchan Arukh section 7 are very puzzling, as they wrote: A chick that was born from the egg of a nevelah or a terefah is permitted. Thus far their words. For behold, regarding a nevelah, you only find it when she died or there was a disqualification in the shechitah and it was found in her entrails, and behold, it does not grow chicks. And it must be said that due to the flow of the discussion of terefah they mentioned nevelah, and it was not precise. And the Rambam wrote this law at the end of chapter 13 of Issurei Mizbe'ach, that a chick from the egg of a terefah is permitted for the altar, see there, and he did not mention nevelah. And likewise in chapter 3 of Ma'akhalot Assurot he wrote this law and did not mention nevelah, see there.

And know that our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this law: And there are those who say that we do not practice this, and ab initio one should be careful. Thus far his words. And many rejected this, for behold, the law is explicit in the Gemara [Levush, and Shach subsection 21, and Pri Chadash]. And he also, in his book Darkhei Moshe, wondered at this, see there. And there are those who uphold this law on the grounds that it is forbidden to delay the egg so that one does not come to eat it [Taz subsection 14], but we are not to innovate decrees of our own accord [Pri Chadash and Nekudat HaKesef]. And there is one who says that it is like nullifying a prohibition ab initio [Pitchei Teshuva in the name of Ya'avetz], but there is no reason for this, for is he nullifying it with permitted matter? And all prohibitions are permitted when they become mere dust. [And the Maggid Mishneh wrote in chapter 3 of Ma'akhalot Assurot, halacha 11, that the egg of an impure bird upon which a pure bird sat is forbidden and one is lashed for it, since its species is impure, and it is not similar to the chick of a treifa egg, see there. And it is stated explicitly so in Chullin 140a, that a pure bird crouching upon the eggs of an impure bird is exempt from the commandment of sending the nest, as it is written "take for yourself" and not for your dogs, see there. And the words of the Ran, of blessed memory, in the first chapter, beginning with the words "Hezekiah said: From where do we know that an impure egg etc." are very puzzling and have no solution; and what the Pri Chadash wrote in this siman, subsection 18, to explain his words, I do not understand, see there and examine carefully].

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 10: One may not sell the egg of a nevelah or a terefah to a non-Jew, lest he turn around and sell them to an Israelite. What should he do? He should beat it in a bowl and sell it to him, for then an Israelite will certainly not purchase it from him. In what case does this apply? When they see it beaten in his hand, for there is a concern that an Israelite sold it to him because it is terefah. But it is permitted to purchase from him bread that was kneaded with eggs in a place where they are accustomed to eat their bread, since they do not see it beaten in his hand. Thus far their words. And the Tur added, saying: And we also do not concern ourselves with the matter of blood, for the majority of eggs do not contain blood, as we eat soft-boiled eggs and do not concern ourselves with the matter of blood. Thus far his words. And that which we look at the time we beat raw eggs in a bowl is because whenever it is possible to clarify, we clarify, and not because according to the law there is a concern regarding blood, as I wrote in siman 66.

And there is one of the great authorities who wondered about them regarding that which they also forbade selling an egg of a nevela to him, for behold its prohibition is only rabbinic as has been written, and why should we decree regarding a rabbinic prohibition lest he sell it to an Israelite [Noda BiYehuda, Second Edition, siman 187]. And in truth, in the Gemara [64a] nevela is not mentioned, see there. And we have already written in section 19 that the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch in this explanation mentioned nevela as a matter of routine alongside treifa even in a matter where it is not applicable as has been written there. And it would be possible to say that here too it is so, but it does not seem correct to say so in a matter that they write as a ruling. And it seems more likely as we wrote in section 16, that they were stringent regarding a mixture of an egg of a nevela because they saw that the Sages of blessed memory equated it to an egg of a treifa, see there, and here too it can be said so. Nevertheless, it is difficult, for granted that the law of a mixture is not explicit in the Gemara, but this law, is it not explicit in the Gemara? And how is it in their power to add to the words of the Gemara? Therefore, the first answer seems correct, and the law requires further study, and one must deliberate on this.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And some say that now that we are not careful regarding their bread, one should not sell him a forbidden egg even if it is beaten, for we fear perhaps he will mix it with bread and sell it to an Israelite; and such is the custom in a place where they are accustomed to make the bread with eggs and they treat it as permitted to buy it, but in other places there is no concern. Thus far his words. And the Acharonim took issue with him, for even in a place where they are not careful regarding their bread, it is permitted to sell them beaten eggs, for we do not fear to such an extent [Shach and Pri Chadash]. And know that it is forbidden to buy beaten eggs from them in any place, even when we recognize that they are from a pure bird and we do not see blood in them; nevertheless, since the defect is before us in that they are beaten, we must fear that an Israelite sold them eggs from nevelot and terefot, and even in a place where they do not sell them beaten eggs as well, nevertheless we fear perhaps they sold them to him; and so the great Acharonim agreed [ibid.].

We hold that a terefah cannot give birth [58a]. However, when it is a certain terefah, it avails nothing even if it gave birth, as written in siman 57 regarding twelve months, see there. But in a hen that is a doubtful terefah, there is an examination by means of laying eggs, and that is because the conception of a hen is twenty-one days [Bekhorot 8a], for after it conceives from the rooster, its egg remains to be completed until twenty-one days [Rashi]. Therefore, if it is not currently laying eggs and after twenty-one days it lays eggs, it is a sign that it is kosher, for had it been a terefah it would not have conceived; but before twenty-one days, when it lays, there is no proof, for it conceived before the doubt of terefot occurred to it, and the terefot will not spoil the conception that preceded it such that it would not lay the eggs. Therefore, it is necessary to wait twenty-one days from the day it ceases to lay eggs, and then if it lays, it becomes kosher. And automatically, if at the time the doubt of terefot occurred it is laying eggs, one must wait until it ceases laying from this load and wait twenty-one days as I have written. And these eggs from the previous load, whatever it lays after the doubt of terefot, it is forbidden to eat them, and one shall wait until it is clarified as I have written, or he shall scramble them in a bowl and sell them to a non-Jew, for it is forbidden to sell whole eggs from a terefah or a doubtful terefah as has been explained previously. And so too a hen that has never yet given birth, one shall wait twenty-one days from the time the doubt of terefot occurred, as I have written. And they are permitted to delay the time until twenty-one days, and we do not fear a mishap as we feared in siman 57 regarding waiting twelve months, for there it was a long time, but for a short time we do not fear. And there is one who feared even for the time of twenty-one days [see Be'er Heitev in the name of Knesset HaGedolah], but there is no basis for this stringency, for the sages, of blessed memory, did not decree upon it. And even if it began to lay within twenty-one days, such that one must wait for the entire laying of this load and not use the eggs and wait afterwards twenty-one days as I have written, nevertheless it is permitted to do so, for since the sages, of blessed memory, did not decree upon it, we do not have to issue decrees from our own minds.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 8: An egg of an impure bird in which the bird has begun to form, one is lashed for it on account of the "swarming thing of the birds"; and eggs of a pure bird in which the bird has begun to form and one ate it, he is struck with lashes of rebellion. Thus far their words. And this is from the words of the Rambam in chapter 3, law 8, as the Tur wrote in his name. And behold, the law of an egg of an impure bird is not found explicitly in the Gemara, and only eggs of a pure bird that began to form are found in the Gemara [64b], and they supported it from the verse "every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth," and for the formation of a swarming thing one is liable for lashes from this verse "every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth." And according to this, the Rashba, of blessed memory, raised a difficulty in his book Torat HaBayit [second house, gate 2], that even if we make one liable for lashes for the formation of an impure bird, the liability should be on account of "swarming thing of the earth" and not on account of "swarming thing of the birds," just as the sages, of blessed memory, supported the formation of a pure bird from this verse. And indeed, one of the Rishonim ruled accordingly [Sefer HaTerumah].

The reasoning of the Rambam is that certainly regarding an impure bird, whose species is an impure species and for which one is lashed on account of a winged swarming creature, so too its embryo is also a winged swarming creature. Just as the embryo of a swarming creature is like a swarming creature, so too the embryo of an impure bird is like an impure bird. However, regarding the embryo of a pure bird, the name "winged swarming creature" does not apply to its embryo even as a mere asmakhta, for in any case, if its embryo is like the bird itself, it is completely pure, as indeed it is according to the Torah. Therefore, when the sages wished to make an asmakhta for this and say that it is not like the bird itself, they necessarily had to give it a completely different name, such as a "creature that swarms upon the earth." Their intention was that during the entire time of its embryonic development, it is a species of swarming creature and not a species of bird [and perhaps this is what the Ra'ah intended in Bedek HaBayit there, and Pri Megadim section 20, see there]. Also, the opinion of Rashi there [starting with the words "HaShoretz"] appears to be like the Rambam, see there.

The opinion of the Rashba himself is that there is in this neither the prohibition of winged swarming things nor the prohibition of swarming things of the earth; for a winged swarming thing is only such when it emerges into the air like a flying bird, and swarming things of the earth do not apply to an egg, which is not a product of the ground. It is only regarding swarming things that one is liable for the embryo because, regarding the matter of impurity, the embryo transmits impurity, see there. The opinion of the Rambam is that those which grow while attached, such as swarming things within fruit, are not called winged swarming things until they fly; however, this, whose species is already a bird, and the egg is from a non-kosher bird, immediately it is like a winged swarming thing. This is like the embryo of a swarming thing, which is immediately like a swarming thing even though it has not yet swarmed upon the earth; so too, the embryo of a non-kosher bird, even though it has not yet flown, is like the non-kosher bird [the Maggid Mishneh there]. And one should not ask regarding the Rambam: what have we gained by being liable for its embryo due to the prohibition of winged swarming things, given that an egg from a non-kosher bird is also forbidden by the Torah? For it can be said that the Rambam follows his own reasoning which we wrote in siman 81, section 5, that for the egg of a non-kosher bird one is not liable for lashes, see there; but for its embryo one is liable for lashes [and there is also a practical difference regarding the warning].

There are some among the Rishonim who wrote that even though one is not liable by Torah law for the formation of a pure bird, as I have written, nevertheless, after the formation when it has become meat, one is liable for it because of nevelah as long as it has not emerged into the air of the world; and even if one took it from the egg and slaughtered it, it is nevelah [Sefer HaTerumah]. For in the Gemara there is a dispute regarding a chick whose eyes have not opened, and we establish that it is permitted, and this is all when it has emerged into the air of the world; but while it is in the egg, its status is like a nefel and it is nevelah. The Rashba disagrees with this [ibid. in Ma'adanei HaMelekh] and holds that as long as it has not emerged into the air of the world, the name "bird" is not upon it and it is not relevant to call it nevelah. And he brought proof, for if it were not so, why did the sages need to decree upon its formation because of "creeping things of the earth" since it is nevelah? But in truth, they are not related to one another, for at the beginning of its formation there is no meat there and it is not relevant to forbid it because of nevelah, but afterwards when the meat has grown, the name nevelah is relevant to it [see Pri Chadash ibid.]. And in the Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Beitzah [halacha 1] it implies somewhat like the Rashba, see there [and it can be rejected, see there carefully and in the Pri Chadash ibid. and it requires further study, and examine closely].

And one should not ask how it is possible to say that the formation of a pure bird is prohibited by rabbinic law, for the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled in siman 66 that one is liable by Torah law for blood that is the formation of the chick; for it can be said that certainly when there is blood of formation, one is liable by Torah law, and here we are dealing with a case where the blood has already transformed and become a mere mass [Perisha and Shach, subsection 23]. Furthermore, it is not a general rule that there is blood in the formation, and when there is blood one is liable for it by Torah law, and here we are dealing with formation without blood [Taz, ibid., and Pri Chadash, subsection 22].

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 5: An egg of a non-kosher bird that was cooked with others, if it is in its shell, it does not forbid [the others], and if it was peeled, it forbids. If it is perforated, its law is like that of a peeled egg, and one requires sixty-one eggs of permission against it to nullify it, even if it is not whole but rather beaten. If it was cooked in a cooked dish of permission, one requires only sixty from the dish to nullify it. An egg that contains a chick or blood forbids that which is cooked with it even if it is not peeled. The shells of the forbidden item join even with the permitted item to nullify the forbidden item, and certainly the shells of the permitted item. The law of an egg from a treifah or a nevelah is like the law of an egg of a non-kosher bird, for as long as it is not peeled and was cooked with others, it does not forbid, for it is merely the water of eggs. And there are those who say that the law of all eggs is equal and they forbid even if they are not peeled, and so one should act in a place where there is no great loss, but in a case of great loss one may rely on those who are lenient. Thus far their words.

The explanation of their words is that in the Gemara [97b] they said that when an egg is forbidden and was cooked with others, its taste does not forbid, for its discharge of taste is only like mere water. But if it contains a chick or blood on the knot in a place that forbids the entire egg, according to what has been explained in siman 66, its discharge of taste forbids like all other forbidden substances, for the chick or the blood discharge taste, and sixty is required to nullify the taste as with all forbidden substances. And in the Yerushalmi Terumot [Chapter 10] it is stated that specifically when it is in its shell its taste does not forbid, but if it is peeled it forbids. And our Shas does not mention this because most eggs are cooked in their shells. And when it is peeled it forbids even if the others are not peeled [Shach, subsection 15], for the shell prevents the discharge from the forbidden egg, but it does not prevent the absorption by the permitted ones, for absorption is easier than discharge, as in siman 70, that when the pure is salted and the impure is unsalted it is permitted, for the unsalted does not discharge, but when the impure is salted and the pure is unsalted it is forbidden, for the unsalted absorbs. And one should not ask how it is possible to cook a peeled egg such that the body of the egg does not mix with the others, for it can be said that only the hard shell was peeled and the soft membrane remained, and it is possible to cook it and have it remain whole and not mix. And a perforated egg as well, the taste comes through the perforation and it is like a peeled one. And it must be said that what they said in the Gemara, that its taste is only like mere water, is not that in the essence of the egg there is no taste, but rather the taste that exits through the shell is like mere water. And know that when they require sixty, it is required against the entire egg, even in an egg that contains blood; even though the blood is in a portion of it, nevertheless, since it is in the place of formation, there is the taste of blood in the entire egg, and all the more so in an egg that contains a chick. [And this is regarding blood that forbids by the letter of the law, but regarding ordinary blood in eggs where we are stringent as written in siman 66, sixty is not required against its discharge except in a case of a different species, but in its own species it is nullified by a majority even in cooking, just as in their mixture of eggs without cooking as was explained there].

And our Sages, of blessed memory, said [98a] that to nullify an egg one requires sixty-one, and sixty is not sufficient as with all other prohibitions. The Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 15, law 19, explains the reason is because an egg that contains a chick is a biryah, and they were more stringent to add one. According to this, this law does not apply to an egg from a bird that is not kosher or to an egg of a nevelah or terefah, for it is not a biryah. Conversely, there is a stringency according to his reasoning, that even if it was cooked in a cooked dish, one requires sixty-one. However, the Rashba raised a difficulty against him [in Torat HaBayit there]: behold, we are dealing with nullifying its discharge, and what relevance does it being a biryah have? And one must say for the Rambam that even regarding its discharge they were more stringent for this reason [see Kesef Mishneh]. Therefore, the Rashba explained that the reason is because there are large eggs and small eggs, they were more stringent to add one. According to this, this only applies when it was cooked with eggs and not in a cooked dish. Conversely, there is a stringency that even with the egg of an impure bird, or nevelah or terefah, one requires sixty-one. And one does not literally need that many eggs, for the shells join together, but rather this is according to the ratio of the combination one requires sixty-one [Shach, subsection 19]. And there are those among the Rishonim who hold that even when they are not peeled they prohibit, for they hold that what the Gemara says, that they are like mere water, is not according to the conclusion [see Beit Yosef]. And all the poskim disagree with this, and therefore in a case of significant loss one should not be concerned for this [and with this all the words of the Shulchan Aruch are understood, and they ruled like the Rashba, and examine carefully].