Chulin 64
Summary
- Today’s שיעור on מסכת חולין דף סד begins from דף סג עמוד ב and establishes that one may buy eggs from עכו"ם בכל מקום without concern for eggs of נבילות or טריפות, while raising the separate concern that the eggs might be from a non-kosher species and requiring a method of verification. The sugya defines when the seller’s identification is needed, why egg סימנים are insufficient as a standalone דאורייתא proof, and how סימנים function to rule out definite טומאה while still requiring corroboration in borderline cases like עורב eggs resembling יונה eggs. The text then moves through halachic consequences of mixed yolk and white, embryos and מלקות, eggs cooked with non-kosher eggs, ביעי מוזרות and בל תשקצו, the laws of blood spots in eggs, and finally a דרשה from “ואת בת היענה” to prove the egg of a טמא is אסור מן התורה, concluding with an extrapolation to writing names in a גט on one line.
- The ברייתא states לוקחים ביצים מן העובדי כוכבים בכל מקום and treats בכל מקום as permitting purchase even where non-kosher eggs are common, without concern לא משום נבילות ולא משום טריפות. The גמרא asks ודלמא דעוף טמא נינהו and answers in the name of אבוה דשמואל that this applies באומר של עוף פלוני הוא, because the egg can be checked against known eggs of that bird and the עכו"ם will not lie when verification is possible. The ראשונים ask why this is needed if most birds are kosher, and they answer that רוב may refer to types rather than population counts, that non-kosher categories may have many subdivisions or multiply more, that certain locales may have more non-kosher birds, and that the רמב"ן adds a combined concern of non-kosher species together with the significant presence of נבילות and טריפות. The ריב"ש holds that even if relying on רוב is technically valid, there is a special חיוב of להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור requiring conclusive determination, so רוב alone is inadequate.
- The text presents a גירסא attributed to the רמב"ם in which a גוי is never נאמן and the sugya instead addresses reliance on a ישראל חשוד who lacks חזקת כשרות. The ראשונים treat a ישראל with חזקת כשרות as certainly trusted to sell eggs. רבינו תם is presented as treating a ישראל חשוד worse than an עכו"ם, holding that even where an עכו"ם would be trusted under the sugya’s conditions, a ישראל חשוד is never trusted.
- The גמרא asks why the seller cannot simply say של עוף טהור, and it answers אי הכי יכיל לאישתמוטי because without a named species there is no way to test his claim. The גמרא then asks why not rely on checking סימנים, citing the teaching כסימני ביצים כך סימני דגים and correcting it to כך סימני עוברי דגים, with most ראשונים reading עוברי דגים as roe, while the רי"ף has the גירסא קרבי דגים. The ברייתא defines egg סימנים by shape and by the placement of חלבון and חלמון, rules that mixed חלמון וחלבון indicates בידוע שבא משרץ, and the דעת תשובה addresses an egg with only white and no yolk by citing a מחלוקת and leaning to leniency for a small egg because the yolk may not yet have developed. The g’mara answers that reliance on סימנים is blocked in cases like דחתוכה, and then in the case of בטרופה בקערה where the yolk and white are mixed and cannot be evaluated.
- The sugya cites אין מוכרין ביצי טרפה לעובדי כוכבים אלא אם כן טרופה בקערה and concludes לפיכך אין לוקחים מהם ביצה טרופה בקערה. The כרתי ופלתי explains that since a Jew may neither eat a treifa egg nor sell it whole to an עכו"ם lest it be resold to a Jew, the solution is to crack and mix it and then sell it, because Jews are barred from buying such beaten eggs. The רשב"א explains that the גמרא prefers to challenge from a ברייתא rather than from סברא and suggests that without the ברייתא one might have thought to compare beaten eggs to other beaten eggs for verification.
- A מחלוקת ראשונים is presented on whether the restriction regarding unverifiable eggs applies only to eggs themselves or also to foods containing eggs, with תוספות limiting the gezeirah to eggs and the רמב"ן extending it to egg-containing foods. The text addresses *bishul akum* and *pas akum* by stating that when eggs are merely ingredients in bread or cake, the food is governed by *pas akum* rather than *bishul akum*, while a thick egg coating smeared on top creates a *bishul akum* concern and a thin coating leaves room for leniency. The text ties egg powder to a broader מחלוקת: תוספות limits the sugya to a place where most eggs are from kosher birds, while other ראשונים disagree, and this becomes a dispute between the שולחן ערוך, who follows תוספות and permits buying eggs from עכו"ם where eggs are mostly from kosher birds, and the רמ"א, who requires certainty or a method of verification. The ט"ז rejects the רמ"א’s stringency here and supports following the שולחן ערוך, while other אחרונים interpret the רמ"א as stringent only when an egg looks unusual despite being in a mostly-kosher-egg locale. The text concludes that many פוסקים permit egg powder without a הכשר in modern places like the United States where most eggs are from chickens, aside from equipment and additive concerns.
- Rav Zeira resolves the need for the seller’s statement by asserting סימנים לאו דאורייתא and brings proof from רב אסי’s list of שמונה ספיקות birds, arguing that if סימנים were דאורייתא one could resolve those ספקות by inspecting their eggs. The רמב"ן’s approach allows that סימני טמא definitively prove non-kosher origin even if סימני טהור do not conclusively prove kosher. The גמרא explains that some סימנים render an egg ודאי טמאה, while in the case of one rounded end and one tapered end together with חלבון בחוץ וחלמון בפנים, reliance is permitted only when the seller says של עוף פלוני וטהור הוא because eggs of a עורב resemble those of a יונה. Some ראשונים limit this concern to small eggs, citing the יראים that עורב and יונה eggs are very small, while treating normal-sized eggs as not subject to that resemblance concern.
- The sugya states that when חלבו וחלמונו מעורבין זה בזה it is בידוע שהיא ביצת שרץ and explains the halachic purpose as determining that when it has formed and the shell is pierced it is מטמאה כעדשה. The ראשונים state it does not convey טומאה while fully enclosed, and they ask why it is not already prohibited as היוצא מן הטמא טמא, with the רמב"ן and רשב"א framing the point here as liability for מלקות when an embryo forms. תוספות argues eggs function differently in halacha, citing the proof from שילוח הקן שלח תשלח את האם ואת הבנים תקח לך, and concludes that היוצא מן הטמא טמא does not apply to eggs until they develop into an embryo. Ravina challenges the certainty of שרץ by suggesting דילמא דנחש הוא, and Rava responds that if it formed and one ate it he is lוקה משום שרץ השורץ על הארץ. The g’mara notes that even embryos from kosher species are prohibited at that stage, cites the view of רבי אליעזר בן יעקב tying permissibility to opening the eyes versus the חכמים who permit once the shell cracks, and answers that the embryo prohibition in a kosher species is only מדרבנן with the פסוק serving as אסמכתא, while the non-kosher case can generate malkot with proper התראה. The פרי חדש infers from this that the איסור of שרץ השורץ applies even to things that are not גידולי קרקע.
- The ברייתא teaches ביעולי ביצים מותרות, and רש"י explains it as a case where a kosher egg is cooked with a non-kosher egg and the kosher egg remains permitted because no prohibitive taste is transferred. The פרי מגדים frames the issue as whether eggs give no טעם at all or only a טעם קלוש, with a practical difference for דבר שיש לו מתירין that does not become בטל. The ראשונים and פוסקים limit the leniency to eggs in their shells and treat shelled eggs as certainly imparting taste. Other approaches interpret the sugya as permitting eggs removed from inside a bird when they lack גידין and blood vessels connecting them to the bird.
- The text defines ביעי מוזרות as eggs produced through ספנא דארעא, where the hen is stimulated by an external source and the egg can never develop into a chicken, so a hen sitting on it is pointless and makes it disgusting, leading to the rule נפש יפה תאכלם. Other ראשונים apply the term even to regular eggs that were sat upon far longer than normal. The text treats the apparent *bal teshaktzu* issue as subjective when the repugnance depends on knowledge rather than inherent disgust, allowing that what is prohibited for one person may not be prohibited for another in such a case. The rule for a blood spot in a ביצת מוזרת is זורק את הדם ואוכל את השאר, and the text explains that because most eggs בזמן הזה are ספנא דארעא, פוסקים are more lenient about checking when eggs cannot be checked before cooking, while רב משה advises being מחמיר to discard an egg found with blood even though מעיקר הדין it is permitted.
- Rav Yirmiyah rules that permissibility depends on the blood being found על הקשר שלה, identified as the site where the chick develops, while blood found elsewhere raises concern it spread and renders the egg אסור. Dos’tai אבוה דרבי אפטוריקי teaches that the allowance is only when it is found על חלבון שלה, but if found על חלמון שלה even the entire egg is אסורה because דשדיא תכלא בכולה. רש"י reads Dos’tai as agreeing with Rav Yirmiyah and explaining why blood on the yolk signals spread and an embryo-related prohibition, while other ראשונים read Dos’tai as disputing Rav Yirmiyah and instead distinguishing white versus yolk. Rav Geviyaha reports an opposite teaching before Abaye, and Abaye corrects it to the version cited, while the חתם סופר frames the underlying debate as where the embryo begins forming, from the white or the yolk, and ties this to distinctions between kosher and non-kosher eggs.
- Chizkiyah derives that a ביצה טמאה is אסורה מן התורה from the phrase ואת בת היענה, and the text explains the דרשה as treating “בת” as referring to the egg rather than a literal “daughter,” while the g’mara probes whether “בת היענה” could be a species name. The sugya distinguishes verses that call it יענה versus בנות יענה, interprets some usages as descriptive of mourning or dwelling with young, and concludes that in the Torah verse the separation into two words is significant because the פסוק פלגיה לשתי תיבות in a way that could even be written on two lines, unlike the challenge from כדרלעומר where it may be split into two words but not across two lines. The ראשונים and פוסקים extrapolate that when writing a גט one should not place a person’s multiple names on two separate lines, because the names belong to one person and should be written on one line.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions