Previous daf

1)

(a) Based on a Beraisa, we ask why it is not possible to examine the eggs by their Simanim. The Beraisa's statement comparing the Simanim of fish to the Simanim of eggs is unacceptable - because the Siman of fish is fins and scales, something that eggs do not possess.

(b) So we amend the Beraisa to read - the fetuses of fish ...

(c) ... by which the Tana means their eggs.

(a) The Tana defines a Kasher egg as being 'Koderes va'Agolgoles'. We learn from ...

1. ... Koderes - that it is not sufficient for the egg to be a roundish shape (like a cheese or a lentil), even though part of it is flat, but that it must be round like a ball (ke'Kadur') ...
2. ... Ogalgoles - that it must be (not completely round, but) oval.

(b) In additional - it must be round at one end and slightly sharper at the other, to be considered a Kasher egg?

(c) The Tana says that an egg whose yellow ...

1. ... surrounds the white - is Tamei.
2. ... is mixed with the yellow - is that of a Sheretz ...

(d) ... with reference, for example, to the egg of a toad or a lizard.

(a) Nevertheless, Shmuel's father requires the Nochri's testimony, and one cannot simply examine ...

1. ... the shape of eggs - because he is speaking when the eggs have been cut.
2. ... the positioning of the white and the yellow - because he is speaking when they have even been beaten.

(b) This answer is unacceptable however, based on a Beraisa, where the Tana permits selling a Nochri the egg of a bird that is a Tereifah - only if it has been beaten ...

(c) ... because otherwise, we are afraid that he will re-sell it to a Yisrael.

(d) But once the egg has been beaten, a Yisrael is no longer permitted to purchase it from him - a Kashya on our previous answer.

(a) Rebbi Zeira therefore concludes that Simanim are not min ha'Torah, and he proves it from the eight Sefeikos of Rav Asi (cited earlier) - whose status ought otherwise to be determinable by examining their eggs.

(b) The Beraisa describes the Simanim of a Kasher egg - to determine which eggs are Safek Kasher (in which case we will be able to accept the testimony of the Nochri), and which are Vaday forbidden (and we know for sure that the Nochri lied).

(c) In any case, if only Kasher eggs possessed the Simanim described by the Tana, we could rely on them. And the reason that Shmuel father requires the Nochri's testimony is - because of the similarity of a raven's egg to that of a dove.

(a) We learned in the Beraisa that if the white in the yellow are mixed, it is the egg of a Sheretz. We ask on this - what the ramifications of this statement are. What difference does it make whether it is the egg of a Tamei bird or that of a Sheretz, seeing as both are forbidden.

(b) Rav Ukva bar Chama establishes the Beraisa with regards to Tum'as Sheretz - provided the baby has been formed and there is a hole in the egg ...

(c) ... which will then be Metamei - provided it is the size of a lentil.

(d) We refute Rav Ukva bar Chama's answer however - based on the possibility that the egg is that of a snake, which is not subject to Tum'ah.

(a) So Rava establishes the Beraisa with regard to Malkos. The person who eats it is Chayav Malkos because of "Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" - provided the baby Sheretz is already formed.

(b) The difference whether he receives Malkos for eating the egg of a Tamei animal, or a Sheretz - lies in the warning, which must include the source of the Isur that the sinner is about to transgress.

(c) The Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "Kol ha'Sheretz ha'Shoretz al ha'Aretz" - a prohibition to eat new-born birds before they have opened their eyes.

(d) We nevertheless need to establish the Beraisa specifically by the egg of a Tamei Sheretz - because the current Limud is really no more than an Asmachta (a support from the Pasuk), and the Isur pertaining to a Kasher bird is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

7)

(a) When the Beraisa permits 'Gi'ulei Beitzim' it means - that if one boiled a Tamei egg with a Kasher one, the latter remains Kasher ...

(b) ... because an egg in its shell does not inject taste into the other eggs in the pot.

(c) The Tana also permits 'Beitzim Muzaros' - which are eggs that are not formed by a male, and which will not hatch, irrespective of how long the hen sits on them. A finicky person will not eat them, because after a while they become disgusting.

(a) The Tana rules - that a blood- spot that one finds in an egg must be thrown out, and the rest of the egg may be eaten.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah qualifies this ruling, confining it to where the blood-spot is found on the 'knot' - which is a knotty-like tissue formed from the seed of the male from which point the fetus is formed. It is generally found on the white at the sharper end of the egg.

(c) The reason that the rest of the egg is permitted is - because if it is found only there, it means that the defect has not spread beyond that point.

(d) If it extends beyond that point - then the entire egg is forbidden, because it indicates that the defect has spread to the rest of the egg (see Tosfos DH 've'Hu').

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah seems to conform with the Beraisa cited by Dustai, the father of Rebbi Apturiki - which only permits the rest of the egg if the blood-spot is found in the white of the egg, but not if it is found in the yellow.

(b) Rav Gevihah from Bei Kasil told Rav Ashi that this is the way Abaye established the Beraisa. According to the Beraisa expert - the Beraisa initially permitted the rest of the egg if it was found in the yellow, but not in the white.

(a) Chizkiyah learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with the Tamei birds) "ve'es *bas* ha'Ya'anah" - that the egg of a Tamei bird is forbidden (because otherwise, it would be unnecessary to mention the ostrich's daughter).
2. ... in Eichah "bas Ami le'Achzar, ka'Ye'einim ba'Midbar" - that the ostrich is called 'Ya'anah' and not bas ha'Ya'anah.

(b) And he interprets the Pasuk ...

1. ... "E'eseh Misped ka'Teinim, ve'Avel ki'Benos Ya'anah" to mean - that the ostrich mourns for its daughters (i.e. its children).
2. ... "Ve'shichnu Sham b'nos Ya'anah" to mean - 'like an ostrich dwelling with its children'.

(c) We prove however, from the Pasuk "Techabdeini Chayas ha'Sadeh Teinim u'Benos Ya'anah" that an ostrich is also called a bas-Ya'anah - because it is inconceivable that ostrich-eggs should praise Hashem.

(a) We nevertheless vindicate Chizkiyah, who interprets "bas ha'Ya'anah" in Shemini as an ostrich egg - because the Pasuk there writes them as two words (and not hyphenated, as in the other Pesukim).

(b) We ask on this however, from the Pasuk "K'dar La'omer" (one of the four kings) - which is also written as two words, even though it is clearly one name.

(c) And we answer - that there at least, the two words are written on one line, whereas in the Pasuk in Shemini, "bas" and "Ya'anah" are written on two lines.