דפחיא למאן יהבו ליה ביעי דשחוטה אתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר להו מקח טעות הוא והדר
of a live chicken, who has? He sought to purchase eggs of this kind. They gave him eggs of a slaughtered chicken. He came before Rabbi Ami, claiming he had been cheated. Rabbi Ami said to the sellers: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded; the sale is void.
פשיטא מהו דתימא האי לאכילה קא בעי להו והאי דקאמר דפחיא משום דצריבן למאי נפקא מינה למיתבה ליה ביני ביני קמ"ל
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that the transaction is void, as he specified exactly what he wanted. The Gemara answers: The ruling is necessary, lest you say that this individual wants them for food rather than for chicks, and that which he said, that he is looking for eggs of a live chicken, he said only because they are hard-shelled, mature eggs. What is the practical difference, i.e., what is this man claiming from the seller according to this rejected interpretation? He is merely demanding to refund him the difference in value between the two types of eggs. Rabbi Ami therefore teaches us that the sale involved a fundamental error, as the eggs of a slaughtered chicken are unfit for incubation. The transaction is therefore void.
ההוא דאמר להו ביעי דדכרא למאן ביעי דדכרא למאן יהבו ליה ביעי דספנא מארעא אתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר להו מקח טעות הוא והדר
The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain person said to vendors: Does anyone have eggs of a chicken that has had relations with a rooster? Does anyone have eggs of a rooster? They gave him eggs that a hen had absorbed from the ground, i.e., which had not been fertilized by a rooster. He came before Rabbi Ami claiming that he had been cheated. Rabbi Ami said to them: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded.
פשיטא מהו דתימא האי לאכילה קא בעי להו והאי דקאמר דדכרא משום דשמינן טפי למאי נפקא מינה למיתבא ליה ביני ביני קמ"ל
The Gemara again asks: It is obvious that this is the case. The Gemara explains: The ruling is necessary, lest you say that this person wants the eggs for food, and that which he said, that he wants eggs of a rooster, he said only because they are fatter. What is the practical difference; i.e., what is this man claiming from the seller according to this rejected interpretation? He is merely demanding that they should refund him the difference in value between the two types. Rav Ami therefore teaches us that this is not the case; rather, the sale is void.
ואי בעית אימא מאי עם יציאתה נגמרה עם יציאת רובה נגמרה וכדרבי יוחנן דא"ר יוחנן ביצה שיצאה רובה מערב יום טוב וחזרה מותרת לאכלה ביום טוב
The Gemara suggests another explanation of Rav’s statement. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the claim: An egg is fully formed upon its emergence? It means that it is fully formed with the emergence of most of it, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is taught in a baraita that in the case of an egg, most of which emerged from the chicken on a Festival eve, and the egg returned inside the mother and was finally laid on the Festival itself, it is permitted to eat this egg on the Festival. Since most of the egg had emerged before the Festival began, it is considered to have been laid the day before.
ואיכא דאמר מאי עם יציאתה נגמרה עם יציאת כולה נגמרה עם יציאת כולה אין אבל רובה לא ולאפוקי מדר' יוחנן
And some say the following explanation: What is the meaning of the expression: Fully formed upon its emergence? It means that it is fully formed upon the emergence of all of it. The Gemara infers: Upon the emergence of all of it, yes, it is fully formed at this stage; however, if only most of it came out the day before, no, it is not considered fully formed. And this reading serves to exclude the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. In any case, Rav’s statement can correspond to this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
גופא השוחט את התרנגולת ומצא בה ביצים גמורות מותרות לאכלן בחלב ר' יעקב אומר אם היו מעורות בגידין אסורות
§ Apropos the halakhic status of eggs found inside a slaughtered chicken, the Gemara discusses the matter itself: In the case of one who slaughters a chicken and finds inside it fully formed eggs, it is permitted to eat these eggs with milk. Rabbi Ya’akov says: If the eggs were still attached by sinews, it is prohibited to eat them with milk, as they are considered meat.
מאן תנא להא דת"ר האוכל מנבלת עוף טהור מן השלל של ביצים מן העצמות ומן הגידין ומן הבשר שנתלש מן החי טהור
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha that the Sages taught in a baraita: One who eats from the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird, or from a cluster of eggs that are still attached to it by sinews, or from its bones, or from the sinews, or from meat that has been detached from a live animal, he is ritually pure because none of these are considered part of the meat of the bird, and therefore they do not impart the ritual impurity of an animal carcass.
מן האשכול של ביצים מן הקורקבן ובני מעיין או שהמחה את החלב וגמעו טמא
However, if one ate from the ovary of its eggs, which contains very small eggs that do not possess any of the regular characteristics of eggs, or if he took a piece of the craw or the intestines, or if he melted the fat of a dead bird and swallowed it, he is ritually impure from the impurity imparted by the unslaughtered carcass of a bird.
מאן תנא מן השלל של ביצים טהור אמר רב יוסף דלא כרבי יעקב דאי כר' יעקב האמר אם היו מעורות בגידין אסורות
Who is the tanna who taught that if one ate from a cluster of eggs he is pure, which indicates that eggs still attached by sinews to the chicken are not considered part of the meat of the bird? Rav Yosef said: This ruling is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov. For if you say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ya’akov, didn’t he say: If the eggs were attached by sinews it is prohibited to eat them with milk, indicating that he considers these eggs meat of the chicken.
אמר ליה אביי ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יעקב התם אלא לענין אסורא אבל לענין טומאה לא
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: From where do you draw this conclusion? Perhaps Rabbi Ya’akov stated that these eggs are part of the chicken only there, with regard to the prohibition against eating the eggs with milk; however, perhaps with regard to ritual impurity he did not say that these eggs are considered part of the chicken.
וכי תימא לענין טומאה נמי נגזור אפושי טומאה הוא ואפושי טומאה מדרבנן לא מפשינן
And if you say that with regard to ritual impurity let us also issue a decree and be stringent in a case of uncertainty and therefore rule that these attached eggs should be considered part of the chicken, this would serve to proliferate impurity, and we do not proliferate impurity that is by rabbinic law. One does not declare an item ritually impure by rabbinic law merely because uncertainty has arisen with regard to its status.
ואיכא דאמרי מאן תנא מן האשכול של ביצים טמא אמר רב יוסף ר' יעקב היא דאמר אם היו מעורות בגידין אסורות א"ל אביי ממאי דאשכול מהנך דתליא באשכול דלמא אשכול גופיה
And some say a different version of this discussion, according to which the question is: Who is the tanna who taught that if one eats from the ovary of its eggs he is ritually impure? Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Ya’akov, who said: If the eggs were attached by sinews, they are prohibited. Abaye said to him: From where do you know that the term ovary means: From these eggs that are hanging from the ovary; perhaps it is referring to the ovary itself, the part of the flesh of the bird where the eggs develop?
וכי תימא אשכול גופיה מאי למימרא מידי דהוה אקורקבן ובני מעיין דאע"ג דבשר נינהו כיון דאיכא אינשי דלא אכלי איצטריך לאשמועינן הכא נמי כיון דאיכא אינשי דלא אכלי איצטריך לאשמועינן
And if you say: If it is referring to the ovary itself, what is the purpose of stating this? It is obvious that the ovary itself is meat. One can answer as follows: Just as it is in the case of the craw and the intestines, that even though they are meat according to all opinions, since there are people who do not eat them, it was necessary to teach us that they have the status of meat; here, too, with regard to an ovary, since there are people who do not eat it, it was necessary to teach us that it may not be eaten with milk. Therefore, this argument does not prove that this version of the discussion is incorrect.
ת"ר כל שתשמישו ביום נולד ביום כל שתשמישו בלילה נולד בלילה כל שתשמישו בין ביום ובין בלילה נולד בין ביום ובין בלילה כל שתשמישו ביום נולד ביום זו תרנגולת כל שתשמישו בלילה נולד בלילה זו עטלף כל שתשמישו בין ביום ובין בלילה אדם וכל דדמי ליה
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Any species whose intercourse occurs only in the hours of the day is born only by day; any species whose intercourse occurs only at night is born only by night; any species whose intercourse occurs either by day or by night is born either by day or by night. The Gemara elaborates: Any species whose intercourse occurs by day is born by day, this is referring to a chicken. Any species whose intercourse occurs by night is born by night, this is a bat. Any species whose intercourse occurs either by day or by night, this means a human being and all that are similar to him.
אמר מר כל שתשמישו ביום נולד ביום זו תרנגולת למאי נפקא מינה לכדרב מרי בריה דרב כהנא דאמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא בדק בקנה של תרנגולין מערב יום טוב ולא מצא בה ביצה ולמחר השכים ומצא בה ביצה מותרת
The Master said: Any species whose intercourse occurs by day is born by day, this is a chicken. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference of this statement? The Gemara answers: The halakhic difference is with regard to that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana said, as Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana said: If one examined a chicken’s nest on a Festival eve and did not find an egg in it, and the following day, on the Festival, he rose early and found an egg in it, the egg is permitted, as it can be assumed it was not laid that night.
והלא בדק אימר לא בדק יפה יפה ואפילו בדק יפה אימר יצתה רובה וחזרה הואי וכדר' יוחנן
The Gemara asks: But didn’t he examine the nest before the Festival and fail to find an egg there? If so, the egg must have been laid on the Festival. The Gemara answers: Say that he did not examine very carefully. And even if he did examine carefully, you can say that most of the egg emerged on the eve of the Festival and returned inside its mother, and this ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. This baraita shows that the halakha does not take into account the possibility that a chicken could lay an egg at night.
איני והא אמר ר' יוסי בן שאול אמר רב בדק בקנה של תרנגולת מערב יו"ט ולא מצא בה ביצה ולמחר השכים ומצא בה ביצה אסורה התם בדספנא מארעא
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul say that Rav said: If one examined a chicken’s nest on a Festival eve and did not find an egg in it, and the following day he rose early and found an egg in it, it is prohibited? This indicates that a chicken might indeed lay an egg at night. The Gemara answers: There it is referring to an egg that the chicken absorbed from the earth, i.e., one that was not formed by male fertilization. An egg that is not produced by intercourse can be laid at night as well.
אי הכי דרב מרי נמי אימא מארעא ספנא בדאיכא זכר בהדה בדאיכא זכר נמי אימא מארעא ספנא אמר רבינא גמירי כל היכא דאיכא זכר לא ספנא מארעא
The Gemara challenges this: If so, in Rav Mari’s case too, you can say that the chicken absorbed from the earth and laid the egg during the night of the Festival. How, then, could Rav Mari permit the egg? The Gemara answers: There it is referring to a case where there is a male with it. The Gemara asks: Even where there is a male with it, one can also say that it absorbed from the earth rather than from the male. The Gemara answers that Ravina said: It is learned as a tradition that anywhere that a male is present, a chicken does not absorb from the earth.
ועד כמה אמר רב גמדא משמיה דרב כל היכא
The Gemara asks: Until where exactly is it considered to have a male with it; How near must a rooster be for this principle to come into effect? Rav Gamda said in the name of Rav: The male must be any place