דְפָחֲיָא לְמַאן יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ בֵּיעֵי דִשְׁחוּטָה אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי אֲמַר לְהוּ מִקָּח טָעוּת הוּא וְהָדַר 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 Rabbi Ami said to the sellers: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded; the sale is void.
פְּשִׁיטָא מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הַאי לַאֲכִילָה קָא בָּעֵי לְהוּ וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר דְּפָחֲיָא מִשּׁוּם דִּצְרִיבָן לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִיתְּבָא לֵיהּ בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן 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.
הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ בֵּיעֵי דְּדִכְרָא לְמַאן בֵּיעֵי דְּדִכְרָא לְמַאן יְהַבוּ לֵיהּ בֵּיעֵי דְּסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי אֲמַר לְהוּ מִקָּח טָעוּת הוּא וַהֲדַר 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 Rabbi Ami said to them: This is a mistaken transaction, and it is rescinded.
פְּשִׁיטָא מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא הַאי לַאֲכִילָה קָא בָּעֵי לְהוּ וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר דְּדִכְרָא מִשּׁוּם דְּשַׁמִּינָן טְפֵי לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְמִיתְּבָא לֵיהּ בֵּינֵי בֵּינֵי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן 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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא מַאי עִם יְצִיאָתָהּ נִגְמְרָה עִם יְצִיאַת רוּבָּהּ נִגְמְרָה וְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֵּיצָה שֶׁיָּצְאָה רוּבָּהּ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְחָזְרָה מוּתֶּרֶת לְאׇכְלָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב 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.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמַר מַאי עִם יְצִיאָתָהּ נִגְמְרָה עִם יְצִיאַת כּוּלָּהּ נִגְמְרָה עִם יְצִיאַת כּוּלָּהּ אִין אֲבָל רוּבָּהּ לָא וּלְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן 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.
גּוּפָא הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתַּרְנְגוֹלֶת וּמָצָא בָּהּ בֵּיצִים גְּמוּרוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת לְאָכְלָן בְּחָלָב רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אִם הָיוּ מְעוֹרוֹת בְּגִידִין אֲסוּרוֹת § 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.
מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן הָאוֹכֵל מִנִּבְלַת עוֹף טָהוֹר מִן הַשְּׁלָל שֶׁל בֵּיצִים מִן הָעֲצָמוֹת וּמִן הַגִּידִין וּמִן הַבָּשָׂר שֶׁנִּתְלַשׁ מִן הַחַי טָהוֹר The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this halakha that the Sages taught in a baraita: One who eats one of the following parts of the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird: 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, 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.
מִן הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁל בֵּיצִים מִן הַקּוּרְקְבָן וּבְנֵי מֵעַיִין אוֹ שֶׁהִמְחָה אֶת הַחֵלֶב וּגְמָעוֹ טָמֵא 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.
מַאן תַּנָּא מִן הַשְּׁלָל שֶׁל בֵּיצִים טָהוֹר אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הָאָמַר אִם הָיוּ מְעוֹרוֹת בְּגִידִין אֲסוּרוֹת 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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי מִמַּאי דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הָתָם אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן אִסּוּרָא אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה לָא 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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה נָמֵי נִגְזוֹר אַפּוֹשֵׁי טוּמְאָה הוּא וְאַפּוֹשֵׁי טוּמְאָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן לָא מַפְּשִׁינַן 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.
וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי מַאן תַּנָּא מִן הָאֶשְׁכּוֹל שֶׁל בֵּיצִים טָמֵא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב הִיא דְּאָמַר אִם הָיוּ מְעוֹרוֹת בְּגִידִין אֲסוּרוֹת אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי מִמַּאי דְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל מֵהָנָךְ דְּתַלְיָא בְּאֶשְׁכּוֹל דִּלְמָא אֶשְׁכּוֹל גּוּפֵיהּ 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?
וְכִי תֵּימָא אֶשְׁכּוֹל גּוּפֵיהּ מַאי לְמֵימְרָא מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקּוּרְקְבָן וּבְנֵי מֵעַיִין דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּבָשָׂר נִינְהוּ כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אִינָשֵׁי דְּלָא אָכְלִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן הָכָא נָמֵי כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אִינָשֵׁי דְּלָא אָכְלִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן 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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם נוֹלָד בַּיּוֹם כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה נוֹלָד בַּלַּיְלָה כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה נוֹלָד בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם נוֹלָד בַּיּוֹם זוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה נוֹלָד בַּלַּיְלָה זוֹ עֲטַלֵּף כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בֵּין בַּיּוֹם וּבֵין בַּלַּיְלָה אָדָם וְכׇל דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ § 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.
אָמַר מָר כֹּל שֶׁתַּשְׁמִישׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם נוֹלָד בַּיּוֹם זוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ לְכִדְרַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא דְּאָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא בָּדַק בְּקִנָּה שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלִין מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְלֹא מָצָא בָּהּ בֵּיצָה וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמָצָא בָהּ בֵּיצָה מוּתֶּרֶת 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.
וַהֲלֹא בָּדַק אֵימַר לֹא בָּדַק יָפֶה יָפֶה וַאֲפִילּוּ בָּדַק יָפֶה אֵימַר יָצְתָה רוּבָּהּ וְחָזְרָה הֲוַאי וְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן 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.
אִינִי וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר רַב בָּדַק בְּקִנָּה שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְלֹא מָצָא בָּהּ בֵּיצָה וּלְמָחָר הִשְׁכִּים וּמָצָא בָהּ בֵּיצָה אֲסוּרָה הָתָם בִּדְסָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא 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.
אִי הָכִי דְּרַב מָרִי נָמֵי אֵימָא מֵאַרְעָא סָפְנָא בִּדְאִיכָּא זָכָר בַּהֲדַהּ בִּדְאִיכָּא זָכָר נָמֵי אֵימָא מֵאַרְעָא סָפְנָא אָמַר רָבִינָא גְּמִירִי כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא זָכָר לָא סָפְנָא מֵאַרְעָא 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.
וְעַד כַּמָּה אָמַר רַב גַּמָּדָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב כֹּל הֵיכָא 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