על ביצי שליו‎

אמר חזקיה מנין לביצת טמאה שהיא אסורה מן התורה שנאמר (ויקרא יא, טז) ואת בת היענה וכי בת יש לה ליענה אלא איזו זו ביצה טמאה ודלמא היינו שמייהו לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (איכה ד, ג) בת עמי לאכזר כיענים במדבר ולא והא כתיב (מיכה א, ח) אעשה מספד כתנים ואבל כבנות יענה כיענה זו שמתאבלת על בניה והא כתיב (ישעיהו יג, כא) ושכנו שם בנות יענה כיענה זו ששוכנת עם בניה והכתיב (ישעיהו מג, כ) תכבדני חית השדה תנים ובנות יענה ואי סלקא דעתך ביצה ביצה בת מימר שירה היא אלא כתיב היענה וכתיב בת היענה ושאני הכא דפסק ספרא לשתי תיבות ומדפסיק להו ספרא

Chullin 64b

serves to include chicks of pigeons whose eyes have not yet opened in the prohibition against consuming swarming things. The Gemara responds: This prohibition is by rabbinic law, and the verse cited is a mere support for it. One who eats the embryo of a kosher bird is not liable to receive lashes. § The Sages taught in a baraita: Kosher eggs that have been boiled with non-kosher eggs are permitted. Unfertilized eggs are permitted, and one of strong constitution may eat them, even if the hen has sat on them for a long period of time. If a drop [koret] of blood is found on it, one discards the blood, which is the first stage of an embryo’s development, and eats the rest. Rabbi Yirmeya said: And this applies when the blood is found on its knot, i.e., the place in the albumen where the embryo begins to develop, since this proves that tissue has not developed elsewhere in the egg. And so taught Dostai, father of Rabbi Aptoriki: The Sages taught that one may eat the rest of the egg only when the blood is found on its albumen, i.e., the knot; but if it is found on its yolk, even the rest of the egg is forbidden. What is the reason for this? It is that the decay has spread through all of it. Rav Geviha from Bei Ketil said to Rav Ashi: A tanna taught the opposite before Abaye, that one may eat the rest of the egg only when the blood is found on its yolk, and it is Abaye that corrected it in this manner. § Ḥizkiyya says: From where is it derived that the egg of a non-kosher bird is prohibited by Torah law? As it is stated: “And the daughter [bat] of the ya’ana” (Leviticus 11:16). But does the ya’ana have a daughter whose forbidden status would be different from that of its mother? Both daughter and mother should be included in the same prohibition. Rather, which is this? This is a non-kosher egg. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this is their name, i.e., the bird is called bat ya’ana. The Gemara responds: This should not enter your mind, as it is written: “The daughter of my people has become cruel, like the ye’enim in the wilderness” (Lamentations 4:3). The Gemara persists: And is bat ya’ana not its name? But isn’t it written: “I will make a wailing like the jackals, and a mourning like the daughters [benot] of the ya’ana” (Micah 1:8)? The Gemara responds: The verse means: I will make mourning like this ya’ana that mourns for its children. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And benot ya’ana shall dwell there” (Isaiah 13:21)? The Gemara responds: Here too, the verse means: And they shall dwell there like this ya’ana that dwells with its children. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “The animals of the field shall honor Me, the jackals and the benot ya’ana” (Isaiah 43:20)? And if it enters your mind that the term bat ya’ana is referring to an egg, can an egg sing a song of praise to God? Rather, one must say: The ya’ana is written, and the bat ya’ana is also written, and both are acceptable names for this bird. And still, the name here is different from those of other animals, in that the scribe splits it into two words: Bat ya’ana, even though it is one species. And from the fact that the scribe splits it

חולין ס״ה א

בתרתי תיבות ש"מ תרי שמות נינהו אלא מעתה (בראשית יד, ד) את כדר לעומר דפסק להו ספרא בתרי הכי נמי דתרתי שמי נינהו אמרי התם בשתי תיבות פסיק להו בשני שיטין לא פסיק להו אבל הכא אפי' בשני שיטין נמי פסיק להו:

Chullin 65a

into two words, conclude from it that they are two names, prohibiting the egg as well. The Gemara asks: If that is so, what about the name: “Chedorlaomer” (Genesis 14:4), which the scribe splits in two so that it appears as: Chedor Laomer? Is it also true there that they are two names? The verse is clearly referring to only one person. They say in response: There, with regard to Chedor Laomer, the scribe splits the name into two words, but he may not split it into two lines if the first half nears the end of one line. But here, he may split the name bat ya’ana even into two lines, indicating that they are completely separate. § The mishna states: But the Sages stated that any bird that claws its prey and eats it is non-kosher. It is taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel says: A bird that claws its prey and eats it is certainly non-kosher. If it has an extra digit and a crop, and its gizzard can be peeled, it is certainly kosher. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: One stretches a line, and the bird perches on it. If it splits its feet on the line, with two digits here and two there, it is non-kosher. If it places three digits here and one there, it is possibly kosher. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Any bird that catches food out of the air is non-kosher. The Gemara interjects: But the tziparta also catches food out of the air, and it is kosher. Abaye said: We say this only for a bird that both catches and eats its food in the air. The tziparta lands before eating what it has caught. The baraita concludes: Others say: If a bird dwells with non-kosher birds, it is non-kosher; if it dwells with kosher birds, it is kosher. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this last statement? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: It was not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species. The Gemara rejects this: You may even say that the opinion introduced with the words: Others say, is like that of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and deem the zarzir kosher. The statement introduced with the words: Others say, is understood as follows: We say that a bird is non-kosher whenever it both dwells with a non-kosher bird and resembles it. The zarzir, though, does not resemble the crow. § The mishna states: And with regard to grasshoppers, any grasshopper that has four legs, and four wings, and two additional jumping legs, and whose wings cover most of its body, is kosher. The Gemara asks: What is considered most of its body? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Most of its length. And some say that he said: Most of its circumference. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, one must satisfy both versions of the statement. We require that the wings cover most of its length, and we also require that they cover most of its circumference. The Sages taught in a baraita: A grasshopper that has no wings now but will grow them after a time, e.g., the zaḥal, is permitted. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: The verse states: “Yet these may you eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have [lo] jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:21). The word lo is written with the letter alef, meaning not, so that it can be understood as: Do not have jointed legs. This teaches that even though it has no jointed legs now but will grow them after a time, it is still kosher. The Gemara asks: What is the zaḥal? Abaye said: It is called askarin in Aramaic. The Sages taught in a baraita that the verse states: “These of them you may eat: The arbeh after its kinds, and the solam after its kinds, and the ḥargol after its kinds, and the ḥagav after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:22). The arbeh is the insect known as the govai. The solam is the rashon. The ḥargol is the nippul. The ḥagav is the gadyan. Why must the verse state: “After its kinds,” “after its kinds,” “after its kinds,” and “after its kinds,” four times? It is to include four similar species: The vineyard bird, and the Jerusalem yoḥana, and the artzuveya, and the razbanit, which are also kosher. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: These appearances of the phrase “after its kinds” in the verse are generalizations, and these species mentioned explicitly are details. The verse must be understood in light of the previous verse, which offers general signs of a kosher grasshopper. The two verses together are a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, in the following manner: The first verse is a generalization, arbeh is a detail referring to the species govai, and the phrase “after its kinds” is another generalization. According to Rabbi Yishmael’s hermeneutical principles, the second generalization serves to include a case similar to the detail. In this case, the phrase “after its kinds” serves to include

חולין ס״ג ב

ת"ר לוקחין ביצים מן העובדי כוכבים בכל מקום ואין חוששין לא משום נבלות ולא משום טרפות ודילמא דעוף טמא נינהו אמר אבוה דשמואל באומר של עוף פלוני טהור ולימא של עוף טהור אי הכי אית ליה לאישתמוטי ולבדוק בסימנין דתניא כסימני ביצים כך סמני דגים סימני דגים ס"ד סנפיר וקשקשת אמר רחמנא אלא אימא כך סימני

Chullin 63b

one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “Da’a,” and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: “Ra’a,” and da’a is not written? Rather, conclude from the presence of each on only one list that the ra’a and da’a are one species. The Gemara objects: But still, there are twenty-five birds, not twenty-four. Abaye said: Just as the ra’a and da’a are one species, so too, the ayya and the dayya, the latter of which is mentioned only in Deuteronomy, are one species. As, if it enters your mind that they are two different species, one might ask: Since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya, prohibiting some other kind of ayya, and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the dayya? Why is the ayya not mentioned? Rather, learn from the use of the same phrase with regard to the ayya and dayya that they are one species. The Gemara asks: And now that the ayya and dayya are one species, why did the Torah need to write both ayya and dayya in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Given that the two are one species, I will read ayya and know that it is forbidden. Why is dayya stated? It is so as not to give a claim to a litigant to disagree, and it should not occur that you call it an ayya and he calls it a dayya and eats it. Likewise, the Torah did not write only dayya so that it will not occur that you call it a dayya and he calls it an ayya and eats it. Therefore, the Torah writes in Deuteronomy: “And the ra’a, and the ayya, and the dayya after its kinds” (Deuteronomy 14:13). Consequently, both the list in Leviticus and that in Deuteronomy enumerate twenty-four birds, in accordance with the statement attributed to Rav. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Why is the list of non-kosher animals in Leviticus repeated? It is due to the necessity of adding the shesua (Deuteronomy 14:7), which was not listed in Leviticus. And the list of non-kosher birds is repeated due to the ra’a. What, is it not understood from the fact that the extra list of animals there, in Deuteronomy, is to add animals, that the list of birds is also repeated to add birds? The Gemara responds: No, there, i.e., with regard to animals, the list is repeated to add, but here, with regard to birds, it is repeated only to explain. And the opinion that the da’a and ra’a are one species, and that the ayya and dayya are another species, differs from the opinion of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: The ra’a is the ayya. And why is it called the ra’a? Since it sees [ro’ah] most vividly. And so the verse states: “That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the eye of the ayya seen it” (Job 28:7). And a Sage taught: The ra’a can stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara discusses Rabbi Abbahu’s statement: Since the ra’a is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the da’a is not the same as the ra’a; otherwise, there are not twenty-four non-kosher birds. But since it is assumed that the list in Deuteronomy comes to add to the list in Leviticus, what is different here, in Leviticus, that it is written: “Da’a,” and what is different there, in Deuteronomy, that da’a is not written? Rather, must one not conclude from the discrepancy that the two are the same? If so, one must conclude that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da’a and ra’a and ayya are all one species. And furthermore, from the fact that Rabbi Abbahu holds that the ra’a is the same as the ayya, by inference, one may conclude that the dayya is not the same as the ayya. But if so, one may ask again: What is different there, in Leviticus, that it is written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya, and what is different here, in Deuteronomy, that it is not written: “After its kinds,” about the ayya but about the dayya? Rather, the ayya and dayya must be one species. And one may learn from the combination of the two disputes that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the da’a and ra’a, dayya and ayya are all one species. Consequently, according to Rabbi Abbahu, there are only twenty-three non-kosher species. § With regard to the phrase: “The ayya after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:14), it is taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred non-kosher birds in the East, and they are all species of ayya. Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred types of non-kosher fish, and eight hundred types of non-kosher grasshopper, and there are countless birds. The Gemara protests: Are there countless non-kosher birds? But there are only twenty-four non-kosher birds mentioned in the Torah. Rather, Avimi must have meant: And there are countless kosher birds. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher. On the other hand, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that the species of kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher ones. Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher birds. The Gemara asks: What is this baraita teaching us? The Gemara responds: As Rav Huna says that Rav says, and some say that Rav Huna says that Rav says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner, just as the Torah is concise in its language. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A kosher bird may be eaten on the strength of a tradition that it is kosher, without inspecting for the signs listed in the mishna. And the hunter is deemed credible to say: My teacher conveyed to me that this bird is kosher. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this is the halakha only when the teacher is familiar with the non-kosher birds and with their names. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: Was Rabbi Yoḥanan referring to the hunter’s teacher the Sage, or to his teacher the hunter, i.e., the one who taught him how to hunt? The Gemara responds: Come and hear proof from that which Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And this applies only when the teacher is familiar with them and with their names. Granted, if you say this is referring to his teacher the hunter, this works out well. But if you say it is referring to his teacher the Sage, granted, a Sage will know their names, since he has learned them, but does he recognize the birds themselves? Rather, must one not conclude from it that Rabbi Yoḥanan referred to his teacher the hunter? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so. § The Sages taught in a baraita: One may buy eggs from the gentiles anywhere, and one need not be concerned, neither with regard to carcasses, i.e., that the egg may have been removed from a carcass of a bird and therefore forbidden, nor with regard to eggs from tereifot, because neither of these possibilities is likely. The Gemara objects: But perhaps they are from a non-kosher bird. Shmuel’s father said: The baraita is referring to a case where the gentile says they are of such and such bird, which is known to be kosher. The Gemara challenges: But if the gentile is deemed credible, let him say only that they are of a kosher bird. Why does he need to name the species? The Gemara responds: If so, if he does not name the species, he has the opportunity to deflect scrutiny if he is dishonest; but if he names the species, one can bring other eggs of the same species to compare and validate the claim. The Gemara asks: But why must one rely on the gentile? Let him inspect the eggs for signs, as it is taught in a baraita: Like the signs of kosher eggs, so too are the signs of fish. The Gemara interjects: Can it enter your mind that the baraita is referring to the signs of fish? The Merciful One states them explicitly in the Torah: “Fins and scales” (Leviticus 11:9). Rather, say: So too are the signs of

חולין ס״ד א

עוברי דגים ותניא גבי ביצים אלו הן סימני ביצים כל שכודרת ועגולגולת ראשה אחד כד וראשה אחד חד טהורה ב' ראשיה כדין או ב' ראשיה חדין טמאין חלבון מבחוץ וחלמון מבפנים טהורה חלמון מבחוץ וחלבון מבפנים טמאה חלמון וחלבון מעורבין זה בזה בידוע שהיא ביצת השרץ לא צריכא דחתוכות וליבדוק בחלמון וחלבון בטרופות בקערה וכה"ג מי זבנינן מינייהו והא תניא אין מוכרין ביצת טרפה לעובד כוכבים אלא א"כ טרופה בקערה לפיכך אין לוקחין מהם ביצים טרופות בקערה אלא אמר ר' זירא סימנין לאו דאורייתא דאי לא תימא הכי הא דאמר רב אסי שמנה ספיקות הן ליבדוק בביצים דידהו אלא ש"מ סימנין לאו דאורייתא אלא למאי הלכתא קתני לה הכי קאמר ב' ראשיה כדין או ב' ראשיה חדין או חלמון מבחוץ וחלבון מבפנים ודאי טמאה רישיה חד חד רישיה חד כד וחלבון מבחוץ וחלמון מבפנים ואמר לך של עוף פלוני וטהור הוא סמוך עליהם בסתמא לא תסמוך עליהם דאיכא דעורבא דדמי לדיונה

Chullin 64a

fish embryos, i.e., fish eggs found in the fish’s innards. The Gemara continues: And it is taught in a baraita about eggs that these are the signs of bird eggs: Any egg that narrows at the top and is rounded, so that one of its ends is rounded and the other one of its ends is pointed, is kosher. If both of its ends are rounded or both of its ends are pointed, they are non-kosher. If the albumen is on the outside and the yolk on the inside, it is kosher. If the yolk is on the outside and the albumen on the inside, it is non-kosher. If the yolk and albumen are mixed with each other, it is certainly the egg of a creeping animal. Therefore, if it is possible to recognize a kosher egg by these signs, there is no need to rely on the gentile. The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary if the eggs have already been cut and one cannot know their original shape. The Gemara challenges: But let him inspect the yolk and the albumen, to see which is inside and which is outside. The Gemara responds: The baraita deals with a case where the eggs are mixed in a bowl, and it is impossible to discern this. The Gemara counters: But in a case like this, where the eggs are mixed, may we buy eggs from them? Isn’t it taught in another baraita: One may sell the egg of a tereifa bird to a gentile only if it is mixed in a bowl; therefore, one may not buy eggs mixed in a bowl from them, because they may be from tereifot? If so, it cannot be that the baraita deals with a case where they are mixed, and one should be able to inspect the yolk and albumen. Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: The signs of a kosher egg are not valid by Torah law. As, if you do not say so, one encounters difficulty with that which Rav Asi says: There are eight birds whose kosher status is uncertain. Why is there uncertainty? Let one inspect their eggs for the signs listed in the baraita to determine whether they are kosher. Rather, learn from it that the signs are not valid by Torah law and one may not rely on them. The Gemara asks: But if one may not rely on these signs, with regard to what halakha is the baraita teaching them? The Gemara responds: This is what the baraita is saying: If both of its ends are rounded, or both its ends are pointed, or the yolk is on the outside and the albumen is on the inside, it is certainly non-kosher. But if one of its ends is pointed and one of its ends is rounded, and the albumen is on the outside and the yolk on the inside, and the gentile says to you that it is from such and such bird, and that bird is kosher, rely on the signs. But if he offers no specification of the type of bird, or if one simply finds eggs with these signs, do not rely on them, since there are crow’s eggs that resemble those of a pigeon. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: The Master said: If the albumen and yolk are mixed with each other, it is certainly the egg of a creeping animal and not of a non-kosher bird. The Gemara asks: For what halakha is this information necessary? Either way, the egg is forbidden. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: The baraita means to say that if tissue of an embryo developed [rikema] inside it and it was perforated, and one touched it, it transmits ritual impurity provided that the embryo is at least the size of a lentil-bulk, because the carcass of a creeping animal of this size is a source of ritual impurity. Ravina objects to this: But perhaps it is the egg of a snake, whose carcass does not transmit ritual impurity, even though the albumen and yolk of its eggs are mixed together. Rather, Rava said: The baraita does not teach about ritual impurity, but rather that if tissue of an embryo developed inside the egg and one ate it, he is flogged on its account, due to the prohibition: “And every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The Gemara asks: If so, why specifically mention the egg of a non-kosher creeping animal? The same would apply even for one who eats the embryo of a kosher bird as well. In either case, one is flogged, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse: “Every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth,”

משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות ג׳:י״ח-י״ט

(יח) בֵּיצָה שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ כַּדִּין אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ חַדִּין. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה חֶלְמוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבִּפְנִים בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא. רֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד כַּד וְרֹאשָׁהּ אֶחָד חַד וְחֶלְבּוֹן מִבַּחוּץ וְחֶלְמוֹן מִבִּפְנִים. אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָמֵא וְאֶפְשָׁר שֶׁהִיא בֵּיצַת עוֹף טָהוֹר. לְפִיכָךְ שׁוֹאֵל לַצַּיָּד יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמּוֹכְרָהּ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ שֶׁל עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הוּא וְעוֹף טָהוֹר הוּא סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו. וְאִם אָמַר שֶׁל עוֹף טָהוֹר וְלֹא אָמַר לוֹ שְׁמוֹ אֵינוֹ סוֹמֵךְ עָלָיו:

(יט) לְפִיכָךְ אֵין לוֹקְחִים בֵּיצִים מִן הָעַכּוּ''ם אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה מַכִּיר אוֹתָן וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בָּהֶן טְבִיעוּת עַיִן שֶׁהֵן בֵּיצֵי עוֹף פְּלוֹנִי הַטָּהוֹר. וְאֵין חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהֶן שֶׁמָּא הֵן בֵּיצֵי טְרֵפָה אוֹ בֵּיצֵי נְבֵלָה. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין מִן הָעַכּוּ''ם בֵּיצָה טְרוּפָה כְּלָל:

Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 3:18-19

...

טור, יורה דעה פ״ו

(א) דיני ביצים
סימני ביצים להכיר שהיא מעוף טהור הוא כשראשה אחד כד ועגול וראשו הב' חד ועגול וחלבון מבחוץ וחלמון מבפנים ואינו סימן מובהק לסמוך עליו לקנות מהנכרים אלא להכי אהני שאם יש בהן סימן טהרה שואלים את המוכר ממה הן אם אומר משל עוף פלוני ואנו מכירין אותו שהוא טהור קונין ממנו אבל אם אמר סתם משל עוף טהור ואינו מזכירו אין קונים ממנו והרמב"ם כתב דאפילו כי אמר משל עוף פלוני וטהור הוא לא מהני אלא לקנות מישראל אבל מנכרי אין קונין אא"כ מכירין אותו ויש לו בהן טביעות עין שהן ביצי עוף פלוני הטהור ונראה שאין לחלק בין נכרי לישראל חשוד. ואם שני ראשיה כדין או חדין או שחלבון בפנים וחלמון מבחוץ ודאי אסורה ואפילו אם יאמר המוכר שהם מביצי עוף טהור אין סומכין עליו ועכשיו נוהגין לקנות ביצים אפילו בסתם מכל אדם לפי שאין ביצי עוף טמא מצויין בינינו

Tur, Yoreh Deah 86

...

בית יוסף, יורה דעה פ״ו:א׳-ב׳

(א) סימני ביצים להכיר שהוא מעוף טהור בשראשה אחד כד ועגול עד אבל אם אמר סתם משל עוף טהור ואינו מזכירו אין קונין ממנו בס"פ א"ט (סג: סד.) ופירוש כד ועגול כתבתי בסימן פ"ג וטעמא דבעינן שיאמר של עוף פלוני ולא סגי שיאמר של עוף טהור מפרש בגמרא דטעמא משום דכשאומר של עוף פלוני הם חזקה שאינו משקר משום דירא שמא יביאו ביצי אותו עוף ויראו שאינם דומים לאלו ונמצא מתבדה אבל כשאינו אומר אלא של עוף טהור הם כשיביאו ביצי עוף טהור ולא ידמו לאלו מצי לאישתמוטי לומר לא של עוף זה אמרתי לכם אלא של עוף אחר שאין אתם מכירו והוא טהור ואם תאמר כיון דסימנים אלו אינם מובהקים דאיכא דעורבא דדמי לדיונה כדאיתא בגמרא כי אמר של עוף פלוני וטהור הוא מאי הוה הא מצי לאישתמוטי ולמימר דיונה היא והיא אינה אלא דעורבא תירץ הרשב"א דאף על גב דדמו להדדי אכתי רתותי מירתת דילמא יהב ישראל דעתיה עליה ומקיפה לדיונה ומכיר שא"א לב' מינים חלוקים שלא יהא הפרש כל דהו ביניהם:

(א) והרמב"ם כתב דאפי' כי אמר משל עוף פלוני וטהור הוא וכו'. בפ"ג מהמ"א וכתבו ההשגות דבריו אינו אלא בישראל שאינו מוחזק בנאמנות אבל מוחזק בנאמנות שאינו מכניס עצמו על הספק לוקחין ממנו בסתם וכתב ה"ה דבריו פשוטים הם ולא היה צריך לכתבם שכבר ביאר רבינו בסמוך כן בביצי דגים שאם היה אדם שהוחזק בכשרות נאמן ולוקחין ממנו כל דבר עכ"ל ואין ספק שלא היו גורסין בגמרא לוקחים ביצים מן הנכרים בכל מקום כמו שהוא בנוסחא דידן אלא לוקחים ביצים בכל מקום גרסי וכך הוא גירסת הרי"ף והרא"ש ועכ"ז כתב ה"ה בשם הרמב"ן דכל שאומר של עוף פלוני וטהור הוא אפי' נכרי נאמן דלא מרע נפשיה כל היכא דלא מצי לאישתמוטי וזהו שאמר אין לוקחין מהם ביצים טרופות הא שלימות לוקחין והיינו בכה"ג דאמר של עוף פלוני וטהור הוא ולדעת רבינו מה שהוצרכו לומר שאין לוקחין ביצים טרופות מהם הוא במכיר שהן ממין עוף טהור והטעם מפני שחוששין שמא טריפה היתה וישראל מכרה לו ע"כ והר"ן כתב ג"כ דנכרי נאמן באומר של עוף פלוני וטהור הוא וכתב עוד ואיכא מ"ד דאפי' ישראל שאינו מוחזק בכשרות בעינן דלימא הכי אבל הרמב"ן כתב דבישראל שאינו מוחזק בכשרות אפילו לא אמר של עוף פלוני סגי דהא אסיקנא בפרק אין מעמידין (עבודה זרה מ.) גבי דגים דבאומר אני מלחתים מהימן הכי נמי אי אמר אני חזיתינהו דמעוף טהור נינהו סגי ומיהו דווקא בדלא חשיד דספי איסורא אלא דסמיך אקרבי דגים או אביצים אסימנא וזבין להו מנכרי כו' אבל בדחשיד למיספי איסורא לא מהימן עכ"ל:

Beit Yosef, Yoreh Deah 86:1-2

...

חולין ס״ה א

אבל אמרו חכמים כל עוף [וכו']: תניא רבן גמליאל אומר דורס ואוכל בידוע שהוא טמא יש לו אצבע יתירה וזפק וקרקבנו נקלף בידוע שהוא טהור ר"א בר' צדוק אומר מותחין לו חוט של משיחה אם חולק את רגליו שתים לכאן ושתים לכאן טמא שלש לכאן ואחת לכאן טהור ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר כל עוף הקולט מן האויר טמא ציפרתא נמי מקלט קלטה אמר אביי קולט ואוכל קאמרי אחרים אומרים שכן עם טמאים טמא עם טהורים טהור כמאן כר' אליעזר דתניא ר"א אומר לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב אלא מפני שהוא מינו אפי' תימא רבנן שכן ונדמה קאמרינן

Chullin 65a

משנה תורה, הלכות מאכלות אסורות א׳

(יד) סִימָנֵי עוֹף טָהוֹר לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אֶלָּא מָנָה מִנְיַן טְמֵאִים בִּלְבַד וּשְׁאָר מִינֵי הָעוֹף מֻתָּרִין. וְהַמִּנְיָן הָאֲסוּרִין אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים הֵן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. א) נֶשֶׁר. ב) פֶּרֶס. ג) עָזְנִיָּה. ד) דָּאָה וְהִיא הָרָאָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. ה) אַיָּה וְהִיא הַדַּיָּהּ הָאֲמוּרָה בְּמִשְׁנֵה תּוֹרָה. ו) מִין הָאַיָּה שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בָּהּ לְמִינָהּ מִכְלַל שֶׁהוּא שְׁנֵי מִינִין. ז) עוֹרֵב. ח) זַרְזִיר שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר בְּעוֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ לְהָבִיא אֶת הַזַּרְזִיר. ט) יַעֲנָה. י) תַּחְמָס. יא) שַׁחַף. יב) נֵץ. יג) וְשַׁרְנְקָא וְהוּא מִין הַנֵּץ שֶׁכֵּן כָּתוּב בּוֹ לְמִינֵהוּ. יד) כּוֹס. טו) שָׁלָךְ. טז) יַנְשׁוּף. יז) תִּנְשֶׁמֶת. יח) קָאָת. יט) רָחָמָה. כ) חֲסִידָה. כא) הָאֲנָפָה. כב) מִין הָאֲנָפָה שֶׁכֵּן נֶאֱמַר בָּהּ לְמִינָהּ. כג) הַדּוּכִיפַת. כד) הָעֲטַלֵּף:

(טו) כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בְּמִינִין אֵלּוּ וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל עוֹף שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵהֶם וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ בְּדִיקָה. וְעוֹף טָהוֹר נֶאֱכַל בְּמָסֹרֶת. וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה דָּבָר פָּשׁוּט בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם שֶׁזֶּה עוֹף טָהוֹר. וְנֶאֱמָן צַיָּד לוֹמַר עוֹף זֶה הִתִּיר לִי רַבִּי הַצַּיָּד. וְהוּא שֶׁיֻּחְזַק אוֹתוֹ צַיָּד שֶׁהוּא בָּקִי בְּמִינִין אֵלּוּ וּבִשְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן:

(טז) מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּירָן וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שְׁמוֹתֵיהֶן בּוֹדֵק בְּסִימָנִין אֵלּוּ שֶׁנָּתְנוּ חֲכָמִים. כָּל עוֹף שֶׁהוּא דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא מֵאֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין וְטָמֵא. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ הֲרֵי זֶה עוֹף טָהוֹר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן. אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה. אוֹ זֶפֶק וְהִיא הַמֻּרְאָה. אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה קֻרְקְבָנוֹ נִקְלַף בְּיָד:

(יז) לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בְּכָל אֵלּוּ הַמִּינִין הָאֲסוּרִין מִין שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ אֶחָד מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה סִימָנִין אֵלּוּ חוּץ מִפֶּרֶס וְעָזְנִיָּה וּפֶרֶס וְעָזְנִיָּה אֵינָן מְצוּיִין בְּיִשּׁוּב אֶלָּא בְּמִדְבָּרוֹת אִיֵּי הַיָּם הָרְחוֹקוֹת עַד מְאֹד שֶׁהֵן סוֹף הַיִּשּׁוּב:

(יח) הָיָה הַקֻּרְקְבָן נִקְלָף בְּסַכִּין וְאֵינוֹ נִקְלָף בְּיָד וְאֵין בּוֹ סִימָן אַחֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ דּוֹרֵס הֲרֵי זֶה סָפֵק. הָיָה חָזָק וְדָבֵק וְהִנִּיחוֹ בַּשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְנִתְרַפָּה וְנִקְלָף בְּיָד הֲרֵי זֶה מֻתָּר:

(יט) אָמְרוּ הַגְּאוֹנִים שֶׁמָּסֹרֶת הִיא בִּידֵיהֶם שֶׁאֵין מוֹרִין לְהַתִּיר עוֹף הַבָּא בְּסִימָן אֶחָד אֶלָּא אִם הָיָה אוֹתוֹ סִימָן שֶׁיִּקָּלֵף קֻרְקְבָנוֹ בְּיָד. אֲבָל אִם אֵינוֹ נִקְלָף בְּיָד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ זֶפֶק אוֹ אֶצְבַּע יְתֵרָה מֵעוֹלָם לֹא הִתִּירוּהוּ:

(כ) כָּל עוֹף שֶׁחוֹלֵק אֶת רַגְלָיו כְּשֶׁמּוֹתְחִין לוֹ חוּט שְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן וּשְׁתַּיִם לְכָאן. אוֹ שֶׁקּוֹלֵט מִן הָאֲוִיר וְאוֹכֵל בָּאֲוִיר. הֲרֵי זֶה דּוֹרֵס וְטָמֵא. וְכָל הַשּׁוֹכֵן עִם הַטְּמֵאִים וְנִדְמֶה לָהֶם הֲרֵי זֶה טָמֵא:

Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 1

(1) It is a positive commandment to know the simanim (signs) that distinguish between domesticated and wild animals, birds and fish, and grasshoppers that are permitted to be eaten, and those that are forbidden for consumption, as it says, (Leviticus 20:25) "And you shall distinguish between a kosher animal and a non-kosher animal, between a non-kosher fowl and a kosher fowl." And it says, (Leviticus 11:47) "To distinguish between the kosher and the non-kosher, between a beast which may be eaten and one which may not be eaten."

יורה דעה פ״ב

(ב) ואע "פ שיש לו ג' סימנים אלו אין לאכלו לפי שאנו חוששין שמא הוא דורס אלא א"כ יש להם מסורת שמסרו להם אבותיהם שהוא טהור. (ל' הרמב"ם שם די"ח):

(ג) יש אומרים שכל עוף שחרטומו רחב וכף רגלו רחבה כשל אווז בידוע שאינו דורס ומותר באכילה אם יש לו שלשה סימנים בגופו: הגה ויש אומרים שאין לסמוך אפילו על זה ואין לאכול שום עוף אלא במסורת שקבלו בו שהוא טהור (בארוך כלל נ"ו ובתא"ו נט"ו) וכן נוהגין ואין לשנות:

Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 82

(1) The signs of a kosher bird are not explained from the Torah, rather it only enumerated the non-kosher types, and the permitted types of birds. And the prohibited types, 24 were mentioned in the Torah (See: Rambam Forbidden Foods 1:14)

(2) Anyone who is an expert in those types and their names, behold he eats all of the birds that are not from them, and he doesn't need checking. (Ibid.) And a kosher bird is eaten according to tradition, and that is the clear thing in that place that it is a kosher bird. And the hunter is believed saying: This bird, my hunting rabbi permitted for me, since that hunter is known to be in an expert in non-kosher types that are mentioned in the Torah and their names. Someone who does not know them and does not know their names, he should check the signs: every bird that is a bird of prey and he eats [it], and it is known that it is of non-kosher types. And if he does not know if it is a bird of prey or not, if, when they stand it up with wire, split along its legs, two fingers here and two fingers here, or it is [a bird that] clutches from the air and he eats [it], it is known that it is a bird of prey. If it is known that it is not a bird of prey, there are three signs of [its] kosher [status]: an extra finger, a crop [digestive pouch near gullet], and its gizzard is peeled by hand, excluding if it was only peeled with a knife. (See the Mechaber) If it hardened and was attached, and he placed it in the sun and it healed and then it was peeled by hand, behold this is a sign of [it being] kosher. And even though it has these three signs, it should not be eaten, because we are concerned lest it is a bird of prey, rather, unless they have a tradition that was transmitted to them by their ancestors that it is kosher. (See Rambam Forbidden Foods 1:18).

(3) There are those who say that all birds that have a wide beak and the palm of its foot is wide like a goose, and it is known that it is not a bird of prey, and is permitted to eat if it has the three signs on its body. Gloss: And there are those who say that we don't rely even on this, and one should only eat a bird with an accepted tradition that it is kosher (in the Arukh...) and we are accustomed to this and it should not be changed.

(4) One who is from a place that they are accustomed to a prohibition with a single bird because they do not have a tradition, and he went to a place where they do have a tradition, he is able to eat it in the place where he went, even if his intention to return. And if he went from a place that does have a tradition and he went to a place that does not have a tradition, it is permitted for him to eat it.

(5) If the rest of the places that do not have a tradition are able to eat it relying upon the place that does have a tradition, there is one who forbids and there is one who prohibits. And there is [a reason] to be concerned regarding the words of the one who prohibits.

London Beth Din

The tradition of the London Beth Din is to not permit quail’s eggs. Birds and their eggs can only be eaten when there is a continuous tradition of them being kosher. It is also unclear whether the common translation of the Hebrew word slav is actually the modern day quail.

Rabbi Chaim Loike

For years it was rumored that the coturnix quail was the biblical quail, the very quail which had been consumed and certified kosher since the time of the bible. There were a number of Jewish communities, which had consumed quail prior to the Second World War. These communities could only consume the quail if they had been able to ascertain that this quail was not one of the forbidden avian species. Of all the rabbis who had ever learned the mesorah how to identify the biblical quail, one survived the Holocaust. This rabbi, Rabbi Zweigenhaft, had been well respected in Europe and considered an authority in Poland and Germany on the identification of numerous kosher species including kosher quail.

Along with Rabbis Protovin and Polachek, I went to visit Rabbi Zweigenhaft and to document which quail were accepted in Europe by the pre-war Jewish communities. More than a dozen breeds of coturnix quail were presented and Rabbi Zweigenhoft explained the methodologies through which the kosher and non-kosher quail could be identified. He also explained that the quail known as the Pharoah quail (coturnix coturnix) was the bird which was consumed by the Jewish people in the biblical narrative of the Exodus. The words of Rabbi Zweigenhaft were documented and then compared to the ornithological accounts of the distribution of coturnix quail in Europe. I visited the American Museum of Natural History, where the curator, Dr. Peter Capainolo, gave a guided tour of the thousands of specimens which the museum had collected (kept in vaults beneath the museum). The anatomy of the birds in the museum’s collection was compared to the information obtained from Rabbi Zweigenhaft. The actual quail shown to Rabbi Zweigenhaft were compared to those in the museum’s collection, with the utmost attention being paid to regional variations and similar species. The Orthodox Union needed to be certain that in addition to being able to identify the kosher quail, the kosher quail once identified would not be confused with any similar, yet non-kosher species.

ביצי שליו אמיתי

ביצי ״שליו״ בובווייט

״buttonquailביצי טורניק - ״