משנה: ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב בית שמאי אומרים תאכל ובית הלל אומרים לא תאכל.
במאי עסקינן? אילימא בתרנגולת העומדת לאכילה, מאי טעמייהו דבית הלל? אוכלא דאפרת הוא. אלא בתרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים, מאי טעמייהו דבית שמאי? מוקצה היא [...]
Mishnah: [Concerning] an egg that was laid [lit., born] on a festival day, Beth Shammai say: It may be eaten, and Beth Hillel say: It may not be eaten.
With what [type of a hen] are we dealing? If we say of a hen that was designated for consumption what was the reason of Beth Hillel [who prohibit eating the egg]? [The egg is] food that is separated [from food and is, therefore, not muqtseh]. But, [if we say that the Mishnah refers] to a hen that was designated to produce eggs, what is the reason of Beth Shammai? It is muqtseh […]
מה טעמון דבית שמאי? מוכנת היא על גב אמה. מה טעמון דבית הלל? נעשית כמוקצה, שיבש ולא ידע בו [...]
What is the reason [for the position] of Beth Shammai? [The egg] is deemed ready by the fact that its mother [was prepared in advance for eating]. What is the reason [for the position] of Beth Hillel? [The egg is treated as equivalent to fruit] set aside [to dry], which indeed has dried up, and [the owner] did not know about it […]
תניא: השוחט את התרנגולת ומצא בה ביצים גמורות, מותרות לאכלן ביום טוב. ואם איתא, ליגזר משום הנך דמתילדן ביומיהן. ראמ ליה: ביצים גמורות במעי אמן מילתא דלא שכיחא היא, ומילתא דלא שכיחא, לא גזרו בה רבנן [...]
Our Rabbis taught: If one slaughtered the hen and found fully developed eggs inside it, [the eggs] may be eaten on a festival day. Now if it is true, let them decree [also that eggs found inside the mother are prohibited], on account of those [eggs] that are born on their [proper] day. [Rava] said to him [Abbayye]: [Finding] fully developed eggs, in their mother’s intestine is a rare occurrence and the rabbis do not issue decrees for rare occurrences […]
תני השוחט את התרנגולת ומצא בתוכה בצים, אף פי על גמורות, הרי אילו מותרות. רבי חנניה ורבי מנא, חד אמר: לא דומה טעם אכילתה מבפנים לטעם אכילתה מבחוץ, וחורנה אמר: שאינה נגמרת לאפרוח עד שתצא לחוץ.
It has been taught: S/he who slaughters the hen and found eggs in it, even though they are fully developed, they are permitted. Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi Mana, one of them said: Is not the taste of eating [an egg found] inside [the hen] different from the taste of eating [an egg] outside [that is actually laid]? The other said: [The egg] is not completed as a chick until it emerges.
תניא: אחרים אומרים משום רבי אליעזר: ביצה, תאכל היא ואמה. במאי עסקינן? אילימא בתרנגולת העומדת לאכילה? פשיטא דהיא ואמה שריא. אלא בתרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים, היא ואמה אסורה. אמר רבי זירא: תאכל אגב אמה. היכי דמי? אמר אביי: כגון שלקחה סתם. נשחטה, הובררה דלאכילה עומדת. לא נשחטה, הובררה דלגדל ביצים עומדת. רב מרי אמר: גוזמא קתני. דתניא: אחרים אומרים משום רבי אליעזר: ביצה, תאכל היא ואמה. ואפרוח וקליפתו. מאי קליפתו? אילימא קליפה ממש, קליפה בת אכילה היא? אלא: אפרוח בקליפתו. עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה, דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב, אלא היכא דיצא לאויר העולם. אבל היכא דלא יצא לאויר העולם לא פליגי. אלא אפרוח וקליפתו, גוזמא. הכא נמי: תאכל היא ואמה, גוזמא [...]
It was taught: Others say in the name of Rabbi Eli‘ezer: An egg [that was laid on a festival day] may be eaten, both it and its mother. With what [case] are we dealing? If we say with a hen that was designated for consumption, it is obvious that [the egg] and its mother [hen] are both permitted. Rather, with a hen that was designated to produce eggs. [The egg] and its mother are prohibited. Rabbi Zeira said: [The egg] may be eaten on account of its mother. What is the case? Abbayye said: For instance, s/he purchased [the hen] [before the festival] for no defined [purpose]. If [the hen] was slaughtered, we deduce that it was designated for consumption; if it was not slaughtered, we deduce that it was designated to produce eggs. Rav Mari said: The [baraita’s] teaching was an exaggeration, as it was taught [in another baraita]: Others say in the name of Rabbi Eli‘ezer: An egg [that was laid on a festival day] may be eaten, it and its mother, and a chick and its shell. What is its shell? If you say: The shell itself, is a shell edible? Rather a chick in its shell. [That cannot be,] for the rabbis have taken issue with Rabbi Eli‘ezer ben Ya‘akov only when the chick has already hatched [lit., came out into the air of the world], however, when the chick has not hatched they do not argue. Rather, a chick and its shell is an exaggeration. Here too, that it may be eaten, it and its mother, is an exaggeration. […]
אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב: וכי מה זה בין לעגל שנולד ביום טוב? אמר להו: הואיל ומוכן אגב אמו, בשחיטה [...]
Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav: But what [is the difference] between this [chick] and a calf that was born on a festival day? He said to them: The calf was prepared on account of its mother through slaughtering […]
עגל שנולד ביום טוב מותר, שהוא מתיר עצמו לשחיטה [...]
A calf which is born on a festival day, it is permitted [for its slaughter], because it subjects itself to permission […]
תנו רבנן: 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.
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. והלא בדק? אימר: לא בדק יפה יפה. ואפילו בדק יפה, אימר: יצתה רובה וחזרה הואי, וכדרבי יוחנן.
Our Rabbis taught: All [creatures] which copulate by day are born during the day. All [creatures] which copulate by night are born during the night. All [creatures] which copulate both by day and by night are born both during the day and during the night. Those which copulate by day are born during the day, this [refers to] a hen; those which copulate by night are born during the night, this [refers to] the bat; those which copulate by day and by night and are born both during the day and during the night, this [refers to] human beings [adam] and whatever is like him.
The Master said: Those who copulate by day [and] are born during the day, refers to a hen. What is the practical difference? [With respect to the teaching] of Rav Mari bar Rav Kahana. For Rav Mari bar Rav Kahana said: If one examined a hen’s nest on the eve of the festival and did not find in it an egg, and on the morrow s/he rose early and found in it an egg, it is permitted. But did s/he not examine [the nest]? I say that s/he did not examine it very carefully, and even if s/he did examine it carefully, I would say that [perhaps] the greater part [of the egg] came out [before the festival] and went back; and [this ruling is] in accordance with [the opinion of] Rabbi Yohanan.
רבי אבהו בשם רבי יוסה בי ר' חנינה שאיל: כל שתשמישו 'ביו מוליד ביום, בלילה מוליד בלילה? התיבון הרי התרנגולת, הרי אין תשמישה אלא ביו' והיא יולדת בין ביו' בין בלילה. אמר רבי אבון: שנייא היא, שכן היא יולדת בלא זכר [...]
הכל מודין בביצה שיצא רובה מערב יום טוב, שהיא נאכלת ביום טוב. מה פליגין? בשיצא מיעוטה תבי. שמאי אומרים: תיאכל ובית הלל אומרים: לא תיאכל.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yosi bar Rabbi Hananiah asked: Any [creature] that copulates by day gives birth during the day, and any that copulates by night gives birth during the night? They answered: There is the case of the hen. It copulates only by day, and yet gives birth both during the day and during the night. Said Rabbi Abbun: That case is different, for it gives birth without a male […]
All concur in the case of an egg, the greater part of which came out on the eve of a festival, that it is eaten on the festival day. About what do they differ? About [an egg,] the smaller part of which came out [on the eve of the festival]. Beth Shammai say: It may be eaten, and Beth Hillel say: It may not be eaten.
@General observations
The above-cited gemara discusses mBets 1:1, which reflects the lenient opinion of Beth Shammai versus the stringent opinion of Beth Hillel (see the commentary on Mishnah 1. mBetsah 1:1). The Houses of Hillel and Shammai disagree on whether an egg laid on a festival day may be eaten or whether its consumption is prohibited.
The gemara first argues the opinion of Beth Hillel, according to which it is prohibited to eat an egg laid on a festival day. The main argument is stated in the name of Rabbah, according to whom (bBets 2b) any food eaten on a festival day has to have been determined as food on a preceding regular weekday. This principle is known as לרבה הכנה, ”Rabbah’s preparation” law. Therefore, if two holy days follow each other, one is not allowed to prepare food on the first festival day for use on the second. The same rule applies all the more when Shabbat precedes a festival day. Consequently, the gemara argues that an egg may not be eaten according to Beth Hillel when it was laid on the first of two consecutive festival days.
Then the gemara discusses the reasoning of Beth Shammai who permitted the egg to be eaten (bBets 4a). The rabbis state that the status of an egg laid on a festival day depends on the retroactive designation of the mother hen, either to be eaten or to lay eggs. This means that if a person slaughters a hen on a festival day and finds eggs in it, they are permitted to be eaten as well, because an egg is considered part of the hen. Only when the greater part of the egg is already out side the hen’s body is the egg deemed independent food, a designation that has to have been determined, however, before the festival day, for it is prohibited to eat such a half-laid or just-laid egg on the festival day (bBets 7a).
@Feminist observations
The mishnaic term נולד, born, in connection with an egg is used only in Tractate Betsah (see the feminist commentary on Mishnah 1. mBetsah 1:1). This unusual mishnaic expression was adopted by the gemara in the Aramaic verb form (bBets 2b). Human birth plays a central role in the outcome of this halakhic debate, because the question of whether and when an egg is considered independent of the mother hen is discussed by applying to it the same reasoning and outcome used to answer the question, when exactly a fetus is considered independent of its mother’s body. The egg is deemed independent when the larger part of it is already outside the hen’s body, just as a fetus is considered a נפש, a person, once the head emerges. Thus, bSan 72b states:
אמר רב הונא: קטן הרודף ניתן להצילו בנפשו. קסבר: רודף אינו צריך התראה. לא שנא גדול ולא שנא קטן. איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא: יצא ראשו, אין נוגעין בו, לפי שאין דוחין נפש מפני נפש. ואמאי? רודף הוא ש! אני התם, דמשמיא קא רדפי לה.
Rav Huna said: A minor in pursuit may be slain to save the pursued. Thus he maintains that a pursuer, whether an adult or a minor, need not be formally warned. Rav Hisda replied to Rav Huna: Once its head has come out, it may not be harmed, because one life may not be taken to save another. And why is it so? Is s/he not a pursuer? There it is different, for s/he is pursued by heaven.
According to this text, if a fetus threatens its mother’s life, the latter has to be saved even at the expense of the former’s life. The moment the head of the fetus emerges from the birth canal, however, it is considered a person in its own right and the following rule applies: “No life can be taken to save another.” So, also, is the egg considered “fully born” when most of it is outside the hen (bBets 7a). Furthermore, the rabbis use the term אמן מעי )bBets 2b), the “intestine of their mother”. The term אמן מעי refers throughout rabbinic literature almost exclusively to a fetus in the womb.[1]
Moreover, Tractate Gittin (bGit 57a) presents a rooster and a hen as symbols of fertility and Tractate Shabbat (bShab 30b) makes a comparison between hens and women:
[1] For a further discussion of this topic see ILAN, FCBT V/3. Hullin (mHul 3:2) forthcoming.
בדברי תורה מאי היא כי? הא דיתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש: עתידה אשה שתלד בכל יום, שנאמר "הרה ויול דת יחדיו" (ירמיה לא ח). ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד. אמר: "אין כל חדש תחת השמש" (קהלת א ט). אמר: לו בא ואראך דוגמתן בעולם הזה. נפק אחוי ליה תרנגולת.
Words of the Torah, what does it mean? [For instance:] One day Rabban Gamli’el lectured: A woman is destined, in the future, to give birth every day, for it was said: “with child and in labor together” (Jer 31:8). One of his pupils mocked him. He said: “There is no new thing under the sun” (Eccl 1:9). [Rabban Gamali’el] said to him: Come and I will show you something like it in this world. He went out and showed him a hen.
The association of women with hens and of an egg with a fetus has persisted in Jewish tradition over the centuries. Rabbi Ya‘akov ben Asher, Ba‘al Ha-Turim, stated at the beginning of the 13th century: “The rooster is such an excellent replacement for a man, because its Hebrew name גבר means man as well” (Orah Hayyim §605).[1] To this day, pregnant women who perform the ritual of kapparot on the eve of Yom Kippur still use eggs as symbols for their unborn children, even though some rabbis prohibit it as a pagan tradition.[2]
From a feminist point of view the designation דאפרת אוכלא (ukhla de’ifrat – food that is separated, bBets 2a) is the second interesting term mentioned in the sugya. Concerning the same expression in bHul 14b Rabbenu Gershom says that אפרת, ifrat, means “be fruitful and multiply” in Aramaic. And in bKet 65 אוכלא is interpreted as relating to sexual intercourse:
מאי : אוכלת (מ' כתובות ה ט)? רב נחמן אמר: אוכלת ממש, רב אשי אמר: תשמיש. תנן: אוכלת עמו מ לילי שבת (שם); בשלמא למ"ד אכילה, היינו דקתני אוכלת, אלא למאן דאמר תשמיש, מאי אוכלת? לישנא מעליא כדכתיב: "אכלה ומחתה פיה ואמרה לא פעלתי און" (משלי ל כ). מיתיבי, רשב ג" אומר: אוכלת בלילי שבת ושבת (שם); בשלמא למ"ד אכילה, היינו דקתני ושבת, אלא למאן דאמר תשמיש, תשמיש בשבת מי איכא? והאמר רב הונא: ישראל קדושים, הן ואין משמשין מטותיהן ביום. האמר רבא: בבית אפל מותר.
What [is meant by]: She is to eat (mKet 5:9)? Rav Nahman replied: Actual eating. Rav Ashi replied: Sexual intercourse. We have learned: She is to eat with him on the night of every Shabbat (ibid.). Now, according to him who said: [Actual] eating, it is quite correct to use the expression: She is to eat. According to him, however, who said: Intercourse, why [it may be asked] was the expression: She is to eat used? It is a euphemism as it is written: “She eats, and wipes her mouth, and says: I have done no wickedness” (Prov 30:20). An objection was raised: Rabban Shime‘on ben Gamli’el said: She is to eat with him on the night of the Shabbat and on Shabbat [day] (ibid.). Now, according to him, who said: [Actual] eating, it is correct to state: And on Shabbat [day]. According to him, however, who said: Intercourse, is there any intercourse on Shabbat [day]? Did not Rav Huna state: The Israelites are holy and do not have intercourse in the daytime? But, surely, Rava stated: It is permitted in a dark room.[1]
[1] For a discussion of sexual intercourse in a dark room or at night see VALLER, FCBT II/6, Sukkah, 120-121. For the linkage between rabbinic literature, food and sex see the Introduction to this volume.
In bKet 65b, and also throughout rabbinic literature, food and sex are closely linked to one another.[1] Furthermore, the combination of the similarity of an egg and a fetus, on the one hand, and the combination of an egg with food, and food with sex on the other hand, build the mental framework of the above discussion. While the Yerushalmi speaks at the end of our sugya only about sexual relations between animals (a hen copulates by day but lays eggs during both the day and the night), the Bavli explicitly mentions the copulation of all creatures, differentiating between hens who both copulate and lay eggs during the day, bats who do so during the night and humans who do so during day and night (bBets 7a).[2] Obviously, the zoological observations of the rabbis say more about how they perceived human sexual activity than about how they understood the animal world.