Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is (round) like an egg ...

Text: ... implying that he reads the word 'Koderes' with a 'Reish', since the last letter of 'Kadur' meaning a ball, is a 'Reish'.

Suggested Proof: From Rashi's translation of the Pasuk in Yeshayah (22) "Tzanfah Kadur el Eretz Rachavas Yadayim" - 'he will ... hurl you like a ball to a spacious land' ...

Refutation: ... there is no proof - since the Pasuk ought then to have written 'ke'Kadur' (with an extra "Kaf").

Alternative Interpretation: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the "Kaf" there is a prefix ("ka'Dur") meaning like a Ger (a stranger) who is exiled to a spacious land where nobody knows him. "Dur" is like "Ger", as we find in Tehilim (84) "Mi Dur be'Ohalei Resha" - 'Who will live in the tents of the wicked?'

Explanation #2: And at the end of Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodh-Zarah 40a) Rashi has the text 'Kodedes' (with a 'Daled'), which he explains as 'Round like a jar'.

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Tam confines this ruling to the Simanim of eggs, since ssome eggs of an Oreiv resemble those of a dove; But the Simanim of the fish's embryo are d'Oraysa, and one may rely on them.

Source: ... as the Gemara states at the end of 'Ein Ma'amidin' (Avodah-Zarah Daf 40a & 40b), where the Gemara queries Rav who said that the innards of fish may only be purchased from an expert, why one cannot simply examine them, since they are the same as the Simanim of eggs, as we learned in a Beraisa? To which the Gemara answers that it is speaking where they melted ...

Source (cont.): ... and it does not answer that Simanim are not d'Oraysa.

Implied Question: And if you want to say that this is because the Gemara understands that in any case, one may only purchase them from an expert, even if he says that they come from such and such a fish, which is Tahor, in which case one would be able to rely on him ...

Answer: ... it cannot be speaking specifically in one case, because if he claims that he salted them, then they can be purchased even from someone who is not an expert ...

Conclusion: ... And we rely on this (ruling) to eat the fish that is called 'Barb'ta' (in old French [which has no scales])

Conclusion (cont.): ... even though we don't know whether it sheds its scales when it comes out of the Sea. Nevertheless, we rely on the Simanim of the fish's embryo.

Refutation: The Yerushalmi however implies that we cannot rely on the Simanim of the fish's embryo ...

Refutation (cont.): ... as the text there reads 'Nasan bar Aba stood before Shmuel and said 'I know how to distinguish between the embryo of Tahor fish and that of Tamei fish - The latter are round, the former elongated.

Refutation (cont): When he (Shmuel) showed him the bladder of a fish and asked him about its Kashrus, he replied that it was Tamei. Shmuel retorted that although there was no harm per se in declaring something that is Tahor, Tamei, only that next he would rule that something that is Tamei is Tahor.

Refutation (cont): So we see that it is not permitted to examine the Simanim, as Shmuel pointed out to Nasan bar Aba ...

Refutation (cont): ... and it implies that one cannot even rely on the Simanim that are listed in the Beraisa ...

Moreover: And also the Simanim mentioned by Nasan bar Aba are synonymous with those listed in the Beraisa.

Conclusion: The Gemara too (in Avodah-Zarah) could have given the same answer, but it answered the Kashya satisfactorily ...

Implied Question: ... and the reason that we purchase eggs from the Nochrim, even though they do not specifically inform us that they come from such and such a bird, and are therefore Tahor?

Answer: We rely on the fact that the majority of eggs that are found among us are those of Tahor birds.

Implied Question: And that what we purchase a sort of spiced dough that has been kneaded with eggs, even though our Sugya forbids purchasing from them eggs that have been scrambled in a dish?

Answer: ... is not comparable, ssince, in our case, seeing as the Nochri is selling them scrambled in a dish it is evident that a Yisrael sold them to him because they are from a T'reifah bird ...

Answer (cont.): ... which we need not suspect by a dough that is kneaded with eggs. Consequently, we go after the majority of eggs, which are not T'reifos.

Moreover: Nor do suspect that perhaps the eggs contain blood, seeing as the majority of eggs do not contain blood.

Conclusion: Indeed, it is a daily occurrence that we eat scrambled eggs (of Nochrim) even though it is not possible to examine them.

Another Opinion: Rabeinu Tam however, forbids purchasing a dough that is kneaded with eggs from a Nochri because of Bishul Nochri ...

Implied Question: ... even though the Yerushalmi rules that the Chachamim took a count and permitted bread ...

Answer: ... here is different, because since it was kneaded with eggs, it becomes Asur because of cooked foods, which were not included in the concession of bread.

Answer (cont.): In fact, there were two separate decrees; the decree on bread was one of eighteen decrees which the Talmidim of Shamai and Hillel enacted, whereas that of cooked food was a much earlier decree.

Proof: Seeing as the Gemara in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah 37b) initially considers the latter d'Oraysa, based on the Pasuk "Ochel ba'Kesef Tashbireini va'Achlti, u'Mayim ba'Kesef Titein li ve'Shasisi" - 'Just as water has not changed, so too, food that has not changed (to preclude cooked food) ...

Proof (cont.): ... and it concludes that the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta. Now, if cooked food was one of the eighteen decrees, the Gemara would never have erred in the first place, since those decrees were well-known to them, as the Gemara says in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Avodah-Zarah 36a)

Halachah: It seems however, that, even though the Gemara in 'Ein M'amidin' rules like those who forbid eggs on account of Bishulei Akum, since they have the support of a Beraisa ...

Halachah (cont.): ... we cannot forbid a dough that has been kneaded with eggs - because, based on the fact that we recite the B'rachah of 'ha'Motzi' over it, the flour is the Ikar - and we rely on the Yerushalmi's Heter regarding bread.

Source: And the Gemara states in Perek Ein Ma'amidin (Ibid. 38a), regarding small salted fish, that fish are not subject to Bishul Akum; but that if a Nochri prepared them in the form of 'Kasa de'Hars'na' (small fish fried in flour), then it is ...

Source (cont.): ... and in reply to the question 'P'shita?', the Gemara answers that we might have thought that the fish is the main ingredient of the dish, so the Gemara needs to teach us that the flour is in fact, the main ingredient ...

Source (cont.): ... implying that if the fish was the major ingredient, it would be permitted, even though the flour is mixed in it.

Exception: Based on this however, we cannot permit the dough of a fish-pie that a Nochri baked - because the fish fat is actually visible on the dough, and was therefore forbidden due to Bishul Akum right from the beginning.

Reason: Nor can it be compared to the dough that was kneaded with eggs, where the eggs became Bateil right at the beginning, and never became Asur.

Clarification: Specifically 'Nikvah' (that it became perforated), as we learned in the Mishnah in 'ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev' (Daf 126b) 'The egg of a Sheretz which developed an embryo is Tahor; But if it is holed, however slightly, it is Tamei'.

Question #1: Regarding eating and Malkos, why do we need 'Rikmah' (it turned into an embryo), seeing as we anyway rule that 'Whatever emerges from something that is Tamei, is Tamei' (as we learned in the Mishnah in the first Perek of Bechoros)? ...

Proof: ... which is the reason that we declare Asur there the urine of a donkey.

Question #2: Similarly, when the Gemara will shortly Darshen from the Pasuk "ve'es Bas ha'Ya'anah" that eggs of a Tamei bird are Tamei, why do we need a Pasuk?

The B'hag's Explanation: And the B'hag in Hilchos Gid ha'Nasheh, implies that the Pasuk "Bas ha'Ya'anah" is not needed for itself, but rather to extrapolate from it that the egg of a Tahor bird is permitted.

The B'hag's Explanation (cont.): We would otherwise have thought that it is forbidden, since we do not find anything that comes from a living creature that is permitted ...

The B'hag's Explanation (cont.): As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Bechoros (6b) with regard to the milk of a Tahor animal, for which we require a Pasuk to permit it.

Refutation: This is not however, the implication of the Gemara, which asks 'From where do we know that the egg of a Tamei bird is Tamei?', and not 'From where do we know that the egg of a Tahor bird is permitted?'

Alternative Explanation: It therefore seems that the Heter to eat the egg of a Tahor bird we learn from the D'rashah later (Daf 140a) in connection with Shilu'ach ha'Kein "You shall take for yourself" - 'but not for your dogs'. from which we preclude a Tahor bird that it sitting on the eggs of a Tamei one.

Alternative Explanation (cont.): And we now need "Bas ha'Ya'anah" to forbid the eggs of a Tamei bird, which we would have thought are permitted - because whereas there is nothing that comes from a living animal that the Torah permits, yet we find that it permits an egg, even though it is like Eiver min ha'Chai. Consequently, it should be permitted even if it comes from a Tamei bird.

Implied Question: And as for the inference "Lach" - 've'Lo li'Kelavecha' ...

Answer: ...we would have established that with regard to chicks of Tamei birds, but their eggs are permitted ...

Proof: ... like we say in the first Perek of Bechoros (6b) regarding the milk of a Tamei animal.

Conclusion: This now explains why the Gemara needs to state that the egg of a Sheretz is Asur specifically if it is Rikmah, but otherwise it is permitted. This is due to the Chidush, in the same way as, with regard to the Tamei birds, the Torah writes "bas ha'Ya'anah", and not by Sheretz.

Question: If we do not learn (the Isur of) the egg of a Sheretz from the egg of a Tamei bird, then how much more so that of a T'reifah bird ...

Question (cont.): ... whereas at the beginning of Beitzah (3b) it implies that it (the egg of a T'reifah bird) is Asur min ha'Torah?

Answer: It is logical to learn a bird from a bird, even though it is a Tahor species (that we are learning from a Tamei one) ...

Answer (cont.): ... whereas, as far as the egg of a Sheretz is concerned, on the contrary, it is more logical to learn it from Tum'ah, like we Darshen in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Daf 126b) - ' "for Tum'ah we need Rikum, as the Torah writes "ha'Sheretz", just as a Sheretz has reached the stage of Rikum, so too must the egg of the Sheretz have.'.

Implied Question: And there is no problem in learning Isur from Tum'ah ...

Answer: ... seeing as in Maseches Me'ilah, in Perek Kodshei Mizbe'ach (16b) the Gemara equates them with regard to the Shi'ur of a k'Adashah (a lentil).

Implied Question: And even though there are now two things that come from a living creature and are permitted - like milk and eggs ...

Answer #1: ... it is nevertheless considered a Chidush, seeing as they do not come from a Chai in the same way.

Precedent: And that is how we will explain the Gemara in the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 7b), which Darshens from a Pasuk that bees' honey is permitted, because it is not similar to milk.

Answer #2: Alternatively, since all other limbs from an animal are forbidden, they are both considered a Chidush.

New Explanation: It is also possible to explain that all eggs, both of Tamei birds and of Tahor ones, are permitted due to the reason stated in Bechoros (7b), which permits the Beitzei Zachar of a Yachmur (a species of deer), because it is merely the semen of the ram that congealed.

New Explanation (cont.): ... and similarly, 'the skin that comes in front of a baby donkey' (Ibid.), which is probably permitted because it comes from the semen of the donkey, which automatically congeals and turned into skin. And it is permitted because it has nothing to do with the birth of the donkey, in which case it is permitted because it is formed from semen, which has the Din of Neveilah that has turned putrid - which is permitted ...

Implied Question: ... and in the end, even though it congeals and becomes skin ...

Answer: ... it is nevertheless permitted, like the chick of a T'reifah egg, which is permitted, because when it grows, it is merely dung.

Conclusion: In fact, all eggs comes from semen, and are permitted for this reason, except for the egg of a Tamei bird which the Torah specifically forbids.

Conclusion (cont.): And this explains why we need a Pasuk.

Conclusion (cont.): ... from which we learn the egg of a T'reifah, as we explained earlier.

Reservation: This reason does not however, go down well with regard to eggs, all of which are initially joined to the nerves, and are therefore considered Basar!

Text: We do not have in our text 'Divrei Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov' ...

Reason: ... because in the first Perek of Beitzah, the Gemara needs to establish the author as Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Rashi explains that, if a Tamei egg is cooked together with Tahor ones, the Tahos eggs are permitted, since (the Tamei egg) is merely (like water) and does not give taste to the others.

Precedent: This is definitely what the Gemara is talking about later in Perek Gid ha'Nasheh (Daf 98a).

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Gemara also draws a distinction there between whether one cooked the Tahor eggs with eggs that contain a chick, or one cooked them with plain Tamei eggs.

Refutation: Here however, Rabeinu Tam does not consider it logical to establish the Gemara like that, since it does not fit into the Sugya.

Explanation #2 (Rabeinu Tam): He therefore concurs with the Aruch, who explains - that they struck the chicken across its womb, and it lost its unfinished eggs - and it is not speaking about cooking at all.

Proof #1: And the Lashon 'Gi'ul' is also more appropriate, like we find in Iyov (21:10) "His ox impregnates and (the cow) does not exude (the seed - ["ve'Lo Yag'il"]).

Proof #2: It is now similar to the case of 'Beitzim ha'Muzaros' (the eggs that are not from a male', which is speaking about the Heter of the eggs themselves.

Conclusion: ... and the Chidush is that they are not considered 'Eiver min ha'Chai', even though they are not yet fully developed.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi in Maseches T'rumos, prior to the case of eggs that one boiled and in which one finds a chick, that is discussed there, citing Shimon bar Aba Amar Rebbi Chanina, tells how such a case came before Raban Gamliel the son of Rebbi, who said 'My father did not even permit the eggs in forty-seven; Shall I permit them in forty-five?'

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'And Rebbi Chiya bar Chanina said - "An episode occurred where the same happened to Rav Huna, and he ruled that the shells of the Tamei eggs helped the Tahor eggs to be Mevatel. The above speaks where one cooked the eggs in their shells; but if one cooks shelled eggs together with shelled eggs, or shelled eggs together with eggs in their shells, a different Shi'ur is necessary, due to Gi'ulei Beitzim - as the Pasuk says in Iyov "Shoro Ibar ve'Lo Yag'il" '.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'Eggs that have developed into an embryo are forbidden'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'Eggs that are not from a male - someone who is not finicky may eat them'.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'If one finds blood in them, one peels the location of the blood' (Up to here is the Lashon of the Yerushalmi).

Proof (for Rashi): This implies like Rashi's explanation - that it is speaking about boiled eggs.

Question: But how can the Yerushalmi quote the Pasuk "Shoro Ibar ... " (which supports the Aruch's explanation, as we explained earlier).

Answer/Refutation: It seems that it (the Pasuk) is not cited in the Yerushalmi, but rather that some disciple inserted it erroneously.

Tosefta: The Tosefta in Maseches T'rumos (Perek Dag Tamei) implies like the explanation of the Aruch ...

Tosefta (cont.): The Beraisa says there that Tahor eggs that one boiled together with Tamei eggs are forbidden if the latter give taste to the former; otherwise, they are permitted ...

Tosefta (cont.): ... 'Gi'ulei Beitzim may be eaten. However, if one finds a chick inside one of the eggs that one boiled, if it gives taste, they are forbidden; otherwise; they are permitted'.

Tosefta (cont.): 'Eggs that are not from a male - someone who is not finicky may eat them'. If one finds blood inside one of them, one throws out the blood and eats the rest'.

Tosefta (cont.): 'One is permitted to eat the blood of fish and of locusts alive or dead, and need not worry about it'.

Proof for Rabeinu Tam: In any event, it is clear that Gi'ulei Beitzim and eggs that one boiled are two different issues.

Rashi's Explanation: Rashi explains that in such a case one is permitted to eat the rest of the egg, since the blood was found on the 'knot', which comprises the semen of the rooster, which is attached to the round end of the egg, and it is from there that the chick is initially formed ...

Rashi's Explanation (cont.): ... and because it is still there and has not spread to the entire egg, one may eat the rest of the egg.

Rashi's Explanation (cont.): ... whereas if it is discovered in the yoke of the egg, the entire egg is forbidden, as the Gemara will explain later 'Shada Tichla be'Chuleih' (The decay has spread to the entire egg).

Implied Question: Why did the Gemara not then use the Lashon "Lo Shanu... ", like Rebbi Apturiki's father did - and say 'That is only if it is found on the knot, but once it has spread beyond the knot, 'Shada Tichla be'Chuleih'?

Answer: We can say that not all the Chachamim have the same way of expressing themselves.

Question: His explanation however, is difficult, from a Beraisa in Perek Dam Shechitah (K'risus 21a) which precludes the blood of eggs (from the Isur of Dam), since it is not a species of Basar, and the blood of fish and locusts, which are entirely permitted ...

Question (cont.): ... implying that, just as the blood of locusts and fish is permitted, as long as it is still joined to them and is recognizable as coming from them, so too is the blood of eggs?

Answer #1: They were strict with the blood of eggs mi'de'Rabbanan, a decree on account of the blood of birds, from which the egg is formed, but min ha'Torah, it is permitted ...

Implied Question: ... even though chicks are formed from there - the knot, which will eventually become a chick ...

Answer #1: At this stage however, it is not a species of Basar, since no flesh has formed yet!

Answer #2: The blood on the knot is Asur min ha'Torah, because it is considered a species of Basar, seeing as the chick is formed from it.

Answer #2 (cont.): And when the Gemara in K'risus (Ibid.) permits the blood of eggs - it speaks where the blood is not on the knot, but on another location, since a chick is not formed from that blood which is therefore not considered a species of Basar ...

Answer #2 (cont.): ... and that is commonly found even just before the egg is hatched. That blood is the result of the rooster biting the hen.

Clarification: And when Rashi explains that blood that is outside the knot is all Asur, he is referring to blood that is basically on the knot and that spread outside; but where there is no blood on the knot, but only on another location, it is permitted, as we explained.

Implied Question: One cannot then ask from the Gemara that follows, where the father of Rebbi Apturiki differentiates between the white of an egg and the yellow, why did he not rather differentiate between blood that is on the knot and blood that is on another location - like Rebbi Yirmiyah?

Answer: That is not a question, since he distinguishes between blood that is discovered on the knot of the white and blood that is discovered on the knot of the yellow.

Explanation #3: Our Sugya permits the blood of eggs completely, like the Gemara in K'risus (Ibid.)

Explanation #3 (cont.): And when the Gemara says 'Provided it is discovered on the knot', it means that one then throws away the blood and eats the rest; But if the blood is somewhere else and not on the knot, then one is even permitted to eat the blood and need not throw it away.

Proof: And this is also implied by the Yerushalmi in T'rumos, which states (after the piece that Tosfos quoted earlier regarding Beitzim Muzaros) that 'If one discovers blood in them, one peels away the blood'.

Note: (The Yerushalmi does not mention anything about eating the rest of the egg, only about throwing away the blood. This implies that the distinctions made by the Amora'im that follow, refer to the blood itself exclusively).

Note (cont.): ... as it explains there - 'Rebbi Zeira went to visit Rebbi Chiya the son of Rebbi Yitzchak; He found him sitting and saying that it is only in the yellow that it is forbidden, but in the white it is permitted. And he thought that he learned it from his fathers (traditionally) ...

Proof (cont.): But along came Rebbi Avahu and ruled in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that both in the white and in the yellow, it is forbidden. However ...

Proof (cont.): ... Rebbi Chalafta b'Rebbi Shaul learned in a Beraisa that the white is permitted; on which Rebbi Ze'ira commented that when he said that the yellow is forbidden, he meant specifically on the 'male part' of the Mo'ach (the knot), and even of the white - provided it is discovered on the 'male part of the Mo'ach', from which it is born (up to here is the Lashon of the Yerushalmi).

Explanation of Yerushalmi: This implies that when the Yerushalmi states afterwards 'They only learned the yellow, but the white is permitted' - it is referring to the Beraisa 'He peels the area of the blood' ...

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): ... and it implies that 'It (the white) is permitted' and that it is not necessary to peel it.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): After that it cites Rebbi Yochanan, who says 'Both the white and the yellow are prohibited' ...

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): ... following which it cites the Beraisa of Rebbi Chalafta b'Rebbi Shaul, who says that the yellow is permitted. This seems to be a printing error however - and the correct version is that 'The yellow is forbidden, whereas the white is permitted ...

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): ... and it is referring exclusively to the blood itself, as Tosfos explained earlier - and Rebbi Ze'ira, who confines the statement of 'the yellow is Asur' to where it is discovered on the 'male part' (the knot) of the yellow, since in fact, the knot can also exist on the white; But not on the knot, even the blood is permitted.

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): Rebbi Ze'ira comes to refute what the Beraisa says 'The yellow is Asur, and the white is Mutar', to teach us that even when the yellow is forbidden - that is only on the knot, since anywhere else the blood of eggs is permitted, even in the yellow ...

Explanation of Yerushalmi (cont.): ... and in such a case, even the white is forbidden.

Conclusion: It now transpires that Rebbi Ze'ira holds like Rebbi Yochanan, who spoke before him, whereas the Beraisa of Rebbi Chalafta b'Rebbi Sha'ul conforms to the opinion of Rebbi Chiya b'Rebbi Yitzchak.