Leviticus 11:13–19 lists 24 species of birds that are forbidden to eat. Rabbinic law states that this prohibition extends to their eggs. Omelets made from cormorant or crow eggs, therefore, are out.
But the Torah does not explicitly state that eggs from unkosher birds are forbidden. On today’s daf, Hizkiyya suggests a biblical source for this prohibition.
Hizkiyya says: From where is it derived that the egg of an unkosher bird is prohibited by Torah law? As it is written, “The ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull; hawks of every variety” (Leviticus 11:16).
To understand how this verse serves as the source for the prohibition on eating eggs of unkosher animals, we have to dive into the language. The biblical Hebrew that has been rendered here as “ostrich” is bat ya’ana. (In Hebrew, bat means “daughter.”) All of the other birds listed in the section have one-word names, so the word “bat” stands out, inviting the rabbis to determine its legal significance. Hizkiyya suggests that the word bat refers not to the mother’s offspring but to her eggs.
The rabbis worry that this reading is a bit forced:
But perhaps this is their name!
What if this particular species of bird is simply called bat ya’ana, with no reference to offspring? If so, the word bat is not extraneous. This would mean it is not available for interpretation — and therefore cannot be the source for the prohibition on eating eggs of forbidden birds.
Bible scholarship to the rescue! A quick search of the Bible reveals that Lamentations 4:3 also makes reference to these birds without using the word bat: “The daughter of my people has become cruel, like the ye’enim in the wilderness.” This suggests bat is not part of the species name and can be used to prohibit the eggs.
Not so fast, says the Gemara: Both Micah 1:8 and Isaiah 13:21, which also mention this bird, include the word bat. This suggests that bat is part of the name of the bird and not available for midrashic interpretation.
The Gemara appears to be dead set on supporting Hizkiyya’s claim that Leviticus 11:16 is the source of the prohibition, so it changes tactics. It notes that Genesis 14:4 refers to a king named Chedorlaomer whose name is sometimes rendered by scribes as Chedor Laomer — two words instead of one. Written this way, it is possible to read it as a reference to two people, Chedor and Laomer, which is incorrect. To prevent this from happening, scribes who split the name into two words must keep those words on the same line. That is, writing Chedor at the end of one line and Laomer at the start of the next is not allowed. But this rule was not instituted for bat ya’ana, which scribes are free to write across two lines. And it is this that allows Hizkiyya to give the word bat its own legal significance and use it to prohibit the eggs of an ostrich — and, by extension, the eggs of all forbidden bird species.
Let’s set aside the midrashic arguments in favor of some logic. It makes intuitive sense that the eggs of an unkosher bird would also be unkosher. If they had wanted to, the rabbis of the Talmud could have simply asserted it. But rooting the prohibition in the biblical text carries more weight for the rabbis, and Hizkiyya provides a path for them to do so. Further, even though the rabbis “want” this conclusion, his interpretation must pass through the talmudic gauntlet in order to gain acceptance.
Read all of Chullin 64 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 3, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
