Beitza 7 a, b

Today's daf is especially long.  It is filled with conversation that is multi-generational, varied in topic, and broad in its coverage of each topic.  I will not attempt to summarize what the Sages taught.  Instead I will outline the topics and share some of the thoughts inspired by today's learning.

• Rav Ami shares his rulings about disputes where buyers claim that they were not given the type of egg that they paid for.  We learn about the status of fully formed eggs found within a slaughtered chicken, eggs that were fertilized by a rooster, and eggs that have emerged and rescinded into a chicken - are these permitted on a festival?
• Kashrut of eggs still attached by sinews to their mother - are these classified as meat and thus not permitted with dairy?  Ritual impurity could result - can ritual purity be determined by rabbinic law?  Does the act of eating an unslaughtered animal impart ritual impurity?  Or are only certain parts of the animal imparting ritual impurity (non-kosher fat, craw, intestines, ovaries)?
• In all species, sexual intercourse during the day leads to birth during the day; sexual intercourse during the night leads to birth during the night; sexual intercourse in the day or night leads to birth any time of day. This is important because we can more easily determine whether eggs might be permitted on Festivals - we need to know when they emerged or at least when they were ready to emerge from the chicken.
• But really, when do chickens have intercourse?  Chickens will not cross certain boundaries.  How far can they travel to find a rooster?
• A side note: uncovered foods like crushed garlic are not permitted for a snake could put its venom in that food.  This minhag is not followed in most places as snakes became less commonplace.
• Does leavened bread have different standards for liability than other prohibited items?  Beit Hillel believes all items require only an olive bulk.  Beit Shammai believes that most items require an olive bulk but that leavened bread must be measured at a large date bulk to make its owner liable.    The rabbis find proof texts and hermeneutic reasons to back up their assertions.
• If a person slaughters an animal on a Festival without having prepared the earth (one must prepare dirt to go beneath and then upon the blood of the animal), is that person permitted to complete the action?

Most of today's conversations regard the roles of animals in connection with food.  Judaism has a conflicted relationship with animals.  On the one hand, humans are understood as separate from all other species - smarter, more powerful, and in fact the reason for all other creatures to exist.  On the other hand, animals are respected in law and in custom - they are fed before people are fed, they are given a day of rest, they are not allowed to be forced to keep up with larger animals.  

This challenging relationship is of course reflected in the rabbis discussion of animals as food.  While they may have been created for our ease and pleasure, we must understand animal behaviour to best take advantage of them.  So we must treat them well to extract as many eggs as possible, for example.  Is this in fact a kindness?  or is it a narcissistically  human-centric understanding of animals disguised as empathy?  

Of course we have to protect ourselves from snake venom.  And we are animals, too, which would suggest that we will subjugate others if we must to ensure our own survival.  But to assume that blood must be covered up, from both below and above, is problematic.  Why is the blood covered?  Is it to save others the sight of that tragedy?  is it just to keep things clean?  or does it signify some sort of remorse, shame even, for participating in that killing in the first place?