Commentary for Chullin 195:11

ה"נ מסתברא דאי ס"ד

It may be that the second clause was stated to make clear the first: lest you might think that the first clause deals with eggs that have chickens in them, leaving us to infer that if they had no chickens in them all the eggs would be permitted, he therefore adds the second clause which deals with eggs that have chickens in them, which shows that the first clause speaks of eggs that have no chickens in them, and even so render the others forbidden.

Explore commentary for Chullin 195:11. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.