Parallel
עירובין 28
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
‘If a man ate an eel he [technically] incurs flogging on four counts; if an ant, on five counts; if a hornet, on six counts. Now if that statement is authentic [should not one eating] an eel also be flogged on account of [the prohibition against] a creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth? — Rather, replied Rabina, the practical difference between them is [the question of including] birds. According to him who holds [that the things included must be] ‘the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from the earth’ [birds are included since] they also derive their nourishment from the earth. According to him, however, who maintains [that the things included must be] ‘produce of the produce of the earth’ birds [are excluded since they] were created from the alluvial mud. On what ground does the one include birds and on what ground does the other exclude them? — He who includes birds’ is of the opinion that the second generalization is for principal [consideration]; hence [the proposition] is in [the form of] ‘a specification and a generalization’ [in which case] the generalization is regarded as an addition to the specification so that all things are thereby included, while the first generalization has the effect of excluding all things that are not similar to it in two respects. He, however, who excludes birds is of the opinion that a first generalization is for principal [consideration] hence [the proposition] is in the form of ‘a generalization and a specification’ [in which case] the generalization does not cover more than what was enumerated in the specification. Consequently it is only these that are included but no other things, while the second generalization has the effect of including all things that are similar to it in three respects. Rab Judah ruled in the name Of R. Samuel b. Shilath who had it from Rab: An ‘erub may be prepared with cress, purslane and melilot but not with lichen Or unripe dates. Is it, however, permitted to prepare an ‘erub with melilot seeing that it was taught: Those who have many children may eat melilot but those who have no children must not eat it; and if it was hardened into seed even those who have many children should not eat it? Explain it to [refer to melilot] that was not hardened into seed and [that is used for people who] have many children. And if you prefer I might say: It may in fact refer to [people who] have no children [the use of the plant nevertheless being permitted] because it is fit [for consumption] by those who have many children; for have we not learnt: ‘An ‘erub may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah’, from which it is evident that [certain foodstuffs may be used for an ‘erub because] through they are unsuitable for one person they are suitable for another? So also here [it may be held that] though [the melilot] is not suitable for one it is suitable for another. And if you prefer I might reply: When Rab made his statement [he referred] to the Median melilot. But is it not [permitted to prepare an ‘erub] from lichen? Has not Rab Judah in fact stated in the name of Rab: An ‘erub may be prepared from cuscuta or lichen and the benediction of ‘[Blessed art Thou . . .] Who createth the fruit of the ground’ is to be Pronounced over them? _ This is no difficulty. The one ruling was made before Rab came to Babylon while the other — was made after he came to Babylon. Is Babylon, however, the greater part of the world? Was it not in fact taught: If a man sowed beans, barley or fenugreek to [use as a] herb, his wish is disregarded in view of the general practice; hence it is its seed that is subject to tithe but its herb is exempt. Pepperwort or gardenrocket that was sown [with the intention of using it] as a herb must be tithed as herb and as seed. If it was sown to [be used as] seed it must be tithed as seed and as herb? — Rab spoke Only
—
of those that grow in house gardens. What is garden-rocket suitable for? — R. Johanan replied: The ancients, who had no pepper, crushed it and dipped in it their roasted meat. R. Zera, when he felt fatigued from study, used to go and sit down at the door [of the school] of R. Judah b. Ammi saying: ‘As the Rabbis go in and out I shall rise up before them and so receive reward for [honouring] them.’ [On one occasion] a young school child came out. ‘What,’ he asked him, ‘did your Master teach you?’ — ‘[That the benediction for] cuscuta’, the other replied: ‘is "[Blessed . . .] Who createst the fruit of the ground" [and that for] lichen, is "[Blessed . . .] by Whose word all things were made". ‘On the contrary’, he said to him, ‘logically [the benedictions] should be reversed since the latter derives its nourishment from the earth while the former derives it from the air . The law, however, is in agreement with the school child. What is the reason? — The former is the ripened fruit while the latter is not the ripened fruit. And, as to your objection that ‘the latter derives its nourishment from the earth while the former derives it from the air’ [the fact is that in reality this] is not [the case]. Cuscuta also derives its nourishment from the earth; for we may observe that when the shrub is cut off the cuscuta dies. But is it not permissible to prepare an ‘erub from unripe dates? Was it not in fact taught: The white heart of a palm may be purchased with [second] tithe money but is not susceptible to food defilement. Unripe dates, however, may be purchased with [second] tithe money and they are also susceptible to food defilement. R. Judah ruled: The white heart of a palm is treated as wood in all respects, except that it may be purchased with [second] tithe money, while unripe dates are treated as fruit in all respects except that they are exempt from the [second] tithe? — There [the reference is] to stunted dates. If so, would R. Judah in this case rule, ‘they are exempt from second tithe’? Was it not in fact taught: R. Judah sand: The [stunted] figs of Bethania were mentioned only in connection with [second] tithe alone; the [stunted] figs of Bethania and the unripe dates of Tobina are subject to the obligation of the second tithe? — The fact, however, is [that the Baraitha cited does] not refer to stunted dates, but [the law] in respect of food defilement is different [from other laws]. As It. Johanan explained [elsewhere], ‘Because one can make them sweet by [keeping them near] the fire’ so here also [it may be explained,] Because one can make them sweet by [keeping them near] the fire. And where was the statement of R. Johanan made? — In connection with the following. For it was taught: Bitter almonds when small are subject [to the second tithe, and when [big are exempt , but sweet [almonds] are subject [to the second tithe when] big and exempt when small. R. Simeon son of R. Jose ruled in the name of his father, ‘Both are exempt’ or, as others read: ‘Both are subject [to the second tithe]’. Said R. Il'a: R. Hanina gave a decision at Sepphoris in agreement with him who ruled: ‘Both are exempt’. According to him, however, who ruled: ‘Both are subject [to the second tithe]’, what [it may be asked] are they suitable for? [To this] It. Johanan replied: [They may be regarded as proper food] because they can be rendered sweet by [keeping then, near] the fire. The Master said: ‘R. Judah ruled: The white heart of a palm is treated as wood in all respects, except that it may be purchased with [second] tithe money’. [Is not this ruling] exactly the same [as that of] the first Tanna? — Abaye replied: The practical difference between them is the case where one boiled or fried it. Raba demurred: Is there at all any authority who maintains that [such a commodity], even when boiled or fried does not [assume the character of food]? Was it not in fact taught: A skin and a placenta are not susceptible to the defilement of food, but a skin that was boiled and a placenta that one intended [to boil] are susceptible to food defilement? — Rather, said Raba, the practical difference between them’ is [the form of] the benediction. For it was stated, [The benediction for] the white heart of the palm is, R. Judah ruled: ‘Who createst the fruit of the ground’, and Samuel ruled: ‘By Whose word all things were made’. ‘R. Judah ruled: "Who createst the fruit of the ground"’ because it is a foodstuff; ‘and Samuel ruled: "By Whose word all things were made"’ because in consideration of the fact that it would eventually be hardened the benediction of ‘Who createst the fruit of the ground’ cannot be pronounced over it. Said Samuel to R. Judah: Shinena, logical reasoning is on your side for there is the case of radish which is eventually hardened and yet the benediction of, ‘Who createst the fruit of the ground’ is pronounced over it. This argument, however, is not conclusive, since people plant radish with the intention of eating it while soft but no palm-tree is planted with the intention [of eating its] white heart. And, consequently, although Samuel complimented R. Judah, the law is in agreement with Samuel. [To turn to the] main text: R. Judah stated in the name of Rab: An ‘erub may be prepared from cuscuta or lichen, and the benediction of ‘[Blessed art Thou . . .] Who createst the fruit of the ground’ is to be pronounced over them. With what quantity of cuscuta? — As R. Yehiel said [infra], ‘a handful’ so is it here also a handful. With what quantity of lichen?’ — Rabbah b. Tobiah replied in the name of R. Isaac who had it from Rab: As much as the contents of farmers’ bundles. R. Hilkiah b. Tobiah ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared from kalia. ‘From kalia’! Could [such a notion] be entertained? [Say] rather with the herb from, which kalia is obtained. And what must be the quantity? — R. Yehiel replied: A handful. R. Jeremiah once went [on a tour] to the country towns when he was asked whether it was permissible to prepare an ‘erub with green beans, but he did not know [what the answer was]. When he later came to the schoolhouse he was told: Thus ruled R. Jannai: It is permitted to prepare an ‘erub from green beans. And what must be its quantity? — R. Yehiel replied: A handful. R. Hamnuna ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared from raw beet. But this is not so, seeing that R. Hisda in fact stated: Raw beet kills a healthy man?55
—