Eruvin

‘If a man ate an eel1 he [technically] incurs2 flogging3 on four counts;4 if an ant, on five counts;5 if a hornet, on six6 counts.7 Now if that statement is authentic8 [should not one eating] an eel also be flogged on account of [the prohibition against] a creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth?9 — Rather, replied Rabina, the practical difference between them10 is [the question of including] birds.11 According to him who holds [that the things included11 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. 12 On what ground does the one include11 birds13 and on what ground does the other exclude them? — He who includes birds’ is of the opinion that the second14 generalization15 is for principal [consideration]; hence [the proposition]16 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,17 while the first generalization18 has the effect19 of excluding all things that are not similar to it20 in two respects.21 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.17 Consequently it is only these22 that are included23 but no other things, while the second generalization24 has the effect of including25 all things that are similar to it26 in three respects.27 Rab Judah ruled in the name Of R. Samuel b. Shilath who had it from Rab: An ‘erub may be prepared with cress,28 purslane and melilot29 but not with lichen30 Or unripe dates.31 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 children32 must not eat it; and if it was hardened into seed even those who have many children should not eat it?33 Explain it34 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: It34 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’,35 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.36 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 made37 before Rab came to Babylon while the other — was made after he came to Babylon.38 Is Babylon, however, the greater part of the world?39 Was it not in fact taught: If a man sowed beans, barley or fenugreek to [use as a] herb,40 his wish is disregarded in view of the general practice;41 hence it is its seed that is subject to tithe but its herb40 is exempt. Pepperwort42 or gardenrocket43 that was sown [with the intention of using it] as a herb must be tithed as herb and as seed.44 If it was sown to [be used as] seed it must be tithed as seed and as herb?45 — Rab spoke Only v) was twice forbidden as food (ibid. 43). 19). ‘general statements and specific details’ and consequently exclude fish, and much more so brine. while birds are included. Similar in two respects only they are excluded. suitable food is required. the basis of the usage of one locality?