Eruvin

of those that grow in house gardens.1 What is garden-rocket suitable for? — R. Johanan replied: The ancients,2 who had no pepper, crushed it and dipped in it their roasted meat. R. Zera, when he felt fatigued3 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"4 [and that for] lichen, is "[Blessed . . .] by Whose word all things were made".4 ‘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 shrub5 is cut off the cuscuta dies.6 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 money7 but is not susceptible8 to food defilement.9 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,10 while unripe dates are treated as fruit in all respects except that they are exempt from the [second] tithe?11 — There12 [the reference is] to stunted dates.13 If so,14 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 Tobina15 are subject to the obligation of the second tithe?16 — The fact, however, is [that the Baraitha cited17 does] not refer18 to stunted dates, but19 [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,]20 Because one can make them sweet by [keeping them near] the fire.21 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,22 and when [big are exempt ,23 but sweet [almonds] are subject [to the second tithe when] big and exempt when small.24 R. Simeon25 son of R. Jose ruled in the name of his father, ‘Both26 are exempt’27 or, as others read: ‘Both26 are subject [to the second tithe]’. Said R. Il'a:28 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?29 [To this] It. Johanan replied: [They may be regarded as proper food] because they can30 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?31 — Abaye replied: The practical difference between them32 is the case where one boiled or fried it.33 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?34 — Rather, said Raba, the practical difference between them’ is [the form of] the benediction.35 For it was stated,36 [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,37 logical reasoning is on your side38 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,39 since people plant radish with the intention of eating it while soft40 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.41 [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?42 — As R. Yehiel said [infra], ‘a handful’43 so is it here also a handful.44 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 of45 farmers’ bundles.46 R. Hilkiah b. Tobiah ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared from kalia.47 ‘From kalia’! Could [such a notion] be entertained?48 [Say] rather with the herb from, which kalia is obtained. And what must be the quantity? — R. Yehiel replied: A handful.49 R. Jeremiah once went [on a tour] to the country towns50 when he was asked whether it was permissible to prepare an ‘erub with green51 beans, but he did not know [what the answer was].52 When he later came to the schoolhouse he was told: Thus ruled R. Jannai: It is permitted to prepare an ‘erub from green51 beans. And what must be its quantity? — R. Yehiel replied: A handful.49 R. Hamnuna ruled: An ‘erub may be prepared from raw beet.53 But this is not so, seeing that R. Hisda in fact stated: Raw54 beet kills a healthy54 man?55 connection with the unripe dates it is obvious that they are regarded as a food; why then were they not allowed to be used in the preparation of an ‘erub? would grow no bigger, are regarded as the completed fruit and are consequently subject to the laws of a proper food. Rab's ruling, on the other hand, refers to dates that would in due course reach the full and final ripening stage. defilement. exempt from the second tithe since they have not yet completed their ripening stage. regards It as wood in all respects’ it always retains that character and is, therefore, never susceptible to food defilement. how could it be maintained that the process is ineffective in the latter case? them.