Eruvin 28
אָכַל פּוּטִיתָא — לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע. נְמָלָה — לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. צִירְעָה — לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ. וְאִם אִיתָא — פּוּטִיתָא נָמֵי לִילְקֵי מִשּׁוּם ״הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״!
If one ate a putita, a certain water insect, he is given four sets of lashes, as he has transgressed four separate negative Torah commandments, two that relate to creeping animals in general and two that relate to water insects in particular. If he ate an ant, he is given five sets of lashes for violating the two general prohibitions and another three negative commandments stated with regard to insects that creep upon the earth. If he ate a hornet, he is given six sets of lashes, for in addition to the prohibitions applying to an ant, he has transgressed a prohibition stated with regard to flying insects. And if it is correct that something that lives in water is considered as growing from the ground, one who eats a putita should also be given lashes for violating the following prohibition: “And every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). Rather, fish must certainly not be considered as growing from the ground, and therefore this explanation is to be rejected.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא: עוֹפוֹת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פְּרִי מִפְּרִי וְגִידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע, הָנֵי נָמֵי — גִּידּוּלֵי קַרְקַע נִינְהוּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר וְלַד וַלְדוֹת הָאָרֶץ, הָנֵי עוֹפוֹת — מִן הָרְקָק נִבְרְאוּ.
Rather, Ravina said: There is a practical difference between the two baraitot with regard to fowl. According to the one who said that one may use second-tithe money only to purchase food which is the produce of produce and grown from the ground, these fowl are also regarded as having grown from the ground. However, according to the one who said that we apply it to that which is the offspring of the offspring of the earth, these fowl were created from mud and not from the ground, and consequently they are not included among the items that may be bought with second-tithe money.
מַאן דִּמְרַבֵּי עוֹפוֹת — מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ, וּמַאן דִּמְמַעֵיט עוֹפוֹת — מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ?
These two distinct opinions are both based upon the exegetical principle of a generalization and a detail. The Gemara now asks: What is the reason of the one who includes fowl, and what is the reason of the one who excludes fowl?
מַאן דִּמְרַבֵּי עוֹפוֹת, קָסָבַר: כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא דַּוְקָא. פְּרָט וּכְלָל — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל מוּסָף עַל הַפְּרָט, וְאִיתְרַבּוּ לְהוּ כׇּל מִילֵּי. וְאַהְנִי כְּלָלָא קַמָּא לְמַעוֹטֵי כֹּל דְּלָא דָּמֵי לֵיהּ מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
The Gemara explains: The one who includes fowl holds that when there is a generalization, a detail, and another generalization, the latter generalization is primary. Therefore, the rule is similar to that governing a detail followed by a generalization, which maintains that the generalization is considered an addition to the detail, and all other items are included. However, the first generalization is effective in excluding anything that is not similar to it in two respects, as it is nonetheless a case of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization. Therefore, he excludes anything that does not grow from the ground and is not the produce of produce.
וּמַאן דִּמְמַעֵט עוֹפוֹת, קָסָבַר: כְּלָלָא קַמָּא דַּוְוקָא, כְּלָל וּפְרָט — וְאֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט: הָנֵי — אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא — לָא. וְאַהְנִי כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא לְרַבּוֹיֵי כֹּל דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה צְדָדִין.
And the one who excludes fowl holds that the first generalization is primary. Therefore, a generalization, detail, and generalization is similar to a single generalization that is followed by a detail, with regard to which we maintain that the generalization only includes that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, with regard to these items mentioned in the verse, yes, one may purchase them with second-tithe money. With regard to something else, no, one may not. However, the latter generalization is effective to include anything that is similar to it in three respects, namely, it is the produce of produce, grows from the ground, and is offspring of the offspring of the earth, to the exclusion of fowl.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: מְעָרְבִין בְּפַעְפּוּעִין וּבַחֲלַגְלוֹגוֹת וּבְגוּדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא בַּחֲזִיז וְלֹא בְּכַפְנִיּוֹת.
Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, who said in the name of Rav: One may establish an eiruv with cheap and unimportant produce such as cress, purslane, and sweet clover, but one may not establish an eiruv with green grain or with unripe dates.
וּבְגוּדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת מִי מְעָרְבִין? וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוּדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת — מְרוּבֵּי בָנִים יֹאכֵלוּ, חֲשׂוּכֵי בָנִים לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ. וְאִם הוּקְשׁוּ לְזֶרַע — אַף מְרוּבֵּי בָּנִים לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ!
The Gemara asks: But may one establish an eiruv with sweet clover? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to sweet clover that those who have many children may eat it, but those without children may not eat it, as it is harmful to one’s reproductive capacity; and if it was hardened into seed, i.e., if it became very hard and already fit to be planted, even those who have many children may not eat it? Therefore, we see that it is prohibited to eat sweet clover. How can it possibly be used to establish an eiruv?
תַּרְגְּמָא: אַשֶּׁלֹא הוּקְשׁוּ לְזֶרַע, וּמְרוּבֵּי בָנִים.
The Gemara answers: Interpret Rav’s statement as referring to sweet clover that was not yet hardened into seed, and its use for establishing an eiruv is limited to those who have many children and are therefore permitted to eat it.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם לַחֲשׂוּכֵי בָנִים, דְּהָא חֲזוּ לִמְרוּבֵּי בָנִים. מִי לָא תְּנַן: מְעָרְבִין לַנָּזִיר בְּיַיִן וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל בִּתְרוּמָה. אַלְמָא: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַאי — חֲזֵי לְהַאי. הָכָא נָמֵי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי לְהַאי — חֲזֵי לְהַאי.
And if you wish, you can say instead that actually, sweet clover is fit for an eiruv even for those without children because it is fit to be eaten by those who have many children. The food used for an eiruv must be edible, but it does not need to be edible for the particular person using it as his eiruv. Didn’t we learn in the mishna: One may establish an eiruv for a nazirite with wine, and for an Israelite with teruma? Apparently, these items may be used as an eiruv even though they are not fit for this person, because they are fit for that other person. Here too, even though the sweet clover is not fit for this person, it may be used because it is fit for that other person.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי קָאָמַר רַב, בְּהַנְדְּקוֹקֵי מָדָאֵי.
And if you wish, you can say instead: When Rav said that sweet clover may be used for an eiruv, he was referring to Median clover, which is of superior quality and is not harmful.
וּבַחֲזִיז לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּשׁוּת וַחֲזִיז מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן, וּמְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״!
The Gemara considers the continuation of Rav’s statement: And may one not establish an eiruv with green grain? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: In the case of dodder and green grain, one may establish an eiruv with them; and when eating them one recites the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground?
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — מִקַּמֵּי דַּאֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל, הָא — לְבָתַר דַּאֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This first statement, according to which green grain may not be used for an eiruv, was made before Rav came to Babylonia. That second statement was made after Rav came to Babylonia and saw that people there ate green grain, at which point he ruled that it is fit to be used for an eiruv.
וּבָבֶל הָוְיָא רוּבָּא דְּעָלְמָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַפּוֹל וְהַשְּׂעוֹרָה וְהַתִּילְתָּן שֶׁזְּרָעָן לְיָרָק — בָּטְלָה דַּעְתּוֹ אֵצֶל כׇּל אָדָם. לְפִיכָךְ: זַרְעָן חַיָּיב, וְיַרְקָן פָּטוּר. הַשַּׁחֲלַיִים וְהַגַּרְגִּיר שֶׁזְּרָעָן לְיָרָק — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין יָרָק וְזֶרַע, זְרָעָן לְזֶרַע — מִתְעַשְּׂרִין זֶרַע וְיָרָק.
The Gemara asks: Is Babylonia the majority of the world? Laws are established according to the custom prevalent in most of the world. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of beans, barley, and fenugreek that one planted in order to use as an herb, e.g., as animal fodder, his opinion is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other people? Since most people do not act this way, we do not consider this particular person’s intention to be significant. Therefore, one is obligated to tithe their seeds, and their herbs are exempt. When one harvests these plants in their green state, before their seeds have matured, they are regarded as not having fully ripened. However, in the case of cress and arugula, which are commonly eaten both in their green state and as seeds, if one planted them in order to use them as herbs, they are tithed both as herbs and as seeds; if one planted them for their seeds, they are tithed as seeds and as herbs, no matter how they are eaten. In any case, the first part of the baraita teaches that the law is determined in accordance with the common custom of most of the world and not with the practice in one particular place.
כִּי קָאָמַר רַב,
The Gemara answers: When Rav said that green grain may be used for an eiruv,
בִּדְגִנּוּנְיָיתָא.
he was referring to the garden variety, which is commonly eaten.
זֶרַע גַּרְגִּיר. לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁכֵּן רִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶן פִּלְפְּלִין, שׁוֹחֲקִין אוֹתוֹ וּמַטְבִּילִין בּוֹ אֶת הַצָּלִי.
Having mentioned arugula seeds, the Gemara asks: For what are they suitable? Generally, only the plant’s leaves are eaten. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The earlier generations, who had no pepper, would crush these seeds and dip their roasted meat in them. Therefore, arugula seeds are also eaten, even though this is not their typical use.
רַבִּי זֵירָא כִּי הֲוָה חֲלִישׁ מִגִּרְסֵיהּ, הֲוָה אָזֵיל וְיָתֵיב אַפִּיתְחָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה בַּר אַמֵּי, אָמַר: כִּי נָפְקִי וְעָיְילִי רַבָּנַן — אֵיקוּם מִקַּמַּיְיהוּ וַאֲקַבֵּל בְּהוּ אַגְרָא.
The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Zeira was exhausted from his studies, he would go and sit at the entrance to the academy of Rav Yehuda bar Ami, and say: When the Sages go in and out, I shall stand up before them and receive reward for honoring them, as it is a mitzva to honor Torah scholars. Too tired to engage in actual Torah study, he sought a way to rest while fulfilling a different mitzva at the same time.
נְפַק אֲתָא יָנוֹקָא דְּבֵי רַב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי אַגְמְרָךְ רַבָּךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּשׁוּת ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, חֲזִיז ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, אִיפְּכָא מִיסְתַּבְּרָא, הַאי — מֵאַרְעָא קָא מִרַבֵּי, וְהַאי — מֵאַוֵּירָא קָא מִרַבֵּי.
Once, a young school child was leaving the study hall. Rabbi Zeira said to him: What did your teacher teach you today? He said to him: The proper blessing for dodder is: Who creates the fruit of the ground; the proper blessing for green grain is: By Whose word all things came to be. Rabbi Zeira said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable, as this, the green grain, derives nourishment from the ground, whereas that, the dodder, derives nourishment from the air, and it is fitting to recite a blessing over each item in accordance with its source of nourishment.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּיָנוֹקָא דְּבֵי רַב. מַאי טַעְמָא: הַאי — גְּמַר פֵּירֵי, וְהַאי — לָאו גְּמַר פֵּירֵי. וּמַאי דְּקָאָמְרַתְּ: הַאי מֵאַרְעָא קָא רָבֵי, וְהַאי מֵאַוֵּירָא קָא רָבֵי — לָא הִיא. כְּשׁוּת נָמֵי מֵאַרְעָא קָא רָבֵי, דְּהָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּקָטְלִינַן לַהּ לְהִיזְמְתָא וּמָיְיתָא כְּשׁוּתָא.
The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the young school child. What is the reason for this? This, the dodder, is fully ripened produce, and that, green grain, is not fully ripened produce. If produce is not fully ripened one can only recite the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be. And that which you said: This, the green grain, derives nourishment from the ground, whereas that, the dodder, derives nourishment from the air, this is not so. Dodder also derives nourishment from the ground, for we see that when the prickly shrub is cut off, the dodder attached to it dies. This shows that dodder also derives its nourishment from the ground, albeit indirectly.
וּבְכַפְנִיּוֹת אֵין מְעָרְבִין? וְהָתַנְיָא: קוֹר נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וְאֵין מִטַּמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין. וְכַפְנִיּוֹת נִקָּחוֹת בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וּמִטַּמְּאוֹת טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִים.
The Gemara now considers the next part of Rav’s statement: And is it correct that one may not establish an eiruv with unripe dates? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: Heart of palm, the soft, edible inner core of a palm tree, may be bought with second-tithe money; but it does not contract the ritual impurity of foods, as it is not actually a food, but rather a part of the tree itself. And unripe dates may be bought with second-tithe money, and they even contract the ritual impurity of foods.
רָבֵי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: קוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעֵץ לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו — אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, וְכַפְנִיּוֹת הֲרֵי הֵן כִּפְרִי לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶם — אֶלָּא שֶׁפְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.
Rabbi Yehuda says this somewhat differently: Heart of palm is like a tree in all its legal aspects, except that it may be bought with second-tithe money, as it is edible. And unripe dates are like fruit in all regards, as they are actual fruit, except with respect to one characteristic, which is that they are exempt from tithes because they are not yet fully ripened.
הָתָם, בִּדְנִיסְחָנֵי.
The Gemara answers: There, the baraita is referring to the fruit of palms that never fully ripen. They are therefore regarded as full-fledged fruit even in their unripe state. Rav, however, was referring to the fruit of palms, which eventually ripen. Their unripe state is merely a transitional stage in their development.
אִי הָכִי, בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פְּטוּרוֹת מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר? וְהָתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא הוּזְכְּרוּ פַּגֵּי בֵיתְיוֹנֵי אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן מַעֲשֵׂר בִּלְבַד. פַּגֵּי בֵיתְיוֹנֵי וַאֲהִינֵי דְטוֹבִינָא חַיָּיבִין בְּמַעֲשֵׂר.
The Gemara asks: If so, would Rabbi Yehuda say with regard to this that they are exempt from tithes? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: The unripe figs of the place called Beityoni were only mentioned with regard to tithes, as it was stated: In the case of the unripe figs of Beityoni, and the unripe dates of the place called Tuvina, one is obligated to tithe them even though they never ripen, since they are considered full-fledged fruit in all respects?
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם לָאו בְּנִיסְחָנֵי, וּלְעִנְיַן טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין שָׁאנֵי, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְמַתְּקָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר, הָכָא נָמֵי: הוֹאִיל וְיָכוֹל לְמַתְּקָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר.
Rather, say as follows: Actually, the baraita is not referring to the fruit of palms that never fully ripen, but rather to the fruit of palms that eventually ripen. However, the halakha pertaining to the ritual impurity of foods is different, and an item’s status as a food with regard to the impurity of foods cannot be brought as proof of its status as a food with regard to an eiruv. As Rabbi Yoḥanan said elsewhere: Since they are fit to be sweetened through cooking with fire, they are regarded as food for the purpose of tithes; here too, we can say: Since they are fit to be sweetened through cooking with fire, unripe dates are fit to contract the impurity of foods. However, with regard to an eiruv, we require food that is ready for consumption, and something that can be prepared to become food is not sufficient.
וְהֵיכָא אִתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אַהָא דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁקֵדִים הַמָּרִים — קְטַנִּים חַיָּיבִין, גְּדוֹלִים פְּטוּרִין. מְתוּקִים — גְּדוֹלִים חַיָּיבִין, קְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: זֶה וָזֶה, לִפְטוּר. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב. אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: הוֹרָה רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּצִיפּוֹרִי כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר זֶה וְזֶה לִפְטוּר.
The Gemara asks: Where was this comment of Rabbi Yoḥanan originally stated? The Gemara answers: It was stated on this ruling, which was taught in a baraita: One is obligated to tithe bitter almonds while they are still small and green, as they are fit to be eaten while still undeveloped. When they are large, however, one is exempt from tithing them, as they are no longer edible. One is obligated to tithe sweet, large almonds, whereas one is exempt from tithing small ones, as they have not yet fully ripened. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yosei, said in the name of his father: One is exempt from tithing both this and that, large and small bitter almonds. And some say that he said in the name of his father: One is obligated to tithe both this and that. Rabbi Ila said: Rabbi Ḥanina ruled in Tzippori in accordance with the one who said: One is exempt from tithing both this and that.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר זֶה וָזֶה לְחִיּוּב, לְמַאי חֲזֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וְרָאוּי לְמַתְּקָן עַל יְדֵי הָאוּר.
The Gemara asks: According to the view of the one who said one is obligated to tithe both this and that, for what are large, bitter almonds suitable? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Since these almonds are fit to be sweetened and made edible through cooking with fire, they are regarded as food for the purpose of tithes.
אָמַר מָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: קוֹר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּעֵץ לְכׇל דְּבָרָיו, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!
The Gemara further examines the baraita cited earlier. The Master said that Rabbi Yehuda says: Heart of palm is like a tree in all its legal aspects, except that it may be bought with second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is identical to that of the first tanna.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁלָקוֹ וְטִגְּנוֹ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Abaye said: There is a practical difference between them in a case where one boiled or fried the heart of palm. According to Rabbi Yehuda, it does not contract the ritual impurity of foods even if it was boiled or fried, whereas the first tanna holds that in that case it does contract impurity.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁלָקוֹ וְטִגְּנוֹ לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָעוֹר וְהַשִּׁילְיָא אֵין מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין. עוֹר שֶׁשְּׁלָקוֹ, וְשִׁילְיָא שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ — מִטַּמְּאִין טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין!
Rava strongly objects to this: Is there really anyone who said that even if one boiled or fried it, it does not contract the ritual impurity of foods? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The hide and the placenta of an animal, which people do not typically eat, do not contract the ritual impurity of foods; however, a hide that one boiled until it became edible and a placenta that one intended to eat do contract the impurity of foods? This indicates that even something not originally fit to be eaten contracts the impurity of foods once it has been boiled or fried, and the same should apply to heart of palm according to all opinions.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ בְּרָכָה. דְּאִתְּמַר: קוֹר — רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״.
Rather, Rava said: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the blessing that must be recited prior to eating, for it was stated that the amora’im disagreed about the blessing recited over heart of palm: Rav Yehuda said the appropriate blessing is: Who creates the fruit of the ground. And Shmuel said the appropriate blessing is: By Whose word all things came to be.
רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״ — אוּכְלָא הוּא. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״שֶׁהַכֹּל נִהְיֶה בִּדְבָרוֹ״ — כֵּיוָן שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת, לָא מְבָרְכִינַן עִילָּוֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״.
The Gemara explains the two opinions: Rav Yehuda said the appropriate blessing is: Who creates the fruit of the ground, as it is food. Since heart of palm is edible it is called a fruit, and we recite a blessing over it in the manner of all fruits. And Shmuel said the appropriate blessing is: By Whose word all things came to be. Since it will eventually harden and become like an inedible tree, we do not recite over it the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground, as it will eventually lose the status of a fruit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, כְּווֹתָיךְ מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּהָא צְנוֹן שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְהַקְשׁוֹת, וּמְבָרְכִינַן עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״.
Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shinnana, your opinion is reasonable, as a radish will eventually harden, and yet we recite over it the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground.
וְלָא הִיא, צְנוֹן נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְפוּגְלָא, דִּיקְלָא — לָא נָטְעִי אִינָשֵׁי אַדַּעְתָּא דְקוֹרָא. וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּקַלְּסֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב יְהוּדָה, הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
The Gemara comments: But it is not so, because people plant radish with the intention of eating it while it is soft; but people do not plant palm trees with the intention of eating heart of palm. Therefore, heart of palm is not considered the fruit of the palm, but rather food extracted from it, over which only the following blessing should be recited: By Whose word all things came to be. And the Gemara concludes: Even though Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּשׁוּת וַחֲזִיז מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן, וּמְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶם ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״. כְּשׁוּת בְּכַמָּה? כִּדְאָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: כִּמְלֹא הַיָּד — הָכָא נָמֵי כִּמְלֹא הַיָּד.
The Gemara now examines the matter itself cited in the previous discussion in the name of Rav. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said with regard to dodder and green grain: One may establish an eiruv with them, and when eating them one recites the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground. The Gemara asks: How much dodder must be used to establish an eiruv? The Gemara answers: As Rav Yeḥiel said with regard to a similar issue: A handful. Here, too, the measure is a handful.
חֲזִיז בְּכַמָּה? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר טוֹבִיָּה בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: כִּמְלֹא אוּזִילְתָּא דְאִיכָּרֵי.
Similarly, how much green grain is needed to establish an eiruv? Rabba bar Toviya bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: A full farmers’ bundle.
אֲמַר רַב חִלְקִיָּה בַּר טוֹבִיָּה: מְעָרְבִין בְּקִלְיָא. בְּקִלְיָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא בְּיַרְקָא דְקִלְיָא, וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: כִּמְלֹא הַיָּד.
Rav Ḥilkiya bar Toviya said: One may establish an eiruv with glasswort. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does it enter your mind that one may establish an eiruv with glasswort? People do not eat glasswort. Rather, one may establish an eiruv with the herb from whose ashes glasswort is prepared, as it is fit for human consumption before it is burnt. And how much of it is needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Yeḥiel said: A handful.
רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה נְפַק לְקִירְיָיתָא, בְּעוֹ מִינֵּיהּ: מַהוּ לְעָרֵב בְּפוֹלִין לַחִין? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. כִּי אֲתָא לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מְעָרְבִין בְּפוֹלִין לַחִין. וְכַמָּה? אָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: כִּמְלֹא הַיָּד.
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yirmeya once went out to visit certain villages, and the villagers asked him: What is the halakha with regard to establishing an eiruv with moist beans? He did not have an answer for them. When he came to the study hall, they said to him: This is what Rabbi Yannai said: One may establish an eiruv with moist beans. And how much is needed for that purpose? Rav Yeḥiel said: A handful.
אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: מְעָרְבִין בִּתְרָדִין חַיִּין. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: סִילְקָא חַיָּיא קָטֵיל גַּבְרָא חַיָּיא!
Rav Hamnuna said: One may also establish an eiruv with raw beets. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: Raw beet kills a healthy person, which indicates that beets are unhealthy and should therefore be unfit for establishing an eiruv?
