Eruvin 28a — the Talmud in English

One who ate a putita

a small water-creature, and although there is not an olive-size in it, it is a whole creature, and one is liable for it] —

he receives four lashes:

two on account of the prohibitions of water-creatures, and two on account of the prohibitions of all creeping creatures.

One who ate

an ant —

which is a land-creature —

receives five lashes:

three on account of the prohibitions of land-creatures, and two on account of the prohibitions of all creeping creatures.

One who ate

a hornet —

which is a winged creature and also swarms upon the earth [Rashi, Pesachim 24b] —

receives six lashes:

one on account of the prohibition of a winged creature, two on account of the prohibitions of all creeping creatures, and three on account of the prohibitions of a land-creature.

And now this is difficult:

and if it is so,

as Abaye holds, that fish are produce of the ground, then if one ate

a putita —

he should also receive lashes on account of

“the creeping creature that swarms upon the earth” [

the land-creature —

so it appears from Rashi], and he should receive seven lashes, for three additional lashes on account of the land-creature have been added to it?!

Rather, Ravina said: Birds

are what

is between them,

the two beraitot!

According to the one who says: “produce from produce and produce of the ground,” these —

birds —

also

are produce from produce and

are produce of the ground,

and they may be purchased with maaser sheni money.

But

according to the one who says: “offspring of the offspring of the earth,”

birds are not included, because

these birds were created from the mud [

mud in which there is water and dry land]

and were created,

and not from the earth alone.

And now we explain in what the tannaim of the two beraitot disagree:

The one who includes birds —

what is his reason?

And the one who excludes birds —

what is his reason?

It is established for us that according to the one who expounds the entire Torah through generalizations and particulars:

A. If “a generalization and a particular” was written, there is in the generalization only what is in the particular, as it is.

C. If “a particular and a generalization” was written, the generalization becomes additional to the particular, and everything is included in it.

B. And if “a generalization, a particular, and a generalization” was written, it is as though the two preceding measures [which contradict one another in their laws] were joined together.!

And therefore we say: one may derive from the generalization only something resembling the particular.

That is, on the one hand we expand the particular, but on the other hand we limit the generalization.

Rather, these tannaim disagree when there is a generalization, a particular, and a generalization: to which side should greater weight be attributed? Whether to the first generalization and the particular following it—that is, essentially to relate to the measure of “a generalization and a particular” [but while also taking into account the generalization after it].

Or perhaps greater weight should be attributed to the final generalization, and it follows that essentially one should relate to the measure of “a particular and a generalization” [while also taking into account the first generalization]. And the Gemara explains:

The one who includes birds holds: the final generalization [

the final generalization that follows the particular] is

specifically

the principal one, and one derives principally according to the measure of

“a particular and a generalization.”

And if so,

the generalization is made additional to the particular, and all things are included.

And

in any event, since a generalization was also written at the beginning,

it benefits

it was of benefit

the first generalization to exclude

only

every

thing

that is not similar to it,

which is unlike the particular in that it differs from it

in two aspects [

out of the three particulars characterizing the particular. And they are: produce from produce, produce of the ground, and offspring of the offspring of the earth].

And therefore only fish were excluded, for they are not produce of the ground and are also not offspring of the offspring of the earth.

But birds, which resemble the particular in two aspects, being produce from produce and produce of the ground, although in the third aspect—offspring of the offspring of the earth—they do not resemble the particular, were not excluded.

And the one who excludes birds holds: the first generalization is specifically determinative,

and we consider it like

“a generalization and a particular.”

And

according to this measure:

there is in the generalization only what is in the particular.

And therefore,

these

written in the verse

are.

But

something else —

even things resembling the particular —

are not.

And

in any event

it also benefits

also

the final generalization

to some extent,

to include everything that resembles it —

the particular —

in three

aspects.

That is, in that they are also produce from produce, also produce of the ground, and also offspring of the offspring of the earth.

And therefore birds were also excluded, since they resemble the particular only in two aspects, for they are not offspring of the offspring of the earth, since they were created from the mud.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav Samuel bar Shilat in the name of Rav: One may establish

boundary eruvs

with pa'afu'in [

vegetables that have saltiness, R. Hananel]

and with halgalugot [

see Megilla 18a]

and with gudgudniyot [

a grass that camels eat, but a person eats it only under pressure. Maharshal in the name of the Arukh] .

But not

may one establish an eruv

with haziz [

grain stubble that has not reached a third of its ripening, which they cut and eat when it is a vegetable].

Nor with kafniyot,

poor dates that have not fully ripened, and there is no way to eat them.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

And with gudgudniyot, may one establish an eruv?!

But it was taught in a beraita: gudgudniyot

which diminish the seed, only

those with many children may eat them, but

but

those without children may not eat them

them.

And if they have hardened

the stalks of the gudgudniyot have become hard

for seed [

after some time the stalks become hard like wood, when the seeds have already grown in them] —

even those with many children may not eat them,

since they are hard for every person.

And since they are not fit for eating, is it not the case that one may not establish an eruv with them?!

And we answer:

Explain it —

the statement of Rav is to be established through three answers:

1.

A

gudgudniyot

that have not hardened for seed.

And those with many children

are the ones with whom one establishes an eruv, because they are fit for them to eat.

2.

And if you wish, say: Actually, for those without children [

and with gudgudniyot that have not hardened for seed], and although they are not fit for them to eat, since

they are indeed fit for those with many children.

For

did we not learn

in our Mishna:

One establishes an eruv for a nazirite with wine,

and

for an Israelite with teruma.

It follows that although it is not fit for this one —

it is fit for that one,

and all may establish an eruv with it.

Here,

with gudgudniyot,

also: although it is not fit for this one,

their eruv for those without children,

it is fit for that one,

for those with many children, and therefore all may establish an eruv with it .

3.

And if you wish, say: When Rav said

that one establishes an eruv with gudgudniyot:

with handakukei of Media [

gudgudniyot of Media], which are fine for everyone.

We raise another difficulty concerning Rav:

And

when

with haziz not

does one establish an eruv?!

But Rav Judah said in the name of Rav

himself:

With kushut [

hops [Rashi], and it grows among thorns]

and haziz, one may establish an eruv with them, and one recites over them: “Who creates the fruit of the ground”?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This —

that Rav said that one may not establish an eruv with haziz —

was before he came [

before he came]

to Babylonia,

and saw that they eat haziz there.

This —

that Rav said that one may establish an eruv with haziz —

was after he came [

after he came]

to Babylonia,

and saw that they eat it.

And we raise a difficulty:

And

when

Babylonia —

whose inhabitants eat it —

is it the majority of the world,

to draw the rest of the people in the world, who do not eat it, after their practice?!

On the contrary, since their practice is unusual, even with regard to themselves it is not a practice [Ritva, s.v. “its opinion is nullified”].

But it was taught,

that the opinion of a minority is nullified in relation to all people:

For we learned in a beraita:

Broad beans, barley, and fenugreek that one sowed for vegetables,

whose intention in sowing them was to eat them while they were vegetables, while they were moist—and like haziz—and not in order to eat their seeds when they ripen and dry [Ritva] —

his opinion is nullified in relation to all people,

for people do not eat them when they are vegetables, but only the seeds when they ripen and dry.

And therefore:

if he sowed them —

he is liable

for the tithe, even though he did not sow the broad beans, barley, and fenugreek for the purpose of eating the seeds.

And their vegetables are exempt,

because they are not eaten, despite the fact that he sowed them with the intention of eating them as vegetables.

The shahal and garden cress [

a type of white mustard] — whose practice is to eat them both as vegetables and as seed —

if one sowed them for vegetables, the vegetables and the seed are tithed.

And if one sowed them for seed, the seed and the vegetables are tithed, [

and Tosafot explained: when he sowed them for vegetables, the vegetables are primary; and when he sowed them for seed, the seed is primary. See there two distinctions. And see Maharam and Rashash, who explained their words].

And since the inhabitants of Babylonia who eat haziz are a minority in the world, their eating is not significant to establish haziz as food.

And therefore we answer with another resolution:

When Rav said

that one may establish an eruv with haziz: