Eruvin 28b — the Talmud in English

In garden-grown produce,

a grass that grows in a garden, which everyone eats.

And we explain the beraita that we brought above:

Cress seed—

for what is it fit,

that you said: one tithes the vegetable and the seed?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Since

earlier generations,

when they did not have peppers, would grind it

the cress

and dip the roast in it!

And the Tosafot explained that this is what it means: when the cress is ground, it is fit to be eaten as it is, and for this reason it is obligated in tithe, and not because of the dipping. Rather, they did not ordinarily grind it in order to eat it, but in order to dip [food] in it.

And now the Gemara explains the blessing of garden-grown produce.

When Rabbi Zeira would become weak from his learning

when he became weak and was unable to study,

he would go and sit

at the entrance of Rav Yehuda bar Ami

he would sit at the entrance of the study hall of Rav Yehuda bar Ami.

He said

because he would say:

When the Sages go out and enter

when the Sages go out and enter,

I will stand before them and receive reward through them

I will stand before them and receive reward on their account.

Rabbi Zeira went out

there.

A child of the study hall came

a student from the study hall of Rav Yehuda bar Ami.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira [said] to the child:

What did your teacher teach you

what did your teacher teach you?

He said to him

the child:

Hops—

which grows among thorns, and has no root in the ground, but grows from them—one recites over it:

Who creates the fruit of the earth.

Garden-grown produce,

one recites over it:

that everything came to be through His word

and he explains the reason below.

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira [said] to the child:

On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable!

This

garden-grown produce—

grows from the earth

it grows from the earth, and its blessing is: Who creates the fruit of the earth.

And this—

hops—

grows from the air,

and its blessing is: that everything came to be through His word.

But the Gemara’s conclusion is:

And the halakha is according to the child of the study hall,

and not according to Rabbi Zeira!

What is the reason?

This—

hops—

is fully developed fruit,

its ripening has been completed and it is called “fruit,” and therefore its blessing is: Who creates the fruit of the earth.

And this—

garden-grown produce—

is not fully developed fruit,

because it is harvested while it is still grass, and its blessing is: that everything came to be through His word, since it is not “fruit.”

And what you said,

what Rabbi Zeira argued:

this

garden-grown produce

grows from the earth, and this

hops

grows from the air.

That is not so!

For

hops too—

grows from the earth

it draws nourishment from the earth through the thorns.

And the proof is:

for we see

that we see

that when we cut down the thornbush

that they cut down the thornbush,

then

then

the hops dies,

the hops dries up.

And it is demonstrated from this that the hops draws its nourishment from the earth, through the thorns.

And furthermore, we raise an objection to Rav:

and

if

one does not make an eruv with unripe dates?!

And it was taught in a beraita: The soft stalk

a soft growth added to the palm tree each year, and before the rainy season arrives and it hardens and becomes wood, it is called “the soft stalk,” and then it is good for eating.

May be purchased

in Jerusalem

with second-tithe money

for it is fruit from fruit, and produce of the ground [like cattle and sheep, wine and beer specified in the verse, as we said above, page 27b].

And it does not contract food impurity

even if he intended it for eating, because it is not food.

And unripe dates may be purchased with second-tithe money, and they contract food impurity.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The soft stalk is like wood in every respect, except that it may be purchased with second-tithe money.

And unripe dates are like fruit in all their respects, except that they are exempt from tithe,

since their work has not been completed, for they have not ripened sufficiently.

And according to the first tanna, they are obligated in tithe, “for in every respect

they are fruit,” Rashi.

Behold, we see that according to everyone unripe dates contract food impurity; evidently they are food. And why did Rav say that one does not make an eruv with them?!

And we answer:

There—

where the beraita says that unripe dates are food—

it is referring to male palms,

male palms that produce unripe dates, which never become dates; rather, their state in the form of unripe dates is the completion of their fruit, and they are picked in Nisan. And those are food, and contract food impurity, and one may also make an eruv with them.

And when Rav said that one does not make an eruv with them, he was referring to female palms, whose unripe dates become dates; therefore, their fruit is not yet fully developed [Rashi].

And the Gemara rejects the answer:

If so—

if we establish the beraita as referring to unripe dates whose fruit has fully developed, it is difficult:

And is it so that

in this case Rabbi Yehuda would say

that they are

exempt from tithe?!

But it was taught

explicitly that unripe dates of male palms are obligated in tithe.

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda said: They were mentioned

in the study hall to be considered fruit

only with regard to the figs of Beit Yoni,

small figs that grow in a place called Beit Yoni, and they are like unripe dates with regard to date palms, Rashi, Pesachim 53a,

only with regard to

being obligated in

tithe alone.

And as they said:

the figs of Beit Yoni and the unripe dates of Tuvina

unripe dates of the place Tuvina, and they are of male palms, since this is the completion of their fruit,

are obligated in tithe.

And the Gemara retracts this answer.

Rather,

we give another answer to what we had objected to Rav, who said that one does not make an eruv with unripe dates, from that which was taught that unripe dates may be purchased with second-tithe money and contract food impurity:

Actually,

this beraita

is not referring to male palms

it is speaking of.

Nevertheless, this is not difficult for Rav.

And

because

with regard to food impurity it is different.

As Rabbi Yohanan said—

in another matter—

“Since it is fit to improve it through fire.”

Here—

with regard to unripe dates—

also

they contract food impurity,

since it is possible to improve them

from their bitterness

through fire

by roasting them in fire.

But with regard to an eruv, one needs something that is fit to be eaten at that time, and these have not yet been prepared [Rashi].

And the reason they may be purchased with second-tithe money is that they are fruit from fruit and produce of the ground. And although they are not entirely fit for eating, since it is possible to improve and prepare them, they are like wheat and barley [which likewise are not eaten as they are] and the like [Ritba].

And where was Rabbi Yohanan’s statement said?

With regard to that which was taught:

Bitter almonds,

that is, almonds that are initially sweet, and when they grow they become bitter:

When they are

small—they are

obligated

in tithe, because they are considered fully developed fruit, since when they grow further they become bitter.

And when they are

large—they are

exempt

from tithe, for they are not food because of their bitterness.

And sweet almonds—that is, those that do not become bitter even when they grow—when they have become

almonds—

that is, almonds that do not become bitter even when they grow—when they have become

large

and have fully developed, they are

obligated

in tithe.

But when they are

small

and have not yet fully developed, they are

exempt

from tithe, for to create an obligation in tithe, fully developed fruit is required.

Rabbi

(Shimon)

Yishmael

the son of Rabbi Yosei says in the name of his father:

both

this

these bitter almonds, when they are small and sweet,

and

both

this

when they have grown and become bitter—are

for exemption.

When they are small, they are exempt from tithe because they have not yet fully developed.

And when they are large, they are exempt because they are not food.

And some say,

this is how Rabbi Yishmael said it in the name of his father:

both this and that are for obligation,

as he explains the reason below.

Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda

[in the Bah]:

Rabbi Hanina ruled in Tzippori according to the words of the one who says: Both this and that are for exemption!

And we inquire about it:

But according to the one who says: Both this and that are for obligation—

for what are they fit

when bitter almonds are large? They are not fit for eating, for they are bitter; and why are they obligated in tithe?!

And concerning this

Rabbi Yohanan said: Since it is possible to improve them

from their bitterness

through fire!

The Master said

in the beraita above:

Rabbi Yehuda says: The soft stalk is like wood in all its respects, except that it may be purchased with second-tithe money.

And we wonder:

Is this not the opinion of the first tanna?!

For he too said: the soft stalk may be purchased with second-tithe money, and does not contract food impurity.

He said

he answered,

Abaye:

when

it was boiled

cooked extensively—or

fried

in oil—the soft stalk—

there is a difference between them.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that “it is like wood” in all its respects, even if it was boiled and fried, it does not contract food impurity. But according to the first tanna, who did not say “it is like wood,” if it was boiled and fried, it contracts food impurity.

Rava challenged it: Is there anyone who says

that the soft stalk, if

boiled and fried,

does not

count as food?!

But it was taught: The hide

of an animal, which is not fit for eating,

and the placenta

the sac in which the animal’s fetus is placed in its mother’s womb, which is not ordinarily eaten,

do not contract food impurity.

But

a hide that was boiled,

and made fit for eating,

and

the

placenta concerning which one had the intention

to eat it,

contract food impurity

but with regard to hide, intention alone is insufficient.

And now it is difficult: now, hide, which without boiling is not fit for eating at all, nevertheless, if it was boiled, contracts food impurity.

The soft stalk—which is even now somewhat fit for eating—is it not all the more so that if it was boiled, it contracts food impurity?!

Rather, Rava said

another answer:

the blessing

is what

there is a difference between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was stated: The soft stalk—

Rav Yehuda said:

one recites over it

Who creates the fruit of the earth.

And Shmuel said:

one recites over it

that everything came to be through His word.

And we explain their reasons:

Rav Yehuda said, “Who creates the fruit of the earth”: It is food.

And Shmuel said, “that everything came to be through His word”: Since it will ultimately harden,

it is not considered “fruit” even now, and therefore

we do not recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

And this is the difference between Rabbi Yehuda and the first tanna:

According to the first tanna, the soft stalk is food, and one recites over it: Who creates the fruit of the earth. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says “it is like wood,” one does not recite over it: Who creates the fruit of the earth, but rather: that everything came to be through His word.

Shmuel said to him—

who held that one recites over the soft stalk “that everything came to be through His word”—

to Rav Yehuda

who disagreed with him:

Sharp one

sharp in Talmud, Arukh. And some explain: one with large teeth, Shita Mekubetzet, Ketubot 14.

your view

like you

is more reasonable,

that one recites over the soft stalk “Who creates the fruit of the earth,” and we are not concerned that it will ultimately harden!

For radish, which will ultimately harden, one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the earth.”

And the Gemara rejects this:

That is not so!

With regard to radish, people plant it with the intention of [eating] the young radish,

they plant it in order to eat it while it is soft, and therefore we do not take into consideration that it will ultimately harden.

But

a palm tree—

people do not plant with the intention of producing the soft stalk.

And the Gemara’s conclusion is:

And although he praised him

praised him

Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda

and said to him: Your view is more reasonable,

the halakha is according to Shmuel,

that over the soft stalk one recites: that everything came to be through His word.

The essential matter: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav

above, on page 28a:

One may make an eruv with hops and garden-grown produce, and one recites over them “Who creates the fruit of the earth”!

And we ask:

Hops—

when he places it for the eruv, whose measure is the food of two meals—

how much

is considered food fit for two meals?

And we resolve it:

As Rav Yehiel said—

with regard to another food, and he brings it shortly—

the fullness of the hand; here too

with hops—

the fullness of the hand.

Furthermore, we ask:

garden-grown produce—

how much

is its measure for an eruv?

Rabba bar Tovya bar Yitzhak said in the name of Rav: Like the fullness of a bundle of the reapers

like the fullness of a bundle of greens that the farmers tie.

Rav Helkiah bar Tovya said: One may make an eruv with the stalk

a stalk of grass, and it is hard like wood!

And we wonder: Is it possible that

you might think that one makes an eruv with the stalk,

when it is not fit for eating?!

Rather,

this is what Rav Helkiah said: one may make an eruv

with the greens of the stalk.

With the greens surrounding the stalk.

And how much

is the measure of these vegetables for an eruv?

Rav Yehiel said: The fullness of the hand.

Rabbi Yirmeya went out to the villages

he went out to the villages to inspect his produce.

They asked him: What is the law concerning making an eruv with moist beans?

He did not have the answer

Rabbi Yirmeya did not have an answer to their question.

When he came—

Rabbi Yirmeya—

to the study hall,

and asked their question,

they said to him: This is what Rabbi Yannai said: One may make an eruv with moist beans. And how much

is their measure?

Rav Yehiel said: The fullness of the hand.

Rav Hamnuna said: One may make an eruv with raw chard!

And we wonder about this:

Is that so!

But Rav Hisda said: Raw chard

chard

raw,

which is eaten when it is not cooked—

kills a living man

which kills a living person; and since that is so, how can one make an eruv with it?!