Eruvin 28b (כח:) — the Talmud in English

With regard to daganuniya,

the young grain shoots that grow in a garden, everyone agrees that one may eat them.

And we explain the beraita cited above:

“The seed of garden cress”—

“What is it fit for”

[i.e., what is it suitable for], that you said: “One separates tithes from the vegetable and from the seed”?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Since

earlier generations,

when they did not have peppers, would grind it

[the cress]

and dip roasted meat in it!

And Tosafot explained that this is what it means: When the cress is ground, it is fit to be eaten as it is, and that is why it is subject to tithes, and not because it is used for dipping. Rather, the usual practice was not to grind it in order to eat it, but in order to dip food in it.

And now the Gemara explains the blessing over the young grain shoots.

When Rabbi Zeira became weak from his studies

[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 to the study hall of Rav Yehuda bar Ami].

He said

[for he would say]:

When the Sages go out and enter

[when the scholars went out and entered],

I will rise before them and receive reward through them

[I will rise before them and gain reward on their account].

Rabbi Zeira went out

there.

A child from the study hall came,

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

Rabbi Zeira said to him,

the child:

What did your teacher teach you

[what did your teacher teach you]?

The child said to him

the child:

Kushut—

which grows among thorns and has no root in the ground, but grows from them—is blessed with

“Who creates the fruit of the ground.”

Young grain shoots,

are blessed with

“By whose word everything came to be”

[and the reason is explained below].

Rabbi Zeira said to

the child:

On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable!

This

young grain shoot

grows from the ground

[it grows from the ground], and its blessing is: “Who creates the fruit of the ground.”

And this—

kushut—

grows from the air,

and its blessing is: “By whose word everything came to be.”

But the Gemara’s conclusion is:

And the halakha is in accordance with the child from the study hall,

and not with Rabbi Zeira!

What is the reason?

This—

kushut—

has reached the completion of its fruit,

its ripening is complete and it is called “fruit,” and therefore its blessing is: “Who creates the fruit of the ground.”

And this—

the young grain shoots—

has not reached the completion of its fruit,

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

And as for what you said,

what Rabbi Zeira claimed:

This

young grain shoot

grows from the ground, whereas this

kushut

grows from the air.

That is not so!

For

kushut too

grows from the ground

[it draws nourishment from the ground through the thorns].

And the proof is:

For we see

that

when we cut down the thorns

[when the thorn bushes are cut down],

then

then

the kushut dies,

the kushut dries out.

And this proves that the kushut draws its nourishment from the ground through the thorns.

And further, we challenge Rav:

And

if so,

does one not establish an eruv with unripe dates?!

And it was taught in a beraita: The tender stalk

[a soft growth added to the date palm each year, before the rainy season arrives and it hardens and becomes wood, is called a “tender stalk”; at that stage it is fit for eating].

May be purchased

in Jerusalem

with second-tithe money,

since it is fruit from fruit and produce of the ground [like cattle, sheep, wine, and strong drink, which are specified in the verse, and as stated above, on page 27b].

But it does not contract the ritual impurity of food,

even if one designated it for eating, because it is not food .

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

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

And unripe dates are like fruit in every respect, except that they are exempt from tithes,

since their preparation is not complete, for they have not fully ripened.

And according to the first tanna, they are subject to tithes, “for in every respect

they are fruit,” according to Rashi.

We see that according to everyone unripe dates contract the ritual impurity of food; evidently they are food. Why, then, did Rav say that one may not establish an eruv with them?!

And we answer:

There,

where the beraita says that unripe dates are food, it is referring

to male date palms,

which produce unripe dates that never become dates; rather, their state as unripe dates is the completion of their fruit, and they are picked in Nisan. Those are food, and they contract the ritual impurity of food, and one may also establish an eruv with them.

And when Rav said that one may not establish an eruv with them, he was referring to female date palms, whose unripe dates become dates. Therefore, their fruit has not yet reached completion [Rashi].

The Gemara rejects this answer:

If so—

if we establish the beraita as referring to unripe dates whose fruit has reached completion, this is difficult:

Does

Rabbi Yehuda say in this case that

they are

exempt from tithes?!

But it was taught

explicitly that unripe dates of male date palms are subject to tithes.

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda said: They were mentioned

[in the study hall as being considered fruit]

only with regard to the unripe figs of Beit Yoni,

[small figs that grow in a place called Beit Yoni; they are analogous to unripe dates, Rashi, Pesaḥim 53a]

only for the matter

that they should be subject to

tithes alone.

And as they said:

The unripe figs of Beit Yoni and the unripe dates of Tuvina

[the unripe dates of Tuvina, which are from male date palms], since this is the completion of their fruit,

are subject to tithes.

The Gemara retracts this answer.

Rather,

we offer another answer to the challenge to Rav, who said that one may not establish an eruv with unripe dates, based on the teaching that unripe dates may be purchased with second-tithe money and contract the ritual impurity of food:

In fact,

this beraita

is not referring to male date palms

at all.

Nevertheless, this is not difficult for Rav.

And

because

with regard to the ritual impurity of food, the matter is different.

As Rabbi Yohanan said—

in another context—

“Since it can be improved by means of fire.”

Here—

with regard to unripe dates—

too,

they contract the ritual impurity of food,

since they can be improved

from their bitterness

by means of fire

[by roasting them over a fire].

But with regard to an eruv, the food must be fit to eat at that time, and these are not yet improved [Rashi].

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

And where was Rabbi Yohanan’s statement made?

With regard to this teaching:

Bitter almonds,

that is, almonds that are initially sweet but become bitter as they grow:

When they are

small, they are

subject

to tithes, because they are considered to have reached the completion of their fruit, since when they grow further they become bitter.

And when they are

large, they are

exempt

from tithes, because they are not food on account of their bitterness.

And sweet

almonds—

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

large

and have reached completion, they are

subject

to tithes.

But when they are

small

and have not yet reached completion, they are

exempt

from tithes, since in order to be liable for tithes, we require the completion of the fruit.

Rabbi

(Shimon)

Yishmael

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

Both

this

[bitter almonds when they are small and sweet]

and

both

this

[when they have grown and become bitter] are

exempt.

When they are small, they are exempt from tithes because they have not yet reached completion.

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

And some say that

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

Both this and that are liable,

as the reason is explained below.

Rabbi Ila said that Rabbi Yehuda

[in the early editions]:

Rabbi Ḥanina ruled in Tzippori in accordance with the one who says: Both this and that are exempt!

And we raise a difficulty:

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

what are

large bitter almonds fit for, since they are not fit for eating, as they are bitter, and why are they liable for tithes?!

And in response

Rabbi Yohanan said: Since they can be improved

from their bitterness

by means of fire!

The Master said

in the beraita cited above:

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

And we ask:

Is this not identical to the first tanna?!

For he too said: The tender stalk may be purchased with second-tithe money, but it does not contract the ritual impurity of food.

He said

as an answer,

Abaye:

When

it was boiled

[cooked extensively] the tender stalk, or when it was

fried

in oil—

that is the difference between them.

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

Rava raised an objection to this: Is there anyone who says

that a tender stalk which was

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 afterbirth

[the sac in which the animal’s offspring is enclosed in its mother’s womb], which is not customarily eaten,

do not contract the ritual impurity of food.

But

a hide that was boiled,

and thereby made fit for eating,

and

the

an afterbirth that one designated

for eating,

do contract the ritual impurity of food

[but with regard to hide, designation alone is insufficient].

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

A tender stalk, which is at least somewhat fit for eating even now, all the more so should contract the ritual impurity of food if it was boiled?!

Rather, Rava said

another answer:

The blessing

is what

distinguishes between them,

between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was stated: The tender stalk—

Rav Yehuda said:

One recites over it

“Who creates the fruit of the ground.”

And Shmuel said:

One recites over it

“By whose word everything came to be.”

And we explain their reasons:

Rav Yehuda said: “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” because it is food.

And Shmuel said: “By whose word everything came to be,” because ultimately it will harden

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

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

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

According to the first tanna, the tender stalk is food, and one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the ground.” Whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is “like wood,” one does not recite over it “Who creates the fruit of the ground,” but rather “By whose word everything came to be.”

Shmuel said to—

who held that the blessing recited over a tender stalk is “By whose word everything came to be”—

Rav Yehuda,

who disagreed with him:

Sharp-minded one

[sharp in Talmud, according to the Arukh; and some explain: one with large teeth, Shita Mekubetzet, Ketubbot 14],

your view

like yours

is more reasonable,

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

For, behold, a radish ultimately hardens, and one recites over it “Who creates the fruit of the ground.”

The Gemara rejects this:

That is not so!

With regard to a radish, people plant it with the intention of eating the fugla,

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

But

a date palm—

people do not plant it with the intention that it produce tender stalks.

And the Gemara concludes:

And although he praised him

[praised him]

Shmuel praised Rav Yehuda

and said to him: “Your view is more reasonable,”

the halakha is in accordance with Shmuel,

that over a tender stalk one recites “By whose word everything came to be.”

The essential matter: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said

[above, on the first side]:

One may establish an eruv with kushut and young grain shoots, and one recites over them “Who creates the fruit of the ground”!

And we asked:

Kushut—

when one places it in the eruv, whose measure is food for two meals—

how much

constitutes the amount of food fit for two meals?

And we resolve it:

As Rav Yeḥiel said—

with regard to another food, which is cited shortly—

the fullness of a hand; here too,

with regard to kushut,

the fullness of a hand .

We further asked:

Young grain shoots—

how much

is their measure for an eruv?

Rabba bar Tovya bar Yitzḥak said that Rav said: The amount of a bundle of greens that farmers tie together

[the amount of a bundle of vegetables that farmers tie together].

Rav Ḥelkiya bar Tovya said: One may establish an eruv with kelaya

[a stalk of grass, which is hard like wood]!

And we ask: Is it conceivable

that you thought one may establish an eruv with kelaya

when it is not fit for eating?!

Rather,

this is what Rav Ḥelkiya meant: One may establish an eruv

with the greens of kelaya.

[with the greens surrounding the stalk].

And how much

is the measure of these greens for an eruv?

Rav Yeḥiel said: The fullness of a hand.

Rabbi Yirmeya went out to the villages

[he went out to the villages to inspect his crops].

They asked him: What is the ruling with regard to establishing an eruv with fresh beans?

He did not have

an answer to their question.

When he came—

Rabbi Yirmeya—

to the study hall,

and presented their question,

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

is their measure?

Rav Yeḥiel said: The fullness of a hand.

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

And we question this:

Is that so?!

But Rav Ḥisda said: Raw silka

[chard],

raw,

which is eaten without being cooked,

kills a living man

[it kills a living person], and if so, how can one establish an eruv with it?!