Eruvin 55

Chapter 55

א אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבע נמלה לוקה חמש צירעה לוקה שש ואם איתא פוטיתא נמי לילקי משום השרץ השורץ על הארץ
1 If a man ate an eel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ; 'young eel', v. Mak., Sonc. ed., P. 116, n. 8; it is a water insect smaller in size than an olive (Rashi a.l.) .');"><sup>1</sup></span> he [technically] incurs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite its small size (v. previous note) .');"><sup>2</sup></span> flogging<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is a 'creature'.');"><sup>3</sup></span> on four counts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is (i) a water insect, (ii) without fins and scales, (iii) forbidden by Lev. XI, 10-11 and (iv) ibid. 43.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ב אלא אמר רבינא עופות איכא בינייהו למאן דאמר פרי מפרי וגידולי קרקע הני נמי גידולי קרקע נינהו למאן דאמר ולד ולדות הארץ הני עופות מן הרקק נבראו
2 if an ant, on five counts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It (i) creepeth upon the earth (Lev. XI 41) , (ii) hath many feet (ibid. 42) , (iii) is a creeping thing (ibid. 44) and (iv and v) was twice forbidden as food (ibid. 43) .');"><sup>5</sup></span> if a hornet, on six<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the above (v. previous note) there is the prohibition against 'all winged swarming things' (Deut. XIV, 19) .');"><sup>6</sup></span> counts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. 16b, Pes. 24a.');"><sup>7</sup></span> Now if that statement is authentic<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is', that, according to Abaye, fish and so also all water creatures derive their nourishment from the earth.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ג מאן דמרבי עופות מאי טעמיה ומאן דממעיט עופות מאי טעמיה
3 [should not one eating] an eel also be flogged on account of [the prohibition against] a creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 4 i.');"><sup>9</sup></span> - Rather, replied Rabina, the practical difference between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two cited Baraithas.');"><sup>10</sup></span> is [the question of including] birds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the things that may be bought with the money of the second tithe.');"><sup>11</sup></span> According to him who holds [that the things included<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the things that may be bought with the money of the second tithe.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ד מאן דמרבי עופות קסבר כללא בתרא דוקא פרט וכלל נעשה כלל מוסף על הפרט ואיתרבו להו כל מילי ואהני כללא קמא למעוטי כל דלא דמי ליה משני צדדין
4 must be] 'the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from the earth' [birds are included since] they also derive their nourishment from the earth. According to him, however, who maintains [that the things included must be] 'produce of the produce of the earth' birds [are excluded since they] were created from the alluvial mud.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This concludes the argument proving that the Tannas of the cited Baraithas base their expositions on the rules of 'general statements and specific details' and consequently exclude fish, and much more so brine.');"><sup>12</sup></span> On what ground does the one include<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the things that may be bought with the money of the second tithe.');"><sup>11</sup></span> birds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he who includes birds, what is the reason?'');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ה ומאן דממעט עופות קסבר כללא קמא דווקא כלל ופרט ואין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט הני אין מידי אחרינא לא ואהני כללא בתרא לרבויי כל דדמי ליה משלשה צדדין:
5 and on what ground does the other exclude them? - He who includes birds' is of the opinion that the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'last'.');"><sup>14</sup></span> generalization<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a law that is given in the form of a generalization, specification and generalization.');"><sup>15</sup></span> is for principal [consideration]; hence [the proposition]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the generalization, specification and generalization.');"><sup>16</sup></span> is in [the form of] 'a specification and a generalization' [in which case] the generalization is regarded as an addition to the specification so that all things are thereby included,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. P.B., p. 13.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ו א"ר יהודה משמיה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב מערבין בפעפועין ובחלגלוגות ובגודגדניות אבל לא בחזיז ולא בכפניות
6 while the first generalization<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it loses its full force on account of the priority of the second one.');"><sup>18</sup></span> has the effect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Owing to the specification that follows it.');"><sup>19</sup></span> of excluding all things that are not similar to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The specification.');"><sup>20</sup></span> in two respects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In (a) being produce of produce and (b) deriving their nourishment from the earth. Fish, therefore, are excluded while birds are included.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ז ובגודגדניות מי מערבין והתניא גודגדניות מרובי בנים יאכלו חשוכי בנים לא יאכלו ואם הוקשו לזרע אף מרובי בנים לא יאכלו
7 He, however, who excludes birds is of the opinion that a first generalization is for principal [consideration] hence [the proposition] is in the form of 'a generalization and a specification' [in which case] the generalization does not cover more than what was enumerated in the specification.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. P.B., p. 13.');"><sup>17</sup></span> Consequently it is only these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those actually specified.');"><sup>22</sup></span> that are included<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'these yes'.');"><sup>23</sup></span> but no other things, while the second generalization<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 191, nn. 11 and 12 mutatis mutandis.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ח תרגמא אשלא הוקשו לזרע ומרובי בנים
8 has the effect of including<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Among the things that may be bought with the money of the second tithe.');"><sup>25</sup></span> all things that are similar to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The specification.');"><sup>26</sup></span> in three respects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being (a) produce of produce, (b) nourished from the earth and (c) of the Products of the earth. Since birds are Similar in two respects only they are excluded.');"><sup>27</sup></span> Rab Judah ruled in the name Of R'Samuel B'Shilath who had it from Rab: An 'erub may be prepared with cress,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Gartenkraut', possibly Gr. ** (v. Golds.) , prob. Gr. ** a kind of cress (Jast.) .');"><sup>28</sup></span>
ט ואיבעית אימא לעולם לחשוכי בנים דהא חזו למרובי בנים מי לא תנן מערבין לנזיר ביין ולישראל בתרומה אלמא אע"ג דלא חזי להאי חזי להאי הכא נמי אע"ג דלא חזי להאי חזי להאי
9 purslane and melilot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A species of clover.');"><sup>29</sup></span> but not with lichen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lecantora esculenta.');"><sup>30</sup></span> Or unripe dates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Berries in their early stage.');"><sup>31</sup></span> Is it, however, permitted to prepare an 'erub with melilot seeing that it was taught: Those who have many children may eat melilot but those who have no children<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'deprived of children'.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
י ואיבעית אימא כי קאמר רב בהנדקוקי מדאי
10 must not eat it; and if it was hardened into seed even those who have many children should not eat it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being injurious to health. How then could Rab rule that it may be used in the Preparation of an 'erub for which suitable food is required.');"><sup>33</sup></span> Explain it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's ruling.');"><sup>34</sup></span> to [refer to melilot] that was not hardened into seed and [that is used for people who] have many children. And if you prefer I might say: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's ruling.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יא ובחזיז לא והאמר רב יהודה א"ר כשות וחזיז מערבין בהן ומברכין עליהן בורא פרי האדמה
11 may in fact refer to [people who] have no children [the use of the plant nevertheless being permitted] because it is fit [for consumption] by those who have many children; for have we not learnt: 'An 'erub may be prepared for a nazirite with wine and for an Israelite with terumah',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 26b.');"><sup>35</sup></span> from which it is evident that [certain foodstuffs may be used for an 'erub because] through they are unsuitable for one person they are suitable for another? So also here [it may be held that] though [the melilot] is not suitable for one it is suitable for another. And if you prefer I might reply: When Rab made his statement [he referred] to the Median melilot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is a wholesome food.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
יב לא קשיא הא מקמי דאתא רב לבבל הא לבתר דאתא רב לבבל
12 But is it not [permitted to prepare an 'erub] from lichen? Has not Rab Judah in fact stated in the name of Rab: An 'erub may be prepared from cuscuta or lichen and the benediction of '[Blessed art Thou.] Who createth the fruit of the ground' is to be Pronounced over them? _ This is no difficulty. The one ruling was made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that', that lichen may not be used in an 'erub.');"><sup>37</sup></span>
יג ובבל הויא רובא דעלמא והתניא הפול והשעורה והתילתן שזרען לירק בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם לפיכך זרען חייב וירקן פטור השחליים והגרגיר שזרען לירק מתעשרין ירק וזרע זרען לזרע מתעשרין זרע וירק
13 before Rab came to Babylon while the other - was made after he came to Babylon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the plant was used as food. V. Cit., Sonc. ed., p. 17, n. 3.');"><sup>38</sup></span> Is Babylon, however, the greater part of the world?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a general ruling should be land down on the basis of its Practice?');"><sup>39</sup></span> Was it not in fact taught: If a man sowed beans, barley or fenugreek to [use as a] herb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. before it has ripened, while it was still green.');"><sup>40</sup></span> his wish is disregarded in view of the general practice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his mind is annulled at the side of all men'. Most people do not eat any of these in their unripe state.');"><sup>41</sup></span>
יד כי קאמר רב
14 hence it is its seed that is subject to tithe but its herb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. before it has ripened, while it was still green.');"><sup>40</sup></span> is exempt. Pepperwort<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lepidium sativum.');"><sup>42</sup></span> or gardenrocket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eruca.');"><sup>43</sup></span> that was sown [with the intention of using it] as a herb must be tithed as herb and as seed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is used as food in either condition.');"><sup>44</sup></span> If it was sown to [be used as] seed it must be tithed as seed and as herb?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef Sheb. II, which shows that individuals' eccentricities are disregarded. Why then did Rab lay down a ruling on the basis of the usage of one locality?');"><sup>45</sup></span> - Rab spoke Only
Previous ChapterNext Chapter