## Eruvin Daf 28a

###### Eruvin 28a:1
[Eruvin 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:1)

אָכַל פּוּטִיתָא — לוֹקֶה אַרְבַּע. נְמָלָה — לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. צִירְעָה — לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ. וְאִם אִיתָא — פּוּטִיתָא נָמֵי לִילְקֵי מִשּׁוּם ״הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Eruvin 28a:2
[Eruvin 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:2)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Eruvin 28a:3
[Eruvin 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:3)

מַאן דִּמְרַבֵּי עוֹפוֹת — מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ, וּמַאן דִּמְמַעֵיט עוֹפוֹת — מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Eruvin 28a:4
[Eruvin 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:4)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Eruvin 28a:5
[Eruvin 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:5)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Eruvin 28a:6
[Eruvin 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:6)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: מְעָרְבִין בְּפַעְפּוּעִין וּבַחֲלַגְלוֹגוֹת וּבְגוּדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא בַּחֲזִיז וְלֹא בְּכַפְנִיּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Eruvin 28a:7
[Eruvin 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:7)

וּבְגוּדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת מִי מְעָרְבִין? וְהָתַנְיָא: גּוּדְגְּדָנִיּוֹת — מְרוּבֵּי בָנִים יֹאכֵלוּ, חֲשׂוּכֵי בָנִים לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ. וְאִם הוּקְשׁוּ לְזֶרַע — אַף מְרוּבֵּי בָּנִים לֹא יֹאכֵלוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*?


###### Eruvin 28a:8
[Eruvin 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:8)

תַּרְגְּמָא: אַשֶּׁלֹא הוּקְשׁוּ לְזֶרַע, וּמְרוּבֵּי בָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Eruvin 28a:9
[Eruvin 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:9)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Eruvin 28a:10
[Eruvin 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:10)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי קָאָמַר רַב, בְּהַנְדְּקוֹקֵי מָדָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Eruvin 28a:11
[Eruvin 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:11)

וּבַחֲזִיז לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: כְּשׁוּת וַחֲזִיז מְעָרְבִין בָּהֶן, וּמְבָרְכִין עֲלֵיהֶן ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Eruvin 28a:12
[Eruvin 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:12)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — מִקַּמֵּי דַּאֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל, הָא — לְבָתַר דַּאֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Eruvin 28a:13
[Eruvin 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Eruvin 28a:14
[Eruvin 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/28a:14)

כִּי קָאָמַר רַב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When Rav said** that green grain may be used for an *eiruv*,