(a)What is the definition of a Sheretz?
(b)How many kinds of Sheretz are there?
(a)A Sheretz is a small creature that, due to its closeness to the ground, is not noticed until it begins to crawl on the ground.
(b)There are three kinds of Sheretz: an earth-Sheretz, a water-Sheretz and a flying-Sheretz.
(a)According to the first Beraisa, birds are considered 'Gidulei Karka'. From what were they created, and what makes them 'Gidulei Karka'?
(b)The Gemara goes on to explain that the Machlokes between the two Beraisos is based on whether the second 'Klal' is to be taken literally (the opinion of the first Beraisa, which permits the purchase of birds), or the first (which forbids it).
1. How does the first Beraisa learn?
2. And how does the second Beraisa learn?
(a)Birds were created from mud, a mixture of earth and water; they are called 'Gidulei Karka' because they feed from the produce of the earth.
1. The first Beraisa explains that we begin with the 'Prat u'Chelal' (to say that we include everything with the Klal, to permit everything in what may be purchased with Ma'aser Sheni money); the first Klal then comes to indicate that we limit the last Klal to include things that are similar to the Klal in at least two points out of the three that the Prat incorporates ('Pri mi'Pri' and 'Gidulei Karka') i.e. birds (which are not Velad Velados ha'Aretz - since they were created from mud). Consequently, fish, which are not Gidulei Karka either, (and similar to the Prat in only two point) are precluded.
2. The second Beraisa explains that we start with the 'Klal u'Frat', meaning that we begin by excluding everything not included in the Prat. However, the last Klal indicates that we should include at least those things that are similar to it in all three points, to preclude even birds - and certainly fish.
(a)Cress, purslane (Chalaglugos) and coriander may be used as an Eruv, but not young crops or Kafni'os (a poor-quality date). To reconcile the inclusion of coriander in the list of what is permissible, with a Beraisa (which precludes it), the Gemara establishes the case by someone who already has children. What are the Gemara's other two answers?
(b)How do we initially reconcile the above statement of Rav, precluding young crops from an Eruv, with Rav Yehudah, who quotes Rav as saying that hops and young crops may be used for an Eruv?
(a)The Gemara may also permit the use of coriander for the Eruv even of someone who does not have children - However, using it is permitted, since it is fit for someone who does. Alternatively, Rav (who permits it) is referring to Median coriander, which is healthy, and therefore does not have the harmful effects that other coriander has.
(b)Initially, we thought that Rav changed his mind when he arrived in Bavel, and saw how the Babylonians ate young crops.
(a)Beans, barley and fenugreek that were sown for the herbage (the part of the fruit that grows underground) are Patur from Ma'aser, but Chayav, if one sowed them for their seeds (the main part that grows above ground). Why?
(b)And why are cress and the rocket-plant (Uruga) Chayav in either case?
(c)How could Rav (above in 3b) change his mind, just because the people of Bavel ate young crops. Since when are the people of Bavel the majority of the world?
(a)People would normally sow beans, barley and fenugreek for their seed, not for their herbage - Consequently, even if someone did sow them for their herbage, they will still be Patur from Ma'aser, because 'Batlah Da'ato Etzel Kol Adam'.
(b)Cress and the rocket-plant were Chayav either way - because people tended to sow them for the herbage as well as for the seeds.
(c)The Gemara concludes that Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who permitted young crops to be used for an Eruv - was speaking about garden crops, as opposed to field crops, which Rav forbade above.
(a)Rav Yehudah (on the previous Amud), maintains that the correct Berachah to recite over hops and young crops is 'Borei Pri ha'Adamah. Why did Rebbi Zeira (when he was feeling weak and sitting outside Rav Yehudah bar Ami's Beis ha'Medrash) maintain that the Berachah over hops should be 'Shehakol'?
(b)That child however, was of a third opinion (which is the Halachah). Quoting Rav Yehudah bar Ami, he ruled that, over hops one recites 'Borei Pri ha'Adamah'. What was wrong with Rebbi Zeira's contention?
(c)Then why does one recite a Shehakol over young crops?
(a)Rebbi Zeira maintained that the Berachah over hops should be 'Shehakol' - because, in his opinion, they grow from the air (like mushrooms).
(b)This however, is not correct. In fact, they grow from the ground. The proof for this is, that when one kills the bushes on which the hops grow, the hops die too.
(c)The reason that one recites a Shehakol over young crops - is because that is the Berachah that one recites over something that is not yet ripe.
(a)Kor (a kind of soft edible bark that grows annually on the date-palm, which later becomes hard) may be bought with Ma'aser Sheni money, but is not Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. According to the Tana Kama, what is the Din of Kafni'os in these two regards, but they are Patur from Ma'asros?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah hold with regard to Kafni'os-dates?
(c)We try to reconcile this Beraisa with Rav, who said earlier that Kafni'os cannot be used for an Eruv, by establishing The Beraisa by 'Nischani'. What are Nischani, and to which kind of dates is Rav then referring?
(d)What is the problem with this contention - from Rebbi Yehudah in b?
(a)Kafni'os-dates - may be bought with Ma'aser Sheni money, and are Metamei Tum'as Ochlin.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah holds that, as far as Tum'as Ochlin goes, Kafni'os-dates are considered fruit in all regards.
(c)Nischani - are small 'male'-dates which have reached their full growth. Rav is speaking about small 'female'-dates, which have yet to grow to their full size, and which can therefore not be used for an Eruv.
(d)If the Beraisa is speaking about 'Nischani', why does Rebbi Yehudah exempt them from Ma'asros.
(a)The Gemara therefore retracts from the previous answer. The Beraisa too, is speaking about 'female' dates, and the Tana Kama renders them subject to Tum'as Ochlin for a different reason. Why is that?
(b)Why does that not render them eligible to be used for an Eruv?
(c)And why are they Patur from Ma'aser?
(a)The Tana Kama renders even 'female'-dates fit to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin - because, although they are currently bitter, and cannot really be termed a food, it is nevertheless possible to remedy this by sweetening them on the fire.
(b)Food that is used for an Eruv, must be fit to use as it is, without any further preparation.
(c)The reason that they are Patur from Ma'aser - is because they are not fully-grown (which is not affected by the fact that the they can be treated).
(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa holds that bitter almonds are Chayav Ma'aser when they are small and Patur when they are fully-grown. Why is that?
(b)And why is the Din of sweet almonds the reverse?
(c)The Halachah is like the Tana who exempts all types of bitter almonds from the Din of Ma'aser. What is the reason for this?
(d)And what is the reason of the third opinion, which obligates even fully-grown ones to be Ma'asered? What can one do with fully-grown bitter almonds?
(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa holds that bitter almonds are Chayav Ma'aser when they are small - when they are considered a complete fruit, since, when they are fully-grown, they have become bitter, and are no longer edible.
(b)Sweet almonds are Chayav Ma'aser only when they are fully-grown, when the fruit is considered complete, but prior to that, not.
(c)According to the Halachah, all bitter almonds are Patur from Ma'aser - even when they are small, since they are not fully-grown, and are not therefore, considered a fruit.
(d)One Tana obligates taking Ma'aser even from fully-grown bitter-almonds - because they can be sweetened on the fire - as we learned above, with regard to Tum'as Ochlin.
(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa that we quoted earlier rules that Kor is not subject to Tum'as Ochlin. Rebbi Yehudah says 'Harei Hu ke'Eitz le'Chol Devarav'. They seem to be saying the same thing. We initially think that they argue about if one cooked and treated the bark, in which case, the Tana Kama contends that it becomes subject to Tum'as Ochlin, and Rebbi Yehudah holds that it does not. On what grounds does the Gemara reject this suggestion?
(b)What is their Machlokes, according to the Gemara's conclusion?
(c)Rav holds like the Chachamim, with regard to the Berachah over Kor, and Shmuel, like Rebbi Yehudah. What proof does Shmuel bring for Rav from a radish?
(d)On what grounds does the Gemara reject this proof?
(a)If the Tana Kama's reason for considering Kor to be subject to Tum'as Ochlin, is because it was cooked and treated - then why would Rebbi Yehudah argue with this? Have we not learnt a Beraisa which considers skin which was cooked, subject to Tum'as Ochlin (and Rebbi Yehudah does not dispute that ) - how much more so Kor, which is initially considered a food?
(b)The Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama, the Gemara concludes - is with regard to the Berachah. The Tana Kama holds that, since the Kor is now soft, it is a fruit and one recites the Berachah 'Borei Pri ha'Etz'; whereas, according to Rebbi Yehudah, since it stands to become hard, it is not considered a fruit, in which the Berachah is 'Shehakol'.
(c)Shmuel proves Rav correct, from a radish - which stands to become hard, yet one recites over it 'Borei Pri ha'Adamah'.
(d)The Gemara reject this proof however - because one cannot compare Kor, which is not planted for its edible qualities, to a radish, which is (in fact, the Gemara rules like Shmuel).
(a)What quantity of hops is needed for an Eruv?
(b)What quantity of young crops are needed for an Eruv?
(c)What is the common gauge for all commodities used for an Eruv?
(a)A handful of hops - is the amount needed for an Eruv.
(b)The quantity of young crops that are needed for an Eruv - is a farmer's bunch.
(c)All commodities used for an Eruv - must be the amount that is usually used for two meals.
(a)Why was the Gemara surprised at Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvi, when he said that one can use 'Kalya' for an Eruv?
(b)What he really meant was Yarka de'Kalya. What is 'Yarka de'Kalya', and how much of it is needed for an Eruv?
(c)What quantity of wet beans is needed for an Eruv?
(d)How do we reconcile Rebbi Yanai's ruling that one may use raw beets for an Eruv, with Rav Chisda's statement that uncooked beets killed a man?
(a)The Gemara understood 'Kalya' to mean a hard stalk of grass - Consequently, it could not understand how Rav Chilkiya bar Tuvi could permit such a thing to be used for an Eruv.
(b)'Yarka de'Kalya' - is a kind of vegetable (see Rabeinu Chananel). One handful is required for an Eruv.
(c)The same Shi'ur of a handful is required for wet-beans.
(d)Raw beets are fine for an Eruv - it is half-cooked beets, the Gemara concludes, that killed a man.