Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Eruvin 28

1) BUGS THAT CRAWL AND SNAKES THAT WALK

QUESTION: The Gemara says that one who eats a crawling bug transgresses five prohibitions and one who eats a flying bug transgresses six. Rashi asks that one should also be Chayav for a sixth and seventh Isur, "Do not defile your souls... with anything that is 'Romes' upon the ground (b'Chol Asher Tir'mos)..." (Vayikra 20:25).

ANSWERS:

(a) RASHI answers that 'Romes' (trample) is what large animals do. Bugs are 'Shoretz' (crawl). Therefore, the prohibition in this verse does not apply to eating bugs.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Tzir'ah) cites the Gemara in Sanhedrin (59b) that says that the phrase (Bereishis 1:28), "u'v'Chol Chayah *ha'Romeses*" ("And you will rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and *every wild animal that is *Romes*") refers to the snake. We see, then, that something that slithers is also called "Romes," and if so, the prohibition in Vayikra 20:25 should also apply to bugs and crawling creatures.

Tosfos therefore answers that there is another reason why the prohibition in Vayikra 20:25 does not apply to everything that slithers. The Gemara in Me'ilah (16b) says that the verse refers only to the Shemonah Sheratzim (the eight categories of crawling creatures that are Metamei when they are dead).

QUESTION: The RITVA points out that Tosfos' question on Rashi's explanation has absolutely no basis. The verse which Tosfos cites to prove that "Romes" refers to a snake is in the context of the blessing given to Adam ha'Rishon before he sinned. Hashem told Adam ha'Rishon that he would rule over all of the animals, including the snake which, the Gemara (Sanhedrin ibid.) goes on to explain, was supposed to be subservient to man and serve him by running around performing tasks for him. At the time of the blessing, the snake had legs and walked. Therefore, Rashi is correct in saying that "Romes" refers only to walking animals and not to slithering ones!

ANSWER: Tosfos apparently follows his own opinion elsewhere. In Nidah (23a, DH Lisni), Tosfos says that the verse "u'v'Chol Chayah ha'Romeses" refers to the snake *after* its legs were removed. That is, although the verse is clearly discussing the pre-sin snake, it describes the snake as it eventually looked and not as it looked at the time of the blessing (MITZPEH EISAN here, RASHASH in Nidah)

How did Tosfos know that to interpret the verse in such an odd fashion? The RASHASH (in Nidah) explains that Tosfos was bothered by the Gemara's conclusion in Sanhedrin that the verse "Chayah ha'Romeses" means *specifically* the snake. "Chayah" certainly means a walking animal; if "Romeses" also means a walking animal, how did the Gemara in Sanhedrin know that the verse is referring to a snake and not to all other animals? It must be that the word "Romeses" refers not to large animals, but to slithering and crawling ones (as Tosfos asserts here in Eruvin). If so, the verse seems to use contradictory words to refer to a single type of animal -- "Chayah" (walking animal) "Romeses" (slithering animal)! It must be that the verse is referring to an animal that both walks (before sinning) and slithers (after sinning). The only animal that fits that description is the snake!

QUESTION: The Beraisa (end of 28a) says that if one plants Shichalayim and Gargir seeds in order to use the greens (Yerek) of those plants, he must separate Ma'aser from both the greens and the seeds that grow. If he plants them in order to use the seeds that they produce, he must separate Ma'aser from both the seeds and the greens that grow.

Why does the Gemara differentiate between planting those plants for their greens and for their seeds, if the Halachah is the same in both cases? In either case, Ma'aser must be taken from both the greens and the seeds!

ANSWERS:

TOSFOS (DH l'Zera) explains that there is a indeed difference between whether Shichalayim and Gargir are planted for their seeds or for their greens. Whatever it was planted for is considered to be the primary produce of the plant (Ikar), and the other is only secondary (Tafel). This affects a number of Halachic considerations:

(a) The Halachah is that one may not take Terumah from poor quality produce to exempt higher quality produce from Terumah. In our case, whatever it was planted for is considered to be the higher quality produce ("Yafeh"), and the other item is considered to be the poorer quality fruit ("Ra"). For instance, if one planted these plants for their greens, one may not take the seeds as Terumah to exempt the greens.

(b) For vegetables, which Ma'aser that is to be separated from them is determined by when they are picked. For example, if they are picked before Rosh Hashanah of the third year following Shemitah, Ma'aser Sheni is separated from them. If they are picked after Rosh Hashanah of the third year, Ma'aser Ani is separated from them. For seeds, the Ma'aser that is to be separated from them is determined by when the plant has reached a third of its full growth (i.e., has it reached 1/3 of its growth before or after Rosh Hashanah.) One consequence of this is with regard to Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser Ani. Pla

If Shichalayim or Gargir grew during the second year but was picked in the third year, which Ma'aser is taken from them? If one planted these plants for their greens, one must separate Ma'aser Ani. If one planted them for their seeds, one must separate Ma'aser Sheni.

28b