Eruvin 53

מפני שיכול לחוץ ולילך ולאכול:

BECAUSE HE CAN PUT UP A SCREEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between himself and the graves, by riding into the cemetery in a litter for Instance.');">¹</span> AND THUS ENTER [THE AREA] AND EAT [HIS 'ERUB]. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Johanan ruled: No inference may be drawn from general rulings, even where an exception was actually specified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there might also be other exceptions that were not specified.');">²</span> Since he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan.');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר יוחנן אין למידין מן הכללות ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ

uses the expression, 'even where an exception was actually specified' it follows that he did not refer to our Mishnah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that he does not stand here', since In our Mishnah exceptions were in fact enumerated.');">⁴</span> now what did he refer to?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where does he stand?'');">⁵</span> - He referred to the following:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there he stands'.');">⁶</span> All positive precepts [the observance Of] which is dependent on the time [of the day Or the year] are incumbent upon men only, and women are free, but those which are not dependent on the time [of the day or of the year] are incumbent upon both men and women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 34a.');">⁷</span>

מדקאמר אפי' במקום שנאמר בו חוץ מכלל דלאו הכא קאי היכא קאי

Now is it a general rule that all precepts the observance of which depends on a certain time are not incumbent upon women? Behold [the precepts of] unleavened bread,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is an obligation upon women (as deduced by analogy in Pes. 43a) as well as men to eat unleavened bread on the first night of the Passover');">⁸</span> rejoicing [on the festival]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' . V. Deut. XVI, II, 14, where women are specifically mentioned. kvev');">⁹</span> and Assembly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , lit., 'assemble', i.e., the precept, 'assemble the people, the men and the women' (Deut. XXXI, 12) on the feast of Tabernacles in the Sabbatical year, 'that they may hear, and that they may learn and fear the Lord your God' etc. (ibid) . Cf. Sot. 41a.');">¹⁰</span>

התם קאי כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא אנשים חייבין ונשים פטורות ושלא הזמן גרמא אחד נשים ואחד אנשים חייבין

each of which is a positive precept [the observance of] which is dependent on a certain specified time and are nevertheless incumbent upon women! Furthermore, are women liable to perform every positive precept the performance of which is not dependent on a specified time? Are there not in fact [the precepts of] the study of the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That women are exempt is deduced from Deut. Xl, 19, 'And ye shall teach them your sons' but not your daughters.');">¹¹</span> propagation of the race<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Yeb. 65b.');">¹²</span> and redemption of the son<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XII[, 13 and Kid. 29a.');">¹³</span>

וכללא הוא דכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות הרי מצה שמחה והקהל דמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא ונשים חייבות

each of which is a positive precept the observance of which is not dependent on any specified time and women are nevertheless exempt [from their observance]? The fact, however, is, explained It. Johanan, that no inference may be drawn from general rulings, even where an exception was actually specified. Abaye (or, as some say: R'Jeremiah) remarked: We also learned a Mishnah to the same effect: They, furthermore, land down another general rule [viz. ,] all that is borne above a zab<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁴</span>

וכל מצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות הרי תלמוד תורה פריה ורביה ופדיון הבן דמצות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא ונשים פטורות אלא אמר רבי יוחנן אין למידין מן הכללות ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ

is levitically unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Nid. 33a.');">¹⁵</span> but all on which a zab is borne is clean except that which is suitable for lying, or sitting upon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Anything unsuitable for these purposes is clean (cf. Hag. 23b) .');">¹⁶</span> and a human being.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zab. V, 2.');">¹⁷</span> Now, is there no [other exception]?

אמר אביי ואיתימא רבי ירמיה אף אנן נמי תנינא עוד כלל אחר אמרו כל שנישא על גבי הזב טמא וכל שהזב נישא עליו טהור חוץ מן הראוי למשכב ומושב והאדם ותו ליכא והא איכא מרכב

Is there not in fact [that which is suitable for] riding upon? ( What is one to understand by that which is 'suitable for riding upon'? If [it is that on] which [the zab] sat, then [it may be retorted] is it not exactly in the same category as a seat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was specifically excluded.');">¹⁸</span> - It is this that we mean: Is there not the upper part of a saddle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the rider uses as a handle.');">¹⁹</span>

האי מרכב היכי דמי אי דיתיב עליה היינו מושב אנן הכי קאמרינן הא איכא גבא דאוכפא דתניא האוכף טמא מושב והתפוס טמא מרכב אלא שמע מינה אין למידין מן הכללות ואפילו במקום שנאמר בו חוץ

concerning which it was taught A saddle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which a zab sat.');">²⁰</span> is levitically Unclean as a seat and its handle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 6.');">²¹</span> is unclean as a riding means?) Consequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we find another exception that was not enumerated among the others.');">²²</span>

אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב נחמן אף אנן נמי תנינא בכל מערבין ומשתתפין חוץ מן המים והמלח ותו ליכא והא איכא כמיהין ופטריות אלא שמע מינה אין למידין מן הכללות ואפי' במקום שנאמר בו חוץ:

it may be deduced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but hear from it'.');">²³</span> that no inference may be drawn from general rulings even where an exception has been actually specified. Rabina (or, as some say: R'Nahman) remarked: We also learned to the same effect: WITH ALL [KINDS OF FOOD] MAY 'ERUB OR SHITTUF BE EFFECTED EXCEPT WATER AND SALT. Now is there no [other exception]?

הכל ניקח בכסף מעשר כו': ר' אליעזר ור' יוסי בר חנינא חד מתני אעירוב וחד מתני אמעשר

Is there not in fact that of morels and truffles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may not be used for an 'erub.');">²⁴</span> Consequently it may be deduced ' that no inference may be drawn from general rulings, even where an exception was actually specified. SO ALSO MAY ALL [KINDS OF FOODSTUFFS] BE PURCHASED WITH MONEY OF THE SECOND TITHE etc. R'Elieser<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marginal note, 'Eleazar'.');">²⁵</span> and R'Jose B'Hanina [differ].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the application of the following limitation.');">²⁶</span>

חד מתני אעירוב ל"ש אלא מים בפני עצמו ומלח בפני עצמו דאין מערבין אבל במים ומלח מערבין

One applied [the following limitation]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Was taught only in respect' etc.');">²⁷</span> to 'erub and the other applied it to the [second] tithe.' One applied [the following limitation] to 'erub' [thus: The ruling that] no 'erub may be prepared [from water and salt] was taught only in respect of water by itself or salt by itself; but from water and salt [that were mingled together,] an 'erub may well be prepared.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Salt water is regarded as a food.');">²⁸</span> 'And the other applied it to the [second] tithe', [thus: The ruling that] no [water or salt] may be purchased [with money of the second tithe] was taught only in respect of water by itself or salt by itself; but water and salt [that were mingled together] may well be purchased with money of the [second] tithe.'

וחד מתני אמעשר לא שנו אלא מים בפני עצמו ומלח בפני עצמו דאין ניקחין אבל מים ומלח ניקחין בכסף מעשר

He who applied [the limitation]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Was taught only in respect' etc.');">²⁹</span> to tithe [applies it] with more reason to 'erub.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions on the kinds of food permitted are more stringent in respect of the second tithe than in that of 'erub; and, since salt water is itn permitted in the case of the former, there can be no question that it is permitted in that on the latter. V. Tosaf. s.v. a.l.');">³⁰</span> He, however, who applied it to 'erub does not apply it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but . . not'.');">³¹</span> to tithe.

מאן דמתני אמעשר כ"ש אעירוב ומאן דמתני אעירוב אבל אמעשר לא מ"ט פירא בעינן

What is the reason? - Because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case.');">³²</span> [a kind of] produce is required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra.');">³³</span> When R'Isaac came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');">³⁴</span> he applied the limitation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Was taught only in respect' etc.');">²⁹</span>

כי אתא רבי יצחק מתני אמעשר מיתיבי העיד ר' יהודה בן גדיש לפני ר"א של בית אבא היו לוקחין ציר בכסף מעשר אמר לו שמא לא שמעת אלא כשקרבי דגים מעורבין בהן ואפילו רבי יהודה בן גדיש לא קאמר אלא בציר דשומנא דפירא היא אבל מים ומלח לא

to tithe. An objection was raised: It. Judah B'Gadish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., Gadush, Garish, Garush.');">³⁵</span> testified before R'Eliezer, 'My father's household used to buy brine with money of the [second] tithe', when the other asked him, 'Is it not possible that you heard this in that case only where it was mixed up with entrails of fish? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mixed up with them'. From which it follows that R. Eliezer does not permit the purchase of pure salt water with money of the second tithe. An objection against Rt. Isaac and one of the Rabbis who expressed a similar view supra.');">³⁶</span>

אמר רב יוסף

And, furthermore, did not even R'Judah B'Gadish himself maintain his view in the case of brine only, since it [contains some] fat of produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the fish.');">³⁷</span> but not [in that of pure] water and salt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which contain no 'produce' whatsoever. How then could R. Isaac etc. (cf. supra n. 9) maintain their view?');">³⁸</span> - It. Joseph replied: