1 BECAUSE HE CAN PUT UP A SCREEN AND THUS ENTER [THE AREA] AND EAT [HIS ‘ERUB]. GEMARA. R. Johanan ruled: No inference may be drawn from general rulings, even where an exception was actually specified. Since he uses the expression, ‘even where an exception was actually specified’ it follows that he did not refer to our Mishnah; now what did he refer to? — He referred to the following: 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. 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, rejoicing [on the festival] and Assembly 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, propagation of the race and redemption of the son 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 is levitically unclean, but all on which a zab is borne is clean except that which is suitable for lying, or sitting upon, and a human being. Now, is there no [other exception]? 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? — It is this that we mean: Is there not the upper part of a saddle concerning which it was taught A saddle is levitically Unclean as a seat and its handle is unclean as a riding means?). Consequently it may be deduced 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]? Is there not in fact that of morels and truffles? 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 and R. Jose b. Hanina [differ]. One applied [the following limitation] 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. ‘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.’ He who applied [the limitation] to tithe [applies it] with more reason to ‘erub. He, however, who applied it to ‘erub does not apply it to tithe. What is the reason? — Because [a kind of] produce is required. When R. Isaac came he applied the limitation to tithe. An objection was raised: It. Judah b. Gadish 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?’ 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 but not [in that of pure] water and salt? — It. Joseph replied:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡ
2 That refers only to a case where oil was mixed with them. Said Abaye to him: [In that case] might not the ruling be obvious on account of the oil? The ruling was necessary in that case only where one covered the cost of the water and the salt by paying an inclusive price [for the oil]. But is this permissible by paying an inclusive price? — Yes; and so it was in fact taught: Ben Bag-Bag ruled: ‘For oxen’ teaches that an ox may be purchased together with its skin; ‘or for sheep’ teaches that a sheep may be bought together with its wool; ‘or for wine’ teaches that wine may be bought together with its jar; ‘or for strong drink’ teaches that tamad may be purchased after its fermentation. Said R. Johanan: Should any person explain to me [the necessity for the expression of] ‘for oxen’ in accordance with the view of Ben Bag-Bag would carry his clothes after him into the bath house. What is the reason? — Because all [the other expressions] were required with the exception of ‘for oxen,’ which is quite unnecessary. What [is the purpose for which the others] were required? — If the All Merciful had written only ‘for oxen’ it might have been assumed that only an ox may be purchased together with its skin, because it is [a part of] its body, but not a sheep together with] its wool which is not [a part of] its body. And if the All Merciful had only written: ‘for sheep’ [to teach us that] a sheep may be bought together with its wool it might have been assumed [that this only is permitted] because [the wool] clings to its body but not [the purchase of] wine together with its cask. And had the All Merciful written ‘for wine’ it might have been assumed [that the purchase of its jar only is permitted] because It is in this way only that it can be preserved but not tamad after its fermentation, which is a mere [liquid] acid. And if the All Merciful had written ‘for strong drink, Sit might have been assumed that by ‘strong drink’ [was meant the purchase of] the pressed fig cakes of Keilah which are a fruit but not wine with its jar. And if the All Merciful had written ‘wine’ [to indicate that it may be purchased] together with its jar it might have been assumed [that the purchase of its jar only is permitted] since in this way only it can be preserved but not a sheep together with its wool; hence did the All Merciful write ‘sheep’ [to indicate] that [it may be bought] even together with its wool. What however, was the need for the expression of ‘for oxen’? And should you reply that if the All Merciful had not written ‘for oxen’ it might have been assumed that a sheep may be bought together with its skin but not together with its wool [and that] the All Merciful has therefore written ‘for oxen’ to include its skin so that ‘sheep’ remained superfluous in order to include its wool [it could be retorted that even] if the All Merciful had not written ‘oxen’ no one would have suggested that a sheep may be bought only together with its skin but not together with its wool, for if that were so the All Merciful should have written ‘oxen’ so that ‘sheep’ would for this reason have remained superfluous; now, since the All Merciful did write ‘sheep’ [to indicate obviously] that [it may be purchased] even together with its wool [the question arises again:] What need was there for the expression of ‘for oxen,? If [it may be argued] a sheep may be bought together with its wool was there any need [to state that] an ox may be bought together with its skin? It is this [line of reasoning that was followed] when R. Johanan sand, ‘Should any person explain to me [the necessity for the expression of] ‘for oxen’ in accordance with the view of Ben Bagbag I would carry his clothes after him into the bath house’. On what principle do R. Judah b. Gadish and R. Eliezer and the following Tannas differ? — R. Judah b. Gadish and R. Eliezer base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] amplification, and limitation while those Tannas base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] general statements and specific details . ‘R. Judah b. Gadish and R. Eliezer base their expositions on [the hermeneutic rules of] amplification and limitation’ [thus:] ‘And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth’ is an amplification, ‘for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink,’ is a limitation, ‘or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee’ is again an amplification. [Now since Scripture] has amplified, limited and amplified again it has [thereby] included all. What has it included? It included all things. And what has it excluded? According to R. Eliezer it excluded brine; according to R. Judah b. Gadish it excluded water and salt. ‘While those Tannas base their expositions [on the hermeneutic rules of] general statements and specific details’ for it was taught: ‘And thou, shalt bestow the money for whatsoever thy soul desireth’ is a general statement, ‘for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink’ is a specification, ‘or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee’ is again a general statement. [Now where] a general statement, a specification and a general statement [follow each other in succession] you may include only such things as are similar to those in the specification; as the specification explicitly mentions [things that are] the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from the earth so [you may include] all [other things that are] the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from] the earth. Another [Baraitha], however, taught: As the specification mentions explicitly [things that are] produce of the products of the earth so [you may include] all produce that was of the products of the earth. What is the practical difference between these? — Abaye replied: The practical difference between them is [the question of including] fish. According to him who holds [that the things included must be] ‘the produce of produce that derive their nourishment from] the earth’ fish [also may be included since] they 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’ fish [are excluded since they] were created from the water, But could Abaye maintain that fish derive their nourishment from] the earth seeing that he ruled:ᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠᶜᵍᶜʰᶜⁱᶜʲᶜᵏ