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