Eruvin 27a — the Talmud in English

because he can interpose [make a partition between himself and the grave]

between himself and the grave]

and walk and eat,

since he can enter while it is still day into the place where his eruv was placed by means of a chest, box, or cabinet [that is, by means of various wagons that interpose against the impurity of the grave, and a priest is permitted to enter the cemetery inside them], and take the eruv and eat it.

But if he cannot enter there, one may not permit it - even according to the first tanna, who holds that if it is suitable for others it is satisfactory, and despite the fact that it is suitable for an Israelite - because when he places it among the graves, it is “he in one place and his eruv in another place.”

But if the person making the eruv can take it, but it is not suitable for his eating [although it is suitable for another person’s eating], it is properly considered “he and his eruv in one place.”

Gemara:

Rabbi Yohanan said: One does not learn from generalizations.

Whenever we learned “a general rule,” it does not mean that nothing falls outside the general rule. For there is a “general rule” concerning which the tanna was not precise in his words, and there are matters that are not included in that general rule.

And

not only where the tanna excluded nothing from the general rule, but

even in a place where it is stated

a general rule, and the tanna added

in it

“

except

for such-and-such a matter,” which would imply that everything except that matter is included in the general rule, nevertheless one does not learn from it.

And the Gemara infers from these words of Rabbi Yohanan that they do not refer to our Mishna:

From his saying

that Rabbi Yohanan said, “One does not learn from generalizations,” and added,

“even in a place where it is stated ‘except,”

it follows that the general rule to which Rabbi Yohanan referred did not contain “except”; therefore Rabbi Yohanan added and said, “even in a place where it is stated ‘except.’”

And

from

his words you learn

that it is not here,

with regard to our Mishna,

that he is referring [Rabbi Yohanan said it], since “except” is stated in it.

And since this is so, we must clarify:

to what is he referring [with regard to what did he say it]?

And we explain: Rabbi Yohanan

is referring there,

to that which we learned:

Every positive commandment dependent upon time [where time causes the commandment to come, such as the shofar and sukka]

where the time causes the mitzva to apply, such as the shofar and sukka]

men are obligated

in them

and women are exempt.

And

commandments

not dependent upon time -

both women and men are obligated.

And concerning this we raised the matter:

And

if

it is a general rule,

without exceptions,

that women are exempt from every positive commandment dependent upon time?!

Behold,

the commandment of eating

matza

on the first night of Passover, which is obligatory, as it is stated, “In the evening you shall eat matzot,” and women are obligated in it, because the commandment of eating matza was equated with the prohibition of leaven. To teach: everyone who is included in “you shall not eat leaven” is included in “rise and eat matza.”

And likewise the commandment of

rejoicing

on the festival, as it is stated, “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” - behold, women are included.

And

likewise the commandment of

hakhel

on the festival in the year of release, on the festival of Sukkot, when the king stands on a platform and reads before Israel the commandments of Deuteronomy. And it is stated in that section [Deuteronomy 31:12]: “Assemble the people, the men and the women and the children.” Behold, women too were obligated.

D

All these

are positive commandments dependent upon time, and women are obligated?!

And further we raised the matter:

And

if

women are obligated in every positive commandment not dependent upon time?!

Behold,

the commandment of

Torah study,

from what is written, “And you shall teach them to your sons,” and we exclude: and not your daughters.

And likewise the commandment of

procreation,

as it is written, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it.” And we expound: a man, whose way is to subdue, is obligated in procreation, but not a woman.

And

the commandment of

redemption of the firstborn,

as it is written, “And every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.” And we expound: “you shall be redeemed” - whoever is obligated to be redeemed, namely a male, is the one who is obligated to redeem his son. But a woman is not included in redemption, for it is written, “the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem,” excluding your daughters. Therefore she is not obligated in redeeming her son.

D

All these

are positive commandments not dependent upon time

and

women are exempt!

Rather,

because of these difficulties

Rabbi Yohanan said: One does not learn from generalizations [and just as with “every” positive commandment dependent upon time women are exempt, “every” is not literal],

and when it says that women are exempt from “every” positive mitzva whose performance is caused by a specific time, “every” is not meant literally],

and even in a place [in another general rule]

in another general rule]

where “except” is stated

for a certain matter.

Abaye said, and some say Rabbi Yirmeya: We too have learned

that one does not learn from generalizations even in a place where “except” is stated!

For we learned:

They stated another general rule: Every

food or drink [Nidda 32b]

that is carried upon the zav [“the upper object of a zav”]

is impure [for we expound: “And whoever touches everything that shall be beneath him” - the zav - shall be impure. This is the upper object of a zav].

as we expound: “And whoever touches anything that shall be under him”—the man with a flux—“shall be impure.” This refers to an object carried above him].

And every

thing

upon which the zav is carried [“the lower object of a zav”]

is pure.

Except for that which is fit for lying and sitting -

that is, designated for sitting and lying - which is impure [as it is written: “Every bed upon which the zav lies shall be impure, and every vessel upon which he sits shall be impure”].

To exclude: a measure-basket [of grain], which he overturned and sat upon; it does not become impure on account of the sitting of a zav.

And

likewise

the person

upon whom the zav is carried is impure. For it is written: “And the one carrying them” - all that is stated concerning the zav [Rashi in the Pentateuch] - “shall wash his garments.” And included in this is one who carries the zav himself].

And the Gemara infers that this general rule has exceptions:

And

if

there is no more?!

Is there not anything else besides lying and sitting that falls outside the general rule, according to which the lower object of a zav is pure!?

But there is

the “riding-object

of the zav,” upon which he sits while riding, which is also the lower object of a zav and is impure, in addition to lying and sitting, which is taught in the general rule of the Mishna.

Rather, it is proven that the “general rule” is not literal and has exceptions.

And the Gemara rejects Abaye’s proof:

This riding-object -

what are the circumstances?

If he sat upon it

[the zav, who sits upon it] -

this is sitting,

which is taught in the Mishna; and what difficulty does he have?!

And the Gemara answers:

We

are saying this:

There is

also

the pommel of the saddle [the wood beside the saddle, which the rider grasps], which is also impure, although the zav does not sit upon it.

the wooden part beside the saddle that the rider grasps. It too is impure, even though the man with a flux does not sit on it.

For it was taught: The saddle

that is upon the animal, upon which a zav sat,

is impure

on account of

the sitting

of a zav.

And the handhold [that is, the pommel of the saddle]

that is, the pommel of the saddle] is

has the impurity of a riding-object [as it is written: “And every riding-object upon which the zav rides shall be impure”], yet it is not taught in the Mishna; and it is proven that a general rule has an exception?!

Rather, learn from it: One does not learn from generalizations, even in a place where “except” is stated!

Ravina said, and some say Rav Nahman: We too have learned

in our Mishna that one does not learn from generalizations even in a place where “except” is stated.

For we learned:

With all things one may make an eruv and participate, except for water and salt.

And

if

there is no more

thing with which one may not make an eruv or participate?!

But there is

also

truffles and mushrooms,

with which one may not make an eruv even when they are cooked, since a person is not accustomed to rely upon them, neither as a meal nor as a relish, but they occur only incidentally .

Rather, learn from it: One does not learn from generalizations, even in a place where “except” is stated.

We learned in the Mishna:

Everything may be purchased with second-tithe money,

except for water and salt:

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina:

One

of these

teaches

the law of salt and water stated below

with regard to the eruv.

And one

of these

teaches

the law of salt and water stated below

with regard to second tithe.

And the Gemara explains:

One teaches it with regard to the eruv:

One teaches it with regard to the eruv:

They taught,

that one may not make an eruv with salt and water,

only water by itself and salt by itself -

one may not make an eruv

with them when each is by itself.

But with water and salt

mixed together, they are considered important food, to dip one’s bread in them, and therefore

one may make an eruv

with them .

And one teaches it with regard to second tithe: they taught only, water by itself and salt by itself,

that

may not be purchased with second-tithe money.

But water and salt

mixed together

may be purchased with second-tithe money.

And we explain:

The one who teaches

this “they taught” that we stated

with regard to second tithe,

all the more so

he teaches it

with regard to the eruv.

And the one who teaches this “they taught”

with regard to the eruv,

but

with regard to second tithe, no,

he does not teach it in that manner; even water and salt mixed together may not be purchased with second-tithe money.

What is the reason?

With regard to second tithe,

“produce” [a thing produced from another thing is called “produce”]

something produced from another thing is called “fruit”]

we require

for second tithe - as we derive on page 27b -

and these,

water and salt,

are not produce.

When Rabbi Yitzhak came

from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he taught

this “they taught”

with regard to second tithe.

A challenge was raised

to Rabbi Yitzhak from the beraita:

Rabbi Judah ben Gadish testified before Rabbi Eliezer:

People

of my father’s household would purchase fish sauce

[the fat of fish]

with second-tithe money.

He said to him,

Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Judah ben Gadish:

Perhaps you did not hear

that they would purchase fish sauce with second-tithe money

except when fish entrails were mixed into it,

but fish sauce by itself, no!

And now we raise an objection to Rabbi Yitzhak:

Even Rabbi Judah ben Gadish did not say

that it is permitted to purchase with second-tithe money even something suitable only for dipping bread in

except fish sauce of fatty fish,

fish sauce of oily fish,

for it is produce

[since fish too is included in “produce,” as follows].

But water and salt

alone

he did not

say. And how, then, did Rabbi Yitzhak say that water and salt mixed together may be purchased with second-tithe money?!

He said,

he answered,

Rav Yosef: