## Eruvin Daf 27a

###### Eruvin 27a:1
[Eruvin 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:1)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לָחוֹץ, וְלֵילֵךְ וְלֶאֱכוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**since he can interpose** between himself and the graves **and go and eat** the food that comprises the *eiruv* without contracting ritual impurity.


###### Eruvin 27a:2
[Eruvin 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין לְמֵידִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may not learn from general statements,** i.e., when a general statement is made in a mishna using the word all, it is not to be understood as an all-inclusive, general statement without exceptions. This is true **even in a place where it says** the word **except.** Even in that case, there may be other exceptions to the rule that are not listed.


###### Eruvin 27a:3
[Eruvin 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:3)

מִדְּקָאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ, מִכְּלָל דְּלָאו הָכָא קָאֵי, הֵיכָא קָאֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **From** the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan **said: Even in a place where it says except,** this proves **by inference that he was not relating to** the general statement made **here** in the mishna, which uses the word except. **To which** mishna, then, **was he relating** when he formulated his principle?


###### Eruvin 27a:4
[Eruvin 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:4)

הָתָם קָאֵי כׇּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְשֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא, אֶחָד נָשִׁים וְאֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **He was relating** to a mishna found **there:** With regard to **all time-bound, positive commandments,** i.e., mitzvot that can only be performed at a certain time of the day, or during the day rather than at night, or on certain days of the year, **men are obligated** to perform them **and women are exempt.** But positive commandments **that are not time-bound, both women and men are obligated** to perform.


###### Eruvin 27a:5
[Eruvin 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:5)

וּכְלָלָא הוּא דְּכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת? הֲרֵי מַצָּה שִׂמְחָה וְהַקְהֵל, דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא הוּא, וְנָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Is it** a general **principle** that **women are exempt from all time-bound, positive commandments** without exception? But **there is** the commandment to eat ***matza*** on Passover, the commandment of **rejoicing** on a Festival, and the commandment of **assembly** in the Temple courtyard once every seven years during the festival of *Sukkot* following the Sabbatical Year, all of which **are time-bound, positive commandments, and** nevertheless, **women are obligated** to perform them.


###### Eruvin 27a:6
[Eruvin 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:6)

וְכׇל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת? הֲרֵי תַּלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, וּפִדְיוֹן הַבֵּן, דְּמִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמַן גְּרָמָא וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין לְמֵידִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **are women obligated in all positive commandments that are not time-bound?** But **there is** the commandment of **Torah study,** the commandment to **be fruitful and multiply,** and the commandment of **redemption of the firstborn,** all of which are **positive commandments that are not time-bound, and** nevertheless, **women are exempt** from them. **Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may not learn from general statements, even in a place where it says except,** because it is always possible that there other exceptions to the rule.


###### Eruvin 27a:7
[Eruvin 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:7)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, עוֹד כְּלָל אַחֵר אָמְרוּ: כׇּל שֶׁנִּישָּׂא עַל גַּבֵּי הַזָּב — טָמֵא, וְכֹל שֶׁהַזָּב נִישָּׂא עָלָיו — טָהוֹר, חוּץ מִן הָרָאוּי לְמִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְהָאָדָם. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא מֶרְכָּב?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said, and some say** it was **Rabbi Yirmeya** who said: **We, too, have also learned** a proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s principle from a mishna: **They stated** yet **another** general **principle: Anything** that is **carried upon a *zav* is** ritually **impure. And anything on which a *zav* is carried is** ritually **pure, except for** an object **suitable for lying or sitting upon and a human being,** which become defiled if a *zav* is borne on them. The following objection may be raised: **And is there nothing else? But there is** an object upon which a person **rides** that becomes impure, as explained in the Torah itself.


###### Eruvin 27a:8
[Eruvin 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:8)

מֶרְכָּב הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיָתֵיב עֲלֵיהּ — הַיְינוּ מוֹשָׁב. אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: הָא אִיכָּא גַּבָּא דְאוּכָּפָא, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוּכָּף — טָמֵא מוֹשָׁב, וְהַתְּפוּס — טָמֵא מֶרְכָּב. אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵין לְמֵידִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara first asks: **What are the circumstances** of an object upon which **one rides? If he sat upon it, it is a seat.** If not, how does it become defiled? What is there that is suitable for riding upon but does not fall into the category of something upon which one lies or sits? The Gemara answers: **We say as follows: There is the upper part of a saddle,** which becomes ritually impure as a riding accessory and not as a regular seat. **As it was taught** in the *Tosefta*: **A saddle** upon which a *zav* sat **is impure** as **a seat** of a *zav*, **and the pommel,** which is attached to the front of the saddle and used by the rider to maintain his position or to assist in mounting, **is impure** as **a riding** accessory. Therefore, we see that the general statement found in the mishna omits that which is suitable for riding upon. **Rather, conclude from this** that **one may not learn from general statements, even in a place where it says except.**


###### Eruvin 27a:9
[Eruvin 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:9)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: בַּכֹּל מְעָרְבִין וּמִשְׁתַּתְּפִין, חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם וְהַמֶּלַח. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא אִיכָּא כְּמֵיהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת?! — אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵין לְמֵידִין מִן הַכְּלָלוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ חוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said, and some say** it was **Rav Naḥman** who said: **We, too, have also learned** a proof for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s principle from the mishna, which states: **One may establish an *eiruv* and merge** alleyways **with all** kinds of food, **except for water and salt. And is there nothing else? But there are truffles and mushrooms,** which also may not be used for an *eiruv* because they are not regarded as food. **Rather, conclude from this** that **one may not learn from general statements, even in a place where it says except.**


###### Eruvin 27a:10
[Eruvin 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:10)

הַכֹּל נִיקָּח בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר כּוּ׳. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, חַד מַתְנֵי אַעֵירוּב וְחַד מַתְנֵי אַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **All** types of food **may be bought with** second-**tithe money,** except for water and salt. **Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina** both had the same tradition, but **one teaches** it **with regard to *eiruv*, and one teaches** it **with regard to** the second **tithe.**


###### Eruvin 27a:11
[Eruvin 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:11)

חַד מַתְנֵי אַעֵירוּב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַיִם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּמֶלַח בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ דְּאֵין מְעָרְבִין. אֲבָל בְּמַיִם וּמֶלַח — מְעָרְבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **One teaches** this *halakha* **with regard to** the issue of ***eiruv*,** as follows: **They only taught** that **one may not establish an *eiruv*** with water or salt in the case of **water by itself or salt by itself. But** with **water and salt** together, **one may** indeed **establish an *eiruv*.**


###### Eruvin 27a:12
[Eruvin 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:12)

וְחַד מַתְנֵי אַמַּעֲשֵׂר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַיִם בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וּמֶלַח בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, דְּאֵין נִיקָּחִין. אֲבָל מַיִם וּמֶלַח — נִיקָּחִין בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the other **one teaches** this *halakha* **with regard to** the issue of the second **tithe: They only taught** that water or salt **may not be bought** with second-tithe money in the case of **water by itself or salt by itself. But water and salt** mixed together **may** indeed **be bought with** second-**tithe** money.


###### Eruvin 27a:13
[Eruvin 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:13)

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַמַּעֲשֵׂר, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַעֵירוּב. וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַעֵירוּב, אֲבָל אַמַּעֲשֵׂר לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא — פֵּירָא בָּעִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **The one who teaches** this law **with regard to** the second **tithe, all the more so** would he apply it **to an *eiruv*,** i.e., he would certainly maintain that water and salt together are suitable to be used for an *eiruv*. However, according to **the one who teaches** this law **with regard to an *eiruv*,** it applies only to an *eiruv*; **but with regard to** the second tithe, **no,** it does not apply. **What is the reason** for this distinction? For the second tithe, **we require produce,** as stated in the Torah, and even when water and salt are mixed together they do not have the status of produce.


###### Eruvin 27a:14
[Eruvin 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:14)

כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַתְנֵי אַמַּעֲשֵׂר. מֵיתִיבִי: הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן גָּדִישׁ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא הָיוּ לוֹקְחִין צִיר בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר. אָמַר לוֹ: שֶׁמָּא לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁקִּרְבֵי דָגִים מְעוֹרָבִין בָּהֶן. וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן גָּדִישׁ לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּצִיר, דְּשׁוּמְנָא דְפֵירָא הִיא, אֲבָל מַיִם וּמֶלַח — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Rabbi Yitzḥak came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he taught** this law **with regard to** the second **tithe.** The Gemara **raises an objection** from the following *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish testified before Rabbi Eliezer: In Father’s house they would buy** fish **brine with** second-**tithe money. He said to him: Perhaps you only heard** this in a case **where the fish’s innards were mixed with** the brine. Since this mixture contains a small portion of the fish, the brine becomes significant enough to be purchased with second-tithe money. **And even Rabbi Yehuda ben Gadish only said** his statement **with regard to brine, which is the fat of produce,** i.e., because a certain amount of fish fat, which itself may be purchased with second-tithe money, is mixed in with the brine; **but** a mixture of **water and salt** alone may **not** be bought with it.


###### Eruvin 27a:15
[Eruvin 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/27a:15)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In response to this difficulty, **Rav Yosef said:**