(Gemara - R. Yochanan): We do not learn from a Klal (general rule), even if it says 'except'.

Question: Since he said 'even if it says except', this implies that he did not refer [primarily] to our Mishnah. What did he refer to?

Answer (Mishnah): Every Mitzvas Aseh (positive Mitzvah) sheha'Zman Gerama (it applies only at certain times) is obligatory on men, but women are exempt;

Every Aseh that is not Zman Gerama is obligatory for men and women.

Question: These are not always true!

Eating Matzah [on the first night of Pesach], Simchah (on Yom Tov) and Hakhel (coming to the Mikdash on Sukos to hear the king read Sefer Devarim) are all Zeman Gerama, yet women are obligated in them!

Learning Torah, having children, and redeeming a firstborn son are not Zeman Gerama, yet women are exempt!

Answer (R. Yochanan): We do not learn from a Klal, even if it says 'except'.

Support (Abaye - Mishnah): There is another Klal. Anything held up (alternatively - moved) by a Zav is Tamei. Anything that supports (alternatively - moves) a Zav is Tahor (R. Tam - from being an Av ha'Tum'ah), except for Mishkav or Moshav (Kelim made to lie or sit on) and people.

Question: There are other exceptions, e.g. a Merkav (a Kli on which one rides)!

Objection: If the Zav sits on it, this is included in Moshav!

Clarification: We ask about the Tefus of a saddle (a protrusion that sticks up):

(Beraisa): A saddle has Tum'as Moshav. The Tefus has Tum'as Merkav. (One holds onto it. He does not sit on it.)

Conclusion: We do not learn from a Klal, even if it says 'except'.

Support (Ravina - Mishnah): One may be Me'arev or Mishtatef with any food except for water and salt.

Question: Also mushrooms and truffles cannot be used!

Conclusion: We do not learn from a Klal, even if it says 'except'.

(Mishnah): Any food may be bought with money of Ma'aser Sheni, except for water and salt.

(R. Elazar or R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): One may not be Me'arev [or Mishtatef] with water or salt alone, but one may be Me'arev with saltwater (it is a dip);

(The other of R. Elazar and R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): One may not buy water or salt with money of Ma'aser Sheni, but one may buy saltwater.

The opinion that permits buying saltwater, all the more so he permits to be Me'arev with it. (There is no source to require using things that grow for an Eruv);

The opinion that permits to be Me'arev with saltwater forbids buying it [with Ma'aser money].

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: One must buy things that grow.

(R. Yitzchak): One may buy saltwater with Ma'aser money.

Question (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Gadish): My father's house used to buy [fish] brine with Ma'aser money;

R. Eliezer: Perhaps this was only when fish innards were mixed in!

Summation of question: Even R. Yehudah permits only brine, which is oil of something that grows. He does not permit saltwater!

Answer (Rav Yosef): R. Yitzchak permits [buying saltwater] only when oil was mixed in.

Question (Abaye): If so, surely it is permitted, due to the oil!

Answer: The case is, he paid for the water and salt through Havla'ah. (It was added to the price of the oil.)

Question: [If one may not buy them by themselves,] is this permitted through Havla'ah?!

Answer: Yes!

(Beraisa - Ben Bag Bag): "[You may spend Ma'aser money] ba'Bakar" teaches that one may buy the hide Agav (along with) a bull [even though some money is for the hide, which is not eaten]. "Uva'Tzon" permits buying wool Agav a sheep;

"Uva'Yayin" permits buying a bottle Agav the wine. "Uva'Shechar" permits buying Temed (water poured into grape skins) after it ferments.

R. Yochanan: If anyone can explain to me the need for "ba'Bakar" according to Ben Bag Bag, I will [consider him my Rebbi, and] carry his clothes after him to the bathhouse!

Question: Why is this difficult?

Answer: We learn Chidushim from the other foods, but not from "ba'Bakar":

Had the Torah written "ba'Bakar" [but not "uva'Tzon"], one might have thought that one may buy hide Agav a bull, for it is [a vital] part of the animal, but one may not buy wool Agav sheep. (It could be shorn. Tosfos - we expound the prefix 'Beis'. The foods themselves are used for a Klal u'Ferat u'Chelal below);

Had it written "uva'Tzon" [but not "uva'Yayin"], one might have thought that one may buy wool Agav sheep, for it is attached, but one may not buy a bottle Agav wine;

Had it written "uva'Yayin" [but not "uva'Shechar"], one might have thought that one may buy a bottle Agav wine, for it preserves the wine, but one may not buy fermented Temed, for it is mere [water that absorbed] sourness;

Had it written "uva'Shechar" [but not "uva'Yayin"], one might have thought this refers to [intoxicating] dates of Ke'ilah, i.e. real fruit. (Tosfos - we would learn that one may buy water Agav the dates, for they are normally prepared this way. A Klal u'Ferat u'Chelal permits the dates themselves.) However, we would not permit a bottle Agav wine;

Had it written "uva'Yayin" [but not "uva'Tzon"], one might have permitted a bottle Agav wine, for it preserves it, but not wool Agav sheep.

Question: Why do we need "ba'Bakar"?

Suggestion: Had it not written "ba'Bakar", we would have expounded "uva'Tzon" to permit hide Agav sheep, but not wool Agav sheep. However, now that "ba'Bakar" permits hide Agav sheep, "uva'Tzon" permits wool Agav sheep!

Rejection: No. Had it written only "uva'Tzon", we would not think this (that hide Agav sheep is permitted, but not wool Agav sheep). If so, the Torah would have written "ba'Bakar" to permit hide! (Cattle have no wool.)

Conclusion: "Uva'Tzon" permits wool Agav sheep. All the more so, hide Agav an animal is permitted!

This is why R. Yochanan could not explain the need for "ba'Bakar".

Question: What is the argument of R. Yehudah ben Gadish and R. Eliezer against the Tana'im in the following Beraisa?

Answer: R. Yehudah and R. Eliezer expound by the method of Ribuy and Mi'ut (inclusions and exclusions), whereas the following Tana'im expound using Klal u'Ferat (general terms and specifics):

R. Yehudah and R. Eliezer expound Ribuy and Mi'ut. "V'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha" is a Ribuy. "Ba'Bakar uva'Tzon uva'Yayin uva'Shechar" are Mi'utim. "Uv'Chol Asher Tish'alcha Nafshecha" is another Ribuy;

A Ribuy-Mi'ut-Ribuy includes everything, but excludes something;

R. Eliezer uses the Mi'utim to exclude brine. R. Yehudah uses them to exclude water and salt.

The following Tana'im expound Klal u'Ferat;

(Beraisa #1): "V'Nasata ha'Kesef b'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha" is a Klal. "Ba'Bakar uva'Tzon uva'Yayin uva'Shechar" are Peratim. "Uv'Chol Asher Tish'alcha Nafshecha" is another Klal;

From a Klal u'Ferat u'Chelal we learn everything that is like the Peratim. Just like the Peratim reproduce and are Gidulei Karka (grows from the ground), we include all such things.

(Beraisa #2): Just like the Peratim, i.e. anything that reproduces and was created from the ground, we include all such things.

Question: What do these Beraisos argue about?

Answer #1 (Abaye): They argue about fish:

Beraisa #1 includes them, for they grow from [eating produce of] the ground;

Beraisa #2 excludes them, for they were not created from the ground.