Eruvin 31b — the Talmud in English

And

they likewise feed

the military entourage

soldiers of the kings of Israel, who impose the cost of their food on the residents of the city]

produce of uncertain tithe status, since they are like poor people, for they are not in their own homes.

[Note: this segment is translated above as part of the preceding sentence.]

Rav Huna said: A baraita

a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, states:

Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the poor produce of uncertain tithe status.

And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the poor produce of uncertain tithe status.

We learned in the Mishna: One may establish an eruv

with first tithe from which its priestly offering has been removed:

And we raise the question:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach this only with regard to first tithe from which only “its offering,” meaning the tithe offering, was removed, but from which the great offering was not removed.

For by law, the great offering must first be separated from the produce, since the Torah calls the great offering “the first” offering.

And if one separated the first tithe first, he must take the great offering from the first tithe.

Rather, here we are dealing with a case in which

the

Levite outsmarted the priest and

preceded him

by taking the first tithe before the priest came to receive the great offering.

This occurred while the produce was still

in stalks

it had not yet been piled and finished in the threshing floor, which is the completion of the processing of the produce. Only after this piling does the produce become subject to the offerings and tithes].

And the Mishna teaches us this: Once the Levite took it first while it was still in stalks, the tithe that the Levite received is not subject to the great offering.

And this is in accordance with what Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Reish Lakish.

As Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Reish Lakish: First tithe that was taken first —

the Levite took it from the priest while the produce was still

in stalks —

is exempt from the great offering!

As it is stated:

“And you shall raise from it [from the tithe]

an offering for the Lord, the tithe from the tithe”.

The wording of the verse is superfluous, since it could have stated: “And you shall raise from it an offering for the Lord—the tithe.”

Rather, the verse comes to teach: Only

“the tithe from the tithe,” I have told you

to separate.

That is, if one first separated the great offering in accordance with the law, he no longer needs to separate anything from the tithe except the tithe offering.

And not

should he separate also

the great offering and

also

the tithe offering from the tithe.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so —

if this is how you interpret the verse —

even

if he

preceded

the priest by giving him the first tithe after the produce had already been piled

in the threshing floor,

should we likewise say: One separates from the tithe only the tithe offering, and not both offerings—the great offering and the tithe offering?!

He said to him:

Abaye:

For you

on your behalf]

the verse states

another verse concerning the Levites:

“From all

your tithes” [your gifts],

“you shall raise the entire offering of the Lord.”

This implies: Every part of the tithe that has the status of an offering must be separated from it.

And we explain:

What did you see

to make you interpret the verse in this way?

That is: From where do you derive that “from all your gifts” refers to every first tithe that was taken first after the produce had been piled in the threshing floor?

We learned in the Mishna:

And we answer:

This one —

the tithe taken after the produce had been piled — had become grain [“it had become grain”], and once it is called “grain,” the priest’s rights take effect on it first, as it is written concerning the offering: “The first of your grain you shall give him.”

And this one —

when it was taken while still in stalks —

had not become grain,

and the priest’s rights had not yet taken effect on it. Therefore it is reasonable to interpret the verses in this manner.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

one may establish an eruv

with second tithe and consecrated property that have been redeemed:

And we raise the question:

Is this obvious?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach this only in a case where he

gave

only

the principal, but did not give the additional fifth,

the amount that the owners are required to add when redeeming their own property.

And the tannaitic author of the Mishna teaches us

that

the additional fifth does not prevent

the consecrated property and the second tithe from being permitted for eating.

We learned in the Mishna:

But not with untithed produce.

And we raise the question:

Is this obvious!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach that one may not establish an eruv even

with produce that is subject —

to offerings and tithes —

by rabbinic law

alone.

And this is a case where it was planted in an unperforated flowerpot,

so that it is subject to these obligations only by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not with first tithe from which its offering has not been removed:

And we raise the question:

Is this obvious?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach this only in a case where

he took it first

the Levite took the tithe from the priest when the produce had already been piled

in the threshing floor, and the tithe offering had been removed from it

from the tithe,

but had not been removed from it

yet

the great offering [the “offering” mentioned in the Mishna; see what the students of Rabbenu Yonah wrote in Berakhot].

It might have been thought

that even when the Levite took it from the priest after the produce had become a pile, the Levite is not liable for the great offering,

as Rav Pappa said to Abaye

above: If so, even if he took it first after the produce had been piled, he should likewise be exempt from the great offering.

The Mishna teaches us

that he is liable even for the great offering,

as Abaye answered him:

“For you the verse states: ‘From all your tithes.’”

And since this is so, it is still untithed produce, and one may not establish an eruv with it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not with second tithe or consecrated property that have not been redeemed:

And we raise the question:

Is this obvious?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach this only when they were redeemed,

but

not

redeemed in accordance with their proper law.

Second tithe —

for example,

if he redeemed it on an unminted coin [a coin without an image],

which is not valid for redemption, since

the Torah states

with regard to redeeming second tithe:

“And you shall bind”

the money

in your hand,

and we derive from this that one may redeem it only with

money bearing an image.

Consecrated property —

for example,

if he redeemed it on land.

The Torah states —

in the section concerning the consecration of land, regarding the owners’ redemption of such property —

“And he shall give the money, and it shall be established as his.”

And we raise a difficulty:

Mishna:

One who sends his boundary eruv

of the domain limits

by the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,

who are not legally capable of establishing a person’s place of residence for Shabbat.

Or

one who sends a boundary eruv

by the hand of one who does not acknowledge the validity of an eruv,

that is, by the hand of a Samaritan, as the Gemara will explain —

it is not a valid eruv.

Here—in Rav Huna’s statement—

But if he told another person to receive it from him

[from the deaf-mute, imbecile, minor, or Samaritan] and place it there for the purpose of an eruv,

it is a valid eruv.

That is, he may rely on that person to place it there for the purpose of an eruv, as the Gemara explains.

Gemara:

And we raise the question:

And

is a minor not

made an agent to place the eruv?!

But Rav Huna said: A minor collects the courtyard eruv

from all the residents of the courtyard and establishes a courtyard eruv for them.

And we answer:

This is not difficult:

Here —

in the Mishna, where he cannot serve as an agent —

the case is boundary eruvin.

Here —

in Rav Huna’s statement —

the case is courtyard eruvin.

that other person

We learned in the Mishna:

Or by the hand of one who does not acknowledge the validity of an eruv:

And we explain:

Who

is the one who does not acknowledge the validity of an eruv?

Rav Ḥisda said: The Samaritans

[the Kutim].

We learned in the Mishna:

And if he told another person to receive it from him, it is a valid eruv:

And we raise the question:

But let us be concerned that perhaps he will not bring it to him

[let us be concerned that perhaps the minor or the Samaritan will not bring it to that other person]?! And we answer:

As Rav Ḥisda said

[as will be cited shortly], the case is one where he

stands and watches him.

Here too, he stands

the sender

and watches him

as the minor or Samaritan carries the eruv to the other person.

We nevertheless raise the question:

But let us be concerned that perhaps

the other person

will not take it from him

[will not take the eruv from the agent who brings it to him], despite having promised to do so.

With regard to this

And we answer:

As Rav Yeḥiel said —

as will be cited shortly —

there is an established presumption that an agent carries out his agency.

Here too: There is an established presumption that an agent carries out his agency. And now we explain:

And where was Rav Ḥisda’s and Rav Yeḥiel’s statement made?

With regard to this —

it was stated!

As it was taught in a baraita: He gave

his boundary eruv

to a trained elephant

and it carried it, or

to a trained monkey

and it carried it —

this is not a valid eruv.

свой эрув границ —

But if he told another person to receive it from him

[from the elephant or monkey] —

it is a valid eruv.

And we discuss this:

But perhaps they will not bring it —

the elephant and the monkey —

to that other person?!

And concerning this

Rav Ḥisda said: The sender stands and watches him.

And we nevertheless discuss this:

But perhaps he will not receive it from him,

that other person?!

And concerning this

Rav Yeḥiel said: There is an established presumption that an agent carries out his agency.

Rav Naḥman said: In matters of Torah law, one may not rely on

“the presumption that an agent carries out his agency,”

where relying on it would produce a leniency, until we see that he carried out the task for which he was sent.

И всё ещё разбирали это:

а возможно, он не примет его от него

тот другой?!

И по этому поводу

сказал Рав Йехиэль: существует презумпция, что посланник исполняет своё поручение.

Сказал Рав Нахман: в [вопросах] Торы не

полагаются на

«презумпцию, что посланник исполняет своё поручение»,

там, где это приводит к послаблению, [так говорит] Ритба, пока не увидят, что он делает то, для чего был послан.