Eruvin 31b (לא:) — the Talmud in English

And

they likewise feed

the military retinue [soldiers of the kings of Israel who impose their provisions on the townspeople]

? Wait source segmentation: bracket is commentary, translate. Need exact order.

demai,

since they have the status of poor people, as they are not in their homes.

Rav Huna said: The tanna

stated in a beraita:

Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the poor demai.

And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the poor demai.

We learned in the Mishna: One may establish an eruv

with first tithe from which its teruma has been removed:

And we raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us this only with regard to first tithe from which only “its teruma,” which is terumat maaser, was removed, but from which the great teruma was not removed.

For by law, great teruma must first be separated from the produce, as the Merciful One calls great teruma “the first.”

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

Rather, here we are dealing with a case in which

the

Levite outsmarted the priest and

took precedence

in taking the first tithe before the priest came to receive the great teruma.

And this was when the produce was still

in the stalks [it had not yet been made into a pile in the threshing floor, which is the completion of the produce’s processing. For only after being piled does the produce become “tevel” with regard to teruma].

And the Mishna teaches us this: Once the Levite took precedence while the produce was still in the stalks, the tithe that the Levite received is not obligated in great teruma.

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 the Levite took precedence

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

in the stalks—

is exempt from great teruma!

As it is stated:

“And you shall raise from it [from the tithe] a teruma to the Lord, a tithe from the tithe.”

The wording of the verse is superfluous, as it could have written: “And you shall raise from it a teruma to the Lord—a tithe.”

Rather, the verse comes to teach: I said that specifically

“a tithe from the tithe” must be separated.

That is, if one first separated great teruma as required, he need no longer separate anything from the tithe except terumat maaser.

And he may not

also separate

great teruma and

also

terumat maaser from the tithe.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so—if this is how you expound the verse—

even

if

the Levite took precedence

in giving the first tithe to the priest after the produce had already been made into a pile

in the threshing floor, should we likewise say: One separates from the tithe only terumat maaser, and not both terumot, great teruma and terumat maaser?!

He said to him:

Abaye:

For you [for your sake]

the verse says

another statement concerning the Levites:

“From all

your tithes” [your gifts, according to Rashi in his commentary on the Torah, the glosses to Berakhot 47b, and Tosafot here, and not in accordance with the Baḥ]

you shall raise every teruma of the Lord.

This implies: “Every aspect of teruma within it—you are obligated to separate from it” [Rashi, Berakhot 47b].

And we explain:

And what did you see

that led you to expound it in this manner?

That is: From where do you derive that “from all your gifts” refers to every first tithe that the Levite took precedence in taking after the produce had been made into a pile in the threshing floor?

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

And we answer:

This one—the produce taken after it had been made into a pile in the threshing floor—

has become grain [“it became grain”], and once it is called “grain,” the priest’s right takes effect upon it first, as it is written with regard to teruma: “You shall give him the first of your grain.”

And this one—when he took precedence while the produce was still in the stalks—

has not become grain, and the priest’s right has not taken effect upon it [Rashi, Berakhot 47b]. Therefore it is more reasonable to interpret the verses in this manner [Ritva].

We learned in the Mishna:

And

one may establish an eruv

with second tithe and consecrated property that have been redeemed: And we raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us this only in a case where

he gave

only

the principal, and did not give the fifth,

which the owners are obligated to add when they redeem their own property.

And the tanna of the Mishna teaches us

that the fifth does not prevent

the consecrated property and the second tithe from being eaten.

We learned in the Mishna:

But not with tevel.

And we raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us that one may not establish an eruv even

with tevel that is subject—

to teruma and tithe—

by rabbinic law

in general.

And this is, for example, where he planted it in an unperforated flowerpot,

which is “subject” only by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we raise a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us this only in a case where

the Levite took precedence

over the priest in taking the tithe after the produce had already been made into a pile

in the threshing floor, and terumat maaser was removed from it

from the tithe,

but great teruma was not yet removed from it [this is “its teruma” in the Mishna; see what the students of Rabbi Yona wrote in Berakhot there].

You might have said

that even when the Levite took precedence over the priest after the produce had become a pile, the Levite is not obligated in great teruma,

as Rav Pappa said to Abaye above: If so, even when he took precedence after the produce had become a pile, he should likewise be exempt from great teruma.

The Mishna teaches us

that he is obligated even in teruma.

And this is as he answered him

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

And since this is so, it is still tevel, 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 a difficulty:

Is this not obvious?!

And we answer:

It is necessary

to teach us this only when

he redeemed them,

but

did not redeem them in accordance with their halakha.

Second tithe

—for example,

where he redeemed it with an unminted coin [a coin without an image], which is ineffective for redemption, since

the Merciful One said

with regard to the redemption of second tithe:

“And you shall bind”

the money

in your hand; and we expound: He may redeem it with

money bearing an image.

Consecrated property—for example,

where he redeemed it with land.

For the Merciful One said—

in the passage concerning the consecration of land, when the owners redeem it—

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

for example,

Mishna:

One who sends his eruv

for his Shabbat boundary

by means of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,

who are not competent to effect the acquisition of a place of residence [Rashi in the Gemara].

Or

one who sends his eruv of boundaries

by means of one who does not acknowledge the eruv,

that is, by means of a Samaritan [as the Gemara explains]—

it is not an eruv.

for example,

But if he told another person to receive it from him [from the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor, or from the Samaritan] and to place it there as an eruv,

it is an eruv.

That is: He may rely on him to place it there for the purpose of an eruv; and the Gemara explains this.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

And

why,

can a minor not

be appointed an agent to place the eruv?!

But Rav Huna said: A minor collects the eruv

of the courtyard from all the members of the courtyard and establishes an eruv of courtyards on their behalf.

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

Here—in the Mishna, where he cannot be appointed an agent—

with regard to eruv of boundaries.

Here—in Rav Huna’s statement—

with regard to eruv of courtyards.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

Or by means of one who does not acknowledge the eruv:

And we explain:

Who [who is the one who does not acknowledge the eruv]?

Rav Ḥisda said: Samaritans [Kutim].

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we raise a difficulty:

But let us be concerned lest perhaps he does not bring it [and 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 brought shortly], that it is speaking

where he stands and watches him.

Here too, he stands

the sender

and watches him,

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

But we still raise a difficulty:

And let us be concerned, lest perhaps

that other person

does not take it from him [does not take the eruv from the agent who brings it to him], even though he promised him.

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

And we answer:

As Rav Yeḥiel said—as will be brought shortly—

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

Here too: There is a presumption that an agent carries out his agency.

And now we explain:

And where were Rav Ḥisda’s and Rav Yeḥiel’s statements said?

With regard to this—

it was stated

for them!

As it was taught in a beraita: He gave

his eruv of boundaries

to a trained elephant

and it carried it,

or

to a trained monkey

and it carried it—

this is not an eruv.

We nevertheless raise the question:

But if he told another person to receive it from him [from the elephant or the monkey],

it is an eruv.

And we inquire about this:

But perhaps it does not bring it—the elephant or the monkey—to that other person?!

With regard to this

Rav Ḥisda said: He stands and watches it.

And we still inquire:

But perhaps he does not receive it from it—

that other person?!

With regard to this Rav Yeḥiel said: There is a presumption that an agent carries out his agency.

Rav Naḥman said: With regard to 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; rather, one must wait until it is seen that he carries out what he was sent to do [Ritva].

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.

See the Ritva, who explains what additional point this statement teaches.

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.

And so we are concerned:

perhaps that other will not accept it from him?

that other

and it was raised:

Rav Yechiel said: The presumption is that an agent performs his agency.

Rav Nachman said: Regarding the Torah (law) we do not rely upon

rely upon

"the presumption that an agent performs his agency",

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