עירובין 32

32:1

in [respect of a law] of the Scribes there is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission. R. Shesheth, however, ruled: In respect of the one as in that of the other there is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission. Whence, said R. Shesheth, do I derive this?’ From what we learned: As soon as the omer had been offered the new produce is forthwith permitted; and those who [live] at a distance bare permitted [its use] from mid-day onwards. [Now, the prohibition against the consumption of] new produce is Pentateuchal, and yet it was stated that ‘those who [live] at a distance are permitted [its use] from mid-day onwards’. Is not this due to the legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission? And R. Nahman? — There [the presumption is justified] for the reason stated: Because it is known that Beth din would not shirk their duty. Others there are who read: R. Nahman said: Whence do I derive this? since the reason stated was, ‘Because it is known that Beth din would not shirk their duty’, [it follows that] it is only Beth din who do not shirk their duty but that an ordinary agent might. And R. Shesheth? — He can answer you: Beth din [are presumed to have carried out their duty] by mid-day, while an ordinary agent [is presumed to have done his before] all the day [has passed]. Said R. Shesheth: Whence do I derive this? From what was taught: A woman who is under the obligation [of bringing an offering in connection with] a birth or gonorroea brings [the required sum of] money which she puts into the collecting box, performs ritual immersion and is permitted to eat consecrated: food in the evening. Now what is the reason? Is it not because we hold that it is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission? And R. Nahman? — There [the presumption may be justified] in agreement with the view of R. Shemaiah. For R. Shemaiah laid down: There is a legal presumption that no Beth din of priest who would rise from their session before all the money in the collecting box had been spent. R. Shesheth again said: Whence do I derive this? From what was taught: If a man said to another, ‘Go out and gather for yourself some figs from my fig tree’, the latter may make of them an irregular meal or he must tithe them [as produce that is] known [to be untithed]. [If however, the owner said to him,] ‘Fill yourself this basket with figs from my tree’ [the latter] may eat them as an irregular meal or must tithe them as demai. This applies only to [an owner who was] an am ha-arez, but if he was a Fellow [the latter] may eat [the fruit] and need not tithe them; so Rabbi: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, ruled: This applies only to [an owner] an am ha-arez, but if he was a Fellow [the latter] must not eat [the figs] before he has tithed them, because Fellows are not suspected of giving terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [to the produce for which it is given]. My view, remarked Rabbi, seems [to be more acceptable] than that of my father, since it is preferable that Fellows should be suspected of giving terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [with that for which it is given] than that they should give ‘amme ha-arez to eat all sorts of tebel. Now, their dispute extends only so far that while one Master maintains that they are not suspected, but both [agree that there is] legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission. And R. Nahman? — There [the presumption is justified] in agreement [with the principle] of R. Hanina Hoza'ah. For R. Hanina Hoza'ah laid down: It is a legal presumption that a Fellow would not allow any unprepared thing to pass out of his hand. The Master said: ‘This applies only to [an owner who was] an am ha-arez, but if he was a Fellow [the latter] may eat [the fruit] and need not tithe them; so Rabbi’. To whom could this ‘am ha-arez have been speaking? If it be suggested that he was speaking to an ‘am ha-arez like himself [what sense is there in the ruling,] ‘Must tithe them, as demai’? Would he obey it? Consequently it in must be a case where an ‘am ha-arez was speaking to a Fellow. Now, then, read the final clause: ‘My view seems [to be more acceptable] than that of my father, since it is preferable that Fellows should be suspected of giving terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [with that for which it is given] than that they should give ‘amme ha-arez to eat all sorts of tebel’; how does the question of ‘amme ha-arez at all arise? — Rabina replied: The first clause deals with an ‘am ha-arez who was speaking to a Fellow, and the final clause deals with a Fellow who was speaking to all am ha-arez while another Fellow was listening to the conversation. Rabbi

—

32:2

is of the opinion that that Fellow may eat [the fruit] and need not tithe it because it is certain that the first Fellow had duly given the tithe for it, while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel ruled that he must not eat [the fruit] before he tithed it because Fellows are not suspected of giving terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [to that for which it is given]. Thereupon Rabbi said to him, ‘It is preferable that Fellows should be suspected of giving terumah from [produce] that is not in close proximity [with that for which it is given] than that they should give amme ha-arez to eat all sorts of tebel’. On what principle do they differ? — Rabbi holds that a Fellow is satisfied to commit a minor ritual offence in order that an ‘am ha-arez should not commit a major one, while R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that a Fellow prefers the ‘am ha-arez to commit a major ritual offence rather than that he should commit even a minor one. MISHNAH. IF HE DEPOSITED IT ON A TREE ABOVE [A HEIGHT] OF TEN HANDBREADTHS, HIS ‘ERUB IS INEFFECTIVE; [IF HE DEPOSITED IT AT AN ALTITUDE] BELOW TEN HANDBREADTHS HIS ‘ERUB IS EFFECTIVE. IF HE DEPOSITED IT IN A CISTERN, EVEN IF IT IS A HUNDRED CUBITS DEEP, HIS ERUB IS EFFECTIVE. GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Assi and Raba b. Nathan sat at their studies while R. Nahman was sitting beside them, and in the course of their session they discussed the following. Where could that tree have been standing? If it be suggested that it stood in a private domain, what matters it [it may be objected] whether it was ABOVE [A HEIGHT] OF TEN HANDBREADTHS or BELOW it, seeing that a private domain rises up to the sky? If, however, [it be suggested] that it stood in a public domain [the question arises] where did the man intend to make his Sabbath abode? If it be suggested that he intended to make it on, [the tree] above, are not then he and his ‘erub in the same domain? — [The fact,] however, [is that] he intended to make his Sabbath abode below. But is he not making use of the tree? — It may still be maintained that [the tree] stood in a public domain and that the man's intention was to acquire his Sabbath abode below, but [this Mishnah] represents the view of Rabbi who land down: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure is not subject to that prohibition during twilight. ‘Well spoken!’ said R. Nahman to them, ‘and so also did Samuel say’. ‘Do you explain with it’, they said to him, ‘so much?’ (But did not they themselves explain [their difficulty] thereby? — In fact it was this that they said to him: ‘Did you embody it in the Gemara?) — ‘Yes’, he answered them — So it was also stated: R. Nahman reporting Samuel said: Here we are dealing with a tree that stood in a public domain, that was ten handbreadths high and four handbreadths wide, and the man had the intention to acquire his Sabbath abode below. This, furthermore, is the view of Rabbi who land down: Any act that is forbidden by a Rabbinical measure is not subject to that prohibition during twilight. Raba stated: This was taught only in respect of a tree that stood beyond the outskirts of the town, but where a tree stood within the outskirts of the town an ‘erub is effective even [if it was deposited] above [a height] of ten handbreadths, since a town is deemed to be full. If so, the same [law should apply to an erub on a tree] beyond the outskirts of a town, for since Raba ruled: ‘A man who deposited his ‘erub [in any spot] acquires [an abode of] four cubits,’ that spot is a private domain which rises up to the sky? — R. Isaac the son of R. Mesharsheya replied: Here we are dealing with a tree whose branches bent over beyond the four cubits

—