1 An ‘erub for a levitically clean priest may be prepared from levitically clean terumah [and deposited] on a grave.’ How does he get there? — In a chest, box or portable turret. But since [the ‘erub] was put down [on the grave] it became levitically unclean? — [This is a case] where [the ‘erub] was not rendered susceptible to levitical uncleanness or one kneaded in fruit juice. But how does he get it? — By means of flat wooden pieces which are unsusceptible to levitical uncleanness. But does not [a wooden piece] constitute a tent? — One might carry it edgeways. If so, what could be the reason of the Rabbis? — They are of the opinion that a home must not be acquired with things the benefit of which is forbidden. Thus [it follows] that R. Judah is of the opinion that this is permitted; for he upholds the view that the commandments were not given [to men] to derive [personal] benefit from them. With reference, however, to what Raba stated: ‘Commandments were not given [to men] to derive benefit from them’, must it be said that he made his traditional statement in agreement with [one of the] Tannas only? — Raba can answer you: Had they been of the opinion that an ‘erub may be provided in connection with a religious duty only all [would have been unanimous, since] commandments were not given [to man] to derive benefit from them. Here, however, they differ on the following principle. The Master is of the opinion that an ‘erub may be prepared in connection with a religious duty only and the Masters are of the opinion that an ‘erub may be prepared even in connection with a secular matter. In respect, however, of what R. Joseph ruled: ‘An ‘erub may be prepared only in connection with a religious duty’, must it be said that he land down his traditional ruling in accordance with [the view of one of the] Tannas? — R. Joseph call answer you: All [agree that] an ‘erub may be prepared in connection with a religious duty only, and all [may also agree that] the commandments were not given [to men] to derive benefit from them, but It is this principle on which they differ. The Master is of the opinion that once a man has acquired the ‘erub it is no satisfaction to him that it is preserved, and the Masters are of the opinion that a man does derive satisfaction if his ‘erub is preserved; for [in that case] he can eat it whenever he needs it. MISHNAH. AN ‘ERUB MAY BE PREPARED WITH DEMAI, WITH FIRST TITHE FROM WHICH ITS TERUMAH HAD BEEN TAKEN AND WITH SECOND TITHE AND CONSECRATED [FOOD] THAT HAVE BEEN REDEEMED; AND PRIESTS [MAY PREPARE THEIR ‘ERUB] WITH HALLAH. [IT MAY] NOT [BE PREPARED], HOWEVER, WITH TEBEL, NOR WITH FIRST TITHE THE TERUMAH FROM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, NOR WITH SECOND TITHE OR CONSECRATED [FOOD] THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED. GEMARA. DEMAI, surely is not fit for him! — Since he could, if he wished, declare his estate to be hefker, and thereby become a poor man when it would be fit for him, it is now also deemed to be fit for him. For we learned: It is permitted to feed poor menᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉ
2 and billeted troops with demai. R. Huna stated: One taught: Beth Shammai ruled: Poor men may not be fed with demai, and Beth Hillel ruled: Poor men may be fed with demai. AND WITH FIRST TITHE FROM WHICH [ITS TERUMAH] HAD BEEN TAKEN etc. Is not this obvious?- [The ruling was] required in the case only where [the Levite] forestalled the priest whilst [the grain was still] in the ears and from [his first tithe] was taken terumah of the tithe but no terumah gedolah; and this is in agreement with a ruling made by R. Abbahu in the name of Resh Lakish. For R. Abbahu stated in the name of Resh Lakish: First tithe that was set apart, before [the other dues, while the grain was still] in the ears, is exempt from terumah gedolah, for it is said in Scripture: Then ye shall set apart of it a gift for — the Lord, even, tithe of the tithe; I only told you [to set apart] ‘a tithe of the tithe’ but not terumah gedolah and the tithe of the tithe from the tithe. Said R. Papa to Abaye: If so, [the same rule should apply] also where [the Levite] forestalled the priest [while the grain was already] in a pile? — Against you, the other replied, Scripture stated: Thus ye shall set apart in gift unto the lord of all your tithes. And what [reason] do you see [for this distinction]? — The one has become corn but the other has not. AND WITH SECOND TITHE AND CONSECRATED [FOOD]THAT HAVE BEEN REDEEMED. Is not this obvious? — [The ruling was] required in the case only where the principal was paid but not the fifth; and this teaches us that [the omission to pay] the fifth does not invalidate the redemption. [IT MAY] NOT [BE PREPARED,] HOWEVER, WITH TEBEL. Is not this obvious? — [The ruling was] necessary in such a case only as Rabbinical tebel as, for Instance, when [produce] was sown in an unperforated pot. NOR WITH FIRST TITHE THE TERUMAH FROM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN. Is not this obvious? — This was necessary in such, a case only where [the Levite] forestalled the priest [in taking his due when the grain was already] in the pile, and terumah of the tithe was taken from it, while terumah gedolah was not taken from it. It might consequently have been assumed [that the ruling is] as R. Papa submitted to Abaye, hence we were informed [that the ruling is] in agreement with the latter's reply. NOR WITH SECOND TITHE AND CONSECRATED [FOOD] THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REDEEMED. Is not this obvious? — [The ruling was] required in that case only where they were redeemed but their redemption was not performed in the prescribed manner; where the TITHE [for instance] was redeemed with a piece of uncoined metal whereas the All Merciful ordained, ‘And thou shalt bind up the money,’ [implying that] the metal must be coined; and where the CONSECRATED [FOOD] was exchanged for a plot of land, whereas the All Merciful ordained, ‘And he shall give the money... and it should be assured for him’. MISHNAH. IF A MAN SENDS HIS ‘ERUB BY THE HAND OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IMBECIle OR A MINOR, OR BY THE HAND OF ONE WHO DOES NOT ADMIT [THE PRINCIPLE OF] ‘ERUB, THE ‘ERUB IS NOT VALID. IF, HOWEVER, HE INSTRUCTED ANOTHER PERSON TO RECEIVE IT FROM HIM, THE ‘ERUB IS VALID. GEMARA. IS NOT A MINOR [qualified to prepare an ‘erub]? Did not R. Huna in fact rule: A minor may collect [the foodstuffs for] the ‘erub? — This is no difficulty since the former refers to an ‘erub of boundaries while the latter deals with an ‘erub of courtyards. OR BY THE HAND OF ONE WHO DOES NOT ADMIT [THE PRINCIPLE OF] ‘ERUB. Who? — R. Hisda replied: A Samaritan. IF, HOWEVER, HE INSTRUCTED ANOTHER PERSON TO RECEIVE IT FROM HIM, THE ‘ERUB IS VALID. But is there no need to provide against the possibility that [the minor] might not carry it to him? — As R. Hisda explained elsewhere, ‘Where [the sender] stands and watches him’, here also [it may be explained:] Where he stands and watches him. But is there no need to provide against the possibility that [the agent] would not accept it from him? — As R. Yehiel explained elsewhere, ‘It is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission, so here also [it may be explained:] It is a legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission. Where were the Statements of R. Hisda and R. Yehiel made? — In connection with the following. For it was taught: If he gave it to [a trained] elephant who carried it, or to [a trained] ape who carried it, the ‘erub is invalid; but if he instructed someone to receive it from the animal, behold the ‘erub is valid — Now is it not possible that it would not carry it? — R. Hisda replied: [This is a case] where [the sender] stands and watches it. But is it not possible that [the agent] would not accept it from [the animal]? — R. Yehiel replied: It is a legal presumption that all agent carries out his mission. R. Nahman ruled: In [respect of a law] of the Torah, there is no legal presumption that all agent carries out his mission;ᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜᶜᵈᶜᵉᶜᶠ