Eruvin

and billeted troops1 with demai.2 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.3 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]4 forestalled the priest5 whilst [the grain was still] in the ears and from6 [his first tithe] was taken terumah of the tithe7 but no terumah gedolah;8 and this9 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 gift10 for — the Lord, even, tithe of the tithe;11 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 priest12 [while the grain was already] in a pile?13 — Against you, the other replied, Scripture stated: Thus ye shall set apart in gift14 unto the lord of all your tithes.15 And what [reason] do you see [for this distinction]?16 — The one has become corn17 but the other18 has not.19 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;20 and this teaches us that [the omission to pay] the fifth does not invalidate the redemption.21 [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 sown22 in an unperforated pot.23 NOR WITH FIRST TITHE THE TERUMAH FROM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN. Is not this24 obvious? — This24 was necessary in such, a case only where [the Levite] forestalled the priest25 [in taking his due26 when the grain was already] in the pile,27 and terumah of the tithe was taken from it,28 while terumah gedolah was not taken from it. It might consequently have been assumed [that the ruling is] as R. Papa submitted to Abaye,29 hence we were informed [that the ruling is] in agreement with the latter's reply.30 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;31 where the TITHE [for instance] was redeemed with a piece of uncoined metal32 whereas the All Merciful ordained, ‘And thou shalt bind up33 the money,’34 [implying that] the metal must be coined;35 and where the CONSECRATED [FOOD] was exchanged for a plot of land, whereas the All Merciful ordained, ‘And he shall give the money...36 and it should be assured for him’.37 MISHNAH. IF A MAN SENDS HIS ‘ERUB38 BY THE HAND OF A DEAF-MUTE,39 AN IMBECIle OR A MINOR, OR BY THE HAND OF ONE WHO DOES NOT ADMIT [THE PRINCIPLE OF] ‘ERUB,40 THE ‘ERUB IS NOT VALID. IF, HOWEVER, HE INSTRUCTED ANOTHER PERSON TO RECEIVE IT FROM HIM,41 THE ‘ERUB IS VALID. GEMARA. IS NOT A MINOR [qualified to prepare an ‘erub]? Did not R. Huna in fact rule: A minor may collect42 [the foodstuffs for] the ‘erub?43 — This is no difficulty since the former44 refers to an ‘erub of boundaries while the latter deals with an ‘erub of courtyards. 45 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’,46 here also [it may be explained:] Where he stands and watches him.46 But is there no need to provide against the possibility that [the agent] would not accept it from him?47 — 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 it48 to [a trained] elephant who carried it,49 or to [a trained] ape who carried it,49 the ‘erub is invalid; but if he instructed someone50 to receive it from the animal,51 behold the ‘erub is valid — Now is it not possible that it would not carry it?52 — R. Hisda replied: [This is a case] where [the sender] stands and watches it.53 But is it not possible that [the agent] would not accept it from [the animal]?51 — 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; threshold. Why should the former only be exempt from terumah gedolah? was threshold it had already the status of first tithe which is exempt in accordance with Num. XVIII, 26. is Pentateuchally subject to the priestly and levitical clues. consequently unsuitable for ‘erub. terumah gedolah, it remains unfit for use until such terumah had been set apart for it. B.M., Sonc. ed., p. 321, n. 1. domains. In the former case, however, acquisition of the abode is necessary but no minor is legally competent to effect acquisition.