Eruvin

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?’1 From what we learned: As soon as the omer2 had been offered the new produce3 is forthwith permitted; and those who [live] at a distance4 bare permitted [its use] from mid-day onwards.5 [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?6 And R. Nahman?7 — There [the presumption is justified] for the reason stated:8 Because it is known that Beth din would not shirk their duty.9 Others there are who read: R. Nahman said: Whence do I derive this?10 since the reason stated11 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?12 — 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?13 From what was taught: A woman who is under the obligation14 [of bringing an offering in connection with] a birth15 or gonorroea16 brings [the required sum of]17 money which she puts into the collecting box,18 performs ritual immersion and is permitted to eat consecrated: food in the evening.19 Now what is the reason?20 Is it not because we hold that it is a legal presumption that an agent21 carries out his mission?22 And R. Nahman?23 — 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 session24 before all the money in the collecting box25 had been spent.26 R. Shesheth again said: Whence do I derive this?27 From what was taught: If a man said to another, ‘Go out and gather for yourself some figs28 from my fig tree’, the latter may make29 of them an irregular meal30 or31 he must tithe them [as produce that is] known32 [to be untithed].33 [If however, the owner said to him,] ‘Fill yourself this basket34 with figs from my tree’ [the latter] may eat them as an irregular meal35 or36 must tithe them as demai.37 This38 applies only to [an owner who was] an am ha-arez,39 but if he was a Fellow40 [the latter] may eat [the fruit]41 and need not tithe them;42 so Rabbi: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, ruled: This43 applies only to [an owner] an am ha-arez, but if he was a Fellow40 [the latter] must not eat [the figs]44 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].45 My view, remarked Rabbi, seems [to be more acceptable] than that of my father,46 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-arez47 to eat all sorts of tebel.48 Now, their49 dispute extends only so far50 that while one Master maintains that they are not suspected,51 but both52 [agree53 that there is] legal presumption that an agent54 carries out his mission.55 And R. Nahman?56 — There [the presumption is justified] in agreement [with the principle] of R. Hanina Hoza'ah. For R. Hanina Hoza'ah57 laid down: It is a legal presumption that a Fellow would not allow any unprepared thing 58 to pass out of his hand.59 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-arez60 have been speaking? If it be suggested that he was speaking to an ‘am ha-arez like himself61 [what sense is there in the ruling,] ‘Must tithe them, as demai’? Would he obey it?62 Consequently it in must be a case63 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’; how64 does the question of ‘amme ha-arez at all arise?65 — 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. 66 Rabbi harvest on the sixteenth day of Nisan (cf. Lev. XXIII, 10). done it before half of the day had passed. that all agent carries out his mission? corresponding to the cost of their respective sacrifices which were subsequently purchased for them by the priests (cf. Shek. VI,6). offered it up. This proves that even in respect of a Pentateuchal law such a presumption is justified. presumption is justified where the mission is entrusted to an ordinary agent. dues. possibly have set aside any dues for the figs in question. apart for it the required dues from some other produce. prescribed dues. in close proximity, the owner would have been presumed to have set apart all the prescribed dues. mission.