Eruvin 62

Chapter 62

א ואת אכסניא דמאי
1 and billeted troops<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, being away from their homes, ire regarded as poor.');"><sup>1</sup></span> with demai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. III, 1, supra 17b.');"><sup>2</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 17b where 'and billeted troops' follows 'poor man' in the rulings of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב אמר רב הונא תנא בית שמאי אומרים אין מאכילין את העניים דמאי ובית הלל אומרים מאכילין את העניים דמאי:
2 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]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose due, the second tithe, follows that of terumah 'gedolah (v. Glos.) for the priest.');"><sup>4</sup></span> forestalled the priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'him', i.e., received his first tithe before the priest received his terumah gedolah.');"><sup>5</sup></span> whilst [the grain was still] in the ears and from<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from it'.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג ובמעשר ראשון שנטלה כו': פשיטא לא צריכא שהקדימו בשבלין ונטלה ממנו תרומת מעשר ולא נטלה ממנו תרומה גדולה
3 [his first tithe] was taken terumah of the tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is due from the Levite to the priest -');"><sup>7</sup></span> but no terumah gedolah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which should have been taken from it before it was given to him, and which is now contained in it.');"><sup>8</sup></span> and this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such first tithe is permitted to the Levite despite the terumah gedolah which it contains. ,nur,');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד וכדר' אבהו אמר ריש לקיש דאמר ר' אבהו אמר ריש לקיש מעשר ראשון שהקדימו בשבלין פטור מתרומה גדולה שנאמר (במדבר יח, כו) והרמותם ממנו תרומת ה' מעשר מן המעשר מעשר מן המעשר אמרתי לך ולא תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר מן המעשר
4 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' const. of terumah (v. Glos.) .');"><sup>10</sup></span> for - the Lord, even, tithe of the tithe;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 26.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ה א"ל רב פפא לאביי אי הכי אפילו הקדימו בכרי נמי א"ל עליך אמר קרא (במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו את כל תרומת ה'
5 I only told you [to set apart] 'a tithe of the tithe' but not terumah gedola 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 216, n. 8.');"><sup>12</sup></span> [while the grain was already] in a pile?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. after it had been threshed.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ו ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:
6 - Against you, the other replied, Scripture stated: Thus ye shall set apart in gift<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 216, n. 13. kf ,nur,');"><sup>14</sup></span> unto the lord of all your tithes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 28. before in cur. edd. is absent from M.T. and is also omitted here.');"><sup>15</sup></span> And what [reason] do you see [for this distinction]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between first tithe that was set apart while the grain was in its ears and between one set apart after it had been threshold. Why should the former only be exempt from terumah gedolah? idsht ids');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ז ובמעשר שני והקדש שנפדו: פשיטא לא צריכא שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש וקמ"ל דאין החומש מעכב:
7 - The one has become corn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' denom. of 'corn'. Only corn is subject to the priestly dues (v. Deut. XVIII, 4) .');"><sup>17</sup></span> but the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Grain in the ears.');"><sup>18</sup></span> has not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that when the Levite received his first tithe the grain was not yet subject to terumah gedolah, while at the time it was threshold it had already the status of first tithe which is exempt in accordance with Num. XVIII, 26.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ח אבל לא בטבל: פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן וכגון שזרעו בעציץ שאינו נקוב:
8 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 31.');"><sup>20</sup></span> and this teaches us that [the omission to pay] the fifth does not invalidate the redemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'prevents', 'hinders'.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ט ולא במעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו: פשיטא לא צריכא שהקדימו בכרי ונטלה ממנו תרומת מעשר ולא נטלה ממנו תרומה גדולה
9 [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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when he sowed it'.');"><sup>22</sup></span> in an unperforated pot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' only produce that grows in the ground or at least, in a perforated Pot, and thus draws its nourishment from the earth is Pentateuchally subject to the priestly and levitical clues.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
י מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קמ"ל כדשני ליה:
10 NOR WITH FIRST TITHE THE TERUMAH FROM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN. Is not this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That first tithe produce from which terumah of the tithe had not been taken is unfit for consumption, and consequently unsuitable for 'erub.');"><sup>24</sup></span> obvious? - This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That first tithe produce from which terumah of the tithe had not been taken is unfit for consumption, and consequently unsuitable for 'erub.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יא ולא במעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו: פשיטא
11 was necessary in such, a case only where [the Levite] forestalled the priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'him'.');"><sup>25</sup></span> [in taking his due<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' First tithe.');"><sup>26</sup></span> when the grain was already] in the pile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. after it had been threshed.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יב לא צריכא שפדאן ולא פדאן כהלכתן מעשר שפדאו על גב אסימון ורחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף כסף שיש עליו צורה
12 and terumah of the tithe was taken from it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not as has previously been assumed that it was not.');"><sup>28</sup></span> while terumah gedolah was not taken from it. It might consequently have been assumed [that the ruling is] as R'Papa submitted to Abaye,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, that even such produce should not be subject to terumah gedolah.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יג הקדש שחיללו על גב קרקע דרחמנא אמר ונתן הכסף וקם לו:
13 hence we were informed [that the ruling is] in agreement with the latter's reply.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as he answered him', that, since at the time the Levite received his due, the produce was already subject to terumah gedolah, it remains unfit for use until such terumah had been set apart for it.');"><sup>30</sup></span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'according to their law'. iunhxt');"><sup>31</sup></span>
יד <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השולח עירובו ביד חרש שוטה וקטן או ביד מי שאינו מודה בעירוב אינו עירוב ואם אמר לאחר לקבלו ממנו הרי זה עירוב:
14 where the TITHE [for instance] was redeemed with a piece of uncoined metal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' , Gr. ** ,rmu');"><sup>32</sup></span> whereas the All Merciful ordained, 'And thou shalt bind up<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. infra n. 7.');"><sup>33</sup></span> the money,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 25. vrum ,rmu');"><sup>34</sup></span>
טו <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וקטן לא והאמר רב הונא קטן גובה את העירוב לא קשיא כאן בעירובי תחומין כאן בעירובי חצירות:
15 [implying that] the metal must be coined;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'silver which has on it a figure'. 'figure' is analogous in form to (v. supra n. 5) .');"><sup>35</sup></span> and where the CONSECRATED [FOOD] was exchanged for a plot of land, whereas the All Merciful ordained, 'And he shall give the money. .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not land.');"><sup>36</sup></span>
טז או ביד מי שאינו מודה בעירוב: מאן אמר רב חסדא כותאי:
16 and it should be assured for him'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The italicized words occur in Lev. XXVII, 19. For 'and he shall give' M.T. reads: 'then he shall add the fifth of', v. B.M., Sonc. ed., p. 321, n. 1.');"><sup>37</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SENDS HIS 'ERUB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the spot which he desires to establish as his abode for the Sabbath. arj');"><sup>38</sup></span> BY THE HAND OF A DEAF-MUTE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the usual signification of (deaf) in the Talmud.');"><sup>39</sup></span>
יז ואם אמר לאחר לקבלו הימנו הרי זה עירוב: וליחוש דילמא לא ממטי ליה כדאמר רב חסדא בעומד ורואהו ה"נ בעומד ורואהו
17 AN IMBECIle OR A MINOR, OR BY THE HAND OF ONE WHO DOES NOT ADMIT [THE PRINCIPLE OF] 'ERUB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained infra.');"><sup>40</sup></span> THE 'ERUB IS NOT VALID. IF, HOWEVER, HE INSTRUCTED ANOTHER PERSON TO RECEIVE IT FROM HIM,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And to deposit it in the prescribed manner.');"><sup>41</sup></span>
יח וליחוש דילמא לא שקיל מיניה כדאמר רב יחיאל חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו הכא נמי חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו
18 THE 'ERUB IS VALID. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>IS NOT A MINOR [qualified to prepare an 'erub]? Did not R'Huna in fact rule: A minor may collect<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the tenants of a courtyard.');"><sup>42</sup></span>
יט והיכא איתמר דרב חסדא ורב יחיאל אהא אתמר דתניא נתנו לפיל והוליכו לקוף והוליכו אין זה עירוב ואם אמר לאחר לקבלו הימנו הרי זה עירוב ודילמא לא ממטי ליה אמר רב חסדא בעומד ורואהו ודילמא לא מקבל ליה מיניה אמר רב יחיאל חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו
19 [the foodstuffs for] the 'erub?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And prepare it for them.');"><sup>43</sup></span> - This is no difficulty since the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'here', our MISHNAH:');"><sup>44</sup></span> refers to an 'erub of boundaries while the latter deals with an 'erub of courtyards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case the mere contribution of the tenants to a common 'erub constitutes the fusion of their private domains. In the former case, however, acquisition of the abode is necessary but no minor is legally competent to effect acquisition.');"><sup>45</sup></span>
כ אמר רב נחמן בשל תורה אין חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו
20 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',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus making sure that the 'erub is 'duly carried to the competent agent.');"><sup>46</sup></span> here also [it may be explained:] Where he stands and watches him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus making sure that the 'erub is 'duly carried to the competent agent.');"><sup>46</sup></span> But is there no need to provide against the possibility that [the agent] would not accept it from him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, despite his appointment as agent, would neglect the preparation of' the 'erub.');"><sup>47</sup></span> - 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His 'erub of boundaries.');"><sup>48</sup></span> to [a trained] elephant who carried it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Towards the required spot.');"><sup>49</sup></span> or to [a trained] ape who carried it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Towards the required spot.');"><sup>49</sup></span> the 'erub is invalid; but if he instructed someone<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to another'.');"><sup>50</sup></span> to receive it from the animal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from it'.');"><sup>51</sup></span> behold the 'erub is valid - Now is it not possible that it would not carry it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the agent.');"><sup>52</sup></span> - R'Hisda replied: [This is a case] where [the sender] stands and watches it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus making sure that the 'erub is duly carried to the competent agent.');"><sup>53</sup></span> But is it not possible that [the agent] would not accept it from [the animal]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from it'.');"><sup>51</sup></span> - 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;
Previous ChapterNext Chapter