Eruvin 63

בשל סופרים חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו ורב ששת אמר אחד זה ואחד זה חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו

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? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even in respect of a Pentateuchal law it may be presumed that an agent carries out his mission. rng');">¹</span> From what we learned: As soon as the omer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (lit., 'sheaf' or 'a measure containing the tenth part of an ephah') the offering of barley of the firstfruits of the harvest on the sixteenth day of Nisan (cf. Lev. XXIII, 10) .');">²</span>

א"ר ששת מנא אמינא לה דתנן משקרב העומר הותר החדש מיד

had been offered the new produce<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The consumption of which is forbidden before the 'omer is offered.');">³</span> is forthwith permitted; and those who [live] at a distance<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Jerusalem; who in consequence are unable to ascertain the time the 'omer was offered.');">⁴</span> bare permitted [its use] from mid-day onwards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 68a (v. next note) .');">⁵</span> [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'.

והרחוקים מותרים מחצות היום ואילך והא חדש דאורייתא הוא וקתני הרחוקים מותרין מחצות היום ואילך לאו משום חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו

Is not this due to the legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously it is. The priests being the agents of the people are presumed to have attended to their duty and to have done it before half of the day had passed.');">⁶</span> And R'Nahman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, in view of the ruling cited, can he maintain that in respect of a Pentateuchal law there is no legal presumption that all agent carries out his mission?');">⁷</span> - There [the presumption is justified] for the reason stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'as it was taught'.');">⁸</span> Because it is known that Beth din would not shirk their duty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'be lazy about it'. This, therefore, is no proof that legal presumption is justified in the case of an ordinary agent.');">⁹</span>

ורב נחמן התם כדקתני טעמא לפי שיודעין שאין בית דין מתעצלין בו

Others there are who read: R'Nahman said: Whence do I derive this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in respect of a Pentateuchal law there is no legal presumption that an agent carries out his mission.');">¹⁰</span> since the reason stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the ruling in the Mishnah of Men. cited.');">¹¹</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could he maintain his ruling in view of this argument?');">¹²</span>

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן מנא אמינא לה דקתני טעמא לפי שיודעין שאין ב"ד מתעצלין בו ב"ד הוא דלא מתעצלין בו הא שליח מתעצל בו

- 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' that even in respect of a Pentateuchal law may be presumed that an agent carries out his mission.');">¹³</span> From what was taught: A woman who is under the obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., there is upon her'.');">¹⁴</span> [of bringing an offering in connection with] a birth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XII, 6ff.');">¹⁵</span>

ורב ששת אמר לך ב"ד עד פלגיה דיומא שליח כולי יומא

or gonorroea<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. XV, 29.');">¹⁶</span> brings [the required sum of]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The price of two turtles (v. Lev.XII, 8, and XV,29) . rpua');">¹⁷</span> money which she puts into the collecting box,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' lit., horn', a box so shaped in which those under an obligation to bring sacrifices put in amount corresponding to the cost of their respective sacrifices which were subsequently purchased for them by the priests (cf. Shek. VI,6) .');">¹⁸</span> performs ritual immersion and is permitted to eat consecrated: food in the evening.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 27a');">¹⁹</span>

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא האשה שיש עליה לידה או זיבה מביאה מעות ונותנת בשופר וטובלת ואוכלת בקדשים לערב מאי טעמא לאו משום דאמרינן חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו

Now what is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the woman may eat consecrated food though she had not herself witnessed the offering of her sacrifice.');">²⁰</span> Is it not because we hold that it is a legal presumption that an agent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the priests whose duty it is to purchase the necessary sacrifices on behalf of the donors.');">²¹</span> carries out his mission?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously we do, it being presumed that before the day is over the priests will have purchased the sacrifice and offered it up. This proves that even in respect of a Pentateuchal law such a presumption is justified.');">²²</span> And R'Nahman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could he maintain his ruling in view of this argument.');">²³</span>

ורב נחמן התם כדרב שמעיה דאמר רב שמעיה חזקה אין ב"ד של כהנים עומדים משם עד שיכלו כל מעות שבשופר

- 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., from there'.');">²⁴</span> before all the money in the collecting box<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 6.');">²⁵</span> had been spent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the purchase of the necessary sacrifices. Pes. 90b. The ruling in this case is consequently no proof that a similar presumption is justified where the mission is entrusted to an ordinary agent.');">²⁶</span>

אמר רב ששת מנא אמינא לה דתניא האומר לחבירו צא ולקט לך תאנים מתאנתי אוכל מהן עראי ומעשרן ודאי מלא לך כלכלה זה תאנים מתאנתי אוכל מהן עראי ומעשרן דמאי

R'Shesheth again said: Whence do I derive this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 1.');">²⁷</span> From what was taught: If a man said to another, 'Go out and gather for yourself some figs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. take an unspecified quantity'.');">²⁸</span> from my fig tree', the latter may make<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eat'.');">²⁹</span> of them an irregular meal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he is under no obligation to set apart the priestly and levitical dues. An occasional meal is exempt from such dues.');">³⁰</span>

במה דברים אמורים בעם הארץ אבל בחבר אוכל ואינו צריך לעשר דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר במה דברים אמורים בעם הארץ אבל בחבר אינו אוכל עד שיעשר לפי שלא נחשדו חברים לתרום שלא מן המוקף

or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he desires to make of them a regular meal.');">³¹</span> he must tithe them [as produce that is] known<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'certain'.');">³²</span> [to be untithed].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must set apart all the prescribed dues; because the owner who does not know how much was gathered could not possibly have set aside any dues for the figs in question.');">³³</span> [If however, the owner said to him,] 'Fill yourself this basket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. 'take a specified quantity'.');">³⁴</span>

אמר רבי נראין דברי מדברי אבא מוטב שיחשדו חברים לתרום שלא מן המוקף ולא יאכילו לעמי הארץ טבלים

with figs from my tree' [the latter] may eat them as an irregular meal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 221, n. 18.');">³⁵</span> or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he desires to make of them a regular meal.');">³⁶</span> must tithe them as demai.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos., it being doubtful whether the owner, who knew the quantity of fruit to be gathered, had, or had not set apart for it the required dues from some other produce.');">³⁷</span> This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the figs must be tithed at least as demai.');">³⁸</span>

עד כאן לא פליגי אלא דמר סבר נחשדו ומר סבר לא נחשדו אבל כולי עלמא חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו

applies only to [an owner who was] an am ha-arez,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">³⁹</span> but if he was a Fellow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Haber, v. Glos.');">⁴⁰</span> [the latter] may eat [the fruit]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even as a regular meal.');">⁴¹</span> and need not tithe them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no haber would allow his produce to be eaten by anyone before he had himself duly set apart for it all the prescribed dues.');">⁴²</span>

ורב נחמן התם כדרב חנינא חוזאה דאמר רב חנינא חוזאה חזקה הוא על חבר שאינו מוציא דבר שאינו מתוקן מתחת ידו

so Rabbi: R'Simeon B'Gamaliel, however, ruled: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is sufficient to tithe the figs as demai.');">⁴³</span> applies only to [an owner] an am ha-arez, but if he was a Fellow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Haber, v. Glos.');">⁴⁰</span> [the latter] must not eat [the figs]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a regular meal.');">⁴⁴</span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The figs, therefor, must be regarded as produced for which none of the prescribed dues were set apart.');">⁴⁵</span>

אמר מר במה דברים אמורים בעם הארץ אבל בחבר אוכל ואינו צריך לעשר דברי רבי

My view, remarked Rabbi, seems [to be more acceptable] than that of my father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. .rtv hng');">⁴⁶</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' pl. of am ha-arez (v. Glos.) . ohkcy');">⁴⁷</span> to eat all sorts of tebel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' pl. of tebel (v. Glos.) . This is explained soon.');">⁴⁸</span> Now, their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rabbi and his father.');">⁴⁹</span>

האי עם הארץ דקאמר ליה למאן אילימא דקאמר לעם הארץ חבריה מעשרן דמאי מי ציית אלא בעם הארץ דקאמר ליה לחבר אימא סיפא נראין דברי מדברי אבא מוטב שיחשדו חברים לתרום שלא מן המוקף ואל יאכילו לעמי הארץ טבלין עמי הארץ מאי בעי התם

dispute extends only so far<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until here'.');">⁵⁰</span> that while one Master maintains that they are not suspected,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of setting apart terumah from produce that is not in close proximity with that for which it is set apart.');">⁵¹</span> but both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'all the world'.');">⁵²</span> [agree<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As R. Shesheth ruled.');">⁵³</span>

אמר רבינא רישא בעם הארץ שאמר לחבר סיפא בחבר שאמר לעם הארץ וחבר אחר שומעו רבי

that there is] legal presumption that an agent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case the owner of the fig tree whose duty it is to provide for the proper separation of the prescribed dues.');">⁵⁴</span> carries out his mission.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, even according to R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, had it not been for the consideration that produce and dues must be in close proximity, the owner would have been presumed to have set apart all the prescribed dues.');">⁵⁵</span> And R'Nahman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How could he maintain his ruling in view of this argument?');">⁵⁶</span> - There [the presumption is justified] in agreement [with the principle] of R'Hanina Hoza'ah. For R'Hanina Hoza'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Hozae (Khuzistan) .');">⁵⁷</span> laid down: It is a legal presumption that a Fellow would not allow any unprepared thing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., produce for which the prescribed dues have not been given.');">⁵⁸</span> to pass out of his hand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 9a. This presumption, however, does not apply to an ordinary agent who might sometimes fail to carry out his mission.');">⁵⁹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner spoken of.');">⁶⁰</span> have been speaking? If it be suggested that he was speaking to an 'am ha-arez like himself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his friend'.');">⁶¹</span> [what sense is there in the ruling,] 'Must tithe them, as demai'? Would he obey it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Certainly not. The one 'am ha-arez would rather rely on the other.');">⁶²</span> Consequently it in must be a case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but'.');">⁶³</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the person addressed was a Fellow.');">⁶⁴</span> does the question of 'amme ha-arez at all arise?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what do they want there?'');">⁶⁵</span> - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'heard him'.');">⁶⁶</span> Rabbi