## Eruvin Daf 31b

###### Eruvin 31b:1
[Eruvin 31b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:1)

וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** one may also feed **soldiers *demai*.**


###### Eruvin 31b:2
[Eruvin 31b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:2)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said: It was taught** that **Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished *demai*. And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished *demai*.** The *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Eruvin 31b:3
[Eruvin 31b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:3)

וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה כּוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבֳּלִין, וְנִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: One may establish an *eiruv* **with first tithe** whose *teruma* **has been taken.** The Gemara expresses surprise: **It is obvious** that if the *teruma* was already taken there is no problem. Why is it necessary to state it may be used for an *eiruv*? The Gemara answers: **It is only necessary** to teach this *halakha* in a case where the Levite **preceded** the priest while the grain was still **on the stalks,** i.e., the Levite took his tithe before the grain was threshed and before the priest took the *teruma*; **and the *teruma* of the tithes was taken from it** but ***teruma gedola* was not taken from it.** Therefore, since the *teruma* is generally separated first, a portion of the first tithe that the Levite took should have been separated as *teruma*.


###### Eruvin 31b:4
[Eruvin 31b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:4)

וְכִדְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבֳּלִין — פָּטוּר מִתְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲרֵמוֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה׳ מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר״. מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ, וְלֹא תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **in accordance with** the opinion that **Rabbi Abbahu** said that **Reish Lakish said, as Rabbi Abbahu said** that **Reish Lakish said: First tithe,** in a case **where** the Levite **preceded** the priest while the grain was still **on the stalks, is exempt from *teruma gedola*, as it is stated: “And you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe”** (Numbers 18:26), from which the following inference is made: **A tenth part of the tithe,** i.e., the *teruma* of the tithe, **I told you,** the Levite, to separate. **And** I did **not** tell you to separate ***teruma gedola* and the *teruma* of the tithe.**


###### Eruvin 31b:5
[Eruvin 31b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ אֵת כׇּל תְּרוּמַת ה׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this matter, **Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, even** if the Levite **preceded** the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed **in a pile,** the Levite should still not have to separate *teruma gedola*. Abaye **said to him: With regard to your** claim, **the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s *teruma*”** (Numbers 18:29). The inclusive phrase “from all” indicates that *teruma gedola* must be separated even from the first tithe in the case where the Levite precedes the priest after the grain has been collected in a pile.


###### Eruvin 31b:6
[Eruvin 31b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:6)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הַאי — אִידְּגַן, וְהַאי — לָא אִידְּגַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa asks: **And what did you see** that led you to expound one verse as exempting the Levite from separating *teruma gedola* from first tithe that has been separated while the grain was on the stalks, and to expound another verse as requiring *teruma gedola* to be separated when the Levite took his first tithe after the grain was collected in a pile? Abaye answers: **This** produce, which has been threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and **has become grain, and that** produce, which remained on the stalks, **did not** yet **become grain.** The wording of the biblical verses indicates that the requirement to separate *teruma* applies only to grain, whereas the produce is not considered grain until it has been threshed.


###### Eruvin 31b:7
[Eruvin 31b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:7)

וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין הַחוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna also stated that one may establish an *eiruv* **with** the **second tithe and consecrated** food **that have been redeemed.** The Gemara asks: **It is obvious** that these foods may be used to establish an *eiruv*. The Gemara answers: This ruling **was only needed** for a case **where one** redeemed the second tithe or consecrated food and **paid the principle but did not pay the** additional **fifth** of their value, which must be paid when they are redeemed. **And** the mishna **teaches us** that the failure to pay **the** additional **fifth does not invalidate** the redemption. Once the principle is paid, even if payment of the additional fifth is still outstanding, the article is regarded as redeemed and may be used for mundane purposes.


###### Eruvin 31b:8
[Eruvin 31b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:8)

אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further states: **But** one may not establish an *eiruv* **with *tevel*,** produce from which the priestly dues and other tithes have not been separated. The Gemara asks: This too is **obvious,** as it is prohibited to eat or derive any benefit from *tevel*. The Gemara answers: This ruling **is only needed with regard to *tevel* that is considered *tevel* by rabbinic decree.** What is included in this category? **For example, if one planted** seeds **in an imperforated container,** one is exempt by Torah law from separating *teruma* and tithes from the resulting produce because Torah law does not consider produce grown in such a container to have grown from the ground.


###### Eruvin 31b:9
[Eruvin 31b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:9)

וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי, וְנִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna stated that one may **not** establish an *eiruv* **with first tithe whose *teruma* has not been taken.** The Gemara asks: **It is obvious,** as such produce is *tevel*. The Gemara answers: This ruling **is only needed** for a case where the Levite **preceded** the priest and took first tithe from **the pile, and** only ***teruma* of the tithe was taken from it,** but ***teruma gedola* was not taken from it,** and the produce is therefore still *tevel*.


###### Eruvin 31b:10
[Eruvin 31b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:10)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Lest you say** the *halakha* in that case is **as Rav Pappa said to Abaye,** and the Levite is exempt from separating *teruma gedola*, and therefore the food may be used for an *eiruv*, the mishna **teaches us as** Abaye **responded to** Rav Pappa: If the Levite takes grain after it had been gathered in a pile, he must separate *teruma gedola*. Until he does so the produce may not be eaten.


###### Eruvin 31b:11
[Eruvin 31b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:11)

וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We also learned in the mishna that one may **not** establish an *eiruv* **with** the **second tithe or consecrated** food **that have not been redeemed.** The Gemara asks: **It is obvious** that these items may not be used.


###### Eruvin 31b:12
[Eruvin 31b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:12)

לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁפְּדָאָן, וְלֹא פְּדָאָן כְּהִלְכָתָן: מַעֲשֵׂר — שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ עַל גַּב אֲסִימוֹן, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף״ — כֶּסֶף שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו צוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This ruling **is only needed** for a case **where he redeemed them,** but **did not redeem them properly,** e.g., in the case of **second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [*asimon*]. And the Torah says** with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: **And bind up [*vetzarta*] the money** in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25). This is expounded to mean that the second tithe may only be redeemed with **money that has a form [*tzura*]** engraved **upon it;** however, unminted coins are not considered money for the purpose of redeeming the second tithe.


###### Eruvin 31b:13
[Eruvin 31b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:13)

הֶקְדֵּשׁ — שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל גַּב קַרְקַע, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **consecrated property,** the reference is to a case **where one redeemed it** by exchanging it **for land** instead of money, **as the Torah states: “He will give the money and it shall become his.”** Since the verse speaks of giving money, it may be inferred that consecrated property cannot be redeemed by giving the Temple treasury land of equivalent value.


###### Eruvin 31b:14
[Eruvin 31b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ עֵירוּבוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אוֹ בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּעֵירוּב — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **one sends his *eiruv* in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,** all of whom are regarded as legally incompetent, **or in the hands of one who does not accept** the principle of ***eiruv*, it is not** a valid ***eiruv*.** But **if one told another** person **to receive it from him** at a specific location and set it down in that spot, **it is a** valid ***eiruv*.** The critical point in the establishment of an *eiruv* is that it must be deposited in the proper location by a competent person; but it is immaterial how the *eiruv* arrives there.


###### Eruvin 31b:15
[Eruvin 31b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:15)

**גְּמָ׳** וְקָטָן לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קָטָן גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָעֵירוּב! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין, כָּאן בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Is a minor not** fit to set down an *eiruv*? **Didn’t Rav Huna say: A minor may collect the** food for an ***eiruv*** from the residents of a courtyard and establish an *eiruv* on their behalf even *ab initio*? The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as **here,** where the mishna invalidates an *eiruv* placed by a minor, it is referring **to an *eiruv* of** Shabbat **borders.** These laws are relatively stringent, as they require that one establish a new place of residence, which a minor cannot do. **There,** where Rav Huna said that a minor may collect the food for an *eiruv*, he was referring **to an *eiruv* of courtyards.** This type of *eiruv* is more lenient and may be established even by a minor, as all that is necessary is to join together domains that already exist.


###### Eruvin 31b:16
[Eruvin 31b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:16)

אוֹ בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּעֵירוּב. מַאן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כּוּתָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the mishna: **Or** if one sends his *eiruv* **in the hands of one who does not accept** the principle of ***eiruv*.** The Gemara asks: **Who** is this? **Rav Ḥisda said: A Samaritan [*Kuti*],** who does not accept the laws of the Sages with regard to *eiruv*.


###### Eruvin 31b:17
[Eruvin 31b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:17)

וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי — בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna also states: **And if he told another** person **to receive** the *eiruv* **from him, it is a** valid ***eiruv*.** The Gemara challenges this statement: **Let us be concerned that perhaps** the minor or other incompetent person will **not bring** the *eiruv* to the other person. The Gemara responds: This may be answered **as Rav Ḥisda said** with regard to a different statement, that it was referring to a case **where he stands and watches him. Here, too,** the mishna is referring to a case **where** the person sending the *eiruv* **stands and watches him** from afar until the *eiruv* reaches the person designated to receive it.


###### Eruvin 31b:18
[Eruvin 31b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:18)

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, הָכָא נָמֵי — חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But nonetheless, **let us be concerned that perhaps** the other person will **not take** the *eiruv* **from** the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor and deposit it in the designated place. From a distance, one cannot see exactly what is happening. He only saw that the messenger arrived at his destination. The Gemara answers this question **as** follows: **Rav Yeḥiel said** in a different context that there is a legal **presumption** that **an agent fulfills his agency. Here, too,** there is a legal **presumption** that the **agent** appointed to accept the *eiruv* **fulfills his agency.**


###### Eruvin 31b:19
[Eruvin 31b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:19)

וְהֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב יְחִיאֵל? אַהָא אִתְּמַר, דְּתַנְיָא: נְתָנוֹ לַפִּיל וְהוֹלִיכוֹ, לַקּוֹף וְהוֹלִיכוֹ, אֵין זֶה עֵירוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. וְדִילְמָא לָא מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ. וְדִילְמָא לָא מְקַבֵּל לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ? אָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Where were** these principles of **Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yeḥiel stated?** The Gemara answers: **They were stated with regard to** the following, **as it was taught** in a *baraita*: If **one gave** the *eiruv* **to** a trained **elephant, and it brought it** to the place where he wanted the *eiruv* deposited, or if he gave it **to a monkey, and it brought it** to the proper location, **it is not a** valid ***eiruv*. But if he told another** person **to receive it from** the animal, **it is** a valid ***eiruv*.** The Gemara asks: **But perhaps** the animal **will not bring** the *eiruv* **to** the person appointed to receive it? **Rav Ḥisda said:** The *baraita* is referring **to** a case **where** the person sending the *eiruv* **stands and watches it** from afar until it reaches the person designated to receive the *eiruv*. The Gemara asks further: But **perhaps** the person appointed to receive the *eiruv* **will not accept it from** the elephant or monkey. **Rav Yeḥiel said:** There is a legal **presumption** that **an agent fulfills his agency.**


###### Eruvin 31b:20
[Eruvin 31b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/31b:20)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה — אֵין חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said: With regard to Torah** laws, we do **not** rely on the **presumption that an agent fulfills his agency;** rather, one must actually see the agent performing his mission.