## Eruvin Daf 32a

###### Eruvin 32a:1
[Eruvin 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:1)

בְּשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים — חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ. וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה — חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
However, **with regard to rabbinic** laws, we do rely on the **presumption** that **an agent fulfills his agency. And Rav Sheshet** disagreed and **said:** With regard to **both this,** Torah law, **and that,** rabbinic law, we rely on the **presumption** that **an agent fulfills his agency.**


###### Eruvin 32a:2
[Eruvin 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:2)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דִּתְנַן: מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הָעוֹמֶר, הוּתַּר הֶחָדָשׁ מִיָּד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say this? As we learned** in a mishna: **Once the *omer* has been offered,** the grain from **the new crop is immediately permitted.** The Torah prohibits eating from the new crop of grain until the *omer* sacrifice is offered on the second day of Passover (Leviticus 23:14); once the *omer* is offered, it is immediately permitted to partake of the new grain.


###### Eruvin 32a:3
[Eruvin 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:3)

וְהָרְחוֹקִים מוּתָּרִים מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וְאֵילָךְ. וְהָא חָדָשׁ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי: הָרְחוֹקִים מוּתָּרִין מֵחֲצוֹת הַיּוֹם וְאֵילָךְ. לָאו מִשּׁוּם חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And those far** from Jerusalem, who do not know whether or not the *omer* has already been offered, **are permitted** to eat from the new crop **from midday and on,** as the *omer* must surely have been offered by this time. **Isn’t** the prohibition to eat from **the new** crop **a Torah law? And** nevertheless, **it was taught: And those far** from Jerusalem **are permitted** to eat from the new crop **from midday and on. Is this not because** we may rely on the **presumption** that **an agent fulfills his agency?** The priests in the Temple serve as the agents of the entire Jewish people, and it may be assumed that they have performed the mission entrusted to them.


###### Eruvin 32a:4
[Eruvin 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:4)

וְרַב נַחְמָן? הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא — לְפִי שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rav Naḥman,** who holds that with respect to Torah laws we may not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency, refute this proof? He can respond as follows: **There,** the agents may be trusted for **the reason that was** explicitly **taught: Because we know that the court will not be indolent** in offering the *omer* sacrifice; however, the same cannot be said of ordinary agents.


###### Eruvin 32a:5
[Eruvin 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:5)

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא לְפִי שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ. בֵּית דִּין הוּא דְּלָא מִתְעַצְּלִין בּוֹ — הָא שְׁלִיחַ מִתְעַצֵּל בּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And some say** a different version of this response: **Rav Naḥman said: From where do I say this** principle? **As it was taught** that **the reason** is **because we know that the court will not be indolent** in offering the *omer* past midday. From this we may infer: **It is the court** that **will not be indolent** with regard to missions entrusted to it, **but** an ordinary **agent may** indeed **be indolent** with regard to his mission. Therefore, we cannot rely upon an ordinary agent.


###### Eruvin 32a:6
[Eruvin 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:6)

וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לָךְ: בֵּית דִּין עַד פַּלְגֵיהּ דְּיוֹמָא, שָׁלִיחַ כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Sheshet** could have **said to you** that this is not the correct inference; rather, we should infer as follows: It is only **the court** that is presumed to have executed its mission **by midday,** even though the mitzva to bring the *omer* offering lasts all day. However, an ordinary **agent,** who is not as diligent, is only presumed to have completed his mission by the end of **the entire day.**


###### Eruvin 32a:7
[Eruvin 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:7)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ לֵידָה אוֹ זִיבָה, מְבִיאָה מָעוֹת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בַּשּׁוֹפָר, וְטוֹבֶלֶת וְאוֹכֶלֶת בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לָעֶרֶב. מַאי טַעְמָא — לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: From where do I say** my opinion? **As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **A woman who is responsible** to offer sacrifices following **childbirth or** after experiencing ***ziva*** (Leviticus 12, 15) **brings money and puts it in** the appropriate collection **box** in the Temple, **immerses** in a ritual bath, **and** she may then **eat sacrificial food at nightfall. What is the reason** that she is permitted to eat immediately at nightfall? **Is it not because we say** that there is a **presumption** that **an agent fulfills his agency,** and the priests certainly purchased the appropriate sacrifices with her money and offered them during the day?


###### Eruvin 32a:8
[Eruvin 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:8)

וְרַב נַחְמָן? הָתָם כִּדְרַב שְׁמַעְיָה, דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: חֲזָקָה אֵין בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים עוֹמְדִים מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁיִּכְלוּ כׇּל מָעוֹת שֶׁבַּשּׁוֹפָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rav Naḥman** counter this proof? **There,** in the case of a woman who put money in the box, the reason she may rely on agency is **in accordance with** the statement of **Rav Shemaya, as Rav Shemaya said:** There is a legal **presumption** that **the court of priests would not leave** the Temple **until all the money in the** collection **box has been spent** on the purchase of sacrifices. We may rely only on the special court appointed to carry out this task, as it can be trusted. However, no proof may be brought from here with regard to an ordinary agent.


###### Eruvin 32a:9
[Eruvin 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:9)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״צֵא וְלַקֵּט לְךָ תְּאֵנִים מִתְּאֵנָתִי״ — אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי וּמְעַשְּׂרָן וַדַּאי. ״מַלֵּא לְךָ כַּלְכַּלָּה זֹה תְּאֵנִים מִתְּאֵנָתִי״ — אוֹכֵל מֵהֶן עֲרַאי וּמְעַשְּׂרָן דְּמַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said** another proof: **From where do I say this? As it was taught** in a *baraita*: **One who says to another** person: **Go and gather for yourself figs from my fig tree,** if he does not specify the amount that he should take, the gatherer **may eat casually from them** even without separating tithes. However, if one wishes to eat the figs as a regular, set meal, **he must** first **tithe them** as fruit that is known **with certainty** not to previously be tithed. In this case, it may be assumed that the owner of the fig tree did not separate tithes to exempt these figs, as he did not know how many the gatherer would take. However, if the owner of the fig tree said to him: **Fill this basket for yourself with figs from my fig tree, he may eat from them casually** without tithing, **and** before eating them as a regular meal, **he must tithe them** as ***demai*,** produce with regard to which we are unsure if the appropriate tithes have been separated. Since the owner of the tree knows how many figs the gatherer will take, it is possible that he has already separated tithes for these figs.


###### Eruvin 32a:10
[Eruvin 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:10)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ, אֲבָל בְּחָבֵר — אוֹכֵל וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ, אֲבָל בְּחָבֵר — אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל עַד שֶׁיְּעַשֵּׂר, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ חֲבֵרִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In what** case **is this statement said?** Where the owner of the fig tree is **an *am ha’aretz*. But** if he is **a *ḥaver*,** the gatherer **may eat** the figs, **and he need not tithe** them even as *demai*, as the owner certainly separated tithes for them from other produce; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. His father, **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, says** the opposite: **In what** case **is this statement said?** Where the owner of the fig tree is an ***am ha’aretz*. But** if he is **a *ḥaver*,** the gatherer **may not eat** the fruit **until he tithes** them **because *ḥaverim*,** who are meticulous in their observance of *halakha*, **are not suspected of separating *teruma*** and tithes **from** produce that is **not adjacent** to the produce they seek to exempt. Since the figs that have been picked are not adjacent to the owner’s other figs, he has certainly not separated *teruma* and tithes on their account.


###### Eruvin 32a:11
[Eruvin 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי: נִרְאִין דְּבָרַי מִדִּבְרֵי אַבָּא. מוּטָב שֶׁיֵּחָשְׁדוּ חֲבֵרִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף, וְלֹא יַאֲכִילוּ לְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ טְבָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **said: My statement appears** to be more correct **than Father’s statement: It is better that *ḥaverim* should be suspected of separating** *teruma* and tithes **from** produce that is **not adjacent** to the produce they seek to exempt, **and they should not feed *amei ha’aretz*** produce that is ***tevel*.**


###### Eruvin 32a:12
[Eruvin 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:12)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: נֶחְשְׁדוּ, וּמָר סָבַר: לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ. אֲבָל כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא: חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: The *tanna’im* **disagreed only** with regard to the following point: **That one Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that *ḥaverim* **are suspected** of tithing with produce that is not adjacent to the produce it comes to exempt, **and one Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that **they are not suspected** of that. **But all** agree that we may rely on the **presumption** that **an agent fulfills his agency,** i.e., that the owner, who is regarded as an agent to tithe his produce so that no one will eat *tevel* on his account, can be relied upon to separate the tithes.


###### Eruvin 32a:13
[Eruvin 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:13)

וְרַב נַחְמָן, הָתָם כִּדְרַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה, דְּאָמַר רַב חֲנִינָא חוֹזָאָה: חֲזָקָה הוּא עַל חָבֵר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Naḥman** can respond as follows: **There,** the owner can be trusted, **in accordance with** the statement of **Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a, as Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said: There is** a legal **presumption with regard to a *ḥaver* that he does not release anything that is not tithed from his possession.** Therefore, we are not relying on a general presumption with regard to agents but on a presumption with regard to *ḥaverim*.


###### Eruvin 32a:14
[Eruvin 32a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:14)

אָמַר מָר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ, אֲבָל בְּחָבֵר — אוֹכֵל וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְעַשֵּׂר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The previous *baraita* contained several puzzling elements. Now that the Gemara has completed its primary discussion, namely the presumption that an agent carries out his mission, it turns to a discussion of the *baraita* itself. **The Master said:** If one said to his fellow: Go and gather for yourself figs, **in what** case **is this statement said?** It is in a case where the owner of the fig tree is **an *am ha’aretz*. However,** if he is **a *ḥaver*,** the gatherer **may eat** the figs, **and he need not tithe** them; this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Eruvin 32a:15
[Eruvin 32a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:15)

הַאי עַם הָאָרֶץ, דְּקָאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְמַאן? אִילֵימָא דְּקָאָמַר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ חַבְרֵיהּ — מְעַשְּׂרָן דְּמַאי, מִי צָיֵית? אֶלָּא בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ דְּקָאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחָבֵר. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נִרְאִין דְּבָרַי מִדִּבְרֵי אַבָּא, מוּטָב שֶׁיֵּחָשְׁדוּ חֲבֵרִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף וְאַל יַאֲכִילוּ לְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ טְבָלִין. עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מַאי בָּעֵי הָתָם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This *am ha’aretz*,** who addressed his fellow man, **to whom did he speak? If you say that he spoke to his fellow *am ha’aretz*,** if so, how are we to understand the statement that follows: **He must tithe them as *demai*? Would** an *am ha’aretz* **comply** with the admonition of the Sages to suspect that the produce of his fellow *am ha’aretz* may not have been tithed? **Rather,** this must be referring **to an *am ha’aretz* who told a *ḥaver*** to gather figs from his fig tree, and the *ḥaver* will certainly tithe them. However, **say** that **the latter clause** of this *baraita*: **My statement appears** to be more correct **than Father’s statement,** means the following: **It is better that *ḥaverim* should be suspected of separating** *teruma* and tithes **from** produce that is **not adjacent** to the produce they seek to exempt, **and they should not feed *amei ha’aretz*** produce that is ***tevel*. What is the relevance of *amei ha’aretz* there?** According to that explanation, the situation is the opposite. The person eating the figs is a *ḥaver*, and the owner of the fig tree is an *am ha’aretz*.


###### Eruvin 32a:16
[Eruvin 32a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Eruvin/r/32a:16)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: רֵישָׁא — בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁאָמַר לְחָבֵר, סֵיפָא — בְּחָבֵר שֶׁאָמַר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ, וְחָבֵר אַחֵר שׁוֹמְעוֹ. רַבִּי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: The first clause** is referring **to an *am ha’aretz* who spoke to a *ḥaver*,** while **the latter clause** is referring **to a *ḥaver* who spoke to an *am ha’aretz*, and a different *ḥaver* heard him** speak, and the discussion relates not to the one gathering the figs but to whether the second *ḥaver* may partake of the figs if they are offered to him. The Gemara explains the disagreement according to this understanding: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi