Siman - Eruvin Daf 32

• חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו

Rav Nachman said, בשל תורה אין חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו – Regarding a d’Oraysa, we do not rely on the presumption that a shaliach performed his shlichus, and בשל סופרים חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו – regarding a d’Rabbanon, we may rely on the presumption that the shaliach performed his shlichus. Rashi explains that the difference is that in regards to a d’Rabbanon, even if the shaliach did not fulfill his shlichus, the transgression is less severe.

Rav Sheishess said, אחד זה ואחד זה חזקה שליח עושה שליחותו – Regarding both a d’Oraysa and a d’Rabbanon, we may rely on the presumption that the shaliach performed his mission.

Rav Sheishess brings three supports to his position, the first one based on a Mishnah that teaches that when the Omer is brought, the Chodosh is permitted to those that live far from Yerushalayim who could not know exactly when it was brought, from midday onward. This seems to prove that in a case of a d’Oraysa, we can presume a shaliach did his shlichus. Rav Nachman answered that this case is different, לפי שיודעין שאין בית דין מתעצלין - because people know that Beis Din does not procrastinate.

• Chaver giving basket of fruit to an am ha’aretz

There is a machlokes if one who was invited to take a basket of fruit from a chaver, has to take off תרומות ומעשרות. Rebbe says he may eat from the fruits and assume the chaver separated terumos and maasros, whereas Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says he must first separate terumos and maasros, because chaveirim are not suspected of separating terumos and maasros שלא מן המוקף, when they are not in close proximity (of the food which it is taken off from).

Ravina understands that the machlokes between them, is that Rebbe holds, ניחא ליה לחבר דלעביד הוא איסורא קלילא – A chaver would be amenable to commit a minor infraction (i.e. not tithing from produce in proximity to the food needing to be tithed) ולא ליעבד עם הארץ איסורא רבה – so that a common person does not commit a major transgression, such as eating tevel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that it would be more amenable to a chaver that the am ha’aretz commit a major infraction, such as eating tevel, and he himself would not commit even a minor infraction, such as tithing from produce that was not מן המוקף.

• An eruv in a tree

The next Mishnah states that if one put his eruv in a tree at a height of more than ten tefachim off the ground, then the eruv is not valid, but if it is below ten tefachim the eruv is valid. The Gemara determines that we are discussing a case where the tree is in a reshus harabim. Therefore, when the eruv is above ten tefachim, and the person intends to establish his Shabbos residence on the ground, then the person is not in the same place as his eruv. However, when it is below ten tefachim, even though there is the problem of removing the eruv from the tree, the Mishnah is going according to Rebbe who holds, כל דבר שהוא משום שבות לא גזרו עליו בין השמשות – Any activity that is prohibited d’Rabbanon on Shabbos, was not forbidden during bein hashemashos. Since he is permitted to remove the eruv from the tree bein hashemashos, the eruv is considered accessible and therefore valid.