Eruvin 31
מְעָרְבִין לְכֹהֵן טָהוֹר בִּתְרוּמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּקֶבֶר, הֵיכִי אָזֵיל? בְּשִׁידָּה תֵּיבָה וּמִגְדָּל.
One may establish an eiruv for a priest who is ritually pure with teruma that is ritually pure and resting on a grave, even though the location is impure and he cannot reach it. How does he go there? In a carriage, crate, or cupboard, which shield him from the ritual impurity.
וְהָא כֵּיוָן דְּאַחֲתָא אִיטַּמְּיָא לַהּ! בְּשֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּילּוֹשָׁה בְּמֵי פֵּירוֹת.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it true that once the eiruv was placed directly on the grave, the teruma became defiled, and ritually impure teruma is not fit to be eaten by anyone? The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case where the teruma had not yet been rendered susceptible to ritual impurity, as it had not yet come into contact with a liquid. Produce that has yet to come into contact with a liquid does not contract impurity. Or we are dealing with bread that was kneaded with fruit juice, which is not one of the seven liquids that render a food susceptible to ritual impurity.
וְהֵיכִי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? בִּפְשׁוּטֵי כְלֵי עֵץ דְּלָא מְקַבְּלִי טוּמְאָה.
The Gemara now asks: How can he bring it from where it is resting on the grave in order to eat it? The Gemara answers: With flat wooden utensils that are not shaped as receptacles and therefore do not contract ritual impurity.
וְהָא קָא מַאֲהִיל?! דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ אֲחוֹרֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Doesn’t the utensil cover the grave? The Sages decreed that anyone who holds a utensil that is a handbreadth wide over a corpse or grave is ritually impure. The Gemara answers: He may bring it on the edge of the utensil while holding the utensil sideways so that it does not form a cover that is a handbreadth wide over the grave.
אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? קָסָבְרִי: אָסוּר לִקְנוֹת בַּיִת בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, and there is a way for the teruma to remain ritually pure and for the priest to access it, what is the reason the Sages disagreed with Rabbi Yehuda and did not allow an eiruv to be established for a priest on a grave? The Gemara answers: They hold that it is prohibited to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited. It is prohibited to derive benefit from a grave. Since one acquires a place of residence for Shabbat by means of the eiruv, it would be as if the priest acquired a home for himself with something from which he may not derive benefit.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר מוּתָּר? קָסָבַר: מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ.
The Gemara asks: If so, does this prove by inference that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is permitted to acquire a home with items from which benefit is prohibited? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that mitzvot were not given for benefit. The fulfillment of a mitzva is not in itself considered a benefit. Since the acquisition of a place of residence by means of an eiruv is a mitzva, as one may establish an eiruv teḥumin only for the sake of a mitzva, it is even permitted to establish one’s eiruv in a place from which it is prohibited to benefit.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ, לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ?! אָמַר לָךְ רָבָא: אִי סְבִירָא לְהוּ דְּאֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ. וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וּמָר סָבַר מְעָרְבִין אֲפִילּוּ לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת.
The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rava said: Mitzvot were not given for benefit, let us say that he stated his halakha only in accordance with the opinion of one side in a dispute between tanna’im. The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: If they hold that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, all would agree that the eiruv may be placed on a grave because mitzvot were not given for benefit. However, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages centers on a different aspect of the issue. Here, they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva. Since mitzvot do not constitute forbidden benefit, it is therefore permitted to make use of the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: One may establish an eiruv even for a voluntary matter. Establishing a Shabbat residence on the site of a grave by means of an eiruv made for a voluntary matter is regarded as forbidden benefit, and therefore it is prohibited.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ?
The Gemara suggests: But if so, with regard to that which Rav Yosef said as a general principle: One may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, let us say that he stated his halakha in accordance with one side in a dispute between the tanna’im.
אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין מְעָרְבִין אֶלָּא לִדְבַר מִצְוָה, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִצְוֹת לָאו לֵיהָנוֹת נִיתְּנוּ, וּבְהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: מָר סָבַר כֵּיוָן דִּקְנָה לֵיהּ עֵירוּב — לָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּמִינַּטְרָא. וּמָר סָבַר — נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּמִינַּטְרָא, דְּאִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ אָכֵיל לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef could have said to you: In fact, all agree that one may establish an eiruv only for the sake of a mitzva, and all agree that mitzvot were not given for benefit, and they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Once he acquired his Shabbat residence at twilight by means of the eiruv, he is indifferent to its safeguarding, as his main goal has already been achieved. He has no further need for the food used for the eiruv, and therefore, he receives no benefit from its placement on the grave. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds: It is pleasing to him that the eiruv is safeguarded, for if he needs it the next day, he can eat it. According to this opinion, he would be making prohibited use of the grave to preserve his meal for the following day, and therefore the Sages prohibited placing an eiruv on a grave.
מַתְנִי׳ מְעָרְבִין בִּדְמַאי, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ, וְהַכֹּהֲנִים בְּחַלָּה.
MISHNA: One may establish an eiruv with demai, produce purchased from one who may not have separated the required tithes, and similarly, one may establish an eiruv with the first tithe whose teruma has been taken in order to be given to a priest, and with the second tithe and consecrated articles that have been redeemed; and priests may establish an eiruv with ḥalla, the portion of dough that must be given to a priest.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ.
However, one may not establish an eiruv with tevel, produce from which the priestly dues [teruma] and other tithes have not been separated, nor with first tithe whose teruma, which must be given to a priest, has not been taken, nor with the second tithe or consecrated articles that have not been redeemed.
גְּמָ׳ דְּמַאי, הָא לָא חֲזֵי לֵיהּ? מִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ וְהָוֵי עָנִי וַחֲזוּ לֵיהּ — הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי חֲזֵי לֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How can one establish an eiruv with demai? Isn’t it unfit for him? Since it is prohibited to eat demai, how can it be used as an eiruv? The Gemara answers: Since if he wants, he could declare his property ownerless, and he would be a poor person, and the demai would then be fit for him, as a poor person is permitted to eat demai, now too, even though he has not renounced ownership of his property, it is considered fit for him to use as an eiruv. As we learned in a mishna: One may feed the poor demai,
וְאֶת אַכְסַנְיָא דְּמַאי.
and one may also feed soldiers demai.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מַאֲכִילִין אֶת הָעֲנִיִּים דְּמַאי.
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.
וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה כּוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בְּשִׁבֳּלִין, וְנִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.
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.
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.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרוֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ אֵת כׇּל תְּרוּמַת ה׳״.
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.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? הַאי — אִידְּגַן, וְהַאי — לָא אִידְּגַן.
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.
וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁנָּתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין הַחוֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב.
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.
אֲבָל לֹא בְּטֶבֶל. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּטֶבֶל טָבוּל מִדְּרַבָּנַן, וּכְגוֹן שֶׁזְּרָעוֹ בְּעָצִיץ שֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב.
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.
וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁהִקְדִּימוֹ בִּכְרִי, וְנִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר וְלֹא נִטְּלָה מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.
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.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְשַׁנִּי לֵיהּ.
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.
וְלֹא בְּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ. פְּשִׁיטָא!
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.
לָא צְרִיכָא, שֶׁפְּדָאָן, וְלֹא פְּדָאָן כְּהִלְכָתָן: מַעֲשֵׂר — שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ עַל גַּב אֲסִימוֹן, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף״ — כֶּסֶף שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו צוּרָה.
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.
הֶקְדֵּשׁ — שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל גַּב קַרְקַע, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ עֵירוּבוֹ בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אוֹ בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּעֵירוּב — אֵינוֹ עֵירוּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְקָטָן לָא? וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: קָטָן גּוֹבֶה אֶת הָעֵירוּב! לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּעֵירוּבֵי תְּחוּמִין, כָּאן בְּעֵירוּבֵי חֲצֵירוֹת.
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.
אוֹ בְּיַד מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוֹדֶה בְּעֵירוּב. מַאן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: כּוּתָאֵי.
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.
וְאִם אָמַר לְאַחֵר לְקַבְּלוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה עֵירוּב. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא מַמְטֵי לֵיהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ, הָכָא נָמֵי — בְּעוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֵהוּ.
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.
וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא שָׁקֵיל מִינֵּיהּ? כִּדְאָמַר רַב יְחִיאֵל: חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, הָכָא נָמֵי — חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.
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.
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.
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.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה — אֵין חֲזָקָה שָׁלִיחַ עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ.
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.
