Rav Heshi, it is great to hear from you again!

1) Rashi 31b DH b'Omed writes that he stands and watches until he has seen that the child has taken the eruv there. We notice that Rashi does not say that he saw that the child gave the eruv to the shaliach. He saw that the child reached the shaliach but we do not know what happened after that. However because of the Chazaka that a shaliach does what he is asked to do, we can now say that since the shaliach was asked to receive the eruv from the child (and to place it down in order that it should be an eruv - Mishneh Berurah 409:45) we can assume that he did just that. Therefore even though we did not actually see that the child gave it to the adult, or that the adult took it from the child, the Chazakah means that we can assume that this did actually happen.

[see Biur Halacha 409:8 DH veNasnu]

Wishing you a Gmar Chasimah Tovah and a good Year.

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

The above explanation can work according to the way Rashi learns the sugya, but there is a problem concerning the understanding of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch of the sugya. This probem is pointed out by the Biur Halacha 409:8 DH veNasnu, that I cited above.

1) The Tur writes in Orach Chaim 409:8 that if he sent the eruv with a child and told someone else to receive the eruv from the child and then saw that the child carried the eruv there and gave it to the second person, this constitutes an effective eruv. Even though he did not see that the second person placed it down as an eruv, this is sufficient, because there is a Chazakah that a Shaliach does what he was asked to do. The Shulchan Aruch there cites what the Tur writes that he saw that the child gave it to the Shaliach.

2) The Biur Halacha cites Rashi and other Poskim who write that it is sufficient that he saw that the child reached the Shaliach and because of the Chazaka we can assume that he received the eruv and placed it down, but what is the source of the Tur that he must see it being given over?! This is similar to your question, Rav Heshi, which we now see is difficult on the Tur.

3) The Biur Halacha also asks on the Tur from the words of the Gemara, which asks; after we say that he saw the child carrying it; that we should be concerned that the Shaliach did not take it from the child. On this the Gemara answers that because of the Chazaka we can assume that he did take it. Why then does the Tur write that he must see that the child gave it to the Shaliach; the fact that there is a Chazaka should be sufficient?!

4) It seems to me that we can suggest an answer to the question of the Biur Halacha by saying that the Tur maintains that it is not enough that the child carried it there, because it is still possible that the Shaliach will not agree to accept it from the child. The Chazaka that the Shaliach does what is asked of him only takes effect once the Shaliach receives the eruv. The child might want to give it to the adult, but the adult might refuse to accept it. If however the adult does accept it, then the Chazaka tells me that we can assume that he will place it down as an Eruv.

5) The question of the Biur Halacha on the Tur from the words of the Gemara "we should be concerned that the Shaliach did not take it from the child?!" can be answered with the words of the Ritva, who writes that when the Gemara says that we should be concerned that the Shaliach will not accept it, this does not mean only that he will not accept it, but included in the Gemara's question is that even if he does accept, he may not do what he was asked to do, and may not place the eruv down. On this, the Gemara answers that there is a Chazaka that a Shaliach does carry out what he was asked to do.

Dovid Bloom