What’s better? TB Eruvin 32

To better understand today’s daf TB Eruvin 32, let me define or explain certain terms. A ḥaver (חבר) scrupulously follows all the agricultural laws before eating. He make sure that all the tithes have been separated in the ideal manner. Ideally the tithe must be taken from the produce that is adjacent to it (מִן הַמּוּקָּף), although if one doesn’t, the tithing still counts. An am ha’aretz (אם הארץ and amei ha’aretz is the plural) probably separates all the tithes; however, he is not scrupulous in his practice. Consequently, his produce is in a doubtful state because we don’t know whether he separated the tithes or not. His produce is called demai (דְּמַאי). The rabbis enacted as stringency that one needs to separate the tithes out before eating demai because of this doubt. Untithed produce is tevel (טֶבֶל) and is forbidden to be eaten by everybody. Teruma (תְּרוּמָה) is the portion given to the kohanim, priests.

“Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: That ḥaver, who heard the first ḥaver speaking to the am ha’aretz, may immediately eat from the basket, and he is not required to tithe the produce, as the first ḥaver certainly separated tithes for the person who picked the figs, as he would not have caused an am ha’aretz to eat tevel. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: That ḥaver may not eat of the fruit until he has tithed them, for ḥaverim are not suspected of separating teruma and tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: 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.

“The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that he commit a minor transgression, namely separating tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, so that an am ha’aretz will not commit the major transgression of eating tevel on his account. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that an am ha’aretz commit a major transgression, and that he himself not commit even a minor transgression.” Sefaria.org translation)

Is it preferable that a ḥaver commit a minor transgression (a rabbinic injunction) so that an am ha’aretz will not commit the major transgression (a Torah law)? Or is preferable to a ḥaver that an am ha’aretz commit a major transgression, and that he himself not commit even a minor transgression? The commentators are divided. Personally, I would have to agree in this case with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not his father Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.