Commentary for Eruvin 136:15

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני צדוקי הרי הוא כנכרי ורבן גמליאל אומר צדוקי אינו כנכרי ואמר רבן גמליאל מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהיה דר עמנו במבוי בירושלים ואמר לנו אבא מהרו והוציאו את הכלים למבוי עד שלא יוציא ויאסר עליכם

holds the view that in the case of one who acted unwittingly a penalty has been imposed on account of one who acted with intention,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had the law been relaxed in the case of the former it might erroneously have been relaxed in that of the latter also.');">⁴⁶</span> while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah.');">⁴⁷</span> holds that in the case of one who acted unwittingly no penalty has been imposed on account of one who may act with intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case, however, of an intentional carrying out of all object since a renunciation cannot have the legal force of a sale, all agree that the act cancels the renunciation; provided only that the act preceded the tenants' acquisition of the renounced share.');">⁴⁸</span> R'Ashi said: Rab and Samuel differed on the same point of issue as the one between, R'Eliezer and the Rabbis.

Explore commentary for Eruvin 136:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.