Commentary for Eruvin 136:4

התם היינו טעמא כי היכי דלא ליהוי מלתא דרבנן כחוכא ואטלולא

'But are not both rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That (a) after a person renounced his right in a courtyard in favor of another the latter may not on the same Sabbath renounce it in favour of the former and (b) no tenant of one courtyard may renounce his right in it in favour of a tenant of another courtyard.');">¹¹</span> based on the same principle, since why indeed should not renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By one person in favour of another.');">⁷</span> be allowed to follow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the same Sabbath.');">⁸</span> renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the latter in favour of the former. Cf.infra 69b.');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 136:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.