Commentary for Eruvin 139:1
ליגזר דילמא אתי לבטולי להו קמ"ל:
that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The presentation of their shares by two tenants to one.');"><sup>1</sup></span> should be forbidden, as a preventive measure against the possible assumption that one may also renounce his share in favour of two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he might come to renounce for them'.');"><sup>2</sup></span> hence we were informed that no such possibility need be considered. BUT MAY NOT ACQUIRE ANY. What need was there for this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is virtually a repetition of the previous ruling. 'TWO ... IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS UPON ONE ANOTHER'.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Eruvin 139:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.