Talmud for Eruvin 139:20
ואין שנים שלא עירבו נותנין רשותן לשנים שלא עירבו הא תו למה לי לא צריכא דאמרי קני על מנת להקנות
hence we were informed that the law was not so, because the former, at the time he made his renunciation, was not himself permitted the unrestricted use of that courtyard.' Nor may the two who did not join in an 'erub present their shares to the other two who also did not join'. What again was the need for this ruling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is implied in the preceding rulings.');"><sup>61</sup></span> -<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is apparently superfluous since in view of the fact that one tenant did not renounce his share the renunciation of the other alone cannot be effective.');"><sup>58</sup></span> t<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The superfluous repetition.');"><sup>64</sup></span>