Eruvin 136

ניתיב מר בדוכתיה וניבטיל להו לדידהו וניהדרו אינהו וניבטלו ליה למר דהא אמר רב מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין

let him remain<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of moving into the women's quarters.');">¹</span> in his usual quarters<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in his place'.');">²</span> and renounce his right in his courtyard in their<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tenants of the child's courtyard.');">³</span> favour and then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After they had taken the water to the child.');">⁴</span>

אנא בהא כשמואל סבירא לי דאמר אין מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין

let them renounce their right<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Raba's courtyard.');">⁵</span> in the Master's favour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, in consequence, would again be allowed the free use of his courtyard.');">⁶</span> for did not Rab rule: Renunciaton<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By one person in favour of another.');">⁷</span> may be followed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the same Sabbath.');">⁸</span>

ולאו חד טעמא הוא מ"ט אין מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין לאו משום דכיון דבטליה לרשותיה אסתלק ליה מהכא לגמרי והוה ליה כבן חצר אחרת ואין ביטול רשות מחצר לחצר מר נמי לא ניבטיל

by renunciation? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the part of the latter in favour of the former. Cf.infra 69b.');">⁹</span> - 'On this point I am of the same opinion as Samuel who ruled: Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By one person in favour of another.');">⁷</span> may not be followed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the same Sabbath.');">⁸</span> by renunciation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. prev. n. and infra 79b.');">¹⁰</span>

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>

גופא רב אמר מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין ושמואל אמר אין מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין

Is it not because a person, as soon as he renounces his right.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To his share in a courtyard.');">¹²</span> completely eliminates himself from that place and assumes the status of a tenant of a different courtyard and no renunciation is valid between two courtyards? How then<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since on adopting one ruling the adoption of the other is inevitable.');">¹³</span> could the Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Master also should not'.');">¹⁴</span>

לימא רב ושמואל בפלוגתא דרבנן ור' אליעזר קא מיפלגי

renounce his right?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In favour of the tenants of the child's courtyard.');">¹⁵</span> _ 'There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling of Samuel that 'renunciation may not be followed by renunciation'.');">¹⁶</span> the reason is this:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the one suggested by the questioner.');">¹⁷</span> That a Rabbinical enactment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition to move objects from one courtyard into another without 'erub.');">¹⁸</span>

דרב דאמר כרבנן ושמואל דאמר כר"א

shall not assume<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By repeated renunciations and the consequent freedom in the moving of objects between courtyards without any further legal preliminaries.');">¹⁹</span> the character of a mockery and jest. [To turn to] the main text: Rab ruled: Renunciation may be followed by renunciation, and Samuel ruled: Renunciation may not be followed by renunciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra q.v. notes.');">²⁰</span> Must it be assumed that Rab and Samuel differ on the same principle as that on which the Rabbis and R'Eliezer differed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 26b.');">²¹</span>

אמר לך רב אנא דאמרי אפי' לרבי אליעזר עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר התם המבטל רשות חצירו רשות ביתו ביטל משום דבבית בלא חצר לא דיירי אינשי אבל לענין איסתלוקי מי אמר

Rab holding the same opinion as the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who laid down (v. Mishnah infra 69b and its explanation in the Gemara following it) that if one of the tenants forgot to contribute his share to the 'erub of his neighbour's in a courtyard, but on the Sabbath renounced his right to share in the courtyard in their favour, it is forbidden both to him and to them to carry any objects from his house into the courtyard or from the courtyard into his house; from which it is evident that, though a man renounced his right in a courtyard, he is not ipso facto assumed to have renounced his right to his house also. Thus it follows that a tenant's renunciation is not regarded as his complete elimination; that he is still a legitimate tenant of the same courtyard; and that, in agreement with Rab, the other tenants may renounce in his favour the rights he previously renounced in their favour.');">²²</span> while Samuel holds the same opinion as R'Eliezer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled (cf. supra 26b) that he who renounces his rights to his courtyard renounces ipso facto his rights to his house also; from which it follows that a tenant's renunciation is regarded as his complete elimination from his courtyard, that he assumes in consequence the status of a tenant of a different courtyard; and that, in agreement with the view of Samuel, the other tenants may not renounce in his favour the rights he previously conceded to them.');">²³</span> Rab can answer you: I may uphold my ruling even in accordance with the view of R'Eliezer; for it was only there that R'Eliezer maintained his ruling that the man who renounces his right to his courtyard renounces ipso facto his right to his house also, because people do not live in a house that has no courtyard, but did he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer.');">²⁴</span> express any opinion as regards complete elimination?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., that the man in question Should be regarded as the tenant of a different courtyard in whose favour consequently his neighbours should not be allowed to renounce their rights? No such opinion having been expressed, R. Eliezer may well be assumed to share the view advanced by Rab that renunciation may be followed by renunciation'.');">²⁵</span>

ושמואל אמר אנא דאמרי אפילו כרבנן עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא מאי דבטיל בטיל ודלא בטיל לא בטיל אבל מאי דבטיל מיהא איסתלק לגמרי

Samuel also can answer you: l may uphold my ruling even according to the view of the Rabbis; for it was only there that the Rabbis maintained their ruling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the renunciation of a tenant's Share in a courtyard does not imply his renunciation to his rights in his house.');">²⁶</span> since only that which a man actually renounced can be deemed to have been renounced while that which he did not actually renounce cannot be so regarded, but from that at least which a man does renounce he is eliminated completely.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the tenant in question renounced his right to the courtyard he must be regarded as a tenant of a different courtyard in whose favour no right in the former courtyard may subsequently be renounced.');">²⁷</span> R'Aha B'Hana<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' MS.M., 'Rabbah b. Bar Hana'.');">²⁸</span> citing R'Shesheth stated: Their views<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of Rab and Samuel on the question of a renunciation that followed a renunciation.');">²⁹</span>

אמר רב אחא בר חנא אמר רב ששת כתנאי מי שנתן רשותו והוציא בין בשוגג בין במזיד אוסר דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר במזיד אוסר בשוגג אינו אוסר

[differ on the same principles] as those of the following Tannas: If a tenant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who forgot to join in the 'erub of his neighbours in a courtyard.');">³⁰</span> presented<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath, to his neighbours.');">³¹</span> his shares<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the courtyard into which their houses opened.');">³²</span> and then he carried out something,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the courtyard into which their houses opened.');">³²</span>

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין ומר סבר אין מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין

whether he acted unwittingly or intentionally, he imposes restrictions;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the " use="" of="" the="" courtyard="" by="" all="" tenants.="" his="" carrying="" object="" into="" is="" regarded="" as="" an="" act="" re-acquisition="" share="" he="" had="" previously="" renounced="" in="" favour="" other="" tenants.');"="">³³</span> so R'Meir. R'Judah ruled: If he acted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When carrying out an object.');">³⁴</span> with intention he imposes restrictions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the " use="" of="" the="" courtyard="" by="" all="" tenants.="" his="" carrying="" object="" into="" is="" regarded="" as="" an="" act="" re-acquisition="" share="" he="" had="" previously="" renounced="" in="" favour="" other="" tenants.');"="">³³</span>

אמר רב אחא בר תחליפא משמיה דרבא לא דכ"ע אין מבטלין וחוזרין ומבטלין והכא בקנסו שוגג אטו מזיד קא מיפלגי מ"ס קנסו שוגג אטו מזיד ומר סבר לא קנסו שוגג אטו מזיד

but if unwittingly he does not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' infra 69b.');">³⁵</span> Now, do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and R. Judah.');">³⁶</span> not differ on the following principles: One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir who ruled that restrictions are imposed even where an object had been carried out unwittingly, from which it follows that the renunciation is not regarded as the tenant's complete elimination.');">³⁷</span> holding that renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since elimination is incomplete (cf. prev. n.) and the tenant in question is still denied to be living in the same courtyard.');">³⁸</span>

רב אשי אמר רב ושמואל בפלוגתא דר"א ורבנן קא מיפלגי:

may be followed by renunciation, while the other Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah who ruled that if an object was carried out unwittingly no restrictions are imposed, from which it follows that a renunciation results in so complete an elimination that only an intentional act can revoke it.');">³⁹</span> maintains that renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Resulting as it does in the tenant's complete elimination (et prev. n.) .');">⁴⁰</span> may not be followed by renunciation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently they do. Must it then be assumed that both Rab and Samuel differ from one or other of the Tannas mentioned?');">⁴¹</span> - R'Aha B'Tahlifa replied in the name of Raba: No; all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even R. Meir.');">⁴²</span>

אמר רבן גמליאל מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהיה דר עמנו: צדוקי מאן דכר שמיה

hold the view that renunciation may not be followed by renunciation but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the objection: Why does R. Meir impose restrictions even where the tenant acted unwittingly?');">⁴³</span> the point at Issue between them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It. Meir and R. Judah.');">⁴⁴</span> is whether a penalty has been imposed in the case of one who acted unwittingly on account of one who acted intentionally. One Master<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir.');">⁴⁵</span>

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.

והתניא הדר עם נכרי צדוקי וביתוסי הרי אלו אוסרין עליו (רבן גמליאל אומר צדוקי וביתוסי אינן אוסרין) ומעשה בצדוקי אחד שהיה דר עם רבן גמליאל במבוי בירושלים ואמר להם רבן גמליאל לבניו בני מהרו והוציאו מה שאתם מוציאין והכניסו מה שאתם מכניסין עד שלא יוציא התועב הזה ויאסר עליכם שהרי ביטל רשותו לכם דברי רבי מאיר

R'GAMALIEL RELATED: A SADDUCEE ONCE LIVED WITH US. Who ever spoke of A SADDUCEE?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None; the Mishnah having dealt with a heathen oily. Why then does It. Gamaliel introduce the Sadducee as if some one had given a different ruling concerning him?');">⁴⁹</span> - A clause is missing, and this is the correct reading:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of our MISHNAH:');">⁵⁰</span> A Sadducee has the same status as a gentile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cannot renounce his right to his share in a courtyard by a mere declaration.');">⁵¹</span>

רבי יהודה אומר בלשון אחרת מהרו ועשו צורכיכם במבוי עד שלא תחשך ויאסר עליכם

but R'Gamaliel ruled: A Sadducee has not the status of a gentile. AND R'GAMALIEL RELATED: A SADDUCEE ONCE LIVED WITH US IN THE SAME ALLEY IN JERUSALEM. AND FATHER TOLD US: 'HASTEN AND CARRY OUT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as the Sabbath begins.');">⁵²</span> ALL THE NECESSARY ARTICLES INTO THE ALLEY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus acquiring possession of it.');">⁵³</span>

אמר מר הוציאו מה שאתם מוציאין והכניסו מה שאתם מכניסין עד שלא יוציא התועב הזה ויאסר עליכם למימרא דכי מפקי אינהו והדר מפיק איהו לא אסר

BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT HIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And re-acquires his right to his share.');">⁵⁴</span> AND THEREBY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU'. And so<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That, as has just been explained, the Rabbis differ from R. Gamaliel in the case of a Sadducee.');">⁵⁵</span> it was also taught: If a man lives [in the same alley] with a gentile, a Sadducee or a Boethusian, these impose restrictions upon him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his use of the alley on the Sabbath. Cur. edd. in parenthesis, 'R. Gamaliel ruled: A Sadducee and a Boethusian impose no restrictions'.');">⁵⁶</span> and it once happened that a Sadducee lived with R'Gamaliel in the same alley in Jerusalem, and R'Gamaliel said to his sons, 'Hasten my sons and carry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as the Sabbath begins.');">⁵²</span> Out what you desire to carry Out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the Sabbath. uthmuvu');">⁵⁷</span> or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Tosaf. s.v. a.l.');">⁵⁸</span> take in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as the Sabbath begins.');">⁵²</span> what you desire to take in,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the Sabbath. uthmuvu');">⁵⁷</span> before this abomination carries out his articles and thereby imposes restrictions upon you, since [at that moment] he renounced his share in your favour'; So R'Meir. R'Judah related, [The instruction was given] in a different form: 'Hasten and attend to your requirements in the alley before nightfall when he would impose restrictions upon you'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his opinion R. Gamaliel regards a Sadducee as a gentile and no renunciation of his is valid.');">⁵⁹</span> The Master said, 'Carry out what you desire to carry out or bring in what you desire to bring in, before this abomination imposes restrictions upon you'. This then implies that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Meir.');">⁶⁰</span> if they carried out their objects first and then he carried out his he imposes no restrictions upon them'.