Parallel
עירובין 68:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
let him remain in his usual quarters and renounce his right in his courtyard in their favour and then let them renounce their right in the Master's favour, for did not Rab rule: Renunciaton may be followed by renunciation?’ — ‘On this point I am of the same opinion as Samuel who ruled: Renunciation may not be followed by renunciation’. ‘But are not both rulings based on the same principle, since why indeed should not renunciation be allowed to follow renunciation? Is it not because a person, as soon as he renounces his right. 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 could the Master renounce his right? _ ‘There the reason is this: That a Rabbinical enactment shall not assume 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. Must it be assumed that Rab and Samuel differ on the same principle as that on which the Rabbis and R. Eliezer differed, Rab holding the same opinion as the Rabbis while Samuel holds the same opinion as R. Eliezer? 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 express any opinion as regards complete elimination? 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, 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. R. Aha b. Hana citing R. Shesheth stated: Their views [differ on the same principles] as those of the following Tannas: If a tenant presented his shares and then he carried out something, whether he acted unwittingly or intentionally, he imposes restrictions; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: If he acted with intention he imposes restrictions, but if unwittingly he does not. Now, do they not differ on the following principles: One Master holding that renunciation may be followed by renunciation, while the other Master maintains that renunciation may not be followed by renunciation? — R. Aha b. Tahlifa replied in the name of Raba: No; all hold the view that renunciation may not be followed by renunciation but the point at Issue between them is whether a penalty has been imposed in the case of one who acted unwittingly on account of one who acted intentionally. One Master 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, while the other Master holds that in the case of one who acted unwittingly no penalty has been imposed on account of one who may act with intention. R. Ashi said: Rab and Samuel differed on the same point of issue as the one between, R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. R. GAMALIEL RELATED: A SADDUCEE ONCE LIVED WITH US. Who ever spoke of A SADDUCEE? — A clause is missing, and this is the correct reading: A Sadducee has the same status as a gentile, 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 ALL THE NECESSARY ARTICLES INTO THE ALLEY BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT HIS AND THEREBY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU’. And so 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; 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 Out what you desire to carry Out or take in what you desire to take in, 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’. 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 if they carried out their objects first and then he carried out his he imposes no restrictions upon them’.
—