Eruvin

let him remain1 in his usual quarters2 and renounce his right in his courtyard in their3 favour and then4 let them renounce their right5 in the Master's favour,6 for did not Rab rule: Renunciaton7 may be followed8 by renunciation?’9 — ‘On this point I am of the same opinion as Samuel who ruled: Renunciation7 may not be followed8 by renunciation’.10 ‘But are not both rulings11 based on the same principle, since why indeed should not renunciation7 be allowed to follow8 renunciation?9 Is it not because a person, as soon as he renounces his right.12 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 then13 could the Master14 renounce his right?15 _ ‘There16 the reason is this:17 That a Rabbinical enactment18 shall not assume19 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.20 Must it be assumed that Rab and Samuel differ on the same principle as that on which the Rabbis and R. Eliezer differed,21 Rab holding the same opinion as the Rabbis22 while Samuel holds the same opinion as R. Eliezer?23 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 he24 express any opinion as regards complete elimination?25 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,26 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.27 R. Aha b. Hana28 citing R. Shesheth stated: Their views29 [differ on the same principles] as those of the following Tannas: If a tenant30 presented31 his shares32 and then he carried out something,32 whether he acted unwittingly or intentionally, he imposes restrictions;33 so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: If he acted34 with intention he imposes restrictions,33 but if unwittingly he does not.35 Now, do they36 not differ on the following principles: One Master37 holding that renunciation38 may be followed by renunciation, while the other Master39 maintains that renunciation40 may not be followed by renunciation?41 — R. Aha b. Tahlifa replied in the name of Raba: No; all42 hold the view that renunciation may not be followed by renunciation but43 the point at Issue between them44 is whether a penalty has been imposed in the case of one who acted unwittingly on account of one who acted intentionally. One Master 45 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,46 while the other Master47 holds that in the case of one who acted unwittingly no penalty has been imposed on account of one who may act with intention.48 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?49 — A clause is missing, and this is the correct reading:50 A Sadducee has the same status as a gentile,51 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 OUT52 ALL THE NECESSARY ARTICLES INTO THE ALLEY53 BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT HIS54 AND THEREBY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS UPON YOU’. And so55 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;56 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 carry52 Out what you desire to carry Out57 or58 take in52 what you desire to take in,57 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’. 59 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 that60 if they carried out their objects first and then he carried out his he imposes no restrictions upon them’. 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. further legal preliminaries. 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. 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. 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’. courtyard in whose favour no right in the former courtyard may subsequently be renounced. re-acquisition of the share he had previously renounced in favour of the other tenants. it follows that the renunciation is not regarded as the tenant's complete elimination. courtyard. that a renunciation results in so complete an elimination that only an intentional act can revoke it. mentioned? sale, all agree that the act cancels the renunciation; provided only that the act preceded the tenants’ acquisition of the renounced share. one had given a different ruling concerning him? impose no restrictions’.