But have we not learnt: If a tenant presented his share and then he carried out something, whether he acted unwittingly or intentionally, he imposes restrictions; so R. Meir? — R. Joseph replied. Read: He imposes no restrictions. Abaye replied: There is no contradiction, the former dealing with a case where the residents of the alley had taken possession of the alley while the latter deals with one where the residents of the alley had not taken possession of the alley; and so it was also taught: If he carried out an object before he had renounced his share, whether he acted unwittingly or intentionally, he is entitled to renounce his right; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: If he acted unwittingly he is entitled to renounce his right but if he acted with intention he is no longer entitled to renounce his right. He who presented his share and then carried out an object. whether he acted unwittingly or with intention, he imposes restrictions; so R. Meir. R. Judah ruled: If he acted with intention he imposes restrictions but if unwittingly he does not. This, however, applies only where the residents of the alley did not take possession of the alley. but where they did take possession of it he imposes no restrictions upon them irrespective of whether he acted unwittingly or intentionally. The Master said: ‘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 in you".’ From this it is evident that he is regarded as a gentile; but have we not learnt. BEFORE HE CARRIES OUT? — Read: Before the conclusion of the day. And if you prefer I might say: There is really no contradiction since the former might refer to one who is a mumar in respect of desecrating the Sabbath in privacy only, while the latter might deal with one who desecrates the Sabbath in public. Whose view is followed in what was taught: ‘A mumar or a barefaced sinner is not entitled to renounce his share’? — But is a barefaced sinner on a par with a mumar? — Rather read: ‘A barefaced mumar is not entitled to renounce his share’. Now in agreement with whose [view has this been laid down]? — In agreement, of course, with that of R. Judah. A certain man once went out with a jewelled charm but when he observed R. Judah Nesi'ah he covered it up. ‘A person of this type’, [the Master said.] ‘is in accordance with the view of R. Judah entitled to renounce his share’. R. Huna stated: Who is regarded as an Israelite in mumar? He who desecrates the Sabbath in public. Said R. Nahman to him: In agreement with whose view? If [it be suggested that it is] in agreement with that of R. Meir who holds that a person who is suspected of disregarding one matter [of law] is held suspect in regard to all the Torah, the statement should also apply to any of the other prohibitions of the Torah; and if [it is suggested that it is] in agreement with the view of the Rabbis, did they not rule, it may be objected, that one who is suspected of disregarding one law is not held suspected in regard to all the Torahᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡ