Eruvin 6:2 - 6:3

מעשה בצדוקי – the Mishnah is deficient and it should be read as follows: A Sadducee is like an idolater. Rabban Gamaliel states that is he not like an idolater. “And it once happened with one Sadducee, etc. And Father said to us: Hurry up and fulfill all of your requirements before it (i.e., the eve of the Sabbath) departs and places restrictions upon you”; we learn from this that he is like a Jew/Israelite and is able to resign his possession and because he can resign his possession and go back and take it out, whether inadvertently or on purpose, he restricts us, as is mentioned further on. Because of this, Rabban Gamaliel states: “Hurry and perform your requirements before he removes his utensils to the courtyard and goes back and takes hold of his possessions that he cancelled and places restrictions upon you, but if he (i.e., the Sadducee) is like an idolater and an idolater is not able to resign his possessions until he rents it out, how is he able to prohibit you after he has rented it out and taken money?

ור"י אומר – Rabban Gamaliel did not say this, for Rabban Gamaliel holds that a Sadducee is always like an idolater. And this incident is not a proof for this is how Rabban Gamaliel spoke to them: “Hurry up and fulfill all of your requirements on the Eve of Shabbat before it gets dark, and not until he doesn’t remove his utensils as you have stated, but until the day hasn’t yet departed and it places restrictions upon you. And the legal decision is that any Jew who violates the Sabbath in public is like an idolater, and we don’t prepare an Eruv with him and he doesn’t resign possession (i.e., a legal fiction by which the carrying of objects on the Sabbath from one’s own place to one common to several persons, may be permitted) but we rent from him in the same manner that we rent from the idolater, and the person who observes the Sabbath in public, even though he might violate it in private and does not recognize the designation/concept of Eruv such as the Sadducees at this time, who observe the Sabbath but do not recognize the designation/concept of Eruv, we do not make an Eruv with him but he can resign possession and one doesn’t need to rent from him and he isn’t necessarily an idolater.

ביתו אסור להכניס ולהוציא – from his house to the courtyard whether he or the people of the courtyard. And like the case where he resigned possession of his courtyard (i.e., a legal fiction by which the carrying of objects on the Sabbath from one’s own place to one common to several persons, may be permitted), meaning to say the part that he shares with them in the courtyard, but he did not resign possession of his house for this Tanna/teacher holds what he resigns is resigned and what he did not resign, he did not resign, therefore, his house is his domain and the courtyard is their domain.

ושלהם – their homes it is permitted to remove from them to the courtyard, whether he or them for their homes and the courtyard are one domain and even though he did not make an Eruv, he is a guest regarding them for a guest can carry in the domain of his hospitality lodging.

נתנו לו – they [gave him] the domain of their courtyard, he is permitted to remove [something] from his house to the courtyard, for everything is like his domain, but they are prohibited even to carry from his house to the courtyard for they are not guests relating to him, for one in connection with many is considered a guest, but the many in connection with the individual are not considered guests.

היו שנים – [two] who did not make an Eruv and the rest of the members of the courtyard resigned possession to them, both of them are forbidden to each other because the courtyard belongs to both of them but the homes are specific – each home to its specific owner and one cannot take out from a domain that is specifically his to that domain which is (both) his and that of his fellow. But even though one of them retracted and resigned possession to his neighbor, it is of no effect, since at the time that the members of the courtyard resigned their possession to these two [individuals] who had not made an Eruv, they prohibit each other, it is found that the first resigning had no effect, and when he resigned possession once again, he was not able to acquire his own possession. Therefore, the members of a courtyard, someone of whom had made an Eruv and some of whom had not made an Eruv, those who had not made an Eruv had resigned their possession to those who had made an Eruv but those who had made an Eruv did not resign their possession to those who had not made an Eruv and they restrict each other, as it was stated, that a person who resigned his possession to the members of the courtyard must explicitly resign their ownership to each one individually.