וְהָתְנַן מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּתוֹ וְהוֹצִיא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — אוֹסֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. But didn’t we learn elsewhere in the mishna: If one gave away his rights in his courtyard to the other residents of the courtyard, renouncing them after having forgotten to establish an eiruv with them the previous day, and then he carried something out from his house into the courtyard, whether unwittingly or intentionally, he again renders it prohibited for all the residents of the courtyard to carry; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This indicates that according to Rabbi Meir, even if the resident carried something into the courtyard on Shabbat itself, he cancels his renunciation, contrary to Rabbi Meir’s own statement in the mishna with regard to a Sadducee.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֵימָא ״אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר״. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בְּנֵי מָבוֹי בַּמָּבוֹי, כָּאן — שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיקוּ בְּנֵי מָבוֹי בַּמָּבוֹי. Rav Yosef said: Say that Rabbi Meir’s statement should read instead: He does not render it prohibited. Abaye said: It is not difficult, as the contradiction between the two teachings of Rabbi Meir can be resolved as follows: Here, where the Sadducee cannot cancel his renunciation, it refers to a case where the residents of the alleyway had already taken possession of the alleyway before he brought out his vessels; whereas here, where the Jew cancels his renunciation, it refers to a case where the residents of the alleyway had not taken possession of the alleyway prior to his act of carrying.
וְהָתַנְיָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן רְשׁוּתוֹ, הוֹצִיא בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל, בְּמֵזִיד אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל. And similarly, it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who failed to join in an eiruv with the other residents of his alleyway, if he carried something from his house into the alleyway before he gave away, i.e., renounced, his rights in the alleyway, whether unwittingly or intentionally, he can still renounce his rights; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he unwittingly carried from his house into the alleyway, he can still renounce his rights, but if he did so intentionally, he cannot renounce them, for one who publicly transgresses the words of the Sages and intentionally desecrates Shabbat has the status of a gentile.
מִי שֶׁנָּתַן רְשׁוּתוֹ וְהוֹצִיא, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד — אוֹסֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמֵזִיד אוֹסֵר, בְּשׁוֹגֵג אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיקוּ בְּנֵי מָבוֹי בַּמָּבוֹי, אֲבָל הֶחְזִיקוּ בְּנֵי מָבוֹי בַּמָּבוֹי, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג וּבֵין בְּמֵזִיד — אֵינוֹ אוֹסֵר. However, if one already gave away, i.e., renounced, his rights in the alleyway, and then he carried something from his house into the alleyway, whether unwittingly or intentionally, he renders prohibited all the residents’ use of the alleyway, for his action cancels his renunciation; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he did it intentionally, he renders carrying prohibited; but if he carried inadvertently, he does not render carrying prohibited. In what case is this statement said? In a case where the residents of the alleyway had not already taken possession of the alleyway. But if the residents of the alleyway had already taken possession of the alleyway before he carried something into the alleyway, all agree that whether he did it unwittingly or intentionally, he does not render prohibited their use of the alleyway.
אָמַר מָר: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֶרֶת: מַהֲרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ צוֹרְכֵיכֶם בַּמָּבוֹי עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֶּחְשַׁךְ וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם. אַלְמָא גּוֹי הוּא. וְהָא אֲנַן ״עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא״ תְּנַן! The Master said above in the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Rabban Gamliel spoke to them with a different formulation, saying: Hurry, and do whatever you must do in the alleyway prior to Shabbat, before night falls, and he will render prohibited your use of the alleyway. It is apparent from this statement that a Sadducee is considered a gentile, whose renunciation of his rights in an alleyway is ineffective. But didn’t we learn in the mishna that according to Rabbi Yehuda, he said: Hurry, and do whatever you have to do before he takes out [yotzi] his vessels and renders prohibited your use of the alleyway, which implies that until then they may in fact use the alleyway; that is, his renunciation is effective?
אֵימָא ״עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא הַיּוֹם״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — בְּמוּמָר לְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּצִנְעָא, כָּאן — בְּמוּמָר לְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna should read as follows: Hurry, and do whatever you have to do before the day goes out [yotzi hayom], i.e., before the end of Friday. And if you wish, say: It is not difficult. Here, where the mishna implies that a Sadducee may renounce his rights in an alleyway, it refers to an apostate of the kind who desecrates Shabbat in private; here, where the baraita implies that a Sadducee may not renounce his rights in an alleyway, it refers to an apostate who desecrates Shabbat in public [befarhesya]. Such a person is likened to a gentile in all regards, and therefore he may not renounce his rights in the alleyway.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: מוּמָר וְגִילּוּי פָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת. גִּילּוּי פָּנִים — מוּמָר הָוֵי? The Gemara comments: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: An apostate or a brazen-faced person may not renounce his rights in favor of his neighbors. Before discussing the halakha itself, the Gemara wonders at the phrase brazen-faced person. It would appear to mean an impudent person who acts against the Torah in a brazen manner, but is not such a one an apostate? Why then are the two listed separately?
אֶלָּא: מוּמָר בְּגִילּוּי פָּנִים — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת, כְּמַאן כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. Rather, read the baraita as follows: A brazen-faced apostate, i.e., one who publicly displays his deviation from Torah, may not renounce his rights in favor of his neighbors. In accordance with whose opinion was this stated? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
הָהוּא דִּנְפַק בְּחוּמַרְתָּא דִמְדוּשָׁא. כֵּיוָן דְּחַזְיֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה, כַּסְּיַיהּ. אָמַר: כְּגוֹן זֶה מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. The Gemara now relates that a certain person went out with a coral ring into the public domain, and it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. When he saw Rabbi Yehuda Nesia approaching, he quickly covered it. Although he was desecrating the Shabbat, he did not want the Sage to see it. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said: A person such as this, who is careful not to desecrate Shabbat in public, may renounce his rights in his courtyard according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אֵיזֶהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר — זֶה הַמְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר: חָשׁוּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד, — חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶחָד מִכׇּל אִיסּוּרִין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה נָמֵי. In connection with the preceding discussion with regard to one who does not conform to Torah law, Rav Huna said: Who is an apostate Jew? This is one who desecrates Shabbat in public. Rav Naḥman said to him: In accordance with whose opinion did you say this? If he said this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One who is suspected of transgressing one matter, i.e., someone who is known to have committed one transgression, is suspected of transgressing the entire Torah, he should be considered an apostate even if he transgresses one of all the other prohibitions of the Torah as well, and not necessarily one as severe as Shabbat desecration.
אִי כְּרַבָּנַן, הָאָמְרִי: חָשׁוּד לְדָבָר אֶחָד לָא הָוֵי חָשׁוּד לְכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ, If he said this in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is difficult. Didn’t they say: One who is suspected of transgressing one matter is not suspected of transgressing the entire Torah,