Parallel
עירובין 48:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
in two houses. In agreement with whose view? Is it in agreement with that of Beth Shammai since it was taught: If five residents collected their ‘erub and deposited it in two receptacles, their, ‘erub, Beth Shammai ruled, is invalid and Beth Hillel ruled: Their ‘erub is valid? — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of Beth Hillel, since Beth Hillel might have maintained their view Only there where the ‘erub, though kept in two receptacles, was in one and the same house, but not here where it was kept in two houses. Said R. Aha son of R. Iwia to R. Ashi: A difficulty presents itself on the interpretation of Rab Judah as well as on that of R. Shesheth. On Rab Judah's interpretation the following difficulty arises: As he explained that ‘This was a case, for instance, where the middle one deposited its ‘erub in the one courtyard and its other ‘erub in the other courtyard’, and since the middle one, having first joined in an ‘erub with one of the outer ones, constituted with it one domain, does it not, when it subsequently joins in an ‘erub with the other, act on behalf of the former also? On the interpretation of R. Shesheth also a difficulty arises: Why should not this case be subject to the same law as that of five men who resided in one courtyard and one of whom had forgotten to contribute his share to their ‘erub, where these men impose upon one another the prescribed restrictions in the use of that courtyard? — R. Ashi replied: There is really no difficulty either on the view of Rab Judah or on that of R. Shesheth. On that of Rab Judah there is no difficulty because, since the residents of the middle courtyard joined in an ‘erub with those of each of the outer ones while the latter did not join one another in a common ‘erub, they have thereby intimated that they were satisfied with the former association but not with the latter. On the view of R. Shesheth too there is really no difficulty. For would the Rabbis who regarded [the people of the outer courtyards as] residents [of the middle one] in order to relax the law also treat them as its residents to impose additional restrictions? Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab: ‘This is the view of R. Simeon. The Sages, however, ruled: The one domain may be used by the residents of the two but the two domains may not be used by the residents of the one. When I recited this in the presence of Samuel he said to me:
—