Parallel
עירובין 71:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
R. Joseph. however, replied: R. Simeon and the Rabbis differ on the same principle as that on which R. Johanan b. Nuri and the Rabbis differ. For we learned: If some oil floated on wine and a tebul yom touched the oil, he causes the oil only to be unfit; but R. Johanan b. Nuri ruled: They both form a connection with each other. The Rabbis may hold the same view as the Rabbis while R. Simeon may hold the same view as R. Johanan b. Nuri. It was taught: R. Eleazar b. Taddai ruled: In either case it is necessary for them to join in an erub. Even if the partnership was with the one In wine and with the other also in wine? Rabbah explained: Where this [householder] comes with his lagin [of wine] and pours [it into the common cask] and the other comes with his lagin and pours it in, no one disputes the ruling that this alone is a valid ‘erub. They only differ where the householders bought a cask of wine in partnership. R. Eleazar b. Taddai is of the opinion that there is no such rule as bererah while the Rabbis maintain that the rule of bererah holds good. R. Joseph explained: R. Eleazar b. Taddai and the Rabbis differ on the question whether it is permissible to rely upon shittuf where an ‘erub is required. the one Master holding that It is not permissible to rely on it while the Masters maintain that it is permissible to rely on it. Said R. Joseph: Whence do I derive this? [From the following:] Since Rab Judah stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Meir’ and R. Berona stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Taddai’. Now what is the reason? Obviously because both rulings are based on the same principle. Said Abaye to him: If the principle is the same what need was there to lay down the halachah, twice? — It is of this that we are informed: That in matters of ‘erub we [sometimes] adopt two restrictive rulings. What is the ruling of R. Meir and what is that of the Rabbis? [Those about which] it was taught: An ‘erub of courtyards must be prepared with bread; but wine, even if preferred. may not be Used for ‘erub, Shittuf of an alley may be done even with wine; but bread, if preferred. may [obviously] be used for the shittuf. An ‘erub must be prepared for courtyards even where shittuf is arranged for the alleys in order that the law of ‘erub may not be forgotten by the children who might believe that their fathers had been preparing no ‘erub; so R. Meir. The Sages, however, ruled: Either ‘erub or shittuf [is enough]. R. Nehumi and Rabbah differ on the interpretation of this statement. One maintains that in the case of bread no one disputes the ruling that one is enough and that they only differ in the case of wine,
—