עירובין 74

74:1

unless houses and courtyards opened into it; but Samuel ruled: Even one house and one courtyard suffices; while R. Johanan maintained: Even a ruin is sufficient. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did R. Johanan maintain his view even in the case of a path between vineyards? — R. Johanan, the other replied, only spoke of a ruin since it may be used as a dwelling, but not of a path between vineyards which cannot be used as a dwelling. Said R. Huna b. Hinena: R. Johanan here follows a principle of his. For we learned: R. Simeon ruled: Roofs, karpafs and courtyards are equally regarded as one domain in respect of carrying from one into the other objects that were kept within them when the Sabbath began, but not in respect of objects that were in the house when the Sabbath began; and Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon, provided no ‘erub had been prepared, but where an ‘erub had been prepared a preventive measure had been enacted against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses of one courtyard into some other courtyard; but Samuel stated: Whether and ‘erub had, or had not been prepared; and so also said R. Johanan: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon irrespective of whether all ‘erub’ bad, or had not been prepared. Thus it is evident that no preventive measure had been instituted against the possibility of carrying objects from the houses of one courtyard into some other courtyard, and so also here no preventive measure had been instituted against the possibility of carrying objects from the courtyard into the ruin. R. Berona was sitting at his studies and reporting this ruling when R. Eleazar, a student of the college, asked him: ‘Did Samuel say this?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. ‘Will you’, the first asked, ‘show me his lodgings?’ When the other showed it to him he approached Samuel and asked him, ‘Did the Master say this?’ — ‘Yes’, the other replied. ‘But’, he objected, ‘did not the Master state, in the laws of ‘erub we can only be guided by the wording of our Mishnah , viz., ‘that an alley to its courtyards is as a courtyard to its houses?’ Whereupon the other remained silent. Did he, or did he not accept it front him? — Come and hear of the case of a certain alley in which Eibuth b. Ihi lived and, when he furnished it with a side-post, Samuel allowed him its unrestricted use.

—

74:2

R. Anan subsequently came and threw it down when he exclaimed: I have been living undisturbed in this alley on the authority of Samuel, why should R. Anan b. Rab now come and throw its side-post down!’ May it not then be deduced from this that he did not accept it from him? — As a matter of fact it may still be maintained that he did accept it from him, but in this case a Synagogue superintendent who was having his meals in his own home came to spend his nights at the Synagogue. Eibuth b. Ihi [however] thought that one's dining place is the cause [of shittuf], while Samuel [in reality] was merely acting on his own principle he having laid down that one's night's lodging — place is the cause. Rab Judah citing Rab ruled: For an alley whose one side occupied by all idolater and its other side by an Israelite no ‘erub may be prepared through windows render the movement of objects permissible by way of the door into the alley. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did Rab give the same ruling even in respect of a courtyard? — Yes, the other replied, for if he had not given it I might have presumed that Rab's reason for his ruling was his opinion that the use of an alley cannot be rendered permissible by means of a side-post or cross-beam unless houses and courtyards opened into it; and [as to the objection:] What need was there for two [rulings it could be replied that both were] necessary: For if all our information had to be derived from the former ruling34

—