Eruvin — Daf 74a

עד שיהו בתים וחצירות פתוחין לתוכו ושמואל אמר אפילו בית אחד וחצר אחת ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו חורבה

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן אפילו בשביל של כרמים אמר ליה לא אמר רבי יוחנן אלא בחורבה דחזי לדירה אבל שביל של כרמים דלא חזי לדירה לא

אמר רב הונא בר חיננא ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דתנן (אמר ר"ש) אחד גגות ואחד קרפיפות ואחד חצרות רשות אחת הן לכלים ששבתו לתוכן ולא לכלים ששבתו בתוך הבית

ואמר רב הלכה כר"ש והוא שלא עירבו אבל עירבו גזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחצר

ושמואל אמר בין עירבו ובין לא עירבו וכן א"ר יוחנן הלכה כר"ש בין עירבו ובין לא עירבו אלמא לא גזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דבתים לחצר הכא נמי לא גזרינן דילמא אתי לאפוקי מאני דחצר לחורבה

יתיב רב ברונא וקאמר להא שמעתא א"ל ר"א בר בי רב אמר שמואל הכי א"ל אין א"ל אחוי לי אושפיזיה אחוי ליה אתא לקמיה דשמואל אמר ליה אמר מר הכי אמר ליה אין

והא מר הוא דאמר אין לנו בעירובין אלא כלשון משנתינו שהמבוי לחצירות כחצר לבתים אישתיק

קבלה מיניה או לא קבלה מיניה ת"ש דההוא מבואה דהוה דייר ביה איבות בר איהי עבד ליה לחייא ושרא ליה שמואל

unless houses and courtyards opened into it;1 but Samuel ruled: Even one house2 and one courtyard3 suffices; while R. Johanan maintained: Even a ruin4 is sufficient. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Did R. Johanan maintain his view even in the case of a path between vineyards?5 — 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. Johanan6 here follows a principle of his. For we learned: R. Simeon ruled: Roofs, karpafs and courtyards7 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;8 and Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon,9 provided no ‘erub10 had been prepared,11 but where an ‘erub10 had been prepared12 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 ‘erub13 had, or had not been prepared;14 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 that15 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 here16 no preventive measure had been instituted against the possibility of carrying objects from the courtyard 17 into the ruin.18 R. Berona was sitting at his studies and reporting this ruling19 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 courtyards20 is as a courtyard to its houses?’ 20 Whereupon the other remained silent. Did he,21 or did he not accept it front him?22 — 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. that alley instead of a second courtyard with a house. unless an ‘erub had been duly prepared. that were in the houses which the Sabbath commenced could be found in the courtyard. Hence there is no need to provide against the possibility that the tenants might forgetfully carry any such objects into some other courtyard. houses. may be carried. (A ruin, since excluded from the category of dwelling-places, does not affect the use of an alley by the tenants of its courtyards and does not join in its shittuf).