עירובין 74:2 — Soncino English Talmud

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^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ

^ᵃnote:After Samuel's death.
^ᵇnote:The side-post.
^ᶜnote:Because the alley, beside the Synagogue (v. infra) contained only one courtyard and one house.
^ᵈnote:Eibuth b. Ihi.
^ᵉnote:Lit., ‘and coming’.
^ᶠnote:Sc. was permitted its unrestricted use on account of the side-post.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘from the name’. MS.M., ‘since the time’.
^ʰnote:Lit., ‘should throw it down from’; MS.M. ‘from it’.
^ⁱnote:Samuel.
^ʲnote:Apparently it may; for if he had accepted it he would not leave permitted the unrestricted use of the alley (cf. supra p. 516, n. 13).
^ᵏnote:Samuel having eventually come round to the view of Rab.
^ˡnote:As to the objection why Samuel allowed the unrestricted use of the alley.
^ᵐnote:Of the alley of Eibuth b. Ihi.
^ⁿnote:Lit., ‘eating bread’.
^ᵒnote:Which was outside the alley in question.
^ᵖnote:During Samuel's lifetime.
^ᵠnote:Whose door opened into that alley. He was, therefore, regarded by Samuel as a resident. After Samuel's death, however, the superintendent discontinued that practice and the Synagogue was entirely unoccupied at night. Hence R. Anan's action.
^ʳnote:As the Synagogue superintendent only spent the night in the alley but dined elsewhere he could not, in the opinion of Eibuth b. Ihi, be regarded as one of its occupants. He, therefore, gained the impression that Samuel acknowledged the validity of his side-post on the ground that one house and one courtyard suffice to constitute an alley. Hence his remonstrance with R. Anan.
^ˢnote:Not dining.
^ᵗnote:Of the obligation of shittuf. The Synagogue, since its superintendent lodged in it at night, could, therefore, be regarded as an inhabited courtyard, so that together with the courtyard of Eibuth b. Ihi the alley actually had two courtyards and its use could be made to be unrestricted by means of a side-post even according to Rab.
^ᵘnote:Sc. the courtyard and house on that side.
^ᵛnote:By the Israelite and his neighbours whose house doors open into a public domain.
^ʷnote:Or any other forms of opening that connected his and their houses.
^ˣnote:From the Israelites’ houses into the alley.
^ʸnote:Of the Israelite who lived in the alley into whose house the objects could be brought by way of the windows.
^ᶻnote:The house on one side of which was occupied by an idolater and the one on the other by an Israelite whose houses was connected by some form of opening with the houses of other Israelites.
^ᵃᵃnote:I.e., Rab forbade the preparation of ‘erub in the case of the courtyard as in that of the alley.
^ᵃᵇnote:In the case of a courtyard.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lit., ‘what would I’.
^ᵃᵈnote:In the case of the alley.
^ᵃᵉnote:Supra 73b. While in the case under discussion (an idolater's houses not being regarded as a valid dwelling) there was only one valid courtyard in the alley.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since both are based on the same principle.
^ᵃᵍnote:The one here and the one supra 73b (cf. n. 9).
^ᵃʰnote:Lit., ‘from that’ the ruling supra 73 b.