Eruvin 74a (עד.) — the Talmud in English

until there are

two

houses

in each courtyard,

and

two

courtyards open into it

of the alley.

Presumably, they permitted this alley, like any other alley, with a lehi and a korah.

Therefore, if the courtyards were open to one another and they made an eruv together through their entrances, they are considered a single courtyard. This alley would then have not two courtyards but only one, and it could not be rendered permissible with a lehi and a korah, so it would be impossible to carry in the alley.

And that is why it does not teach: “open to one another.”

For according to Rav, an alley can be rendered permissible with a lehi and a korah only if there was at least one courtyard that was not joined in an eruv with the others. Alternatively, the courtyards were on opposite sides of the alley, so that they could be joined only by means of the alley between them — Rashi.

And Shmuel said: Even if

one house was open into the alley

itself

without a courtyard,

and one courtyard

into which one house opened, it could be rendered permissible with a lehi and a korah.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even if

there was

one ruin

open to the alley, and another courtyard containing a house open to the alley, it could be rendered permissible with a lehi and a korah.

He

asked

Rav Yosef

whether

Rabbi Yohanan said that even a vineyard path

that was open to the alley, with an additional courtyard and house there, would render the alley permissible with a lehi and a korah.

Rav Yosef said

to Abaye:

Rabbi Yohanan said this only with regard to a ruin, which is fit for habitation.

But a vineyard path, which is not fit for habitation —

he did not

say so.

Rav Huna Ḥinnana said: And Rabbi Yohanan follows

the same position when he permitted carrying in an alley to which a ruin was open by means of a lehi and a korah, even though that ruin had not joined in the alley’s shituf, since a ruin, which is not a place of habitation, does not prohibit the other residents of the alley, nor does it join in the alley’s shituf —

in accordance with his own reasoning:

As we learned:

Although the Sages prohibited carrying from a house to a courtyard and from one house to another, nevertheless,

both the roofs

of the houses,

and both the karpeifot [

an enclosed area outside the city, used for storing wood],

and both the courtyards

belonging to separate owners

are one domain [

since they are not places of habitation, they are considered one domain, and it is permitted to carry from one roof to another and from one courtyard to another, or from a roof to a courtyard and from a courtyard to a roof]

with regard to vessels that rested

before Shabbat

in them

of the roofs and courtyards.

But not with regard to vessels that rested inside the house,

as it is prohibited to remove those vessels from one courtyard to another, or to a roof or a karpeif.

And all that is necessary in order to join these courtyards with one another in an eruv is only to permit the household vessels to be carried from one courtyard to another.

And

Rav

said concerning it: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that the courtyards are one domain, and it is permitted to carry from one to another.

And this applies when they did not join in an eruv

the courtyards individually, since in that case they cannot remove vessels that rested in the house into their courtyard.

But if they joined in an eruv

the courtyards individually, so that they can then remove vessels from the house into the courtyard,

we issue a decree

prohibiting carrying from one courtyard to another,

lest one come to remove the vessels

that

had

rested in

houses from one courtyard to another.

And Shmuel said:

The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

whether they joined in an eruv or whether they did not join in an eruv.

And Rabbi Yohanan likewise said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, whether they joined in an eruv or whether they did not join in an eruv.

Evidently,

Rabbi Yohanan holds that

we do not issue a decree lest one come to remove the vessels of the houses to another courtyard

because that would be a decree safeguarding against a decree [Mishna Berura].

And in accordance with his reasoning, he holds

here

with regard to a ruin

as well,

that

we do not issue a decree lest one come to remove the vessels

of the courtyard in the alley — through the alley —

to the ruin.

Even though it is prohibited to carry there, since it did not join in the alley’s shituf.

But there is no prohibition in carrying from the alley to the ruin if the vessels had rested in the alley, since the alley and the ruin are one domain.

Rav Bruna was sitting and reciting this teaching

of Shmuel, who had said above that an alley is rendered permissible with a lehi and a korah even if it contains only one house and one courtyard.

Rabbi Elazar bar Bei Rav said

to Rav Bruna: Was it indeed the case that

Shmuel said this?!

He said to him

Rav Bruna:

Yes!

Rabbi Elazar said to him

Rav Bruna:

Show me Shmuel’s lodging

so that I can ask him whether he said this!

He came and showed him

Rav Bruna brought and showed Rabbi Elazar

before Shmuel.

He said to him

Rabbi Elazar asked Shmuel: Did the Master indeed

say this?

He said to him

Shmuel:

Yes!

And Rabbi Elazar challenged Shmuel:

But it was the Master who said: In matters of eruvin, we have nothing but according to the

wording of the

Mishna

that is

before us [

it is accepted that the tanna was precise in his wording in order to teach something — Gaon Yaakov].

And we learned in our Mishna:

that the alley is “to courtyards” —

as courtyards are to houses!

And that is why the tanna taught “courtyards,” in the plural, to teach that an alley is called an “alley” only when “courtyards” open into it, and not when there is only one courtyard.

And since this is so, it is not called an “alley” for purposes of rendering it permissible with a lehi and a korah”; rather, it is a “courtyard,” which can be rendered permissible only with passin.

And how could you say that it is considered an alley and can be rendered permissible with a lehi and a korah even with only one house and one courtyard?!

Shmuel fell silent

.

And the question was raised for us: Does this silence teach that

he accepted it from him

and Shmuel conceded to Rav that two courtyards, with two houses in each courtyard, are required in order to render it permissible with a lehi and a korah?

Or did he not accept it from him?

Come and hear: There was a certain alley in which Ibot bar Ihi resided [

the name of a Sage] in one courtyard, together with another resident of that courtyard.

And there was also another courtyard in that same alley, in which there was only one house. [See illustration]

He made for it

Ibot, for this alley,

a lehi [

a side-post], in order to render it permissible,

and Shmuel permitted him

to carry in the alley.