Eruvin 148

אתא רב ענן שדיה אמר מבואה דדיירנא ביה ואתינא משמיה דמר שמואל ניתי רב ענן בר רב נישדייה מן שמע מינה לא קיבלה מיניה

R'Anan subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After Samuel's death.');">¹</span> came and threw it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The side-post.');">²</span> down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the alley, beside the Synagogue (v. infra) contained only one courtyard and one house.');">³</span> when he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Eibuth b. Ihi.');">⁴</span> exclaimed: I have been living undisturbed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and coming'.');">⁵</span>

לעולם אימא לך קיבלה מינה והכא חזנא הוא דהוה אכיל נהמא בביתיה ואתי ביית בבי כנישתא

in this alley<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. was permitted its unrestricted use on account of the side-post.');">⁶</span> on the authority<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from the name'. MS.M., 'since the time'.');">⁷</span> of Samuel, why should R'Anan B'Rab now come and throw its side-post down!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'should throw it down from'; MS.M. 'from it'.');">⁸</span> May it not then be deduced from this that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel.');">⁹</span> did not accept it from him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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) .');">¹⁰</span>

ואיבות בר איהי סבר מקום פיתא גרים ושמואל לטעמיה דאמר מקום לינה גרים:

- As a matter of fact it may still be maintained that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel.');">⁹</span> did accept it from him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Samuel having eventually come round to the view of Rab.');">¹¹</span> but<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to the objection why Samuel allowed the unrestricted use of the alley.');">¹²</span> in this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the alley of Eibuth b. Ihi.');">¹³</span> a Synagogue superintendent who was having his meals<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eating bread'.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מבוי שצידו אחד עובד כוכבים וצידו אחד ישראל אין מערבין אותו דרך חלונות להתירו דרך פתחים למבוי

in his own home<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was outside the alley in question.');">¹⁵</span> came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During Samuel's lifetime.');">¹⁶</span> to spend his nights at the Synagogue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁷</span> Eibuth B'Ihi [however] thought that one's dining place is the cause [of shittuf],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span> while Samuel [in reality] was merely acting on his own principle he having laid down that one's night's lodging<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not dining.');">¹⁹</span>

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף אמר רב אפילו בחצר אמר ליה אין דאי לא אמר מאי

- place is the cause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁰</span> Rab Judah citing Rab ruled: For an alley whose one side<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the courtyard and house on that side.');">²¹</span> occupied by all idolater and its other side by an Israelite no 'erub may be prepared<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Israelite and his neighbours whose house doors open into a public domain.');">²²</span> through windows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or any other forms of opening that connected his and their houses.');">²³</span> render the movement of objects<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the Israelites' houses into the alley.');">²⁴</span>

הוה אמינא טעמא דרב משום דקסבר אין מבוי ניתר בלחי וקורה עד שיהו בתים וחצירות פתוחין לתוכו

permissible by way of the door<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Israelite who lived in the alley into whose house the objects could be brought by way of the windows.');">²⁵</span> into the alley. Said Abaye to R'Joseph: Did Rab give the same ruling even in respect of a courtyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span> - Yes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Rab forbade the preparation of 'erub in the case of the courtyard as in that of the alley.');">²⁷</span> the other replied, for if he had not given it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a courtyard.');">²⁸</span>

ותרתי למה לי צריכא דאי מההיא

I might<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what would I'.');">²⁹</span> have presumed that Rab's reason for his ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the alley.');">³⁰</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³¹</span> and [as to the objection:] What need was there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both are based on the same principle.');">³²</span> for two [rulings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one here and the one supra 73b (cf. n. 9) .');">³³</span> it could be replied that both were] necessary: For if all our information had to be derived from the former ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from that' the ruling supra 73 b.');">³⁴</span>