Study Eruvin folio 92A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Did R' Yoḥanan actually say this, that the halakha is in accordance with R' Shimon’s opinion that all courtyards constitute a single domain, even if each courtyard established an independent eiruv? But didn’t R' Yoḥanan say that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed Mishnah, and we lear
The Talmud answers: What is the meaning of the word down in this context? It means down to the houses; however, it is indeed permitted to bring the fruit down to the courtyards. The Talmud raises a difficulty: But didn’t R' Ḥiyya explicitly teach in a Tosefta: Provided that neither will this one st
Rav Ashi said to Ravina: No proof can be cited from this baraita of R' Ḥiyya with regard to the Mishnah. If R' Yehuda HaNasi did not explicitly teach it in this manner, from where does his student R' Ḥiyya know it? If a halakha is not taught by the Mishnah itself, it should not be distorted to have
It was stated that amora’im dispute the following case: If there were two courtyards and there was one ruin between them, and the residents of one courtyard established an eiruv for themselves, while the residents of the other courtyard did not establish an eiruv for themselves, Rav Huna said: The
And Ḥiyya bar Rav disagreed with Rav Huna and said: Rights to the ruin are conferred to the residents of the courtyard that established an eiruv, and consequently, it is prohibited for residents of both courtyards to carry objects. And if you say that it should be permitted for residents of both t