Study Eruvin folio 47A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
שלש חצירות של שני בתים. ואמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב: הלכה כרבי שמעון. ומאן פליג עליה — רבי יהודה. והא אמרת: רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון — הלכה כרבי יהודה!
The excluded area need not be so large; rather, 3 courtyards each containing two houses are sufficient for this purpose. And Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon; and who disagrees with R' Shimon on this matter? It is R' Yehuda. Didn’t you say: In a case where R' Yehuda and R' Shimon disagree, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda? This teaches that one should not rely on these principles.
The Talmud rejects this argument as well: What is the difficulty here? Perhaps here, too, where it is stated explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with R' Shimon, it is stated, but where it is not stated explicitly, it is not stated, and the principle that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda applies.
אלא, מהא דתנן: המניח את ביתו והלך לשבות בעיר אחרת, אחד נכרי ואחד ישראל — אוסר לבני חצירות, דברי רבי מאיר.
Rather, the proof is from that which we learned elsewhere in a Mishnah: With regard to one who left his house without making an eiruv of courtyards, and established residence for Shabbat in a different town, whether he was a non-Jew or a Jew, his lack of participation prohibits the other residents of the courtyards in which he has a share to carry objects from their houses to the courtyard, because he did not establish an eiruv with them, and failure to include a house in the eiruv imposes restrictions upon all the residents of the courtyard. This is the statement of R' Meir.