Eruvin 74B

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

Following Shmuel’s death, Rav Anan came and threw the side post down, thus indicating to Ivut bar Ihi that it is prohibited to carry in the alleyway, as a side post is effective only for an alleyway that has at least two courtyards containing at least two houses each. Ivut bar Ihi said with resentment: The alleyway in which I have been living and walking based on a ruling in the name of Master Shmuel, should Rav Anan bar Rav come now and throw its side post away from me? The Talmud comments: Learn from the fact that this side post remained intact throughout Shmuel’s lifetime that he did not accept R' Elazar’s objection.

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

The Talmud rejects this proof. Actually, you can say that Shmuel accepted R' Elazar’s objection and retracted his opinion, and here there was a synagogue attendant [ḥazzana] who would eat bread in his own house that was located elsewhere, but would come and sleep in the synagogue, which was open to the alleyway.

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

And Ivut bar Ihi holds that the place where a person eats his bread determines his place of residence. Therefore, he did not consider the synagogue a residence, as the attendant would eat elsewhere, and Ivut bar Ihi thought that Shmuel had permitted him to set up a side post for his alleyway even though he lived there by himself. In fact, however, this was not the case, as Shmuel followed his regular line of reasoning, as he said: The place where a person sleeps determines his place of residence. Since the attendant would sleep in the synagogue, it was considered a residence. Consequently, the alleyway contained two houses and courtyards, and could be made permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam.