Study Eruvin folio 47A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 yo
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
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
R' Yehuda says: His lack of participation does not prohibit the others to carry, since he is not present there. R' Yosei says: Lack of participation in an eiruv by a non-Jew who is away prohibits the others to carry, because he might return on Shabbat; but lack of participation by a Jew who is not
And Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon. And who disagrees with him? It is R' Yehuda. Didn’t you say: When there is a dispute between R' Yehuda and R' Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda? This teaches t