Study Eruvin folio 71B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
And Rav Yosef said: In fact we are dealing here with a single alleyway, and R' Shimon and the Rabbis disagree about the same point of dispute between R' Yoḥanan ben Nuri and the Rabbis. As we learned in a Mishnah: If teruma oil was floating on the surface of wine, and one who immersed during the da
The Talmud explains: The opinion of the Rabbis in our Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in the other Mishnah, who maintain that wine and oil are not connected and therefore cannot be used together in an eiruv, and the opinion of R' Shimon is in accordance with the opinion of R'
It was taught in a baraita: R' Eliezer ben Taddai says: In both this case, of wine and wine, and that case, of wine and oil, they must establish an eiruv. The Talmud expresses wonder: Did he say this even if the partnership is with this one in wine and also with the other one in wine? Why should
Rabba said: If they partnered in the following manner, such that this one came with his wine-filled jug and poured its contents into a jug, and the other one came with his jug and poured his wine into that same jug, everyone agrees that it is a valid eiruv, even if they did not act specifically fo
Where they disagree is in the case where they bought a jug of wine in partnership. R' Eliezer ben Taddai holds: There is no principle of retroactive clarification, i.e., there is no halakhic assumption that the undetermined halakhic status of items can be retroactively clarified. Consequently, afte