וחד אמר ביין דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דבעינן תרתי כי פליגי בפת
And one said: In the case of wine, everyone agrees that two are required, both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards. When they disagree is in a case where an eiruv was established with bread: Rabbi Meir maintains that both a merging of alleyways and a joining of courtyards are required, whereas the Rabbis say that one is sufficient.
מיתיבי וחכמים אומרים או מערבין או משתתפין מאי לאו או מערבין בחצר בפת או משתתפין במבוי ביין
The Gemara raises an objection from the baraita itself. And the Rabbis say: One may either establish an eiruv or a merging of alleyways. What, does it not mean that one either establishes an eiruv in the courtyard with bread or a merging in the alleyway with wine, which indicates that they also disagreed in a case where a merging of alleyways was established with wine?
אמר רב גידל אמר רב הכי קאמר או מערבין בחצר בפת ומותרין כאן וכאן או משתתפין במבוי בפת ומותרין כאן וכאן
Rav Giddel said that Rav said that the Rabbis were saying as follows: One may either establish an eiruv in the courtyard with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway, or one may establish a merging of alleyways in the alleyway with bread, and it would be rendered permitted to carry both here, in the courtyard, and there, in the alleyway.
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הלכה כרבי מאיר ורב הונא אמר מנהג כרבי מאיר ורבי יוחנן אמר נהגו העם כרבי מאיר:
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rav Huna said: No clear halakhic ruling was issued in his favor, but the custom is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Therefore, if someone asks, he should be instructed to act accordingly. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not even a custom established by the Sages. Rather, the people were accustomed to act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and we do not tell them they have acted inappropriately.
מתני׳ חמשה חבורות ששבתו בטרקלין אחד בית שמאי אומרים עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה ובית הלל אומרים עירוב אחד לכולן
MISHNA: With regard to five groups of people who spent Shabbat in one hall [teraklin] that was subdivided by partitions into separate rooms, each of which had a separate entrance to a courtyard that was shared with other houses, Beit Shammai say: An eiruv is required for each and every group, i.e., each group must contribute separately to the eiruv of the courtyard, as each is considered a different house. And Beit Hillel say: One eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not render the different sections separate houses.
ומודים בזמן שמקצתן שרויין בחדרים או בעליות שהן צריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה:
And Beit Hillel concede that when some of them occupy separate rooms or upper stories, they require a separate eiruv for each and every group, and the fact that they are in the same building does not render them one unified group.
גמ׳ אמר רב נחמן מחלוקת במסיפס אבל במחיצה עשרה דברי הכל עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן אף במסיפס מחלוקת
GEMARA: Rav Naḥman said: The dispute applies only where they divided the hall with a partition of pegs [mesifas]. However, if they divided it with a sturdy partition ten handbreadths high, all agree that a separate contribution to the eiruv is required for each and every group, as this certainly divides the hall into separate living quarters. Some say a different version of the previous passage, according to which Rav Naḥman said as follows: Even where they merely divided the room with a partition of pegs, there is a dispute about whether this is considered a full-fledged partition.
פליגי בה רבי חייא ורבי שמעון ברבי חד אמר מחלוקת במחיצות המגיעות לתקרה אבל מחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה דברי הכל עירוב אחד לכולן וחד אמר מחלוקת במחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה אבל מחיצות המגיעות לתקרה דברי הכל צריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, disagreed about this issue. One of them said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, all agree that one eiruv suffices for all of them, as the partitions do not turn the compartments into separate houses. And one said: This dispute is with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling, but with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling, all agree that the compartments are considered separate living quarters, and they require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group.