The silent treatment TB Eruvin 94

Rav and Shmuel disagree on the principle “Once it was permitted to carry from courtyard to courtyard at the onset of Shabbat, it was permitted and remains so until the conclusion of Shabbat. (כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּתְּרָה הוּתְּרָה)” (Sefaria.org translation) Rav doesn’t hold this principle while Shmuel does. The case under discussion begins on yesterday’s daf and continues on today’s daf TB Eruvin 94

“It is stated that amora’im disagreed: With regard to a wall between two courtyards, whose residents did not establish a joint eiruv, that collapsed on Shabbat, Rav said: One may carry in the joint courtyard only within four cubits, as carrying in each courtyard is prohibited due to the other, because they did not establish an eiruv together. Rav does not accept the principle that an activity that was permitted at the start of Shabbat remains permitted until the conclusion of Shabbat. And Shmuel said: This one may carry to the base of the former partition, and that one may likewise carry to the base of the partition, as he maintains that since it was permitted at the beginning of Shabbat, it remains permitted until the conclusion of Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Analyzing these two positions the Gemara admits that these two positions are deduced from a story and not from direct statements by these two sages. “The Gemara comments: And this ruling of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference; i.e., it was inferred by his students from another one of his teachings. As once Rav and Shmuel were sitting in a certain courtyard on Shabbat, and the wall between the two courtyards fell. Shmuel said to the people around him: Take a cloak and suspend it on the remnant of the partition. Rav turned his face away, displaying his displeasure with Shmuel’s opinion, as Rav maintained it was prohibited to carry a cloak in this courtyard. Shmuel said to them in a humorous vein: If Abba, Rav, is particular, take his belt and tie it to the cloak, to secure it to the partition.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even though Shmuel holds the principle כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּתְּרָה הוּתְּרָה and allows a person to carry in the courtyard after a wall collapses, he allows the cloak to be carried and erects this temporary wall for privacy purposes only. Rashi reminds us throughout the Talmud that the prohibition of erecting a temporary tent refers only to the roof and not the walls; consequently, Shmuel did not violate Shabbat by suspending a cloak in place of the wall.

Then the Gemara asks why didn’t Rav speak up at that moment in protest the carrying of the cloak to erect that temporary wall? After all he considered to be a violation of Shabbat. “And Rav, if he maintains that in this case carrying is prohibited, he should have said so to him explicitly. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel’s place. Rav did not want to disagree with his colleague in his jurisdiction, as he accepted the opinion of the local authority.” (Sefaria.org translation) Shmuel was the head of the Yeshiva at Nehardea, Babylonia. Out of respect Rav didn’t want to argue with his colleague on his colleague’s home turf.

The Gemara then wonders why did he turn his back on Shmuel? “If so, if he accepted the jurisdiction of the local rabbinic authority, why did he turn his face away? The Gemara answers: He acted in this manner so that people would not say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and that he retracted his opinion with regard to this halakha.” (Sefaria.org translation) Rav didn’t want to give the false impression that he agreed with Shmuel allowing carrying the cloak on that particular Shabbat when the wall came falling down. I guess you could say that Rav gave Shmuel the silent treatment.