Eruvin 47 - Absent Owner

A general principle was laid down:

In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah

And so for pages there has been a dispute about possible exceptions to that rule. The examples are far ranging, including the time that a widow must wait before remarrying.

Another example:

If a man left his house and went to spend the Sabbath in another town, whether he was a gentile or an Israelite, [his share of the courtyard ] imposes restrictions on the residents of the courtyard; (according to R. Meir.) R. Judah ruled: It imposes no restrictions.

Being absent, he could not share in the preparations of their shared courtyard. Is less of the space available to the remaining residents, or no?

R. Jose ruled: [The share of] a gentile imposes restrictions, but that of an Israelite does not impose any restrictions because it is not usual for an Israelite to return on a Sabbath. (while a gentile might, and therefore reclaim his share).

R. Simeon ruled: Even if he left his house and went to spend the Sabbath with his daughter in the same town [his share] imposes no restrictions since he had no intention to return’;

in connection with which R. Hama b. Goria stated in the name of Rab, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon’. For who is it that differed from him? R. Judah of course; but has it not been laid down that ‘In a dispute between R. Judah and R. Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R. Judah’?

Score one for R. Simon.