Commentary for Eruvin 144:4

אמר לך רב נחמן פליגי במחיצה והוא הדין במסיפס והאי דקא מיפלגי במחיצה להודיעך כחן דבית הלל

however, present an objection also against that version according to which R'Nahman stated: 'The dispute relates also to partitions of stakes'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that Beth Shammai require separate contributions even where the partitions were so frail and low. Does R. Judah, it is asked (cf. supra n. 5) , imply that Beth Shammai maintain this view, even where the partitions are so low, in agreement with this view of R. Nahman, or, do they limit their view to partitions that are of some considerable height though not as high as to reach the ceiling?');">⁹</span> - R'Nahman can answer you: They differ in the case of partitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where they do not reach the ceiling.');">¹⁰</span> and this applies also to partitions of stakes, and the only reason why their difference of view was expressed in the case of partitions is in order to inform you to what extent Beth Hillel venture to apply their principle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they require no separate contributions from each company even where the partitions are of some considerable height.');">¹¹</span> But why did they not express their difference of view in the case of partitions of stakes in order to inform you of the extent to which Beth Shammai, venture to apply their principle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even in the case of partitions of stakes Beth Shammai require each company to make a separate contribution.');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 144:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.