Commentary for Eruvin 159:17

הכי השתא בשלמא התם פליגי רב ושמואל וקא משמע לן כחומרין דמר וכי חומרין דמר אבל הכא אי איתא דשמיע ליה מי איכא דמאן דפליג

Adda in the name of Samuel that an 'erub of dishes must be conferred [upon those who are to benefit from it]? ' - 'It is obvious', Abaye retorted: 'that he did not hear it; for had he heard it what was the point of his asking? ' - 'Did not Samuel rule', the first replied: 'that in the case of 'erubs of Sabbath limits possession need not be conferred and he nevertheless ruled that possession must be conferred? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that in the case of 'erubs of Sabbath limits he heard of Samuel's view but disregarded it. Is it not then possible that he did hear his view on that of 'erubs of dishes also but did not accept it?');">³⁷</span> - 'What a comparison!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'thus, now'.');">³⁸</span> His ruling may well be justified there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Erubs of Sabbath limits.');">³⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 159:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.