Commentary for Eruvin 33:19

אי נמי התם במחוברין הכא בתלושין

AND THE SAGES RULED: ONE OF THE TWO [IS ENOUGH]. Is not this ruling precisely the same as that of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis, who, earlier in the Mishnah, stated THEY SPOKE OF A CARAVAN ONLY BECAUSE . . A USUAL OCCURRENCE, so that the same relaxation of the law applied also to an individual.');">³⁶</span> - The practical difference between them is the case of an individual in an inhabited area.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the first Tanna a defective partition is permitted to an individual only where he, like a CARAVAN, finds himself underways where he cannot procure the materials for a proper one. According to the Sages, however, who objected to the ruling of R. Jose son of R. Judah, according to whom a defective partition is invalid both for a caravan and an individual, underways and in an inhabited area, such a partition is valid both for a caravan and an individual, underways and in an inhabited area.');">³⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Eruvin 33:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.