Kabbalah for Eruvin 43:28

א"ר יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן ארץ ישראל אין חייבין עליה משום רה"ר יתיב רב דימי וקאמר ליה להא שמעתא א"ל אביי לרב דימי מ"ט

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Both R'Johanan and R'Eleazar stated: Here they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' THE SAGES. So Bomb. ed. This is also the reading of MS.M. in the parallel passage supra 20a. Cur. edd. ('he informed you') .');">³⁵</span> informed you of the unassailable validity of partitions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even a public road cannot affect it.');">³⁶</span> 'Here [etc.]' [seems to imply that] he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan.');">³⁷</span> is of the same opinion; but did not Rabbah B'Bar Hana state in the name of R'Johanan: Jerusalem,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose public roads extended from one end of the town to the other and had all the other characteristics of a public domain.');">³⁸</span> were it not that its gates were closed at night,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of which it assumed the status of a courtyard.');">³⁹</span> would have been subject to the restrictions of a public domain?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 6b q.v. notes. This shows that the passage of the public does invalidate a private domain.');">⁴⁰</span> - Rather: 'Here [etc.]', but he himself is not of the same opinion. An incongruity, however, was pointed out between two rulings of R'Judah and between two rulings of the Rabbis. For it was taught: A more [lenient rule] than this did R'Judah lay down: If a man had two houses on two sides [respectively] of a public domain he may<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the two houses provide walls on two sides.');">⁴¹</span> construct one side-post on one side [of any of the houses] and another on the other side, or one cross-beam on the one side and another on its other side and then he may move things about<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and carries and gives', as if it had been a private domain.');">⁴²</span> in the space between them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the middle'.');">⁴³</span> but they said to him: A public domain cannot be provided with an 'erub in such a manner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 6a, supra 6a.');">⁴⁴</span> Now does not this present a contradiction between one ruling of R'Judah and another ruling of his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to his ruling in our Mishnah a public road impairs the validity of a private domain, and according to his ruling in the Baraitha cited it does not.');">⁴⁵</span> and between one ruling of the Rabbis and another ruling of theirs?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. previous note mutatis mutandis.');">⁴⁶</span> - There is really no contradiction between the two rulings of R'Judah. There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited.');">⁴⁷</span> [it is a case] where two proper walls are available, but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁸</span> two proper walls are not available. There is no contradiction between the two rulings of the Rabbis either, since here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our MISHNAH:');">⁴⁸</span> the name of four partitions at least i available,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the extremity of each side is screened by a board that is one cubit wide.');">⁴⁹</span> but there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha cited.');">⁵⁰</span> even the name of four partitions does not exist. R'Isaac B'Joseph stated in the name of R'Johanan: In the Land of Israel no guilt is incurred on account o [moving objects in] a public domain. R'Dimi sitting at his studies recited this traditional ruling. Said Abaye to R'Dimi. What is the reason?

Da'at Tevunoth

Da'at Tevunoth