Quoting%20commentary for Eruvin 92:16

רבי שמעון אומר

and since [this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab's ruling.');">⁴⁰</span> cannot be reconciled with what] has been laid down that 'In a dispute between R'Judah and R'Simeon the halachah is in agreement with R'Judah' it must consequently follow<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but infer from it'.');">⁴¹</span> that those rules are to be disregarded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are not'.');">⁴²</span> But is this really a difficulty Is it not possible that the rules<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 5.');">⁴³</span> are disregarded only where a ruling to the contrary had been stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the case just cited where it was explicitly indicated that the halachah was in agreement with R. Simeon.');">⁴⁴</span> but that where no such ruling is stated the rules<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 324, n. 5.');">⁴⁵</span> remain in force?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'where it was stated, (well) it was stated; where it was not stated, (well) it was not stated'.');">⁴⁶</span> - [R'Mesharsheya's view] is rather derived from the following where we learned: 'If a town that belonged to an individual was converted into one belonging to many, one 'erub may be provided for all the town; but if a town belonged to many and was converted into one belonging to an individual no single 'erub may he provided for all the town unless a section of it of the size of the town of Hadashah in Judea, which contains fifty residents, is excluded; so R'Judah. R'Simeon ruled:

Explore quoting%20commentary for Eruvin 92:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.