Study Eruvin folio 72B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud raises an objection based on the following baraita: R' Yehuda the Keen [hasabbar], who was known by this name due to his sharp mind, said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about partitions that reach the ceiling, as all agree that they require a separate contribution to the e
According to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, this baraita offers a conclusive refutation. And according to the one who said that it was with regard to partitions that do not reach the ceiling that there was a dispute, the bara
However, the following issue needs further clarification: With regard to that version which holds that Rav Naḥman said: The dispute applies even where the hall was divided with a mesifas, shall we say that R' Yehuda the Keen’s statement is a conclusive refutation? That is to say, does it imply tha
Rav Naḥman could have said to you: They explicitly disagreed about a partition, and the same is true of a partition of pegs. And the fact that they disagree with regard to a partition rather than a partition of pegs is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel. Even whe
The Talmud asks: If they disagreed in both cases, let them disagree in the baraita about a mesifas, and thereby inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai. They are stringent and require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group, even in the case of a mesifas. The Talmud answer