Study Eruvin folio 44B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
However, with regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning a person and the other ruling concerning a person, it is difficult, for one baraita states that one may not use a person as the wall of a sukka, while the other says that one may use a person as a wall and even states exp
The Talmud answers: With regard to the contradiction between the one ruling concerning a person and the other ruling concerning a person, it is also not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited, the baraita refers to a case where that person knowingly served as a partition; whereas here, where it
The Talmud raises a difficulty: However, the case involving R' Neḥemya, son of R' Ḥanilai, was a case where people knowingly served as a partition, as the people were instructed to go out and serve as a human partition. The Talmud answers: In fact, that was a case where people unknowingly served as
The Talmud asks: However, Rav Ḥisda, who gathered the people to that spot, was in any case present knowingly. The Talmud answers: While Rav Ḥisda was there knowingly, he was not among the designated people who served as a partition.
The Talmud relates that there were these members of a wedding party who engaged the many people present to bring water in on Shabbat from a public domain to a private domain through walls comprised of people who knew that they were being used as partitions for that purpose. Shmuel instructed that th