Study Eruvin folio 11B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
פיאה מותרת לענין כלאים, אבל לא לשבת. ורבי יוחנן אמר: כמחיצות לשבת דלא, כך מחיצות לכלאים דלא.
A braid of vines plaited around poles to form a partition is permitted with regard to diverse kinds, i.e., it is considered a partition that renders planting grapevines in close proximity to other crops permitted, but not with regard to Shabbat. And R' Yoḥanan said: Just as such a braid is not considered a partition with regard to Shabbat, so too it is not considered a partition with regard to diverse kinds. Their opinions in the dispute here apparently contradict their opinions in the dispute cited above.
בשלמא דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש לא קשיא: הא — דידיה, הא — דרביה. אלא דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן קשיא!
Granted, the apparent contradiction between one statement of Reish Lakish and the other statement of Reish Lakish poses no difficulty, as this statement, according to which such a braid of vines is an effective partition even with regard to Shabbat, reflects his own opinion; that statement, according to which it is an effective partition only with regard to diverse kinds, reflects the opinion of his teacher, R' Yehuda, son of R' Ḥanina. However, the apparent contradiction between one statement of R' Yoḥanan and the other statement of R' Yoḥanan, poses a difficulty.
אי אמרת בשלמא: התם — על גבן, הכא — מן הצד, שפיר. אלא אי אמרת: אידי ואידי מן הצד, מאי איכא למימר?
Granted, if you say that there, where R' Yoḥanan ruled that a braid of vines is an effective partition with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where the vines were placed on top of the posts, while here, where he rules that it is ineffective even with regard to diverse kinds, it is referring to a case where they were attached to the posts from the side, it works out well. However, if you say that both this and that are cases where the vines were attached from the side, what is there to say?