Eruvin 44B

אלא אדם אאדם קשיא!

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 explicitly that he may do this: So that he may eat, drink and sleep in the sukka. That implies that this is permitted even if it is the third wall that is missing.

אדם אאדם נמי לא קשיא: כאן ⁠— לדעת, כאן ⁠— שלא מדעת.

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 is permitted, it refers to a case where that person unknowingly served as a partition, which is not the usual manner of building. This is not the case with regard to utilizing a utensil as a partition. Since the utensil lacks knowledge, it is considered a partition regardless of how it is placed, and it is prohibited in all cases.

והא דרבי נחמיה בריה דרבי חנילאי, לדעת הוה! שלא מדעת הוה.

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 a partition, i.e., they were unaware why they were called, and were made into a partition without their knowledge.