Alternatively, the Gemara tentatively suggested that in both cases, the synagogue has no dwelling, but the first teaching refers to urban synagogues, while the second refers to rural synagogues. But the Gemara asked whether urban synagogues really are not subject to uncleanness from house plagues. For a Baraita taught that the words, "in the house of the land of your possession" in teach that a house of the land of the Israelites' possession could become defiled through house plagues, but Jerusalem could not become defiled through house plagues, because Jerusalem did not fall within any single Tribe's inheritance. Rabbi Judah, however, said that he had heard that only the Temple in Jerusalem was unaffected by house plagues. Thus Rabbi Judah's view would imply that synagogues and houses of learning are subject to house plagues even in large cities. The Gemara suggested, however, that one should read Rabbi Judah's view to say that sacred places are not subject to house plagues. The Gemara suggested that the principle that the first Tanna and Rabbi Judah were disputing was whether Jerusalem was divided among the Tribes; the first Tanna holds that Jerusalem was not divided, while Rabbi Judah holds that Jerusalem was divided among the Tribes.