Parallel
סוכה 24:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon forbid it? -Transpose [the statement:] R. Meir takes the possibility of death into consideration, while R. Judah disregards the possibility of death, as it was taught, If he used an animal as a wall for a Sukkah, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. [But then there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Meir? — R. Meir can answer you: Death is of frequent occurrence, but the splitting of a wineskin is infrequent, since one might give it in charge of a guardian. [But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Judah? The reason of R. Judah is not lest the wineskin split, but because he does not accept the principle of bererah. But does R. Judah consider the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the Baraitha] continues: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retrospectively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not], that R. Judah does consider the possibility of the wineskin splitting? — [No!] There it is R. Judah who says to R. Meir in effect, ‘As regards myself I do not accept the principle of bererah, but according to you who do accept the principle of bererah, do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split?’ And the latter answered, ‘When the wineskin splits’. But does not R. Judah regard the possibility of death? Have we not in fact learnt: R. Judah says, Even another wife was prepared for him, lest his wife die? — On this surely it was stated: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, They adopted a higher standard with regard to Atonement. Now whether according to him who says, Lest it die, or according to him who says, Lest it escape, [the animal] according to the Pentateuchal law is a valid partition, and it is only the Rabbis who made a restrictive enactment concerning it. But if this is so, it ought according to R. Meir, to convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learnt: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering stone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness? -The fact is, said R. Aha b. Jacob, that R. Meir is of the opinion that any partition which is upheld by wind is no valid partition. Some there are who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir is of the opinion that any partition which is not made by the hands of man is no partition. What [practical difference] is there between [the two versions]? — The practical difference between them is where he set up a Sukkah wall with an inflated skin. According to the version which says a partition which is upheld by wind is no valid partition, [this one is invalid] since it is upheld by wind; according to the version which says ‘not made by the hands of man’
—