Sukkah

. R. Judah, R. Jose and R. Simeon forbid it?1 -Transpose [the statement:]2 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?3 — 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?4 The reason of R. Judah5 is not lest the wineskin split, but because he does not accept the principle of bererah.6 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’,7 it follows [does it not], that R. Judah8 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’.9 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?10 — On this surely it was stated: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, They adopted a higher standard with regard to Atonement.11 Now whether according to him who says,12 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,13 why then have we learnt: R. Judah14 says it15 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?16 -The fact is, said R. Aha b. Jacob, that R. Meir17 is of the opinion that any partition which is upheld by wind18 is no valid partition. Some there are who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir17 is of the opinion that any partition which is not made by the hands of man19 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’ his intended separation an actual one, with the result that what he has already drunk is untithed. Thus R. Judah who takes this possibility into consideration certainly considers the possibility of death, while R. Meir who disregards this possibility equally disregards that of death. Now, since Abaye there distinctly attributes these views to R. Judah and R. Meir respectively how could he attribute to them here the reversed views? take into consideration the possibility of its dying. wine has no retrospective application. Hence even if the skin did not split the terumah is invalid. house’ is interpreted as his wife. In case his wife died on the eve of the day, another was held in readiness. decreed later that it is no valid partition. With regard to Sukkah and the alley the Rabbinical decree might well be upheld since it restricts the law but in the case of uncleanliness where it leads to a relaxation of the Pentateuchal law the Rabbinical decree must obviously be disregarded.