Sukkah, Daf Kaf Daled, Part 2
Introduction
Today’s section continues with the issue of using an animal to form the wall of a sukkah.
בין למאן דאמר שמא תמות, בין למאן דאמר שמא תברח, מדאורייתא מחיצה מעליא היא, ורבנן הוא דגזרו בה.
אלא מעתה, לרבי מאיר תטמא משום גולל? אלמה תנן: רבי יהודה מטמא משום גולל, ורבי מאיר מטהר!
Now whether according to the one who says: Lest it die, or according to the one who says, Lest it escape, according to Toraitic law it is a valid partition, and it is the rabbis who made a restrictive enactment against it.
But if this is so, according to R. Meir, it should convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learned: 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?
On the previous page we saw that R. Zera and Abaye dispute why R. Meir doesn’t allow one to use an animal as a partition. While they provide different reasons, both say that it is "lest" something else occur. This implies that while the animal could actually act as a partition according to Torah law, the rabbis rule strictly and don’t allow it. Usually this results in a stringency the animal cannot be used as a partition. However, in one case it results in a leniency. If one uses it as a covering for a grave, R. Meir says that it isn’t susceptible to impurity, as a covering for a grave usually is. Thus from this halakhah we can see that R. Meir holds that an animal simply doesn’t count as a partition, even from Torah law. The reasoning is not "lest" it die or run away.
אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב: קסבר רבי מאיר כל מחיצה שעומדת ברוח אינה מחיצה.
Rather R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition.
We now have a whole new explanation for R. Meir. R. Aha b. Jacob says that R. Meir doesn’t count as a partition anything that stands through "wind" or "spirit." Since an animal stands through its own spirit, it can’t count as a partition.
איכא דאמרי, אמר רב אחא בר יעקב: קסבר רבי מאיר כל מחיצה שאינה עשויה בידי אדם – אינה מחיצה.
There are others who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is not made by the hands of man is no partition.
This is a slightly different version of R. Aha b. Jacob’s explanation of R. Meir.
מאי בינייהו? – איכא בינייהו דאוקמה בנוד תפוח. למאן דאמר מחיצה עומדת ברוח אינה מחיצה – הרי עומדת ברוח, למאן דאמר אינה עשויה בידי אדם הרי עשויה בידי אדם.
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 one who which says a partition which is upheld by wind is not a 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 it is valid, since it is made by the hands of man.
Both statements of R. Aha b. Jacob would mean that an animal can’t be used as the wall of a sukkah, or for any other partition. So in what case would these two reasons differ.
They would differ if one used an inflated wine skin (one blown up by one’s mouth) as a partition. If R. Meir holds that partitions that stand by wind are not valid partitions, then this one is invalid. But it is made by human hands, so if he disqualifies an animal because it is not made by human hands, then this inflated skin is valid for use as the wall of a sukkah. I’m sure you’re glad to know!