Sukkah, Daf Kaf Daled, Part One

 

Introduction

Today’s daf continues with the sugya from the previous daf. R. Judah had said that one could use an animal as the wall of a sukkah because he is not concerned lest the animal die. But R. Judah doesn’t allow one to separate tithes retroactively because he is worried lest the wineskin splits. So, our Talmud asks, why worry about one and not about the other?

 

קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה! – טעמא דרבי יהודה לאו משום דחייש לבקיעת נוד, אלא משום דלית ליה ברירה.

 

[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 retroactivity (bererah).

 

R. Judah doesn’t allow to declare ahead of time that that which he tithes later will count as tithes retroactively because he rejects a principle called "bererah." This principle allows us to take something whose status is determined later on and let us consider the status as having been determined at an earlier period. In our case, we could say that when he later on separates terumah and tithes the wine that he drank earlier was considered to have already been tithed.

 

ולא חייש רבי יהודה לבקיעת נוד? והא מדקתני סיפא, אמרו לו לרבי מאיר: אי אתה מודה שמא יבקע הנוד, ונמצא זה שותה טבלים למפרע? ואמר להו: לכשיבקע. מכלל דחייש רבי יהודה לבקיעת הנוד!

But isn’t R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: 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] retroactively? And he answered them, When the wineskin splits , it follows [does it not], that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

 

In the continuation of the baraita about tithing retroactively, R. Judah (or others speaking on his behalf) explicitly asks R. Meir about the splitting of the wineskin. Thus it seems quite clear that R. Judah doesn’t allow one to do this because he is concerned about this possibility, and not because he doesn’t hold by the principle of "bererah." This would return us to our original difficulty why is R. Judah concerned about the splitting of the wineskin, but not about death.

 

התם רבי יהודה הוא דקאמר לרבי מאיר: לדידי – לית לי ברירה, אלא לדידך דיש ברירה – אי אתה מודה דשמא יבקע הנוד? אמר ליה: לכשיבקע.

 

[No!] There it is R. Judah who says to R. Meir, "As for 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 .

 

The Talmud now reinterprets the baraita such that R. Judah does not let one drink the wine before tithing because he doesn’t believe in the legal concept called bererah. When he said to R. Meir "aren’t you concerned about the wineskin splitting" he wasn’t expressing his own opinion, he was rebutting R. Meir on R. Meir’s own terms. R. Meir allows for "bererah" but still he should be concerned lest the wineskin splits and it will turn out he drank untithed wine. R. Judah wouldn’t allow one to do so for other reasons namely he doesn’t allow for "bererah."

 

ולא חייש רבי יהודה למיתה?

והא תנן, רבי יהודה אומר: אף אשה אחרת מתקינין לו, שמא תמות אשתו!

הא איתמר עלה, אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: מעלה עשו בכפרה.

 

But isn’t R. Judah concerned about the possibility of death?

Haven’t we learned: R. Judah says, Even another wife was prepared for him, lest his wife die?

About this it was stated: R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: They adopted a higher standard with regard to atonement.

 

The sugya ends with another source in which it seems that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of death. Mishnah Yoma 1:1 talks about preparing the High Priest for the Yom Kippur ritual. The Torah says that he has to make atonement for him and his house meaning his family, including his wife. Assuming he is already married to one woman, R. Judah says that the rabbis assign him a second wife just in case his first wife dies right before Yom Kippur and he can’t make atonement for him and his wife. Here we see that R. Judah is concerned about death.

The Talmud resolves this by saying that generally R. Judah is not concerned about death but that there is a higher standard regarding the Yom Kippur ceremony. Since this was such a crucial ceremony, R. Judah would say we have to take even remote possibilities into account. But in other matters, R. Judah is not concerned about remote possibilities.