Sukkah, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 4

 

Introduction

In yesterday’s section R. Meir stated that something that has "the breath of life" in it cannot be used for certain halakhic uses (see yesterday’s section) including as a wall for a sukkah. In today’s section we begin to explore R. Meir’s reasoning.

Today’s section contains one of my favorite passages in the entire tractate. So enjoy!

 

מאי טעמא דרבי מאיר? אביי אמר: שמא תמות. רבי זירא אמר: שמא תברח.

 

What is the reason of R. Meir?

Abaye said: Lest it die.

R. Zera said: Lest it escape.

 

Two amoraim debate why R. Meir doesn’t allow one to use an animal for any of these purposes, including as a wall for a sukkah. Abaye said that we are concerned lest it die. R. Zera says we are concerned that it will run away.

בפיל קשור – כולי עלמא לא פליגי, דאי נמי מיית – יש בנבלתו עשרה.

 

Concerning an elephant securely bound, all agree [that the Sukkah is valid], since even ifs it die, there is still ten [handbreadths height] in its carcass.

 

The Talmud, as it often does, tries to find the practical ramifications between different amoraic opinions. In this case, for some reason the Talmud tries to determine when the two amoraim debate if one uses an elephant as a wall for a sukkah. It seems that the Talmud uses this example because it s the biggest animal they can imagine. I doubt anyone ever really used an elephant as a wall for a sukkah.

In any case, if the elephant is securely tied in place (don’t try this at home) then there is no problem. The elephant won’t be able to run away and if it dies its carcass will still be large enough to serve as a wall.

 

כי פליגי – בפיל שאינו קשור. למאן דאמר שמא תמות – לא חיישינן, למאן דאמר גזרה שמא תברח – חיישינן.

 

Regarding what then do they dispute? Regarding an elephant which is not tied up.

According to the one who says: Lest it die, we are not concerned;

According to him who says, We fear lest it escape, we are concerned.

 

The two amoraim disagree if the elephant used as the wall of the sukkah is tied up. According to Abaye who says we fear lest it die, we are not concerned in this case, because the elephant’s carcass can still serve as a wall. But for R. Zera who says that we are concerned lest if escape, we should be concerned since it is not tied up.

 

למאן דאמר גזרה שמא תמות ניחוש שמא תברח!

אלא, בפיל שאינו קשור – כולי עלמא לא פליגי. כי פליגי – בבהמה קשורה; למאן דאמר גזרה שמא תמות – חיישינן, למאן דאמר גזרה שמא תברח – לא חיישינן, ולמאן דאמר גזרה שמא תברח ניחוש שמא תמות? – מיתה לא שכיחא.

 

But according to him who says, Lest it die, let us be concerned lest it escape?

Rather regarding an elephant which is not tied up, all agree [that the Sukkah is invalid];

Regarding what do they dispute? Regarding an [ordinary] animal which is tied up: According to him who says, Lest it die, we are concerned.

According to him who says, Lest it escape, we are not concerned.

But according to him who says: Lest it escape, let us be concerned lest it die? Death is not a frequent occurrence.

 

The problem with the above explanation is that Abaye who says we are concerned lest the animal die should also be concerned lest it escape.

Therefore, if the elephant is not tied up, all amoraim say that R. Meir’s is concerned lest it escape. They differ only if it is a smaller, ordinary animal that is tied up. Abaye says that R. Meir is concerned lest it die and its carcass wouldn’t be large enough to constitute a wall. R. Zera says that since it is tied up, R. Meir is not concerned lest it escape.

However, even this doesn’t make full sense. Why shouldn’t R. Zera be concerned lest it escape? The answer is that death is not a frequent occurrence. It is obviously far more likely for an animal used as a wall to a sukkah to run away than it is for it to escape. Since death at this particular moment is unlikely to occur, R. Zera says that R. Meir would not be concerned.

והאיכא רווחא דביני ביני!

דעביד ליה בהוצא ודפנא.

ודלמא רבעה! – דמתיחה באשלי מלעיל.

 

But is there not an open space between [the animal’s legs]?

[It refers to] where he filled it in with branches of palms and bay-trees.

But might it not lie down?

[It refers to] where it was tied with cords from above.

 

The Talmud now raises some general problems with using an animal as a wall for a sukkah. What about the space between its legs? The answer is that he fills that space in.

And why aren’t we concerned lest the animal lie down? The answer is that he ties it up from above.

 

ולמאן דאמר גזרה שמא תמות נמי, הא מתיחה באשלי מלעיל! – זמנין דמוקים בפחות משלשה סמוך לסכך, וכיון דמייתא – כווצא, ולאו אדעתיה.

 

 

And according to him who says, Lest it die, is it not tied with cords from above?

It might happen that it is made to stand within three [handbreadths] of the skhakh but when it dies, it shrinks, and he might not notice.

 

This section concludes with another difficulty. If we said that in order for the animal to be used as a wall it must be tied up to the top of the wall, why should be concerned lest it die? Even if it dies, it seems that the carcass will stay standing up and can serve as a wall.

The answer is that he might have tied the animal up just within three handbreadths of the skhakh. If the animal dies it will sag a bit and be more than three handbreadths from the skhakh. This will invalidate the sukkah but he won’t notice. Therefore, even if it is tied up the one who is concerned lest it die still needs to be concerned.

 

We should note that these types of answers are admittedly far-fetched. They demonstrate how far the Talmud is willing to go to resolve all potential difficulties. In this case, it does make for some good images an animal tied up to the roof of the sukkah with palm fronds between its legs! Especially if it’s dead! Those rabbis.