Sukkah, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 6

 

Introduction

Yesterday’s section ended with a difficulty. Earlier in the daf Abaye had said that R. Meir was concerned lest the animal died. But in solving two mishnayot he said that R. Meir was not concerned lest the person die. Today’s section resolves the difficulty by changing Abaye’s statement.

 

איפוך: רבי מאיר חייש למיתה, ורבי יהודה לא חייש למיתה. דתניא: עשאה לבהמה דופן לסוכה, רבי מאיר פוסל ורבי יהודה מכשיר.

 

Transpose [the statement:] R. Meir is concerned for death, while R. Judah disregards is not concerned for 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.

 

To resolve the difficulty the Talmud reverses Abaye’s statement. The mishnah which was not concerned lest the husband die is now attributed to R. Judah, whereas the mishnah that is concerned lest he die is attributed to R. Meir. This is supported by a baraita which returns to our subject.

 

קשיא דרבי מאיר אדרבי מאיר!

אמר לך רבי מאיר: מיתה – שכיחא, בקיעת הנוד – לא שכיחא, אפשר דמסר ליה לשומר.

 

[But 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.

 

The problem is that there is still a contradiction between R. Meir’s two different opinions. In this baraita he is concerned lest the animal die (according to Abaye’s interpretation) whereas in the baraita about the wine he is not concerned lest something happens.

The resolution is that R. Meir is concerned with death because death is a frequent occurrence (at least it is a certain occurrence), whereas the splitting of the wineskin in which he was holding the wine he bought from the Samaritan is not a frequent occurrence. Thus R. Meir is a worrywart when it comes to things that happen frequently such as death. But he doesn’t worry about things that happen infrequently or may not ever happen at all.