Today’s learning sponsored

Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause_pdetails/ODUwOTU

Rabbi Meir: An animal cannot be used as a sukkah wall. Rabbi Yehuda: It may be used.

Abayye: Rabbi Yehuda is “not concerned about death”, and there is no fear of the animal dying and invalidating the sukkah.

Summary

Challenge: Is Rabbi Yehuda “not concerned about death”?! We learned in a mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda: They would prepare a second wife for him [the kohen gadol who would do the avodah on Yom Kippur only if he was married] in case his wife died.

Resolution: We learned regarding this: Rav Huna brei D’Rav Yehoshua: This was a special stringency because of the greatness of the kapparah for the entire nation on that day.

We learned a beraisa in 20.2: If one stationed an animal on one side of the sukkah to use it as a wall: Rabbi Meir: It is possul. Rabbi Yehuda: It is kosher. Rabbi Meir would say: A living thing cannot be used as a wall for a sukkah, a lechi for a mavui, pasei bira’os (3.4), or a golel. They quoted Rabbi Yosi Haglili: Additionally, a get cannot be written on a living animal’s hide.

Challenge: According to both Abayye (the animal may die) and Rabbi Zeira (the animal may escape) [20.2], Rabbi Meir agrees that d’orayso an animal is a valid mechitza it is only d’rabbanan that it is considered invalid. If so, why would Rabbi Meir say that an animal cannot be a golel? (If it’s a valid mechitza min hatorah then it should contract tumah even if the chachomim say it cannot be used as a mechitza)!

Rav Acha bar Yaakov: Rabbi Meir holds that a mechitza held up by air (the animal’s life force) is not a valid mechitza even d’orayso.

Ikka D’omri [a different version]: Rav Acha bar Yaakov: Rabbi Meir holds that a natural mechitza (something that cannot be manmade) is not a valid mechitza.

Question: What is the difference between the two ways?

Answer: The difference would be if one used an air-filled sack as a mechitza. While it is air-filled, it is manmade.

Rabbi Yosi Haglili: A get cannot be written on a living animal’s hide.

Question: What is Rabbi Yosi Haglili’s reasoning?

Answer: Beraisa: The possuk states “He should write her a sefer (document) of divorce”. It seems that the possuk limits us to using only a sefer. But the possuk says “he should write”, so it seems that it can be written on anything. If so, why does the possuk mention a sefer specifically? This teaches that a get can be written on anything that bears a resemblance to a document. Meaning, it is not a living creature or a food.

The Chachomim who argue on Rabbi Yosi Haglili answer: The possuk doesn’t say “write it in a sefer” which would indicate a specific form of writing. The possuk merely says that a sefer, a sippur devarim: a document, should be written.