20.5 - Sukkah Daf 24 A (16 lines Up)

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. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate