Manage episode 298748134 series 104296
Today's daf is sponsored by David Eisenstein in memory of Channa Bat Yehudah Yosef Ravvin. "In memory of my Aunt Hannah Ravvin whose life and family inspire us in our commitment to Jewish Life and learning."
The mishna permits a sukkah on a boat. The gemara points out that this is a subject of debate among Rabbi Akiva and Rabban Gamliel. The root of the debate is: does a sukkah need to be able to stand up to an atypical wind on land (which is like a typical wind on the water) or does it just need to be able to stand up to a typical wind on land. A sukkah on a camel is also a subject of debate – between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. Does it need to be a sukkah that can be used for all seven days or is it enough that on a Torah level it can be used for all seven days, even though the rabbis prohibited it? Can an animal be used as a wall for a sukkah, a lechi for an alleyway, etc? Rabbi Meir forbids and Rabbi Yehuda permits. Abaye and Rabbi Zeira disagree in their understanding of Rabbi Meir’s reasoning – is it concern maybe the animal will die or concern it may run away. The gemara discusses these opinions at length and finds a case where they would disagree. Next, the gemara questions Abaye’s opinion that Rabbi Meir is concern it may die. In a contradiction between a mishna and a braita regarding the daughter of an Israelite married to a Kohen – she can eat truma as long as her husband is alive. In one source, we are concerned that maybe he will die and not permit her to continue to eat truma. In the other, we are not concerned and she can continue to eat. Abaye resolved that contradiction by saying that Rabbi Meir is the one who is not concerned and Rabbi Yehuda is. He proves this from the case of one who buys wine from a Cuti (Shomroni) and can’t separate tithes (it is Shabbat or he doesn’t have pure vessels to separate it). Rabbi Meir has a resolution and Rabbi Yehuda does not. It seems that debate there is: are we worried the flask will crack. This is where Abaye brings his proof that Rabbi Meir is not concerned it will break (similar to not concerned the husband died) and Rabbi Yehuda is. This contradicts Abaye’s own understanding of the Rabbi Meir/Yehuda debate by the animal functioning as a wall.