Sukkah 24 – Should one be concerned with improbabilities?

In discussing the use of an animal for walls of a sukkah, Rabbi Yehudah allows it: as long as it serves as a partition, it is a valid wall. However, Rabbi Meir says that the Sages decreed not to do this. Why not? The animal may die, and in doing so, bring its height to less than ten handbreadths. One may not notice this and continue sitting in a sukkah that is not kosher. According to this, an elephant, which is high enough even in death, would make a valid partition.

But is it Rabbi Meir's way to be concerned with improbabilities? For example, if one buys wine that may not have been tithed and needs to drink it on Shabbat, he can separate the tithe in his mind and do it physically after Shabbat – and there Rabbi Meir is not concerned that the wine bag will break and leave him with no tithe! - He will answer that it is more likely for an animal to die than for a wineskin to break.

But is Rabbi Yehudah not concerned with the possibility of death? Why, on Yom Kippur, he prepares another wife for the High Priest – lest his wife will die! – He will answer that Yom Kippur is special.

So you are saying that you are concerned about the animal's death, but otherwise, the animal could be a wall? If so, it is a utensil and can receive spiritual impurity. Why then does Rabbi Meir consider it pure even when used as a coffin cover? Because of this objection, we take away all of the previous discussion and say that the real reason why an animal cannot be a wall is that Rabbi Meir requires walls made by man's hands in a sukkah.

Art: The Display of the Elephant by Pietro Longhi