Yerushalmi Eruvin 1:7 ירושלמי עירובין א׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: One may use anything for laths, even living things¹⁶One may tie an animal which is at least ten hand-breadths high to the entrance of an alley as a symbolic lath. R. Meїr requires the lath to be permanently fixed.; Rebbi Meїr forbids this. And it makes impure because of a cover stone¹⁷If an animal is used to cover a grave, it acts as a grave stone and touching it transmits the severe impurity of the dead. For R. Meїr a living animal cannot play the role of a grave stone, therefore its body is a roof over the corpse and acts as a shield against transmission of impurity., but Rebbi Meїr declares it pure. One writes on it divorce documents¹⁸The husband may write the text of the divorce document and have the witnesses sign on the horns of a cow and hand over the cow to the wife, Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3, where R. Yose the Galilean also rejects foodstuffs as writing material for divorce documents. but Rebbi Yose the Galilean disqualifies.

HALAKHAH: “One may use anything for laths,” etc. It was stated: Anything alive one makes into a sidewall²²⁵The wall of a booth for Tabernacles. but one does not make it into a lath, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Rebbi Aḥa said, there is one Tanna; for him who says that one makes it into a sidewall one makes it into a lath, and for him who says that one does not make it into a sidewall one does not make it into a lath²²⁶He asserts that both for R. Meïr and for the Sages there is no difference between the rules for Sukkah and Eruvin as far as use of animals is concerned; their only difference is whether such use is permitted or not. One statement covers both cases.. Rebbi Yose said, there are two Tannaim. Why could one make it into a sidewall? For if it would slip off, would he not notice? Why does one not make it into a lath? For if it would slip off, would he notice²²⁷There is a reason to differentiate between the rules of Sukkah and Eruvin. A person using the booth will immediately notice if a wall is missing; if the animal runs away he will not use the booth. But a person using the alley may not see the place of the lath; if the animal runs away he might use the alley to carry when it is forbidden to do so.? Rebbi Joshua the Southerner was standing with students of Rebbi Aḥa. (They said to him) [He said to them]²²⁸The reading of [G] is preferable over that of (the Leiden ms.), it is said at the end what disagrees with your teacher: But the Sages say, one does not make it into a sidewall but makes it into a lath. Since in a situation where he would not notice in case it slipped off you are saying that it is permitted, here where he would notice in case it slipped off not so much more? Therefore there must be two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa²²⁹Since R. Yose has shown that it is unreasonable to allow animals to be used for eruvin, the only question is whether the use is permitted for a sukkah or not.. Since you are saying that there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Yose, so you also have to say here, there are two Tannaim according to Rebbi Aḥa.

²³⁰This paragraph also is in Sukkah 2:4 (52d l.60, ס). Rebbi Simeon bar Carsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Meïr, and Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, all three said the same. Rebbi Meïr of the laths, “it makes impure because of a cover stone¹⁷If an animal is used to cover a grave, it acts as a grave stone and touching it transmits the severe impurity of the dead. For R. Meїr a living animal cannot play the role of a grave stone, therefore its body is a roof over the corpse and acts as a shield against transmission of impurity., but Rebbi Meïr declares it pure.²³¹As explained in the previous paragraph, an animal may run away and therefore is not under the rules of a stone in any way.” Rebbi Yose of Ahilut, “Rebbi Yose said, the house on a ship does not transmit impurity²³²Since the house is built to be moved all the time it does not qualify as “tent” and the rules of “tent impurity” do not apply to it..” Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah, as it was stated: It happened that Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah and Rebbi Aqiba came in a ship, and Rebbi Aqiba made himself a sukkah on the ship’s deck. There came a wind which blew it away. Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah said to him, Aqiba, where is your sukkah²³³R. Eleazar ben Azariah did not make a sukkah on the ship since he holds that since such a sukkah is not guaranteed to stay for the 8 days of Tabernacles it is not qualified even if the wind does not blow it away.?

²³⁴The entire paragraph, dealing with divorce documents, is from Gittin 2:3, explained there in Notes 83–97. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Scroll. Since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being. Since a scroll is special in not being food, so no food. What is the rabbis’ reason? Scroll Since a scroll is detached, so everything being detached. Are stalks of food in Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s opinion like food? Let us hear from the following: If he wrote it on a deer’s antlers, shaved it off, had it signed, and gave it to her, it is valid. Because he shaved it off before he had it signed. Therefore, not if he had it signed and afterwards shaved it off. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Miasha: Only if he wrote on the male horn. But if he wrote on the sheath²³⁵Greek νάρθηξ, -ηκος, ὁ. it is as if separated and is valid. Rebbi Jonah asked: Is that the same for preparation of produce? If he desired that it should rain on an animal and [the rain] dripped from the animal onto food. There, Rebbi Yose said scroll, since a scroll is special in not being a living being, so no living being; and here, does he say so? There is a difference since it is written²³⁶Lev. 11:34., any drinkable drink in any vessel shall be impure. Then also if it rained into cisterns, ditches and caves? There is a difference here, for it is written: a vessel.