Sukkah 13a — the Talmud in English

Since ![](pamud.bmp "

exact location of the page")

those “shutzarei”

—

their scent is foul,

their smell is bad, and if he roofs his sukka with them,

he will abandon them and leave.

The owner of the sukka will leave his sukka in the middle of the festival and go back home. Therefore, the Sages decreed not to use them for roofing ab initio.

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: With these hizmei and higei

—they are types of thorny plants—

one may roof with them,

since they are not food and cannot contract ritual impurity.

Abaye said: With hizmei one may roof,

but

with

the species called

higei, one may not roof.

What is the reason? Since

those “higei”

shed

their leaves,

their leaves fall and cause him distress. Therefore, there is concern that if he roofs his sukka with them,

he will abandon it and leave.

The owner of the sukka will leave his sukka and return home. Therefore, the Sages decreed not to roof with them ab initio.

Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With this apkotah of a palm,

those spikes that emerge from the palm near the place where it joins the ground,

one may roof with them,

and there is no prohibition against roofing with bundles.

And

even though they are bound,

they are joined together at their lower end and form a bundle, nevertheless they are valid, because

a binding effected by Heaven is not called a binding.

It is called a bundle only when it is tied by a person.

And

even though he subsequently bound them,

meaning that he himself later tied them at the top so that they would not spread in different directions, they are not prohibited as a bundle, because

binding a single item is not called a binding.

A single item is not considered a bundle even if one winds ropes around it and ties them, unless one binds another item together with it. Therefore, the “apkotah of a palm,” since its components are joined to one another at their lower end by Heaven, is like a single item, and is not considered a bundle even if he tied it at its upper end.

Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina bar Sheila said: With these dukrei of reeds,

they are similar to the apkotah of a palm, except that these are from reeds and those are from palms],

one may roof with them,

and they are not invalid as a bundle.

And

even though they are bound

they are bound at their lower end],

a binding effected by Heaven is not called a binding.

And

even though he subsequently bound them

at their upper end,

binding a single item is not called a binding.

It was taught likewise in a baraita: One may roof with reeds and spikes.

If you explain this literally, that the baraita teaches us two laws—namely, that one may roof both with reeds and with wooden spikes [“spikes” is a type of wood, as in the phrase, “He shall dig with a spike and cover it,” Beitza 2a]—then it is difficult:

“Reeds”

that the tanna mentioned is

obvious;

why did the tanna need to tell us that one may roof with them?

Rather, it must be that

say: Reeds of spikes,

that is, “spikes of reeds”—at the lower part of the reeds, near the ground, small spikes emerge that are joined to one another. The baraita teaches us that they are not treated as a bundle, and therefore

one may roof with them.

And

further

Rav Ḥisda said that Ravina bar Sheila

this is brought here incidentally to his previous statement]:

These mareritah of the marsh,

the wild lettuce that grows in a “marsh,” in a meadow,

a person fulfills his obligation with them on Passover

for the mitzva of bitter herbs.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Meytivi

from what we learned in a baraita:

“Hyssop”

mentioned in the Torah everywhere means ordinary hyssop,

and not Greek hyssop, nor koḥali hyssop

a place name ],

nor desert hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor

any other

hyssop

that

has an accompanying name,

which is not called simply “hyssop” but has an additional designation.

Likewise, concerning the mitzva of bitter herbs, the Torah says, “They shall eat it with bitter herbs,” without an accompanying name. Accordingly, one cannot fulfill the mitzva of bitter herbs with “mareritah of the marsh,” since it is called by an accompanying name and not simply “bitter herb.”

Abaye said:

Keep this principle in mind:

Whenever its name changed

and it is not “ordinary,” but has an accompanying name, and this was already the case

before the giving of the Torah, and the Torah came and was particular about it,

saying “bitter herbs” without qualification, meaning without an accompanying name,

it is known

that this refers to something

that has an accompanying name.

In other words, its accompanying name disqualifies it for the mitzva of bitter herbs, since the Torah mentioned ordinary bitter herb and did not mention it as well. But if its name changed after the giving of the Torah, there is no proof from the fact that the Torah did not mention it by that name, for it is included in the ordinary “bitter herb” referred to by the Torah.

But these “

mareritah of the marsh”

did not have their name changed at all before the giving of the Torah.

Rava said

to resolve the matter differently:

The ordinary name of these is “mareritah.”

That is, this bitter herb is not called “mareritah of the marsh,” but simply mareritah.

And the reason they call it “mareritah of the marsh”

is merely an indication of its location,

because it is found in the marsh,

where it is commonly found.

It was explained above that if a single item is bound, this is not a “bundle” that disqualifies it for roofing because of the prohibition against bundles.

Rav Ḥisda said:

Likewise, with regard to the “bundle of hyssop” mentioned in the Torah concerning the sprinkling of the “water of purification”—[water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer], which is placed on the impure person by means of a bundle of hyssop, a bundle of several hyssop stems—

binding a single item,

binding one stem—

is not called a binding.

Three

stems bound together—

is called a binding.

Two

bound stems—

it is the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis

whether they are considered a bundle.

As we learned [in Para 11:9]:

[Пара 11:9]:

The mitzva of hyssop

for sprinkling the water of the red heifer, concerning which the Torah says, “And he shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and a pure man shall sprinkle it upon the tent,” is performed with

three stems,

the roots of hyssop,

and on them three stalks,

one stalk for each stem. [This law is derived by means of a gzera shava from the Torah’s statement concerning the Passover offering in Egypt, “And you shall take a bundle of hyssop”; and a bundle consists of no fewer than three.]

Rabbi Yosei says: The mitzva of hyssop

is with three stalks, and its remnants are two.

That is, if one of the three stalks of the bundle fell away later, and only two stalks remained, they are valid for sprinkling.

And its “stumps,”

its remnants,

may be of any size.

When it is used for sprinkling many times, its stalks break because they are soft. If anything at all remains in the bundle, it is valid for sprinkling, provided that something remains of each of them, so that its status as a bundle remains.

It might have entered your mind

that the Gemara could explain Rav Ḥisda’s statement as follows: According to Rabbi Yosei, two are called a bundle, whereas according to the Rabbis, only three are called a bundle. This is how Rav Ḥisda understood the mishna:

From

what Rabbi Yosei said,

“its remnants” are two,

certainly

its initial state also

is valid after the fact with

two.

Since two suffice to constitute a “bundle.”

And the fact that it teaches, “three,”

is only ab initio,

for the mitzva

alone.

And from Rabbi Yosei

who says that

“three” are required for the mitzva,

it follows that

according to the Rabbis, “three”

which they stated is

indispensable,

for they maintain that a bundle cannot consist of fewer than three. For if this were not so, but they too required three only for the mitzva, what does Rabbi Yosei come to dispute with them about? It follows, then, that whether two constitute a bundle is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning this understanding of Rav Ḥisda’s words: Did Rabbi Yosei indeed validate a bundle that was initially made with only two stalks?

But it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Hyssop

whose

initial state was two,

two stalks,

and whose remnants are one,

one having fallen from it, is

invalid. And it is not valid until its initial state was three

—its initial state is valid only with three, for fewer than that do not constitute a bundle—

and

the

remnants

are valid only when there are

two,

but if only one remains, it is invalid.

Thus, it is not valid unless it was initially bound with three; with fewer than that, it is not a bundle. Rabbi Yosei validated it only when it initially had three and two remained. How, then, did Rav Ḥisda say that according to Rabbi Yosei two are considered a bundle?!

The Gemara answers:

Reverse

our understanding of Rav Ḥisda’s statement, and this is what Rav Ḥisda said:

According to Rabbi Yosei

they said

three are indispensable,

and the bundle is not valid unless three stalks were bound initially. Whereas

according to the Rabbis, three

which they stated is required only ab initio,

for the mitzva.

Rav Ḥisda derived this from the fact that Rabbi Yosei validated the bundle only when two remnants remained. It follows that at the beginning of its binding there must have been three, and this is indispensable for fulfilling the mitzva.

The Gemara further adds and derives this point from the baraita:

But it was taught in a baraita

benignly]: A bundle of

hyssop whose initial state was two

is valid,

and whose remnants are one

is likewise

valid. And it is not invalid until both its initial state and its remnants are one.

It must be that this is the view of the Rabbis, for according to Rabbi Yosei there must be three at the time of binding. We have therefore learned that according to the Rabbis, even the initial binding is valid after the fact with two, and they required three only for the mitzva itself.

The Gemara considered explaining that the statement in the baraita, “And it is not invalid until both its initial state and its remnants are one,” contains two laws:

A. If its initial binding consisted of one, it is invalid, and it is not considered a bundle.

B. Even if its initial state consisted of two or three and only one remained, it is invalid, since it is now no longer a bundle.

Therefore, the Gemara asks: Did you derive from this baraita, as you said, that when

its remnants are one, it is invalid!?

You said

in this very baraita,

“Its remnants are one, valid”?!