Parallel
סוכה 13:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
they give an unpleasant odour, one might leave [the Sukkah] and depart. R. Hanan b. Raba said, Izma and hegeh may be employed as a Sukkah-covering; [while] Abaye said, Izma may be used, but not hegeh. What is the reason?-Since their leaves fall off, one might leave the Sukkah and depart. R. Giddal said in the name of Rab, The forked portion of a palm tree may be used as a Sukkah-covering, even although [the branches] are joined together, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even although one later joined them [the covering is valid, since] joining of one thing [to itself] is not considered a joining. R. Hisda said in the name of Rabina b. Shila, One may cover the Sukkah with forked reeds, even though they are joined, [since] a natural joining is not considered a joining; and even though one later joins them, the joining of one thing [to itself] not considered as a proper joining. So it was also taught: Reeds and forked reeds may be used as a Sukkah covering. As to reeds, this is obvious? — Read: Reeds of the forked variety may be used as a Sukkah-covering. R. Hisda [further] stated in the name of Rabina b. Shila, A man fulfils his obligation on Passover with bitter herbs of the marsh, It was objected: Hyssop but not Greek hyssop, or stibium-hyssop, or wild hyssop, or Roman hyssop or any kind of hyssop which has a special name? — Abaye answered: Whatever had different names prior to the Giving of the Law, and yet the Torah makes specific mention of the general name only obviously [the intention is to exclude such of the species which] have special names; but the former did not have different names before the Giving of the Law at all. Raba answered: Their ordinary name is really ‘bitter herbs’, but they are called ‘bitter herbs of the marsh’, because they are found in marshes. R. Hisda said, The joining of one thing [to itself] is not considered a proper joining; of three things, it is considered a joining; of two, there is a dispute between R. Jose and the Rabbis, as we have learnt, The commandment [to take a bunch] of hyssop [requires the taking of] three stalks having three buds. R. Jose says, Three buds, and its remnants [continue valid] if two [stalks remained] and if there is aught [of each] of the stumps. Now it was assumed that since its remnants [are valid] with two, at the outset also two are valid, and that the reason he teaches three is to indicate what is the most proper observance of the commandment; consequently since R. Jose requires three only for the most proper observance of the commandment according to the Rabbis three are indispensable. But has it not been taught, R. Jose says, If at the outset a bunch of hyssop has only two stalks or if its remnants consist of one, it is invalid, since a bunch is not valid unless at the outset it contains three and its remnants are no less than two? — Reverse [the assumption]: According to R. Jose three are indispensable, according to the Rabbis three are required only for the proper observance of the commandment. So it has also been taught: If a bunch of hyssop contains two stalks at the outset or if its remnant consists of one it is valid, since it is not invalid unless at the outset or when it is a remnant it consists of one. But is a remnant of one invalid? Have you not [just] said that a remnant of one is valid?
—