Parallel
סוכה 13
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?
—
— Say rather, Unless at the outset, [it contains] no more than the permitted number for its remnant, viz., one. Meremar expounded, The bundles of Sura are valid as a Sukkah-covering. Although [the seller] binds them together he does so merely to facilitate their counting. R. Abba said, As for cone-shaped bundles of bulrushes, as soon as the top-knots are untied they are valid [as a Sukkah-covering]. But are they not still tied at the bottom? — R. Papa answered, [This is a case] where he loosens them. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said, one can even ‘say that [it is valid though] he does not loosen them, since a binding which is not made to facilitate transport is not considered a binding. R. Abba said in the name of Samuel, Herbs concerning which the Sages said that a man fulfils with them his obligation on Passover, carry ritual defilement, do not act as an interposition to ritual defilement and cause invalidity in a Sukkah-covering in the same manner as an air space. What is the reason? — Since when they wither they crumble and fall, they are regarded as though they were not there. R. Abba further said in the name of R. Huna, He who cuts grapes for the vat, does not render their ‘handles’ [stalks] susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness; while R. Menashia b. Gada said in the name of R. Huna, He who cuts [ears of corn] for a Sukkah-covering does not render their handles susceptible to uncleanliness. He who holds this opinion with regard to the cutting [of ears], certainly holds it with regard to the cutting of grapes, since one does not desire [any stalks] lest they suck up one's wine; he who holds the opinion that the cutting of grapes does not render their stalks susceptible to the uncleanliness, holds that the cutting [of ears] does render them susceptible since one is pleased to use [the ears] for the Sukkah-covering in order that [the grains] be not scattered. Must we say that the [ruling of] R. Menashia b. Gada is a point at issue between Tannas? For it has been taught, Boughs of fig-trees on which there are figs, branches of vines on which there are grapes, or straws on which there are ears of corn or palm-branches on which there are dates, all these, if the inedible part is greater than the edible are valid [for a Sukkah-covering], otherwise, they are invalid. ‘Others’ say, [They are not valid] unless the straw is more than both the ‘handle’ and the food. Now do they not differ on this principle, that one Master holds the opinion they render the handles susceptible to uncleanliness, while the other Master holds the opinion that they do not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness? — According to R. Abba, there is certainly a dispute of the Tannas, but according to R. Menashia b. Gada, must we say that [his ruling is] in agreement only with one of the Tannas? — R. Menashia can answer you, All agree that he who cuts ears for a Sukkah-covering does not render the ‘handles’ susceptible to uncleanliness, but here we are dealing with a particular case where he cuts them for food, and then changed his mind [and used them] for a Sukkah-covering. But if he cut them for food, what is the reason [for the view] of the Rabbis? And if you will answer that the Rabbis are of the opinion that since he changed his mind about them [to use them] for a Sukkah-covering, his original intention becomes annulled, [it may be objected], does then one's intention become annulled in such a case? Have we not learnt: All vessels
—