## Sukkah Daf 13a

###### Sukkah 13a:1
[Sukkah 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:1)

דְּסָרֵי רֵיחַיְיהוּ — שָׁבֵיק לְהוּ וְנָפֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**their odor grows offensive** over time, **one abandons** the *sukka* **and exits.** It is inappropriate to establish a *sukka* in which it is impossible to remain.


###### Sukkah 13a:2
[Sukkah 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:2)

אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא: הָנֵי הִיזְמֵי וְהִיגֵי מְסַכְּכִין בְּהוּ. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּהִיזְמֵי — מְסַכְּכִינַן, בְּהִיגֵי — לָא מְסַכְּכִינַן. מַאי טַעְמָא — כֵּיוָן דְּנָתְרִי טַרְפַיְיהוּ, שָׁבֵיק לַהּ וְנָפֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said:** With regard to **these thorns and shrubs, one** may **roof** the *sukka* **with them. Abaye said: With thorns, one** may **roof** his *sukka*; **with shrubs, one** may **not roof** his *sukka*. **What is the reason** for this distinction? **Since their leaves fall** over time and they are apt to fall into the food and disturb those in the *sukka*, **one abandons** the *sukka* **and exits.**


###### Sukkah 13a:3
[Sukkah 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:3)

אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: הַאי אַפָּקוּתָא דְּדִיקְלָא מְסַכְּכִין בְּהוּ. אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲגִידִי, אֶגֶד בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם לָא שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד. אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲדַר אָגֵיד לְהוּ, אֶיגֶד בְּחַד לָא שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said:** With regard to **this offshoot of the** trunk of the **palm tree,** from which several branches emerge; **one** may **roof the *sukka* with it. Although** the branches **are** naturally **bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding.** Furthermore, **although one then binds** the branches together at the end removed from the trunk, where they grow apart into separate branches, and roofs with them, the *sukka* is fit, since if **one binds** a bundle that is already bound **into one** unit **it is not considered a binding.**


###### Sukkah 13a:4
[Sukkah 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:4)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: הָנֵי דּוּקְרֵי דְקָנֵי מְסַכְּכִין בְּהוּ. אַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲגִידִי נִינְהוּ — אֶגֶד בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם לָא שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד. אַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲדַר אָגֵיד לְהוּ — אֶיגֶד בְּחַד לָא שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **Rav Ḥisda said** that **Ravina bar Sheila said:** With regard to **these offshoots of reeds, one** may **roof the *sukka* with them. Although** the branches **are** naturally **bound, a binding at the hand of Heaven is not considered a binding.** Furthermore, **although one then binds** the reeds together at the other end, the *sukka* is fit, since if **one binds** a bundle that is already bound **into one** unit **it is not considered a binding.**


###### Sukkah 13a:5
[Sukkah 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:5)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: קָנִים וְדוּקְרָנִין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן. קָנִים פְּשִׁיטָא! אֵימָא: קָנִים שֶׁל דּוּקְרָנִין מְסַכְּכִין בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that **this** opinion **is also taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **reeds and spades, one** may **roof** a *sukka* **with them.** The Gemara asks: The fact that one may roof his *sukka* with **reeds** is **obvious.** After all, they meet all the criteria of fit roofing. Rather, **say:** With regard to **these offshoots of reeds, one** may **roof the *sukka* with them.**


###### Sukkah 13a:6
[Sukkah 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:6)

וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: הָנֵי מְרָרְיָתָא דְאַגְמָא — אָדָם יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the above *halakha*, the Gemara cites another statement that **Rav Ḥisda said** that **Ravina bar Sheila said: With these bitter herbs of a marsh, a person fulfills his obligation on Passover.**


###### Sukkah 13a:7
[Sukkah 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵזוֹב, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב יוֹן, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב כּוֹחֳלִי, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב מִדְבָּרִי, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב רוֹמִי, וְלֹא אֵזוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection to his** opinion. With regard to every mitzva that requires use of hyssop, one takes standard **hyssop and neither a hyssop** that grows in **Greece, nor stibium hyssop, nor desert hyssop, nor Roman hyssop, nor** any other kind of **hyssop whose** name is accompanied by **a modifier.** The same should hold true for the mitzva of bitter herbs; bitter herbs of the marsh, whose name is accompanied by a modifier, are not the bitter herbs mentioned in the Torah.


###### Sukkah 13a:8
[Sukkah 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:8)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה שְׁמוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, וּבָאתָה תּוֹרָה וְהִקְפִּידָה עָלָיו — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם לְוַוי. וְהָנֵי לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה שְׁמַיְיהוּ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה כְּלָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** in response: There is a distinction between the cases. **Every** species **whose name was differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah,** i.e., the distinction between its different subspecies predated the Revelation at Sinai, **and the Torah** then **came and was particular about** one specific subspecies, **it is known that** the species **has** other subspecies identified with **a modifier** that are unfit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. **And these** bitter herbs, **their names were not differentiated prior to the giving of the Torah at all;** all the subspecies were known simply as bitter herbs. Therefore, when the Torah requires bitter herbs, one may fulfill the mitzva with all subspecies of bitter herbs.


###### Sukkah 13a:9
[Sukkah 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:9)

רָבָא אָמַר: הָנֵי — מְרָרְיָתָא סְתָמָא שְׁמַיְיהוּ, וְהַאי דְּקָרֵי לְהוּ מְרָרְיָתָא דְאַגְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּמִשְׁתְּכַח בְּאַגְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** a different explanation. Actually, the **name** of this plant **is merely bitter herbs** without a modifier. **And** the fact **that one calls them bitter herbs of the marsh is because they are** typically **found in the marsh.** Therefore, there is no reason that they may not be used to fulfill the mitzva on Passover.


###### Sukkah 13a:10
[Sukkah 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:10)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֶיגֶד בְּחַד — לָא שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד. שָׁלֹשׁ — שְׁמֵיהּ אֶגֶד. שְׁנַיִם — מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן: מִצְוַת אֵזוֹב, שְׁלֹשָׁה קְלָחִים וּבָהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה גִבְעוֹלִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מִצְוַת אֵזוֹב שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּבְעוֹלִין, וּשְׁיָרָיו שְׁנַיִם, וְגַרְדּוּמָּיו כׇּל שֶׁהוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda said: If one bound one** item, even if he did so with a knot, **it is not considered a binding.** If one bound **three** items together, everyone agrees that **it is considered a binding.** If one bound **two** items, it is the subject of **a dispute** between **Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis, as we learned** in a mishna: With regard to all matters that involve **the mitzva of hyssop,** the requirement is to have **three stalks** with their roots, **and on them three stems,** one on each stalk. **Rabbi Yosei says:** The **mitzva of hyssop** fundamentally requires **three stems.** If the bundle of hyssop was rendered incomplete, **its remnants** are fit for use with **two** stems. If all the stems broke, the hyssop is fit for use, as long as the **stumps of its** central stem remain **any size.**


###### Sukkah 13a:11
[Sukkah 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:11)

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין מִדִּשְׁיָרָיו שְׁנַיִם, תְּחִילָּתוֹ נָמֵי שְׁנַיִם, וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה — לְמִצְוָה. וּמִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה לְמִצְוָה, לְרַבָּנַן שְׁלֹשָׁה לְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It enters our minds** to say: **From** the fact **that** Rabbi Yosei said that for the bundle of hyssop to be fit for the mitzva after the fact **its remnants are two,** apparently **its origins** were **also two** stalks. **And** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches** that the binding includes **three** plants, that is the requirement **for** the **mitzva** to be performed *ab initio*. **And from** the fact **that Rabbi Yosei** requires **three** plants only **for** the **mitzva** to be performed *ab initio*, conclude that **the Rabbis,** who disagree with him, hold that failure to include **three** stalks in the bundle **renders it unfit** for the mitzva. Apparently, the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei dispute whether it is two or three items that are necessary to be considered a binding.


###### Sukkah 13a:12
[Sukkah 13a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:12)

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵזוֹב תְּחִילָּתוֹ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁיָרָיו אֶחָד פָּסוּל, וְאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא תְּחִילָּתוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה וּשְׁיָרָיו שְׁנַיִם! אֵיפוֹךְ: לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה לְעַכֵּב, לְרַבָּנַן שְׁלֹשָׁה לְמִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions that understanding of the dispute. **But wasn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei said:** With regard to the **hyssop** bundle, if **its origins** were **two** stalks **and its remnants are one,** it is **unfit. And it is fit only when its origins** were **three and its remnants are two.** Rather, **reverse** the opinions in the mishna: According **to Rabbi Yosei,** failure to include **three** stalks in the bundle **renders it unfit** for the mitzva; according **to the Rabbis, three** is the requirement **for** the **mitzva** to be performed *ab initio*.


###### Sukkah 13a:13
[Sukkah 13a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:13)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵזוֹב תְּחִילָּתוֹ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁיָרָיו אֶחָד — כָּשֵׁר, וְאֵינוֹ פָּסוּל עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא תְּחִלָּתוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a *baraita* supporting this understanding. **And this was taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the **hyssop** bundle, if **its origins** were **two** stalks **and its remnants** are **one,** it is **fit. And it is unfit only when its origins and its remnants** are **one.** Clearly, this is the opinion of the Rabbis.


###### Sukkah 13a:14
[Sukkah 13a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sukkah/r/13a:14)

שְׁיָרָיו אֶחָד פָּסוּל? הָא אָמְרַתְּ שְׁיָרָיו אֶחָד כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the end of the *baraita*: If **its remnants** are **one,** it is **unfit? Didn’t you say** in the first clause of the *baraita* that if **its remnants** are **one** it is **fit?**