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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?