Sukkah, Daf Yod Gimmel, Part 3

 

Introduction

Our sugya discusses bundling the hyssop used to apply the blood to the lintel and doorpost when the Israelites left Egypt (Exodus 12) or the hyssop used in the red heifer ritual (Numbers 19). While these are no longer practical issues the ramifications are still practical what counts as bundling something up and what does not? In our tractate the practical ramification to this dispute is what counts as "bundles" such that the material cannot be used for skhakh.

 

אמר רב חסדא: איגד בחד – לא שמיה אגד, שלש – שמיה אגד, שנים – מחלוקת רבי יוסי ורבנן. דתנן: מצות אזוב – שלשה קלחים ובהן שלשה גבעולין, רבי יוסי אומר: מצות אזוב שלשה גבעולין, ושיריו שנים, וגרדומיו כל שהוא.

 

R. Hisda said: The bundling of one thing [to itself] is not considered bundling; of three things, it is considered bundling; of two, there is a dispute between R. Yose and the rabbis, as we have learned: The mitzvah of the hyssop: it should have three stalks bearing three buds. Rabbi Yose says: the mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should have three stalks, and on them three buds, but its remnants need only have two, while its stumps may be of the smallest size.

 

R. Hisda states that if one bundles one thing to itself it doesn’t count as "bundling." But if one bundles three things together, they do count as having been bundled together. There is a debate over whether bundling two things together counts as bundling. To show that there is a dispute about this R. Hisda cites a dispute from Mishnah Parah 11:9 concerning the hyssop used in either the Exodus from Egypt or in the red heifer ritual. We shall see presently show how R. Hisda understands this mishnah such that the rabbis and R. Yose disagree over whether two bundled things count as a "bundle."

 

קא סלקא דעתין: מדשיריו שנים – תחילתו נמי שנים, והאי דקתני שלשה – למצוה.

ומדרבי יוסי שלשה למצוה, לרבנן שלשה לעכב.

 

Now we should assume 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. And since R. Yose requires three only for the most proper observance of the commandment according to the rabbis three are indispensable.

 

R. Yose says that if one of the stalks falls away from the original bundle of three, the remnants are still valid even if only two remain. This means that he only requires three for a "mitzvah" meaning it is the preferred way of observing the commandment. It is not mandatory. Now if R. Yose allows a bundle to have two than the rabbis who disagree with him would require three. According to this opinion, without three the mitzvah cannot be performed. R. Hisda explains that according to the rabbis the reason that two do not count is that two stalks of hyssop tied together don’t count as a bundle.

והתניא, רבי יוסי אומר: אזוב תחילתו שנים ושיריו אחד – פסול, ואינו כשר עד שיהא תחילתו שלשה ושיריו שנים!

 

But has it not been taught: R. Yose 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?

 

The Talmud now cites a baraita that proves that even R. Yose holds that at the outset one must have a bunch of three stalks of hyssop. It seems according to this baraita that R. Yose distinguishes between requirements at the outset of the performance of a mitzvah (three are required) and the remnants (two are sufficient). But this would be a difficulty to R. Hisda who said that R. Yose held that two were sufficient.

 

איפוך, לרבי יוסי שלשה לעכב, לרבנן שלשה למצוה.

 

Reverse [the assumption]: According to R. Yose three are indispensable, according to the rabbis three are required only for the proper observance of the commandment.

 

Based on this baraita the Talmud reverses the interpretation of the Mishnah from Parah cited above. R. Yose holds that three are required (and two are valid only if there were originally three). The other sages hold that two are sufficient even at the outset, although it would be more proper to fulfill the mitzvah with three.

 

והתניא: אזוב תחילתו שנים ושיריו אחד – כשר, ואינו פסול עד שיהא תחילתו ושיריו אחד.

 

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; it is not invalid unless at the outset or when it is a remnant it consists of one.

 

Yet another baraita is brought to support the notion that the rabbis allow a bundle of two stalks of hyssop at the outset. If the bundle started with two it is valid, even if only one remained. It is only invalid if it began with only one stalk, for one stalk cannot count as a bundle.

 

שיריו אחד פסול? הא אמרת שיריו אחד כשר!

אלא אימא: עד שתהא תחילתו כשיריו אחד.

 

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 number permitted for its remnant, one.

 

The Talmud raises a difficulty that the above baraita seems to contradict itself. At the end the baraita says that if only one remains it is invalid. But at the very beginning of the same baraita it says that if one remains it is valid.

The resolution is to emend the end of the baraita. It is invalid if the number at the outset matches the legal number of remnants one.

 

In sum, from this mishnah and baraita we have proven that R. Yose requires a bundle of three for the hyssop. Anything less than three is not a "bundle." The other rabbis say that a bundle of two also counts as a bundle. This same debate concerning the hyssop would apply to the skhakh. If two things are bundled together the rabbis would disqualify them for use as skhakh, but R. Yose would not. This is an excellent example of the Talmud using one topic of halakhah (the bundle of hyssop used either in Egypt or in the red heifer ritual) and applying it to another topic of halakhah (the skhakh).