hyssop

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 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.

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? 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.

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.

What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces it from the word "take" [which occurs here (Leviticus 23:40) and with] the "taking" with regard to the bundle of hyssop (Exodus 12:22). It is written here, "And you shall take on the first day" and there it is written, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop." Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle. And the Rabbis? They do not deduce from the mention of the word "take" in the two passages.

What is the reason of R. Judah? He deduces it from the word "take" [which occurs here (Leviticus 23:40) and with] the "taking" with regard to the bundle of hyssop (Exodus 12:22). It is written here, "And you shall take on the first day" and there it is written, "And you shall take a bundle of hyssop." Just as there [it must be] a bundle, so here also [it must be] a bundle. And the Rabbis? They do not deduce from the mention of the word "take" in the two passages.

Rava said: From where do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking? From what we have learned: If the hyssop is too short, he may provide it with a thread or with a reed and dip it and bring it up, and then hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling. Why? Didn't the Torah say, "And he shall take hyssop and dip?" (Numbers 19:18). Rather learn from there that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’?

Rava said: From where do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking? From what we have learned: If the hyssop is too short, he may provide it with a thread or with a reed and dip it and bring it up, and then hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling. Why? Didn't the Torah say, "And he shall take hyssop and dip?" (Numbers 19:18). Rather learn from there that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’?

Rava said: From where do I derive that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid taking? From what we have learned: If the hyssop is too short, he may provide it with a thread or with a reed and dip it and bring it up, and then hold the hyssop itself when sprinkling. Why? Didn't the Torah say, "And he shall take hyssop and dip?" (Numbers 19:18). Rather learn from there that taking hold by means of something else is also regarded as a valid ‘taking’?

But why? Perhaps that case is different; since [the thread or reed] was joined on [to the hyssop], it is regarded as part of it? Rather [deduce] from here: [If the ashes of the red heifer] fell from their tube into the trough they are invalid.