(R. Chanan b. Rava): Hizmi and Higi (types of bush) may be used as Sechach

(Abaye): Higi may not be used.

Question: What is the reason for the prohibition?

Answer: Since the Higi leaves tend to fall down, they may cause a person, in his discomfort, to leave his Sukah.

(R. Gidal citing Rav): The base of the young date-palm (where the branches all originate) may be used.

This is even though it looks like a bundle, since it was packaged by Heaven.

It is even permitted to tie the upper branches because the decree is confined to many items that are tied together, and not to one item that one ties in order to connect its various parts.

(R. Chisda citing Ravina b. Shila): The same as by the young date-palm is true by a group of canes growing out of one branch (as the Beraisa states that Kanim and Dokranim may be used as Sechach).

Question: It is obvious that we could use Kanim!?

Answer: The Beraisa should be understood as permitting the Kanim of Dokranim meaning, as stated, a bunch of canes that grow out of one root.

(R. Chisda citing Ravina b. Shila): One may use Marerisa deAgma as Maror on Pesach.

Question: But the Beraisa disqualifies hyssop from being used for the Parah Adumah, if it has a descriptive title (i.e. 'a Greek hyssop' or 'a blue hyssop'), since the Torah prescribes a plain hyssop.

Note: Given that the Torah also prescribes plain Maror for the Seder, how can Maror with a descriptive title be Kosher?

Answer (Abaye): That restriction applies only to those items which were selected by the Torah among other items with similar, but with descriptive, names (as the hyssop, selected among the various types of hyssop mentioned, thus disqualifying them).

However, at the time when the Torah was given, our Marerisa deAgma was called just plain Maror, and is therefore Kosher.

Answer (Rava): A disqualifying descriptive name describes the species, not the place in which the item grows, as the Marerisa deAgma is called such simply because it grows in the marshes.

(R. Chisda): One stalk is not called an Eged, three is a bundle and two is a Machlokes between R. Yosi and Rabanan (in the Mishnah in Parah regarding the Eizov).

(Tana Kama): The Mitzvah of Eizov requires three roots, each comprising one stalk.

(R. Yosi): The Mitzvah requires three stalks, and it is sufficient if two remain after one falls off (Shirayav), and some bit must remain once the ends break off from use (Girdumav).

We initially infer (from the way that R. Chisda invoked R. Yosi) that R. Yosi permits two stalks even l'Chatchilah, and that three is for a Mitzvah.

If that were so, then the Rabanan (who seem to be the more Machmir position above) will hold that one is not Yotzei at all with less than three stalks.

Question: But we find in the Beraisa that R. Yosi is Machmir, holding that Eizov must have at least three stalks l'Chatchilah and remaining with at least two!?

Answer: We reverse our initial assumption and conclude that R. Yosi, who heard the Chachamim require three stalks l'Chatchilah, responded that three stalks are required even Bedieved.

This is supported by the Beraisa which says that three is a Mitzvah, two is a starting minimum, and one is a remaining minimum (Rabanan) and adds, that it is Pasul if it remains with one.

Question: The Beraisa contradicts itself on whether remaining with one is Kosher (the Reisha) or Pasul (the Seifa)!?

Answer: The Pesul of the Seifa speaks of the initial Eizov which is taken, which may not be only one (as that is not called a bundle) even though it may end up remaining as one after use (and the Chachamim indeed hold that three is a Mitzvah, and is not Me'akev).

(Mereimar): We may use bundles of canes in Sura (even though they were tied) since they were tied into bundles (briefly, to maintain a set number in each bundle) for the purpose of selling them (not subject to Gezerias Otzar which remain as bundles).

(R. Aba): We may use Tzerifa de'Urveni (a round, pointed hut made out of willow branches) after untying the top knot.

Question: But the branches are still woven below!?

Answer (R. Papa): He must untie the knot which holds the weaving together, but he need not actually undo the weaving.

Answer (R. Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): It is unnecessary to release the knot on the lower weaving because the hut can no longer be carried (once the upper knot was untied) and it is thus not invalidated as a bundle.

(R. Aba citing Shmuel): Any vegetables which may be used as Maror on Pesach creates an Ohel to transmit Tum'ah, but does not block Tum'ah from rising through it (Gezeira d'Rabanan) and it invalidates Sechach with a Shiur of three Tefachim (like air does), and not four Tefachim (like Sechach Pasul does).

The reason for these Chumros is because they tend to dry up, so we view them (l'Chumra) as if they had already done so.

(R. Aba citing R. Huna): Grapes that are picked for the wine-press have no Yados (the stalks do not transmit Tum'ah to the grapes because he does not need them to handle the grapes) [Later called the case of Botzer].

(R. Menasia b. Gada also citing R. Huna): Similarly, if someone cuts sheaves (with grain) to use as Sechach, the stalks are not considered a Yad to the wheat kernels (since he does not wish for the kernels to remain attached to the stalks) [The case of Kotzer].

If the case of Kotzer does not create a Yad, then Botzer certainly will not do so (since he certainly does not want (wine-absorbing) stalks in his wine press.

If we learn that Botzer does not create a Yad, then we could infer that Kotzer does since he may wish that the grains remain attached to (and preserve [or be preserved by]) the sheaves.

Question: It seems like the teaching of R. Menasia b. Gada (whether Kotzer creates Yados) is a Machlokes Tanaim in the Beraisa?

(Tana Kama): If one has any type of branch, sheaf or stalk with its fruit on it, there must be more inedible vegetation than fruit for the branches to be Sechach.

(Acheirim): The waste must exceed both the fruit and the Yados (the part of the stalks which would serve as a handle) to the fruit to be Mevatel them.

It is clear that R. Aba (who maintains that the stalks on Sukos are Yados -see 5.d.) cannot hold like the Tana Kama, who holds that they are not Yados, and needs this to be a Machlokes Tanaim so that he can hold like Acheirim.

However, R. Menasia b. Gada could explain his position on Kotzer either as dependent on the Machlokes (and he would side with the Tana Kama) or independent of it.

Answer: R. Menasia b. Gada maintains that even Acheirim holds like him (that stalks do not have the Din of Yados) and the Beraisa speaks where the owner initially cut the stalks for food, but then changed his mind to use them as Sechach (and Acheirim gives the stalks the Din of Yad because we go after the owner's intention at the time when he cut them).

Question: Then why (if they were cut for food) would Rabanan not give them Yados?!

Answer: Rabanan hold that his second thought cancels his first one.