that one may not roof, due to the decree of the storehouse issued by the Sages; but by Torah law, it seems well to do so. There, in the mishna pertaining to the stack of grain, where it teaches: It is not a sukka, it means that not only by rabbinic decree, but even after the fact, by Torah law as well, it is not a sukka.

§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, which are made of wood with a protrusion on the end that is fitted into the socket of the metal arrowhead, the sukka is fit. These shafts are flat wooden utensils, which are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are fit roofing for a sukka. If, however, one roofed his sukka with concave arrow shafts, which have a socket into which a protrusion from the metal arrowhead is inserted, the sukka is unfit. Since these shafts are wooden utensils with a receptacle, they are susceptible to ritual impurity. Therefore, they are unfit roofing for a sukka.

The Gemara asks: The fact that if one roofed a sukka with convex arrow shafts, the sukka is fit is obvious. It is no different from roofing with straight, smooth reeds. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: Let us issue a decree and prohibit roofing with convex shafts due to the prohibition against roofing with concave shafts, therefore Rav teaches us that no decree is issued, and convex shafts are fit roofing.

The Master said: If one roofed a sukka with concave arrows, the sukka is unfit. The Gemara asks: This is obvious. All wooden receptacles are susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: Stating this halakha is necessary. Lest you say: A receptacle that is designated to be permanently filled, its status is not that of a receptacle, as a receptacle is typically filled and emptied; in this case, once the arrowhead fills the receptacle, it remains there, therefore Rav teaches us that it is deemed a receptacle and is not fit roofing.

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If one roofed a sukka with bundles of combed flax, the sukka is unfit, as flax at that stage of processing is the raw material from which threads are spun, and it is susceptible to ritual impurity. If one roofed a sukka with stalks of flax, the sukka is fit. Since they remain in their natural state and have not been processed in any way, their legal status is that of any tree, and they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. And if one roofed with the hoshen of flax, stalks at an intermediate stage of processing, I do not know what their status is, i.e., whether or not they are fit for roofing.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana added: And when Rabbi Yoḥanan used the term hoshen of flax itself, I do not know to what stage of processing the flax he was referring. Which way do you look at it? Is it that if one crushed the flax and did not comb it, Rabbi Yoḥanan calls it hoshen, but if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yoḥanan calls it hotzen, because he has not actually begun processing the flax itself? Or, perhaps if he soaked it and did not crush it, Rabbi Yoḥanan calls it hoshen, while hotzen is reserved for flax that was not processed at all.

§ Rav Yehuda said: With regard to these wide licorice and wormwood leaves, one may roof his sukka with them, since these are not consumed by people. Their legal status is that of any other plant; they are not susceptible to ritual impurity. Abaye said: With licorice leaves, one may roof his sukka; with wormwood leaves, one may not roof his sukka. What is the reason for this distinction? Since