Siman 645

It is a positive commandment to take on the first day of Sukkot four species: an etrog, a lulav, hadassim, and aravot. As it is written: "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a majestic tree, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook." And the tradition has come down that "the fruit of a majestic tree" – this is the etrog; "branches of palm trees" – this is the lulav; "boughs of leafy trees" – this is the hadas; "and willows of the brook" – these are aravot. And we also derive this from the verses in the Gemara. And what is a lulav? It is the way of the date palm that the lulav – which is the branch at the beginning of its emergence from the palm – emerges entirely as one piece of wood like an arrow. After it grows a little – it opens a little, as the leaves begin to separate, yet remain attached to one another. And as it continues to grow – the leaves stretch further, and are all attached together. However, when they remain for a long time on the tree – the leaves separate from one another, and emerge like the branches of a tree far from one another. And if they remain for an even longer time – the leaves harden and become like wood. And this is the growth of the lulav.

The sages taught in the Mishnah at the beginning of "Lulav HaGazul" (29b): If its leaves were separated—it is kosher. If its leaves were broken—it is pasul. Rashi explained: "Separated"—that they are attached to the spine, but at the top they are separated from one another here and there like the branches of a tree, it is kosher even if he does not bind them from above. And if they were completely broken from the spine, such that they are not attached at all to the spine, and each one is detached on its own, but he bound them together—it is pasul. But the Tosafot did not explain "broken" in this way, for that is a simple matter, but rather this is the explanation: for behold, every leaf of the lulav is double, and "broken" means that each and every leaf was divided into two, though they are still attached to the spine, and it is pasul. And the Rif and the Rambam in the eighth chapter explained: that they were loosened from the spine, and nevertheless they are still somewhat attached to it like the leaves of palm branches. And for the halacha, it is pasul according to all the explanations.

"Separated" which is kosher—even if all the leaves were separated. And "broken" which is invalid—if the majority of the leaves were broken, it is invalid. And so too according to the explanation of the Tosafot: if they were broken in its majority, meaning that the majority of the leaves were split in two—it is invalid. And by how much is their splitting? Along the length of the lulav, for the majority of the length of each and every leaf (see Beit Yosef). And it appears to me that even if on one side of the spine all the leaves were broken—it is invalid. However, if the majority of one side was broken, in a manner that in the total there is a majority that was not broken—it is kosher. And that which "separated" is kosher—specifically when they have not yet hardened like wood, and it is possible to bind them together. But if they hardened like wood, such that it is impossible to tie them together so that they are attached to one another—it is invalid. And so too if it is not possible to join them to the spine—it is invalid. And even "separated" which is kosher—nevertheless, the choice fulfillment of the mitzvah is to take a lulav whose leaves are not entirely separated. And if one took separated ones—it is proper to bind it, and it will be more beautiful.

If the spine itself was broken and bent—it is not only necessary to say that if the majority of its width was torn and broken, it is unfit. Rather, even if a minority of it was torn, but through this it is bent and cannot stand—it is also unfit for all seven days, for it is certainly not included in "hadar" at all. However, if it was not broken, but rather because of its softness it bent slightly—he binds it and it is fit. And there is one who wishes to permit it in a case of being broken, similar to the breaking of the spine in an animal (Magen Avraham, subsection 2). But this is no comparison at all, for there the spinal cord holds them together. Furthermore: in any event, this is not hadar, and what does this matter have to do with that? (And so wrote the Eliyahu Rabbah and Sha'arei Teshuva.)

We say in the Gemara (32a): If the tiyomet is split—it is pasul. Our rabbis disagreed as to what the tiyomet is. The Rif and the Rambam explained that it does not refer to a specific leaf, but rather to all the leaves of the lulav. This is because the creation of the leaves of the lulav is such that every leaf is doubled in two, and from their back they are attached, and from their front they appear as two. It turns out that every leaf is a twin like twins. Therefore, if the majority of the leaves of the lulav were split across the majority of their length—it is pasul. But if a minority of them were split, even if the upper ones were split—it is kasher.

Rashi, of blessed memory, explained: The two uppermost middle leaves, where the spine ends, were separated from one another, and the spine was split until the leaves below them. Thus far his words. Now, in our lulavim there are not found two middle leaves, but rather one leaf. And the Rosh cited the explanation of Rashi, and it is not written there "two uppermost leaves," but rather "uppermost leaves," see there. And why did Rashi require specifically that the spine be broken? It appears because the Gemara said regarding "split" that it is kosher, as will be explained, and if so, it is necessary that this which is "divided" is invalid in the spine. And know that in Bava Kamma (96a) Rashi explained tiyomet: The middle uppermost branch of the palm—it is the tiyomet. Thus far his words. And it appears that this is also according to his explanation in Sukkah, and his intention is that the middle uppermost one is two leaves like a tiyomet. For it cannot be said that his intention is as we explain regarding the one middle leaf, which is folded in two. For if so, how can he say that the middle one is the tiyomet? Behold, all the leaves of the lulav are so. Rather, certainly their lulavim were of this form, that in their middle were two equal uppermost leaves. And there are those who held that the explanation of Rashi in Bava Kamma is not like the explanation of Rashi in Sukkah, and so it appears from the words of the author of Terumat HaDeshen (siman 96). And in my humble opinion, it is not so.

And in the name of the Geonim, the Tosafot and the Rosh as well brought that there are two uppermost leaves. And they added to say that they are attached to one another, and if they were divided – it is pasul. And the Tosafot and the Rosh wrote that if so – not even one kosher lulav in five hundred would be found for us! That is to say: that even if lulavim are found that have two middle leaves, nevertheless, that they should be attached to one another – we have not found. Therefore they wrote that the intent of the Geonim was: that if they were attached and became divided – it is pasul. But if they were not attached at all – it is kosher. And behold, according to this, in our lulavim, where there is no tiyomet, this matter of there being two middle uppermost leaves attached, or even not attached – is not found. And for us, there is only one middle leaf. If it is split even in its majority – we have not found a disqualification, neither according to the method of the Rif and the Rambam, for according to them it is specifically when the majority of the leaves of the lulav are split thus; nor according to the explanation of Rashi, for even if we say that according to Rashi our one leaf is equal to their two – nevertheless, he requires that the division be specifically in the spine; nor according to the explanation of the Geonim, for they require specifically two leaves, and that they separate from one another. (And in the Bahag he wrote: That back of the leaf, where they are attached to each other, etc. And the Tosafot understood that his intent was like the Geonim. But the Rosh wrote that his intent was like the Rif, and so it appears, see there. And in the Aruch, entry "Tiyim," he also brought like the explanation of the Rif, but afterwards he wrote in the name of Rav Hai Gaon, and this is his wording: The tiyomet they spoke of – they are of two aspects: two attached in their creation, and one that is two halves divided from above and joined from below in any amount. Thus far his words, and it is not understood at all. And in the book Tamim De'im of the Ra'avad, siman 232, he also wrote like the Rif, see there. And in the Yerushalmi it is explicit like the Rif and the Rambam, as we say there: If its leaves were broken – it becomes like a tiyomet that was divided. It follows that it is regarding all the leaves, similar to "its leaves were broken." So wrote the Ran, and more will be explained regarding this.)

Regarding the law: our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 3 brought only the interpretation of the Rif and the Rambam. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who interpret to say that if the upper middle leaf which is on the spine was divided until the spine—it is called "the twin-leaf was divided," and it is invalid. And such is our custom. However, initially—the most preferred way to perform the mitzvah is to take a lulav whose upper leaf is not divided at all, for there are those who are stringent even if it is divided slightly. And if that leaf is not doubled from its initial creation—it is invalid. Thus far his words. And behold, his words are taken from the words of the Terumat HaDeshen (siman 96) who wrote: It appears that one should conduct himself according to one interpretation of Rashi etc., that the middle leaf, which is normally doubled like the other leaves, is divided in two—this is "the twin-leaf was divided." And it is not called divided until it is divided below the leaves. And in the Or Zarua he added to be lenient, that it requires the spine also be divided until the leaves that are below it, and that is "the twin-leaf was divided" according to the interpretation of Rashi. And Rabbi Yitzchak Or Zarua wrote regarding this: That upon the interpretation of Rashi I rely for the practical halacha. And the language of the Semak also implies to permit according to the interpretation of Rashi. And so I saw one of the great ones who was accustomed to permit lulavim that were split in the middle leaf at their tops the width of a finger or more. Thus far his words.

And it must be said regarding his intent, that he intended according to the commentary of Rashi in Bava Kamma there, and before him was a different version. And that which he wrote "until it is split below the leaves," meaning: until the very end of the leaves and a bit below them. And the Or Zarua added to be lenient, that specifically when the spine is split until the end of the bottom leaves. And I do not know why he attributed this to the Or Zarua, for is it not explicitly stated so in Rashi in Sukkah, and the Or Zarua wrote that he relies upon the commentary of Rashi. And according to this, it is specifically when the spine is split. And that which he concludes, that he saw great ones who validated those split at their tops by a finger's breadth and more—he meant that even much more, as long as the spine is not split. And our teacher, the Rema, understood his intent that even until the spine it is invalid. And I do not know from where we have this to say so, for behold he follows the path of the Or Zarua. And the Or Zarua explicitly says that it is specifically when the spine is split. And our teacher, the Rema, did not understand it so, and it requires further study.

Regarding the essence of the matter, I am astonished, since according to the Rif, the Rambam, the Ra'avad, the Ba'al HaHalachot Gedolot, and the Geonim—there is no disqualification when the single tiyomet is split, as in our case. And so too according to the commentary of Rashi in Sukkah—there is no disqualification if the spine is not split. And also in Rashi in Bava Kamma it is so. And even if the Terumat HaDeshen maintained so, that if it is entirely split it is disqualified—is one commentary of Rashi stronger than his own commentary in its place in Sukkah, and against all these great authorities? And all the more so since it is explicitly so in the Yerushalmi, as I have written. And even the Ran, of blessed memory, who cited this commentary—rejected it immediately, only writing that it is proper to be stringent, see there. And the Rashba in Bava Kamma there cited from Tosafot, who explained as Rashi explained before us in Sukkah. And the Rashba, the Ran, and the Maggid Mishneh themselves agree with the halacha like the Rif and the Rambam, that it refers to all the leaves, see there. And if so, even if it is found so in some commentary of Rashi, why should we disqualify them? For in all laws of the Torah, one must follow the majority. And here it is not even a minority opinion, for according to the commentary of Rashi in Sukkah it is also kosher. And what did our teacher, the Rema, see to be stringent in this? It requires further study. (In the glosses of the Semak it is found so, but what of it? It requires further study.)

Therefore, it appears in my humble opinion clear as a matter of law: that certainly since it emerged from the mouth of our teacher, the Rema – one should not take a lulav whose tivomet is split in its majority when another can be found. But if there is no other lulav, such as in a village or the like – one recites the blessing over it even on the first day, without any concern or hesitation, for such is the primary law. And especially regarding our lulavim that come from Italy – most of them are split, but with a split of less than half – there is no precision required at all.

If its leaves were single from the beginning of its growth, and there was no tiyomet; or if all its leaves are double on one side and the second side is bare without leaves – it is pasul. However, if there are leaves on the second side, but they are not double, it appears that if the double ones are the majority – it is kosher, and if not – it is pasul, for in all this we follow the majority of the leaves. And our teacher, the Rema, who wrote that if that middle uppermost leaf is not double from the beginning of its growth it is pasul – this is all according to his view, that this itself is the tiyomet, and it is the primary one. But according to all our teachers, it is not so. And even according to what he maintained that if it is split – it is pasul, nevertheless, I do not know from where he derives that in this case too it is pasul. For it is understandable that if it is split, one could say it is not hadar, and it is not a complete taking, since the split is noticeable. But in a case where it has only one leaf that is not double, from where do we know it is pasul? And it requires further study.

If they were not one upon the other in the manner of all lulavim, but rather one below the other: if the top of this one reaches the base of the one above it, until the entire spine of the lulav is found to be covered with leaves—it is kosher. And if the top of this one does not reach the base of that one, or if it does not have many leaves one upon the other, but rather from each side one leaf emerges below near its base and rises to its top—it is pasul, because this is not "hadar." This is the wording of the Gemara (32a): This lulav that grows with a single leaf—it is blemished, and it is pasul. And all the laws in this section are included in this. But if there are two leaves on each side—it is kosher. (And that which we wrote, that it does not have many leaves—this is the wording of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, section 4. And it is not precisely so, but rather because such is the way of the lulav. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

A lulav whose majority of leaves have dried out is pasul, as it is not "hadar." And similarly, if the spine has dried out, even if the leaves have not dried out, it is pasul. However, this matter is almost non-existent in reality, for certainly the leaves dry out before the spine (Beit Yosef). And what is the measure of dryness? From the time the appearance of its greenness is gone, and its surface turns white. Our teacher, the Rema, in section 5 wrote: And there are those who say that it is not called dry unless it crumbles with a fingernail due to its dryness, and such is the custom in these lands, where lulavim are not common. Thus far his words, and it is a great leniency: for certainly anything from which the greenness has departed is called dry. And one must be very careful in this (Taz, subsection 5). And especially now in our times, when they bring many lulavim, and also in our country they grow lulavim and hadassim—one should not recite a blessing over a lulav that has turned white, and all the more so on the first day, which is a Torah obligation. However, in siman 649 it will be explained that according to the Rambam, a dry lulav is kosher.

It appears to me that if by means of soaking in water it returns slightly to its greenness, as we have seen with our own eyes—it is not called dry, and it is kosher. For this is the case regarding all matters: regarding the matter of dry blood which, when one soaks it, returns to its moisture—its status is like moist, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 188 regarding the matter of niddah blood, see there. And so we learned at the beginning of the seventh chapter of Niddah: Discharge, and mucus, and saliva, and a sheretz, and a carcass, and semen—they impart impurity when moist, and they do not impart impurity when dry. But if they can be soaked and return to how they were—they impart impurity etc., see there. And so regarding anything that has changed—we follow its current state, as we learned in Uktzin chapter 2 mishnah 8, and in Menachot (54a). And if it is because of rejection, behold if before the Yom Tov it returned to its greenness—this is not a rejection at all. And even on Yom Tov—behold we hold the principle that there is no rejection regarding mitzvot, as will be explained in siman 646 regarding the matter of a hadas, see there.

We learned in the Mishnah: If its top was severed, it is invalid, for it is not "hadar" (Rashi). And the Rosh, and the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch in section 6 explained that this means if the majority of the upper leaves were severed – it is invalid. And the Tosafot wrote that this refers to the two upper middle leaves, see there. And this is in a lulav that has two middle ones, and this is according to their lulavim which had two upper ones, and not so in our lulavim as I wrote in section 6. And in our lulavim, if the tiyomet was severed, which is the upper middle one – it is invalid. And this is the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh, chapter eight, law 3, who wrote: And the correct view is that the top of the upper leaf was severed, with which the lulav terminates. Thus far his words. And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6: And if the upper middle leaf which is upon the spine was severed – it is invalid. And specifically when there is another. But if there is no other – one recites the blessing over it. Thus far his words. And they questioned him: for he should have written it in the language of "there are those who say," since according to the first opinion it is specifically in the majority of leaves (Taz, subsection 6). And they further questioned him: for behold, the author of this opinion, that when there is no other one recites the blessing over it – this is the opinion of the Mordechai, and he only wrote this regarding a hadas. But regarding a lulav, it is explained in the Yerushalmi that it is invalid, because this is not "hadar" (Magen Avraham, subsection 6). For regarding a hadas, we conclude in the Gemara (34b) that even if all three of them are severed – they are valid, but not regarding a lulav. And therefore regarding a lulav – it is invalid if severed all seven days (ibid.).

And it appears to me that his words are correct. For even though the Tur wrote "most of the leaves," and this is from the words of the Rosh, nevertheless in the Rosh himself it is not so, as he wrote (beginning of siman 2): Seemingly it appears to be explained as the two middle upper leaves... and it is difficult: for it says in the Gemara if the tiyomet was removed—it is pasul. And even if it was clipped—it is pasul, all the more so if they were removed entirely. And one must say that "clipped" refers to where the top of most of the leaves was clipped. And the language is forced, and one could say that "removed" was necessary to teach us, for you might have thought that it is more beautiful than clipped. Thus far his words, and if so, his words are like the words of the Tosafot. And there is no one found at all who does not hold this way, for in the Mishnah and the Rif and the Rambam it is taught plainly "its head was clipped." And in truth the words of the Tur are puzzling, as he wrote not according to the conclusion of the Rosh. And therefore he did not write the language of "some say," because he holds that all agree on this. And he also holds that the Mordechai is speaking also of a lulav, and according to the opinion of the Rambam that will be explained in siman 649, who qualifies a dry lulav. And the Maggid Mishneh wrote there that the Geonim relied on this, that a dry one, and one whose head was clipped, and all those that are pasul—one fulfills the obligation with them in a time of pressing need, even on the first day. Thus far his words. And there it will be explained regarding this. And if so, our teacher, the Rema, spoke well that if there is no other—one recites the blessing over it (Taz, subsection 7).

Split – it is kosher, and this is when the tips of the leaves were split (Rashi 32b). And if two splits distanced from one another until they appeared as two – it is pasul. And this is when the splits of the majority of the leaves distanced from one another. And even if the uppermost tiyomet is whole, such that it was not divided in a manner that it would be disqualified due to the tiyomet being divided according to those who hold so – nevertheless, it is pasul. And one should not ask: Behold, according to the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, when the majority of the leaves are divided – it is pasul regardless. And how do we say split – it is kosher? For this is no question, as regarding divided – it is specifically when they were divided along the majority of their length. But split – it is only at their tips, and therefore only when they distanced is it pasul.

If it has something like thorns on its spine; or if it is shriveled and contracted like a sick person, such that its limbs are shriveled and withered; or they are contracted, and this is also like a strong withering; or if it is bent forward, meaning it is bent forcefully toward the side of the spine, and its back becomes like that of a hunchback—it is pasul. And similarly, if it is bent to its sides—it is pasul, even if it is bent to only one of its sides. But if it is bent backward, meaning toward the other side of the spine—it is kosher, for this is its natural way of growth.

If it is not bent by its nature, but rather due to its softness it is bent at its top—it is pasul. And this is specifically when the spine is bent. But if the spine stands straight, and only the leaves are bent at its top, as is the way of many lulavim—it is kosher, whether they are bent this way or that way. And the Rosh, of blessed memory, used to cherish those whose leaves were slightly bent, because the leaves do not split, and its tiyomet remains intact. And there is one who says that only if its uppermost leaves are slightly bent [is it kosher], but if all the leaves are slightly bent, or the majority of them—it is pasul (Levush and Magen Avraham). And there are those who disagree on this (Taz, subsection 10). And this is specifically when only the tips of the leaves are bent. But if all the leaves are bent down to the bottom—it is pasul (ibid.). And there are those who hesitate even regarding those that are slightly bent.

There are places where they plant lulavim and hadassim in vessels filled with earth inside the house, and they take these lulavim and these hadassim for the mitzvah of the four species on Sukkot. There is one who is uncertain regarding this (Chayei Adam, klal 151). And in the Yerushalmi, chapter 1 of Orlah (end of halacha 2): Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: A tree that one planted in a house is subject to orlah, and is exempt from tithes, as it is written: "You shall surely tithe... that which comes forth from the field..." and a house is not a field. Consequently, regarding orlah, even though it is written "and you shall plant every food tree"—nevertheless, even that which is planted in a house is called a tree. And here, regarding the four species, we certainly do not require more than a tree, as it is written: "The fruit of a beautiful tree... and a branch of a thick tree," and we have no need here for "your field" (ibid.). And so we learned in Menachot (84b) regarding bikkurim: I only have [the law] regarding a field; from where do I include that which is on a roof, and in a ruin, and a pot, and a ship? The verse teaches: "The firstfruits of all that is in their land," see there (see Mishneh LaMelech, chapter 2 of the laws of bikkurim). And if so, the custom of Israel is Torah, and they act properly.