Siman 646

"A branch of a thick leafed tree" – the sages expounded (32b): that its branches cover its wood, meaning that it has a multitude of branches until the wood is not visible, and this is the הדס. And what constitutes "thick"? For example, where three stand in one nest (Gemara). Meaning: that three leaves emerge adjacent to one another in one circle, such that one is not lower than the other. And this is what is called among us "meshulashim." But if there were two leaves level with each other, and the third leaf was above them – this is not "thick," but is called in the Gemara there "hadas shoteh," meaning: that it is not according to its proper form. And it is invalid even in a time of pressing need, and it is invalid for all seven days.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3: And there is one who says in the Gemara that it is valid with two leaves level with each other, and one above them. Therefore, it is the custom in these lands to fulfill the obligation ab initio with these myrtles that are brought, and there are not three leaves in one row. And there is one who wrote that our myrtles are not called "hadass shoteh," since they are two above two, and they are not like the hadass shoteh mentioned in the Gemara. Therefore, they practiced leniency as Maharik and Mahari Isserlein wrote in their responsa. Thus far his words, and we will explain his words with the help of Heaven.

For behold, in the Gemara there: What is the case of "avot"? Rav Yehuda said: It is when three leaves stand in a nest. Rav Kahana said: Even two and one. Rav Acha the son of Rava would seek out two and one, since it emerged from the mouth of Rav Kahana. Mar bar Amimar said to Rav Ashi: Father called that a "wild hadas." See there. And the first opinion holds that the conclusion rejects it, and it is pasul. But in truth, a "wild hadas" is not excluded from the category of hadas, but rather that there is one better than it, like a "wild firstborn," who regarding redemption is a firstborn, but not regarding inheritance. And behold, in any case—he is a firstborn, and the Torah called him "firstborn." And here too it is so: for in truth the term "avot" applies even to two. And a proof for this is from the choshen and ephod, as it is written in Parshat Tetzaveh: "of plaited work you shall make them, of avot work," and Onkelos translated: "braided." And Rashi explained: it is a term of braiding and braiding, which is folded into two, as we say "braid, braids"—behold here are four, as we say in Yevamot (5b) "braid is two." And "braiding" is also with two, as is explained in the Rambam at the end of the ninth chapter of Shabbat that "braiding" is a derivative of weaving, and one is liable as one who weaves. And regarding one who weaves, we learned at the beginning of the thirteenth chapter of Shabbat: One who weaves two threads is liable. And braiding is also with two. And if so, it is obvious that that which the Torah said, "a branch of an avot tree"—this means even with two. However, in the Gemara there: What is the case of "avot"? Meaning: of the choice variety. And it says: such as when three stand. And Rav Kahana said even two and one—it is of the choice variety. And this was rejected, for this is a "wild hadas," meaning: that the three is more choice. But in any case—this too is not pasul, because two is called "avot," as I have written. And there is one who wrote that ours is better than two and one, for there is never a difference between two and three, for the reason we explained. And that which they called it a "wild hadas"—this is because of the single third leaf that is above the two, for this single one removes it from the category of "avot," for there is no avot less than two. Therefore ours, which are two and two—are well called "avot," and they are completely kosher.

If many grew from one nest, and many of them fell off, until only three remained in one nest—it is kosher. And even if the majority of them fell off, for example, if there were seven in one nest, and four of them fell off and three remained—it is kosher. This is the wording of the Tur: And if the majority of the leaves of the required measurement of "avot" fell off—it is pasul. The Geonim wrote that there must be "avot" throughout the entire length of the measurement of the hadas, and if not—it is pasul. And the author of the Ittur wrote: Even if it only has three in one nest one time—it is kosher, and so wrote the Rambam. And my lord, my father the Rosh, decided according to the words of the Ra'avad, that for the mitzvah we require the entire measurement to be avot, but for it to be a disqualification, it is in its majority, and even if the avot is not at its top. Thus far his words.

The explanation of his words: If the majority of the avot was lost, meaning that two of the three fell off—it is pasul. But if one of the three fell off, even along the entire length of the hadas—it is kosher (Bach). And regarding the primary avot, how much is required? The Geonim said it is required across its entirety, and the Ittur said that one time is sufficient. And such is the opinion of the Rambam according to the opinion of the Tur, who wrote in the eighth chapter: If the majority of its leaves fell off, if three leaves remained in one nest—it is kosher. Thus far his words. And the Tur maintains that he means literally in one place. But the Maggid Mishneh wrote that his intention was in each and every nest, see there. And the Rosh decided like the Ra'avad, that ab initio we require its entirety to be avot, and post facto the majority is sufficient. But less than its majority—it is nothing. However, the majority in any place is kosher, even if there is no avot at its top. And according to this, if in its majority there is avot, and in its minority there is no avot, whether there were not three there at all or they were there and fell off—it is kosher, even if this was at its top. And that which we learned in the Mishnah: if its top was severed it is pasul—this is when it was severed from its wood. And it is not speaking of the leaves as in the case of the lulav, for in the lulav there is no wood at the top. But in the hadas, there is wood at its top.

And behold, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, also followed the path of the Rosh and the Tur, except that it was not explained well. For in section 1 they wrote: A hadas whose top was severed is kosher. If most of its leaves fell off, if three leaves remained in one nest, it is kosher. And in section 4 they wrote: If many grew in one nest, and some fell off until only three remained in one nest, it is kosher... and in section 5 they wrote: For the mitzvah we require that the entire length of the hadas be "avot," and for it to be a legal requirement, in its majority, even if it is not at its top. Thus far his words. And if so, according to this, that which they wrote in section 1, "its top was severed is kosher," this refers to when the wood was severed. And even though we learned in the Mishnah that it is invalid, the Rif and the Rosh wrote that the halacha is not according to this Mishnah, but rather according to Rabbi Tarfon who said there: Even if all three of them are severed, it is kosher. And so ruled the Rambam and the Tur. However, the Ra'avad disagrees on this, and he holds that the "severed" of Rabbi Tarfon refers to the leaves, and the "severed" of the Mishnah refers to the wood. And ahead this will be explained with the help of Heaven. And in the Shulchan Aruch this dispute was explained in section 10, see there.

And that which they wrote: if three leaves remained in one nest it is kosher—their intention is in each and every nest. And regarding the measure of its being "braided": ab initio, all of it; and as a requirement for validity, the majority of it. And according to this, for the practical halacha it is so: that if the hadas is tripled in the majority of its measure, which will be explained in siman 650, even if in its minority it is without braiding, and even if the minority is at its top—it is kosher. And it appears that if the majority is braided, and in its minority all the leaves fell—it is also kosher. And although I have not found this explicitly, nevertheless it must be so: for behold, that which they wrote that if the majority is braided it is kosher—perforce in its minority only one remained, for if two remained—behold in its entirety it is kosher when two remain, as I wrote in section 5, that specifically when the majority of the braiding fell it is invalid, and that is when two fell. But if one fell—it is kosher even in its entirety. And although in the Shulchan Aruch they did not explain this law, nevertheless they also did not disagree with this. And if so, when there is a majority of braiding—behold in its minority it is kosher, even though only one leaf remained in the nest. And one leaf is like nothing, as is understood.

If they dried upon it – it is pasul. If they withered – it is kosher. And what is the measure of dryness? When their surfaces turn white. But as long as they are green, even if they crumble with a fingernail – it is kosher. And why regarding a lulav do we follow its dryness according to the crumbling of a fingernail? Because in a lulav, the whiteness precedes the crumbling, since its essence is white. This is not the case with the hadas, whose essence is green, where the crumbling precedes the whiteness – therefore we follow the whiteness. However, this is according to the opinion of our teacher, the Rema. But according to the opinion of our teacher, the Beit Yosef – also regarding a lulav we follow the whiteness, as I have written in the previous siman.

And the law of dryness is like the law of shedding, for we follow the majority. For if the majority of the leaves dried up – it is pasul, and with a minority – it is kosher. Therefore, if in all the stalks two leaves dried up, or even in the majority of them – it is pasul. And if one leaf dried up in each stalk – it is kosher. And there is only one leniency in dryness that does not exist in shedding according to most poskim, and that is: if in the upper nest at the top of the branch three moist leaves remained, even if the majority of it dried up – it is kosher. And it is not similar to shedding, which is pasul in such a case. Only according to the opinion of the Ittur is it kosher, as I wrote in section 5, because they are completely absent. But in a case where they dried up and are present – everyone agrees it is kosher. And specifically in the upper one, for if not so – it would not be hadar. For when the upper ones are moist – it is hadar in its entirety, even though they are dry, but not so in other places.

And the opinion of the Rosh and the Tur is to be completely lenient in this. That is: even if in the upper leaves as well two have dried out, and there remains only one moist leaf—it is kosher. Provided only that the one is at the head of the branch, that is to say: of the three leaves that emerge—one emerges from here and one from here, and the third appears as if it is placed upon both of them, and in it is the primary hidur. However, this which we have validated when three moist leaves remain—specifically when they are completely moist. But if they are withered, even though withered ones are kosher as I have written, nevertheless in such a case where only they remained—they are pasul in such a case, for the primary hadar has departed. And it is not similar to when all of them are withered. And the Rosh validates even in such a case.

In hadassim, there are sometimes small fruit-like growths that grow on them, and they resemble grapes. And we learned in the Mishnah (32b): If its grapes were more numerous than its leaves—it is pasul. And if he reduced them—it is kosher. But one may not reduce them on Yom Tov. And this fact that if its grapes are more numerous it is pasul—this is specifically when they are black or red, for they are not of the species of the hadas, and they nullify the leaves of the hadas. But when they are green—it is kosher, for they are of the species of the hadas. And one may not reduce them on Yom Tov—for it is like fixing a vessel. And if he reduced them, even though he committed a transgression—nevertheless it is kosher. And we say in the Gemara (33b) that if he has another hadas, and he does not need this hadas for the lulav—it is permitted to pick them one by one in order to eat them, for since he picks them for eating—his intention is not to fix it at all. Only if he does not have another hadas—perforce he fixes it, and it is a psik reisha. And when he has another—this is not a fixing at all, and automatically afterward it becomes kosher for the lulav as well.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that the disqualification of "its berries are more numerous than its leaves" is only a disqualification on the first day, but on the remaining days, it is kosher. And they rejected his words, for anything that is due to "hadar" is disqualified for all the days, as I wrote in siman 649. Therefore, one should not be lenient (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). Furthermore: behold, on Chol HaMoed he can diminish them, so why should we validate it (Taz, subsection 6)? And in my humble opinion, his words are correct, for certainly according to what Rashi explained in the Gemara (ibid.) the reason: because it is not "hadar"—certainly it is disqualified also on the remaining days. However, in the Yerushalmi the reason is explained: because it is written "a branch of a tree"—that the branch should be similar to the tree, that it should be green. But when it is black or red, it is not similar to the tree. And it is a decree of the verse, and not due to the reason of "hadar." Therefore, it is simple that on the remaining days it is kosher, since they are from the Rabbis. And even on the second day of Yom Tov, when he cannot diminish them, it is also kosher. But on Chol HaMoed, he certainly must diminish them.

And know: that in the Gemara there it is explained that if they turned black from the eve of the Yom Tov, and he picked them on Yom Tov, even though when Yom Tov arrived they were rejected from the mitzvah of lulav—nevertheless, when he picked them they became fit, for a rejection from the outset is not called a rejection even regarding kodashim, and all the more so regarding mitzvot. And this is called a rejection from the outset, since at the onset of Yom Tov it was not fit for the mitzvah. However, if they turned black on Yom Tov—there is a doubt in the Gemara there if it is permitted to fulfill the obligation with it, because it is like something that was seen and rejected, and then seen again. For in kodashim such a case is a rejection, and perhaps regarding mitzvot it is also so. The Rambam, the Tur, and the Shulchan Aruch did not mention anything of this. And it must be said that even though in the Gemara there is one who is uncertain about this, nevertheless, since Rav Papa said there, "This means there is no rejection regarding mitzvot," even in a case of seen and rejected—so we hold, and so appears to be the primary view (and so wrote the Taz there). However, there are some of the Rishonim who hold that it is a doubt, and one does not fulfill the obligation with it (Ran there).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 11: If he has only a hadas whose berries are more numerous than its leaves on Yom Tov—he takes it, but he does not recite a blessing over it. Thus far his words. And they raised a difficulty against him: what is he teaching us? For this is the case with all disqualified items, as I wrote at the end of siman 649 (Magen Avraham, subsection 9). And it seems to me that he is teaching us that he should not pick them via a non-Jew. For regarding him, since he is not subject to the mitzvot, this is not considered a "fixing" as it is for us when we have another, as I have written. And according to this, it would seem he could say to a non-Jew: "Pick them and I will eat them," and this is only a shevut even for us, if we had another. And according to this, in saying it to a non-Jew it would be a shevut d'shevut, which is permitted in a place of a mitzvah. And he teaches us: since for us it is a complete "fixing"—the shevut was not permitted in a place of a mitzvah. And we have already written that if its top was severed from the wood—it is kosher, even if a berry did not grow there, because the leaves cover its top. And the same law applies when the top of the wood dried out. And there is one who disqualifies when the top of the wood is severed, and it is good to be stringent in a place where another is possible. But if another is impossible—one recites a blessing over it, for the primary view is like the opinion of the majority of poskim who validate it. And there is one who says that if its top dried out, even when another is impossible—it is disqualified (Bach and Magen Avraham, subsection 8, and it requires further study). And know that there are those who disqualify a grafted hadas, just as a grafted etrog is disqualified. But none of the poskim mentioned this matter. For it is understandable regarding an etrog, which is a fruit—there is certainly a difference in taste between a complete etrog and a grafted one. But regarding hadassim, where the mitzvah is the wood and the leaves—how does "grafted" apply to it? And it requires further study (see Sha'arei Teshuvah, subsection 8). Nevertheless, in practice, if it is known that it is grafted—it is not proper to take it for the mitzvah when there is another. But if there is no other—it seems to my humble opinion that it is permitted.