Siman 647

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of the seventh chapter: "Willows of the brook" mentioned in the Torah – are not everything that grows by the brook, but rather it is a known species called "willows of the brook": its leaf is elongated like a brook, its edge is smooth, and its stem is red. And this is what is called "aravah." Most of this species grows by the brooks, therefore it is said "willows of the brook." And even if it grew in the desert or in the mountains – it is kosher. And there is another species similar to the aravah, but its leaf is round, its edge is similar to a saw, and its stem is not red. And this is what is called tzaftzafah, and it is invalid. And there is a species of aravah where the edge of its leaf is not smooth, and it is not like a saw, but rather it has very small indentations, like the edge of a small sickle – and this is kosher. And all these matters were explained by the oral tradition from Moses our teacher. Thus far his words.

And that which he wrote that "there is a species of arava... and it is not like a masar but rather small indentations..." – this is from that which was taught in a Baraita (34a): Similar to a sickle – it is kosher. Similar to a masar – it is invalid. And "masar" is a saw. The Rambam explains that the difference is that "similar to a sickle" refers to small indentations, and "similar to a masar" refers to large indentations. According to this, the measure of what is called large or small has not been clarified for us. However, Rashi, the Rosh, and the Tur explained that there is a practical difference in the actual shape of the indentations, namely: that "similar to a masar" is when the notch goes straight down, and it has two points, one on this side and one on that side, like the notch of a knife. And "similar to a sickle" is when the notches all lean to one side, curved toward its handle (Rashi). This is the wording of the Tur: But there is a species of arava whose stem is red, and its leaf is elongated, and its edge is not completely smooth, but rather similar to a sickle whose notches are curved and lean to one side – and it is kosher. Thus far his words. And I wonder at our teacher, the Rema, that he did not bring the words of the Tur, and in the Shulchan Aruch they wrote like the Rambam.

And in truth, we have two species, and both have elongated leaves and red stalks. However, one has large leaves that are not smooth, but rather resemble a sickle according to the explanation of Rashi and the Tur, and the stalk is very red. And the second has small and smooth leaves, and the stalk is not as red. And in truth, our teacher, the Rema, wrote that even if it is green it is kosher, because it will eventually become red when the sun shines upon it. And there are those who are meticulous to use the large ones because of their redness, and there are those who are meticulous to use the small ones because of their smoothness. And also because they are stronger, for the large ones frequently fall off and also dry out quickly. And according to the law, both are kosher.

And similarly, those that resemble a sickle, whether according to the explanation of the Rambam or according to the explanation of Rashi and the Tur—are kosher. For in truth, the serrations are not the primary factor in a arava. And I found support for this in the Tosefta, chapter two: Which is a kosher arava? Its stem is red, and its leaf is long. Which is an invalid arava? Its stem is white, and its leaf is round. Thus far its words. Behold, it did not mention the sign of smoothness at all, and so it is in the Yerushalmi, see there. And if so, even in our Gemara where "smooth" was mentioned, it explained that only that which is similar to a saw is invalid, which is a magira. And the magira has large serrations and with two points. And consequently, anything that is not large to the sight of the eye, or that does not have two serrations—this does not resemble a saw, and is kosher. (And it seems to me that there are two sickles: a hand-sickle and a harvest-sickle, as we learned at the beginning of chapter thirteen of Kelim. And the harvest-sickle: we see its form is according to the explanation of Rashi. And the Rambam explains it as a hand-sickle, and he would not explain "smooth" like the Bartenura because in Beitzah 31a it is explained that it is a professional tool. And in truth, among silversmiths and goldsmiths and repairers of timepieces there is a sickle-shape like the Rambam. Examine and you will find it simple.)

And know that in the Gemara there it is stated: "Willows of the brook" – I only have willows of the brook; from where do we derive those of the field and those of the mountains? The verse teaches: "Willows of the brook" – in any case. Rashi explained: Willows of water brooks are a mitzvah in this case. However, those of the field are kosher, as it is written: "Willows" – a plural expression, see there. And according to this, there is a greater mitzvah with willows that grow by the water. Yet not one of the poskim mentioned this, and we have never heard of seeking after this. And our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot (34a, starting with "And the Rabbis"), were even more stringent, that even ex post facto one has not fulfilled the obligation, since we include those of the field and those of the mountains from "willows" as a plural expression. And this is according to the one who holds that one willow is sufficient. But for us, as we hold that there are two willows – "willows" is needed for the two willows, and there is no derivation for those of the field and those of the mountains, see there. And the Rosh already rejected these words, for the derivation is not from the redundancy of the language, but rather that the expression "willows of the brook" means: from the species whose way is to grow by the brook. But there is no practical difference in which place it grew. And so it is clear from the wording of the Rambam. And if so, there is not even a matter of hidur in this, see there, and so the world conducts itself.

And indeed, in any case, it is difficult to perform a constant mitzvah contrary to our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, and also contrary to Rashi, at least for the mitzvah in its most preferred form. Therefore, it seems to my humble opinion, when we examine closely that which it says: I only have "willows of the brook," from where do we derive those of a rain-watered field and those of the mountains, etc.—what kind of inversion is a rain-watered field and the mountains from a brook, that it was necessary to include them? And if it is because a brook is only a place of water, as it is written "brooks of water," if so, why specify these? It should have said: from where do we derive even those not by a brook? Furthermore, in every place that it mentions a rain-watered field, it mentions an irrigated field, as at the beginning of Moed Katan and in several places. It should have said: from where do we derive those of a rain-watered field and those of an irrigated field? And if you say that with those of an irrigated field one does not fulfill the obligation, it should have explained such a new law. And we have not found anyone who says so.

Therefore, it appears to me that this is the explanation: for the term "nachal" has two meanings in the Holy Tongue. One is a river or a stream, as in "nachalei mayim," and the second is a "valley," as in "nachal eitan" according to the explanation of Rashi regarding the eglah arufah. And so it is in Niddah (8b), see there. And similarly: "And he encamped in the nachal of Gerar," "And Isaac's servants dug in the nachal," which is an expression of a valley and a plain. And this is what it says: I only have "arvei nachal," meaning: either those that grow near a stream or river, where there is prepared water, or those that grow in a valley, even though there is no water there, which is the land of the plain that goes level. From where do we include those of a "ba'al" field? Meaning: that this is the opposite of a stream and river, where there is no water, but the rain waters it. And the same law applies to a "beit hashlachin," which a person waters. For the principle is anything where there is no prepared water. And similarly: from where do we include those of the mountains? And this is the opposite of a valley, as is understood. The Torah teaches: "arvei" – from any location. And according to this, the plain meaning of "arvei nachal" also includes those that grow in a valley or the land of the plain. And this is the majority of our aravot. And it only requires an inclusion for those of the mountains, and this is not common, as is known.

An arava whose leaves have mostly dried, or whose leaves have mostly fallen off, or whose top of the wood was severed—is invalid. And even though regarding the hadas we validated it when the top of the wood was severed—this is because the thickness of the leaves covers it, and it remains in its beauty, which is not the case with the arava. The Rambam validates it even in an arava, as it is no better than a hadas. And one may rely on the Rambam when there is no other. If a berry grew on it—it is valid just as with a hadas (Eliyahu Rabbah). And just as when most of the leaves have fallen off—they are invalid, so too if they were detached, meaning they were loosened from the stalk, even though they are still attached to it—it is invalid, just as with detached leaves of a lulav. Similarly, if the leaves were split, and they were divided in their majority in most of the leaves—it is invalid (Maggid Mishneh and Magen Avraham). But if it is withered, or if some of the leaves fell off—it is valid ex post facto. And what is called "the leaves have dried"? When they turn white, just as with the hadas. And we do not follow the crumbling of the fingernail, just as there, for it depends on turning white. And specifically with the aravot of the large leaves, which quickly dry within twenty-four hours—it is impossible to follow the crumbling of the fingernail, for they quickly crumble, but rather after the change of their appearance, that they should turn to whiteness. And know that one must be careful when inserting the aravot into the lulav, so that the leaves are not torn off across most of the length of the shiur.