16,374
edits
Aravot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
m (Text replace - "tefachim" to "Tefachim") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
# The stem should be green or red, but not white.<ref>The Mishna (Sukkah 33b) writes that a safsafa is not Kosher in place of aravah. The gemara Sukkah 34a writes that the aravah's stem is supposed to be red as opposed to the safsafa (a pasul species similar to aravah) has a white stem. This sign is quoted by the Rif 16a, Rambam 7:3-4, and Rosh 3:13. Bet Yosef 647:1 writes that it's logical to say that even if the stem of the aravah is green it is kosher because only the side which was in the sun turns red, and it's only pasul if the stem is white. Rama 647:1 codifies this. Mishna Brurah 647:2 and Chazon Ovadyah (p. 316) concur. </ref> | # The stem should be green or red, but not white.<ref>The Mishna (Sukkah 33b) writes that a safsafa is not Kosher in place of aravah. The gemara Sukkah 34a writes that the aravah's stem is supposed to be red as opposed to the safsafa (a pasul species similar to aravah) has a white stem. This sign is quoted by the Rif 16a, Rambam 7:3-4, and Rosh 3:13. Bet Yosef 647:1 writes that it's logical to say that even if the stem of the aravah is green it is kosher because only the side which was in the sun turns red, and it's only pasul if the stem is white. Rama 647:1 codifies this. Mishna Brurah 647:2 and Chazon Ovadyah (p. 316) concur. </ref> | ||
# The aravot should have all 3 of the above mentioned signs (long leaves, smooth edges, and green or red stem) and not just one of them. <ref>Pri Megadim M"Z 647:1 writes that the aravot need to have all 3 signs of a kosher aravah and one isn't enough. Mishna Brurah 647:2 also quotes the Bikkurei Yacov who says that it's not common to have one of the signs without the others. Chazon Ovadayah (p. 317) quotes the Sfat Emet (Sukkah 34a) who writes that only the signs of having long leaves and red stem are important to distinguish the aravah. Chazon Ovadyah (p. 316) quotes Sh"t Eretz Tova 24 who writes that an aravah which has all 3 signs is kosher even if the biologists say that it isn't the species as the other aravot. </ref> | # The aravot should have all 3 of the above mentioned signs (long leaves, smooth edges, and green or red stem) and not just one of them. <ref>Pri Megadim M"Z 647:1 writes that the aravot need to have all 3 signs of a kosher aravah and one isn't enough. Mishna Brurah 647:2 also quotes the Bikkurei Yacov who says that it's not common to have one of the signs without the others. Chazon Ovadayah (p. 317) quotes the Sfat Emet (Sukkah 34a) who writes that only the signs of having long leaves and red stem are important to distinguish the aravah. Chazon Ovadyah (p. 316) quotes Sh"t Eretz Tova 24 who writes that an aravah which has all 3 signs is kosher even if the biologists say that it isn't the species as the other aravot. </ref> | ||
# Although most aravot grow by the water, an aravah is valid no matter where it grew. Some say that it is preferable to use aravot that grew by a river, whereas others say that there is no such preference. <ref>The Gemara (33b) states that although the Torah says “arvei nachal,” meaning branches of a willow that grows by a river, Chazal explained that the pasuk also allows an aravah that did not grow near a river. Rashi (s.v. Arvei) writes that while an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, one nonetheless fulfills his obligation with an aravah that grew elsewhere. Rav Hershel Schachter (“The Halachos of the Daled Minim,” min 50) explained that having aravot that grew by a river is a hidur since it also fulfills the simple interpretation of the pasuk (a similar idea is expressed in the Ritva Yevamot 103b). Tosfot (34a s.v. Verabbanan) suggests that this Gemara follows Rabbi Akiva's opinion and the halacha does not follow Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, Tosfot recommends using aravot only if they grew by a river. | # Although most aravot grow by the water, an aravah is valid no matter where it grew. Some say that it is preferable to use aravot that grew by a river, whereas others say that there is no such preference. <ref> | ||
* The Gemara (33b) states that although the Torah says “arvei nachal,” meaning branches of a willow that grows by a river, Chazal explained that the pasuk also allows an aravah that did not grow near a river. Rashi (s.v. Arvei) writes that while an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, one nonetheless fulfills his obligation with an aravah that grew elsewhere. Rav Hershel Schachter (“The Halachos of the Daled Minim,” min 50) explained that having aravot that grew by a river is a hidur since it also fulfills the simple interpretation of the pasuk (a similar idea is expressed in the Ritva Yevamot 103b). Tosfot (34a s.v. Verabbanan) suggests that this Gemara follows Rabbi Akiva's opinion and the halacha does not follow Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, Tosfot recommends using aravot only if they grew by a river. | |||
* The Rosh (3:13) writes that it seems that the Rif agrees with Tosfot, as he does not quote the Gemara on 33b. Nonetheless, the Rosh records that the minhag was to use aravot even if they did not grow by a river. To defend the minhag, the Rosh rejects the view of Tosfot, and instead argues that the Gemara was agreed upon by all opinions. The Tur (647) writes that although most authorities maintain that having an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, the Rosh and Rambam (7:3) seem to hold that aravah wherever it grew is totally acceptable. | * The Rosh (3:13) writes that it seems that the Rif agrees with Tosfot, as he does not quote the Gemara on 33b. Nonetheless, the Rosh records that the minhag was to use aravot even if they did not grow by a river. To defend the minhag, the Rosh rejects the view of Tosfot, and instead argues that the Gemara was agreed upon by all opinions. The Tur (647) writes that although most authorities maintain that having an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, the Rosh and Rambam (7:3) seem to hold that aravah wherever it grew is totally acceptable. | ||
Shulchan Aruch (647:1) quotes the language of the Rambam in ruling that all aravot are acceptable for use. Even though the Beit Yosef (647:2) quotes Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi’s view that the Rambam agrees with Rashi that it is preferable to use an aravah that grew by a river, the Beit Yosef himself disagrees with this interpretation. Furthermore, the Taz (647:2) goes so far as to suggest that it is better to take an aravah that did not grow by the water so as to show that we accept Chazal’s interpretation of the pasuk. Mishna Brurah (647:3) concludes that some say it is preferable to use aravot that grew by water. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (136:5) and Kaf Hachaim (647:6) agree. </ref> | * Shulchan Aruch (647:1) quotes the language of the Rambam in ruling that all aravot are acceptable for use. Even though the Beit Yosef (647:2) quotes Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi’s view that the Rambam agrees with Rashi that it is preferable to use an aravah that grew by a river, the Beit Yosef himself disagrees with this interpretation. Furthermore, the Taz (647:2) goes so far as to suggest that it is better to take an aravah that did not grow by the water so as to show that we accept Chazal’s interpretation of the pasuk. Mishna Brurah (647:3) concludes that some say it is preferable to use aravot that grew by water. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (136:5) and Kaf Hachaim (647:6) agree. </ref> | ||
# The Eucalyptus species which looks similar to the aravah is pasul. (See picture to the right). <ref>Sh"t Har Tzvi YD 181 writes that the Eucalyptus is not the correct species of aravah because it has a nice smell and usually doesn't grow by the water. Chazon Ovadya (p. 317) quotes this. </ref> | # The Eucalyptus species which looks similar to the aravah is pasul. (See picture to the right). <ref>Sh"t Har Tzvi YD 181 writes that the Eucalyptus is not the correct species of aravah because it has a nice smell and usually doesn't grow by the water. Chazon Ovadya (p. 317) quotes this. </ref> | ||
[[Image:Eucalyptus.jpeg|150px|right]] | [[Image:Eucalyptus.jpeg|150px|right]] | ||
