16,374
edits
Aravot: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* The Briatta in the Gemara Sukkah 33b writes that although the Torah says arvei nachal, meaning a branch of a tree that grows by the river, since the word arvei is in plural it comes to include an aravah wherever it grew. The Rambam (Shofar VeSukkah 7:3) rules that an aravah is kosher wherever it grew even if it grew in the desert. S"A 647:1 codifies this halacha. | * The Briatta in the Gemara Sukkah 33b writes that although the Torah says arvei nachal, meaning a branch of a tree that grows by the river, since the word arvei is in plural it comes to include an aravah wherever it grew. The Rambam (Shofar VeSukkah 7:3) rules that an aravah is kosher wherever it grew even if it grew in the desert. S"A 647:1 codifies this halacha. | ||
* Rashi (Sukkah 33b D"H Arvei) writes that while an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, one nonetheless fulfills his obligation with an aravah that grew elsewhere. Tosfot 34a D"H VeRabbanan says that the above Briatta was following Rabbi Akiva's opinion and the halacha doesn't follow Rabbi Akiva. The Rosh 3:13 writes that it seems that the Rif agreed with Tosfot because he didn't quote that Briatta as halacha. He continues that he didn't see people being careful about this issue insisting on having an aravah that grew by the water. He argues that even the other tenayim who don't hold like the Briatta agree that an aravah from anywhere is totally acceptable. The Tur 647 write that whereas most mefarshim say having an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, the Rosh and Rambam seem to hold that aravah wherever it grew is preferable. | * Rashi (Sukkah 33b D"H Arvei) writes that while an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, one nonetheless fulfills his obligation with an aravah that grew elsewhere. Tosfot 34a D"H VeRabbanan says that the above Briatta was following Rabbi Akiva's opinion and the halacha doesn't follow Rabbi Akiva. The Rosh 3:13 writes that it seems that the Rif agreed with Tosfot because he didn't quote that Briatta as halacha. He continues that he didn't see people being careful about this issue insisting on having an aravah that grew by the water. He argues that even the other tenayim who don't hold like the Briatta agree that an aravah from anywhere is totally acceptable. The Tur 647 write that whereas most mefarshim say having an aravah that grew by the water is preferable, the Rosh and Rambam seem to hold that aravah wherever it grew is preferable. | ||
* The Bet Yosef quotes Rav Eliyah Mizrachi who argues on the Rosh and Tur saying that the Rambam didn't mean an aravah from anywhere is preferable, but disagrees with him. He then quotes the Ran who supports the position of the Rosh. S"A quotes the language of the Rambam. Taz 647:2 goes so far as to suggest that it's better to take an aravah that didn't grow by the water so as to show the nuance of chazal in the pasuk (see also Gemara Brachot 38b. See, however, Ritva Yevamot 103b). The Mishna Brurah 647:3 writes that some say it's preferable to take aravah that grew by water, but the Taz disagrees. Kaf HaChaim 647:6 writes that although S"A rules that an aravah is preferable wherever it grew if it's possible one should try to satisfy all opinions by taking an aravah that grew by the water. Kitzur S"A 136:5 agrees.</ref> | * The Bet Yosef 647:2 quotes Rav Eliyah Mizrachi who argues on the Rosh and Tur saying that the Rambam didn't mean an aravah from anywhere is preferable, but disagrees with him. He then quotes the Ran who supports the position of the Rosh. S"A quotes the language of the Rambam. Taz 647:2 goes so far as to suggest that it's better to take an aravah that didn't grow by the water so as to show the nuance of chazal in the pasuk (see also Gemara Brachot 38b. See, however, Ritva Yevamot 103b). The Mishna Brurah 647:3 writes that some say it's preferable to take aravah that grew by water, but the Taz disagrees. Kaf HaChaim 647:6 writes that although S"A rules that an aravah is preferable wherever it grew if it's possible one should try to satisfy all opinions by taking an aravah that grew by the water. Kitzur S"A 136:5 agrees.</ref> | ||
[[Image:Eucalyptus.jpeg|150px|right]] | |||
# 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> | |||
==Aravot which lost leaves or dried out== | |||
# If most of the leaves of an aravah dried out to the extent that they lost their green color it is pasul, however, if the leaves only withered and didn't dry out it is kosher. <ref>The Mishna (Sukkah 33b) writes that a dry aravah is pasul, but a withered one is kosher. Rif 16a, Rambam 8:1, and Rosh 3:13 codify this mishna. The Rambam explains withered as not completely dry. Tur and S"A 647:2 codify this as the halacha. The Mishna Brurah 647:7 and Chazon Ovadyah (p. 317) write that it is pasul once majority of the leaves have dried out. Shaar HaTzion 647:6 quotes the Bikkurei Yacov who says that it's not considered dried out unless it has lost all of it's green color. Chazon Ovadya explains that it's considered dry only once it turned white. </ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
