Lulav: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - ". <ref>" to ".<ref>"
m (Text replacement - "S"A" to "Shulchan Aruch") |
m (Text replacement - ". <ref>" to ".<ref>") |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Four Species.jpg|200px|right]] | [[File:Four Species.jpg|200px|right]] | ||
The obligation to take a lulav on succot comes from the pasuk ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון הדר כפות תמרים וענף עץ עבות וערבי נחל | The obligation to take a lulav on succot comes from the pasuk ולקחתם לכם ביום הראשון הדר כפות תמרים וענף עץ עבות וערבי נחל | ||
And you shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook. <ref> Vayikra 23:40 and Gemara [[Sukkah]] 34b </ref> | And you shall take on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook.<ref> Vayikra 23:40 and Gemara [[Sukkah]] 34b </ref> | ||
==General Requirements== | ==General Requirements== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Acquiring the Lulav== | ==Acquiring the Lulav== | ||
# One should buy a lulav with a hechsher (certification that it is from a reliable source) in order to be sure that it came from a date palm tree and not a Canary palm.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe O.C. 4:123) holds that a branch of a Canary palm tree, which does not produce edible dates, is not considered a lulav. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Halichot Shlomo 10:9), however, argues that the date palm and Canary palm are of the same species. Rav Hershel Schachter (“Halachos of Daled Minim,” min. 15) favors the former approach. The Halachos of the Four Species (p. 100) details how to distinguish a Canary palm branch from the regular date palm branch; one indication is that the spine of the Canary palm is very flexible. For more sources about a Canary Lulav see: Tzitz Eliezer 8:22, [[Kashrut]] Arbat HaMinim p. 170, and | # One should buy a lulav with a hechsher (certification that it is from a reliable source) in order to be sure that it came from a date palm tree and not a Canary palm.<ref>Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igrot Moshe O.C. 4:123) holds that a branch of a Canary palm tree, which does not produce edible dates, is not considered a lulav. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Halichot Shlomo 10:9), however, argues that the date palm and Canary palm are of the same species. Rav Hershel Schachter (“Halachos of Daled Minim,” min. 15) favors the former approach. The Halachos of the Four Species (p. 100) details how to distinguish a Canary palm branch from the regular date palm branch; one indication is that the spine of the Canary palm is very flexible. For more sources about a Canary Lulav see: Tzitz Eliezer 8:22, [[Kashrut]] Arbat HaMinim p. 170, and Yechave Daat 1:67. See [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_47380_79.pdf Sefer Sukkat David (p. 52)] who writes that if a Lulav came from a Lulav tree which does not grow fruits it is acceptable for the mitzvah of Lulav.</ref> | ||
# One can acquire a Lulav from one's friend as a gift even if there's a condition that says one must return it afterwards, as long as one actually does return it afterwards.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 558:4 writes that one can acquire the lulav through a gift with a condition that it must be return afterwards if one actually does return it afterwards. Mishna Brurah 558:12 explains that when one gives the Lulav to one's friend as a gift it is a complete [[acquisition]] and returning it later is only a completion of a condition that is imposed upon the gift. See, however, Shulchan Aruch 448:3.</ref> | # One can acquire a Lulav from one's friend as a gift even if there's a condition that says one must return it afterwards, as long as one actually does return it afterwards.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 558:4 writes that one can acquire the lulav through a gift with a condition that it must be return afterwards if one actually does return it afterwards. Mishna Brurah 558:12 explains that when one gives the Lulav to one's friend as a gift it is a complete [[acquisition]] and returning it later is only a completion of a condition that is imposed upon the gift. See, however, Shulchan Aruch 448:3.</ref> | ||
==Leaves Separated from the Spine== | ==Leaves Separated from the Spine== | ||
# It is preferable to buy a lulav with leaves that are not separated from the spine. If, however, the leaves are somewhat separated from the spine, the lulav is acceptable as long as the leaves are not drooping downwards. <ref> | # It is preferable to buy a lulav with leaves that are not separated from the spine. If, however, the leaves are somewhat separated from the spine, the lulav is acceptable as long as the leaves are not drooping downwards.<ref> | ||
* The Mishna ([[Sukkah]] 29b) states that a lulav with parted leaves is valid, while a lulav with leaves split completely is invalid. Rashi (29b s.v. Nifratz, as understood by Tosfot) explains that the lulav is invalid only if the leaves are actually detached from the spine. Tosfot, however, question Rashi’s approach. In a sense similar to Rashi, the Rif (15a) and Rambam (8:3) explain that the Mishna invalidates a lulav that has leaves split to the point that the leaves drooped downwards. The Shulchan Aruch (645:1) quotes the opinion of Rambam and Rif; the Beit Yosef quotes from the Ran that everyone would agree that by a lulav where the leaves fell off, it would be invalid, albeit for other reasons. | * The Mishna ([[Sukkah]] 29b) states that a lulav with parted leaves is valid, while a lulav with leaves split completely is invalid. Rashi (29b s.v. Nifratz, as understood by Tosfot) explains that the lulav is invalid only if the leaves are actually detached from the spine. Tosfot, however, question Rashi’s approach. In a sense similar to Rashi, the Rif (15a) and Rambam (8:3) explain that the Mishna invalidates a lulav that has leaves split to the point that the leaves drooped downwards. The Shulchan Aruch (645:1) quotes the opinion of Rambam and Rif; the Beit Yosef quotes from the Ran that everyone would agree that by a lulav where the leaves fell off, it would be invalid, albeit for other reasons. | ||
* The [[Maggid]] Mishneh (Hilchot Lulav 8:3) cites the view of the Geonim that although a lulav with parted leaves is acceptable, it is preferable to get a lulav with leaves that are not separated from the spine. The Rama (645:1) codifies this position and adds that it is preferable to have a lulav with leaves that are completely bound straight with the spine. The Taz (645:1-2) strongly questions the Geonim and Rama and concludes that a lulav with slightly parted leaves is acceptable even l’chatchila. The Mishna Brurah (645:3) and Kaf Hachaim (645:7), though, cite several achronim who side with the Rama. | * The [[Maggid]] Mishneh (Hilchot Lulav 8:3) cites the view of the Geonim that although a lulav with parted leaves is acceptable, it is preferable to get a lulav with leaves that are not separated from the spine. The Rama (645:1) codifies this position and adds that it is preferable to have a lulav with leaves that are completely bound straight with the spine. The Taz (645:1-2) strongly questions the Geonim and Rama and concludes that a lulav with slightly parted leaves is acceptable even l’chatchila. The Mishna Brurah (645:3) and Kaf Hachaim (645:7), though, cite several achronim who side with the Rama. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
==Dried Out== | ==Dried Out== | ||
[[Image:DryLulav.png|100px|right]] | [[Image:DryLulav.png|100px|right]] | ||
# A dried out lulav is invalid. <ref> Mishna Sukka 3:1 (29a), Shulchan Aruch 645:5. | # A dried out lulav is invalid.<ref> Mishna Sukka 3:1 (29a), Shulchan Aruch 645:5. | ||
* Rosh Sukka 3:1 quotes the Raavad that when it loses its greenness it is considered dried out and this is the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch | * Rosh Sukka 3:1 quotes the Raavad that when it loses its greenness it is considered dried out and this is the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch | ||
* The Rama 645:5 is more lenient and says it is not considered dried out unless you would rub your fingernails on it and it would crumble.</ref> | * The Rama 645:5 is more lenient and says it is not considered dried out unless you would rub your fingernails on it and it would crumble.</ref> | ||
# If the uppermost tiyomet is dried out there is a discussion if it is still valid. <ref> Mishna Brurah 645:22 is stringent based on the opinion of the Raavad as is the Gra 645:22, while the Chazon Ish 145:11 is lenient. </ref> | # If the uppermost tiyomet is dried out there is a discussion if it is still valid.<ref> Mishna Brurah 645:22 is stringent based on the opinion of the Raavad as is the Gra 645:22, while the Chazon Ish 145:11 is lenient. </ref> | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:Holidays]] | [[Category:Holidays]] | ||
[[Category:Sukkot]] | [[Category:Sukkot]] | ||
