This article is an excerpt from our Sefer

   Buy now here or on Amazon.com

Chapter 5: General Kashrus laws of the Daled Minim[1]

Showing the species to a Rav:  Due to the vast amount of Halachos involved in the kashrus of the four species it is strongly recommended that one show them to a Rav to make sure it fulfills the Halachic requirements, and to verify what level of hiddur it has. Due to differences in Halachic opinions, those faithful to the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch should have them viewed by a Rav who rules in accordance with the Alter Rebbe.

1. Taking all four species:

The Mitzvah of Daled Minim is for each and every Jew to take all four species; the Esrog, Lulav, Hadassim and Aravos.[2] All four species are required to be taken [and be Kosher] in order to fulfill the Mitzvah.[3] If one of the species is missing, one cannot take another species in its place.[4] In such a case [that a species is missing], a blessing is not to be said on the other species that are available.[5] Nonetheless, one is to take the available species without a blessing for commemoration purposes.[6] This applies on all days of Sukkos, both the first day and the remaining days.[7] However, one is never to take a different species in exchange for one of the four species, [even for commemoration purposes[8]].[9] The next Halacha will discuss the amount of each species that must be taken, and if one may take more than required.

Taking more than four Minim:[10] It is [Biblically] forbidden to add another species [i.e. a rosemary branch] to the four species [upon shaking the four species for the Mitzvah] due to the prohibition of Baal Tosif. [This, however, only applies if one takes the additional species with intent to join it in fulfillment of the Mitzvah. If, however, it just happens to be in one’s hand, one does not Biblically transgress Baal Tosif.[11] Nonetheless, initially one is not to do so being that it appears as if one is adding to the Mitzvah.[12] Additionally, this may pose a Chatzitza/interval invalidation, as explained in Chapter4 Halacha 5G]

2. How many of each species is one to take?

A. Lulav:

One takes single Lulav.[13] It is forbidden to take more than one Lulav.[14] 

B. Esrog:

One takes one Esrog.[15] It is forbidden to take more than one Esrog.[16]  

C. Hadassim-How many to take:

One takes three Hadassim branches.[17]

Taking less than three branches:[18] In a time of need in which one cannot find three Hadassim, one fulfills his obligation with even one Hadass branch. This applies even if the single branch has a broken top.[19]

Taking more than three branches: It is permitted to take more than three Hadassim, and one may take whatever amount one wishes.[20] Nevertheless, those who are particular do not take more than three Hadassim [unless they are unsure of the Kashrus status of one of the Hadassim, in which case even they may add more in order to escape the doubt[21]].[22] [Practically, the old age custom of many was to specifically take more than three Hadassim for the sake of beautifying the Mitzvah[23], and so is the Chabad custom.[24] A number of customs exist regarding the amount of total Hadassim to take, with some taking 100, 70[25], 68[26], 69[27], and 21.[28] Various people have been instructed by the Chabad Rabbeim to take 4, 12, 13, or 26 Hadassim, but not 9[29], 68, or 69.[30] At the very least, one should try to add 3 more Hadassim to the minimal three required.[31] The Rebbe took a different amount of Hadassim throughout the years, although since 1981, he took 36 Hadassim.[32]]

Adding a Pasul Hadass: Some Poskim[33] rule that it is forbidden to add an invalid Hadass to the Lulav [even if it is] in addition to the three Kosher Hadassim. Other Poskim[34], however, rule it is permitted to do so.

 

D. Aravos:

One takes two Aravos branches.[35]

Taking less than two:[36] Some Poskim[37] rule that one does not fulfill his obligation if only one Arava was taken [and hence he must repeat the shaking with a blessing over the Arava[38]]. However, other Poskim[39] rule one is Yotzei Bedieved with even one Arava. Practically, if one shook with only one Arava, or only one Kosher Arava, one is to reshake two Aravos without a blessing.[40] In a time of need that only one Kosher Arava is available, one is to shake the Daled Minim without a blessing.[41]

Taking more than two: It is permitted to take more than two Aravos, and one may take whatever amount one wishes.[42] Nevertheless, those who are meticulous do not take more than two Aravos [unless they are unsure of the Kashrus status of one of the Aravos, in which case even they may add more in order to escape the doubt[43]].[44] [Practically, so is the Chabad custom and custom of the world, to not add more than two Aravos.[45]]

 

The Mitzvah of “Lachem”

3. Using another persons Daled Minim-Borrowed, stolen, Matana Al Means Lehachzir:[46]

A. First day of Sukkos:[47]

The general rule:[48] On the 1st day of Sukkos [in Eretz Yisrael and the first two days of Sukkos in the Diaspora[49] as will be explained next] one only fulfills his Biblical obligation with a set of Daled Minim which he personally owns, as opposed to a borrowed set of Daled Minim.[50] If he does not own it, even if he borrowed it from the owner, it is Biblically invalid on the first day of Yom Tov.[51] [This applies to each one of the dour species, the Lulav, Esrog, Hadassim and Aravos.] Therefore, when using someone else’s Lulav one must be given it as a present, as will be explained next.

Matana Al Menas Lehachzir:[52] The Daled Minim can be given to a person [even on Yom Tov[53]] as a “Matana Al Menas Lehachzir/present on condition to return” in order to fulfill his obligation on the first day(s).[54] [Initially, when the giver hands it to the receiver, or gives him permission to use it, he should explicitly say to him that “It is a present on condition you return it.”[55] The owner can explicitly say this aloud in the beginning of the day that whoever will be using his Daled Minim that day it is considered a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir, and he thus does not have to repeat it before each person is given it.[56] However, Bedieved, if this was not explicitly said and rather] the Daled Minim were simply given to the person without mentioning anything, he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation.[57] [This, however, only applies if the receiver understands the unspoken condition that he must acquire the Daled Minim from the owner. If, however, the receiver did not know the law that he must own the Daled Minim, and thought it was merely lent to him, then he has not fulfilled his obligation and is to be given it again as a present on condition to return.[58] Accordingly, it is proper to explicitly tell each receiver that he is being given it as a present on condition to return, as stated above.]

The law if he did not return Daled Minim:[59] If one was given the Daled Minim as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir and he did not return it to the owner, then he does not fulfill his obligation. This applies irrelevant of the reason for why it was not returned, and even if something happened to it that was no fault of his own.[60] This applies even if he reimbursed him for the cost of the Daled Minim [unless he returns to him another Kosher set of Daled Minim[61]]. [[This applies even if he was given the Daled Minim without having it said explicitly that it was a present on condition to return.[62] However, some Poskim rule that this only applies if he conditioned that the Daled Minim be returned explicitly to him, by saying “On condition that you return it to me.” However, if the word “me” was omitted, then he fulfills his obligation if he reimbursed him for the cost.[63]]

The law if he did not return the Daled Minim on time:[64] If one was given the Daled Minim as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir and he only returned the Daled Minim to the owner after the time that its Mitzvah has expired [i.e. that day after sunset[65]], then he does not fulfill his obligation. [However, some Poskim rule that this only applies if he conditioned that the Daled Minim be returned explicitly to him, by saying “On condition that you return it to me.” However, if the word “me” was omitted, then it is valid even if he returned it after the time.[66]]

The law if he returned the Daled Minim in an invalid state:[67] If one was given the Daled Minim as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir and he returned the Daled Minim to the owner in an invalid state, then he does not fulfill his obligation. [This applies even if only one of the Daled Minim became invalid and applies irrelevant of reason or cause for the invalidation.] This applies even if he reimbursed him for the cost of the Daled Minim [unless he returns to him another Kosher set of Daled Minim[68]]. [However, some Poskim rule that this only applies if he conditioned that the Daled Minim be returned explicitly to him, by saying “On condition that you return it to me.” However, if the word “me” was omitted, then he fulfills his obligation if he reimbursed him for the cost.[69]]

Returning the Daled Minim back to the owner as a present:[70] When one who received Daled Minim from the owner as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir returns the Daled Minim back to the owner, he must return it to him as a complete present [with intent that the owner acquire it as a present as opposed to lending the Daled Minim to the original owner], in order so it be owned by him for him to fulfill his obligation.

Giving the Daled Minim to another prior to returning it to the owner:[71] If one who received Daled Minim from the owner as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir and then gave the Daled Minim to another person [as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir[72]] prior to returning it to the original owner, then nonetheless he still fulfills his obligation, so long as it eventually gets returned to the original owner.[73] Furthermore, the person who shook it in the interim also fulfills his obligation. This applies even if it was given to many people in the interim, that they all fulfill their obligation. [This may even initially be done, unless the owner explicitly stated otherwise that he does not want it to be given to other people[74], or one can assume that he is particular that other people do not take it.[75] Nonetheless, initially one should avoid giving the Daled Minim to another on condition that he does not give it to anyone else.[76]]

Giving the Daled Minim to a Katan/child: See Halacha 4!

Q&A Must one shake his own personal set of Daled Minim if he is shaking in the old city of Jerusalem? According to some Poskim, in certain sections of the old city of Jerusalem, one is required to use Daled Minim that he owns or received as a “Matana Al Menas Lehachzir” throughout all seven days of Sukkos. See Chapter 4 Halacha 1A in Q&A! May a wife give her husband’s Daled Minim to another as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir?[77] No, unless he receives explicit permission from her husband to do so. Must one give his wife the Lulav and Esrog on condition of returning?[78] Some Poskim[79] require one to give his wife the set of Daled Minim as a present on condition to return. Others[80], however, rule there is no need to be particular in this. Must one pay for the Daled Minim before Sukkos in order, so he fully owns it on the first day? See Chapter 4 Halacha 4D!

B. Second day of Sukkos in Diaspora:[81]

On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, it is disputed amongst Poskim[82] if one may fulfill his Rabbinical obligation with a set of Daled Minim that he does not own. Practically, one may not say a blessing over a Lulav that he does not own even on the second day on the Diaspora. Hence, he is to be given the Lulav as a present on condition to return, just as on the first day, as explained in A.

C. Chol Hamoed:[83]

During Chol Hamoed, in which the obligation to shake Lulav is only Rabbinical, one does not need to use a Lulav which he owns and may thus even initially fulfill his obligation with a borrowed set of Daled Minim.[84] One may even use another person’s Lulav without permission, assuming he doesn’t mind, as will be explained in E. [One may fulfill his obligation even with a set of Daled Minim that belongs to a child.[85] Thus, there is no need to recite Matana Al Menas Lehachzir when giving the Daled Minim to another during Chol Hamoed. Nevertheless, it is proper the Lulav to another person as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir also during Chol Hamoed, and this is beneficial for both the giver and the receiver.[86] So was the custom of the Rebbe. Thus, when giving another Jew Daled Minim to shake during Mivtzaim, he should initially recite Matana Al Menas Lehachzir even on the days of Chol Hamoed.]

D. A stolen Lulav/Daled Minim:[87]

One does not fulfill his obligation of shaking the Daled Minim if any of the species are stolen.[88] This applies whether the species was stolen from a Jew or gentile.[89] This applies even if the owners from whom the items were stolen from have given up hope for retrieving the stolen goods.[90] This invalidation applies even during Chol Hamoed.[91] Furthermore, even if the stealer acquired the stolen goods through a Shinuiy Maaseh or Shinuiy Hashem, then although it is considered valid even on the first day, nonetheless, one may not say a blessing over it.[92]

Purchased a stolen set of Daled Minim:[93] If one purchased[94] a set of stolen species then he only fulfills his obligation if the original owner had given up hope in retrieving it prior to the sale. In such a case he fulfills his obligation even on the first day of Sukkos, and even a blessing may be recited. However, if it was purchased prior to the original owners giving up hope in retrieving it, then the buyer does not fulfill his obligation even during Chol Hamoed.

 

E. May one use another person’s Daled Minim without permission?[95]

First day of Sukkos:[96] It is forbidden and invalid to use another person’s Daled Minim without asking his permission on the first day [and first two days in Diapsora] of Sukkos, as the Lulav must belong to him.

Chol Hamoed:[97] During Chol Hamoed, it is permitted to use another person’s Daled Minim without asking his permission.[98] This however only applies if one is careful to abide by all the conditions to be listed below.[99] [Due to this, some Poskim[100] conclude that practically one should distance himself as much as possible from borrowing Daled Minim without permission. Practically, if it is possible to ask the owner, one is to do so rather than borrow it without permission.[101] Surely, if one knows for certain that the owner is particular then it is forbidden to use it.[102]]

Not to take the Daled Minim to a different area:[103] The borrowed Daled Minim may only be used in the area that it was left by the owner. However, it is forbidden to take it from the area that the owner left it in to a different area, such as to take the Daled Minim from the owner’s home to Shul [without his explicit permission]. [This applies even if at the conclusion of one’s use of the Daled Minim he will return and place it back in the original area from which it was taken.[104]]

How often may one borrow the Daled Minim?[105] It is only permitted to borrow a Tallis without permission on mere occasion. It is forbidden to borrow it on a steady basis.[106] [Some Poskim[107] rule that an occasion is defined as not more than one time in thirty days. Others[108] rule it is based on common estimation of when people consider it more than an occasion.]

Summary: It is permitted to use another person’s Daled Minim without asking his permission, if one is careful to abide by all the following conditions: 1. The borrowed Daled Minim may only be used in the area that it was left by the owner. 2. It is forbidden to borrow it on a steady basis. [Even when the above conditions will be fulfilled, if it is possible to ask the owner, one is to do so rather than borrow it without permission. If one knows for certain that the owner is particular, then it is forbidden to use it.] Q&A May one borrow the Daled Minim during a time that the owner will need to use it? No.   May one borrow the Daled Minim if it may get damaged due to the crowd of people present?[109] No.

If one borrowed a Daled Minim and damaged it, must he pay the owner for the damages? Negligence:[110] If one borrowed a Daled Minim and damaged it due to negligence, then he is obligated to pay the owner for the damages. Process of using: If one borrowed a Daled Minim and it was damaged in the process of using it, such as it cracked or tore, then if he borrowed it with permission of the owner, then he is exempt from paying for the damages.[111] This applies even if he borrowed it as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir [such as by a Tallis or by Daled Minim, although in such a case he does not fulfill the Mitzvah].[112] If, however, he borrowed it without permission [as stated in Halacha that doing so is allowed] then some Poskim[113] rule he is liable for all damages.[114] Other Poskim[115] however rule he is exempt from damages just like one who borrowed it with permission.[116] Not in process of using and no negligence: If one borrowed a Daled Minim [whether with or without permission, but not as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir] and it became damaged not in the process of using it, although not due to any negligence on the person’s side, then he is nevertheless liable to pay for damages[117], although some Poskim[118] suggest being lenient to exempt him from paying for damages if he was indeed not negligent. However, if he borrowed the Daled Minim as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir then he has the status of a Shomer Chinam[119] and is not liable unless it became damaged due to negligence.[120]

F. Joint ownership of a set of Daled Minim:[121]

If a Lulav or Esrog, or any of the Daled Minim, is under joint ownership, each owner must give his portion to his partner as a present [on condition to return in order] in order to fulfill his obligation.[122] Nonetheless, this is assumed to automatically be the case if it was purchased for the sake of the Mitzvah, and thus the partners don’t need to explicitly state this to each other.[123] [However, initially it is best to do say explicitly that it is a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir even in such a case.[124]]

G. Borrowing another person’s Daled Minim if it is more Mehudar:[125]

Some Poskim[126] rule that it is better that one says the blessing over one’s personal set of Daled Minim, versus saying it over a borrowed set, even if the borrowed set is more Mehudar. However, other Poskim[127] rule on the contrary, that in such a case it is better to be Yotzei with the borrowed more Mehudar set. [Practically, the main ruling follows the former opinion, although one may nevertheless shake the other persons Daled Minim after he says a blessing on his own set and shakes it. Furthermore, regarding the Daled Minim of one’s Rebbe or community Rav, many are accustomed to even initially use it for the shaking with the blessing, and only later use their set for the shaking in Hallel.[128]]

4. Giving the Daled Minim to a Katan/child:[129]

On the first day of Sukkos [in Eretz Yisrael, and the first two days of Sukkos in the Diaspora[130]], one is not to give his personal Daled Minim to any child, to fulfill the Mitzvah, prior to him [or other adults] fulfilling the Mitzvah.[131] This applies even if the child is above age 6-7 [so long as he is below the age of 13 for a boy and 12 for a girl].[132] However, some Poskim[133] rule that if the child has reached the age of Peutos [6-7 years old[134]] then one may give it to him as a present on condition to return. [Practically, we rule like the former opinion.[135] Thus, one must purchase a separate set of Daled Minim for his male children to shake.[136] Alternatively, on the first day in Eretz Yisrael, and on the second day in the Diaspora, one may give the child his personal Daled Minim if all the adults have already fulfilled the Mitzvah.[137] However, on the first day in the Diaspora one is not to give children his personal Daled Minim even after all the adults have already fulfilled the Mitzvah, as one must use his own set of Lulav also the next day.[138] Nonetheless, it is better to purchase a separate set for ones male children than to give it to them after everyone has fulfilled their obligation, as perhaps another adult will later need to use it.[139] Likewise, it is best to purchase the child his own personal set of Daled Minim in order so he can use the Lulav during Hallel.[140]]

If the child does not have his own set-Lending him the set: If one does not have another Lulav available to give the children then he may give the children his personal Lulav as a borrowed item, and not as a present. Thus, he is not to say, “a present on condition to return”, as he does when giving it to adults.[141] Nevertheless, some Poskim[142] rule that the child may not say a blessing on this shaking.

If one gave the child the set as a present: If one did give the child the Daled Minim as a present then no other adults may fulfill their obligation with this Lulav until the start of Chol Hamoed.[143] If one gave the child his Daled Minim without mentioning anything at all, and he also did not have anything in mind, then it is considered lent to the child and other adults may still fulfill their obligation with it even on the first days of Sukkos by having it given to them as a present.[144]

Q&A May one give the Daled Minim on first day [and second day in Diaspora] to a boy/girl above Bar or Bas Mitzvah on condition to return if they are under 18?[145] Some Poskim[146] rule one may not initially give the Daled Minim on the first day of Sukkos to a child even above Bar/Bas Mitzvah, if other adults still need to be Yotzei with it, and the child has not yet grown a substantial amount of facial hair, and is below age 18.[147] Other Poskim[148], however, rule that it is even initially permitted to buy the Daled Minim from such a child who is above Bar/Bas Mitzvah, even though he is under 18 and has not yet grown facial hair.[149] [Practically, it is a proper to initially purchase a set of Daled Minim for such a child, or not give it to such a child so long as other adults still need to shake.[150] However, in a time of need, one may give it to any child above Bar/Bas Mitzvah and then return and use it for other adults even with a blessing, according to all opinions.[151]] May Bochurim who are above Bar Mitzvah, but below age 18, perform Mivtzaim on the first day of Sukkos using their own set of Daled Minim? Yes.[152] May a child give another child his Lulav and Esrog to shake?[153] Yes, if the child is above age 6. May one give a married women Daled Minim to shake on the first day(s) of Sukkos? Some Poskim[154] rule that one may not give a married woman Daled Minim to shake on the first day(s) of Sukkos unless he explicitly states that it is a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir, and the husband has no portion in it, and he is giving it to her specifically to fulfill the Mitzvah. Q&A on buying Daled Minim from child May one buy Daled Minim from a child?[155] One may not purchase any of the Daled Minim for adult use on the first day of Sukkos [in Eretz Yisrael, and the first two days of Sukkos in the Diaspora[156]] from a child who is under Bar/Bas Mitzvah if the child personally owns the Daled Minim.[157] If one already shook Daled Minim that was purchased from a Katan, then on the first day of Sukkos [and second day in Diaspora[158]], one is to shake it again without a blessing.[159] To use for Chol Hamoed: According to all opinions, one may purchase Daled Minim from a child of any age for the sake of using them on Chol Hamoed.[160] Thus, one may purchase extra sets of Aravos from children to use on Chol Hamoed. Child selling on behalf of others:[161] The above limitation regarding the first days of Sukkos is only in a case that the child is the actual owner of the Daled Minim, such as he picked it from Hefker, received it as a present, or purchased it with his money. If, however, the child does not own the Daled Minim and is simply selling them on behalf of an adult, then one may even initially purchase it from a child of any age.    May one purchase Daled Minim from one who is above Bar/Bas Mitzvah but does not yet have a beard? Some Poskim[162] rule one may not initially buy any of the Daled Minim for adult use on the first day of Sukkos from a child even above Bar/Bas Mitzvah, if the child personally owns the Daled Minim and he has not yet grown a nice amount of facial hair, and is below age 18.[163] Other Poskim[164], however, rule that it is even initially permitted to buy the Daled Minim from such a child who is above Bar/Bas Mitzvah, even though he is under 18 and has not yet grown facial hair.[165] Practically, it is a proper to initially purchase the Daled Minim from a full adult owner [over 18 or with facial hair], although in a time of need one may purchase it from any child above Bar/Bas Mitzvah. Certainly, Bedieved, if one already shook Daled Minim that was purchased/received from a child above the age of Bar/Bas Mitzvah, he fulfills his obligation. To use for second day of Sukkos and Chol Hamoed: According to all opinions, one may purchase Daled Minim from a child above Bar/Bas Mitzvah for use on the second day of Sukkos[166], and may purchase Daled Minim from a child of any age for the sake of using them on Chol Hamoed.[167] Thus, one may purchase extra sets of Aravos from children to use on Chol Hamoed. Child selling on behalf of others:[168] The above limitation regarding the first day of Sukkos is only in a case that the child is the actual owner of the Daled Minim, such as he picked it from Hefker, received it as a present, or purchased it with his money. If, however, the child does not own the Daled Minim and is simply selling them on behalf of an adult, then one may even initially purchase it from a child of any age.

5. Daled Minim picked on Yom Tov or brought from outside of Techum:[169]

If on Yom Tov a gentile brought one Daled Minim from outside of the Techum, it nonetheless remains permit to use it for the blessing. [Furthermore, even initially it is permitted to send a gentile to bring one of the Minim from outside of the Techum on Yom Tov.[170] However, this only applies if the Daled Minim brought by the gentile was picked from the tree/ground from before Yom Tov. However, it is forbidden to use the Daled Minim if it was picked from the tree/ground by a gentile on Yom Tov.[171]]

6. The requirement of Hadar:[172]

The Torah states that the Esrog must be Hadar which means beautiful in appearance and growth. This applies likewise to all four species, as the command of all four species are written in the same verse, hence juxtaposing them together and creating a legal bridge to transfer laws from one species to another, and therefore each of the four species must be Hadar, beautiful and splendid in their appearance and growth. The exact definition of Hadar will be discussed by each species.

The invalidation of Hadar on Chol Hamoed: See Halacha 9!

Does the invalidation of Hadar apply only if apparent at first sight?[173] Some Poskim[174] rule that the invalidation of Hadar only applies if it is viewable and recognizable from a fair distance to people, and at first glance without much discerning. If, however, one must discern his eye in order to notice it, then it is not invalid due to Hadar. Other Poskim[175], however, rule that in general Hadar invalidations apply even if it is a very small amount that is not discernable at first glance, and requires contemplation to be noticed, with exception to the invalidation of a color change and blister by an Esrog, and so is implied from the Poskim.[176]

7. The requirement of Shaleim:[177]

The Torah states “Ulikachtem Lachem”, from which the Sages expounded that the Daled Minim must be complete and whole, which invalidates it if it is Chaser [i.e. missing]. The exact definition of Shaleim will be discussed in each species.

Biblical or Rabbinical: Some Poskim[178] rule that the invalidation of Chaser is merely Rabbinical, and hence in a case of doubt one may be lenient. However, other Poskim[179] rule that the Chaser invalidations are Biblical, and hence Safek Lechumra. Practically, one is to be stringent when possible.[180]

Q&A Does the invalidation of Chaser apply only if apparent at first sight?[181] Some Poskim[182] rule that the invalidation of Chaser only invalidates if its missing area is viewable and recognizable from a fair distance to all people. If, however, one must discern his eye in order to notice it, then it is not Chaser and remains Kosher. Other Poskim[183], however, rule the invalidation of Chaser applies if any amount is missing, even if it is a very small amount that is not discernable at first glance, and requires contemplation to be noticed, and so is implied from the Poskim.[184] Checking with a magnifying glass for a Chaser invalidation:[185] According to all opinions, a Chaser invalidation that is unnoticeable to the naked eye and can only be seen through a magnifying glass, does not invalidate.

8. Cooked or soaked in water:[186]

A cooked Esrog is invalid for the Mitzvah. Thus, an esrog which stayed submerged in water, or other liquids, for over 24 hours is invalid, as it is considered cooked.[187] This applies even if it was submerged in honey for 24 hours, nevertheless it is invalid.[188] If the Esrog was submerged in very strong vinegar, then even if it did not remain there for 24 hours but rather for the amount of time for it to be brought to a boil on the fire, then it is considered cooked and is invalid.[189]

The law by other Minim:[190] It is disputed amongst the Poskim[191] as to whether this invalidation of cooked/Kavush applies likewise to the other species, Lulav, Hadassim and Aravos, even though they are not foods. [Practically, one is initially to avoid leaving any of the Daled Minim in water for 24 consecutive hours. Aravos and Hadassim that sit in buckets of water are to be removed within 24 hours, and not to be left in the water over Shabbos.[192] However, if there is only a small amount of water on the bottom of the bucket where the stems which are beyond the minimum Shiur are soaking, then it is valid.[193]]

Is it considered Kavush if the Daled Minim is wrapped in a wet towel?[194] No.   Are Daled Minim that were grown in a pot or hydroponically valid for the Mitzvah?[195] This matter is questioned and disputed amongst the Poskim, and practically one is initially to be stringent.

9. The Kashrus laws on Chol Hamoed:

A. The general law:

Shaleim/Chaser invalidations:[196] On Chol Hamoed, all Chaser [i.e. missing piece] invalidations are valid, [and thus the species may even initially be used with a blessing]. [Nonetheless, initially one should use an Esrog that is not missing any piece, even on Chol Hamoed.[197]] Thus, for example, if an Esrog has a hole from one end to the other, or has a piece missing from the body of the Esrog, or if its Oketz was removed and a groove remained in its place.[198] The exact details of this matter will be explained by each individual invalidation by each of the four Minim.

Lack of minimum measurement:[199] The above validation of Chaser during Chol Hamoed only applies if the species still maintains its minimum required measurement. If, however, it no longer maintains its minimum required measurement, then it is invalid even on Chol Hamoed. Thus, for example, if an Esrog has lost a piece and is no longer a Kibeitza in size, then it is invalid even on Chol Hamoed.[200] Likewise, if an Arava and Hadass are not three Tefachim tall, and if a Lulav is not four Tefachim tall, then they are invalid throughout all seven days of Sukkos, including Chol Hamoed.[201]

Hadar invalidations:[202] It is disputed[203] if Hadar invalidations are invalid during Chol Hamoed, just like on the first day. Practically, one may not initially use on Chol Hamoed Daled Minim which contain a Hadar invalidation, however if no other Kosher species is available, then one may use it [even with a Bracha[204]].[205] Thus, for example, if a Pitum fell off from the Esrog, or it has a Chazazis and the like [i.e. a color change, or it is dry[206]], then it is subject to the above debate and is invalid to be used throughout all seven days[207], unless there is no other Esrog available.[208] The exact details of this matter will be explained by each individual invalidation by each of the four Minim. If one cut off a piece from the Esrog that contains a Hadar invalidation [such as a color change or area of dryness or Chazazis], the Esrog remains invalid throughout all seven days of Sukkos, even on Chol Hamoed[209], unless one simply peeled off the outer green skin, as explained in Chapter 7 Halacha 9D and 10E.

Other invalidations:[210] All intrinsic invalidations of the four Minim, are invalid both on the first day and by all the other days. Thus, for example, if the Esrog is forbidden to be eaten, then it is invalid throughout all seven days of Sukkos.[211] Likewise, a stolen species is invalid for all seven days.[212]

B. List of examples:[213]

All Biblical invalidations that are applicable on the first day of Sukkos, are likewise Rabbinically invalid on the other days, with exception to ten matters, which are as follows:

General invalidations to all four Minim that are permitted on Chol Hamoed:

1. Ownership: One who borrows the four species from the owner, whether with his prior knowledge or without his prior knowledge, so long as he has no intent to steal it. [see Halacha 3C]
2. Mudar Hanah: One who vowed not to benefit from an individual, may use his species is on Chol hamoed.[214]

Lulav invalidations permitted on Chol Hamoed:

3. Split spine: A Lulav [spine] that is split in a way that invalidates it is valid on Chol Hamoed, being that this is a Chaser invalidation. [See Chapter 6 Halacha 8]
4. Split Tiyomes: A Lulav whose Tiyomes is [completely] split is valid on Chol Hamoed, being that this is a Chaser invalidation. [See Chapter 6 Halacha 7]
5. Bent leaves: On Chol Hamoed, even if majority of the leaves are bent or curved, it is valid even Lechatchilah. [See Chapter 6 Halacha 12B]

Hadass invalidations permitted on Chol Hamoed:

6. Dried leaves: A Hadass whose leaves have dried but has three remaining leaves on its top which are not completely dry, is valid on Chol Hamoed. [See Chapter 8 Halacha 6]

Esrog invalidations permitted on Chol Hamoed:

7. Missing piece: On Chol Hamoed, an Esrog is valid even if it is missing a piece even if the missing piece is much larger than an Issur coin, and even if it goes from one end of the Esrog to the other end [so long as the Esrog retains its minimum size. [See Chapter 7 Halacha 6]
8. Disintegrated: On Chol Hamoed, a disintegrated Esrog is valid even if it has fully disintegrated inside. [See Chapter 7 Halacha 7]
9. Cracked: On Chol Hamoed, a split Esrog is valid even if it is completely split in a way that invalidates it.
10. Oketz fell off: On Chol Hamoed, an Esrog is valid even if its stem has completely fallen off and revealed the groove of the Esrog.

10. The Kashrus laws on the second day in the Diaspora:[215]

On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, in which also the second day of Sukkos is celebrated as Yom Tov, a Daled Minim which contains an invalidation which is only invalid on the first day but valid on Chol Hamoed, is disputed[216] if it is invalid, just like on the first day, or retains the leniencies of Chol Hamoed [as explained above]. Practically, one is not to use such a Daled Minim to say the blessing, although may use it for the shaking during Hallel after using another person’s Daled Minim with a blessing as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir. If no other Kosher species is available, and one cannot borrow one from another person, then one is to use it without a Bracha.[217] In Eretz Yisrael, whatever is permitted during Chol Hameod becomes permitted from the second day of Sukkos and onwards, being that it is the first day of Chol Hamoed.

11. Using non-Kosher Daled Minim in a time of need:[218]

Some Poskim[219] rule that if a Kosher species is unavailable, then one may use an invalid Daled Minim with a blessing throughout all the days of Sukkos, including on the first day.[220] This, however, is limited only to Daled Minim that contain invalidations that are due to a blemish which is readily apparent on the Daled Minim, such as lack of Shaleim or Hadar, however, if it contains other invalidations which are not due to a blemish[221], then it is not to be used at all even without a blessing.[222] Other Poskim[223], however, argue on all the above and rule that all invalidations remain invalid, including lack of Hadar/Shaleim, even if no other Daled Minim is available, and hence it may never be taken with a blessing. However, if the invalidation is due to a blemish, then it may be taken without a blessing for mere commemoration. Practically, some communities follow the former approach while others follow the latter approach, and so is the custom in the Ashkenazi communities to be stringent.[224]

Bedieved:[225] The above discussion is only in a case that there is no Kosher Daled Minim available. If, however, a Kosher species is available, then one does not fulfill his obligation at all with a non-Kosher species even Bedieved, and he must re-shake the Kosher species with a blessing.

12. If invalidations that must cover majority of species invalidate even if they cover 50%:[226]

All invalidations of the Daled Minim that must take up more than minority of the species to be invalid [i.e. a Chazazis or color change by an Esrog, split or fallen leaves by the other Minim], are disputed amongst the Poskim[227] regarding if they only invalidate if they take up majority of the species, or are invalid even if they take up exactly 50% of the species. Practically, the main ruling follows the stringent opinion that even a 50% invalidation is deemed invalid[228], although in a time of need that no other species is available, one may use it with a blessing if it does not take up majority of the species.[229]

Checklist of what to look for when purchasing Daled Minim:

The following is a list of matters one is to look for to purchase a Kosher and Mehudar set of Daled Minim.

Esrog:

1. It is a Calabria Esrog from Italy.
2. Verify there are no missing pieces anywhere from the Esrog.
3. Verify it does not have a broken Pitum.
4. Verify it does not have a broken Oketz.
5. Verify the Chotem is clean of a Chazazis/blister or color change.
6. Verify that below the Chotem there is not two Chazazis or two-color changes.
7. Bletlach are Kosher.
8. Verify that it has a Hashgacha if it came from Israel.
9. It is preferable that the Esrog be completely yellow.

Lulav:

1. Its spine is at least 32cm. and will extend a Tefach past Hadassim/Aravos.
2. Its Tyomes is completely closed on its top.
3. The Tiyomes is double leafed from top to bottom.
4. Majority of the other leaves are also majority closed.
5. The Tiyomes is not cut on its top
6. It is not bent to any side. The Lulav is straight.
7. The leaves are not bent
8. The Tiyomes is not dry
9. Some prefer that the Lulav contain a Kara brown covering.

Hadassim:

1. Is at least 24 cm.
2. The first 24 cm from the top is completely Meshulash, or at the very least majority Meshulash.
3. The top is not cut off
4. Remove random leaves.

                                                  

Aravos:

1. Is at least 24 cm.
2. The first 24 cm from the top has all of its leaves intact, or at the very least majority of its leaves.
3. The top is not cut off.

____________________________________________

[1] Based on Shulchan Aruch Harav Chapter 645-651 with additions of customs of Chabad Chassidim

[2] Admur 651:1; Michaber 651:12

[3] Michaber ibid; Sukkah 34b; Mishneh Menachos 27

[4] Michaber 651:13

[5] Michaber 651:12

[6] Michaber 651:12; Rosh in name of Raavad

[7] Rama 651:12; Rosh; Rabbeinu Yerucham; Maharik 41

[8] M”A 651:26

[9] Michaber 651:13

[10] Michaber 651:14; Sukkah 36b; See Admur 651:3

[11] M”A 651:27; See Admur 651:3

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule one Biblically transgresses Baal Tosif even if he does not intend to take the species for the sake of the Mitzvah. [Beis Yosef 651, brought in M”A ibid]

[12] M”A ibid

[13] Admur 651:1; Michaber 651:1; Rambam 7:7; Rebbe Yishmael in Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[14] Michaber 651:15; Teshuvas Harambam; Sefer Haminhagim p. 65

[15] Admur 651:1; Michaber 651:1; Rambam 7:7; Rebbe Yishmael in Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[16] Michaber 651:15; Teshuvas Harambam; Sefer Haminhagim p. 65

[17] Admur 651:1; Michaber 651:1; Rambam 7:7; Rebbe Yishmael in Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[18] Admur ibid; Rama 651:1; M”A 651:1; Ramban Lulav as rules Rebbe Akiva Sukkah 34b; Ritva Sukkah 49b; Orchos Chaim Lulav 12

[19] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Ramban ibid; See Admur 651:1

[20] Michaber 651:15; Teshuvah of Rambam; M”B 651:59; Biur Halacha 651:15 “Vehamidakdikin”

[21] Biur Halacha ibid

[22] Michaber ibid; Bach 651: See Biur Halacha ibid, that seemingly this is due to Kabalistic reasons, as according to Halacha, the Rambam clearly differentiates between adding to Aravos which should not be done, and Hadassim which is a Mitzvah to do

[23] Sefer Haittur Hilchos Tzitzis and Hilchos; Rambam Hilchos Lulav 7:7; Meiri Sukkah 31a; Ohel Moed Shaar Sukkah Velulav Derech Daled; Leket Yosher p. 147; Makor Chaim 651

[24] Sefer Haminhagim p. 140

[25] Corresponding to the 70 nations and 70 bulls brough to the altar on Sukkos

[26] The Gematria of Lulav

[27] The Gematria of Hadass

[28] Sefer Haittur ibid

[29] See Siddur Rav Kopil who writes to take 9; Shevilei Dovid 651; However, see Avnei Tzedek 85 who negates the source for this

[30] Sefer Haminhagim p. 140; See Shaar Yissachar Mamar Kirva 37; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 651 footnote 24

[31] Toras Menachem 5752

[32] See Otzer Minhagei Chabad p. 273

[33] 1^st opinion in Michaber ibid; Bahag

[34] 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid; Rav Nutraiy Gaon

[35] Admur 651:1; Michaber 651:1; Rambam 7:7; Rebbe Yishmael in Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[36] See Divrei Nechemia 651:2 and Kuntrus Achron 2

[37] Rambam ibid as rules Rebbe Yishmael Sukkah ibid; Birkeiy Yosef 651 in name of Beis David, brought in Shaareiy Teshuvah 651:23

[38] Birkeiy Yosef ibid; See Chapter 4 Halacha 2 regarding shaking one after the other.

[39] Divrei Nechemia ibid in interpretation of Ramban and Ritva Sukkah 49b who rule like Rebbe Akiva Sukkah 34b [and so rules Rama 651:1 and Admur 651:1] regarding taking less than three Hadassim, that the same applies for Aravos

[40] Divrei Nechemia ibid; Birkeiy Yopsef ibid; Shaareiy Teshuvah ibid

[41] See Divrei Nechemia ibid who argues that one may shake it even with a blessing just as the Poskim ibid, and Admur ibid, rule regarding one who only has one Hadass, although he concludes that perhaps by Aravos they were never lenient, and therefore we wrote above to shake without a blessing.

[42] Michaber 651:15; Teshuvah of Rambam

[43] Biur Halacha ibid

[44] Michaber ibid

[45] Sefer Haminhagim p. 65

[46] Regarding the Daled Minim of an Asheira tree, see Admur 649:11-14

[47] Michaber 658:3-9; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:4-13

[48] Admur 649:1; Michaber 649:2; 658:3; Rambam Sukkah 8:10; Mishneh Sukkah 41b;

[49] Admur 649:2 and 21; Biur Halacha 649:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:4

[50] The reason: As the Torah [Vayikra 23:40] states “Velakachtem Lachem Bayom HaRishon” of which the Sages expounded to us that the term Lachem teaches us that one must own the Daled Minim, which is coming to exclude a borrowed one, being that it is not his and one is obligated to return it to the owner and is not able to exempt himself with money. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid]

[51] Admur ibid

[52] Michaber 658:4-5

Must one put down and then re-lift the Daled Minim for the sake of the Mitzvah after acquiring it? This matter is debated amongst the Poskim, and while some are stringent, the custom is to be lenient. [See Kapos Temarim Sukkah 39a; Ashel Avraham Butchach Tinyana 658; Bikureiy Yaakov 658:27; Machaneh Chaim O.C. 3:50; Binyam Shlomo 48; Meishiv Davar 1; Sdei Chemed 3:2; 3:4; Mahariy Asad 189; Chelkas Yoeiv 12; Chaim Ubracha 189; Arugas Habosem 194; Har Tzevi 2:106; Lehoros Nasan 4:51; Chazon Ish 149:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 652:2 footnote 4; 658:4]

The law if the owner said “I am lending you the Daled Minim: Then he does not fulfill his obligation. [Michaber 658:4; Taz 14:5; Beis Yaakov 114] However, some Poskim argue that he does fulfil his obligation. [M”A 658:3 based on Michaber E.H. 28:19 regarding Kiddushin; Beis Shmuel E.H. 28:48; See Admur 14:6; 454:14; Dover Shalom p. 25] Practically, he is to re-shake it without a blessing. [M”B 658:9]

[53] The reason it is permitted to give the Daled Minim as a present on Yom Tov: It is permitted to give a present on Chametz to a gentile on Shabbos Erev Pesach. Likewise, one may give Daled Minim to another on Yom Tov of Sukkos. [Admur 444:9; 448:16; Kuntrus Achron 444:2; M”A 306:15 in name of Beis Yosef 527 and Mordechai ibid; Elya Raba ibid; M”B ibid; Aruch Hashulchan ibid; Hagahos Chasam Sofer on M”A 306:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 306:22]

May one give or purchase the Daled Minim on Yom Tov without any condition of return? Some Poskim rule that it is forbidden to do so. [See Bikureiy Yaakov ibid; Hamakneh Kiddushin 6b; Chaim Ubracha 281; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:4]

[54] Michaber 658:4; Admur 649:21

The reason: As such a condition does not invalidate its status as a present for the time being that it remains by him. [Michaber ibid]

[55] M”A 649:9; Peri Megadim 649 A”A 9; Bikureiy Yaakov 649:15; M”B 649:15; Hayom Yom 15^th of Tishrei; Sefer Haminhagim p. 66; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:4

The reason: The reason for explicitly saying “Matana Al Menas Lehachzir”, even though it is valid also without saying it, is because the Peri Megadim A”A 649:9 brings a dispute whether one fulfils his obligation if it was not explicitly said and hence suggests that one is to initially mention it. See also Choshen Mishpat 241:5 for an opinion that rules a present given as “Stam” is only valid if one did not have in mind to condition the present on anything. However, it requires further analysis if this is the reason behind our custom mentioned in Hayom Yom, as Admur 14:6 rules that whenever one gives a Tallis Gadol to someone to wear for the Mitzvah he may say a blessing as it is considered a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir. Hence, Admur does not suspect at all for a dissenting opinion brought in the Peri Megadim. Perhaps then the explanation is based on a spiritual reason as mentioned in Hayom Yom “that it benefits the giver and receiver.” The Bikureiy Yaakov ibid however mentions that if the receiver did not know the law that a borrowed set is invalid, then if it was given without mentioning “it is a present” he has not fulfilled his obligation as he certainly has not had in mind to acquire it.

As for why we do not say “on condition to return to me”: Seemingly this is in order to lessen the condition of ownership upon the receiver, as explained in Choshen Mishpat 241:6-7; Sdei Chemed Asifas Dinim “Daled Minim” 3:19; Biur Halacha 658 “Bestama”; that when “me” is omitted one fulfills his obligation even if he returns it after the festival, or even if he returns money instead. [The above sources are mentioned by the Rebbe in quote of the mentioned custom in Hayom Yom. The Sdei Chemed there explains that telling “me” is less beneficial for the receiver then omitting “me.” However, giving the Daled Minim Bestam, without mentioning anything, he writes is an even higher level, as one fulfills the Mitzvah right away and not retroactively as is the case when one says, “on condition.”

[56] Kaf Hachaim 658:53

[57] Michaber 658:5; Admur 14:6 regarding Tzitzis; However, see Choshen Mishpat 241:5 for an opinion that rules a present given as “Stam” is only valid if one did not have in mind to condition the present on anything.

The reason: As since he gave him the Daled Minim in order to fulfill his obligation, certainly he has given it to him with intent to acquire as a present. [Michaber ibid; Admur ibid]

[58] Bikureiy Yaakov 649:15 [brought in M”B 649:15] mentions that if the receiver did not know the law that a borrowed set is invalid, then if it was given without mentioning “it is a present” he has not fulfilled his obligation as he certainly has not had in mind to acquire it. Vetzaruch Iyun what to do by Mivtzaim as the receiver does not really even understand that he is to acquire it, even when one says it is a present on condition to return.

[59] Michaber 658:4 and 5

Can the owner be Mochel the fact that it was not returned to him? Yes. [See Chayeh Adam 152:5; M”B 658:15]

[60] Must the borrower reimburse the owner? This is dependent on whether it was lost due to negligence or reasons beyond her control, and on the terms used when it was given it to him, and as to whether it was given as a present or as a borrowed item. [See Har Tzevi 2:112; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:7] See Q&A!

[61] Biur Halacha 658:4 “Afilu Nasan Lo Es Damav”

[62] The reason: As we assume one desires to have the item returned and is not giving it to them for keeps. [M”B 658:18]

[63] M”A 658:4; M”B 658:16

[64] Michaber 658:4

[65] See M”B 658:16

[66] M”A 658:4; M”B 658:16

[67] M”B 658:13 based on Michaber ibid

Can the owner be Mochel the fact that it was not returned to him? Yes. [See Chayeh Adam 152:5; M”B 658:15]

Must the borrower reimburse the owner? This is dependent on whether it was lost due to negligence or reasons beyond her control, and on the terms used when it was given it to him, and as to whether it was given as a present or as a borrowed item. [See Har Tzevi 2:112; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:7] See Q&A!

[68] Biur Halacha 658:4 “Afilu Nasan Lo Es Damav”

[69] M”A 658:4; M”B 658:16

[70] Rama 658:5; See M”B 658:20 who questions this ruling;

[71] Michaber 658:5

[72] M”B 658:21

[73] If it was not returned to the original owner, then no one fulfills their obligation. [See Bikureiy Yaakov 658:17; Minchas Yitzchak 7:44; Moadim Uzmanim 6:44; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:8]

[74] See M”B 658:21; Biur Halacha 658:4 “Umutar”; Siddur Derech Hachaim 106:4; Sdei Chemed 3:27; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:9

Other Opinions: There are Poskim who are stringent to not allow the receiver to give the Daled Minim to another unless he received explicit permission. [See M”B 658:21; Biur Halacha Umihu]

[75] M”B 658:21-22

[76] See Poskim in previous footnotes!

[77] M”A 658:3; M”B 658:8; See Bikureiy Yaakov 658:6

[78] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:5

[79] Bikureiy Yaakov 657:5

[80] Aruch Hashulchan 657:3

[81] Admur 649:21; Biur Halacha 649:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:4

[82] Some Poskim rule that the laws of Daled Minim on the second day in the Diaspora follow the same law as the first day, and hence one does not fulfill his obligation unless he owns the Daled Minim just as required on the first day. [1^st opinion in Admur ibid; Ravad in Tamim Deim 227; Hamanhig Hilchos Lulav; Ravayah 652; Rosh 3:3] Other Poskim, however, rule that the second day in the Diaspora follows the same law as Chol Hamoed, and that one fulfills his obligation with a borrowed set of Daled Minim. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; Rambam Sukkah 8:9]

[83] Admur 649:2 and 19; Michaber 649:2; 658:1; Rama 649:5; Mishneh Sukkah 41a; Sukkah 30a

[84] The reason: As since the Sages only instituted the shaking of the Lulav during Chol Hamoed in commemoration of the Mikdash, therefore they were not stringent to invalidate a borrowed set of Daled Minim of which its invalidation is not intrinsic, being that it itself is Kosher, and is simply not his. [Admur ibid; M”A 649:20]

[85] Hisorerus Teshuvah 1:177; Igros Moshe 2:206; Piskeiy Teshuvos 657:2

[86] Hayom Yom 15^th Tishrei; Sefer Haminhagim p. 66; So is implied from the words “especially on the first day.” Perhaps, however, it is only coming to include the second day in the Diaspora and not Chol Hamoed. 

[87] Admur 649:1

[88] Admur ibid; Michaber 649:1; Rambam Sukkah 8:1; Mishneh Sukkah 29b, 32b, 33b, 34b

The reason: As the Torah [Vayikra 23:40] states “Velakachtem Lachem Bayom HaRishon” of which the Sages expounded to us that the term Lachem teaches us that one must own the Daled Minim which is coming to exclude a stolen one, being that it is not his and one is obligated to return it to the owner and is not able to exempt himself with money. [Admur ibid; Michaber ibid]

[89] Admur ibid; Rama 649:1; M”A 637:3; 649:7

[90] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid

[91] Admur 649:4; Rama 649:5; Ravad; Rosh; Ramban; Bahag; Rebbe Yochanon in Sukkah ibid

The reason: As this is a Mitzvah that comes as result of a sin, as when one fulfills the Mitzvah, he is doing it through the stealing prohibition, as if the owners demand the item back, he is obligated to return the stolen item and he is unable to exempt himself with money, and it is thus found that the stolen item is not acquired to him at all, and it still belongs to the original owner, and he is thus using it against the law. [Admur ibid]

[92] Admur 649:5; Michaber 649:1; Taz 649:1; Sukkah 30b

[93] Admur 649:6; M”A 649:3

Purchasing and cutting the Daled Minim from the field of a gentile and from a stolen field: See Admur 649:8-10; Rama 649:1; Sukkah 30a; M”A 649:5-6; HarTzevi 2:74; Lehoros Nasan 4:53; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:3

[94] Regarding if it was given to him as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir: See Admur 649:7

[95] Admur 649:3; Rama 649:5; Terumas Hadeshen 100; 2:159

[96] Admur ibid; Rama ibid

[97] Admur 649:3; Rama ibid; Terumas Hadeshen ibid; So rule also regarding Tallis and Tefillin: Admur 14:9-11; Michaber 14:4; Ketzos Hashulchan 7:8

[98] Admur ibid and 14:9; Rama ibid; Terumos Hadeshen ibid; Michaber 14:4

The reason: This is not considered as if one is borrowing without permission, which renders one a thief [Gazlan], being that there is no worry that the borrowed item will get worn out [Kiluiy Karna], as no monetary loss will occur to the Daled Minim by simply shaking them and then returning it to him afterwards. Now, being this is the case, we apply the rule that a person is pleased that a Mitzvah be performed with his object when it does not incur him any loss. [Admur 649:3 and 14:9 regarding Tzitzis; Taz 649:7; Terumas Hadeshen ibid; See also 437:7 regarding Bedikas Chametz; 586:5 regarding Shofar; 637:9 regarding Sukkah; Admur Choshen Mishpat Shiela Usichirus 5 and Metzia Upikadon 27; Kol Yaakov 691:36 regarding Megillah]

[99] If one is not careful to abide by all the conditions then he transgresses the stealing prohibition and does not fulfill his obligation.

[100] Kaf Hachaim 14:4; Piskeiy Teshuvos 8:9

[101] M”B ibid in name of Peri Megadim

[102] M”B 14:13

[103] Admur 649:3; 14:10; M”A 649:16; 14:7; Rashal in Taz 14:6; Olas Tamid 14:10; M”B 14:13

[104] Admur 14:10

The reason: As a person is not pleased that his belongings are removed from their designated area. [Admur ibid] The owner will hence be upset that the person borrowed it. [See Rama Choshen Mishpat 163 based on Kol Bo 116]

[105] Admur 14:10; M”A 14:7; See also 637:10 regarding Sukkah; Vetzaruch Iyun why Admur 649:3 omitted this condition

[106] The reason: As the owner may not desire that the person borrows the Tallis on a constant basis. [Admur ibid]

[107] Makor Chaim of Chavos Yair 14

[108] Ashel Avraham Butchach 14

[109] Kaf Hachaim 14:17

[110] Michaber Choshen Mishpat 291:1 [regarding a Shomer Chinam, and certainly this would apply to a borrower in this case even if one holds according to the Machaneh Ephraim]

[111] Michaber Choshen Mishpat 340:1; Birkeiy Yosef 586:10; Halachos Ketanos 1:79; Shulchan Gavoa 586:8; Kaf Hachaim 586:25

The reason: As a borrower [Shoel] is only liable for all damages if the damages did not occur in the process of the normal use of the object. [Choshen Mishpat 340:1]

[112] See M”B 658:15; Michaber Choshen Mishpat 241:8 and Smeh 241:21 that he has the status of a Shomer Chinam; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 14 footnote 41

[113] Birkeiy Yosef 586:10 in name of Mahriy Malko 98; Shaareiy Teshuvah 586:2 [4]; See Kaf Hachaim 14:18 and 586:25

[114] The reason: As this has a status of “Shoel Shelo Midaas” in which case he is liable in all cases.

[115] Halachos Ketanos 1:79; Shulchan Gavoa 586:8; Beir Heiytiv 586:4; Sdei Chemed Daled Minim 9

[116] The reason: As he was allowed to borrow it and is hence considered like a regular Shoel. [Poskim ibid]

[117] Orin Telisain 97 based on M”A 586:6 as he has a status of a borrower which is liable for even Onsin. [Choshen Mishpat 340:1]; See Sdei Chemed ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 9

[118] Machaneh Ephraim Nedarim 24 as the borrower receives no monetary benefit from the use of the Tallis and he thus does not have the status of a borrower in this regard.

[119] Michaber Choshen Mishpat 241:8 and Smeh 241:21

[120] Michaber 291:1

[121] See Michaber and Rama 658:7-9; M”B 658:39

Regarding an inherited Daled Minim: See Michaber 658:8

Regarding the Daled Minim of a congregation: See Michaber 658:9

[122] Michaber 658:7

[123] Rama 658:7

[124] Kaf Hachaim 658:72 based on M”A 658:10

[125] See Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:315; Shraga Hameir 5:72; Mishneh Halachos 10:77; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:13

[126] Mabit 3:43; Chayeh Adam 149:7; M”B 658:39; Tiferes Yisrael Sukkah 3

[127] Seder Hayom Mamar Kavanas Halulav; Kitzur SHU”A 136:10

[128] See Poskim in first footnote.

[129] Michaber 658:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:10

[130] P”M 658 A”A 8-9; Chayeh Adam 152:11; M”B 658:23; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:10; See above Halacha 3B;

[131] Stam opinion in Michaber 658:6; Opinion of Rambam as explained in Bedek Habayis; Rebbe Zeira Sukkah 46b; See Kaf Hachaim 658:54

The reason: As a child Biblically acquires the present for himself but is unable to Biblically acquire it back to another. [Michaber ibid; Sukkah ibid]

[132] Stam opinion in Michaber 658:6; Opinion of Rambam as explained in Bedek Habayis; See Kaf Hachaim 658:59

[133] Yeish Mi Shemoer in Michaber ibid; Ran on Sukkah ibid

[134] Beis Yosef 658 in name of Ran; Levush 658; Mamar Mordechai 658:7; P”M 658 A”A 9; M”B 658:23; Kaf Hachaim 658:60

[135] Biur Halacha 558:6 “Lo Yitnenu” “It is obvious that one must be stringent like the first opinion, which is the Stam opinion”

[136] M”A 658:8; P”M 658 A”A 8; Bikurei Yaakov 658:18; Chayeh Adam 152:11; Igros Moshe 3:95 See Ketzos Hachoshen 241:4; Chanoch Lanaar 25

[137] Michaber ibid; Rashal, and Tosafos Eiruchin 3b brought in M”B 657:4

[138] M”B 658:23; Biur Halacha 649 “Pesulei”; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:10

[139] Levush 658; Elya Raba 658:14; Kaf Hachaim 658:56; Igros Moshe 3:95; Piskeiy Teshuvos 657:1

[140] Taz 657:2; M”B 657:4

[141] Opinions brought in M”B 658:28; Ashel Avraham Butchach Tinyana 658; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:297; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:10

The reason: As one fulfills the Mitzvah of Chinuch even if the child does not fulfill the Biblical Mitzvah.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule one does not fulfill any Chinuch obligation if the child does not own the set of Lulav. [M”A 658:8; P”M 658 A”A 8; Bikurei Yaakov 658:18; Chayeh Adam 152:11] See Bikureiy Yaakov ibid who writes that in the Diaspora it should be given to the child as a present on the first day after all the adults have shaken, with a Tnaiy that if today is Yom Tov then it is yours as a present, and if not, then not.

[142] Chayeh Adam 152:11

[143] Michaber ibid; Biur Halacha “Eino Muchzar”

[144] Chochmas Shlomo 658

[145] See Biur Halacha 558:6 “Lo Yitnenu”, Kaf Hachaim 658:62; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:10

[146] P”M 658 A”A 12, brought in Bikureiy Yaakov 558:19, Biur Halacha 558:6 “Lo Yitnenu”, Kaf Hachaim 658:62; See the following Poskim that a child above Bar/Bas Mitzvah only becomes Biblically obligated in the commands upon reaching puberty and growing two pubic hairs and by Biblical Mitzvos we assume he has not grown two hairs unless verified for certain, or the child has grown full facial hair, or is above 18: Admur 37:3; 39:1 regarding Tefillin; 55:6; 128:49; 199:9 regarding Birchas Hamazon; 271:7 regarding Kiddush; M”A ibid; M”B ibid; See Michaber E.H. 155:15 regarding Miun and 169:10 regarding Chalitza

[147] The reason: One should not give it to such a child as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir based on ruling of Rambam and Michaber 658:6 that a child is Koneh but not Makneh, and regarding Biblical matters we do not rely on Chazakah Derava and one must thus know for certain the child has two hairs. Now, although the Ran, and 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid is lenient once the child has reached age 6 that he can be Makneh even Biblically, one may not initially enter oneself into a Sfek Sfeika situation.

[148] Kesav Sofer 1:129, brought in Biur Halacha 558:6 “Lo Yitnenu”, Kaf Hachaim 658:62

[149] The reason: As there is a Safek Sfeika, as perhaps a) the child has grown two hairs, and b) even if he did not, the Ran ibid holds he is Makneh even Biblically. Now, although we don’t initially enter ourselves into a Safek Sfeika, in this case it is different as a) There is a Chazakah of Rava that a child above 12/13 has grown two hairs and is an adult. B) Although by a Biblical matter we require verification and don’t rely on the Chazakah of Rava, since in this case the Ran anyways rules, he is Mekaneh, therefore the Chazakah stands solid even Lechatchila. [Kesav Sofer ibid]

[150] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid in name of Chazon Ish

[151] As even the P”M ibid agrees that Bedieved [or a time of need] we rely on the Safek Sfeika, and it is only initially to be avoided. Now, although some Poskim rule we do not recite a blessing even in a case of Safek Sfeika, this rule was only said regarding a Rabbinical Mitzvah, while a Biblical Mitzvah would require a new blessing even by a mere Safek, and certainly by a Safek Sfeika. [See Kesav Sofer 128 towards end]

[152] As stated in the previous Q&A that in a time of need and Bedieved one can rely on the Safek Sfeika, and hence certainly this applies for the sake of Mivtzaim.

[153] See Hiskashrus

[154] Bikureiy Yaakov 654:5; Poskim brought in Kaf Hachaim 658:16; Piskeiy Teshuvos 564:3

[155] Ksav Sofer 128, brought in Biur Halacha 658:6 “Lo Yitnenu”; Kaf Hachaim 658:66; Minchas Yitzchak 5:65; Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:11

[156] See P”M 658 A”A 8-9; Chayeh Adam 152:11; M”B 658:23

[157] The reason: As according to Tosafos, a child who purchases an item Biblically acquires it, and according to the Rambam and Stam opinion in Michaber 658:6 he cannot Biblically acquire it back to others. [Ksav Sofer ibid]

[158] Vetzaruch Iyun if one must reshake on the second day in the Diaspora. However, seemingly, based on the ruling of the Poskim ibid that even on the second day one should not give it to a child before others fulfill their obligation, seemingly, here too one should reshake. Vetzaruch Iyun!

[159] The reason: One must reshake it to suspect of the opinion of Tosafos ibid and Rambam ibid, however a blessing is not recited to suspect for the opinion of the Ran, and other Poskim who argue on Tosafos and rule he did not Biblically acquire it. [Ksav Sofer ibid]

[160] The reason: As on Chol Hamoed we do not require the Daled Minim to be owned by you, and hence the entire reason of in validation of purchase is irrelevant.

[161] Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:11

[162] See P”M 658 A”A 12 [brought in Bikureiy Yaakov 558:19, Biur Halacha 558:6 “Lo Yitnenu”, Kaf Hachaim 658:62] that one should not give it to such a child as a Matana Al Menas Lehachzir based on ruling of Rambam and Michaber 658:6 that a child is Koneh but not Makneh and regarding Biblical matters we do not rely on Chazakah Derava and one must thus know for certain the child has two hairs. Now, although the Ran, and 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid is lenient once the child has reached age 6 that he can be Makneh even Biblically, one may not initially enter oneself into a Safek Sfeika situation. This same law would thus also apply regarding purchasing it from such a child. [However, see Kesav Sofer 128 for the possibility to learn that even according to the Rambam and the 1^st opinion in Michaber 658:6, if the child purchased it, then it is only Rabbinically his and he thus can Rabbinically sell it to others. The Kesav Sofer, however, ultimately suspects of the opinions who rule a child does acquire the purchased item even Biblically.]

[163] See the following Poskim that a child above Bar/Bas Mitzvah only becomes Biblically obligated in the commands upon reaching puberty and growing two pubic hairs and by Biblical Mitzvos we assume he has not grown two hairs unless verified for certain, or the child has grown full facial hair, or is above 18: Admur 37:3; 39:1 regarding Tefillin; 55:6; 128:49; 199:9 regarding Birchas Hamazon; 271:7 regarding Kiddush; M”A ibid; M”B ibid; See Michaber E.H. 155:15 regarding Miun and 169:10 regarding Chalitza

[164] Kesav Sofer 1:129 regarding Matana Al Menas Lehachzir, and this would apply even more so regarding this case in which a child purchased it from another and is now selling it to you, as according to many approaches, in such a case his initial Kinyan was only Rabbinical, as explained in Kesav Sofer 1:128; brought in Biur Halacha 558:6 “Lo Yitnenu”, Kaf Hachaim 658:62

[165] The reason: As there is a Safek Sfeika, as perhaps a) the child has grown two hairs, and b) even if he did not, the Ran ibid holds he is Makneh even Biblically. Now, although we don’t initially enter ourselves into a Safek Sfeika, in this case it is different as a) There is a Chazakah of Rava that a child above 12/13 has grown two hairs and is an adult. B) Although by Biblical matters we require verification and don’t rely on the Chazakah of Rava, since in this case the Ran anyways rules, he is Makneh, therefore the Chazakah stands solid even Lechatchila. [Kesav Sofer ibid] This certainly applies in this case where a third doubt is added, as even if we don’t hold like the Ran, perhaps even according to the Rambam the child is Makneh Biblically, as since he purchased it with intent to sell, he never intended to Biblically acquire it. Now, although according to Tosafos he is considered to have Biblically acquire it even in such a case, nonetheless due to all three doubts, certainly one may be lenient to rely on Chazakah Derava even initially. [See Kesav Sofer 128]

[166] The reason: As the second day of Sukkos is only Rabbinical to which we apply the Chazakah of Rava according to all. [See Poskim in previous footnotes and Admur ibid in the recorded references]

[167] The reason: As on Chol Hamoed we do not require the Daled Minim to be owned by you, and hence the entire reason of in validation of purchase is irrelevant.

[168] Piskeiy Teshuvos 658:11

[169] Michaber 655:1

[170] M”B 655:3; See Rama ibid; Michaber 586:21-22; 307:5; Admur 586:24 “A gentile may be asked to perform any Rabbinical prohibition for the sake of attaining a Shofar. Thus, one may ask a gentile to climb a tree or bring it from outside the city limits [Techum] and cases of the like. However, it is forbidden to tell the gentile to perform Biblical prohibitions on his behalf. However, if the gentile went ahead on his own and performed a Biblical prohibition in order to attain a Shofar then it is permitted to use it.”

[171] M”B 655:3; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 655:1 [regarding above, and regarding Bnei Chutz Laretz in EY if they may use aravos that were cut on Yom Tov Sheiyni]

[172] Admur 645:2; Sukkah 35a; Tosafos ibid and Ran ibid; Levush 645:1; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:1

[173] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9

[174] See Admur 648:22; M”A 648:16 and 18; Mabit 3:39; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9 and 14 based on Rav Akiva Eiger in Teshuvos Derush Vichidush who implies that the invalidation of all Hadar is only if it appears invalid by ones first initial glance; See Elya Raba 648 in name of Mabit 49 regarding Esrog; M”B 648:46 regarding Esrog;

[175] P”M 645 M.Z. 6; Bikurei Yaakov 645:16; See Nitei Favriel 3:2 footnote 3

[176] Implication of all Poskim ibid who all mention “Kol Shehu”; See M”A 648:16 and 18 and Admur 648:22 and Mabit 3:39 who all explicitly limit their discussion of “apparent at first site” to the invalidation of “Hadar” of an Esrog and even within that, specifically to the invalidation of Shinuiy Mareh.

[177] Admur 645:10 and 648:14; Sukkah 34b

[178] 1^st opinion in Admur 648:12 and Michaber 648:4; Bahag; Rif; Rambam

[179] 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; Tur; Rosh; Ran; Shiltei Hagiborim

[180] Admur ibid

[181] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14

[182] Elya Raba 648 in name of Mabit; M”B 648:46; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14; See Admur 645:10 and 12 that the Pesul of Chaser is when the missing area is seen and recognizable

[183] Rav Akiva Eiger in Teshuvos Derush Vichidush; See P”M 645 and Bikurei Yaakov 645:16 regarding Niktam of Lulav that the Shiur is “Kol Shehu” [however, there the invalidation is due to Hadar]

[184] See M”A 648:16 Admur 648:22 and Mabit 3:49 who all explicitly limit their discussion of “apparent at first site” to the invalidation of “Hadar” and even within that, specifically to the invalidation of Shinuiy Mareh.

[185] Tuv Taam Vadas Tinyana Hashmatos 33; Doveiv Meisharim 1; Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:21; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14 and footnote 36

[186] See Admur 648:25; Michaber Y.D. 105:1

[187] Admur 648:25; Michaber 648:15; Sukkah 36a; M”A 648:22

[188] Admur ibid; Taz 658:17

[189] Admur ibid; Michaber 648:15

[190] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:1

[191] See Beis Yosef 645 in name of Ramban; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 87:19; Sheilas Shalom 232; Bikureiy Yaakov 647:10; Sdei Chemed 2:2; Chasam Sofer Y.D. 81; Kesav Sofer 122; Darkei Teshuvah Y.D. 105:16; Minchas Elazar 2:69; Darkei Chaim Veshalom 779; Divrei Yisrael 190; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:256; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:1

[192] Pesak of Mori Verebbe Harav Yaakov Yosef z”l

[193] Kesav Sofer ibid

[194] P”M Y.D. 105 M.Z. 1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:1

[195] See Chayeh Adam 152:3; Sdei Chemed 3:4; Kitzur SHU”A 136:2; Chaim Ubracha 67; Aruch Hashulchan 645; Shraga Hameir 7:94; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:2

[196] Admur 649:17-19 regarding missing piece of Esrog and lack of Shaleim in Lulav [Nechlak and Nisdak]; Rama 649:5; Tur 649; Rosh 3:3; Tosafos Sukkos 29b; Biur Halacha 648 “Shinuiy”; Chaim Ubracha 197

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule an Esrog with a missing piece is invalid for all the days of Sukkos, including Chol Hamoed. [Ran, brought in Biur Halacha 648 “Shinuiy”; P”M 648 A”A 17; Chayeh Adam 151:3]

[197] Toras Chesed O.C. 37; Mikraeiy Kodesh 2:26; Meiri Sukkah 36b; Raavad in Tamim Deim 233; Kaf Hachaim 648:76; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:4

[198] Admur 649:17; M”A 649:17; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 8:3

[199] Admur 649:18; Rosh 3:23; Tosafos Sukkah 46b

[200] Admur 649:18; M”A 649:27; Ela Raba 649:13

[201] Admur ibid; Michaber 649:5; Tur 649; Raavad Lulav; Ritva Sukkah 29b; Ran

[202] Admur 649:17 and 19

[203] The dispute: Some Poskim rule that all invalidations due to lack of being Hadar are invalid throughout all days of Sukkos. [Stam opinion in Admur 649:17 and 19; Only opinion in Admur 646:12; Rama 649:5 regarding Chazazis and Menumar; M”A 649:22; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rabbeinu Yerucham 8:3; Rosh 3:15; Ran 18a] Other Poskim, however, rule that on Chol Hamoed all Hadar invalidations, such as a Chazazis or color change, are Kosher. [2^nd opinion in Admur 649:19; Michaber 649:5; Tur 649 in name of Baal Haitur; Rambam 8:9; Ravad ibid; opinion in Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rosh 3:15 in understanding of Yerushalmi 3:6; Maharitz Geios Lulav p. 100; Taz 648:9 concludes like Rambam/Michaber regarding Chazazis; Elya Raba 649:15]

[204] So is implied from conclusion of Admur ibid who writes “as the custom is to say a blessing in a time of need on all invalidations, even on the 1^st day”; See P”M 649 M”Z 9 and Shaar Hatziyon 649:53

[205] Admur ibid; M”B 648:49

The reason: As in any event in a time of need some are accustomed to recite a blessing on all invalid species even on the first day, as explained in Halacha 11. [Admur ibid]

[206] Admur 649:20

[207] Admur 649:17; Rama 649:5 regarding Chazazis and Menumar; M”A 649:22; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rabbeinu Yerucham 8:3; Rosh 3:15; Ran 18a

Other opinions regarding a Pitam: Some Poskim rule that if a Pitam fell off the Esrog then it is valid on Chol Hamoed. [Rama ibid] Admur and the M”A ibid negate his opinion

[208] Admur ibid

[209] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5; Ravayah 797

[210] Admur 649:17; M”A 649:20

[211] Admur 649:15; Michaber 649:5

[212] Admur 649:4 and 19

[213] Admur 649:19

[214] Admur ibid and 16

[215] Admur 649:21

[216] The dispute: Some Poskim rule that the 2^nd day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora follows all the stringencies of the first day which is Biblical, being that the sages established the second day due to doubt as to whether it is really the first day. [Stam opinion in Admur 649:17 and 18; M”A in 645 and 646; Darkei Moshe 649:7; Tur 649; Rosh 3:3; Raavad in Tamim Deim 227; Hamanhig Lulav; Ravaya 652 in name of Rabbeniu Tam] Other Poskim, however, rule that the second day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora follows the same status as Chol Hamoed regarding all invalidations, being that today we know for certain that the 2^nd day is really Chol Hamoed, and we only treat it with holiness due to so we don’t belittle the tradition. Now, this reason only applies to matters that relate to the Yom Tov laws, and not to other matters that relate to the first day of the holiday, such as the Daled Minim, as it does not belittle Yom Tov at all if we are lenient in them. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; Rambam 8:9 as explains Maggid Mishneh; 1^st approach in Ran Sukkah 14a]

[217] Conclusion of Admur ibid; Michaber 648:5; Conclusion of Ran

[218] Admur 649:22-23

[219] 1^st opinion in Admur 649:22; Tur 649; Tosafos Sukkah 31a; Rosh Sukkah 13:14; Shiltei Hagiborim 14a

[220] The reason: As the Torah does not explicitly state the invalidations of the Daled Minim, and it was given over to the authority of the Sages, and they ruled to allow even invalid species in a time of need when a Kosher species is not available, in order so the Mitzvah not be forgotten from Israel. [Admur 649:22]

[221] Such as a Hadass Shoteh, or Esrog Hamurkav, or a lemon, or if the Lulav or Hadass or Arava lost most of its leaves, or due to them being less than the Shiur, or due to being stolen, or due to being forbidden to be eaten, or due to idolatry. [Admur ibid]

[222] Admur 649:22-23

[223] 2^nd opinion in Admur 649:23; Michaber 649:6; Beis Yosef 649; Raavad in Hasagos Lulav 8:1 and Tamim Deim 233

[224] Admur 649:23

[225] Admur 649:22 and 24

[226] See Admur 648:20; Michaber 648:11; Tur 648

[227] Some Poskim rule that all Torah invalidations invalidate either with half or majority, as in order for something to be Kosher it must contain a majority of validity. The one exception to this rule is by Mechitzos of Shabbos and by the Mechitzos and Sechach a Sukkah, in which case 50% validity suffices, as received from a tradition from Moshe on Sinai. [1^st opinion in Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber and Tur ibid; Raavad in Tamim Deim 232; Rashba Chulin 39a; Tosafos Eiruvin 16b; See Admur 362:18; Michaber 630:5 and M”A 630:6; 628:8 and 631:10] However, other Poskim argue on this and rule that in order for something to be not Kosher it must contain a majority of invalidation. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; 1^st opinion in Michaber and Tur ibid in name of his brother Reb Yechiel]

[228] Admur 648:20; Taz 648:16; Elya Raba 648:21

[229] Admur ibid; See Halacha 12

Bookmark