This article is an excerpt from our Sefer

   Buy now here or on Amazon.com

Chapter 6: The Lulav

The Meaning of the Lulav: The unity within the Lulav:[1] The Lulav contain a certain aspect of unity which differs from all other branches in the world. All trees have their branches grow in various directions from their stem and do not follow any pattern of growth. A regular tree whose leaves have fallen, appears like a stem with many arms, each going in its own direction, thus leaving areas on the stem’s branch bare. The date palm tree, however, has its branches grow in a set pattern, each branch growing from directly on top of the branch below it. Altogether, it forms a united pattern of branches which covers all of the spine of the palm branch. It is a branch from this tree that G-D commanded us to take to use for the Mitzvah of the four species- the mitzvah of Unity. The representation of the Lulav within Jewry: The Midrash[2] explains that the Lulav represents the Torah scholars who spend the majority of their time learning Torah. The connection between the two is that Torah is referred to as something of good taste. This corresponds to the taste of the dates which derive from the palm tree of which the Lulav is taken from.

1. The identity of the Lulav:[3]

The Torah states that one is to take a Kapos Temarim. This refers to a branch that grows on a date palm.

Q&A Are branches from the male palm trees that do not grow dates valid?[4] Yes. It is not necessary for the palm tree to grow dates. The canary palm:[5] Some Poskim[6] rule that the canary Lulav is invalid, and it is a Bracha Levatala to say a blessing over it. Other Poskim[7], however, rule it is valid even initially. How to identify a canary Lulav: 1) The spine of the canary palm bends like an arch when held. 2) Its leaves grow closer together. 3) It has a very short spine.

2. Length:[8] 

The length of the spine of the Lulav must be a minimum of four Tefach long.[9] If the Hadassim or Aravos are more than three Tefach long, than the spine of the Lulav must be at least one Tefach [8 cm. [10]] higher than the Hadassim and Aravos. [Thus, the practical length of one’s Lulav is dependent on the practical length of his Hadassim and Aravos, and whatever their length is, the spine of the Lulav must be at least one Tefach higher, at the very least no less than four Tefachim tall.]

How much is four Tefachim?[11] Some Poskim[12] rule that every Tefach is 4 Agudlin and hence four Tefachim is 16 Agudlin [32.7 cm.[13]] Other Poskim[14] rules that each Tefach is 3.33 Tefach and hence four Tefach is 13.3 Agudlin [26.6 cm[15]]. Practically, we are stringent to follow the first opinion [of 32 cm]. However, in a time of need one may be lenient to use a Lulav that has a spine of 26.6 cm. Likewise, Bedieved, if one already used such a Lulav and then found one with 32 cm. he should shake it without a blessing being that he has already fulfilled his obligation [according to one opinion].[16]

From what area of the spine is the 32 cm. measured?[17] The 32 cm is measured from the bottom of the Lulav [in the area that a leaf begins to grow on each side[18]] until the top of the spine. The top area of the spine where the spine splits into two leaves is not considered part of the spine and thus one must have 32cm of spine from below this area.

Is there a maximum length for the Lulav?[19] There is no maximum Shiur of height for a Lulav, and it may be as tall as one desires. [Furthermore, some Poskim[20] rule that that it is a Hiddur Mitzvah to have a long Lulav.]

Summary: The length of the spine of the Lulav must be a minimum of 32 centimeters tall and is to be at least one Tefach [8 cm.] higher than the Hadassim and Aravos. It is measured from the bottom of the spine, in the area that a pair of leaves begin to grow on each side, until the top of the spine, which is the area where the spine splits into two leaves.

3. How many leaves must cover the spine of the Lulav?[21]

How the leaves of the Lulav grow: The Lulav contains a spine which is covered with leaves that grow at a distance of every four centimeters. Thus, after the first leaf grows on the spine another leaf grows four centimeter above it, and so on and so forth until the entire spine is covered with leaves. The leaves are on both sides of the spine, across from each other.

What is the law if only one side of the spine has leaves? If only one side of the spine has leaves then the Lulav is invalid.[22]

How many leaves must each side of the Lulav contain:[23] If the Lulav has only one leaf growing on each side the Lulav, then it is invalid.[24] [This implies that if there are two leaves on each side it is valid.]

The leaves must cover each other:[25] The Lulav is only valid if the leaves cover the entire spine of the Lulav. Thus, if the leaves of the Lulav grow one under the other at a distance, to the point that the top of the lower leaf does not reach the bottom of the leaf that is above it, then the Lulav is invalid.[26] If, however, the top of the lower leaf reaches the bottom of the leaf that is growing above it, then the Lulav is valid.

Q&A May one remove leaves from his Lulav for the sake of making knots?[27] Yes, so long as the Lulav will remain with a four Tefach [32 cm] spine. However, after the Mitzvah has already been performed with the Lulav, then it is disputed amongst Poskim as to whether one may peel off leaves from the Lulav, even if 4 Tefachim of Lulav spine will remain, and practically, it is best to make a Tnaiy before Yom Tov that he may remove leaves from the Lulav for the sake of making knots.

 

4. Must the leaves be bound together:[28]   

It is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to purchase a Lulav which its leaves have not separated at all from each other and from the spine[29] and are thus completely bound to each other.[30] If the leaves have begun hardening and separating from each other and from the spine, it nevertheless remains valid so long as the separation area of the leaves are still soft enough to potentially be bound back to the spine, even if in actuality they are not bound [when doing the Mitzvah] and hence appear separate.[31] If, however, majority[32] of the separation area of the leaves have hardened and separated to the point that they can no longer be joined to the spine of the Lulav even when bound [with material][33], then the Lulav is [Biblically] invalid.[34]

Leaves that bend downwards:[35] If the majority[36] of the leaves of the Lulav do not rise together with the spine of the Lulav and rather bend downwards below the spine, then the Lulav is Biblically invalid.[37] This applies even if one binds the leaves onto the spine using string and the like.[38] This applies even if the leaves have not completely separated from the spine.[39]

5. A split spine:[40]

If the spine of the Lulav broke in its middle to the point that the top part of the Lulav is folded downwards, but it did not completely break off to two parts, nevertheless, it remains valid. Nonetheless, one is required to bind the Lulav in the area of the break and fold in order so its head not be folded downwards [when performing the Mitzvah].

6. A split leaf:[41]

The growth of the Lulav leaf: The leaves of the Lulav grow in a pair of two leaves which are parallel to each other and rest one over the other. The two leaves are attached to each other by their back and open in their front.

If the leaves of the Lulav split: If majority of the leaves of the Lulav have separated in the majority of their length, then the Lulav is invalid.[42] [If, however, majority of the leaves are still double sided in majority of their length, then the Lulav is valid.]

If the leaf grew without being a double leaf: If the majority of the leaves grew without being double paired on majority of their length, then the Lulav is invalid. The same applies if majority of the leaves grew with separated pairs it is invalid.

On Chol Hamoed: Since the split leaf invalidation is due to Hadar, therefore it is invalid even on Chol Hamoed, as explained in Chapter 5 Halacha 9.

 

7. The law of a split Tiyomes [i.e. Center leaf of the Lulav]:[43]

*Regarding a cut Tiyomes Leaf-See Halacha 9!

What is the Tiyomes? In Halacha, special attention is given to the Tiyomes of the Lulav, and the criteria it must fulfill for the Lulav to be Kosher.[44] The term Tiyomes comes from the word “twins”, and refers to the back area of the leaf of a Lulav, where the leaves are attached as pairs, or twins.[45] More specifically, the Poskim[46] explain that the Tiyomes refers to the top center leaf, which is higher than all the other leaves[47], and extends from the spine of the Lulav. [If a Lulav has two middle leaves of equal height, some Poskim[48] rule that both leaves have the status of a Tiyomes.] This leaf, being that it grows in the center of the Lulav and is the highest leaf, is considered the head of the Lulav.[49] Therefore, special laws and criteria are given to this top center leaf. In this Halacha, we will discuss the law if the Tiyomes leaf split by its back and separated from its pair.

The law if the leaf split entirely:[50] The Lulav naturally grows with paired leaves, in which each leaf is attached to a second leaf at its back.[51] This likewise applies to the top center leaf, called the Tiyomes, which naturally grows as a pair of two leaves which it is attached by its back.[52] If this center leaf grew without a second leaf to which it is paired with in the back, the Lulav is invalid [on the first day(s) of Sukkos[53]].[54] This applies even if all the other leaves of the Lulav are double sided [and remain attached at the back]. Likewise, [even] if the Tiyomes grew as double sided attached leaf and afterwards the pair split into two leaves in its entire length, from the top of the leaf until the [top of the spine, which is the] area that the leaves sprout forth from[55], then the Lulav is invalid [on the first day(s) of Sukkos[56]].[57] [If a Lulav has two middle leaves of equal height, then if any one of the two leaves completely splits, the Lulav is invalid.[58]]

The law if the leaf partially split:[59] The above invalidation only applies if the top center leaf split in its entire length [up until the top of the spine]. However, if it only partially split [even if it split in its majority[60]], it remains Kosher. Nonetheless, this only applies after the fact [that one already said a blessing over the Lulav], or if one does not have another Lulav available, in which case one is not required to say a blessing over the Lulav of his friend [which has a complete Tiyomes, even] on the first day of Sukkos[61] [and may use his Lulav that has a partially split Tiyomes].[62] However, Lechatchilah, it is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to search for [and buy] a Lulav whose top-center leaf has not split at all, and is completely attached to each other [at the back] from its top to the point the other leaves begin shooting out from the spine.[63] [If a Lulav has two middle leaves of equal height, then it is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar for both leaves to be completely attached.[64]]

On Chol Hamoed: All the above discussion of invalidation, and initial practice, regarding a split Tiyomes, only applies on the first day(s) of Sukkos, when the Mitzvah of Lulav is Biblical. However, on Chol Hamoed, a Lulav which has a deficiency of not being complete, is valid.[65] Accordingly, during Chol Hamoed, a lulav which contains even a completely split Tiyomes, is Kosher.[66]

On the second day of Sukkos in Chutz Laaretz:[67] It is debated in Poskim as to whether the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora Rabbinically retains the stricter laws of the first day, regarding invalidations, or if it receives the lenses associated with Chol Hamoed regarding invalidations. Practically, Safek Brachos Lihakel, and therefore if one contains a Lulav with a completely split Tiyomes, he is to borrow another person’s Lulav on the second day and recite the blessing over it. He may use his own Lulav for the Nanuim of Hallel. If there is no other Lulav available, he is to use it without a blessing.

A Hemnick split-A Tiyomes that contains a split that makes it appear like a fork:[68] Some Poskim[69] rule that if the Tiyomes split even slightly, in only minority of its length, to the point that it appears like a fork with prongs going on each side, then it is invalid due to the Talmudic invalidation of a Hemnick split.[70] Admur[71], however, omits this ruling and implies that the invalidation of a Hemnick split only applies to the spine of the Lulav [as explained in the next Halacha], and not to the Tiyomes, or any other leaf, and therefore in his opinion, seemingly the Lulav would remain valid even if its top leaf is split in a way that appears like a fork.[72]

Summary: The Tiyomes is the middle upper most leaf [or leaves, if there are two middle leaves of the same height] which extends from the spine of the Lulav. Lechatchilah it is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to buy a Lulav whose double leafed Tiyomes is completely attached to (at the back) from its top, to the point the other leaves begin shooting out from the spine. If this is not available, or it split after buying it, then the Lulav remains valid so long as the leaf is not completely separated from the top until the spine [where the other leaves begin growing from it]. Furthermore, even if one has a friend which owns a Lulav with a complete Tiyomes, one is not required to use it and rather may use his Lulav that has a partially split Tiyomes. If the Tiyomes grew without a double-sided leaf, or if the leaf split entirely from the top until the spine, the Lulav is invalid on the first day of Sukkos and may not be used with a blessing on the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora. On Chol Hamoed, the Lulav remains Kosher even if the Tiyomes is completely split.   Q&A If the top of the Lulav is covered with a brownish leaf called a Kora, should it be removed to check that its Tiyomes is complete? No. The leaf is not to be removed from the Lulav, and one may simply assume that the Tiyomes is whole. See Halacha 13 for the full details of this matter!   Must the Tiyomes be double leafed throughout its entire length?[73] It is implied from Admur[74] that it is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar for the Tiyomes to be entirely double leafed from the top of the Tiyomes until the area of the spine, and so rule some Rabbahnim. However, from the letter of the law it is not necessary for the Tiyomes to be entirely double leafed and so long as majority of the Tiyomes is double leafed, it remains valid.[75] If, however, majority of the Tiyomes is not double leafed, then some Poskim[76] rule that it is invalid, and certainly if it is entirely not double leafed, that it is invalid.   What if the Tiyomes is split only at its tip as is common to occur?[77] It is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to purchase a Tiyomes that is completely closed, including its tip. If the split of the Tiyomes is only noticeable after close examination, is it initially invalid? Some Poskim[78] rule that initially one is to purchase a Lulav that its Tiyomes is fully closed even after proper contemplation. [However, it is not necessary to use a magnifying glass.[79]] What if the Tiyomes is split in the middle, but attached on top? Some Poskim[80] rule the Lulav remains valid. Does it help to glue a split Tiyomes leaf back together? Some Poskim[81] rule it is valid to glue the Tiyomes together. What is the law if the Tiyomes has dried at its tip or throughout its length?[82] Some Poskim[83] rule that if the Tiyomes leaf is dry [as defined in Halacha 10], the Lulav is invalid, and some Poskim[84] extend this even to the tip of the Tiyomes, that if it is dry then it is valid. Practically, however, the Poskim[85] conclude that it remains valid, and seemingly so is also the opinion of Admur[86] that the Lulav remains Kosher. Regarding a sunburned Tiyomes, it is not considered dry even according to those who are stringent.[87]

8. A Hemnick split-A split spine, and a Lulav with leaves split like the prongs of a fork:[88]

If there is a split in the spine and the two sides of the spine in the area of the split have separated from each other to the point they appear like two Lulavim, then the Lulav is invalid.[89] [This is the definition of the Talmudic invalidation of a Hemnick split according to Admur in his understanding of the Magen Avraham.[90] However, some Poskim[91] rule that if the Tiyomes split even slightly, in only minority of its length, to the point that it appears like a fork with prongs going on each side, then it is invalid due to the Talmudic invalidation of a Hemnick split.[92] Admur, however, omits this ruling and implies that the invalidation of a Hemnick split only applies to the spine of the Lulav, and not to the Tiyomes, or any other leaf, and therefore in his opinion, seemingly the Lulav would remain valid even if its top leaf is split in a way that appears like a fork.[93] Some Poskim[94] define the definition of a Hemnick split as a split not by the spine or Tiyomes, but rather as a split by the neighboring leaves of the Tiyomes, and that if the leaves adjacent to the Tiyomes separate from the Tiyomes and make it appear like the prongs of a fork, then it is invalid. Practically, most Poskim negate this understanding, and so would certainly apply according to Admur.[95]]

On Chol Hamoed: All the above discussion of invalidation, and initial practice, regarding a split Tiyomes, only applies on the first day(s) of Sukkos, when the Mitzvah of Lulav is Biblical. However, on Chol Hamoed, a Lulav which has a deficiency of not being complete, is valid.[96] Accordingly, during Chol Hamoed, a lulav which contains a Hemnick split, is Kosher.[97]

9. A cut leaf:[98]

Tiyomes: If the top of the Lulav was cut off, the Lulav is invalid.[99] The top of the Lulav is defined as the Tiyomes.[100] Lechatchilah, if the Tiyomes leaf was even partially cut at its top, in any amount, it is to be treated as invalid and is not to be used.[101] If, however, no other Lulav is available, then if its majority length is still intact, it may be used with a blessing.[102] [However, if another Lulav whose Tiyomes is not cut at all, later becomes available, then he is to shake it without a blessing. Likewise, Bedieved, if a Lulav with a partially cut Tiyomes was already used, one is to shake another Lulav without a blessing.] However, if majority of the Tiyomes has been cut, it is invalid according to all opinions, and hence one may not shake it with a blessing even in a time of need that no other Lulav is available.[103] [Thus, one is to avoid buying a Lulav with a very pointy top as it is easily possible for this point to break and invalidate the Lulav for initial use.[104]]

Remaining leaves:[105] If the remaining leaves of a Lulav, other than the Tiyomes, have been cut at their top, it remains Kosher.

Chol Hamoed[106] It is disputed[107] 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[108]].[109] [Accordingly, if the Tiyomes of the Lulav is cut off then it is not to be used unless no other Lulav is available.[110] However, if only the tip of the Tiyomes has been cut, and the majority of it has remained intact, then seemingly one may be lenient on Chol Hamoed.[111]]

Q&A What is the law if the cut of the Tiyomes is only noticeable after close examination?[112] Some Poskim[113] rule that a cut Tiyomes only invalidates a Lulav if its missing area 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 even if in truth it is missing a piece, and the Lulav remains Kosher. Other Poskim[114], however, rule the Lulav is initially invalid if any amount of the Tiyomes 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.[115] What is the law if it is questionable as to whether the Tiyomes was cut off?[116] Seemingly, one may be lenient to use it even if another Lulav is available.[117] What is the law if only one of the two leaves of the Tiyomes is cut? Some Poskim[118] rule that the Lulav remains valid. Other Poskim[119], however, rule that it is invalid [end if cut in majority of its length then it is invalid even in a time of need]. Certainly, it is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar for the Tiyomes to be entirely double leafed from the top of the Tiyomes until the area of the spine, without any part of it being cut.[120] Many Lulavs grow a needle like wooden point at the top of the Tiyomes. If this area is cut off is the Lulav Kosher?[121] The Lulav remains Kosher even initially, as this area is not considered part of the actual Lulav. What is the status of a Lulav that is missing pieces from its spin?[122] The Lulav remains Kosher.

10. A dry Lulav:[123]

If the majority of the leaves of a Lulav have dried, or majority of its spine has dried, the Lulav is invalid.

The definition of dry: If the Lulav has dried to the point that it has lost all of its green color and has turned whitish, then it is should be considered dry and invalid to be used[124], unless it is a time of need in which there is no other Lulav available.[125] If the Lulav has dried to the point that it can be broken by touching it with one’s nail, it is invalid according to all opinions.[126]

Q&A What is the law if the Tiyomes has dried? See Halacha 7 in Q&A!   What is the law if the dryness of the Lulav is only noticeable after close examination?[127] Some Poskim rule that it is valid, as the invalidation of Hadar is only applicable if viewable at first sight.

11. A Lulav with wrinkles:[128]

If the spine contains needles, or if the [leaves of the] Lulav is wrinkled, then it is invalid, as it is not considered Hadar. [However, if only the mere tip is wrinkled, it remains valid.[129]]

12. A bent Lulav-Spine & Leaves [i.e. Kneplach]:[130]  

A. Spine is bent:[131]  

The middle of the spine is bent: If the spine of the Lulav is bent towards its front, making it appear like a hunchback, it is invalid.[132] Similarly, if it is bent to its side, it is invalid.[133] However, if the middle of the spine is bent towards its back, meaning towards the side of the spine, it remains valid.[134] 

The top of the spine is bent:[135] If the middle of the spine itself is straight while the top of the spine is bent like a Hegmon whose head is bent downwards [similar to a penguin], the Lulav is invalid. This applies whether the top of the Lulav is bent backwards towards the side of its spine or forwards towards the side opposite the spine.[136]

Summary: A bent Lulav is always invalid unless it is bent backwards, towards the side of the spine. Q&A How bent must the Lulav be to be considered invalid?[137] It is only invalid if the Lulav is bent similar to the arch of a sickle, while if it is bent to less than this amount, then it is valid even if it is bent to its front or side.[138] Nonetheless, it is a Hiddur Mitzvah to purchase a Lulav that is completely straight.[139] If the Lulav is bent in the center of the Lulav and then bends back straight [similar to the bow of an arrow], is it valid?[140] Such a Lulav should not be used as it is considered invalid according to some opinions. Is there a difference whether the spine naturally grew with a bent, versus if it was straight and then became bent by force?[141] No. Either way the Lulav is invalid. If a bent Lulav was straightened using force, is it valid?[142] Yes, so long as its previous state of being bent is not recognizable.

B. Leaves are bent:

If leaves are bent on their top:[143] If majority of the top of the leaves of the Lulav are even slightly bent or curved at their top, it should be treated as invalid and not be used[144], unless there is no other Lulav available, in which case it may be used with a blessing.[145] This applies even if all of its leaves are bent by their top. [If only a minority of its leaves are curved by their top, it may be used even Lechatchilah.]

If leaves are bent in half in their middle:[146] If [majority] of the actual leaves [not just the top] are very bent to their middle, to the point that it appears that the leaves have been bent in two, then the Lulav is invalid.[147]

On Chol Hamoed:[148] On Chol Hamoed, even if majority of the leaves are bent or curved, it is valid even Lechatchilah.

Second day of Yom Tov in Diaspora:[149] If majority of the leaves are bent or curved, one may be lenient on the second day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora, use the Lulav if no other Lulav is easily available.[150]

Q&A Kneplach-Rounded tips:[151] Based on the above ruling, the top leaves of the Lulav should not have rounded tips known as kneplach.   What is the law if only the Tiyomes is bent? From Admur it is implied that the Lulav remains Kosher according to all opinions if majority of the leaves are not bent, even if the Tiyomes is bent. However, some Poskim[152] rule that if the Tiyomes is bent, the Lulav is invalid.

13. Kora-The brown/reddish chaff on top of a Lulav:[153]

Some Poskim[154] rule that a Lulav is only valid if all its leaves are attached to each other as a single unit [in at least majority of their length[155]]. This, however, only applies to a Lulav which originally grew with all its leaves attached and later separated, while if it initially grew separated it is valid even in their opinion.[156] This is commonly found amongst Lulavim that grow a brownish leaf on their back, called a Kora, which attaches all the leaves together into one unit, and fulfills the requirements according to this opinion.[157] If this leaf falls off and the leaves separate in majority of their length, then it is invalid. Accordingly, one is never to remove the Kora leaf from the leaves of the Lulav, lest it causes its leaves to separate and become invalid.[158] In the event that one desires to check if the Tiyomes is closed, he should simply look at it from the outside, and if he sees that it is covered by the reddish Kora then he may assume that the Tiyomes is closed, and is to completely avoid removing the Kora.[159] Other Poskim[160], however, rule that even if the brown leaf comes off and the leaves separate it remains valid, so long as the Tiyomes has not fully separated. ]Although the final ruling follows the latter opinion[161], practically, one should initially suspect for the first opinion.[162] Accordingly, some are particular to purchase a Lulav with the brownish leaf covering, in order to negate purchasing a Lulav that had its Kora removed.[163] However, others are particular not to purchase such a Lulav, due to fear that the Kora may fall off, and in order to verify that the Tiyomes is completely closed. Practically, the Rebbe was particular to purchase a Lulav which had its top leaves covered with a brownish Kora leaf.[164]]

14. Kashrus-Arla, Teruma Maaser:[165]

Lulav’s are not subject to the restrictions of Arla, and do not require Terumos and Maasros to be removed from them, and therefore no such invalidation exists by the Lulav, unlike by an Esrog.

15. Shemita-Kedushas Shevi’is:[166]

Some Poskim[167] rule that a Lulav does not contain Kedushas Shevi’is. Other Poskim[168] rule it contains Kedushas Shevi’is and it follows the year of cutting.

_____________________________________________

[1] Siddur Im Dach Shaar Halulav p. 264

[2] Vayikra Raba 30:12

[3] Admur 645:3

[4] See Rabbeinu Bechayeh Parshas Emor; Chasam Sofer Sukkah 34b; Bnei Tziyon 1:22; Minchas Elazar 6:23; Chazon Ish 156; Hartzevi 2:108; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:2

[5] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:2

[6] Igros Moshe 4:123; Sheiris Yisrael 30

[7] Rav SZ”A Aurbach brought in Kashrus Daled Minim; Yechaveh Daas 1:67

[8] Admur 650:1; Michaber 650:1; Rambam Sukkah 7:8; Mishneh Sukkah 49b

[9] The reason: As the spine of the Lulav must be at least one Tefach higher than the Hadassim and Aravos which are bound to it in order so it can be properly shaken, and since the Hadassim and Aravos must be a minimum of three Tefachim high, therefore the spine of the Lulav has a minimum length of four Tefachim. [Admur ibid]

[10] Shiureiy Torah of Rav Avraham Chaim Na’ah, however according to the Chazon Ish, it needs to be 10 cm. tall. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[11] See Admur 650:1; Michaber 650:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 650:1

[12] 1^st and Stam opinion in Admur ibid; 3^rd opinion in Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; Tana Kama in Sukkah ibid

[13] Shiureiy Torah of Rav Avraham Chaim Na’ah, however according to the Chazon Ish, it needs to be 40 c. tall. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[14] 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; 1^st opinion in Michaber ibid; Raavad and Rosh; Rebbe Tarfon in Sukkah ibid

[15] Shiureiy Torah of Rav Avraham Chaim Na’ah, however according to the Chazon Ish, it needs to be 33 c. tall. [See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[16] Admur ibid; Rama 650:1

[17] Admur ibid; Tur 650:1; Rambam ibid; Rashi Sukkah ibid

[18] See Biur Halacha 645:2 “Veadayin”; Piskeiy Teshuvos 650:1; Kashrus Daled Minim p. 78

[19] Admur 650:2; Michaber 650:1; Maharitz Geios

[20] M”A 672:3; Piskeiy Teshuvos 650:1

[21] Admur 645:13; Michaber 645:3; Sukkah 32b

[22] The reason: The reason for this is because it is no longer considered Hadar. [Admur ibid; M”A 645:6]

[23] Admur 645:14; Michaber 645:4; Sukkah 32b

[24] The reason: The reason for this is because it is no longer considered Hadar. [Admur ibid; Levush 645:4]

[25] Admur 645:15; Michaber 645:5; Mishneh Sukkah 29b

[26] The reason: The reason for this is because the Lulav is not considered Hadar. [Admur ibid]

[27] See Tosafos Sukkah 46b; Daas Torah 651:4; Eitz Hasadeh 650 7; Luach Eretz Yisrael Tukichinsky; Nitei Gavriel 40:24; However, see Kinyan Torah 5:70 who argue that it is forbidden to be done even past the four Tefach mark; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 664:4 and footnote 16

[28] Admur 645:3-7

[29] This means that the leaves rest directly on the spine and have not separated from their area of attachment to the spine to the point that they are no longer resting directly on the spine. If the leaves have separated even slightly, then it is not a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar even if the leaves are still growing upwards and are able to be rested onto the spine when bound together. [Admur ibid]

[30] Admur 645:5; Rama 645:1; Magid Mishneh 8:3 in name of Geonim

[31] Admur 645:4; Michaber 645:1; Mishneh Sukkah 29b; 32a

The reason: The reason for why the leaves do not have to be actually bound to the spine so long as they are able to potentially be bound, is because the Torah does not state Kafus but rather Kapos and hence it is only potentially required to be able to be Kafus. [Admur ibid]

[32] Admur 645:7; Rama 645:2; Tosafos Sukkah 29b

Explanation: Only if majority of the leaves have separated from the spine in a way that they can no longer be bound to the spine is the Lulav invalid. If, however, only minority of the leaves have split and they can thus still be bound to the spine, and these leaves cover majority of the spine, the Lulav is valid. [Admur ibid]

[33] The leaves of the palm branch begin to harden as they remain on the tree and separate from the spine. [Admur ibid]

[34] Admur 645:3; Rama 645:2; Tur 645; Sukkah 32a

The reason: This is learned from the word “Kapos” [branches] which can also be read “Kafus,” which means bound. [Admur 645:3]

[35] Admur 645:6; Michaber and Rama 645:2; Rambam Sukkah 8:3; Mishneh Sukkah 29b

[36] Admur 645:7; Rama 645:2; Tosafos Sukkah 29b

[37] The reason: The reason for this invalidation is because the Lulav is not considered Hadar if the leaves droop downwards and it is hence Biblically invalid. [Admur 645:6; M”A 645:6]

[38] Admur 645:6; Ritva Sukkah 32a

The reason: The reason for this is because the Lulav is no longer Hadar and is hence Biblically invalid. [Admur ibid]

[39] Admur 645:6; Rabbeinu Yerucham 58

[40] Admur 645:8; M”A 645:2

[41] Admur 645:9; Michaber and Rama 645:3; Rambam Sukkah 8:4; Sukkah 32a; M”A 645:3 and 6

[42] The reason: As the Lulav is not considered Hadar. [ibid]

[43] Admur 645:10-11; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:4-7, 9

[44] Sukkah 32b “What is the law if the Tiyomes split”

[45] Rashi Sukkah ibid

[46] Admur 645:10 [to note however that he does not mention the term Tiyomes]; Rama 645:3 in name of Yeish Mefarshim and that so is custom; Terumos Hadeshen 96; Rashi Sukkah ibid “It refers to the two middle leaves, from where the spine ends”; Tosafos Sukkah 32b; Or Zarua 2:306

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the Tiyomes is a general term for the back of every pair of leaf of the Lulav, in which the two leaves are attached to each other, and does not specifically refer to the most top center leaf. According to this approach, a split Tiyomes means that the majority of leaves of the Lulav contain split pairs of leaves. [Michaber 645:3; Taz 645:4 that so rule majority of Poskim] Other Poskim rule the Tiyomes refers to the top leaves of the Lulav, and that are attached with the brown/reddish chaff in both its front and back. [Teshuvas Hageonim, brought in Beis Yosef 645; Taz 645:4; P”M 645 M”Z 4; Implication of Bahag, brought in Tosafos Sukkah 32b]

[47] Admur ibid; Rashi Bava Kama 96a; Ran Sukkah 15; Ritva Sukkah 31b; Maggid Mishneh Sukkah 8:4

[48] Taz 645:4; Bach 645; Kneses Hagedola 645:11; Elya Raba 645:4; M”B 645:15; Kaf Hachaim 645:23; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:6; However, see M”B 645:29 in name of Bikureiy Yaakov 645 that if one of the Tiyomes are cut, it remains Kosher. However, see Chazon Ish 145:5 who questions this ruling and Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid who answers it

[49] Admur ibid

[50] Admur 645:10; Rama 645:3 in name of Yeish Mefarshim and that so is custom; Rashi Sukkah ibid “And the spine split until the lower leaves”; Tosafos Sukkah 32b; Terumos Hadeshen 96; Or Zarua 2:306;

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule the Tiyomes is a general term for the back of every pair of leaf of the Lulav, in which the two leaves are attached to each other, and does not specifically refer to the most top center leaf. According to this approach, there is no difference between the middle leaf and any of the other leaves of the Lulav, and therefore the Lulav remains Kosher even if it completely split. [Implication of Michaber 645:3; and so explains: Beis Yosef 645; M”B 645:12; Kaf Hachaim 645:18; Taz 645:4 that so rule majority of Poskim]

[51] Admur 645:9; Michaber 645:3

[52] Admur ibid; M”A 645:3; Darkei Moshe 645:5; Terumos Hadeshen 96; Seemingly, this is coming to negate the explanation of the Geonim [brought above] who explain it refers to the chaff that attaches the top leaves to each other.

[53] See continuation for law on Chol Hamoed and 2^nd day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora

[54] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Kol Bo 72

[55] (However, lower than this area, is not called the middle leaf [Tiyomes] but rather is part of the actual spine.) [Admur ibid, parentheses in original]

[56] See continuation for law on Chol Hamoed and 2^nd day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora

[57] Admur 645:10; Rama ibid; Rashi ibid; Tosafos Sukkah ibid; Terumos Hadeshen ibid; Or Zarua ibid

The reason: The invalidation of this middle leaf, the Tiyomes, is not due to a blemish in the Hadar/beauty of the Lulav, but rather due to [incompletion as] the Torah states “Ulikachtem Lachem” and the Sages expounded that it must be complete and whole. Now, since this middle leaf is considered the centerpiece of the Lulav, as one sees it in his first sight of the Lulav, and it naturally grows double-sided in all the Lulavim, therefore, if it is [completely] split to two leaves, being that it is readily apparent and visible that the Lulav is not complete in the area of the split [therefore it is invalid]. [Admur ibid; M”A 645:6; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 8 3 p. 58]

[58] Taz 645:4; Bach 645; Kneses Hagedola 645:11; Elya Raba 645:4; M”B 645:15

[59] Admur 645:11; Rama 645:3; Siddur Yaavetz; Bikureiy Yaakov 645:10; Aruch Hashulchan 645:10; M”B 645:18; Kaf Hachaim 645:27; Chazon Ish 145:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:4

[60] Implication of Admur ibid, Rama ibid and Poskim ibid who constantly write “Split in its entire length”; Bikureiy Yaakov 645:10 in name opf Gedolei Chachmei Ashkenaz, which is the Terumas Hadeshen, Or Zarua and Semak; Chazon Ish 145:1; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:4 footnote 17

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if majority of the length of the Tiyomes split, it is considered as if it split in its entirety, and the Lulav is invalid. [M”B 645:15; Taz 645:4; Bach 645; Kneses Hagedola 645:11; Elya Raba 645:4; Biur Hagr”a 645; Ran Sukkah 15; Ritva Sukkah 31b; Maggid Mishneh Sukkah 8:4; Kaf Hachaim 645:23 and 25]

Opinion of Admur: Although Admur constantly writes in 645:10 and 11 the words “in all its length” when discussing the invalidation. On the other hand, when discussing the validation in 645:11, Admur writes “If only Miktzas/part” was split. Some desired to induce from here that Admur is coming to exclude a majority split Tiyomes, which is invalid. [Footnote on new Shulchan Aruch; See also gloss of Rav Weiner in his Sefer], however in truth, it is abundantly clear from the wording of Admur in 645:10-11 that if the leaf is not completely split, it remains valid, and to infer otherwise from Admur is to make a contradiction in his words. Furthermore, the term Miktzas means a part, and does not come to negate majority, as is proven from various areas. [See Tosefta Horiyos “Miktzaso Velo Kulo”; Rambam Avoda Zara 6:3; Admur 12:7; Seder Netilas Yadayim 12; 402:1] Accordingly, there is no room for question or inference on this term, and Admur clearly rules like those Poskim who rule that only a completely split Tiyomes is invalid. [In a reply, one of the editors of the new Shulchan Aruch admitted that the footnote is a mistake]

[61] And certainly, on Chol Hamoed, and the second day of Sukkos, one is not required to borrow another person’s Lulav, as on Chol Hamoed the entire invalidation of a split Tiyomes is not applicable.

[62] Admur ibid; M”B 645:18; Kaf Hachaim 645:27

[63] Admur ibid; Rama ibid that so is custom; Chayeh Adam 149:10; M”B 645:19; Kaf Hachaim 645:28

The reason: The reason for this is because there are opinions [brought in Ran ibid] who rule that the Lulav is invalid even if the middle leaf is only partially split. Now, although we do not rule like this opinion, nevertheless it is proper to suspect for their opinion when possible. [Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Ran Sukkah 15; Ritva Sukkah 31b; Kol Bo 72] The reason for this is because once part of the leaf has split, we suspect that the entire leaf will split through the shaking of the Lulav. [See Biur Hagr”a 645]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a leaf whose Tiyomes has split on its top less than a Tefach worth [8 cm] is valid according to all opinions, even according to the Ran ibid, and accordingly, there is no need to search for a Lulav with a completely attached Tiyomes, so long as it is not a Tefach split. [Taz 645:4; Elya Raba 645:4; Beir Heiytiv 645:5; Machatzis Hashekel 645:4

[64] Elya Raba 645:4; Shaar Hatizyon 645:16; Kaf Hachaim 645:23

[65] Admur 649:17; Rama 649:5; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rosh 3:3

[66] Admur 649:19; M”A 645:6; M”B 645:17; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 8 3 p. 58; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:4

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule a split Tiyomes is invalid also on Chol Hamoed. [Rav Akiva Eiger]

[67] 649:21; Michaber 649:5

[68] See Admur 645:12; Michaber and Rama 645:7; Rambam 8:3; Sukkah 32a; Raavad Tamim Deim 231; M”A 645:7; Taz 645:9; P”M 645 M”Z 8-9; Levushei Serud ibid; Bikureiy Yaakov 645:20; Chayeh Adam 149:10; M”B 645:32; Kaf Hachaim 645:48-51; Sefer Arba Minim [Biur of Rav Weiner] on 645:12 Vol. 1 p. 70-73; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:10-11; Nitei Gavriel 6:4

[69] Explanation of Michaber and Rama and Gemara ibid by following Poskim: Ran Sukkah 14a; Taz 645:9; Gr”a 645; Levushei Haserud ibid; M”B 645:32; Biur Halacha 645:7 “Nisdak”; Shaar Hatziyon 645:33; Kaf Hachaim 645:48-51; Daas Torah 645; Chazon Ish 145:8; Orchos Rabbeinu p. 241; Kashrus Daled Minim p. 83-84; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:6 and 10-11

[70] The reason: The reason for this is because the Lulav appears lacking and incomplete. [See Admur ibid; M”A 645:6]

[71] Admur 645:12 based on his understanding of the M”A 645:7, unlike the understanding of Shaar Hatziyon ibid

[72] See Sefer Arba Minim [Biur of Rav Weiner] on 645:12; Nitei Gavriel ibid footnote 11; However, see Shaar Hatziyon ibid who writes that even the M”A ibid agrees to the invalidation of the Taz ibid, and simply adds another invalidation

[73] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:5

[74] 645:11

[75] Implication of Admur 645:9-10; Rav SZ”A and other Rabbanim mentioned in Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:5 footnote 24; Kashrus Daled Minim [Shtern] in name of Rav Elyashiv; See regarding if one of the leaves of the Tiyomes was cut off that it remains valid: Beis Dovid 446 [unlike 448]; Ikarei Hadat 33; Bikureiy Yaakov 645:16; Chaim Ubracha 216; Chazon Ish 145:5 and 8

Other opinions: Some Poskim are stringent to invalidate a Lulav whose Tiyomes is not completely double leafed. [Kinyan Torah 7:50] See regarding if one of the leaves of the Tiyomes was cut off that it is invalid: Beis Dovid 448 [unlike 446]; Sdei Chemed 12; Kaf Hachaim 645:42 in name of Zechor Leavraham; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 645 footnote 22

[76] See M”B 645:19; Poskim in previous footnote; However, seemingly according to Admur it would only be invalid if it is missing for its entire length just as he rules regarding the split Tiyomes

[77] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9

[78] Shut Rav Akiva Eiger in end of Sefer Derush Vechidush p. 176; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9

[79] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[80] Bikureiy Yaakov 645:6; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:4

[81] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:4 in name of Rav YY Fisher, as the entire reason for the invalidation is due to its continuing to split, which is prevented with glue; Rav Yaakov Yosef

[82] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:7, 9

[83] Raavad, brought in M”B 645:22

[84] Gr”a 645 in opinion of Ran and Ritva

[85] See Chazon Ish 145:11; Chaim Ubracha 103

[86] See Halacha 10!

[87] Chazon Ish ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:7

[88] Admur 645:12 based on his understanding of the M”A 645:7 [unlike the understanding of Shaar Hatziyon ibid] in explanation of the Michaber and Rama 645:7, Rambam 8:3, Sukkah 32a, and so rules Raavad Tamim Deim 231; Kaf Hachaim 645:51; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:11; See M”A 645:7; Taz 645:9; P”M 645 M”Z 8-9; Levushei Serud ibid; Bikureiy Yaakov 645:20; Chayeh Adam 149:10; M”B 645:32; Shaar Hatziyon 645:33; Biur Halacha 645:7 “Nisdak”; Kaf Hachaim 645:48-51; Sefer Arba Minim [Biur of Rav Weiner] on 645:12 Vol. 1 p. 70-73; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:10-11; Nitei Gavriel 6:4

[89] The reason: The reason for this is because the Lulav appears lacking and incomplete. [Admur ibid; M”A 645:6]

[90] According to the Alter Rebbe, this is defined as a Hemnik split [a split in the Lulav which makes it appear as two] of which the Gemara states that the Lulav is invalid. This invalidation only applies to the spine of the Lulav and not to its Tiyomes. Other Poskim however rule that a Hemnick split is defined as a fork like appearance on the top of the Lulav by the Tiyomes, as will be explained.

[91] Explanation of Michaber and Rama and Gemara ibid by following Poskim: Ran Sukkah 14a; Taz 645:9; Gr”a 645; Levushei Haserud ibid; M”B 645:32; Biur Halacha 645:7 “Nisdak”; Shaar Hatziyon 645:33; Kaf Hachaim 645:48-51; Daas Torah 645; Chazon Ish 145:8; Orchos Rabbeinu p. 241; Kashrus Daled Minim p. 83-84; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:6 and 10-11

[92] The reason: The reason for this is because the Lulav appears lacking and incomplete. [See Admur ibid; M”A 645:6]

[93] See Sefer Arba Minim [Biur of Rav Weiner] on 645:12; Nitei Gavriel ibid footnote 11; However, see Shaar Hatziyon ibid who writes that even the M”A ibid agrees to the invalidation of the Taz ibid, and simply adds another invalidation

[94] Shaar Hatziyon 645:33 in his understanding of M”A 645:7; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:11 concludes that a G-d fearing Jew should suspect for his opinion

[95] See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[96] Admur 649:17; Rama 649:5; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rosh 3:3

[97] Admur 649:19 #3; M”A 645:6; M”B 645:17; Rabbeinu Yerucham Nesiv 8 3 p. 58; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:4 and 10

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule a split Tiyomes is invalid also on Chol Hamoed. [Rav Akiva Eiger]

[98] See Admur 645:17; Michaber and Rama 645:6; Beis Yosef 645; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9

[99] Admur ibid; Michaber 645:6; Mishneh Sukkah 29b

The reason: The invalidation of Niktam Hatiyomes is due to it not being Hadar. [Admur 645:17; M”A 645:6; Yerushalmi Sukkah 3:1; M”B 645:27; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9 based on Rav Akiva Eiger in Teshuvos Derush Vichidush p. 176]

[100] Admur ibid; Rama 645:6

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that only if majority of the leaves were cut, the Lulav is invalid, and not merely the Tiyomes. [See Michaber 645:6 as explained in Taz 645:6; See M”B 645:30 in name of Elya Raba 645:7 that in a time of need one may be lenient like this opinion]

[101] Admur ibid that one is to be stringent like the 1^st and Stam opinion in Admur ibid that if even a small amount of the Tiyomes was cut it is invalid, as rules Tosafos Sukkah 29b, Rosh, Ritva and Ran and Maggid Mishneh; See M”B 645:28

Background: Admur brings a dispute in this matter: The first opinion rules that if even a small amount of the middle leaf, the Tiyomes, was cut off it is invalid, as it is no longer considered Hadar. The second opinion rules it is only invalid if majority of the Tiyomes has been cut off. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if it is only cut a small amount, it is valid due to a Safek Sfeika. [Zera Emes 3:72; Ikarei Hadat 33:21; Beis Shoeiva 645:14; Kaf Hachaim 645:41]

[102] Admur ibid based on the 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid that if only a minority of the length of the Tiyomes was cut it remains valid, as rules Ritva in name of Rabbeinu Yona; Opinion in Ran; Rama ibid

[103] Admur ibid; M”A 645:6; See Admur 649:22-23 that in some areas they are accustomed to recite a blessing even on invalid species if a valid one is not available. See Chapter 5 Halacha 11

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that only if majority of the leaves were cut, the Lulav is invalid, and not merely the Tiyomes. [See Michaber 645:6 as explained in Taz 645:6; See Elya Raba 645:7; M”B 645:30; Biur Halacha 645:6 “Ava Iy Leka Acher”] Some Poskim rule that in a time of need one may rely on this opinion and say a blessing even over a completely cut Tiyomes. [Implication of Rama ibid, and so explains M”B 645:30 and Biur Halacha ibid in name of Elya Raba 645:7; However, Admur ibid rules like M”A ibid who argues on the Rama in this] However, see Admur 649:22-23 that in some areas they are accustomed to recite a blessing even on invalid species if a valid one is not available. See Chapter 5 Halacha 11

The reason: As it is no longer considered Hadar. [Admur ibid]

[104] Rav A.L. Cohen

[105] Implication of Admur ibid and Rama ibid; However, the Michaber rules that if majority of the leaves are cut off [not specifically the Tiyomes] the Lulav is invalid; See also M”B 645:30 and Biur Halacha on 645:6

[106] Admur 649:17 and 19

[107] 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]

[108] 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

[109] 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]

[110] The reason: As the cut Tiyomes invalidation is due to Hadar, as explained in Admur 647:17, and thus explains why Admur in 649:20 omitted the cut Tiyomes in the list of permitted cases of Chol Hamoed.

[111] The reason: As it is considered a Sfek Sfeika. 1) Perhaps Hadar invalidations are permitted on Chol Hamoed, b) Perhaps we rule like the opinion that does not invalidate the Tiyomes if only part of it is cut.

[112] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9

[113] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9 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, and since Niktam Hatiyomes is invalid due to Hadar therefore it is only invalid if one can tell that it was cut off with a first glance; See Elya Raba 648 in name of Mabit 49 regarding Esrog; M”B 648:46 regarding Esrog;

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

[115] Implication of all Poskim ibid who all mention “Kol Shehu”; See M”A 648, Admur 648:22 and Mabit ibid 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.

[116] See Admur 648:10 that by Safek Chaser one may be lenient; Zera Emes 3:72; Ikarei Hadat 33:21; Beis Shoeiva 645:14; Kaf Hachaim 645:41

[117] The reason: As it is considered a Sfek Sfeika. 1) Perhaps it is not cut at all and even if it is cut, b) Perhaps we rule like the opinion that does not invalidate the Tiyomes even if part of it is cut.

[118] Beis Dovid 446 [unlike 448]; Ikarei Hadat 33; Bikureiy Yaakov 645:16; Chaim Ubracha 216; Chazon Ish 145:5 and 8

[119] Beis Dovid 448 [unlike 446]; Beis Hashoeiva 645:12; Sdei Chemed 12; Kaf Hacahim 645:42 in name of Zechor Leavraham; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 645 footnote 22

[120] Implication of Admur 645:9-11; Rav SZ”A and other Rabbanim mentioned in Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:5 footnote 24; Kashrus Daled Minim [Shtern] in name of Rav Elyashiv

[121] Ikarei Hadaat 33:23; Kashrus Daled Minim p. 91; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:12; See Zera Emes 3:72; Ikarei Hadat 33:21; Beis Shoeiva 645:14; Kaf Hachaim 645:41

[122] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:8

[123] Admur 645:16; Michaber and Rama 645:5; Mishneh Sukkah 29b and 31a

Background: If the majority of the leaves or spine of the Lulav have withered the Lulav is invalid. Admur records a dispute regarding the definition of dry: The first opinion rules that only if a nail is able to break the leaf due to its dryness is it considered dry and is invalid. The second opinion rules that even if it has not dried to this point but has lost its green color and become whitened it is invalid. Admur rules that the main opinion follows the second opinion and although Bedieved or if no other Lulav is available one may be lenient like the first opinion. [Admur ibid]

[124] Admur ibid, based on the 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid [as rules Michaber ibid, Raavad in Tamim Deim 232; Rosh; Ritva; Ran; Maggid Mishneh] that it is invalid in such a case, and that the main ruling follows this opinion, and that one must initially be stringent; Michaber ibid; Taz 645:5; Tur 645

[125] Admur ibid based on the first opinion in Admur ibid [Rama ibid; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Darkei Moshe 545:3] that it is only invalid if it can be broken with a nail; Rama ibid; Taz bid

[126] Admur ibid even according to first opinion ibid; Rama ibid

The reason: As it is no longer considered Hadar. [Admur ibid]

[127] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:9 based on Teshuvah of Rav Akiva Eiger

[128] Admur 645:18; Michaber 645:8; Sukkah 32a

[129] Orchos Rabbeinu 2:244; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:12; However, see Kashrus Daled Minim p. 96 who writes that if the tips are wrinkled it is invalid.

[130] See Admur 645:18-20; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:13

[131] 645:18-19

[132] Admur 645:18; Michaber 645:8; Rambam Sukkah 8:3; Sukkah 32a

The reason: As this is not considered Hadar. [Admur ibid]

[133] Admur 645:18; Michaber 645:8; Rav Nachman in Sukkah 32a

The reason: As this is not considered Hadar. [ibid]

[134] Admur 645:19; Michaber 645:8; Rava in Sukkah 32a

The reason: As this is the way a Lulav grows, and this is its beauty. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that initially the Lulav should not be used even if it is bent towards its back by the side of its spine, unless it is a time of need. [See Shaareiy Teshuvah 645:5 in name of Machazik Bracha in name of Get Mekusher; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[135] Admur 645:19; Michaber 645:9; Rava in Sukkah 31b

[136] The reason: As this is not considered Hadar as it is not usual for the head of the spine of a Lulav to be bent backwards or forwards. [Admur ibid]

[137] Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:13

[138] See Beis Yosef 645; Daas Torah 645; Chaim Ubracha 239; M”B 645:33

[139] Chaim Ubracha 66

[140] Bikureiy Yaakov 645:23 in name of Radbaz

[141] Chaim Ubracha 238; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:13

[142] Halachos Ketanos 2:221; Sdei Chemed 30:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:13

[143] Admur 645:20; See Michaber 645:9; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:14

Background: Admur records a dispute on this matter: The first opinion rules that if the spine is straight the Lulav is Kosher even if all its leaves are bent on its top, including if the Tiyomes is bent. The reason for this is because this is the common way for many Lulavim to grow. Others rule that if majority of its leaves are bent on their top it is invalid. Practically Admur rules that initially one is to be stringent not to use such a Lulav although if no other Lulav is available he may be lenient. [Admur ibid]

Other Opinions: Some are particular to follow the Rosh to purchase specifically a Lulav with bent and rounded leaves as this secures the Tiyomes. [M”B 645:40; Rosh 24:10; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:14] See Orchos Rabbeinu 2:231

[144] Admur ibid, as rules the 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid [M”A 645:8; Levush 645:9; Ran and Ritva in M”B 645:42] that a Lulav with bent leaves is invalid; Bikureiy Yaakov 645:24; Chaim Ubracha 125; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the Lulav is only slightly bent, then it is valid. [Orchos Rabbeinu 2:246]

[145] Admur ibid, as rules the first and Stam opinion in Admur ibid [Michaber 645:9; Darkei Moshe 645:6; Rosh 24:10; Rabbeinu Yerucham] that a Lulav with bent leaves remains valid as this is the normal way of growth of many Lulavim; Taz 645:10

[146] Admur 645:21; Taz 645:10; Elya Raba 645:9

[147] The reason: As this is not considered Hadar at all. [Admur ibid]

[148] Admur 649:19 # 5

[149] Admur 645:20

[150] The reason: As since the Mitzvah of Lulav is only Rabbinical on the second day, therefore one may be lenient if there isn’t a non-bent Lulav readily available. [Admur ibid]

[151] Sefer Haminhagim p. 65; See M”B 645:40 and 42; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:14

[152] M”B 645:41 in name of P”M; Kashrus Daled Minim p. 105.

[153] See Otzer Minhagei Chabad p. 271; Kaf Hachaim 645:24 Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:3; “Halachos of Four Species” Chapter 11 in Hebrew section; p. 97; 3

[154] Teshuvas Hageonim, brought in Tosafos Bava Kama 96a, Beis Yosef 645; Taz 645:4; P”M 645 M”Z 4; Implication of Bahag, brought in Tosafos Sukkah 32b

[155] Bikureiy Yaakov 645

[156] Tosafos ibid; Beis Yosef ibid; Taz ibid; Kaf Hachaim ibid

[157] Beis Yosef ibid

[158] Mamar Mordechai 645:4; Bikureiy Yaakov 645; Kaf Hachaim ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid and footnote 12

[159] Mamar Mordechai 645:4; Kaf Hachaim ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid and footnote 12

[160] Setimas Kol Haposkim who omitted this ruling of the Geonim; P”M 645 M”Z 4; See Kaf Hachaim ibid and Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; See Levushei Serud

[161] So is evident from the fact that all the Poskim omit this opinion.

[162] Kaf Hachaim ibid; See Levushei Serud 645

[163] See Sdei Chemed Mareches Arba Minim 2:1 that so is the custom of the Sephardim in Israel

The reason: In order to suspect for the opinion of the Geonim that the Tiyomes must be closed in with the other leaves and not loss.

[164] Oatzer p. 271; See “Halachos of Four Species” Chapter 11 in Hebrew section.

[165] See Rashi Sukkah 33b; Michaber Y.D. 294; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:6

A Lulav of Mudar Hanah: See Admur 649:16 that it is invalid on the first day, although is valid on the other days.

[166] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:7

[167] Rambam in Peirush Hamishnayos Sukkah 39; Minchas Shlomo 51:23; Mincha Yitzchak 6:61; 8:100

[168] Meiri Sukkah 39

Bookmark