Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 645 - Laws Relating to Lulav

SECTION 645 Laws Relating to the Lulav. (1–21)

[It is written:] “And on the first day, you shall take for yourselves the fruit of a beautiful tree, fronds of a date-palm, a branch of a braided tree, and willows of the brook.”1

From the words “the fruit of a tree,”2 the Sages extrapolated3 that the verse alludes to a tree whose wood has the same flavor as its fruit. Which [species] is that? A citron (esrog), for its wood and its fruit share the same taste.4

2 The word “beautiful”5 implies that [this fruit] must be attractive6 and comely in its appearance and shape, as will be explained in sec. 648. And, since all of the four species7 appear in the same verse, they are likened to one another by a textual association,8 and the characteristics of one are also applied to the others. Hence all these Four Species must be attractive and comely in their appearance and shape, as will be explained.

3 The term “fronds of a date-palm” denotes a lulav that grows on a date-palm.9 Since the Torah used the term כַּפֹּת [תְּמָרִים] — kapos [tmarim] — instead of the “leaves of a date-palm” (alei tmarim), we learn that the leaves must be such that can be brought together and bound together10 with the shidrah (the spine),11 because they are still pliable. [This concept is derived,] because vowel points12 are not written in the Torah, and the term כַּפֹּת (kapos) could be interpreted as if it was written כָּפוּת (kafus), meaning “bound.”13

If, however, the lulav remains on the date-palm until its leaves became as stiff as wood and they spread out and became separated from the spine, [difficulties arise]. The stiffer they become, the more do they spread away from the spine. If they have become so firm that they can no longer be bound together with the spine, [the lulav] is invalid.¹³

4 If [the leaves] have not stiffened to that extent, [the lulav] is valid, even if when they are not bound together they would stand separate and apart from each other.¹³ [See fig. 19.] Indeed, [it is valid] even if they are not actually bound together,14 because the Torah required only that they be capable of being bound together, not that they actually be bound together — for [in fact] we do not read the term asכָּפוּת (kafus — “bound”), but as כַּפּוֹת (kapos — “fronds”).

5 Nevertheless, the preferred way to perform the mitzvah is not to take a lulav whose leaves are separated from each other, even if they have not stiffened at all. [Indeed, a lulav should not be taken] even if its leaves have become somewhat detached from the point at which they are connected to the spine and hence have separated slightly — even though they are not [bent over and] hanging downward at all, but point upward together with the spine.

6 If, by contrast, [the leaves] are hanging [downward] and do not point upward together with the spine unless they are bound together, this lulav is invalid according to Scriptural Law.15 [See fig. 20.] [This applies] even if the leaves were not entirely detached from the spine but remained connected to it slightly, and even if one bound them together with the spine, [because such a lulav] is not considered “beautiful.”

7 The factors explained above that disqualify [a lulav] because of its leaves do not apply unless they characterize the majority of the leaves. If a minority of the leaves were affected in this way, but the majority of the leaves remained connected to the spine and covered most of it in the manner to be explained,16 [the lulav] is valid, for everything depends on the majority.17

8 [A lulav] is valid [even] if the spine itself was broken in the middle — not broken in two, but bent over [so that now it appears] as two because the upper part hangs downward. Nevertheless, it must be bound up at the point at which it is bent over so that its top will not be hanging downward.

9 The normal pattern of growth for the leaves of a lulav is as follows: As the leaves grow, they grow in pairs, one opposite the other on either side of the spine. Each leaf is in fact a double leaf, connected at the back and open at the front.

If most of the leaves of a lulav become split in two along most of their length — i.e., most of the leaves of the lulav become split along the crease at the back and thus each leaf is divided in two for most of its length — this lulav is invalid, because it is not considered “beautiful.”¹³

Similarly, if [a lulav] naturally grew in such a way that most of its leaves were not double over most of their length, it is not valid.

10 The above applies to all the leaves other than the topmost, middle leaf,18 which is the tallest of the leaves and is called “the head of the lulav.” This leaf is normally double, like the other leaves of the lulav. If it did not grow as a double leaf, [the lulav] is invalid, even if all the other leaves are double.

So, too, [the lulav] is invalid if [this leaf] was double at the outset, and then became split over its entire length, i.e., from its tip until the place from which the leaves emerge. (From this place downward, it is no longer called the “middle leaf”; it is the spine proper.)

In the above instances involving the topmost leaf, the lulav is not disqualified because it is not considered “beautiful,” but because of the [interpretation of the verb in the above-quoted] verse: ולקחתם — “And you shall take.” From this word the Sages learned that [what is taken] should be perfect and complete.19 Now, the middle leaf is the essential component of the lulav, for it is seen at first glance, and it is normally double. Hence, if it is split in half, it is obvious and apparent that it is not “perfect and complete” in the place where it is split.20

11 When does the above apply? When it is split along its entire length. If only part of it is split, [the lulav] is valid.

All the above applies only after the fact21 or when one does not have another lulav; in such a case one does not have to recite the blessing over a lulav belonging to a friend on the first day of Sukkos. As the initial and preferred option,22 the optimal way of performing the mitzvah23 is to seek a lulav whose topmost leaf is not split at all, but which is double from its tip until the place [on the spine] from which the leaves emerge — for some authorities disqualify [a lulav] even if only a [small] part of this middle leaf is split. Though the halachah does not follow their opinion, it is desirable to respect it if possible.

12 If the spine is split from below this topmost leaf, i.e., from the point the leaves emerge and downward, [the lulav] is invalid.24 This applies if the two sides of the crack become separated to the extent that they appear as two entities, for then the fault is apparent, and it is obvious that [the lulav] is not perfect and complete.

13 A lulav normally grows in the following manner: After one leaf emerges from the spine, another emerges close by, at a distance of about two fingerbreadths. Similarly, many follow, one above the other, until the entire [lulav] is covered with leaves on both sides. If one side is entirely covered with leaves and the other side is bare, without leaves, [the lulav] is invalid, because it is not considered “beautiful.”²⁰

14 Similarly, if [a lulav] does not have many leaves above each other, but on either side one leaf emerges from near the base [of the lulav] and ascends until its tip, [the lulav] is invalid, for this, too, is not considered “beautiful.”²⁰

15 Similarly, [difficulties can arise] if [a lulav] has many leaves, but they do not [lie] on top of each other; [the base of] one leaf is so much lower [on the spine] than [the base of] the leaf above it that the [outer] leaf does not lie at all on the leaf [that should be covered by it].25 If the tip of the leaf [that is lower on the spine] reaches the base of the leaf that is higher than it and thus the entire spine of the lulav is covered with leaves, [the lulav] is valid. [See fig. 21.] If the tip of the [lower] leaf does not reach the base of the leaf [above it], [the lulav] is invalid,¹⁴ for this is not considered “beautiful.” [See fig. 22.]

16 When the majority of the spine of a lulav or most of its leaves become dried out, [the lulav] is invalid, because it is not considered “beautiful.”¹⁴

What degree of dryness invalidates a lulav? Some authorities hold [that it must become so dry that] it crumbles when fingered by one’s nail. Others hold that once [the lulav] entirely loses its greenish color and becomes white, it is considered as dried out even if it will not crumble when touched with a nail, for this is a sign that all of its [natural] moisture has been drained.

The halachah follows the latter opinion. Nevertheless, in a pressing situation — such as in these countries, where palm fronds are not common — one may rely on the first opinion (if it is impossible to find another lulav;26 see the gloss of Beis Yosef to sec. 649).27

17 If the tip [of the lulav] has been clipped off, [the lulav] is invalid,¹⁴ for it is not considered “beautiful.”

What is meant by its tip? The tallest, middle leaf, which is higher than all the other leaves. If even the smallest amount of this leaf is clipped off, [the lulav] is invalid.

Some authorities maintain that [a lulav] is not disqualified unless most of the length of this tallest leaf has been cut off. One should be stringent and follow the first opinion, but in a pressing situation, when no other lulav can be found, one may rely on the latter opinion, and use such a lulav, reciting a blessing over it, even though less than half of its tallest leaf has been cut off. If, however, the majority of this leaf has been cut off, a blessing should not be recited over such [a lulav], even in a pressing situation. [The only exception] is a place where it is customary to recite a blessing [over the Four Species] even though they are entirely invalid even in a pressing situation, as will be explained in sec. 649[:22-23].28

18 [A lulav] is invalid if it has thorn-like projections emerging from its spine,29 or if it is contracted or shrunk,¹³ or if it is bent over frontward, i.e., the side opposite the spine is bent over until the spine appears like a hunchback30 — for [such lulavim] are not considered “beautiful.” Similarly, [a lulav] is invalid if it is bent over to either side.

19 If [the lulav] is bent back, so that the middle of the spine bends inward, it is valid, for this is the way it grows and is considered “beautiful.”³⁰

When does the above apply? When the middle of the spine is bent over. If, however, the top [of the spine] is bent over like a bullrush31 whose head is bent over and bowed downward, [the lulav] is invalid.32 [This applies] whether it is bent forward or backward, for this is not considered “beautiful.”

20 The above [disqualifications] apply when the spine itself is bent over. If, however, only the leaves are bent over — even if the topmost, middle leaf is also bent over — [the lulav] is valid, for this is the way many lulavim grow, with their leaves bent over.

Some authorities disqualify a lulav if the tops of most of its leaves are even slightly bent over. One should be stringent and follow their ruling.33 In a pressing situation when another lulav cannot be found, one may rely on the first opinion and recite a blessing on such a lulav, even if all its leaves are bent over.

Similarly, from the second day of the festival onward, when the obligation to take a lulav in hand34 is not of Scriptural authority, but is a Rabbinic ordinance,35 one may be lenient and follow the first opinion if another lulav cannot readily be found, as stated in sec. 646[:10].

21 The above applies when only the tops of the leaves were bent over and the major part of the leaves remained unbent. If, however, the body of the leaves is so bent over towards the middle that it appears that [they are] bent in half, [the lulav] is invalid, for this is not at all “beautiful.”