"The Bough of a Thick-Leaved Tree"
Gemara Sukka
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Lecture
19: "THe BOugh of a thick-leaved TRee"
By Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein
"And you shall take for
yourselves on the first day the fruit of the hadar tree, branches of palm trees,
and the bough of a thick-leaved ("avot") tree, and willows of the
brook; and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. (Vayikra
23:40)
"Branches of palm trees"
mentioned in the Torah refers to branches of the date-palm before their leaves
have spread out, that is, when they still have the form of a scepter – what we
call a lulav. "The fruit of the hadar tree" mentioned in the Torah refers
to the etrog. "The bough of a thick-leaved tree" mentioned in the Torah
refers to the hadas (myrtle), whose leaves cover its stem, and grow in
clusters of three or more leaves from the same point on the stem. But if only
two leaves grow from the same point on the stem, the third being slightly
higher, it is not "avot," and is called a "hadas shote." "Willows
of the brook" mentioned in the Torah does not include all plants growing along a
brook, but rather refers to a specific species – "willow of the brook," whose
leaves are long and smooth-edged, and whose stem is red – what we call an
arava. This plant is called "willow of the brook," because it usually
grows along a brook, but even if it grew in the desert or on a mountain it is
still fit for the mitzva (Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav
7:1-3).
These definitions, with which the Rambam opens Hilkhot Lulav, are
familiar to every schoolchild. There is, however, what to examine here, inasmuch
as the Torah does not refer to all four species in the same manner. Whereas the
lulav and arava are referred to by their names, the species being
explicitly mentioned in the Torah, the etrog and the hadas are not
mentioned by name. The Torah merely offers a description of them, from which we
are supposed to understand which species to take. We must understand why
Scripture distinguishes between the various species, rather than dealing with
all four in the same manner.
This is especially
pertinent to the hadas, which is the only one of the plants (that is to
say, where we take the plant itself, and not its fruit, as in the case of the
etrog) that is not identified by name. Surely the three plants are bound
together and constitute a single unit within the context of the mitzva of
the four species, and yet the hadas stands out in that it is not
mentioned by name. It should also be noted that according to the Ramban,[1]
who says that "the fruit of the hadar tree" is indeed the Hebrew name of the
fruit, and the name etrog is merely the Aramaic translation of the word
"hadar" - the difficulty is even greater. For according to this,
the hadas is the only one of the four species that the Torah does not
refer to by name. It cannot be argued that "avot tree" is the name, and
not merely a description of the species. For the word hadas appears
several times in Scripture, and thus we see that it is not merely rabbinic
Hebrew, like the word etrog according to the Ramban, but rather biblical
Hebrew.[2]
In this shiur we will focus on the hadas. We will not
discuss the etrog which requires a separate
discussion.
II. ii.
the number of Hadasim and the law of a Hadas Whose head was cut
off
The Ramban writes (in the two places cited in note
1):
"The 'hadar'
mentioned in the Torah with respect to the etrog is like the
'avot' mentioned with respect to the hadas and the 'kapot'
mentioned with respect to the lulav – all are called by the names of
their species.
The Ramban appears to disagree with our assumption; according to him, the
Torah does indeed mention the species of the hadas. It seems, however,
that this very point – whether the Torah refers to the hadas by the name
of its species or it merely describes its qualities – is the subject of dispute
and constitutes the key to understanding the talmudic
discussion.
THE THREE-WAY TANNAITIC DISPUTE AND THE DIFFICULTY REGARDING ITS LOCATION
We learn at the beginning of chapter Lulav
ha-Gazul:
A hadas that is
stolen or dry is unfit. [If it is] from an ashera or a condemned city, it
is unfit. [If its] head was cut off, or its leaves separated or its berries were
more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit; but if he reduced them, it is
fit.
In and of itself, there is nothing new in this Mishna; it fits in well
among the four Mishnayot that open chapter Lulav ha-Gazul and
repeat the same details [stolen, dry, ashera, condemned city, cut-off
head, and the like) with respect to each of the four species.[3]
However, the fifth Mishna in the chapter (34b) presents us with a serious
difficulty. There we learn:
Rabbi Yishmael says:
Three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog,
even if two are cut off and one is not cut off. Rabbi Tarfon says: Even if the
three of them are cut off. Rabbi Akiva says: Just as there is one lulav
and one etrog, so too there is one hadas and one
arava.
Now, besides the contradiction between this Mishna and the previous
Mishna regarding a hadas who head is cut off, which occupied the major
Rishonim, as we shall see below, there is an even greater difficulty in
the Mishna. Whether we agree with the Rif, the Rambam and the Ramban, that the
two Mishnayot disagree regarding a hadas with a cut-off head, or we adopt
the view of the Ra'avad and the Ba'al ha-Ma'or, that there are two kinds
of cut-off heads, we do not understand why Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi did not bring
this dispute (or view) in the first Mishna. Surely the first Mishna deals with
the disqualifications of the hadas, and with the matter of a cut-off
hadas in particular. If Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Yishmael indeed disagree
with this Mishna (or add a distinction regarding a cut-off head), the place
where their dissenting opinions should have been recorded is in the Mishna which
lists the disqualifications of a hadas, adjacent to the view of the
anonymous first Tanna.
Moreover, not only is
there no logic in pushing them off to some other place, but in the place where
they were inserted, they disturb and interrupt the continuity of the Mishna. The
theme of the later Mishna, which follows the disqualifications of the four
species, is the number of each species that must be taken, and on this point the
Tannaim disagree. However, in the course of the presentation of the
disagreement between R. Tarfon and R. Yishmael, on the one hand, and R. Akiva,
on the other, the discussion of cut-off hadasim is inserted into the
Mishna, creating an interruption in the middle of the dispute. Consider this:
were we to separate the various components that make up these two Mishnayot, and
ask a child to put them back together again, he would certainly join the two
discussions of cut-off hadasim and then combine the various opinions
about the number of each species into one uninterrupted continuum. If the
child's rearrangement is not convincing, who is greater than the Rambam, who
acted in this very manner. The matter of the numbers he recorded in Hilkhot
Lulav 7:7, whereas the matter of the cut-off hadasim he pushed off to
a later chapter (8:5), where he discusses the disqualifications of all the
species. And he did this in spite of the fact that in both places he ruled in
accordance with the view of Rabbi Tarfon that is taught in a single stroke in
the Mishna.
What emerges from all this is that there are two difficulties with the
arrangement of Mishna 5: 1) Why isn't the disagreement regarding cut-off
hadasim brought in the expected place earlier in the chapter? 2) Why does
the Mishna interrupt between like matters with the dispute between Rabbi Akiva
and the other Tannaim?
The
Mitzva of Hadas – is it fulfilled through the species of hadas
or any species that is "Avot"?
It seems that there is
one answer to the two questions, and that there is a close and substantive
connection between the two disputes. There is no interruption in the Mishna, but
rather one successive continuum, for the very allowance of a cut-off
hadas depends on the number of hadasim that are required, and it
also attests to the very essence of the hadas, according to the opinion
that there must be three hadasim. Thus, Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi does not
interrupt the continuity of the Mishnayot; there is no interruption whatsoever,
for the two disagreements are interdependent.
These two questions reveal to us whether the "bough of the thick-leaved
tree" is the name of the species, as argued by the Ramban, or rather a
description of the plant.
As we noted above, the
plain sense of the text is that "the bough of the thick-leaved tree" is
not the name of the species, but a description of the required plant, and the
hadas is the plant that fits this description. In truth, it may be argued
that fundamentally speaking, we do not need the hadas, but rather any
thick-leaved plant fulfills the requirements of the mitzva, as is implied
by the talmudic passage on p. 32b, which examines the possibility of allowing
other plants as "the bough of the thick-leaved tree," and only rejected this
possibility because those other plants do not fully fill all the requirements of
"avot":
Our Rabbis have taught:
"The bough of the thick-leaved tree" – whose leaves cover its stems. And which
is that? Say the hadas. – But say the olive-tree! – "avot" is
required, and this is lacking. - But say the plane-tree! - We require that its
leaves cover its stem, and this is lacking. – But say the hirduf tree! –
Abaye said: "Its ways are ways of pleasantness," and this is lacking. Rava said:
From here: "Therefore love the truth and peace."
The Ramban will argue that these characteristics merely resolve the
uncertainty and prove that this is the species that the Torah had in mind when
it said, "the bough of the thick-leaved tree." But according to the simple
understanding of the passage, the possibility indeed exists that other
thick-leaved species are fit for the fulfillment of the mitzva, as was
understood by the Tosafot (33a, s.v. ve-eima). Consider this: It
was only with respect to the etrog and the hadas that the Gemara
considered the possibility of taking other and/or additional species; it did not
do this with respect to the arava or the lulav, but rather it
understood as self-evident that a particular species is required. The reason for
this is simple: it is not that the names of these two species (lulav and
arava) are better known, whereas the designations of the hadas and
the etrog are more unclear and require clarification; but rather, it is
that here the Torah offered a description and not a name, and anything that fits
the description should be fit for the mitzva. This is especially true
about the hadas, because the Torah could have used the name, but failed
to do so. Thus the use of the expression, "the bough of the thick-leaved tree,"
was not a linguistic necessity, but rather a conscious choice of a description
over the name.
This is what underlies the Tannaitic dispute regarding the number of
hadasim, and the details of the laws about which they disagree revolve
around this issue. If "the bough of a thick-leaved tree" is a description, then
the Torah is not demanding the hadas plant in particular, but rather any
thick-leaved plant that expresses the abundance of the plant kingdom. We are not
interested in the symbolic value or any other element of the particular plant,
but only in giving expression to the abundance that is found in the plant world
in general and finds particular expression in the thick growth of the
hadas leaves. Therefore, the Gemara considered the possibility that other
plants as well, e.g., the olive-tree or the plane-tree, might qualify in
addition to the hadas (and not in its place, for the fulfillment of the
mitzva depends on the plant as a plant, and not in the particular
species).
Now, it is stated there in the Gemara with respect to the Egyptian
hadas (that grows with clusters of seven leaves):
Abaye said: This implies
that the Egyptian hadas is fit for the mitzva. – This is obvious!
– You might have said that since it has a qualifying name, it is not fit.
Therefore it teaches you [that it is fit]. – And say thus [that it is not fit]!
– The Torah said "a thick-leaved tree" – any one.
It might be understood that this is the novelty of this law. The Egyptian
hadas has a qualifying name, and therefore it is not regarded as the same
species as an ordinary hadas. Nevertheless, it is fit for the
mitzva, because it too is thick-leaved, and we do not require a
particular type of hadas. And this is what the Gemara means when it asks:
"And say thus [that it is not fit] – i.e., that an Egyptian hadas is a
different species and therefore unfit. And the Gemara answers that there is no
requirement of the species of hadas, but of a thick-leaved tree, and the
Egyptian hadas is thick-leaved. This is what the Gemara means when it
says: "The Torah said 'a thick-leaved tree' – any one" – (it cannot mean
anything else, for there is no extraneous word or letter in the verse) – we do
not require the species of hadas, but rather any thick-leaved tree. We
see then that the two sides of our question are presented as the Gemara's
initial assumption and conclusion regarding the Egyptian hadas.[4]
See further in the Gemara:
Our Rabbis taught:
Resembling plaiting and similar to a chain – this is a hadas. Rabbi
Eliezer ben Ya'akov says: "The bough of a thick-leaved tree" – a tree whose
woody part and fruit are the same – this is a
hadas.
We see that the first Tanna sees the essence of the hadas in the
form of its leaves, whereas Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov focuses on a different
characteristic of the hadas. What we said about the significance of the
thickness of the hadas's foliage corresponds well to the position of the
first Tanna, but not to that of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
THe
dispute regarding the number of Hadasim
We can now say that this is the controversy regarding the number. If the
fulfillment of hadasim lies in the expression of the abundance and
vitality of the plant kingdom, then – so argue Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Tarfon –
this should find expression not only in the form of the plant, but also in its
number. Indeed, if we are interested in taking the plant in and of itself and
nothing more, then one should suffice, and a person should fulfill his
obligation with a single hadas just as he fulfills his obligation with a
single lulav and a single etrog, as argued by Rabbi Akiva. If,
however, the fulfillment of hadas is connected to the expression of the
abundance of the plant world, this should also be expressed in the taking of
three hadasim, in order to express this idea not only through the form of
the plant, but also through its number.
This being the case, it is no surprise to find that the Ramban, proponent
of the view that "thick-leaved tree" is the name of the species, writes as
follows:
According to the plain
sense of Scripture, we are to take the fruit of the hadar tree, the branch of a
palm-tree, one bough of a thick-leaved tree, and one willow of the brook – one
of each species, for "the branches of palm-trees" is connected to "and you shall
take for yourselves," which is in the plural. For the law is in accordance with
Rabbi Akiva who says: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so
too there is one hadas and one arava. And therefore Onkelos
translated them all in the plural, connected to "and you shall take for
yourselves," which is in the plural. As for the reason for this mitzva,
the [Sages] said (Ta'anit 2b), homiletically, that these species come to
appease with respect to water. But according to the true path, "the fruit of the
hadar tree" is the fruit which stirs up the most delight, and through which the
first man sinned, as it is stated (Bereishit 3:6): "And when the woman
saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and
a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit, and did eat." Now
the sin was because of it alone, and we appease before Him with the other
species. And "the branch of the palm-tree" is …. And "the bough of the
thick-leaved tree alludes to the three sefirot in one branch, as it is
stated…. And "the willow of the brook…."
We see that the Ramban
is interested in the species of the hadas, because of its shape, and not
because of the abundance to which it alludes. He therefore rules in accordance
with Rabbi Akiva, that even a single hadas
suffices.
And see further in the
talmudic passage (34b):
It was taught: Rabbi
Yishmael says: The fruit of the hadar tree – one; the branch of the date-palm –
one; the bough of a thick-leaved tree – three; the willows of the brook –
two.
The Tosafot (ad loc.) raise the following objection:
Rashi explains: Anat
etz avot - anaf – one; etz – one; avot – one. But this is
difficult, for above (32b) we explained: Anaf etz – whose branches cover
its stem. And we also interpret: Etz avot – resembling a
plait.
And they leave the
matter unresolved – how to account for two derashot from the same verse.
The explanation, however, seems simple. We do not derive the requirement of
three hadasim from extra words – anaf etz avot, which brings us to
the difficulty how do we account for two derashot from the same verse.
Rather the three hadasim is derived from the plain meaning of the verse,
for if we need thick foliage, then we also require multiple branches, both of
which coming to express the idea of the abundance found in the plant world.
Thus, the number is not derived through a derasha, but rather it is
implicit in the very idea of anaf etz avot, and the verse may be used for
a different derasha.
THe
dispute regarding the law of a hadas whose head is
cut-off
What emerges from here
is that Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Tarfon disagree with Rabbi Akiva with respect
to the very essence of the mitzva of hadas, and not just about the
detail regarding the number. This also explains why this Mishna deals with
cut-off hadasim, for the disagreement on this issue also depends on this
question. If we require the species of hadas as hadas, and not as
a representative of the plant kingdom, and there is a special law regarding the
cheftza of the hadas, then there is room to disqualify a hadas
whose head was cut off, as is the case regarding the other species. Since we
maintain that regarding the four species, the essence and beauty of the species
is at its head and for this reason a blemish at its head disqualifies the
species, the same applies to the hadas. Therefore, the first Mishna
disqualifies a hadas whose head was cut off, as in the case of the other
species, and it does not distinguish between them. However, when the Tannaim
disagreed about the number in the second Mishna, and Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi
Tarfon introduced the novel idea that the mitzva is not interested in the
hadas itself, but in the abundance of the plant kingdom that is reflected
through it – both through its form and through its number – it is possible to
pronounce fit even a hadas whose head is cut off, for even such a
hadas reflects the abundance of the plant world, and we do not require
hadar of the species itself. Thus, Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Yishmael who
require three hadasim as reflections of the abundance of the plant world
regard cut-off hadasim as fit, whereas Rabbi Akiva, who is interested in
the species of hadas itself, does not require more than one, but
disqualifies a cut-off hadas.
What we see from all
this is that Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Yishmael disagree with the underlying
assumption of the first Mishna, and that the two disputes are really one, and
therefore the two positions are presented together. There is no interruption,
but rather two positions that strengthen and confirm one another. It is more
appropriate to bring them together and see the matter of cut-off hadasim
as another expression of the same idea, than to deal with the specific issue of
cut-off hadasim in the previous Mishna.
RABBI YISHMAEL'S POSITION
Now, Rabbi Yishmael's
position that two cut-off hadasim are fit, but one must be whole and not
cut-off, is difficult, for if a cut-off hadas is fit, all three should be
fit, and if it is unfit, then how is it possible to pronounce two cut-off
hadasim fit? This question was already raised by the Gemara, which is
left with no other alternative but to conclude that Rabbi Yishmael retracted his
position:
Either way – if he
requires whole [hadasim], they should all be whole; if he does not
require whole [hadasim], even one should not [be fit]. Bira'a said in the
name of Rabbi Ami: Rabbi Yishmael retracted [his
position].
The Yerushalmi, however, upholds Rabbi Yishmael's position in the
Mishna, and does not suggest that he retracted; this requires explanation. So
too, even if the Bavli is right that he retracted his view, we must still
understand his initial position.
Now, however, in light of what we have said above, Rabbi Yishmael's
position is quite clear. According to him, there are two aspects to the
mitzva of hadas, and we require both of them, both the specific
species and the abundance reflected in its thick foliage. Thus, we need three
hadasim to express the idea of abundance, but for this we can make do
with three cut-off hadasim. There is, however, an additional fulfillment
of hadas as a species, and for this the hadas must be whole, but
we do not need more than one. Thus, one that is not cut-off suffices for the
taking of the species, but two more are needed to fulfill the element of
"thick-leaves," though these can be cut-off and need not be whole. Thus, Rabbi
Yishmael maintains that we need two that may even be cut-off in order to fulfill
"avot," and another one that must be whole in order to fulfill the
species. In contrast, Rabbi Tarfon (and according to the Bavli, even
Rabbi Yishmael following his retraction), maintains that there is only the
fulfillment of abundance, and that not even one whole hadas is
required.
THe
view of the Ra'avad and Ba'al ha-Ma'or
It should be added that what we just said regarding the disagreement
regarding cut-off hadasim, was said according to the
For according to the
Ra'avad, the second Mishna discusses whether the entire plant must be whole,
"and not cut-off from the trunk, but rather the whole trunk with its branches,"
or whether we regard as fit even a branch that was cut off from the trunk, which
is only a part of the whole. We must understand why we should require a whole
plant, and not suffice with a branch. And furthermore, what does Rabbi Tarfon
teach us when he says that a cut-off hadas is fit, and what is the
position of Rabbi Yishmael (if he did not retract or prior to his retraction)
who requires a whole plant with respect to one of the hadasim, all these
laws being specific to the hadas. Already the Ramban sharply objected to
this understanding, stating: "This explanation is totally unreasonable, for if
so, why did any Sage declare as unfit that which is cut-off more so in the case
of the hadas than the other species. On the contrary, the hadas
should be fit according to all opinions, for regarding the hadas it
says "anaf" – branch."[5]
Indeed, his objection demands an answer.
It seems that we can explain the Ra'avad and the Ba'al ha-Ma'or
following the approach proposed above. Since the mitzva of hadas
is fulfilled not by the taking of the species of hadas, but by the
taking of a plant with thick foliage, we might have thought that one must take
the entire plant together with its trunk, and not just a branch cut off from the
plant. Therefore, Rabbi Tarfon said that despite the fact that he maintains that
the mitzva is to take a thick-leaved plant, practically speaking it
suffices to take a single branch, and there is no need to take the entire plant
or a branch growing directly out of the ground. On this matter, the hadas
is different from the lulav and the arava, and thus the
objection raised by the Ramban falls by the wayside. The Ramban himself could
not give this answer, for according to him, "anaf etz avot," is not a
description, but rather the name of the species, and thus there is no difference
between the hadas and the other species, and therefore he raised the
question why is hadas different than the other
species.
THE RAMBAM'S RULING
If what we said is correct that the number of hadasim attests to
the fact that the mitzva is fulfilled with abundant foliage, and not with
a particular species, we can easily explain the well-know position of the Rambam
(Hilkhot Lulav 7:7) regarding the number of each species and additions to
them:
How many does he take of
them? One lulav, one etrog, two arava branches, and three
hadas branches. If he wishes to add hadasim so that there be a
large bunch, he may add, and this is a beautification of the mitzva. But
as for the other species, one should not add to them, nor detract from them, and
if he added or subtracted, it is [not] fit.
The Rambam distinguishes between the hadas and the arava
regarding adding to the number, unlike many other Rishonim who allow
adding to both species. The commentators have already asked why is hadas
different from arava, and why is there a difference between them
regarding an addition? Surely the Mishna set a number to each of them, and made
no distinctions. According to our approach, however, there is no difficulty. The
fulfillment of arava is a fulfillment of taking a particular species, and
the reason for taking two aravot is a scriptural superfluity. Thus there
is a specific number of aravot that must be taken, and so one cannot add
or detract from the number of branches derived from the verse, but rather he
must take two and only two. Regarding hadas, on the other hand, there is
no law of a species, and the number of hadasim that must be taken is not
derived from the verse, but rather there is a fulfillment of taking abundant
foliage, both in the form of the leaves and the number of the branches.
Therefore, whoever adds is to be praised.
This is also the reason
that many Rishonim say that even a hadas shote is fit for adding,
and there is no problem of bal tosif because of the addition of a fifth
species, for the addition of the hadasim is done on the basis of the
assumption that there is no law of species, but rather one of abundant foliage,
and therefore even the hadas shote works (as will be explained at length
below).
See Maggid Mishne
who distinguishes between hadas and arava, arguing that the
hadas comes for beauty, as opposed to the arava (and it is
possible that the Rambam himself proposed this distinction[6]),
but this explanation still does not suffice, unless we accept what we said that
the arava is taken as a particular species, whereas the hadas is
taken not as a particular species for the sake of its beauty – for in that case
one should fulfill the mitzva with a single branch, and taking more
should involve a violation of the problem of bal tosif – but as an
expression of the principle that it represents, and the greater the expression,
the better the fulfillment of the mitzva. Therefore, even if the
Maggid Mishne's explanation of the fulfillment of the mitzva of
hadas differs in its details from our explanation, they both share this
principle (in any case, our understanding accounts for the position, even if it
differs from that of the Maggid Mishne).
[Despite the fact that the Rambam's view is well explained in this
manner, it is by no means certain that this indeed is his position. The wording
of Hilkhot Lulav 7:2 seems to incline – even if this is not absolutely
necessary – to the view that "anaf etz avot" is the name of the species,
rather than its description. This is also what seems to follow from his position
regarding a hadas whose leaves have fallen off, as is explained in the
continuation. On the other hand, the Rambam rules in accordance with Rabbi
Tarfon, both with respect to the number and the matter of cut-off hadasim.
Thus, we come here only to explain the position, and not to argue that this
indeed is the Rambam's view on the matter.]
III.
Now, if we return to the
question with which we opened our discussion, why did the Torah describe the
hadas, rather than refer to it by its name, the answer is – according to
Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Yishmael – that the essence of the fulfillment of the
mitzva of hadas lies in the taking of a thick-leaved plant and not
in the taking of the species of hadas. Thus, the verse is not making an
indirect reference to the hadas, but rather it is stating that the
mitzva is fulfilled through the taking of a thick-leaved
plant.
In light of this, we must discuss the disagreement among the
Rishonim regarding a hadas whose leaves have fallen off. Logic
dictates that there should be more room to say that the hadas remains fit
even if its leaves have fallen off if the mitzva is take the species of
hadas, for even after the leaves have fallen off, it still remains the
same species, even if this is not evident from its appearance. But if the
mitzva is to take a thick-leaved plant, after the leaves have fallen off,
it is no longer a thick-leaved plant, and should be unfit for the mitzva.
See Rambam (Hilkhot Lulav (8:8) who states: "If most of its leaves
have fallen off, but three leaves remain in one cluster, it is fit," for it is
still the species of hadas. The Ra'avad, however, says: "If its leaves
have separated, it is unfit. Avraham says: Most of its leaves, for we require
that on the majority of its length that its thick foliage remain." That is to
say, there is no fulfillment of "avot," even if it is the correct
species.[7]
See also Ritva (32b,
s.v. tanu rabbanan: nashru), who records a view that disqualifies the
hadas even if only a single leaf has fallen off, because "we require that
it be 'avot' in its entirety," and the response of the Re'a that
there are two laws – a definition of the species and a law of "avot";
regarding the definition of the species, the entire length must be
"avot", and if it is not entirely "avot", it is not the correct
species; but if leaves have fallen off, it is still the correct species, but we
still need "avot", but for this it need not be entirely "avot",
and it suffices if it is mostly "avot".
IV.
Hadas shote
Having said this, we must consider the issue of a hadas shote. The
Amoraim disagree about a hadas shote – where the three leaves do not all
grow from the same point on the stem – whether or not it is unfit for the
mitzva. It is also not clear that according to the Gemara's conclusion a
hadas shote is unfit.[8] However, since the Gemara's conclusion
inclines toward disqualification, the Rishonim discuss whether it is
merely a disqualification, i.e., that one does not fulfill his obligation with
such a hadas, or perhaps it is not at all a hadas, but rather a
different species. There are three practical ramifications: 1) Is a hadas
shote disqualified all seven days of Sukkot or only on the first day;
2) May it be used in a time of great need? 3) Regarding the length of the
hadas, must it be entirely meshulash (three leaves growing from
the same point on the stem), or does it suffice if it is mostly
meshulash?
Now, it is clear as day
that if a hadas shote is not a hadas then it is unfit all seven
days, and even in a time of great need, and so too it is clear that if it is fit
on the other days or in a time of great need, then it must be regarded as a
disqualified hadas, which nevertheless bears the name of hadas.
The Ra'avad has already ruled (Chibbur ha-Lulav, p. 13) that
"'avot' and non-'avot' are different species, and 'avot'
is required on all days, for it is not required because of hadar, but
because of itself, as it is written: Etz avot, and that which is not
'avot' is a different species." The Ramban (Hasagot to Chibbur
ha-Lulav, p. 34) who agrees to this, even compared hadas shote
vis-a-vis a hadas to a tzaftzefa vis-a-vis an arava. So too
write the Meiri and the Ritva at the beginning of our chapter (29b on the
Mishna, in their discussions regarding disqualifications that apply all seven
days of the festival). And the Maggid Mishne (7:2) said this with respect
to the measure of "avot" in a hadas that is meshulash: "And
I say that they are all precise, for whatever is not 'avot' is like a
separate species, and the measurement is lacking." However, the Rema rules that
in a time of great need, one can fulfill his obligation with a hadas
shote, and thus we must say that he disagreed with these
Rishonim.
These questions should be connected to what we said above. If
"avot" is the identifying mark of the species of hadas, then a
hadas shote should be unfit, and it is even reasonable, though not
absolutely necessary, that the Torah views a hadas shote as an
entirely different species, as argued by some Rishonim. If, however, the
law is that there is no specific species and that the fulfillment of the
mitzva rests on "avot," then clearly there is no disqualification
of species, but only a lack of "avot," in which case it is not at all
clear that one may not take a hadas shote, for it too is essentially
"avot," i.e., thick-leaved. Therefore, there are opinions in the Gemara
that declare hadas shote absolutely fit. For according to them, it is
"avot," and that suffices. In any event, it is very reasonable to say
that in times of great need or after the first day, one may fulfill the
mitzva with the lower level of "avot" found in a hadas
shote, as argued by the Rema.
In light of this, we can explain the additional argument of the Rema,
which justifies the prevalent use of hadas shote in the countries of
northern
And there are those who
write that our hadasim are not called hadas shote, since they are
two above two, and thus they are not like the hadas shote mentioned in
the Gemara, and therefore it is customary to be lenient. (Orach Chayyim
646:3)
The Acharonim had difficulty with this argument, as the Mishna
Berura (ad loc.) attests:
See Be'urei ha-Gra
and the other Acharonim, all of whom questioned this custom, which
has no foundation, not with two and one, and not with two on two. The Rema
forced the issue only in order to uphold the custom. Therefore, one who fears
the word of God should exert himself to find proper "avot," namely three
leaves growing from the same point on the stem.
And in the Be'ur Halakha, he adds:
See Bikkurei
Ya'akov who objected to this, arguing that in any event it is not included
in the category of "avot" as stated in the Torah, for that is only with
clusters of three leaves. And see there where he proves that even those who are
lenient in times of great need, that is only with two and one. But regarding two
over two, there is nothing to rely upon…
It would seem that the Rema's critics are absolutely right, for the
hadas is not meshulash, and there is no way to regard a
hadas that only has clusters of two leaves as if it had clusters of three
leaves. For this reason the Bikkurei Ya'akov argues that a hadas
whose leaves are two and one is better than a hadas whose leaves are two
and two. For those who allow a hadas of two and one, e.g., Tosafot
32b, s.v. telata, say that such a hadas is fit because they regard
such a formation as meshulash. This cannot be said about a hadas
whose leaves grow in clusters of two. Thus, the words of the Rema require
clarification.
It seems, however, that all this is true only if we see the element of
meshulash as defining the species, and therefore we can declare fit only
that "anaf etz avot" that is meshulash (whether like Rashi or like
the Tosafot), and we cannot declare fit a hadas of two over two,
which does not belong to the species of "anaf etz avot." However, if the
entire fulfillment of hadas is only a fulfillment of "avot,"
and the law of meshulash
merely stems from the fact that we require thick foliage, then the words of
the Rema are very understandable. If clusters of three are regarded as
thick-leaved, the same applies to clusters of two, for there are four hadas
leaves creating the thick foliage required for "avot." For if three
suffice, then all the more so should four be regarded as fit, for in the end,
there are many leaves, and a hadas with clusters of two leaves is better
than a hadas with two and one, against the Bikkurei
Ya'akov.
I subsequently saw a
responsum of the Rema (no. 117), where all this is stated almost explicitly. He
was asked there why an etrog that is the product of grafting is unfit,
whereas a hadas that is the product of grafting is fit. And he
answered:
Because the grafted
etrog is not called an etrog, and it is not called the fruit of the hadar
tree. But a hadas the Torah made dependent on "avot." Thus, in the
case of an Egyptian hadas, where we see that it is "avot" – why
should we disqualify it?[9]
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] In his commentary to the
Torah on the aforementioned verse, and in his hasagot to the Ra'avad's
Chibbur ha-Lulav, s.v. aval akhshav (p. 31). All references to
Chibbur ha-Lulav, both to the words of the Ra'avad and to the
hasagot of the Ramban, are according to the edition of Rav
Kafih.
[2] Yeshayahu 41:19;
55:13; Zekharya 1:8-11; Nechemya 8:15. One could argue, however,
the word hadas is late Biblical Hebrew found only in the Prophets and the
Writings, but not in the Torah. But the verse in Nechamya demonstrates
that there is a linguistic distinction between anaf etz avot and
hadas, and that the difference lies not only in the different historical
strata of the language. In the absence of anything that forces us to distinguish
between these strata, it seems that the Torah preferred to use the expression
"anaf etz avot" rather than hadas, as will be explained. In any
event, the argument that "anaf etz avot" is descriptive, and not the name
of the species, does not depend upon the possibility of using the word
hadas, but on the decision to use a description, rather than a name,
whatever it might be.
[3] The Ramban (Chibbur
ha-Lulav, p. 48, s.v. inyan ha-pesulim) emphasizes this point of the
disqualifications shared by the various species, and even drew from it halakhic
conclusions.
[4] The Ramban will argue, of course, that
the Gemara is arguing that an Egyptian hadas is the same species as the
ordinary hadas, and the qualifying name does not turn it into a different
species. But it is difficult to understand how this is derived from "the bough
of a thick-leaved tree." See Tosafot (ad loc.), who understood the
Gemara's conclusion as we do, and regarded this understanding as so obvious that
they did not understand what the Gemara thought at first. It is clear, however,
that this matter is not so simple, and therefore the Gemara initially understood
that it was necessary to take a particular species in order to fulfill the
mitzva.
[5] This citation is taken from
the Milchamot (15b in Alfasi), in his response to the position of the
Ba'al ha-Ma'or, who adopted a position similar, but not identical to that
of the Ra'avad. His words in his hasagot to the Ra'avad's work are
similar in content, but more moderate in their
formulation.
[6] In the commentary of
Rabbenu Mano'ach (cited by Kesef Mishne), this explanation is
brought as a citation from a responsum of the Rambam, unlike the wording of the
responsum before us (ed. Blau, no. 313), where this point is
missing.
[7] In his Chibbur
ha-Lulav, the Ra'avad repeats this argument, but also draws a
comparison between the hadas and the lulav and arava
regarding fallen leaves and the like; see there (p. 21, s.v. od shaninu
be-mishnatenu, and p. 16 [top]).
[8] See Arukh
ha-Shulchan, Orach Chayyim 646:3.
[9] Of course, we are not
surprised to find that many Acharonim have disqualified a hadas
that is the product of a graft. See Sha'arei Teshuva 646, no. 4, and the
sources cited in Encyclopedia Talmudit on the matter (s.v. hadas,
vol. 8, p. 341).