Question: May you fulfill your mitzvah of daled minim with a dry lulav?
Short Answer: A dry lulav is pasul, even b’dieved. There is a dispute as to why a dry lulav is pasul. Nevertheless, we allow a dry lulav bish’as ha’d’chak.
Explanation
I. The Source
The Mishnah (Sukkah 29b) writes that a dry lulav is pasul for the mitzvah of daled minim, even b’dieved. The Gemara (Sukkah 31a) cites the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, who disagrees with the Chachamim and holds that a dry lulav is kosher. Rava explains the machlokes as follows: The Chachamim connect lulav to esrog (through a hekeish), thereby requiring hadur by lulav just like by esrog. Rabbi Yehudah does not make this hekeish and therefore only an esrog requires hadur. The Gemara notes, though, that even the Chachamim appear to permit a dry lulav in sh’as ha’d’chak situations.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 645:5) codifies the Chachamim’s opinion, ruling that a dry lulav is pasul. The Shulchan Aruch and the Rama further elaborate on what makes a lulav dry: mainly when most of the leaves or spine turn white or get so hard that they crack when touching it with your fingernail.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 649:6) also rules that in sh’as ha’d’chak situations, such as where there is no kosher set of daled minim, one should “take” the pasul daled minim but without making a brachah. The Rama (ibid.) adds that for a sh’as ha’d’chak situation, when you only have a dry lulav, you may even make a brachah on it. This is the opinion of the Rambam.
II. Why Pasul
Two different reasons are given for why a dry lulav is pasul according to the Chachamim.
Rashi (ibid.) writes that a dry lulav is pasul because it is not a “mitzvah mehuderes,” as required by the pasuk “Zeh Keili v’anveihu” (ZKV). Tosafos, however, challenges this reason based on two sources in the Gemara. First, the Gemara mentioned above (Sukkah 31a), which connects lulav to esrog, which requires hadur. Second, the Gemara (Sukkah 11b) states that there is a mitzvah to bind the daled minim together because of ZKV. However, the Gemara writes that b’dieved if you do not bind them, you are yotzei the mitzvah. Clearly, ZKV does not pasel a mitzvah completely – only l’chatchilah. Accordingly, Tosafos says that a dry lulav is pasul, even b’dieved, because lulav is connected (through a hekeish) to esrog, which requires hadur.
III. Answers for Rashi
Tosafos’ questions on Rashi appear pretty strong. How would Rashi answer?
The sefer Kapos T’marim (Sukkah 29b) writes that really Rashi agrees with Tosafos’ reason: that a dry lulav is pasul because of the hekeish between lulav and esrog in the pasuk. However, Rashi cites ZKV to explain how we know to even make this hekeish. Indeed, the words are “anaf eitz avos kapos t’marim,” without a connecting vav at the beginning of the word “kapos.” If not for ZKV, there would be no basis to make the hekeish.
The Aruch LaNeir answers similarly to the Kapos T’marim, but with a bit of a twist. If not for ZKV, we would not have made the hekeish because a tree (i.e., the lulav) is generally not referred to as “beautiful.” ZKV tells us to make the hekeish and that just as an esrog must be hadur, so, too, the lulav.
The Netziv (M’romei Sadeh, Sukkah 29b) answers that Rashi is only referring to the reason why a dry lulav is pasul from the second day and on. Rashi agrees that the hekeish pasels the dry lulav on the first day, but that we need a different reason for the other days of Sukkos. ZKV provides the reason: especially because the whole enactment of shaking daled minim on the other days of Sukkos is zeicher laMikdash. Accordingly, ZKV pasels a dry lulav even b’dieved on these days because we would not have taken such a lulav in the Mikdash.
The Igros Moshe (Orach Chayim 1:187) answers that Rashi chooses ZKV to explain what the p’sul of hadar means in the pasuk. Hadar is not a p’sul that tells us that a dry esrog is not an esrog, but rather that the esrog must be hadur, like ZKV. This p’sul, by esrog (and lulav, by extension through the hekeish), is even b’dieved, as it is based on the word hadar in the pasuk. Rav Moshe elaborates that there is a major ramification whether a dry esrog/lulav is pasul because they are no longer an esrog/lulav or because they lack ZKV. If they are no longer an esrog/lulav, they may not even be used in sh’as ha’d’chak. But if the p’sul is from ZKV, then if there are no other beautiful esrogim or lulavim around, these dry ones may be used.
IV. Rav Soloveitchik’s Answer
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik zt”l (cited in the new Batei Yosef, Yamim Noraim, pp. 162-164), answers for Rashi based on the Gemara (Gittin 20a). The Gemara in Gittin details a case where a sofer is supposed to write Hashem’s name in a sefer Torah, but instead intends to write “Yehudah.” However, he accidentally forgets the daled in Yehudah and ends up writing Hashem’s name. Rabbi Yehudah allows the sofer to simply color over the letters – this time having the proper intent. The Chachamim disagree, as coloring over the original name of Hashem does not cure the lack of intent because this writing is not ZKV.
Rav Soloveitchik notes that according to the Chachamim, ZKV is a p’sul even b’dieved by Hashem’s name. In other words, there are some times where ZKV does not mean simply that the mitzvah must be beautiful, but that the mitzvah is deficient (like a baal mum) without ZKV. In the latter cases, ZKV is pasul even b’dieved. Explains Rav Soloveitchik, Rashi holds that a dry lulav is deficient in the mitzvah and thus is pasul even b’dieved because of ZKV. The Gemara (Sukkah 31a), which explains that a dry lulav is pasul because of hadar, is simply saying that the lack of beauty pasels the lulav, but the true source is ZKV, and it is pasul even b’dieved.
How should we determine which mitzvos are pasul even b’dieved because of ZKV? Rav Soloveitchik suggests that perhaps ZKV only pasels b’dieved things that involve the name of Hashem, such as the Gemara in Gittin. The chidush of Rashi is that even a dry lulav is a violation of Hashem’s name. How? As Rashi (Sukkah 36b, s.v. ela l’Rav) explains, the need for a beautiful daled minim stems from the fact that you will be mentioning Hashem’s name over them. Indeed, we say “Osiyos shimcha ha’meyuchad tikrav echad el echad…” in the Y’hi Ratzon before taking the lulav, further highlighting that the four minim correspond to the four letters in Hashem’s name.
Rav Soloveitchik continues that we further see Hashem’s name in the daled minim based on the Rambam (Hilchos Lulav 7:9-10), who cites the requirement to shake the lulav during Hallel as part of the main requirement of lulav. This implies that praising Hashem’s name (i.e., Hallel) is integral to mitzvas lulav.
A further proof is found in the Raavad, who cites the Yerushalmi and provides a novel reason for holding that a dry lulav is pasul. The Yerushalmi writes “Lo ha’meisim y’halelu Kah” – that the “dead” cannot praise Hashem any longer. In other words, a dry – i.e., dead – lulav is unfit to be used in this mitzvah to praise Hashem. Similarly, the Ritva writes that the lulav serves to be m’ratzeh (atone) for the B’nei Yisrael’s sins, highlighting the connection between lulav and Hashem.
Accordingly, Rashi cites ZKV, as this reason applies to mitzvos like lulav, which are connected to Hashem’s name, and thus the lack of beauty in a dry lulav renders it pasul even b’dieved.
Rabbi Ephraim Glatt, Esq. is the Associate Rabbi at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills, and he is a Partner at McGrail & Bensinger LLP, specializing in commercial litigation. Questions? Comments? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
