Torah Community Connections

Week 34 - Friday - 21 July 2000

SUKKAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 3

A stolen or withered willow twig is invalid; of an Asherah or of a condemned city is invalid. If the tip was broken off or its leaves severed or if it was a mountain willow, it is invalid. If it was shriveled or some of its leaves had fallen off or was from a field, it is valid.

Kehati

The character of the willow twig is here discussed. It distinguishing marks are narrow, elongated leaves, a smooth edge (i.e., the edge of the leaf is smooth and not serrated or jagged) and a reddish stem.

A stolen or withered willow twig is invalid; Of an Asherah or of a condemned city is invalid - both as explained in the case of Lulav (mishnah 1).

If the tip - of the willow twig - was broken off or its leaves severed - i.e., shed, according to one view; split, according to another,

And the mountain willow - marked by round serrated leaves and a white stem, these - are invalid - the Gemara mentions another type of willow, its leaves elongated, its stem red, but the edges, instead of being smooth are serrated. This kind, too, is valid (Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav, 6:4).

If it was shriveled Or some of its leaves had fallen off - as long as the majority were still intact

Or was from a field - which does not draw moisture from a brook but is rain-irrigated - is valid. The Scriptural expression "willows of the brook" does not specify only such as grow by streams of water, but merely the type of willow that usually grows near a stream. Thus all willows possessing the distinguishing marks mentioned above are valid irrespective of where they grow, the Torah merely indicating that they are generally found by a "brook".

SUKKAH: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 4

R. Yishmael says: One is required to take three myrtle twigs, two willows, one Lulav and one Etrog. Even if two are nipped and one not nipped. R. Tarfon says: Even if all three are nipped. R. Akiva says: Just as a single Lulav and single Etrog so, too, only a single myrtle and a single willow.

Kehati

R. Yishmael says: One is required to take three myrtle twigs, two willows, one Lulav and one Etrog - the reason for the quantities is given in the Gemara: (a) The threefold Biblical designation of the myrtle as anaf etz avot signifies that three twigs are required. (b) Referring to "willows of the brook" Arvei Nahal the Torah uses the plural form: the minimum plural being "two", a pair of willow twigs is mandatory. (c) The word kapot, signifying palm fronds is written defectively, i.e., without a vav, and so can read kapat, singular, hence one Lulav (d) The Etrog appears in the singular throughout the Torah, hence one alone is required. (See Tosefot Yom Tov).

Even if two are nipped and one is not nipped - this refers to the myrtle twigs. It is not necessary for all three to be intact; even if two have their tips broken off or clipped, and only one remains whole, the requirement is fulfilled.

R. Tarfon says: Even if all three are nipped - they are valid. According to R. Tarfon, the need to be Hadar does not apply to the myrtle twigs (Rashi).

R. Akiva says: Just as a single Lulav and a single Etrog - only are necessary - so, too, only a single myrtle and a single willow. According to the Gemara the opinion of R. Tarfon is accepted, even though a mishnah (above, 2) presented anonymously (and so, apparently, normative - Tr.) declares a myrtle having its tip broken off invalid, this is not accepted as the ruling of the Halakhah, the view of R. Tarfon being upheld, that even where all the three tips are broken off, the myrtles are still valid (Bartenura; Alfasi; Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 8:5).

NOTE: (a) R. Abraham B. David (Ravad) objected to Rambam's ruling that where the tips of all three myrtle twigs are severed, they are still valid, in the following terms: "the Spirit of Holiness had appeared in our Bet Midrash many years ago and we reached the conclusion that his is invalid, in accordance with our "anonymous" mishnah. As for R. Tarfon's remark: 'Even if all three are broken off, it is valid,' this refers to something else, and not to tips being broken off. All is clearly stated in our writings. And Heaven has vouchsafed me space within which to clarify."

Our Mishnah is elucidated by Ravad, as quoted by Hameiri, thus: "The ordinary central branch of the myrtle which is the stem (trunk) and the substance of the myrtle, has small twigs growing out about it. R. Yishmael holds that at least the stem of one branch must be complete with the smaller twigs that grow from it. The other two are valid even if they have no central stems but consist of the smaller twigs that have been cut from the central stem. So, too, the central stem itself is valid, even if the smaller stem with all its twigs and covering leaves. R. Tarfon believes that even if all three consist of twigs cut from the central stem(s), or all three are stems but have had their twigs severed, the Hadassim are nevertheless valid." (b) The Gemara questions R. Yishmael's view that where two Hadassim are clipped and one whole, it is valid. Does he consider a clipped myrtle branch invalid? - In that event all three should be intact, since he states that three are required. If on the other hand, he considers a clipped myrtle valid - then even if all three are clipped, they should be valid in agreement with R. Tarfon. The Gemara, therefore, concludes that R. Yishmael subsequently retracted his statement that three branches are requisite, regarding the commandment fulfilled even when two are clipped. The latter could be left out altogether since clipped myrtles are regarded as halakhically non-existent. However, R. Yishmael might require three myrtle twigs in order to enhance the ritual (hidur mitzvah), but since they are not a necessary condition for the fulfillment of the mitzvah, it is permissible to use two clipped twigs (R. Nissim). (c) Ramban explains why a clipped myrtle, in contrast to the other species, is nevertheless valid. Since this is an Avot tree, i.e., "thick" with leaves, the missing tip is not so noticeable as in the case of the other species. (d) R. Nissim explains that R. Akiva's view that one myrtle twig is sufficient stipulates that the twig be whole and not nipped. R. Akiva, then, would agree with the latter view of R. Yishmael. The two Tannaim, however, differ on the question of how many one should endeavour to take at the outset. R. Yishmael requires three, to enhance the performance of the mitzvah, whereas R. Akiva holds, that even at the outset, one is sufficient.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives