Page 396 - Chayei Adam LAYOUT sivan 5782

Chayei Adam - K’lal 149 - Pesulim of Daled Minim & Pesulim of the Lulav

mitzva. It is a preferred mitzva to use [a lulav whose leaves are] still close to the
44
spine. Nevertheless, even if they separated slightly, since they go up with the
spine, it is still called bound and is kosher. [Furthermore] there is no need to bind
it together so that its leaves lie on the spine. That which an ‘ufta’ or ‘charusa’ is
not valid, is an intrinsic invalidity and is not called a lulav. 45

[ 9 ] The way the leaves of the lulav grow is two on either side of the spine, and
each leaf is comprised of two blades which are attached on their backs but open
on the front side. The back of each leaf is called the teyomes, and if the teyomes
of most of its leaves are split [it is posul]. [This is so] even if not split completely
46
from its back but even if most of the leaves are split most of the way, this is
47
what [the gemara means when it says] if the leaves were ‘nifretzu’ meaning that
the leaves were split. If so, it is as if they don’t exist and [as if] the lulav has no
leaves which is an ‘ufta’ which is intrinsically not valid for all seven days. 48

] 10 [ The way the lulav grows is that at the top of its spine where it ends, it
grows two or three leaves which are also double bladed and attached at their
backs. If the middle leaf is split, if it ends in three leaves, or if one is split if it ends
in two leaves, and it is split down until the spine, this is included in a split teyomes

םדו רשב

44. The mishna (Succah 29b) teaches that connected a little bit. (Ritz Gei’os, and possibly
אל
if a lulav’s leaves were “nifretzu”, it is posul. the Rambam ). Yet, the Shulchan Aruch
The rishonim debate the definition of nifretzu: simply defines nifretzu as leaves which droop
According to some, this refers to leaves which downwards and have hardened so they won’t
were completely detached. (Rashi, S’mag, lay up against the lulav again.
Rabeinu Chananel) Tosfos questions this The same mishna teaches us that if a lulav’s
definition and explains that nifretzu refers to a leave were only “nifradu”, it is kosher. This is
lulav whose leaves were split, meaning that indeed the halacha, and the Shulchan Aruch
the two blades which make up each leaf, split rules that although the leaves have spread
from each other. Others understand that away from the lulav’s spine, it is kosher. Even
leaves became semi-detached but are still so, the Magid Mishna writes that there it is

396