Category: Uncategorized

Finding the Perfect Lulav – A Halachic Review

The search for a lulav can be challenging due to halachic requirements, particularly concerning the top leaf’s condition. The preferred closed lulav is favored among B’nei Torah, yet splits can disqualify it. Two main issues arise: the split tiyomes, where a middle leaf’s separation invalidates the lulav only if significant, and the himnik, a fork-shaped split seen as invalid even with minor separations if visually distinct. Opinions vary, but many authorities agree that a minimal split does not disqualify a lulav, promoting practical leniency.

The search for a lulav can be both exhilarating and overwhelming. The preferred “totally closed lulav,” which is a favorite of many B’nei Torah, is often difficult to find. To choose the right lulav, it is important to understand certain halachos. These principles explain why the top of the lulav should be closed.

There are two reasons to disqualify a lulav with top leaves that are split open. One is the p’sul of nichlekah hatiyomes (a split twin). The other is d’avid kehimnik (shaped like a fork). A closer look at poskim and how they understand these halachos can help you find a beautiful lulav.

Picture 1. Would the Mishna Berurah consider this lulav mehadrin min hamehadrin?
Picture 2. This is a close up view of the top leaf of the same lulav. It is clear that the two parts of the middle leaf are not totally connected. Could this lulav still be considered mehadrin min hamehadrin according to the Mishna Berurah?

The Problem of Nichlekah Hatiyomes (A Split Twin)

The Gemara (32a) states that if the tiyomes of the lulav is split, the lulav is pasul.

What exactly is the tiyomes? We commonly refer to the single middle leaf as the tiyomes. However, this really is a point of debate among Rishonim and poskim.

To understand this, we need some background on how a date palm branch grows. The leaves grow pressed close to the central spine, called the shidra (or rachis, botanically). Together, these leaves form the familiar lulav. If you look closely at each leaf, you’ll see that it is folded over on itself along its main vein, called the midrib. That is why you can easily tear a leaf in half to make rings for the lulav.

As the palm branch matures, the leaves open up and fan out away from the spine. The two halves of each leaf open, but they stay connected to each other along the midrib. The middle leaf, though, is unique. It isn’t connected by a midrib, but by a natural adhesive. This adhesive can wear off over time, causing the two halves of the middle leaf to spread apart.

This is why we commonly call the middle leaf the tiyomes—the “twin leaf”—because its “twinness” is special and different. If the adhesive wears away, the two halves separate.

Picture 3. This is a lulav growing at the top of a date palm tree. The lulav is already opening up into a date palm fan. The leaves of this lulav are still folded into each other and still mostly pressed near the spine. Once the opening process is finished, the leaves will spread out. They will open like the rest of the fans in the picture.

However, many Rishonim do not understand the term tiyomes in the Gemara to refer specifically to the middle leaf. They apply the term to all the leaves equally, since each consists of two twin halves folded over each other.

The Mechaber (645, 3) rules like those Rishonim. That results in a leniency about the disqualification of nechlika hatiyomes. When the Gemara says that if the tiyomes is split it is pasul, that means that most of the leaves of the lulav are ruptured along their midribs. As you imagine, this is an extremely rare occurrence and does not occur naturally. It only happens if someone intentionally splits and rips each leaf along its midrib. An example of this would be someone making a palm branch into a broom, as they did a long time ago. Therefore, almost all lulavim available would be kosher according to the Mechaber.

Picture 4. This is a close up of an open lulav which became a date palm fan. Notice how the two parts of each leaf are still connected together along their midribs, even though they completely moved away from the spine in the middle.

The Rama, based on the Ritva and the Ran, presents a more stringent view. He understands the tiyomes to be the special middle leaf. This opinion leads to our common practice of checking this leaf carefully.

The Rama (ibid.) states:

Some explain that if the uppermost middle leaf extending from the spine splits all the way down to the spine, it is called a split tiyomes and is invalid, and this is our custom.

Even based on the Rama’s more strict custom, an extremely high percentage of lulavim are still kosher. Even those with a middle-leaf split that merchants discard as only “good for lulav rings,” are still kosher because they are almost never split down to the shidra. A split so significant is very uncommon in the retail market.

Then the Rama further adds a stricter ideal, the mitzvah min hameuvchar:

Nevertheless, ideally, as the choicest fulfillment of the mitzvah, it is customary to take a lulav where the uppermost leaf is not split at all, because some are stringent even if it is split a bit.

Based on the words of this Rama, many knowledgeable consumers seek to fulfill this ideal custom by trying to find a lulav that is completely closed. They understand the Rama’s words at face value. He recommends a fully closed lulav for the mitzvah min hamuvchar, and that is what they shop for.

However, there are strong reasons to be more lenient than that. The Taz argues that when the Rishonim and Rama refer to a “split,” they do not mean any split literally. They only mean a split that is more than a tefach (approx. 3-4 inches) long. The Mishnah Berurah rules like the Taz, that a lulav that is open less than a tefach is still considered ideal. Although the Mishna Berurah (645, 19) quotes that the Chayei Adam argues that the lulav should be completely closed, he explicitly disagrees with the Chayei Adam’s view in his Biur Halacha (d.h. nisdak).

The Mishna Berurah does recommend going beyond this and using a completely closed lulav if it is readily available. According to the Mishna Berurah, one should not exert significant time or money to find a completely closed one. That would mean that the lulav above (Pictures 1 and 2) should still be considered mehadrin min hamehadrin according to the Mishna Berurah, even though it is slightly open, since the split is less than a tefach. Yet, considering that lulav to be mehadrin is not so simple, because of another possible issue.

The Problem of D’avid Kehimnik (A Fork-Shaped Split)

There is another reason to try to find a closed lulav: the concern of himnik. Unlike nichlekah hatiyomes of the middle leaf, which is a chumra based on a minority of Rishonim, this disqualification is held of by many opinions.

The Gemara (31b – 32a) states that a split lulav is kosher unless the split forms a himnik, or a fork shape.

The Mechaber and Rama (645, 7) elaborate on this ruling:

If it is split so that the two split pieces are distant from one another until they look like two, it is invalid… And this is true even if the upper tiyomes is not split in a way that would otherwise be an invalidating split.

Some later authorities, such as the Pri Megadim and Levushei Serad, emphasize that a himnik is invalid even if the split is small. This is quoted by the Mishnah Berurah (645, 32 and Biur Halacha ibid.). That has led some to believe that even the tiniest split renders a lulav pasul due to the concern of himnik. It would be another reason to look for a lulav that is totally closed. Anything that is open is potentially a himnik.

However, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (quoted in Halichos Shlomo, 645, and elaborated on by Rav Shlomo Zalman’s nephew, Rav Yechiel Michel Stern, in Kashrus Arbas Haminim p. 202)  ruled that the stringency discussed by the Levushei Serad and others is not about the width of the split, but about its length. The Mishna Berurah is not saying that any opening, however small, is already a concern of a himnik. The split is only problematic if it the two sides are away from each other a lot. Indeed, a minimal split is a problem, even if it is just at the very top of the lulav. Yet, this is only relevant if the two sides are truly distant from each other. If there is no significant distance, there is no problem of himnik, regardless of how long or short the split is. 

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is emphasizing that a careful reading of these authorities, including the Mishna Berurah, shows that their focus is just on the length of the split. They do not mean that a himnik exists at any width. This makes sense, because the term himnik refers to a tuning fork or an eating utensil. The Shulchan Aruch uses words like “distant” and “moved away from one another,” which highlight the width of the split. A himnik is a problem only if the two halves of the leaf are significantly separated, giving the distinct appearance of two prongs of a fork, even according to the Levushei Serad and Mishna Berurah.

In Rav Shlomo Zalman’s interpretation of the Levushei Serad and the Mishna Berurah, the lulav below, Picture 5 (same as the lulav above, Picture 5), is mehadrin min hamehadrin. The two leaflets are spread apart but are parallel to each other. They do not form a fork and they are not a himnik. Since the split goes down less than a tefach and the split is not fork shaped, the lulav is mehadrin min hamehadrin.

Picture 5. This is the same picture as picture 1 above. It is a mehadrin min hamehadrin “Mishna Berurah lulav” according to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.

Some contemporary authorities disagree with this reading of the Mishna Berurah and the Levushei Serad (such as Rav Moshe Heller, a noted Yerushalmi expert in arba minim a generation ago, quoted in a Kuntres in the back of Sefer Lekicha Tama by Rav Avraham Reit). They see the Mishna Berurah and Levushei Serad as declaring that any split, no matter how small the distance is between the two sides, potentially makes the lulav a himnik. That makes the search for a good lulav much harder. It means that any lulav that is open on top might be a himnik and would not be a “Mishna Berurah lulav.”

Yet, if this is the case, what is the point of the Mishna Berurah paskining like the Taz’s leniency that a split shorter than a tefach is not a problem? Even if the split is not a problem because of the first issue – that the leaflets do not adhere to each other – it should be a worse concern of himnik because the two leaflets look like a small fork.

The answer is that many lulavim lose their natural adhesive at the top, but the leaflets are still held together by the pressure of the surrounding leaves. The split cannot be noticed when the lulav is held normally or on a table. The top of the lulav is not considered a himnik because it does not usually look like a fork. You can only notice the lack of adhesive if you gently press the top of the lulav with your finger. Since the leaflets only become distant from each other when you exert pressure, there is no himnik. Even though the leaves lost their adhesive on top, the split is less than a tefach. Therefore, a lulav like that is still a wonderfully valid choice for the mitzvah.

Picture 6. The same lulav is depicted in both pictures. In the top picture, on the table, the lulav appears to be perfectly closed. Therefore, it is not a himnik, even according to the strictest interpretation of the words of the Levushei Serad and Mishna Berurah. When pressure is applied, as in the lower picture, it is clear that the tiyomes is not really completely closed. This would not be considered a himnik. In addition, even though the two leaflets are not completely adhered to each other, that area is less than a tefach, so the lulav is mehadrin min hamehadrin according to the Mishna Berurah.

In Closing (The Lulav)

When choosing a lulav, there are two main reasons to look for one with a closed top: to avoid a split tiyomes and to avoid a fork-shaped split (himnik).

  • The Split Tiyomes: The Shulchan Aruch only invalidates a lulav if most of its leaves are split, which is rare. The Rama notes the Ashkenazic custom to be stringent even if only the middle leaf has a significant split and recommends striving for a lulav with no split at all. However, the Taz and Mishna Berurah rule that a split is only a problem if it is longer than a tefach, and that one should not spend a lot of time or money trying to find a perfectly closed lulav if one is not readily available.
  • The Himnik (Fork-Shaped Split): A himnik is a problem even if the split is short. According to many, this is only if the two halves are distant enough from each other to look like the prongs of a fork. If there is a slight separation but the split does not resemble a fork, the lulav is still kosher. Therefore, the concern of himnik does not require a person to find a completely closed lulav, but only one where any existing split is not significantly wide. Even according the strict interpretation within the words of the Mishna Berurah, if the adhesive is missing but the two leaflets are together, it is still a lulav that is mehadrin min hamehadrin.