3) HALACHAH: LULAVIM FROM DIFFERENT SPECIES OF PALM TREE
OPINIONS: The Mishnah (29b) says that Lulavim from the type of palm tree known as "Tzinei Har Barzel" are valid. The Gemara here quotes a Beraisa that says that such Lulavim are invalid. Abaye resolves the contradiction and says that the Lulavim from the Tzinei Har Barzel are invalid when their leaves are short (that is, the top of the lower leaf does not reach the bottom of the upper leaf).

The Gemara explains that, in general, Lulavim from such trees have very short leaves. The Rishonim mention a number of causes for the short leaves of these palms.

(a) The RAN writes that since it grows on a very hard mountain (Har Barzel), it does not receive sufficient nourishment from the ground and thus its growth is stunted and its leaves remain underdeveloped.

(b) The BA'AL HA'ITUR writes that since these trees grow next to the smoke that comes out of the valley of Gehinom, the smoke dries up the leaves before they reach their full length.

(c) The ARUCH (Erech "Tzani") explains that Dekalim (common palms) are tall palm trees, and "Tzini" are short (or young) palm trees. Apparently, he understands that because the trees themselves are small, their leaves also grow exceptionally small.

(d) The MICHTAM says that Tzinei Har Barzel are "a type of palm tree." Apparently, he understands that they are a different species, and thus they have a different nature and growth pattern than the common palm tree.

HALACHAH: The first three opinions cited above imply that Tzinei Har Barzel are the same species as the normal palm tree, and that is why Lulavim from those trees are invalid only because of the length of their leaves (since their leaves are short, the Lulavim are not "Hadar"). The Michtam, however, implies that even though they are a different species, if the leaves would reach their full height, the Lulavim would be valid even though they are from a different species of palm.

This discussion may be relevant to a contemporary Halachic question: may one use a Lulav from the Canary palm tree? A hundred years ago there were very few palm trees left in Eretz Yisrael. Palms were brought to Eretz Yisrael from the Canary Islands (off the northwest coast of Africa). These trees grow well in the central and coastal regions of Eretz Yisrael, where the climate is more mild than in the desert regions. The normal palm tree, such as the tree that is common in the Yericho region, flourishes in a dry and hot climate and does not grow well in the central and coastal areas, where the Canary palms flourish. The Canary palms tend to be prettier, larger, and slightly more green that the normal palms. In addition, their long branches and leaves do not fall off naturally, and thus they have more foliage. However, in contrast to the normal palms, they do not grow edible dates, but rather round, inedible berries.

The Canary clearly seems to be a different species of palm. Lulavim from the Canary are commonly found in the market (in Eretz Yisrael) before Sukos. Are such Lulavim valid for the Mitzvah of Arba'as ha'Minim?

According to some Acharonim, such Lulavim are invalid, because the Canary palm does not bear the fruit (dates) of normal palm trees. The CHASAM SOFER and RAV TZVI PESACH FRANK (in HAR TZVI) reject this reason, because "Temarim" (in the verse "Kapos Temarim") does not mean "dates," but "palm trees," and thus the presence of dates is not a requirement for the Lulav of such a tree to be valid for the Mitzvah.

The more relevant question is whether a Lulav from a species other than the common Israeli palm is valid. Is a Lulav from that tree valid simply because it closely resembles the common Lulav? Perhaps the Michtam would rule that it is valid, because the Lulav does not have to come from the same species as the common palm. The other Rishonim give no indication that such a Lulav is valid.

In practice, most Poskim rule that a Lulav from a Canary palm may not be used (just as a lemon may not be used in place of an Esrog). There are several ways to recognize whether a Lulav is from a Canary palm or from a common palm. First, the top leaves are shorter than the Teyomes and upper leaves of the Lulav of a common palm. Second, the distance (when measured along the spine) between the beginning of one leaf and the next is much shorter. Third, the Canary Lulav is generally a richer green. Fourth, the spine of the Canary Lulav is softer and bends more easily. Fifth, if one grasps a leaf of the Lulav between his fingers and slides his fingers down the leaf, a Canary Lulav will leave his fingers clean, while a common Lulav will leave his fingers covered by a whitish powder.

4) HALACHAH: HOW LONG MUST A LULAV BE
OPINIONS: According to the Gemara's conclusion, Shmuel maintains that the Tefach used to measure the Aravah, Hadas, and Lulav branches is a small Tefach, equal to 5/6ths of an ordinary Tefach. The Aravah and Hadas branches must be 3 small Tefachim long, or 2 1/2 ordinary Tefachim. The Lulav must be one Tefach longer than the Aravah and Hadas branches.

In practice, how long must the Lulav be?

(a) RASHI (DH veha'She'ar) and the ROSH explain that the length of the Lulav must be 4 small Tefachim, which equals 3 1/3 ordinary Tefachim, or 13 1/3 Etzba'os (there are four Etzba'os in an ordinary Tefach, and 3 1/3 Etzba'os in a small Tefach).

(b) The RAN asserts that the fourth Tefach of the Lulav is an ordinary Tefach. His opinion is based on the Beraisa in Nidah (26a) which compares the fourth Tefach of the Lulav (that is, the one Tefach of the Lulav's length that extends beyond the Aravah and Hadas branches) to the Tefach of other Mitzvos. Since the Tefach of other Mitzvos is an ordinary, 4-Etzba Tefach, the fourth Tefach of the Lulav is also an ordinary Tefach. Accordingly, the Lulav must be 14 Etzba'os long, or 3 1/2 ordinary Tefachim.

(c) The RIF and the RAMBAM (Hilchos Lulav 7:8) make no mention of the Gemara's statement that the Tefachim with which the branches of the Arba'as ha'Minim are measured are small Tefachim. This omission implies that the 3 Tefachim of the Hadas and Aravah, and the 4 Tefachim of the Lulav, are all normal Tefachim of 4 Etzba'os. The Magid Mishneh explains that the Rambam rules like the Tana Kama in the Beraisa who argues with Rebbi Tarfon and mentions the Shi'urim without defining them as a different type of Tefach.

HALACHAH: All three opinions are cited by the SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 650:1). The REMA writes that, l'Chatchilah, one should be stringent and follow the view of the Rambam and use a Lulav of at least 16 Etzba'os, but, b'Di'eved, one may be lenient like the Rosh and use a Lulav of only 13 1/3 Etzba'os (see Mishnah Berurah 650:8).

The Shulchan Aruch adds that the minimum length applies only to the spine of the Lulav. If the spine is short and only the leaves reach the minimum length, the Lulav is not valid.