61a: It says regarding Bikurim "v'Lakach ha'Kohen ha'Tene mi'Yadecha", and it says regarding Shelamim "Yadav Tevi'enah." Just like the Kohen does Tenufah with Bikurim, also with Shelamim. Just like the owner does Tenufah with Shelamim, also with Bikurim.


To fulfill both of these, the Kohen puts his hand under the owner's hands, and they wave together.


94a - Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that all partners on a Korban wave!


Semichah does not apply to slaughtered animals, yet all partners are Somech. Tenufah applies to slaughtered animals, all the more so all partners should wave!


Rejection: It is impossible for all partners to wave:


If (there are many partners and) all will wave at the same time, not everyone can touch the Korban, for other people's hands are in the way. This is a Chatzitzah (separation)!


They may not wave at different times, for the Torah obligates Tenufah (singular), i.e. only once!


Sukah 37a (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): We tie the Lulav only with Mino (its own species);


R. Meir says, one may tie it even with a string.


R. Meir: A case occurred in which people of Yerushalayim used to tie their Lulavim with gold strips!


Rabanan: They would tie them with Mino below.


37b - Rabah (to people who prepared the Lulav bundle for the Reish Galusa): Do not totally cover it. Leave a place uncovered for him to hold it, so it will not be a Chatzitzah.


(Rava): Anything to beautify is not a Chatzitzah.


(Rabah): One may not hold the Lulav through a cloth. We require 'Lekichah Tamah' (taking without interruption).


(Rava): Taking through (holding) something else is called taking.


(Rabah): One may not insert the Lulav into the bundle (myrtle and willow branches tied together), lest he uproot leaves, and they will be a Chatzitzah.


(Rava): Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah.


Bechoros 9a (Mishnah): If a donkey gave birth for the first time to two males at the same time, the owner gives a shee or goat to a Kohen (to redeem it);


9b - Suggestion: Chachamim must hold that even part of the (circumference of the) womb is Mekadesh (a Bechor). If the entire womb were needed, even though surely one left slightly before the other, the second was a Chatzitzah (separation) between the Bechor and the womb!


Rejection (Rav): (Perhaps the entire womb is Mekadesh.) The second animal is Mino. Min b'Mino is never Chotzetz.




Rif and Rosh (Sukah 18a and 3:24): The Halachah follows Rava in all these Halachos.


Ran (DH Lo): We have no verse to disqualify Chatzitzah for Lulav. The concern is for Lekichah Tamah. Whatever is to beautify it it is Batel to the Lulav. What is Tafel (secondary) to his hand is Batel to his hand. It is as if he touches the Lulav itself. Whatever is not to beautify it and is not Tafel to his hand, is not Lekichah Tamah. A Chatzitzah is Pasul only where a verse teaches this, e.g. for Tevilah (immersion) or Tefilin.


Rambam (Hilchos Lulav 7:12): If one tied the Lulav with the myrtle and willow, and separated between the Lulav and the myrtle with a cloth, this is a Chatzitzah. If he separated between them with myrtle leaves, this is not a Chatzitzah, for Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah. One may tie the Lulav with a string or any species he desires, since tying is not Me'akev.


Magid Mishneh: The Rambam holds that Rava permits whatever beautifies the Lulav, whether or not it is tied to it, or Mino even if it does not beautify it. One is Yotzei l'Chatchilah. If it is b'Eino Mino and does not beautify, surely it is a Chatzitzah.


Tosfos (Sukah 37a DH Ki): Rabah holds that Min b'Mino is a Chatzitzah, or he was unsure about this (Chulin 70a), regarding a Bechor born with a sister (perhaps the female is a Chatzitzah between the male and the walls of the womb, so it does not get Kedushas Bechor). When two males are born together, the latter is not a Chatzitzah (Bechoros 9b), because the first partially touches the womb. Even though here also, it is not a total Chatzitzah, Rabah was concerned. Perhaps birth is different, for it is normal for twins (to come out together and one separates the other from the womb). Even though all partners in a Korban do Semichah, we cannot learn that all do Tenufah, for all cannot do Tenufah at once (Menachos 94a, because their hands would be a Chatzitzah). Even according to Rava, who says that Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah, this is a question (to uproot the Kal va'Chomer from Semichah). Also, it is reasonable that something abnormal is a Chatzitzah. We find that Avodah while standing on another's foot is a Chatzitzah (Zevachim 15b), and Rami bar Chama asked about Kabalah in a Kli inside a Kli (Yoma 58a). We conclude that is not a Chatzitzah, due to a verse. He then asked whether a shoot in a Kli, which is Min b'Eino Mino, is a Chatzitzah. We cannot compare all matters to each other.


Tosfos (61b DH Kohen): The Kohen's hands are not literally under the owner's. This would be a Chatzitzah between the Kohen's hand and the Kli. This is why many partners cannot do Tenufah at once (94a). Rather, the owner holds above, and the Kohen holds below. Rashi says that Tenufah of the owner is primary, so we are not concerned for a Chatzitzah between the Kohen and the Kli. What is his source? The Yerushalmi connotes that the Kohen's hands are right under the owner's. It asks that it is repulsive for a Kohen to wave with a woman. It suggested that they use a cloth (to separate their hands), but rejected this, for it is a Chatzitzah. However, perhaps the Kohen's hands are below, and they often end up touching the owner's hands [higher on the Kli].


Chachmas Shlomo (OC 651:1): (According to Rashi and the Yerushalmi, why are we concerned for Chatzitzah regarding partners, but not regarding the Kohen and owner?) Hands of partners are a Chatzitzah, even though they are Min b'Mino, because one could bring a Korban without partnership. Therefore, they are like separate bodies, and it is a Chatzitzah. There will always be a Kohen and (at least) one owner, and both are needed. Tosfos (Beitzah 39a DH Mishum) says that even Min b'Eino Mino, e.g. water and salt in a dough, are considered like Mino, because they are essential. All the more so what is truly Min b'Mino (e.g. leaves that fell off) is not a Chatzitzah.


Malbim (Vayikra 3:145): Even though hands are not a Chatzitzah, a cloth is a Chatzitzah. This is like Tosfos in Pesachim (57a DH d'Karich), who says that even Rava, who says that taking through something else is called taking (and Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah), holds that Min b'Eino Mino is a Chatzitzah. Tosfos in Sukah (37a DH d'Ba'ina) disagrees.




Shulchan Aruch (OC 651:1): It is a Mitzvah to tie the four Minim through a proper knot, i.e. a double knot, for beauty. One may tie them with another species. If leaves fell off into the bundle and are interrupt, there is no concern.


Bach (DH u'Mah she'Chosav u'Mishum): Tosfos says that we discuss when he tied it with Mino. We rule like unlike this. Even Eino Mino is not a Chatzitzah, for it is to beautify it.


Bach (DH u'Mah she'Chosav v'Chen): Even though leaves that fell are not to beautify it, Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah according to Rava.


Mishnah Berurah (7): Even though we hold that one need not tie the Lulav, there is a Mitzvah to do so, due to "Zeh Keli v'Anvehu" (beautifying Mitzvos).


Mishnah Berurah (9): Another species is not 'Bal Tosif' (adding to Mitzvos), because there is no obligation to tie them together.


Rema: This is because Min b'Mino is not a Chatzitzah. Min b'Eino Mino is a Chatzitzah, therefore, one must be careful to remove the string that is normally around the myrtle.


Magen Avraham (2): Even if one tied the Lulav with b'Eino Mino, is not a Chatzitzah, for it is to beautify it. The same applies if he tied the myrtle with the Lulav.


Mishnah Berurah (10): It was common to buy myrtle from Nochrim tied in bundles. This is not to beautify it, and the string is Eino Mino, therefore, one must remove it. Levushei Serad explains that myrtle tied with Lulav (leaves) is fine, because it is to beautify it. Machatzis ha'Shekel explains that it is not considered a Chatzitzah between the myrtle and willow, because these two and the Lulav are all considered like one.


Rema (7): The custom is to be stringent and remove Tefilin and rings from the hands, but letter of the law there is no concern, since the entire hand is not covered.


Beis Yosef (DH Matzasi): The Agudah says that we remove whatever separates between the hand and the Lulav, e.g. Tzitzis, Tefilin, and women remove rings. I say that one must remove them only if they cover the entire hand.


Rebuttal (Bach DH Kosav): The Sugya is unlike this. Rava permitted the tie on the Lulav only because it is to beautify it, so is not a Chatzitzah, even though it is b'Eino Mino. Therefore, whatever is not to beautify it and is not Mino, e.g. Tzitzis, Tefilin and rings, even though part of the Minim are without a Chatzitzah, like the case of the tie, is a Chatzitzah. It need not totally cover it to be a Chatzitzah. Regarding Bechor, a partial Chatzitzah is not a Chatzitzah. Birth is different, for it is normal (to have a Chatzitzah), like Tosfos says. This is why one must remove the tie around the myrtle.


Defense (Magen Avraham 18): I say that the Agudah holds that when the entire hand is not covered, the covering is Batel to the hand. We do not say so about what is used to tie the Lulav.


Taz (7): What is the source to be concerned only if they cover the entire hand? The Ran connotes that this is like Tevilah and Tefilin (even a partial Chatzitzah is a problem)! Tosfos connotes that Rava agrees that what is not to beautify it is a Chatzitzah. Do not ask from the Mishnah, which says that people used to tie the Lulav with gold strips. That was for beauty. Do not ask according to Rabah, who says that even for beauty is a Chatzitzah. He will say that they tied it not where it is held, like Rabah told the ones who prepared the Reish Galusa's Lulav bundle.


Gra: According to the Ran, this is not letter of the law, for they are Batel to his hand. According to Tosfos, it is a Chatzitzah, and we do not distinguish (between part or all of the hand). Even one hair is a Chatzitzah for Bigdei Kehunah (Zevachim 19a)! A reed over a wound may not be in a place used for Avodah, and we asked whether wind or earth are Chatzitzos (ibid.)!


Chasam Sofer (YD 192 DH Emnam): The Yam Shel Shlomo (Chulin 8:21) says that a man's ring without a stone is not a Chatzitzah (for Netilas Yadayim). One does not remove rings when putting on Tefilin or taking the Lulav because he is particular about this, rather, to make room for the Tefilin or Lulav.


Mishnah Berurah (35): Some say that he folds the Tefilin (strap) in back of his finger (where he holds the Minim). Others say that he totally removes Tefilin before taking the Lulav.


Mishnah Berurah (36): Several Acharonim say that letter of the law, we are concerned for a Chatzitzah on part of the hand. Therefore, if he did not remove the Tefilin or ring, he takes the Lulav again without a Berachah.


Kaf ha'Chayim (78): Likewise, one must remove a bandage form the hand before taking the Lulav.

See Also: