Once again, thank-you to all who make this service forum possible.
I have continued my study on Maseches Sukah and have come up with more questions (please read all questions first because some of my thoughts are a little scrambled and it would help to fully read the whole idea first, I think).
These questions are on the topic of Rav Papa's and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's inquires into: "Nechlekah ha'Teyomes". >>
(1) With the aid of your Insights page, I was able to look-up a couple of definitions for "Nechlekah ha'Teyomes". My question is now: according to RASHI, the Teyomes is the top, center double leaf. However, he writes that "Nechlekah ha'Teyomes" invalidates the Lulav only when the split reaches all the way down to the spine of the Lulav and continues through the spine until the next set of leaves. I would like to know why the split MUST (according to Rashi) "reach all the way down to the spine of the Lulav and continues through the spine until the NEXT SET OF LEAVES"? Why must the split go until the NEXT SET of LEAVES? Is it not enough that the split goes through the Shedrah/Spine? What makes the next set of leaves so unique that the Lulav is only invalid when the split goes to those NEXT SET of LEAVES? And, if the split does not go to those NEXT SET of LEAVES, meaning only through the Shedrah/spine is the lulav in/valid?
(2) In the case of "NIFRETZU" AND "NIFREDU" we have an issue of whether the Lulav is invalid or valid...
"R. Papa inquires about such cases... and they are answered: (c) Answer: R. Yehoshua b. Levi taught that if the Tiyomes were removed the Lulav is Pasul, which, presumably, would extend to our Nechlakah case. (d) Not necessarily, since removal of the leaves creates Chaser, a greater alteration than Nechlakah."
Now, when the Gemarah says "...would extend to our Nechlakah case" (initial presumption) is the reason why the Lulav is invalid because of HADAR, OR because the Gemarah now seems to say "since removal of the leaves creates Chaser, a greater alteration than Nechlakah," thus do we know invalidate a split because of Hadar (initial assumption) or beacuse of Lulav is NOT WHOLE (Pasuk says: And you shall take...) (final answer--conclusion). AND, what difference what it make if the Lulav is invalid because of HADAR (beauty) or And you shall take (completely) (whole speices)?
FURTHERMORE, is there a difference between Hadar and ...You shall take (completely)-- I thought that b/c Hadar applies all days of Succas this would always make this type of Lulav pasul, but maybe because the verse "And you shall take (completely)" is only on the first days (YOm Tov), therefore a Lulav that is invalid for the verse-reason should be allowed to take on Choel Hamoed? Is this assumption correct?
(3) We established our Mishnah early on to say that it applies to all days of Succas (yom tov + choel hamoed). However, if my assumption in question (2) is correct that a Lulav is invalid only on Yom Tov b/c the verse: "And you shall take (meaning complete species)" -- this would make it allowed for a Lulav to be Kosher on the Choel HaMoed days -- HOW could the Gemarah be reffering to a case from OUR MISHNAH that is only invalid on the First Days IF the Mishnah already said that this LULAV IS INVALID AND WE LEARNED THAT THE MISHNAH IS ON ALL THE DAYS of SUCCAS??
(4) If a child (under bar-mitzvah) takes one of the Lulavim in Questions (1) or (2) or any other Lulav for that matter, has he been Yotzei. I obviously know that the child is under-bar-mitzvah, but may he still take a Lulav from the above cases for own sake (Blessing need to be said?) ??
Yale , FL., U.S.A.
(1) (a) Tosfos Bava Kama 96a DH Nechlekah writes that it appears from Rashi that the Lulav is only invalid if the spine is split so much that the upper leaves appear to be split and scattered from each other.
It is possible that Rashi understood that Nechlekah ha'Tiyomes has to be something similar to the din of "Nifretzu" in the Mishnah. which is only Pasul if the leaves are severely detached from each other, but if they are "Nifredu" i.e. the heads of the leaves are separated from each other, but at the bottom these are still connected (see Rashi here DH d'Ifrud), this is Kosher.
(b) You ask what makes the next set of leaves so unique that the Lulav is only invalid when the split extends to the next set of leaves? Well, we find at the bottom of 32a that the head of the bottom leaves must reach the roots of the leaves above, so we see the concept here that there must be a connection between the consecutive sets of leaves. Therefore Rashi maintains that it is only if the leaves are split right down until the lower leaves, that the Lulav becomes disqualified.
(c) Terumas ha'Deshen #96 (mentioned in Rema on Shulchan Aruch OC 545:3) writes that it is only invalid as Nechlekah according to Rashi, if it is split until below the leaves, and that the Or Zaru'a added another leniency, that it is only Pasul if the spines are split until the leaves below. RI and Or Zaru'a wrote that they rely on Rashi, Halachah l'Ma'aseh.
[ (d) However Korban Nesanel here (#10, to Rosh #6) seems to say a different Pshat in Rashi :- that the leaves emerging from the spine are cracked and are split until the beginning of the spine. This is a stricter interpretation of Rashi. See also Tosfos Rabeinu Peretz Bava Kama 96.]
(2)The Magen Avraham 645:6 cites Rabeinu Yerucham (R.Y.V.) who writes that all the invalid types of Lulavim are invalid for the whole of Sukos because they are not Hadar, with the exception of Nisdak ("cracked" - this refers to "Himnek", top 32a, that the Lulav is cracked enough that it looks like 2 leaves) and Nechlekah ha'Tiyomes, which are Pasul because of Lekichah Tamah ("complete taking") and therefore only invalid on the first 2 days (outside Eretz Yisrael). This is the way the Mishneh Berurah 645:17 Paskens that Nechlekah ha'Tiyomes is only Pasul on the first 2 days.
(3) When the Gemara says above 29b that the Mishnah does not make a distinction between the 1st and 2nd day, this is referring to the Dinim mentioned in the Mishnah. However the Dinim of the Tiyomes being missing or split are not mentioned in the Mishnah, so we need not say it refers to all the days.
[In addition, Tosfos 29b DH k'Pasik writes that R. Chanina and Shmuel do not agree with the Gemara there that the Mishnah refers to all days and Tosfos also writes that not necessarily all the Mishnayos refer to all the days.]
(4) There is a Mitzvah for the father to educate his son ("Chinuch") to shake the Lulav (see Gemara below 42a). Ritva (above 2b DH A'R Yehudah) writes that when one educates a minor to do a Mitzvah this must be done in a totally kosher way like an adult, because otherwise when he grows up he might already be accustomed to doing the Mitzvah incorrectly - see Eruvin 40b. Mishneh Berurah also writes in Bi'ur Halachah 657:1 DH k'Dei that it is obvious that the 4 species of the child must be kosher like those of an adult. Therefore there is no difference between an adult and a child for the Halachos of Nechlekah ha'Tiyomes.
[Mishneh Berurah 658:28 writes that some later authorities maintain that one can perform the Mitzvah of Chinuch even with a borrowed Lulav on the 1st day. However this does not contradict the above, because there the actual object - "Cheftza" - of the Lulav is kosher, but is merely missing a side Din - that the Lulav does not belong to the minor.]
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Here is another explanation why Rashi writes that Nechleka HaTiyomes is only invalid if the split also reaches the back-bone. This is because the natural way that the leaves of the Lulav grow is that they are anyway split to a certain extent, so merely for the leaves to be split would not be considered a sufficiently significant blemish in the Lulav to render it invalid.
The Rambam Hilchos Lulav 8:4 writes that the natural way for the leaves of the Lulav to grow is two by two and they are connected ("stuck") at the back (i.e. the side of the backbone). This implies that the leaves of the Lulav are only naturally joined from one end, but towards the front end - the direction opposite to the backbone, that is the side facing away from us when we shake the Lulav - one does not expect the leaves to be joined.
Since the leaves alone being split is a natural occurrence, Rashi was forced to say that the split reached the backbone too, and only then is it invalid. Rashi did not consider it probable that a minimal split of the backbone would be sufficient to make the lulav invalid, so he wrote that the split has to reach the leaves below.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom