In לולב הגזול, the first Mishna says a לולב של עיר הנדחת is pasul. Rashi explains that this is because it "lacks" the minimal length of 4 tefachim, since it is supposed to be burned and is halachically considered burned. If we view such a lulav as if it's burnt, isn't the fact that it's not a לולב a more fundamental issue than the fact that it lacks its minimal length? It seems like Rashi's point (based on the Gemara) should be a secondary consideration and that we're missing the point.

  • 1
    I think you're taking it too literally.
    – Double AA
    Commented Nov 16, 2021 at 22:19
  • 2
    As per @DoubleAA, i.e. the point is that the shiur gives the lulav chashivus and if it is omed to be burnt then it does not have that chasivus. (I.e. it is nisbatlah the tzuras ha'chashivus that is a toldoh of the shiur.)
    – pcoz
    Commented Nov 16, 2021 at 22:24
  • For days 2-7. On day one, it's not לכם anyway because the איסור הנאה makes בעלות impossible. Commented Nov 17, 2021 at 14:10


You must log in to answer this question.