tips

“And they who gave in their branches green, but having the tips withered and cracked, these were always good, and faithful, and distinguished before God; but they sinned a very little through indulging small desires, and finding little faults with one another. But on hearing my words the greater part of them quickly repented, and their dwelling was upon the tower. Yet some of them were in doubt; and certain of them who were in doubt wrought greater dissension. Among these, therefore, is hope of repentance, because they were always good; and with difficulty will any one of them perish. And they who gave up their branches withered, but having a very small part green, are those who believed only, yet continue working the works of iniquity. They never, however, departed from God, but gladly bore His name, and joyfully received His servants into their houses. Having accordingly heard of this repentance, they unhesitatingly repented, and practise all virtue and righteousness; and some of them even [suffered, being willingly put to death], knowing their deeds which they had done. Of all these, therefore, the dwelling shall be in the tower.”

And I said unto the Cherubim, 'My Lord, of what kind was this righteousness wherein Adam was arrayed, and which he received from His hand?' And the Cherubim said unto me, 'On the day wherein God created Adam, Adam was twelve cubits in height, and six cubits in width, and his neck was three cubits long. And he was like unto an alabaster stone wherein there is no blemish whatsoever. But when he had eaten [of the fruit] of the tree, his body diminished in size, and he became small, and the righteousness wherein he was arrayed departed and left him naked, even to the tips of his fingers, that is to say, to his very nails. If he was not cold in the winter, he was not hot in the summer.'

One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row], he may bring seed there. Rabbi Judah said: It happened at Tsalmon that a man planted his vineyard on [a plan of] sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row]. [One year] he would turn the tips of the vine branches of two [adjacent rows] towards one place, and sow the furrow [in between], and the following year he would turn the tips of the vine branches in the opposite direction, and sow the land which had been left untilled [the preceding year]. The matter came before the sages, and they declared it permitted. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: even one who has planted his vineyard with eight cubits [between every two rows], this is permitted.

One who plants his vineyard sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row], he may bring seed there. Rabbi Judah said: It happened at Tsalmon that a man planted his vineyard on [a plan of] sixteen cubits, sixteen cubits [separating each row]. [One year] he would turn the tips of the vine branches of two [adjacent rows] towards one place, and sow the furrow [in between], and the following year he would turn the tips of the vine branches in the opposite direction, and sow the land which had been left untilled [the preceding year]. The matter came before the sages, and they declared it permitted. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon say: even one who has planted his vineyard with eight cubits [between every two rows], this is permitted.

Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

As for both a sinner’s minhah and any other minhah if [one of the following] removed the handful: a non-priest; or [a priest] that was an onen; or one who immersed himself during the day; or was not wearing the priestly vestments, or whose atonement was lacking; or who had not washed his hands and feet; or that was uncircumcised; or unclean; or was sitting, or standing upon vessels or upon a beast or upon another's feet, it is invalid. If [a priest] removed the handful with his left hand it is invalid. Ben Batera says: he may put [the handful] back and take it out again with the right hand. If on taking the handful there came into his hand a small stone or a grain of salt or a drop of frankincense it is invalid, for they have said: if the handful was too much or too little it is invalid. What is meant by “too much? If he took an overflowing handful. And ‘too little’? If he took the handful with the tips of his fingers only. How should he do it? He should stretch out his fingers on to the palm of his hand.

There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh.

There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh.

There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh.

How would they purify a metzora? A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. Two undomesticated birds are also brought. One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside.

If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root.

If it had two black or white hairs growing within one follicle, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah said: within one kos; if they grew within two kosot that were adjacent to one another, it is invalid. Rabbi Akiva says: even if there were four or five but they were dispersed, they may be plucked out. Rabbi Eliezer says: even as many as fifty. Rabbi Joshua ben Batera says: even if it had but one on its head and one on its tail, it is invalid. If it had two hairs with their roots black and their tips red or with their roots red and their tips black, everything goes according to what is visible, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: by the root.

If one intended to drink the hatat water: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid. Rabbi Joshua says: only when one tips the flask. Rabbi Yose said: To what does this apply? To water that had not yet been prepared, But in the case of water that had been prepared: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid [only] when one tips the flask; And Rabbi Joshua says: [only] when one drinks. And if it was poured directly into one's throat, it remains valid.

If one intended to drink the hatat water: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid. Rabbi Joshua says: only when one tips the flask. Rabbi Yose said: To what does this apply? To water that had not yet been prepared, But in the case of water that had been prepared: Rabbi Eliezer says: it becomes invalid [only] when one tips the flask; And Rabbi Joshua says: [only] when one drinks. And if it was poured directly into one's throat, it remains valid.

If a person sprinkled and it is doubtful whether the water came from the thread or the spindle-reed or the buds, the sprinkling is invalid. If he sprinkled upon two vessels and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on both or whether some water from the one dripped on to the other, it is invalid. If a needle was on a piece of earthenware and one sprinkled upon it, and it is doubtful whether he sprinkled on the needle or whether some water dripped on it from the earthenware, his sprinkling is invalid. A flask with a narrow mouth, one may dip in and draw out in the usual way. Rabbi Judah says: this may be done only for the first sprinkling. Hatat waters which were diminished, one may dip only the tips of the buds and sprinkle, provided the hyssop does not absorb [any of the moisture on the sides of the flask]. If one intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled behind him, or behind him and he sprinkled in front of him, his sprinkling is invalid. If he intended to sprinkle in front of him and he sprinkled to the sides in front of him, his sprinkling is valid. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person with his knowledge or without his knowledge. It is permitted to sprinkle upon a person and vessels even though there are a hundred of them.

The two hairs spoken of in regard to the red heifer and in regard to leprosy as well as those spoken of anywhere else must be long enough for their tips to be bent to their roots, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Elazar says: long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail. Rabbi Akiva says: long enough to be taken off with scissors.

It was stated: “With water that was left uncovered one should not scrub his house; one should not pour it into the public domain, or give it to drink to a Gentile, neither should one use it to water another person’s animals but one may use it to water his own animals. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead clay, or wash clothes, or soak pots, glasses, and food baskets, and certainly not wash his face, hands, and feet. Others say, they forbade only the place of a scratch. His face is always like a scratch. The tips of his fingers and toes are always like a scratch. With water that was left uncovered one should not knead dough. Rebbi Neḥemiah said, baking is permitted because snake poison is destroyed by fire.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: That is, if it does not collapse, but if it collapsed it is forbidden.

If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is notṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if not one of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is free from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and it will become ṭevel immediately. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only if they dragged tips of ears.

HALAKHAH: If somebody made a heap [of somebody’s grain] without the latter’s knowledge: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is ṭevel, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is not ṭevel. Rebbi Joḥanan objected to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, did we not state: “And similarly women who gave to a baker to make sour dough for them, if none of them had the required amount it is free from ḥallah.” (But what if all of them had the required amount?) He said to him, because if somebody makes dough in order to distribute it, the dough is exempt from ḥallah. But we have stated: “A baker who made sour dough for distribution is obligated for ḥallah.” He said to him, do not answer back about a baker. For a baker, it does not depend on his opinion but on the opinions of his customers; maybe he will find a customer and will make bread dough for him. He said to him, but was it not stated: “The holes of ants which were overnight near an obligated heap are obligated,” therefore, near an exempt heap they are exempt. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of resignation. Samuel ben Abba said, only [if they dragged tips of] ears.

HALAKHAH: Why did they decree about a nailed shoe? Some say, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages. But some say, they heard its sound and had miscarriages. And some say, they were stampeding and killing one another. What is the difference between them? הדוסטא. Accordig to him who said, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages, it is permitted. But according to him who said, they heard its sound and had miscarriages or they were stampeding and killing one another, it is forbidden. But did they not decree this in an emergency? When the emergency passed it should have been permitted. There never rose a court which undid it. Then even on a weekday! People do not usually have two pairs of shoes, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. It was stated: If one put a patch under it it is permitted. Rebbi Yudan bar Ismael’s feet were scratched and they did this for him.

HALAKHAH: Why did they decree about a nailed shoe? Some say, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages. But some say, they heard its sound and had miscarriages. And some say, they were stampeding and killing one another. What is the difference between them? הדוסטא. Accordig to him who said, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages, it is permitted. But according to him who said, they heard its sound and had miscarriages or they were stampeding and killing one another, it is forbidden. But did they not decree this in an emergency? When the emergency passed it should have been permitted. There never rose a court which undid it. Then even on a weekday! People do not usually have two pairs of shoes, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. It was stated: If one put a patch under it it is permitted. Rebbi Yudan bar Ismael’s feet were scratched and they did this for him.

A woman if she mixes wheat, because she is sifting; if she breaks the tips, because she is threshing; if she breaks the sides, because she is selecting; if she hits, because she is grinding; if she sifts, because she is winnowing; if she completes her work, because she is hitting with a hammer.

One who is grinding garlic, if he breaks the tips, because he is threshing; if he takes the outer leaves, because he is selecting; if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abomination s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house, etc. Abomination about vermin, do not eat any abomination. But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Jehudah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah . There came Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Samuel, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai [the father-in-law of] Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai the father-in-law of Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

“His full handful. I could assume an overstuffed handful, the verse says, with his handful. If with his handful, I could assume that he picks it up with his finger tips, the verse says, his full handful. How is this? He sinks his hand into the baking pan or frying pan and wipes clean with his finger from top to bottom.”

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “The Ark was deported with them to Babylon. What is the reason? There will not remain a word. Word refers only to what contains the Words. And so it says, at the turn of the year king Nebuchadnezzar sent and brought him to Babylon with the desirable vessels of the Eternal’s House. What are the desirables of the Eternal’s House? This is the Ark. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, at its place it was hidden. That is what is written, the poles were long; the tips of the poles were seen in the Sanctuary, in front of the Hall, but were not seen outside,<and were there until this day.> It is written, were seen, and you are saying, but were not seen. They protrude and stick out like a woman’s breasts.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

Mishnah: Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

Mishnah: Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

What is his reason? If you say that it is because he is lenient, why did he not expound to them as R. Akiva who is even more lenient? Three with broken tips are common, one with an unbroken tip is uncommon.