📋 Shiur Overview
Summary of Laws of Lulav – Chapter 7 of Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav
—
Introduction – Why Is It Called “Laws of Lulav”
Simple Meaning: The Rambam begins Laws of Lulav, which deals with the four species, after having already completed Laws of Shofar and Laws of Sukkah.
Novel Points:
– Why is it called “lulav” and not “esrog”: Although the verse (Leviticus 23:40) begins with “pri etz hadar” (esrog), the entire mitzvah is called “lulav” (as also in the Mishnah – “lulav hagazul,” and in the blessing – “al netilas lulav”). The reason is because the lulav is the “majority” – it is the largest, the tallest, and it has with it two “companions” (hadasim and aravos) that are bound together with it. The lulav with its companions versus the esrog – the lulav is primary.
– The form of the mitzvah points to lulav: When one looks at a Jew fulfilling the mitzvah, one sees that he shakes the lulav – this is the “tzuras hamitzvah.” The esrog is like an extra thing that comes along.
– Why the verse begins with esrog: The verse places esrog first because it stands separately – “pri etz hadar” – and afterwards come the other three as one set: “kapos temarim v’anaf etz avos v’arvei nachal.” This fits with the approach that initially one binds together lulav, hadasim, aravos, but the esrog is held separately.
– Discussion of trop (cantillation marks): The trop don’t entirely support this distinction – the greatest pause among the three is specifically on “kapos temarim” (a zakef). Regarding the vav hachibbur – “v’anaf” and “v’arvei” have a vav, but “kapos temarim” does not, which could mean that the last two are more connected with “kapos temarim.” The Ibn Ezra says that in biblical language there are no fixed rules for lists – sometimes a vav appears on the second, sometimes on the last, sometimes not at all.
– Torah she’baal peh identifies the species: The Rambam’s role is to say what Torah she’baal peh transmits – specifically the identification of the four species, which is not explicit in Torah she’bichsav. As the Rambam writes in his introduction to Mishneh Torah and introduction to Peirush HaMishnah: the Gemara’s derivations (drashos) are hints, but the truth is that it was received as halachah l’Moshe miSinai.
—
Halachah 1 – Kapos Temarim: Lulav
“Kapos temarim mentioned in the Torah are the shoots (charyos) of a date palm when they sprout before they spread out, when they are like a staff (sharvit), and this is called lulav.”
Simple Meaning: “Kapos temarim” are the branches (charyos) of a date palm (dekel), when they are still growing, before they open up – when they are still like a staff (sharvit). This is what is called “lulav.”
Novel Points:
– Charyos – a specific name: Every type of fruit/tree has unique names for its parts (like botzer/kotzer for cutting). The branches of a dekel are called “charyos.”
– “Like a staff” – how strict? The Rambam says “like a staff” – like a straight stick. This doesn’t necessarily mean it must be completely closed (as mehadrin seek). Even if some of the leaves are already slightly open, it is still “like a staff.” The details of hiddur will come later.
– “Kapos” – perhaps from the language of “kefufos”: The word “kapos” perhaps has a connection to “kefufos” – gathered together, closed – which describes the state of the leaves that are still folded together.
—
Halachah 1 – Pri Etz Hadar: Esrog
“Pri etz hadar mentioned in the Torah is the esrog.”
Simple Meaning: “Pri etz hadar” that appears in the Torah is the esrog. The Gemara has various drashos for how we know this, but the truth is that it is halachah l’Moshe miSinai.
—
Halachah 1 – Anaf Etz Avos: Hadas
“Anaf etz avos mentioned in the Torah is the hadas whose leaves cover its wood, such that there are three leaves or more on one stem (giv’ol echad).”
Simple Meaning: “Anaf etz avos” is the hadas – a branch whose leaves cover the wood, specifically when three (or more) leaves grow from one point (giv’ol echad) – this is “shilush.”
Novel Points:
– “Anaf etz avos” – explanation: “Anaf etz avos” doesn’t mean a branch from a large tree, because hadasim don’t grow on large trees. It means a branch from a small shrub that is “avos” – covered with leaves.
– Hadas shoteh – a different species, not just invalid: The Rambam says: “If two leaves are level opposite each other and the third is above them, this is not avos, it is called hadas shoteh.” According to the Rambam, hadas shoteh is not just an invalid hadas, but a different species – it simply is not “anaf etz avos.” When two leaves are opposite each other with the third higher, the third side is open, and this is not “avos” (covered). The name “shoteh” (fool) is explained because it doesn’t go “in a row” – it is “meshubash k’shoteh,” connected with “soteh min haderech” – deviated from the straight path.
– Practical difference – whether one must check every node: If hadas shoteh is indeed a different species, a major practical difference emerges: Perhaps according to the Rambam one doesn’t need to check every single node for meshulash, because if one has the correct hadas species, it is already essentially “avos.” This is different from the practical custom today where one checks that every part of the hadas should be meshulash.
– The question of “half meshulash half not”: The entire matter that is asked today – whether a hadas that is half meshulash and half not meshulash is kosher – doesn’t appear at all in the Rambam. In Chapter 8 Halachah 5 it only discusses missing leaves (nashru alav), which is something else. This supports the suggestion that for the Rambam, shilush is a sign of the species, not a separate halachic condition on every part of the branch.
– Raavad’s hasagah: The Raavad disagrees with the Rambam and says: “And it must be so for the entire measure or its majority, and if not it is invalid” – the entire shiur (or its majority) must be meshulash, and if not it is invalid. This shows that the Raavad understood that in the Rambam the main halachah about shilush on the entire shiur is missing. The Rambam holds that it is enough that “three leaves on one giv’ol” – one place where one sees three leaves in one row, because this proves that it is the correct species.
– “Giv’ol echad” – translation: “Giv’ol” doesn’t mean “branch” (twig), but rather like “igul echad” – one ring/row, which fits with the translation of shilush (three leaves in one circle).
– [Digression: It’s humorously added that the leaf is “exempt from mitzvos” like a shoteh who is cheresh shoteh v’katan exempt from all mitzvos.]
—
Halachah 1 – Arvei Nachal: Aravah
“Arvei nachal mentioned in the Torah, not everything that grows by a stream, but a known species called arvei nachal. And its signs: its stem is red, and its leaf is elongated, and its edge is smooth. And most of this species grows by streams, therefore it is called arvei nachal. And even if it grew in the desert or mountains it is kosher.”
Simple Meaning: “Arvei nachal” is not just any leaves that grow by a stream, but a specific species with clear signs: the stem is reddish, the leaf is elongated (mashuch), and the edge of the leaf is smooth (chalak). Most of this species grows by streams, therefore it is called “arvei nachal,” but if it grows in the desert or mountains it is also kosher.
Novel Points:
– Two errors to avoid: (a) One should not think that “arvei nachal” means any branch that grows by a stream – this is certainly not so. (b) One should not think stringently that the aravah must specifically come from a stream. Both are incorrect. The main thing is the species – “arvei nachal” is the name of the species, and “nachal” is only a sign of where it usually grows, not a condition.
—
Halachah 1 (continued) – Tzaftzafah: The Similar to Aravah
“And there is another species similar to aravah, and its leaf is round, and its edge resembles a saw, and its stem is not red, and this is called tzaftzafah, and it is invalid.”
“And there is yet another type of aravah whose edge is not completely round and smooth, and its edge doesn’t resemble a saw like tzaftzafah, but has very small ridges like the edge of a small sickle” – and this is indeed kosher because it is still from the aravah species.
Simple Meaning: Tzaftzafah is a separate species that is similar to aravah but has three differences: round leaves, serrated edges, and a non-red stem. This is invalid. But an aravah species that has only tiny serrations (like a small sickle) is still kosher.
Novel Points:
– “Its edge resembles a saw” is not an invalidation, but a sign of a different family: The signs (round leaves, serrated edges, non-red stem) are not “invalidations” on an aravah, but signs that it is a completely different species – a tzaftzafah, which is a separate family.
– Actual distinction between aravah-variant and tzaftzafah: The distinction is actual: from an aravah seed can grow an aravah that looks a bit different (with tiny ridges), but from an aravah cannot grow a tzaftzafah – that is a completely different family. When the Gemara says “tzaftzafah resembles aravah,” it means that tzaftzafah is from a more distant family — a “distant cousin” — but not the same species. The aravah of “small ridges” and the normal aravah are “brothers” — sub-species of the same species.
– Practical observation – aravah is taken leniently: In practice, people take aravos leniently — one takes the local aravos from each region, without being very meticulous. One has never brought aravos from distant places as one brings lulavim and esrogim. American aravos are very different from Israeli aravos. Regarding “its stem is red” — some are reddish, some not, some turn brown. One has never heard a concern about “aravah har” (tzaftzafah) in practice.
—
Halachah 2 – “All These Things Are from Oral Tradition”
“And all these things are from oral tradition, explained from the mouth of Moshe from Sinai.”
Simple Meaning: All the signs that determine which species are kosher for the four species are a tradition from Moshe Rabbeinu from Sinai, generation after generation.
Novel Points:
– “Were explained” — not “were received”: The Rambam writes “were explained” and not “were received.” The better explanation: “were explained” means “explanation of the mitzvah” — Moshe Rabbeinu explained what the mitzvah is, not a translation of the verse, but a translation of the mitzvah itself. Like the Rambam’s principle of “explanation of mitzvos” — this is what Moshe transmitted from the mouth of the Almighty. (A second approach — that “were explained” means it is also learned in the wisdom of Scripture — is weakened, because the Rambam didn’t bring the hints from the verses at all.)
– “All these things” — broader than just species: “All these things” includes not only which family/species is kosher, but also: for lulav — which stage of growth; for hadasim — which stage; for aravos — which types of aravos. The Gemara makes drashos on everything, but the foundation is from oral tradition.
—
Halachah 3 – These Four Species Are One Mitzvah
“These four species are one mitzvah, and they are indispensable to each other. And all of them are called the mitzvah of lulav.”
Simple Meaning: The four species form one mitzvah. One cannot fulfill with only a part — they are indispensable to each other. And all together are called “mitzvah of lulav.”
Novel Points:
– Indispensable to each other — practical difference: If one has only two or three species, one has not fulfilled even part of the mitzvah. This creates a difficult question in a generation/year when one cannot obtain one of the species.
– “Are called mitzvah of lulav” — why: The Rambam doesn’t say here explicitly why, but later he hints — because lulav is the largest species. In the Gemara it is called “mitzvah of lulav,” and the Rambam notes this linguistic custom.
—
Halachah 4 – One May Not Diminish or Add
“And one may not diminish from them nor add to them.”
Simple Meaning: One may not subtract from the four species nor add to them.
Novel Points:
– The Rambam doesn’t bring “bal tosif” explicitly: In the Gemara it appears that adding a fifth species or removing one is a prohibition of bal tosif/bal tigra. But the Rambam doesn’t bring this as a lav. If it were truly a lav, he would have had to bring it.
– The Rambam’s approach to bal tosif (Laws of Rebels): The Rambam holds that “bal tosif” and “bal tigra” is primarily a Klal Yisrael matter — that one should not think that something that is not a mitzvah is a mitzvah, and that no one may add or subtract mitzvos. This is much less an “action” of an individual (as Rashi learns — “the Torah says four and you do five”), and much more a Klal Yisrael matter about the completeness of Torah.
– Proofs from other halachos in the Rambam:
– Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres: The Rambam says one must do something different/change in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres to show that it is not an obligatory mitzvah. But he doesn’t say “so as not to transgress bal tosif” — he doesn’t bring the lav.
– Birkas Kohanim (Laws of Prayer 14): There the Rambam writes “the kohanim are not permitted to add a blessing, as it says ‘do not add to the matter.’” There he does bring the verse — but he says “are not permitted” (one may not), not “transgresses a lav.”
– Tefillin (five parshiyos): The Rambam brings that one may not, but always as an “prohibition,” not as lashes.
– The Yad Peshutah’s analysis: The “Yad Peshutah” (commentary on the Rambam) traced all places in the Rambam. He shows that “nowhere is the matter of lashes mentioned in this” — the Rambam never brings lashes for bal tosif in such cases, although in the Gemara it says that one who sleeps in a sukkah on Shemini Atzeres should apparently receive lashes. “The Rambam did not agree to this at all.”
– Rambam’s distinction — two types of bal tosif: The Rambam holds that there are two types of bal tosif: (a) biblical — when sages/the community invent a new mitzvah and make it a Torah obligation; (b) when an individual does something more — this is perhaps a branch of the same matter, but not the main lav.
– Source of Rambam’s bal tosif — Laws of Rebels and false prophet: The Rambam’s bal tosif in Laws of Rebels is connected with the lav of a false prophet: “whoever speaks a word in My name that I did not command him.” A false prophet says “the Almighty told me a prophecy,” a sage says “this is how I derive from Torah” — both do the same wrong (saying that something is from Heaven that is not), only with different language.
– Context of bal tosif in Torah — next to idolatry: “Do not add and do not subtract” appears in the Torah both times next to idolatry — once by Baal Peor, a second time by “for even their sons and daughters they burn in fire.” The simple meaning: the Torah says, there is enough service of God — don’t add new services. This fits more with Rashi’s simple meaning, but with the Rambam it also fits: the concern of a false prophet is that he will say there is a new service of the Almighty.
– Bal tigra — Biur Halachah’s approach and difficulties with it: The Biur Halachah says that if one doesn’t have a lulav, one should not take the other three species in the name of a mitzvah, because he transgresses bal tigra. This is difficult — because if one puts on tefillin with only three parshiyos, no one says he transgresses bal tigra — he simply doesn’t fulfill the mitzvah. According to Rashi, bal tigra is a branch of bal tosif: one who makes himself the master over the form of the mitzvah, will eventually also make “half mitzvos.”
– Bal tosif with a fifth species — depends on dispute about agud: If agud is required (one must bind together), a fifth species is like tefillin with a fifth parshah — it invalidates. But if agudah is not indispensable, the fifth species is not a problem. Bal tosif is only when one changes the form of the mitzvah (like tzitzis with five threads instead of four).
– The Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvos: One must look up the Ramban in Shikachas HaMitzvos, where he argues with the Rambam’s approach.
—
Halachah 4 (continued) – “If One of Them Is Not Found” – One Doesn’t Bring a Substitute
The Rambam says: If one hasn’t found one of the species, one doesn’t bring instead of it another species that is similar.
Simple Meaning: One may not bring a lemon instead of an esrog, so as not to lead to an error that the substitute is kosher.
Novel Points:
– The Gemara has a hava amina that one should bring a lemon so that the Torah of four species should not be forgotten — but it is rejected because “harm will come from it” — people will think that a lemon is kosher for esrog.
– Distinction between an invalid thing and a wrong thing: A dried lulav (invalid but the correct species) one did use so it should not be forgotten — as Rav Papa says “they bequeath their lulavim to their children and grandchildren.” But a foreign species — this one may not, because the concern of harm is greater.
– [Digression: Rav Dessler’s parable to prayer — Rav Dessler says that often our prayer has no form of prayer, and the only justification is “so it should not be forgotten.” But here too is the concern of “harm will come” — one convinces oneself that this is called prayer. The distinction: if one maintains the same text (even without intention/enthusiasm), everyone knows one can pray better — this is not dangerous. But one should not make a new prayer (Reform prayer) — that would be like bringing a foreign species instead of an esrog.]
—
Halachah 4 (continued) – It Is a Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar to Bind
“It is a mitzvah min hamuvchar to bind lulav, hadas and aravah and make the three of them one bundle, and this is called the bundle of lulav. And when one takes them to fulfill with them, one first blesses on taking the lulav, since they are all adjacent to it.”
Simple Meaning: It is a hiddur mitzvah to bind together lulav, hadas, and aravah into one bundle. One makes the blessing “al netilas lulav” before lifting it, because immediately upon lifting one is already yotzei.
Novel Points:
– Note about “mitzvah min hamuvchar” and “this is praiseworthy”: In Laws of Yom Tov there appear many “mitzvah min hamuvchar” and “this is praiseworthy” — more than in Sefer Madda and Ahavah. The reasoning: For obligatory positive mitzvos (like four species, sukkah) there is more room for hiddurim — “on Yom Tov one immerses oneself in the mitzvah.”
– Form of the mitzvah — hadas and aravah accompany the lulav: It appears that the form of the mitzvah is that hadas and aravah are adjacent to the lulav — they accompany it.
– Blessing before lifting: One must make the blessing before lifting the lulav, because immediately upon lifting (and shaking) one is already yotzei — unlike shofar, where one can make the blessing when already holding the shofar in hand (because one is not yet yotzei until one blows).
– Why “al netilas lulav” and not on all four species? The Rambam’s reason: “Since they are all adjacent to it” — all species are adjacent to the lulav. Whether this means practically (the lulav is the largest and stands in the middle, the others are small around it), or essentially (the lulav is fundamentally the most important species — as in sod, lulav is the spine, the entire body). The hint in sod also stems from the fact that it is the largest.
—
Halachah 7 – Taking the Four Species: How One Takes Them
“One takes this bundle in his right hand and esrog in his left… and one takes them in the manner of their growth, that their stems should be below toward the earth and their tops above”
Simple Meaning: One takes the three species (lulav, hadas, aravah) in the right hand and esrog in the left hand. One takes them “in the manner of their growth” — as they grow, with the root below and the top above.
Novel Points:
– Why right for three species: Right is more important, and three species are more than one, therefore they go in the more important hand.
– What “in the manner of their growth” means: “In the manner of their growth” doesn’t mean how the fruit hangs when it is already heavy (because an esrog hangs down when it becomes large), but it means how the root stands to the tree — “that their stems should be below toward the earth and their tops above” — like “a ladder set on the earth and its top reaches” — the root below, the top above.
– The Rambam’s approach to the order of taking: The Rambam says one leaves the lulav on the table, makes a blessing, and lifts it.
– Against the custom of turning over the esrog: The custom of placing the esrog upside down (so it should not be “in the manner of its growth” until after the blessing) is criticized — “it has no taste or smell, one should not do it.”
– [Digression: Custom of lulav holder and esrog box — a lengthy discussion about the old custom that one would go to shul with the lulav in hand and the esrog in a box (holder). The main blessing was made at home, over la’asiyasan. When one holds a lulav one fulfills the mitzvah every minute (as we will see later from “people of Jerusalem”). The esrog in a box is also yotzei because it is only a “beauty” (noy) and not a chatzitzah.]
– Criticism of plastic lulav holders: Today’s people who put their lulav in plastic are sharply criticized — “this is a disgrace to the mitzvah.” “Where does it say in Torah plastic? In the entire Torah there was no plastic.” The entire concept of lulav is that one holds it — one should hold it in one’s hands when going to shul.
—
Halachah 8 – If One Didn’t Bind Them, One Takes Them One by One
“If one didn’t bind them, one takes them one by one and is yotzei. Provided that all four are available to him.”
Simple Meaning: If one hasn’t bound the species together, one can take them one after another and is yotzei. But the condition is that all four species should be present with him.
Novel Points:
– What “one by one” means: Whether “one by one” means each species separately (lulav, hadas, aravah), or even each individual hadas separately. Apparently it can mean each individual piece.
– What “available to him” means: Two explanations — (a) it lies literally before him on the table, (b) it is “available” — he has access to all species (even in shul). The practical difference: whether one can make a blessing on the lulav at home when the esrog is in shul, if he knows that there is an esrog there.
– “If there is only one species… he should not take until he finds the rest”: When a species is missing, one should not take until one has everything.
– The agud is not indispensable: The Rambam rules that the agud (binding together) is not indispensable — this is a dispute in the Gemara, and the Rambam rules that one can be yotzei without agud. What is “indispensable” for the four species is not that one must hold them together, but that one must have all four.
—
Halachah 8 (continued) – How Many Does One Take: The Number of Each Species
“How many does one take — one lulav and one esrog and two aravah branches and three hadas branches. And if one wishes to add to the hadas so that his bundle should be larger, he may add, and it is a beautification of the mitzvah.”
Simple Meaning: The measures: one lulav, one esrog, two aravos, three hadasim. One may add more hadasim for beauty.
Novel Points:
– Source for the numbers: “Arvei nachal” is plural language (minimum two), but the specific numbers (three hadasim, two aravos) are halachah l’Moshe miSinai. The Rambam has a principle that a halachah where there is a dispute (Rabbi Akiva says one hadas and one aravah) can be a halachah l’Moshe miSinai.
– Why specifically hadas can one add: “Beautification of the mitzvah” is the explanation — hadas is a beautiful leaf, more beautiful than aravos, and more hadasim make a more beautiful bundle. Therefore it is not “bal tosif” — because one adds it for beauty, not as another species.
– Practical approaches to the number of hadasim: (a) The custom of the Geonim — at least 68 hadasim, like the numerical value of “lulav” (brought by Magen Avraham and Hagahos Maimoniyos). (b) 63 hadasim like the numerical value of “hadar” (brought by Rabbi Igel). 68 hadasim is practically very difficult — “sixty-eight will come out a bucket so large.”
– Practical conduct with hadasim: Rabbi Elimelech says that three hadasim should certainly be kosher (meshulash), but afterwards one can add hadasim that are not completely meshulash — for beautification of the mitzvah.
– The Raavad’s hasagah: The Raavad says that only with hadas is there the matter of beautification (adding). “But other species one does not add to their number” — for other species one doesn’t add. “And if one did so, it is not invalid” — it doesn’t become invalid, but it is not optimal.
—
Halachah: Adding to the Species — Whether It Invalidates (continued)
Novel Points:
– The Raavad’s distinction: The Raavad disagrees with the Rambam’s invalidation of adding. He says that even Rabbi Yehudah who says lulav requires binding, only speaks when one adds a new species (not of its kind) to the bundle — that makes it invalid. But adding another piece of hadas (of its kind) is no problem, because Rabbi Yehudah’s rule “one only binds lulav with its own kind” only means that one may not bind with a foreign species, but two lulavim together is kosher because it is the same species.
– The Rambam retracted (chazar bo): The Rambam himself agreed with the Raavad and corrected his book with his own hand. Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam says explicitly: “He retracted and corrected his book with his own hand as explained, and adding and subtracting does not invalidate.” This is one of the proofs that the Raavad is usually correct when he objects.
– Bal tosif without invalidation: Even after the retraction, there is an aspect that there is still a question of bal tosif on adding, but this is a separate lav — it doesn’t invalidate the lulav, but it is an additional prohibition.
– Why hadasim “beautification of mitzvah” but aravos not? Hadasim have a good smell which makes them more beautiful, or hadasim are simply more beautiful than aravos.
– Proof from Sanhedrin: Rabbi Avraham son of the Rambam brings that his father had a proof from a Gemara in Sanhedrin that one can add to lulav.
—
Halachah: Length Measure of Each Species
“Lulav should not be less than four tefachim. Its measurement is from the spine alone, not from the top of the leaves.”
Simple Meaning: The lulav must be minimum 4 tefachim, measured from the spine (stem) itself, not from the tips of the leaves. However long it is more than this — kosher.
Novel Point: This is a stringency — because the Gemara says 3 tefachim plus a tefach for holding, but the Rambam counts only from the spine, not from the leaves.
“Hadas and aravah — not less than three tefachim.”
“Even if each branch has only three fresh leaves — it is kosher, and they should be at its top.”
Simple Meaning: A hadas branch can be 3 tefachim bare, but at the top there must be minimum 3 fresh leaves.
Novel Point: For aravos — how many leaves minimum? For hadas 3 is understandable because hadas is “meshulash” (3 leaves on one node). For aravah the measure is not clearly explained.
—
Halachah: The Spine of the Lulav Should Extend from the Hadas a Tefach
“If one binds the lulav, the spine of the lulav must extend from the hadas and aravah a tefach or more.”
Simple Meaning: When one binds them together, the lulav’s spine must extend a tefach higher than hadas/aravah. This shows that the lulav is the more important species and the others accompany it.
—
Halachah: Measure of Esrog
“The measure of esrog should not be less than an egg’s volume. Whoever adds, this is praiseworthy.”
—
Halachah: Lifting the Four Species
**”When one lifts these four species — whether one lifted them together, or lifted them one after
Halachah: Lifting the Four Species
“When one lifts these four species — whether one lifted them together, or lifted them one after another, whether in the right or in the left — one is yotzei. But not in the manner of their growth — one is not yotzei.”
Simple Meaning: Any lifting fulfills the obligation, even not in the ideal order. But reversing the manner of their growth is completely invalidating.
—
Halachah: The Mitzvah According to Its Law — Waving
“The mitzvah according to its law is that one lifts the bundle of the three species in his right hand and esrog in his left, and brings forward and brings back and raises and lowers. And one waves the lulav three times in each direction. How? Brings forward — waves the top of the lulav three times. And brings back — waves three times. And so with raising and lowering.”
Simple Meaning: According to the Rambam there are two movements: (1) bringing forward and bringing back — extending from oneself and bringing back, (2) raising and lowering — up and down. Each movement is done three times.
Novel Points:
– What is “waving”: Waving means “waving” — a movement from place to place. It is not shaking in one place, but one must actually move it — forward and back, up and down. This is the simple meaning of the Gemara “brings forward and brings back toward He whose the winds are, raises and lowers toward He whose the heavens and earth are.”
– Rabbeinu Menachem: Although it says one should do it toward the seven heavens, Rabbeinu Menachem means that this is only the intention one should have, not that one must make seven separate shakings.
– Criticism of later customs: Later tzaddikim added that one should shake toward all six directions with all kinds of movements, until waving became “something like a Shemoneh Esrei where one stands and does some strange things that no one knows what it is.” But the simple meaning is simply a “wave” — like a person who raises a flag.
– Waving during Hallel: The essence of shaking lulav after the blessing already fulfills the obligation with the lifting. The bringing forward and bringing back is an additional matter of joy that is connected with Hallel — it is part of the recitation, not a separate mitzvah.
—
Halachah: Waving During Hallel — When Does One Wave
Simple Meaning: One shakes the lulav during the recitation of Hallel, specifically at three places: “Hodu LaHashem” at the beginning of the chapter (Psalms 118), “Hodu” at the end of the chapter, and “Ana Hashem hoshi’ah na” in the middle. This means only three times of waving according to the Rambam.
Novel Points:
– Although at the beginning “Hodu” appears four times, the Rambam doesn’t say that one shakes four times at the beginning — he means only the first “Hodu” and the last one.
– Our customs are different, but one must know the halachah that appears in the Rambam.
– Waving without Hallel makes no sense — the wavings are intrinsically connected with Hallel. Hallel is originally a joyful thing with a specific form — the chazzan says certain things and the congregation responds back like a choir, and there comes in the waving of species that bring joy. The whole thing has a form.
– Criticism of practices: The custom to make wavings at an extended time without connection to Hallel is sharply criticized — by certain rebbes one makes wavings at a special time, and this is not the mitzvah at all. Also the custom to make wavings at the blessing (before Hallel) has no source in the Rambam.
– Hallel’s form like a choir: Just as one says Hallel in many Chassidic shuls (without the correct form of chazzan and congregation), one may “quietly” say Hallel also on Rosh Hashanah — because the reason one doesn’t say Hallel on Rosh Hashanah is because “books of life and books of death are open,” but if one says Hallel without the correct form (without the joyful choir format), it is not the Hallel that the Gemara speaks of at all.
—
Halachah: “All Day Is Kosher for Taking Lulav”
“All day is kosher for taking lulav, but it is not taken at night” — because it says “and you shall take… on the day.”
Novel Point: It may be that the main mitzvah of taking lulav is actually during Hallel — the entire form of the mitzvah is that one should recite Hallel with species. Only because one cannot make a blessing first at Hallel, one makes “al netilas lulav” beforehand, and one is already yotzei the essence. In the siddur it says it is before Hallel, but there was an early custom to take lulav when going to the beis midrash with the species.
—
Halachah 7 – Taking Through Something Else / Chatzitzah
The Rambam says: Whoever has the bundle bound with gemi (a type of grass), or made a holder of silver and gold, or wrapped a cloth around it, and so lifted it — is yotzei, because taking through something else is called taking. But this is only in a manner of honor, in a manner of beautification — when the reason for the wrapping is beauty. For anything that beautifies it does not interpose. But if one placed the species in a pot (a crude basket that is not for beauty) — one has not fulfilled one’s obligation.
Novel Points:
– Difficult contradiction in the Rambam: The Rambam appears to contradict himself. At the beginning he says taking through something else is called taking — which means it doesn’t matter at all how one took it. But the second part appears that one must indeed take it directly, only when it is for beauty it is not a chatzitzah because it is nullified.
– Proposed answer: There may be a distinction between: (a) something that beautifies the bundle itself (like a golden holder) — this is nullified to the bundle and is not a chatzitzah; (b) something that is a completely different thing (like a pot/basket) — this is not nullified.
– Taking through something else vs. chatzitzah — two separate questions: For lulav there are two separate questions: (1) Chatzitzah — whether something interferes between the hand and the lulav; (2) Taking — whether this is called “taking.” These are not the same. A glove — according to “taking through something else is called taking” should not be a problem, because he lifts it with his hand (only with a glove). It is even easier than a golden holder around the lulav, because he holds it in his hand.
– Comparison with shofar: For shofar it is different — there one must hear “the sound of shofar,” and no one would have a problem when one takes the shofar with a glove. The law for shofar is that there should be nothing between his mouth and the shofar that makes the sound. The Rema says one should remove gloves for lulav.
– Comparison with carrying on Shabbos: When one lifts something with a bag, he is indeed transgressing carrying on Shabbos — because he indeed carried it out. But carrying means carrying, not taking. For taking the standard is different — a bag is not the manner of “taking.”
– Pot — what does the Rema mean? The Rema says “pot and bowl” – a practical kitchen thing, not a beautiful thing. The Rambam doesn’t need to make a distinction between a beautiful and non-beautiful pot, because a pot is essentially not a beautiful thing.
– [Digression: Esrog box — a Litvak once asked that there is no mitzvah to have a beautiful esrog box, because “zeh Keli v’anveihu” is only during the mitzvah, and when the esrog lies on the table there is no mitzvah. The Brisker Rav has teachings that “zeh Keli v’anveihu” is only during the mitzvah. But this is nonsense — “zeh Keli v’anveihu” is everything around the mitzvah as well. And according to the Rambam that taking through something else is called taking, when one lifts the esrog with the box one is certainly yotzei.]
– Rema about tefillin and rings: The Rema says that “those who are stringent remove the tefillin and rings from their hands” — in Ashkenaz where one put on tefillin on Chol HaMoed, one removed tefillin and rings for taking lulav. The Maharil’s custom was to be concerned. But the Rema says that according to the law one doesn’t need to — but not because it is not a chatzitzah, but because not the entire hand is covered. This is noted as requiring study. The Kaf HaChaim brings that several great people go with rings on their hands and don’t remove them even for washing hands.
—
Halachah: Lulav and Esrog Held Together
Novel Points:
– The Rambam doesn’t say one must hold esrog together with the lulav. The Beis Yosef brings in the name of Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak HaKohen that one must hold lulav and esrog together “for the sake of the Name.” This is not accepted, with several arguments:
– “Lulav in his right and esrog in his left” means that each is in a separate hand, not together. If it meant together, it would have said “esrog with it in the bundle.”
– Practically one sees how people shake lulav with a cramped hand and cannot live normally – “a mitzvah is made to be joyful.”
– Whoever says otherwise “must bring proof for his words, and not a hint according to kabbalah, because kabbalah can be said however one wants.”
—
Halachah 8 – Binding the Lulav and Chatzitzah Between Species
“One who binds the lulav with the hadas and aravah, and separates between the lulav and the hadas with a cloth or the like – this interposes. If one separates between them with hadas leaves – it is kosher, for a species within its kind does not interpose.”
“And one may bind the lulav with a thread or string and any kind one wishes, since its binding is not indispensable.”
Simple Meaning: When one binds together the lulav with hadas and aravah, one may not place a cloth or other species between them – this interposes. But if one places hadas leaves between them, it is kosher because a species within its kind does not interpose. The binding itself can be done with anything.
Novel Points:
– Chatzitzah between species vs. chatzitzah between hand and species: Even if between the hands and the species there is no chatzitzah problem (as said in Halachah 7), but between the species themselves there is indeed a chatzitzah problem.
– Question: How can chatzitzah between species be worse than taking one at a time? The Rambam said earlier that one can take each species separately and is yotzei. If so, how can it be that when they lie together with a separation it is worse? The answer: “This interposes” doesn’t mean one is not yotzei at all, but that one is not yotzei the binding properly – but the mitzvah itself one is yotzei.
– A species within its kind does not interpose: Therefore our custom is to make the holder (band) from lulav leaves – because a species within its kind does not interpose.
– Binding with anything: The binding (agud) from outside can be done with anything – thread, string, etc. – because its binding is not indispensable. If agud were indispensable, there would be a problem because it would look like a fifth species. But since agud is not indispensable, the band is only for practical purposes, and it doesn’t look like one is adding to the mitzvah.
—
Halachah 9 – When Does One Take Lulav: The First Day Everywhere
“The mitzvah of lulav is to take it on the first day of the festival only, everywhere and at all times, even on Shabbos, as it says ‘and you shall take for yourselves on the first day.’ But in the Temple alone…”
Simple Meaning: The Torah mitzvah of lulav is only the first day of Sukkos, everywhere, even Shabbos. In the Beis HaMikdash one takes all seven days.
Novel Points:
– “Temple” – Beis HaMikdash or Jerusalem? “Temple alone” implies the Beis HaMikdash itself – if he meant Jerusalem, he would have said Jerusalem. But the Rambam in Peirush HaMishnah (Sukkah) says explicitly “lulav is taken in Jerusalem all seven.” It is difficult to say he changed his approach in Mishneh Torah.
– Practical difference today: Whether “Temple” means Jerusalem has a practical difference: whether there is a matter to travel to Jerusalem (to the Kotel) on Sukkos in order to fulfill lulav all seven days biblically.
—
Halachah: Lulav in the Temple All Seven Days of the Festival
“In the Temple alone one takes it every day of the seven days of the festival” — because the verse says and you shall take for yourselves and ends with and you shall rejoice before Hashem your God seven days.
Novel Points:
– The source for seven days in the Temple is from the fact that the verse ends with and you shall rejoice before Hashem – before Hashem means in the Temple, and there it says seven days. This is similar to with trumpets before Hashem. But the first day (and you shall take) is without “before Hashem” – this is everywhere. The Sages combined the end of the verse with its beginning.
—
Halachah: Lulav on Shabbos – Other Days of the Festival
“If Shabbos falls during the days of the festival – it is not taken on Shabbos” — due to a decree lest one carry it four amos in the public domain as we decreed regarding shofar.
Simple Meaning: On the other days (not the first day) one doesn’t take lulav on Shabbos, because we fear he will carry it four amos in the public domain.
Novel Points:
– Distinction between shofar and lulav in the Rambam’s language: For shofar the Rambam elaborated to explain how the Sages can nullify a biblical law (because it is a prohibition punishable by stoning). Here for lulav the elaboration is missing – because here the Sages are not nullifying any biblical law. The mitzvah of lulav on other days is only rabbinic (in the Temple), therefore they said it and they said it – the same Sages who instituted the mitzvah, also limited that in a place of concern for carrying in the public domain one doesn’t take.
—
Halachah: Why Not Decree on the First Day
“And why didn’t they decree this decree on the first day? Because it is a mitzvah from the Torah even in the borders… it turns out that its law is not like the law of other days equally.”
Novel Points:
– The Rambam’s answer is: The Sages do not uproot a biblical law (first day), but a rabbinic law they do uproot (other days).
– Interesting parallel with shofar: For shofar one does blow in the Temple on Shabbos, but for lulav one doesn’t take even in the Temple on Shabbos (on other days). On the other hand, for lulav one allows the first day even in the borders, which for shofar is not so. It is a reversed pattern. The reasoning “doesn’t hold fearfully” – the distinction is not entirely clear according to logic.
—
Halachah: Enactment of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai – Lulav All Seven Days in Memory of the Temple
“After the Temple was destroyed they enacted that lulav should be taken everywhere all seven days of the festival in memory of the Temple” — “and every day one blesses on taking lulav” — “because it is a mitzvah from the words of the Sages” – and on rabbinic laws one also says who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us.
Novel Points:
– This enactment means not only lulav, but all the enactments of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai in memory of the Temple – they are all only relevant as long as there is no Beis HaMikdash. When the Temple is rebuilt things will return to their original state – everything goes back to the old law.
– Distinction between two types of “in memory of the Temple”: For korech (Hillel’s custom) “in memory of the Temple” is a different type – Hillel indeed did it in the time of the Temple, and one does it today to remember. But here for lulav it is an enactment that will cease when Mashiach comes.
—
Halachah: Lulav on the First Day That Falls on Shabbos – In the Time of the Temple
“In the time when the Beis HaMikdash stood, lulav was taken on the first day that fell on Shabbos” – whether in the Temple or in the borders. “And so in other places where they knew with certainty that this day is the festival day in the Land of Israel. But distant places that did not know about the fixing of the new month – did not take the lulav out of doubt.”
Novel Points:
– When it is a doubtful Yom Tov (distant places), one did make Sukkos two days (out of doubt), but lulav one did not take out of doubt when it is Shabbos. The reason: both days are only rabbinic (because each day is a doubt), and the decree of lest one carry it is not against biblical law but against rabbinic law.
—
Halachah 17 – Lulav on Shabbos After the Temple Was Destroyed
“After the Temple was destroyed, the Sages forbade taking the lulav on Shabbos on the first day, even for the people of the Land of Israel who sanctified the month… so that all should be equal in this matter, and these should not take on Shabbos and these should not take, since the obligation of the first day everywhere is the same, and there is no Temple to rely upon.”
Simple Meaning: After the destruction the Sages forbade taking lulav on Shabbos even on the first day, even in the Land of Israel where one knows for certain when it is Yom Tov — so that all Jews should conduct themselves equally.
Novel Points:
– Difficult question on this reason: In the time of the Beis HaMikdash one didn’t decree on the first day of Sukkos (unlike Rosh Hashanah), because on the first day it is biblical. After the destruction one suddenly nullified a biblical law of taking lulav on the first day — only due to unity with outside the Land? This is difficult to understand.
– “And there is no Temple to rely upon” — not clear: The Rambam says that when there was a Beis HaMikdash, one understood why the Land of Israel is different. But without a Temple people will not understand the distinction. This is difficult, because the distinction is indeed dependent on sanctifying the new month, not on the Temple.
– Even more difficult — in our time: The Rambam says further (Halachah 18): “In our time when everyone goes according to calculation” — today one calculates according to the calendar, everyone knows when it is Rosh Chodesh. The first day of Yom Tov is everywhere certain. Nevertheless the custom remains that no one takes lulav on Shabbos. This makes the matter even more difficult.
– “Custom of our fathers in our hands” doesn’t fit: For the second Yom Tov of the Diaspora one says “custom of our fathers in our hands” — this makes sense because it is a doubt. But here there is no doubt — everyone knows that today is Yom Tov, and nevertheless one nullifies a biblical law.
– The Rambam repeats: “And we have already explained that the essence of the prohibition of taking lulav on Shabbos — is a decree lest one carry it four amos in the public domain.” This makes it even more difficult — it is only a rabbinic decree, and one nullifies a biblical law for this? The Lechem Mishneh brings indeed that this remains a question.
– A “secret” in this matter: In certain books it says that by nullifying shofar and lulav for Shabbos one demonstrates the gravity of Shabbos. People greatly value shofar and lulav — mitzvos that one does once a year — and by nullifying them for Shabbos, one demonstrates the sanctity of Shabbos. But this is also questioned: in the time of the Beis HaMikdash one didn’t decree on the first day of Sukkos.
– Conclusion: It is “requires great study” — the Rambam wrote what appears in the Gemara, but the matter remains difficult to fully understand.
—
Halachah: Who Is Obligated in Lulav
“Whoever is obligated in shofar and sukkah is obligated in taking lulav, and whoever is exempt from shofar and sukkah is exempt from lulav. A minor who knows how to wave is obligated in lulav from the words of the Sages in order to train him in mitzvos.”
Simple Meaning: The obligation of lulav is like shofar and sukkah — men, not women, not minors (except for education). The measure for education for lulav is “knows how to wave.”
Novel Points:
– What “knows how to wave” means: “To wave” doesn’t mean only physically shaking, but he can participate with the Hallel — he knows when one shakes, at which places in Hallel, the correct order. This is a level of understanding, not just physical ability.
– Why not “knows how to lift”? The main mitzvah is indeed taking (lifting), not waving — why is the measure “to wave” and not “to lift”? The answer: education is done optimally, mitzvah min hamuvchar — not a post-facto fulfillment. The normal way of fulfilling lulav is with wavings, therefore the measure of education is according to this.
– [Digression: It is said that today even many adults cannot properly “wave” — they do “some kind of mad action.”]
—
Halachah: Mitzvah of Aravah in the Temple (Halachah l’Moshe miSinai)
“Another aravah, besides the aravah of the lulav, seven days in the Temple. And a person does not fulfill his obligation with the aravah that is in the lulav. Even one leaf on one branch.”
Simple Meaning: There is a separate mitzvah of aravah in the Temple — halachah l’Moshe miSinai — which is a completely different mitzvah from the aravah in the lulav. One is not yotzei with the aravah that already lies in the four species. The minimum measure is one leaf on one branch.
Novel Points:
– An entire halachah l’Moshe miSinai: A mitzvah that doesn’t appear in the Torah at all, not even as a hint (or almost not as a hint). It is connected with the aravah of lulav because it is the same species, but it is a completely separate mitzvah.
– “A person does not fulfill his obligation with the aravah that is in the lulav”: One is not yotzei with what the aravah already lies in the four species, even if it is next to the altar.
– Measure — one leaf on one branch: Optimally one presumably brought more, but post-facto one is yotzei even with one leaf on one twig.
—
Halachah 2 – Order of Bringing Aravah in the Temple
“How was its mitzvah? Every day of the seven days they would bring large aravah branches and stand them on the sides of the altar with their tops bent over the altar, and when they bring it and arrange it they blow tekiah, teruah and tekiah.”
Simple Meaning: Every day of Sukkos one brought entire aravah branches (large branches), stood them on the sides of the altar with the tops bent over the altar, and one blew shofar when bringing it.
Novel Points:
– “Large branches” – entire small trees: Not just a piece of aravah, but entire aravah plants.
– “Was its mitzvah” vs. “will be”: The past tense is interesting – apparently this should also apply in the future when the Beis HaMikdash will stand.
– “And their tops bent over the altar”: This is the secret of the verse “one who bends his head like a reed” – the aravah naturally bends over the altar.
– Blowing shofar when bringing aravah: This is the source of the Ropshitz custom to blow shofar on Hoshana Rabbah. The shofar is for joy, not like the shofar of Rosh Hashanah.
– [Digression: The Ropshitzer’s custom – he cried on Hoshana Rabbah (when one should be joyful) and didn’t cry on Tisha B’Av (when one should cry), because he was not a “normal person.”]
– The prohibition of planting a tree in the Temple: There is a question whether this standing of aravah by the altar is a concern for this prohibition. The answer: one places it on the altar, not in the ground, so it doesn’t look like it’s planted.
—
Halachah 3 – Aravah on Shabbos
“If the seventh day of aravah falls on Shabbos – one stands it on Shabbos in order to publicize that it is a mitzvah. One brings them on Friday to the Temple and places them in golden vessels so they should not wilt, and the next day one stands them on the altar.”
Simple Meaning: An ordinary day of Sukkos that falls on Shabbos one doesn’t do aravah, but the seventh day – the day of aravah – one does even on Shabbos, in order to publicize that it is a mitzvah. One brings it on Friday and places it in golden vessels with water.
Novel Points:
– “In order to publicize that it is a mitzvah”: The reason one does it on Shabbos is to prove that aravah is a mitzvah, not just a custom. Because aravah is halachah l’Moshe miSinai and doesn’t appear explicitly in the Torah, one must publicize it.
– Why there is no concern for Shabbos in the Temple: In the Temple everyone is “careful” – there is no concern that one will carry four amos in the public domain.
– Golden vessels: Golden vessels – for the honor of the Beis HaMikdash. The water is so they should not wilt.
– “And the people come and take from them and take them as they do every day”: The people took from the aravos and “take them” – this means like taking lulav, one lifts it, but without wavings.
—
Halachah 4 – Aravah in Our Time
“This aravah, since it is not explicit in the Torah… only on the seventh day alone that one takes it in our time.”
Simple Meaning: Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai didn’t enact aravah in memory of the Temple for all days (as he did enact for lulav), only for the seventh day.
Novel Points:
– Why only the seventh day: The seventh day is special – “the day of aravah” – because in the Temple one did it even on Shabbos. Therefore one enacted that in our time one should at least keep the seventh day.
– Hoshana Rabbah never falls on Shabbos: This is one of the reasons for “lo adu rosh” – one calculated the calendar so that Hoshana Rabbah should not fall on Shabbos, so as not to miss the day of aravah.
– “Last day” matter: The seventh day of Sukkos – the last day that one takes lulav – has a special importance. Shemini Atzeres is already a separate Yom Tov, but the last day of Sukkos itself has its own virtue.
—
Halachah 5 – Beating Aravah in Our Time
“One takes one branch or many branches besides the aravah that is in the lulav, and beats with it on the ground or on a vessel two or three times without a blessing.”
Simple Meaning: One takes one or more aravah branches (except the aravah in the lulav), and one beats with it on the ground or on a vessel two-three times, without a blessing.
Novel Points:
– “One branch or many branches” vs. previous halachah: For the aravah in the lulav one needs two, but for beating aravah one can take one or many – different measures.
– “Besides the aravah that is in the lulav”: Again emphasizing that one needs a separate aravah, not the one that is already in the lulav.
– Without a blessing – because it is a custom of the prophets: The Rambam begins that beating aravah is a “custom of the prophets” – prophets in the Beis HaMikdash (Chaggai, Zechariah, Malachi) used to do this. It is not a rabbinic enactment that would receive a blessing, but a custom. On a custom one doesn’t make a blessing, and it is not “bal tosif” because one does more, one doesn’t command.
—
Halachah 6 – Circuits with Lulav
“Every day they would circle the altar with their lulavim in their hands once and say Ana Hashem hoshi’ah na. And on the seventh day they circle the altar seven times. And so we practice in all places that one places a bimah in the middle of the synagogue in memory of the altar and circles it.”
Simple Meaning: Every day of Sukkos one went around the altar once with lulav, saying “Ana Hashem hoshi’ah na.” The seventh day – seven times. Today one places the bimah (platform) in the middle of the shul in memory of the altar.
Novel Points:
– “With their lulavim” = four species: He says “lulav” but presumably means all four species.
– Circuits are separate from Hallel: This “Ana Hashem hoshi’ah na” during circuits is a separate thing, not part of Hallel.
– “One places a bimah in the middle of the synagogue”: Interesting – it sounds like not always is the bimah in the middle of the shul. One learns elsewhere that the bimah stands in front. Only for circuits one places it in the middle.
—
Halachah: Custom of Jerusalem – Lulav All Day
“Thus was the custom in Jerusalem: A person would leave his house in the morning with his lulav in his hand, enter the synagogue and pray with it in his hand, go out to visit the sick with it in his hand. And when he enters the study hall he sends it to his house by his son or his servant.”
Simple Meaning: In Jerusalem one used to hold the lulav the entire day – during prayer, visiting the sick, everywhere. Only when going to learn in the beis midrash one sends it home.
Novel Points:
– Why not during learning: The same principle as sukkah – “dwelling in it, prayer” – prayer needs clarity, but learning is on a completely different level. Learning overrides everything. One must be able to turn with one’s hands when one has a novel idea.
– “Receives from the woman… and returns it to water”: When one sends the lulav home, the woman receives it and places it back in water.
—
Halachah: Lulav in Water – Shabbos, Yom Tov, Chol HaMoed
**”Returns it to water on Shabbos. Adds water on Yom Tov. And
Halachah: Lulav in Water – Shabbos, Yom Tov, Chol HaMoed (continued)
“Returns it to water on Shabbos. Adds water on Yom Tov. And on the festival days one changes the water.”
Novel Points:
– On Shabbos: One may return the lulav to the same water, but not pour new water. There is no concern of “planting” because it is already cut off.
– On Yom Tov: One may add (pour) water, but not change (completely replace), because that would be too much effort.
– On Chol HaMoed: One may even change the water completely.
– Strong criticism of the people: Every Sukkos all kinds of “patents” come up for how to keep the species fresh, when it says explicitly in the holy Mishnah that one should place them in water! Like flowers that one places all year in water — why should one do differently here? It is an obligation according to the Mishnah, not just advice.
– “Lulav” in this context means primarily the hadasim, because the lulav itself doesn’t spoil so quickly. The Rambam himself in Moreh Nevuchim brings as a proof for why the Almighty chose specifically these four species — because they stay fresh an entire week, in contrast to an apple which would not last.
—
Halachah: Hadas in the Lulav — Forbidden to Smell It
“The hadas that is in the lulav is forbidden to smell, because it is only suitable for smell, since it was set aside for the mitzvah it shall be forbidden to smell it.”
Simple Meaning: A hadas that one uses during the year only for smell — when one takes it for the mitzvah, it becomes muktzeh for its mitzvah, and one may not smell it.
Novel Points:
– The principle is similar to decorations of the sukkah: just as decorations of the sukkah become forbidden to use for other purposes, so too the hadas.
– Question: Smell has no me’ilah (as found regarding hekdesh) — how can one forbid smelling? This remains a mystery.
– A suggestion: Perhaps “to smell” doesn’t mean just smelling in passing, but actively squeezing the leaves to bring out the smell — which is the normal way one uses a hadas for smell. Just holding without squeezing doesn’t give out the same smell.
—
Halachah: Esrog — Permitted to Smell, Forbidden to Eat
“Esrog — one is permitted to smell it, because it was set aside for its mitzvah from eating” — one set it aside from eating, not from smelling. “It is forbidden to eat it the entire seventh day, for there is no setting aside for part of the day” — even in the afternoon when one has already finished taking, it remains forbidden, because setting aside is for the whole day. “And on the eighth day one is permitted to eat it” — on Shemini Atzeres one may already eat.
Simple Meaning: The distinction between hadas and esrog: hadas is only suitable for smell, therefore smell becomes forbidden; esrog is suitable both for smell and for eating — the muktzeh is from eating, but smell remains permitted, because by not eating one already shows enough that it is for the mitzvah.
Novel Points:
– Proof that esrog must be fit for eating: From the fact that the Rambam says “it was set aside for its mitzvah from eating” — this shows that the esrog must have a taste and be fit for eating. [Digression: “All esrogim are fit for eating — if you don’t like it that’s your problem”, and one can cook it with sugar.]
– Setting aside for part of the day — doesn’t exist: Even when one has already finished taking, the esrog remains forbidden the entire day. This is because setting aside is for the whole day — muktzeh for part of a day is muktzeh for the entire day.
—
Halachah: Shemini Atzeres in Our Time (Two Days of Yom Tov)
“In our time, two days of Yom Tov — even though one doesn’t take lulav on the eighth day, esrog is forbidden on the eighth day” — because the eighth day can be a doubtful seventh.
Simple Meaning: Outside the Land where one makes two days of Yom Tov, Shemini Atzeres is a doubtful seventh — therefore the esrog remains forbidden to eat.
Novel Points:
– Question: Why doesn’t one take lulav on Shemini Atzeres as a doubtful seventh? Answer: Biblically lulav is only the first day (in our time), and what one takes the entire week is only in memory of the Temple — and in the Temple there is no doubt of the day, therefore one didn’t enact to take lulav on the eighth day. A beautiful reasoning.
– In the time of the Temple — each one goes out with his lulav and eats the next day: When each individual set aside one esrog for all seven days, after Sukkos (the eighth day) it is already permitted to eat, because the muktzeh was only for one esrog, and one already showed enough that it is for the mitzvah.
– Story of Rabbi Yudan (Yerushalmi): The famous philanthropist Rabbi Yudan collected esrogim after Sukkos — because people made compote (preserves) on Shemini Atzeres. This fits with the Mishnah: “Immediately the children snatch their lulavim and eat their esrogim” — children immediately ate the esrogim.
– [Digression: It would be a nice custom to buy seven esrogim, one for each day of Sukkos!]
—
Halachah 7 – Taking Through Something Else / Chatzitzah (Revisited)
[This section was covered earlier but contains additional points about practical applications]
—
Halachah: Lulav and Esrog Held Together (Revisited)
[This section was covered earlier regarding the dispute about holding them together]
—
Halachah 8 – Binding the Lulav and Chatzitzah Between Species (Revisited)
[This section was covered earlier regarding species within their kind not interposing]
—
Halachah: Adding to the Species — Final Notes
Novel Points:
– The Rambam’s retraction is significant: The fact that the Rambam himself corrected his book shows the importance of the Raavad’s objections and the dynamic nature of halachic understanding.
– Practical implications for our time: Understanding whether adding species invalidates or not affects how we prepare our lulavim and whether we need to be concerned about extra leaves or branches that might be present.
—
Halachah: Length Measures — Practical Applications
Novel Points:
– Four tefachim for lulav: This is measured from the spine, which is a stringency. One must ensure when purchasing a lulav that it meets this minimum requirement.
– Three tefachim for hadas and aravah: The practical application is that even if most of the branch is bare, as long as there are fresh leaves at the top for three tefachim (or the minimum of three leaves), it is kosher.
– The spine extending a tefach: This creates a visual hierarchy showing that lulav is primary among the species.
—
Halachah: The Mitzvah According to Its Law — Practical Waving
Novel Points:
– Simplicity of the original practice: The Rambam’s description shows that the original practice was relatively simple — forward and back, up and down, three times each direction.
– Later elaborations: While later customs added complexity, understanding the basic requirement helps one fulfill the mitzvah properly without getting lost in excessive movements.
– Connection to Hallel: The essential connection between waving and Hallel reminds us that this is part of a joyful celebration, not a separate technical requirement.
—
Halachah: All Day Is Kosher — Practical Timing
Novel Points:
– Flexibility in timing: The fact that all day is kosher provides flexibility for those who cannot take lulav early in the morning.
– Connection to Hallel: Understanding that the primary fulfillment is connected to Hallel helps one plan when to take the lulav optimally.
—
Halachah: Custom of Jerusalem — Carrying Lulav
Novel Points:
– The joy of the mitzvah: The Jerusalem custom of carrying the lulav throughout the day demonstrates the joy and pride in performing mitzvos.
– Practical considerations: The distinction made for entering the study hall shows the balance between mitzvah observance and the needs of Torah study.
– Water maintenance: The detailed instructions about maintaining the lulav in water on different days shows the care that should be taken with mitzvah objects.
—
Halachah: Hadas and Esrog — Smelling and Eating
Novel Points:
– Different types of muktzeh: The distinction between hadas (forbidden to smell) and esrog (forbidden to eat but permitted to smell) teaches about different applications of the concept of setting aside for a mitzvah.
– Duration of prohibition: Understanding that the prohibition lasts the entire day, even after one has fulfilled the mitzvah, shows the seriousness of muktzeh l’mitzvaso.
– Shemini Atzeres considerations: The complex laws regarding the eighth day in our time demonstrate how doubt affects halachic practice.
—
Halachah: Aravah in the Temple and Our Time
Novel Points:
– Separate mitzvah: Understanding that the aravah ceremony is completely separate from the aravah in the lulav helps clarify why different rules apply.
– Halachah l’Moshe miSinai: This mitzvah being entirely from oral tradition, without explicit biblical source, demonstrates the authority and importance of the oral law.
– Beating the aravah: The custom of beating the aravah, while not requiring a blessing, is still significant as a custom of the prophets and should be performed with proper respect.
—
Halachah: Circuits Around the Altar/Bimah
Novel Points:
– Seven circuits on the seventh day: The special nature of Hoshana Rabbah is demonstrated by the seven circuits, parallel to the seven days of creation and other significant sevens in Jewish tradition.
– Placement of the bimah: The custom of placing the bimah in the center for circuits creates a physical reminder of the Temple service.
– “Ana Hashem hoshi’ah na”: This prayer, repeated during circuits, expresses our plea for salvation and connects us to the Temple service.
—
Conclusion: The Mitzvah of Lulav in Its Entirety
The laws of lulav, as presented by the Rambam, demonstrate:
1. The integration of written and oral law: The identification of the species and many details come from tradition, showing the essential role of Torah she’baal peh.
2. The centrality of the Temple: Many laws distinguish between Temple times and our era, keeping alive our connection to and hope for the rebuilt Temple.
3. Balance of stringency and leniency: While certain aspects (like the species themselves) are strict, others (like binding, timing) show flexibility.
4. Joy in mitzvah observance: From carrying the lulav throughout the day to the circuits and waving, the mitzvah is meant to be performed with joy and pride.
5. Attention to detail: The careful specifications for each species, the proper way to hold them, and the maintenance in water all show that mitzvos deserve our careful attention.
6. Unity of the Jewish people: The considerations about Shabbos observance and calendar uniformity show concern for the unity of all Jews in mitzvah observance.
May we merit to fulfill this mitzvah with all its details and beautifications, and may we soon see the rebuilding of the Temple where we can fulfill all aspects of this mitzvah as originally commanded.
📝 Full Transcript
Laws of Lulav – Chapter 7 of the Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav
Introduction – Learning Torah with Joy
Speaker 1:
Yes, rabbosai (gentlemen), there is an order how one learns the holy Torah, because this is how a Jew is joyful, and Jews must always be joyful. Nu, nu, nu, everyone has their reason. I didn’t think now that I want to learn about being joyful. I want to learn, one must learn. But on Tisha B’Av one doesn’t learn, because one may not be joyful. So it comes out that the whole year one learns, and from this one should indeed be joyful. Okay.
So, says the Rambam, we are holding in the middle of Hilchos Shofar Sukkah v’Lulav. More specifically, now we are beginning Hilchos Lulav. We have already finished Hilchos Shofar and Hilchos Sukkah. Now we are going to learn Hilchos Lulav. Lulav means the four species. It’s called lulav, and the Rambam says later why it’s called lulav.
So, and before we begin our shiur (lesson), we must, from the obligation of hakaras hatov (recognizing good), be grateful to our esteemed friend, the sponsor of this shiur, Reb Yoel Wertzberger, and thank all the Jews who support this shiur, especially those who sometimes leave a comment and show that they are interested.
Why Is It Called “Lulav” and Not “Esrog”
Speaker 1:
So, says the Rambam, Chapter 7, the seventh chapter of Hilchos Shofar Sukkah v’Lulav. Or Hilchos Lulav Chapter 1, one can say. Yes. So the first thing he’s going to tell us is… what do you say? Can you tell me?
Speaker 2:
Yes, say, say, say.
Speaker 1:
Is that… as if it’s assumed that one knows the verse. Everyone remembers that there’s a verse in Parshas Emor, Vayikra chapter 23 verse 40. How do I know what it says here? “Ulkachtem lachem bayom harishon pri eitz hadar v’chapos temarim v’anaf eitz avos v’arvei nachal usmachtem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem shivas yamim” (And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, palm branches, boughs of a thick tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before Hashem your God seven days).
So first one must know what all these things are. There’s a mitzvah to take these things, but we don’t know what they are. That means, in Torah shebichsav (the Written Torah) only the four names are written, chapos temarim, etc., but it doesn’t say what they are. The Rambam’s job is to tell us Torah shebe’al peh (the Oral Torah). One of the things that Torah shebe’al peh gives us is the identification, what these things are. As it says in the introduction to Mishneh Torah, and in the introduction to Peirush HaMishnah more extensively. He gives an example from this law, and he says that although in the Gemara there are various derivations for how we know that pri eitz hadar is an esrog, the truth is that it was received as a halacha l’Moshe miSinai (law given to Moses at Sinai), but the Sages seek a hint, that there should be from the wisdom of the Scripture that there should be a hint. But certainly one has seen from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu what species one takes.
Yes, I’m going back, one is indeed going to learn it to bring joy, because it says in the Torah that it brings joy, but regarding the four species it says “usmachtem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem” (and you shall rejoice before Hashem your God), and when one learns it is like… as if fulfillment. Yes, nu, “unishalma farim sefaseinu” (and let our lips compensate for bulls). Yes, we’re going to be joyful.
So. Says the Rambam, he begins with chapos temarim, lulav. The reason why he begins with lulav is simply the same reason why we call the whole thing, in the blessing one says “al netilas lulav” (on taking the lulav), although the verse begins with esrog, “ulkachtem lachem pri eitz hadar” (and you shall take for yourselves the fruit of a beautiful tree). But the Mishnah begins with “lulav hagazul” (the stolen lulav), and the whole thing is called lulav. And the reason is because the lulav is the majority, because the lulav with the hadassim and aravos are its companions, they are bound together, so the lulav is the majority. The lulav and the esrog are the two teams, and since the lulav has with it the two companions, the other two mitzvos, the lulav is the more important thing of the four species.
But it seems that apparently, again, this is further like the form of the mitzvah. One looks at how a Jew shakes the lulav, one sees that he shakes the lulav. With this comes perhaps the esrog is also something extra, but still with the lulav. The lulav is the highest, it is the largest, it is the main thing. Everything else is like secondary to it. So it seems.
Discussion: The Order of the Verse – Why Does the Verse Begin with Esrog
Speaker 1:
But I say, regarding the verse itself one can also understand why the verse says esrog first, because the other three are connected. So it says esrog, and afterwards comes the lulav with its two companions. I’m speaking if one goes with this approach, I mean, so it says, the Rambam, everyone says that one should bind them together, even if the binding is not me’akev (indispensable), the form of the mitzvah lechatchila (ideally) is that the lulav comes with the other two, bound with the lulav. But it’s also agreed that the esrog is not, one should hold it separately. So I say, therefore the verse fits, “ulkachtem lachem pri eitz hadar” (and you shall take for yourselves the fruit of a beautiful tree), and afterwards it says that the other three are a set. So one must say “pri eitz hadar,” and afterwards “chapos temarim v’anaf eitz avos v’arvei nachal” (palm branches and boughs of a thick tree and willows of the brook) one must say in one breath, because it’s one big bundle.
Speaker 2:
I hear, the trop (cantillation) doesn’t really hold that way.
Speaker 1:
That’s what I thought to come to. I haven’t seen that the verse is properly heard. But here one has given a look, “ulkachtem lachem bayom harishon pri eitz hadar chapos temarim v’anaf eitz avos v’arvei nachal.” Not really. If anything, the biggest break is on “chapos temarim” between all three. What does that mean?
Speaker 2:
There’s a zakef on that.
Speaker 1:
In short, I hear what you want to say, that after “chapos temarim” there are vavs, it’s a list. The other two are with a vav connecting to the “chapos temarim.”
Speaker 2:
Ah, there you’re saying something. “Pri eitz hadar,” stop. “Chapos temarim,” with a vav, “v’anaf,” “v’arvei nachal.” Meaning the two go together, but “chapos temarim” goes differently.
Speaker 1:
I remember that the Ibn Ezra, or one of the commentators, speaks about the rules of a list in the Torah. This is a list, a list of four things. I remember the Ibn Ezra says in one place that in lashon hamikra (biblical language), by us there are rules, for example one says a list, sometimes the third comes with a vav, or the last, “zeh v’zeh v’zeh” (this and this and this). In short, the Ibn Ezra says that one can write it in all ways. There are lists that are written in the Torah plain one, one, one. There are sometimes where there’s a vav on the second and not on the first, sometimes on the last. In short, there are no rules with this according to grammar, but perhaps there is indeed a vav that one must take with the Torah, yes. Okay.
Let’s see if he says something here. He doesn’t say. Interesting.
Halacha 1 – The Identity of the Four Species
Chapos Temarim – Lulav
Speaker 1:
So, says the Rambam, he begins with “chapos temarim.” “Chapos,” what does the word “chapos” mean?
Speaker 2:
Leaves, branches of temarim (dates).
Speaker 1:
That is the lulav. Says the Rambam, “chapos temarim” ha’amurim baTorah (the “palm branches” mentioned in the Torah), like kaf, spoons? A spoon of a date?
Speaker 2:
He says fruit, but it’s not the fruit. No. Ah, sorry, branches.
Speaker 1:
“Chapos” means branches? Branches, I don’t know. Okay.
Yes. “Ulkachtem lachem bayom,” excuse me. Says the Rambam, “chapos temarim” ha’amurim baTorah (the “palm branches” mentioned in the Torah), the “chapos temarim” that are written in the Torah, what are they? What are they? Hen charyos shel dekel (They are branches of the palm tree). They are branches. Regarding fruit, we’ve already had several times, regarding grain, regarding fruit, each species has its own special name for branches. Also regarding cutting there is botzer and kotzer, there are all kinds of names. You have here charyos shel dekel. The branches of a palm tree are called charyos.
Says the Rambam, when? Because this has several stages, the process from when it grows until when it becomes very open. The normal charyos shel dekel that you’ll go to Florida, you’ll see the palm trees, you’ll see it’s open, completely open, yes. But before that it’s still like a stick. Charyos shel dekel, k’sheyitzmchu (when they sprout), when it grows, kodem sheyispardu aleihen (before they spread out upon them), completely before all the little leaves become completely open and spread out, ela k’sheyihyu k’mo sharbit (but when they are like a staff). Sharbit is like the sharbit hazahav (golden scepter) from the Megillah, a straight stick, v’hu hanikra lulav (and it is called lulav).
I don’t know if the Rambam means specifically that it must be completely completely closed. There are those who are mehadrin (beautify the mitzvah), who always look for one that is completely closed. But it’s more or less like a sharbit. I say, even if a bit of the leaves are already a bit open… one will see about this explicitly, this is already the form of the beautification of the lulav. But this is certainly a lulav, it’s certainly… the open one opens a bit when one touches it. On the tree it doesn’t lie open.
Speaker 2:
Yes, that’s still a… that means, in short, the young pieces. That means that one looks at a tree, and one sees from above there above, then from the side. It’s probably this has to do with how early one cuts it down from the tree.
Speaker 1:
Kodem sheyispardu (before they spread out). The first branches. That means, every tree one calls it both, but initially this is it. Yes. Yes. I already, this is the word chapos. Chapos is perhaps with the language of kfufos, gathered together? I don’t know.
Pri Eitz Hadar – Esrog
Speaker 1:
Pri eitz hadar, ha’amur baTorah, hu esrog (The fruit of a beautiful tree, mentioned in the Torah, is an esrog). Pri eitz hadar, which is written in the Torah, is an esrog. And the Gemara has various ways how one derives that pri eitz hadar is specifically an esrog, because one could have meant any beautiful fruit from a tree. The Rambam says that Moshe Rabbeinu received it this way, and the Sages learn it afterwards into the verse hadar, or so forth.
Anaf Eitz Avos – Hadas
Speaker 1:
V’anaf eitz avos ha’amur baTorah (And the bough of a thick tree mentioned in the Torah)… a branch of an eitz avos, of a thick tree.
Speaker 2:
I mean that no, no. Anaf eitz avos means a branch that is called eitz avos. There isn’t a branch of a tree, there aren’t any trees of hadassim. That’s a bit what it is. The avos goes up on a branch.
Speaker 1:
What do you mean? It could be because a branch he’s going to say that it must be thick with leaves. Before that I’m saying this. Anaf eitz avos means a branch of a little tree, of a little tree, of an eitz avos. What is that? Ha’amur baTorah, hu hahadas she’alav chufin es eitzo (mentioned in the Torah, it is the myrtle whose leaves cover its wood), the little leaves from it cover over, they bend over on the little wood. Usually, most little leaves aren’t like that, one sees open, exposed wood. That one, almost, almost one doesn’t see the wood so strongly, one sees mainly the green little leaves.
And it seems that the Rebbe understands that here looks at the condition of what we call shilush (triple arrangement). K’gon sheyihyu shlosha alin o yoser al ken b’giv’ol echad (such that there should be three leaves or more on one stem), that on one little branch, a little one calls on one there should be three, there should be each row like that. Later he’s going to say that it must be exactly each row.
Hadas Shoteh – Another Species
Speaker 1:
But… but… ah, he says, hayu shnei he’alim b’shaveh zeh k’neged zeh (if the two leaves were even opposite each other), if it’s not three, but it’s two, from two sides, not from three sides, v’hashlishi l’ma’alah mehem, ein zeh avos (and the third above them, this is not avos), this is not called avos, this has another name, this is a species of hadas that is called nikra hadas shoteh (called a foolish myrtle). What this is not what the Torah speaks of, this will not be kosher, it’s another species. So it seems from the Rambam, not that it’s torn out, but it’s another species. Not torn out, exactly, torn out is not the topic now. Soon one will see about torn out, whether it may be torn out.
The species that has two and higher a third, instead of turning in one row, it seems from the Rambam that it’s another species. That there is one species that comes this way, anaf eitz avos, which is the meaning that it has from all three sides. I don’t know any side, it’s round, but so it gives completely covered. Then there is a second species, that it has only two, and the third is a bit higher or lower, I don’t know clearly. And therefore it comes out that the other side is open, and this is not avos, but this has the other name, hadas shoteh. It is a fool. Why is it a fool? Because it doesn’t go straight. Why doesn’t it go straight? It’s like all other hadassim.
Meaning of “Shoteh”
Meshubash k’shoteh (confused like a fool). What is shoteh, is the noun of a fool? Perhaps shoteh means various things? No, I mean that shoteh means… shoteh by a woman is written many times with a shin, shoteh. But it could be that it’s a similar root, because a wise person goes b’derech hayashar (on the straight path), he is straight, and shoteh is like soteh min haderech (straying from the path), he is torn away.
It could be that the little leaf is exempt from the mitzvah, and is like a shoteh, which is cheresh shoteh v’katan (deaf, fool and minor) is exempt from all mitzvos. He is exempt from being slaughtered.
Innovation: Hadas Shoteh Is a Species – Practical Difference Regarding Checking Shilush
I’m saying something interesting though, I’m catching an interesting point now, and it’s very strange, because according to the Rambam it comes out, and one must understand whether in the Gemara the simple meaning is so, but it comes out that it’s another species.
What when we go to pick hadassim, it’s clear that all hadassim come from the same tree, not one piece is hadas shoteh and one is a kosher hadas. So according to the Rambam it’s very strange, what is the Rambam talking about, did he mean that there are somehow other species?
It could be according to the Rambam all our hadassim are kosher, because that’s the style, one is a bit not grown punctually. I mean that the hadassim grow… I once heard someone say that the shilush with shoteh also has to do with when one cuts it. That means, from the top of the tree it’s more like that.
It could be that in those times, just like regarding lulav, there is a certain time when it’s called lulav. In those times it’s not called… so it’s called a hadas shoteh. The Rambam says that it’s a species, so it seems. Ein zeh avos is not the hadas that one can call avos, and it’s nikra hadas shoteh.
Just like regarding lulav, it’s the same species, but it’s not the time when it’s called. But here the Rambam says the species. I’m not saying clearly the species. “Aval im hayu shnei alim v’aleh echad ein zeh avos” (But if there were two leaves and one leaf this is not avos). The little leaf, the hadas, will not be called a hadas that is avos.
No, but then it would have been so, one will see a lulav that is torn, that is too open, one will see laws. The Rambam doesn’t hold at the place where he says laws of hadas, beauty of the hadas, and the like. He holds where he says what is a hadas.
Just like a lulav, you’re right that it could be a stage, but I don’t believe that anyone knows that shilush is a stage. The Rambam could have said such a stage. He doesn’t say such a stage. He says that it’s a type of hadas. It seems that the Rambam understood that it’s a species.
I don’t know if it’s the reality that we have, not sure how one understands it. It could be that perhaps according to the Rambam there is no concept to check that each one is meshulash (triple), because that’s the species. So I would have said.
Discussion: The Approach of the Rambam – Species or Measure?
Speaker 2: Ah, one says, if it really means the species, not the time. Okay. Not the time, and also not the… that it must be the brands must be so. Later one sees that the Rambam is lenient, that it only needs to be one third at least is enough, because it could really be as you say it would be the species, that shows that it’s the right species.
No, what he is lenient, not that the Rambam speaks of half meshulash half not? No. Okay, let’s see. I want to check you for a second already. Where does it say later the laws of hadas? It says about esrog? Hadas sheniktem rishon? Nishra aleph?
Laws of the Four Species: From the Oral Tradition, One Mitzvah, and Bal Tosif
No, the question that we have today, whether there is a triangular section and a round section, doesn’t appear in the Rambam. Look in the next chapter, halacha 5, to see that it doesn’t appear. It says that leaves are missing entirely. It’s something else. But there’s no such case at all that all today’s hadassim… sorry, the hadassim, the questions about hadassim that are asked today is that it’s half triangular, it needs to be triangular for the entire shiur, all the halachos. I don’t see that it should appear in the Rambam. It could be that it’s correct, but this is a species, good day.
Aravei Nachal – Definition of the Species (Halacha 10)
⟦#3⟧ Okay. Would he, already, aravei nachal we’ve already done esrog and lulav and hadassim, and what’s happening with aravei nachal?
The Rambam says, aravei nachal mentioned in the Torah, there’s nothing great about the stream, because aravei means twigs, little leaves. I just want to say Shmuel, twigs that grow by the stream. I’ll say very important.
Hasagas Ra’avad on the Rambam
The Ra’avad comes, I looked at Rabbi Rappaport, my inference has already fallen in. The holy Ra’avad says, this is not the way of a fool, the Ra’avad says, Amar Avraham, v’tzarich lihiyos kein kol hashir o rubo im eino kein pasul. That means the Ra’avad argues with the Rambam.
The Rambam says that it’s enough that three leaves from one node. But what does he mean? One node from one node, he means that then it’s enough, because then you know that it’s the right species.
It’s not clear what node means. Node doesn’t mean branch. It could be that node means like on one circle, not… yes, like he translates third. That’s how I think it translates.
But the Rav understood that here the main halacha is missing, what we look at the halachos of third, that it needs to be entirely triangular. On most, the dew falls. It actually does, here he didn’t know about this, and I don’t think like Rappaport says so.
The Rambam held that it’s enough that one of them is triangular, even if one isn’t, it needs to be that species. Just the leaf is a little different, this isn’t another fool. The Rambam seems that another fool is something of another species, that’s how it seems to me. No novelty.
Later we see that the Rambam held that hadassim has some beauty, when he says that hadassim is a beautiful mitzvah. If it doesn’t have leaves, like how simply it was knocked out… that’s later, again. Okay, it can certainly be without leaves, that’s later, nothing. From the threefold. It seems that the threefold is… how is it called?
Aravei Nachal – A Known Species, Not Any Willow
Already. The Rambam says further, aravei nachal mentioned in the Torah. What, can you mean any kind of leaves that grow near any stream? It’s not so. Rather it is a known species that is called aravei nachal. Aravei nachal doesn’t mean any willow that grows by a stream, but it’s a certain thing that is called aravei nachal.
What are the signs? All that its leaf is elongated. The leaf isn’t a round leaf, but an elongated leaf, a longish leaf. And its mouth is smooth, the end is smooth. Mouth means like the side of it, right? Aha. Okay. Not the end. Mouth simply means the side of the leaf. It looks a bit like a mouth, yes? He’s going to say, it doesn’t have serrations, it doesn’t have points. And its stem is not red, the stem of it, the thing on which it grows, the twig is reddish, brownish-reddish. And this is what is called arava, this is called arava. The plural form of it is aravei nachal, and this is what Chazal call arava.
Why Is It Called “Aravei Nachal”?
He says, why is it called aravei nachal? If you say it’s a certain specific species that can be planted anywhere, why is it called aravei nachal? He says, most of this species grows by streams, usually most of this species grows by streams, therefore it is called aravei nachal. Not that the Torah wants us to take specifically from the stream, but the Torah wants us to take this specific species. And even if it grew in the desert or in the mountains, if someone figured out a way to plant or that it should grow in other places, in the desert or in the mountains, it’s also kosher. Aravei nachal is a sign, not that the stream is a condition.
Two Errors That Must Be Avoided
Here one could have learned two other ways that are both not correct. You could learn that aravei nachal doesn’t mean a certain species, but some willow from a stream. That’s certainly not so. The second thing you could say stringently, that the arava must be specifically from the stream. We say both are not so. The lesson is, the main thing is the species. There is a certain species, and the species is called aravei nachal. Why is it called aravei nachal? Presumably because originally, usually, it grows by a stream. If you plant exactly this species somewhere else, it will grow, and it’s not at all relevant that one should take specifically from the stream.
Tzaftzafa – The One Similar to Arava (Halachos 10-11)
⟦#4⟧ The Rambam says, there is another species similar to arava. There is another species that is similar to arava. And the Rambam warns us here, we should know, when you go looking for aravos, you’ll think that this leaf is an arava. He says, no, there is one that is similar to arava, but has these small differences: its leaf is round, the leaf of it is round, and its mouth resembles a saw, and the edge of it, the way it ends, is not smooth, but it’s like a saw. And its stem is not red, and the stem of it is not red.
You say, it’s already not similar to arava, it’s already three things that are different. In what way is it similar to arava? No, it’s such a green leaf that looks approximately so. And this is called tzaftzafa, this is called tzaftzafa, and it is invalid, this is invalid, because this is not the species of aravei nachal.
A Species of Arava with Small Serrations – Kosher
He says, “There is another species of arava” – there is another species of arava – “whose mouth is not completely smooth and round, and its mouth doesn’t resemble a saw like tzaftzafa, but it has very small serrations, like the mouth of a small sickle” – like a tiny saw. There’s a large saw that has such large ones, actually that cuts wood. This is a small one that’s used to cut furniture. But this is indeed aravei nachal, with only minor, tiny differences.
Innovation: The Signs Are Not Invalidations, But Signs of Another Family
There isn’t a certain marking of how the aravei nachal must look. It needs to be the species called aravei nachal. There is indeed perhaps a species of aravei nachal that looks a drop different, but the Chachamim say that this is indeed from the same family.
I imagine that it’s a realistic question. That means, you can plant aravei nachal, and it can grow out a drop different. You can’t plant an arava and have a tzaftzafa grow out, which is a different family.
Okay, so we need to know, I don’t know how the species work. Not necessarily that each species means… whatever, we need to know how evolution works. We plant, many times it grows a bit different. The point is, how do you see that this is still an arava, and it just got a slightly different form, and this is very recognizable as a tzaftzafa. That’s how the halacha is. It could be that not necessarily that it grows so, I don’t know.
But I say, there’s no invalidation of “its mouth resembles a saw.” It’s not that this isn’t an aravei nachal. I say, it’s not an invalidation, but this is a sign that it’s from a different family. A different family, usually means that from an arava doesn’t grow a tzaftzafa, and from another arava can indeed grow the species of arava that looks a bit different.
I don’t know, we need to know if there is between… I’ll tell you in other words. No, no, it’s not so clearly recognizable.
Laws of the Four Species: From the Oral Tradition, One Mitzvah, and Bal Tosif
Halacha 2 (Continued) — Arava and Tzaftzafa: The Meaning of “Similar to Arava”
Speaker 1:
It’s not that this isn’t a nice aravei nachal. No, I say it’s not an invalidation, but this is a sign that it’s from a different family. From a different family usually means that from an arava doesn’t grow a tzaftzafa, and from another arava can indeed grow the species of arava that looks a bit different.
I don’t know, we need to know if there is between… I’ll tell you in other words, no, no, it’s not relevant by today, I mean it’s not necessarily so. In other words, when we say a species, there can be species of that species, right? There are sub-species that we say, right? Sub-species.
So, this is not similar to arava. When it says similar to arava doesn’t just mean that it has some random similar appearance. This I say, similar to arava means that it is indeed something from the same family. A distant, a distant cousin. In short, the arava with small serrations and the arava of normal arava are both brothers. That’s the meaning. The tzaftzafa is a more distant cousin, it technically can’t be.
I don’t know, do you want to know realistically how all these things are taken? I don’t know.
Practical Observation: Arava Is Taken Leniently
Speaker 1:
It’s interesting this holiday, because I’ll say it, because a lulav, an esrog, and the same thing hadassim, I mean that all Jews take more or less the same. That means, there isn’t… you know, esrogim there’s the famous investigation, but all esrogim are the same fruit, it also stays close.
Arava, in every Jewish region they take the local aravos. There’s almost not, they’ve never brought aravos from far away, like the lulav and esrogim that already grow arava. It seems everywhere that this is a… I ask you, is this true? You’ll go in the store? The American aravos are very different from the Israeli aravos.
Today you can buy both here, but there is… for example, our aravos, not all of them have a red stem. You need to go in the store. Today there is indeed a lot, but a portion is indeed reddish, and a portion isn’t at all. There are some that only right by the leaf is reddish, like the rest has already become brown. Yes, in short.
But it also can’t be that when it says red it means brown, and most browns are green.
Speaker 2:
Yes, but the others are green. There isn’t red. The ones that are red are red.
Speaker 1:
I mean red, whatever you call red, not red like a fire truck, red like a red thing. And I say that it’s interesting that arava seems that the world has accepted a bit more leniently. I’ve never heard a concern about arava on the mountain, I don’t know. Every thing that looks like it should be the species of aravei nachal.
Speaker 2:
You? About the story in the Megillah?
Speaker 1:
Yes, do you understand what I’m saying? It’s interesting that this is indeed a thing that generally they take what more or less looks so according to the signs, and that’s it. Yes. Yes.
Halacha 4 — “All These Things Are From the Oral Tradition”
The Words of the Rambam
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says, “All these things”, the halachos, that means what is an arava, but all of them, what is an arava, what is an esrog, what is a lulav, all of them. What can be an arava more specifically, as you say, because arava is… such fine distinctions are made. But all of them are from the oral tradition, and Moshe Rabbeinu in the portions we learned from Moshe Rabbeinu who brought it from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and he transmitted an oral tradition generation after generation.
As we mentioned, this is literally one of the Rambam’s examples, it’s actually a good example. That from the time of Moshe Rabbeinu they took an esrog, and they saw that this is what the verse means. One can disagree, how do you know that pri etz hadar is this? I don’t know, this is what my father took, this is his father, and so on until Moshe Rabbeinu from the oral tradition.
Precision: “Were Explained” and Not “Were Received”
Speaker 1:
There is the language “were explained,” I thought, it doesn’t say “were received,” but “were explained” is there, because after all they did indeed learn it into the verses. I don’t think, it’s not certain. It could be “were explained” means so, it’s a tradition, but it’s also learned into the wisdom of the Scripture, that in the verse it’s also hinted. The Rambam didn’t bring the hint at all.
So, I would have thought that perhaps “were explained” means here like explanation of the mitzvah. Moshe Rabbeinu explained, he translates, but not translation from the verse, but translation of the mitzvah. When the Rambam says explanation of the mitzvos, do you understand what I’m saying? Not translation from the verse, but translation of the mitzvah. Could be.
“All These Things” — Broader Than Just Species
Speaker 1:
But it’s interesting, the “all these things” also means to say, because there’s more here than to say which family is kosher, yes? By lulav one would say at which stage in the lulav, at which stage in the hadassim, and which species of the aravos, of the species of aravos. The Gemara makes expositions from which we learn what it means what. I don’t know if in the expositions also lies at which stage of the… perhaps yes, branches?
Speaker 2:
Okay.
Halacha 5 — “These Four Species Are One Mitzvah”
The Words of the Rambam
Speaker 1:
Already. The Rambam says further: “These four species are one mitzvah”, the four species is one mitzvah. The Torah says “and you shall take for yourselves,” everything together forms one mitzvah. “And they prevent one another”, they prevent one another. That means, if one has half of them, it’s not that one has fulfilled the mitzvah with only two species, but one hasn’t fulfilled the mitzvah. There’s even a question for example if there’s a generation where I know a difficult year and one can’t get to it, ah, we’ll see.
The Rambam says, “And all of them are called the mitzvah of lulav”, they are all called the mitzvah of lulav. The Rambam doesn’t tell us why, but later we’ll see, later he indeed hints, because we bind them on the large one. But it seems that it’s called the mitzvah of lulav, yes. That means, he means to say that in the Gemara it says mitzvah of lulav, something like that? That’s what it means. Even his shofar sukkah and lulav, his heart said lulav.
Halacha 5 (Continued) — “We Don’t Diminish From Them and We Don’t Add to Them”
The Words of the Rambam
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says, “We don’t diminish from them and we don’t add to them”. The four species is specifically. It’s not that the Torah said four species, if you want to be an even greater tzaddik you’ll take ten species? No, one can’t add and one may not subtract.
The Rambam Doesn’t Bring “Bal Tosif” Explicitly
Speaker 1:
And the Rambam says, it’s not very clear, but in other, in the Gemara it seems that it’s a prohibition of bal tosif or bal tigra, if one takes less or one takes more, because the Torah wanted specifically this amount of species to be taken. The Rambam indeed didn’t bring this. Very interesting. It seems that he doesn’t hold that one transgresses, because if it would have been truly a prohibition he would have had to bring it.
The Rambam’s Approach to Bal Tosif (Laws of Rebels)
Speaker 1:
So apparently, we know that the Rambam learns, as we learned in the laws of a false prophet. Explicitly we almost literally learned it. He brought a false prophet, even more explicitly it appears in the laws of rebels, all the way at the end in the Book of Judges only. That bal tosif and bal tigra, according to the Rambam, is when one can say about it, but it’s not a mitzvah that it’s a mitzvah. Not that one adds to it.
I’m not saying not, I can’t fully explain the Rambam. It could be that the Rambam brings, yes, also the interpretation that we know from Rashi on the spot, the mitzvah of lo yosifu, Rashi says, such as one who takes more than four species. But the Rambam says that “lo tosif” means is a matter that we should trust that the Torah is exact, and that no one adds any miracles and we don’t take away any miracles.
That means, the Rambam made it much less about an action that a certain person does, and much more about a general Jewish matter, that one shouldn’t convince oneself about things that aren’t a mitzvah that it’s a mitzvah.
Proofs From Other Halachos in the Rambam
Speaker 1:
Let me come to one… I’ll already say, because you’re right that we haven’t yet learned any Rambam, but two halachos that we have already about this we’ve already indeed learned, and on both of them the Rambam didn’t say the word “bal tosif.”
One of them that was learned yesterday and the day before yesterday is the halacha of sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeres. The Rambam said that one needs to break it in order to show that it’s not the mitzvah. He didn’t say the reason, but he said so, but he didn’t bring that “if not he transgresses bal tosif.”
Speaker 2:
Did he say the word “to show”? Because if you say the word “to show,” it fits very well with his language, that one shouldn’t think that it’s biblical.
Translation
Speaker 1:
If I remember, he didn’t say anything. He said that one must do it, and if it’s Shabbos (Sabbath), put something that isn’t… that, but I don’t remember that he said anything. It could be that the Rambam held that that is only like a derabbanan (rabbinic law) or some matter, not actual. I don’t know what I’m saying. For now I don’t see it.
As he says in Hilchos Mamrim (Laws of Rebels) it states “lo tosef” (do not add), he doesn’t bring the language of “lo tosef” on any other thing at all. For now I see it. Okay, interesting.
Discussion: Laws of Prayer and Birkas Kohanim (Priestly Blessing)
Speaker 1:
But the Rambam argues with the Rishonim (early authorities), and… certainly one may not. The Rambam is very strict not to be only to the rabbis. It’s a halacha (law). It’s a Sifrei. Usually the Rambam takes very seriously the Sifrei. I agree with the Sifrei.
Speaker 2:
You need to check in Sefer HaMitzvos (Book of Commandments) to the Ramban by the forgotten commandments, which is something that the Ramban will bring in Sefer HaMitzvos. I don’t know, I don’t know. I don’t know.
Speaker 1:
In the end, right? He asks, “And what is this warning of the Torah ‘lo tosef’?” That one should not add. This we already learned. He brings all these things, and asks them, look here in the Yad Peshuta on Hilchos Mamrim, there is indeed in the Gemara as you say it earlier, and so on it states many times “lo tosef.”
He says, the Rambam indeed brings all the halachos. For example, they learned in Hilchos Tefillah U’Birkas Kohanim (Laws of Prayer and Priestly Blessing), also such a thing that we learned. Ah, he says, ah, “shene’emar ‘lo tosifu’” (as it is stated “do not add”), nu? Ah, here it indeed states “shene’emar ‘lo tosifu,’” Hilchos Tefillah chapter 14, they forgot, they already learned this. “Ein hakohanim rashayin” (the priests are not permitted), “shene’emar ‘lo tosifu al hadavar’” (as it is stated “do not add to the matter”).
But the Rambam counts it as a lav (negative commandment). The lav he only counts there. But he also doesn’t say there, he says, “ein hakohanim rashayin,” as if one may not. He doesn’t say that one transgresses a lav, he always says this is very good.
The Yad Peshuta’s Analysis
Speaker 1:
And so he brings regarding the widows, he doesn’t bring here, but we now learned regarding this. “In no place is the matter of lashes mentioned in this.” And it indeed states in the Gemara that one who sleeps on the eighth day and in the sukkah should apparently receive lashes. But “the Rabbeinu did not agree with this thing or half a thing,” it turns out that it seems that whoever learns the Rambam yes, he indeed checked over all the places.
The Rambam indeed brings all these halachos that one should not put five portions in tefillin, I remember that it should bring, but all these things the Rambam brings, he always brings prohibitions, there is once that he even brings “shene’emar ‘lo tosef,’” but he doesn’t hold that this is the essence of bal tosef (prohibition of adding), as you say, a distinction between community and individual, like something that happened.
Two Types of Bal Tosef
Speaker 1:
It could be that even when an individual does it, it’s a branch of the same “lo tosef,” because you change around so that one should know what is the mitzvah and what is not. It’s very different than for example Rashi looks at it like then you’re doing… what is the wrong? Because the Torah said four and you do five. It’s not about there is in this some certain statement.
The truth is, that the Rambam said that there are two types of “lo tosef.” There is a type which is d’oraisa (biblical) and some new thing the sages think.
Discussion on Bal Tosef and Bal Tigra, and Laws of Taking the Lulav
Continuation: Bal Tigra — The Position of the Biur Halacha and Questions on It
Speaker 1: But he can look at it as a branch of this, that in order to have clarity in Torah one should also not do the thing. I agree. That means, one can understand…
Let’s say a bit the last section that one should learn regarding tosef. One can learn by tosef in other words two other ways. It could be that the Torah says that one should learn four species, simply the Almighty wants specifically this form of the mitzvah, and the one who does differently is a nice good. The Almighty doesn’t like the service. It becomes called, one wants to pray four times a day? Okay, that may just. It’s only derabbanan and the minyan. I say, but for example, if it were a thing that one prays three times a day and not four, when you pray a fourth time, it says nothing. It’s even a sin. Or less, less.
In the Gemara it doesn’t state that one takes three lulavim. That means, we now learned that one mitzvah is me’akev (prevents) one another, but it doesn’t state that less than this one transgresses “lo tigra” (do not diminish). He does bring yes. For example, he brings here that the Biur Halacha says, we now learned that if one doesn’t have… yes, what does it state here? He doesn’t have a lulav for example, he takes the other three species. Although he is not yotzei (fulfilled the obligation). The Biur Halacha says that he should not make a blessing on the mitzvah, because it transgresses bal tigra.
It’s very strange to me, because it doesn’t state anywhere bal tigra, and even in the sources that we learned, it doesn’t state that… does it state yes? Perhaps I’m turning my head. Bal tigra?
I stand for example, if one puts on tefillin with only three portions, he won’t be transgressing bal tigra. Apparently, the same type of thing he transgresses the mitzvah of tefillin, he should already come to bal tigra. He already has his own prohibition of not doing the mitzvah. Do you understand, I say the same thing here, the same thing here, the three species.
Rashi’s Position: Bal Tigra is an Extension of Bal Tosef
Rashi there looks like if you will add, you will also diminish. That’s not the prohibition. That diminishing means that you won’t do the mitzvah, that itself, that very thing, the bal tigra is like an extension on the word bal tosef. Because if you are the master and you can add, you will also afterwards make half mitzvos, and then you won’t be yotzei the mitzvah at all.
Speaker 2: What do you mean he’s not yotzei? If one puts a fifth species in tefillin, he’s not yotzei the first four?
Speaker 1: By tefillin perhaps I can understand, because it’s but a fifth species in the lulav, he’s not yotzei?
Discussion: A Fifth Species by Lulav — Depends on the Dispute About Binding
We’ll see soon about this that he is indeed yotzei, because it depends on the dispute, as we look at it, if it requires binding and you put in a fifth, it’s like by tefillin, that it’s a different type of binding. But if the binding is not important, don’t look at what else he holds there. It’s not clear.
So, so, so, if a woman blows shofar, although she says she is exempt, no one says it’s bal tosef. It’s only some change in the form of the mitzvah, like tzitzis comes with four, not with five. Some such sort of definition.
But you say correctly, perhaps it could be that by kilayim (forbidden mixtures) diminishing is similar, and in certain cases one can say that one is not yotzei, because it’s wrong. Although technically, okay, perhaps technically he is indeed yotzei, but it’s some such sort of thing. Therefore the Rambam says that it can be greater. Later when he speaks of the assistance, he says, it can be as large as you want, because there are things that argue there, and there are opinions that one is indeed yotzei.
Speaker 2: I say that there is by a sukkah, there is a section above, the height, there are things where there’s a section. The height is not that and on additions above.
Speaker 1: I stand, I only say that what you say a measure is not about this.
The Rambam’s Position on Bal Tosef — According to His View
But I think that you say that the Rambam completely started differently. Because according to Rashi there isn’t the issue of saying about some thing that it’s a mitzvah, it doesn’t state that. The Rambam learned completely differently, and the Rambam simply makes a bit more sense. It’s a different reasoning.
The Rambam says that the matter is that one should know what the Torah is, not to add and remove mitzvos, as you say. It could be that one will put five species is also some such sort of aspect, but a small aspect, because he doesn’t say, he only does. And because the Rambam says the opposite, that is indeed the Rambam’s permission, how may one make the rabbinic laws? Because he doesn’t say. Although one does indeed more, the essence is the saying.
So, this is what the Rambam held a different interpretation of the mitzvah of bal tosef. I wanted to say, but the Rambam is also consistent with this, that the Rambam wanted that there should be an inquiry, it should be very clear, about this he has the 613 mitzvos. Rashi, as far as I remember, Rashi doesn’t have a thanks how many mitzvos there are. Rashi explains the Torah. So Rashi according to his view can only have that type of bal tosef.
Source of the Rambam’s Bal Tosef — Hilchos Mamrim and False Prophet
Speaker 2: From where did the Rambam take his bal tosef from Hilchos Mamrim?
Speaker 1: Okay, with this it’s connected with the prophecy.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily prophecy, I say this is a bal tosef. “All that he will speak a word in My name that I did not command him.”
Speaker 1: Yes, that’s one source, but that’s the first of bal tosef. I say, when a prophet says something in the name of the Holy One Blessed Be He, it’s very similar to when a sage says bal tosef.
Speaker 2: “Lo tosef v’lo tigra” (do not add and do not diminish) states in Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim, not in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah that you say.
Speaker 1: Yes, he said, but not the prohibition, the list of negative commandments states here.
Speaker 2: Right, because a prophet is even if he doesn’t say that it’s from the 613 mitzvos, but he says that no, the Almighty has now commanded me.
Speaker 1: But the prohibition is the same type of prohibition, it’s from a different lav, it’s from the lav of “that he will speak a word in My name that I did not command.” But a sage doesn’t say that the Almighty told me a prophecy, he says this is how I learn from the Torah. He does the same wrong as the prophet, but it’s a different language.
Speaker 2: Right, it’s interesting how the Rambam took this interpretation.
Context of Bal Tosef in the Torah — Next to Idolatry
Speaker 1: I say, I noticed in the Torah, when it states “lo tosef v’lo tigra,” it states next to idolatry. It seems to me that once it states by Baal Peor, and a second time it states, I remember perhaps here again, twice noticed, it states when they burn the children for idolatry, “for also their sons and their daughters they burn in fire,” some such context.
And I thought that the Torah means to say, there is service of Hashem, He makes a sacrifice, a Temple, you make indeed new services, he also makes Baal Peor. Stop, there is enough, don’t add, don’t take away. In the prophet it also always states by idolatry. It’s the interpretation of the thing that the concern is that the prophet will add idolatry, he will add…
But I say, the simple meaning is more more with Rashi’s interpretation in practice, because don’t make new mitzvos. With the Rambam it fits in a different way very nicely, that the concern of a false prophet is that he will make new, that he will say that it’s not enough to serve the Almighty that we know, but there is a new type, a little thing with Baal Peor, with passing one’s son to Molech. It’s also the service not in its way, you shouldn’t do any Baal Peor for the Almighty, because the Almighty gave you so many mitzvos and not others.
Okay, enough talking about bal tosef. Let’s not make additions, let’s go back.
Halacha 5: And If One of Them is Not Found — One Doesn’t Bring a Substitute
Speaker 1: And not diminish from them? No, it’s very important.
The Rambam says, “And if one of them is not found” — the Rambam holds literally that it’s not the four species. If one didn’t find… there were such times, you know, by the war, Jews didn’t have any access to an esrog. So the Gemara had a hava amina (initial assumption), one should bring a lemon, so that the children shouldn’t forget that there is such a thing as the four species.
The Rambam says, “one does not bring in its place another species that resembles it,” presumably indeed because of the prohibition, because of a doubt lest they will tell about them.
The Gemara: Distinction Between an Invalid Thing and a Wrong Thing
The Gemara says, where is it again? The Gemara says… what is “the choicest to bind their taking”… sorry. Ah, after a hey, the Gemara says… he doesn’t bring the Gemara here. It doesn’t state clearly why “he should not bring a dried one.” Why not?
I mean the Gemara says that it will come out a ruin, that one will start to think that a dried one is kosher.
Speaker 2: Even if one shouldn’t know that one only brought that year so that it shouldn’t be forgotten the Torah of…
Speaker 1: Yes, it’s called a time of pressing need…
Speaker 2: Ah, you see the Gemara. It’s called a time of pressing need with a dry lulav which is invalid, that one used to use, also yes, so that it shouldn’t be forgotten. There is a distinction between an invalid thing and the wrong thing. An invalid thing can’t mean that it’s better to have a dry lulav, it’s not dangerous. As Rav Papa said that “they bequeath their lulavim to their sons and their sons’ sons.”
But, the Gemara asks simply, that the Gemara can come in… isn’t it a ruin, that what? That apparently one will think that the citron is a lulav, is an esrog. That’s the interpretation.
Digression: Rav Dessler’s Parable to Prayer
I saw Rav Dessler says that many times our prayer has literally no form of prayer. The only way how one can explain it is “so that it shouldn’t be forgotten.” But afterwards there is the concern of the “a ruin will come out from it,” the “it’s forbidden to stretch,” one convinces oneself that this is called prayed.
But that is indeed the distinction, because if one would make other prayers, for this one should not make some new prayer, some reform prayer. If one maintains the same, even if the intention is lacking, the enthusiasm is lacking, everyone knows that one can indeed pray. That’s the point.
Speaker 2: Very good.
Speaker 1: Done. One of Rabbi Elish’s favorite gemaras, I don’t know exactly why, but it’s an interesting gemara, because one speaks here as if about education. You’re certain that one is not yotzei esrog, but the children won’t forget. What then should be said but?
Done. Okay.
Halacha 6: It is a Mitzvah Min HaMuvchar to Bind — A Bundle of Lulav
Speaker 1: The Rambam says… so now we learned that what? That it’s one mitzvah, but it wasn’t stated… ah, now one needs to know if one must indeed take them together, yes?
The Rambam says, it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar (an enhanced mitzvah). In the festivals there are many mitzvah min hamuvchar and v’harei zeh meshubach (and this is praiseworthy). It’s a time that one can add, one can…
Speaker 2: Pesach?
Speaker 1: Only on Sukkos?
Speaker 2: To eat in the sukkah?
Speaker 1: I mean that in Sefer Mada and Ahava one should have mitzvah min hamuvchar or v’harei zeh meshubach so much. Makes sense, because it’s only on mitzvos, on positive obligatory mitzvos. Suddenly how one must cook oneself. By a festival one cooks oneself in the mitzvah. V’harei zeh meshubach.
It is a mitzvah min hamuvchar to bind together lulav, hadas (myrtle), and aravah (willow), and to make the three of them one bundle. And it’s called the bundle of lulav. And when one takes them to be yotzei with them, when one takes them in the hands to be yotzei, one blesses first on taking the lulav, one must first make the blessing on taking the lulav before one lifts it up. Because immediately when one lifts it up and shakes, one is already yotzei. Not like before the shaking one is already yotzei.
Speaker 2: I know, shofar one can already make the blessing when one holds it in the hands.
Speaker 1: Just not, I mean just one takes it also in the hands after the…
Speaker 2: On this there are other reasons and matters, the Rambam didn’t say it.
Speaker 1: But here, since one holds it and one is already yotzei, one must make the blessing beforehand, on taking the lulav.
Why “On Taking the Lulav” — And Since They All Lean on It
The Rambam says, why does one make on taking the lulav? And since they all lean on it. Here is the place where the Rebbe answered, why is it called lulav when not… they all lean on it, means to say practically, because the lulav is large and is in the center, and the other two are such small ones? Or it’s more than this leaning on it that something by nature the lulav is the essence, lulav is more important.
For example, in the secret one says that lulav is the spine, lulav is the what-do-you-call-it, the whole body. But…
Speaker 2: I mean that…
Speaker 1: Yes. Therefore is the hint, it looks like this?
Speaker 2: The hint is it for the same reasons about the fact, because he is the largest.
Laws of Lulav — Taking the Four Species, Order of the Blessing, and How Many One Takes from Each Species
Halacha 7 (Continuation) — How One Takes the Four Species
Speaker 1: Okay. And afterwards one takes this bundle in his right hand and the esrog in his left hand. And I mean the reason is indeed because in his right hand is more important, he takes the three species, and the one species he takes in his left hand.
And one takes them in the way of their growth, the way how one takes them is in the way of their growth, the way how they grow on the tree, not face down but face up, the way how it grows. So that their stems are below toward the earth and their tops are above to pass.
It could be that this is also the reason, because when the lulav opens up, the leaves are already the opposite, they’re already hanging down.
Speaker 2: No, on the contrary, because other things.
Speaker 1: Okay. In short, an esrog also when it grows, grows backwards. Derech gedulasan means what is the root and what… meaning you look at it relative to the tree, towards the tree. Because the reality is, you go to esrogim, you’ll see when it becomes large, it hangs down because it’s heavy. That’s not what derech gedulasan means. Sheyihiyu ikaran lemata la’aretz v’roshon lema’ala la’avor. Sulam mutzav artza v’rosho magia, upward.
Discussion: The Order of Blessing and Taking
Speaker 2: I wanted to ask this. The Rambam says that you leave the lulav on the table, you make a blessing, and you pick it up. We stand, you place the esrog upside down, or something like that. Rabbi Ben Cheder learns it out that one should place the esrog upside down, it has no taste and no smell, one shouldn’t do it.
Speaker 1: What’s the problem?
Speaker 2: No, it’s also that one has done, since the way is notel derech gedulasan. And the help has already been yotzei? What is the minim shegetan? Since when one has all four minim together?
Speaker 1: No, it’s not such a me’bat achas, notel echad echad yatza.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: The first thing, whoever follows me should know that this is how I conduct myself if I remember. The better custom is to leave everything on the table and make a blessing and pick up. That’s what it says. One needs to look in Shulchan Aruch where the other custom comes from. One needs to see that the mekoravim should write out the customs. One shouldn’t say, “This is what I think I do.” It should be their…
Speaker 2: No, because you don’t always remember. Sometimes it doesn’t work out, sometimes you need to go in a rush. There are technical reasons sometimes that it doesn’t work out. If you want to go in the sukkah, you’re already dragging yourself to the sukkah, whatever.
Speaker 1: Apparently there’s no problem even when you’re holding all four in your hands, as long as you haven’t been yotzei that you’re doing it for the mitzvah, there’s no problem. Because you say the blessing, now I’m doing the netilah of the mitzvah. But every person holds the daled minim before that.
For example, let’s say if the esrog box is not me’akev, because it will mean like later we’ll say that something that is appearance and not chotzetz, you’ll say that when he holds it he’s already yotzei when he holds it up.
Speaker 2: Certainly, certainly, in the morning.
Digression: Custom of Lulav Holder and Esrog Box
Speaker 1: I’ll tell you, certainly, certainly, not only that, but I hold… Oh, you don’t know my halachos of lulav yet. So I’ll tell you.
So I hold like this, you know that supposedly, all generations there used to be an esrog holder. You went to shul, you held the lulav in your hands, and the esrog you held in a holder.
Speaker 2: Really?
Speaker 1: That’s the reason why, because the blessing you make still at home. Before you lift up the lulav, you make a blessing al netilas lulav, and then you’re yotzei the mitzvah of the netilah. You haven’t yet done ne’anuim, but the blessing you certainly make then, over la’asiyasan.
Now, when you hold a lulav, you’re mekayem the mitzvah every minute, as we’ll see later from the Anshei Yerushalayim. The esrog you also hold, but in a box, and in a box you’re yotzei.
So today’s people who they put… a new fashion of people… I’ll even tell you, certainly it’s not yotzei. I hold like this, I see that the custom is like this from me, and the custom has also always been to hold the lulav. Today there are fashionable people who they put their lulav in plastic, then you’re not yotzei, because that’s a bizui mitzvah.
So mamila you’re yotzei after taking it out when you do with this… I’m talking here about a hiddur to go the whole time with the lulav, you’re going to shul anyway. Why aren’t you doing the mitzvah? Why are you putting it in plastic? Where does it say in Torah plastic? In the entire Torah there was no plastic. So I don’t hold of it.
Add to that that the Rambam says clearly that they used to turn around all the minim in their hands, and that’s part of the mitzvah.
Speaker 2: You’re saying that the esrog, since it’s appearance…
Speaker 1: Okay, I want to calm you that the new generation of lulav holders they already make also silver ones with gold with leather, so it will also be called a nice holder.
Speaker 2: Right, no. But with all that, a lulav is made…
Speaker 1: No, a lulav is made for netzach, the whole concept of a lulav is made. And you hold… I’m ready to talk with the… I’m ready to talk with the people. An esrog is a small thing, you need to hold it. You can’t hold in your hands the whole way, you put it in a nice box.
So, yes, if someone wants to buy me, I don’t yet have an esrog box, a silver one. If someone wants to buy me on pasukas hamatanah. Okay. I don’t want that I myself should buy, I mean that I’ll wait for the chassidim? Not what does in the meantime.
Halacha 8 — V’im Lo Agadan, Notlin Echad Echad
Speaker 1: Says the Rambam, v’im lo agadan, let’s go further. V’im lo agadan, ah, very good.
Says here the Rambam, lechatchila you take everything together, you’re oged the lulav with the minim, and you lift them up together. V’im lo agadan, notlin echad echad, you picked up the lulav, and you put down the lulav, you picked up the hadas, and the aravah is notlin echad echad yatza.
Discussion: What Does “Echad Echad” Mean
Speaker 2: Echad echad means the three hadasim together, or even one hadas at once?
Speaker 1: I’ll need to see how many hadasim I need at all.
Speaker 2: I don’t understand.
Speaker 1: Okay. Says the Rambam, no, echad echad can mean like each one of them separately, apparently.
Speaker 2: Again. Not only on the minim, perhaps one hadas at once on…
Speaker 1: Ah, you want to talk about two hadasim?
Speaker 2: Yes, could be.
The Condition: Sheyihiyu Arba’atan Mutza’in Etzlo
Speaker 1: Okay, says the Rambam. But v’hu, the condition that if you take one at a time you’re also yotzei, is only when you have all of them. V’hu sheyihiyu arba’atan mutz’in etzlo, it’s lying on him in front of him.
Mutz’in etzlo you don’t know if it means in front of him, it could be that it’s enough matzui, he has access to all the minim. Then, even if they haven’t picked up, we know that his da’as is on all of them. Even if he picked up one whatever, he was yotzei.
You know apparently a continuation of the previous section? V’im lo ela min echad, o shechasru min echad. One min is missing? Lo yitol ad sheyimtza hashe’ar. Because that’s the lo tosif v’lo tigra that we learned earlier, and you’re only doing half a mitzvah. When essentially you can already do the whole mitzvah, you picked up the first piece of it, and you make on that the blessing, because you’re now making the blessing on the mitzvos. And even if you lift it up separately, because lekachtem lachem, you can also be yotzei like that. But when you don’t have all of them…
Speaker 2: Very good, I’m not yotzei, it’s not a blessing, you’re saying. And perhaps at all you shouldn’t do it, because the Rambam says that you shouldn’t do it.
Discussion: What Does “Mutz’in Etzlo” Mean
Speaker 1: It could be that mutz’in etzlo means yes, literally all of them in front of him.
Speaker 2: No, because the blessing can be forever. A blessing is not a hefsek. Like by tekias shofar, they learned that you can make one tekiah in the morning and one in the afternoon. It’s not a problem. Certainly, it’s not lechatchila.
Speaker 1: The Rambam paskens, this is a machlokes in the gemara whether the agad is me’akev, that says that you must be with the agad. So apparently that’s not the problem, but it’s perhaps about the blessing actually, or just, not only the blessing, you’re not yotzei. That’s what the Rambam means.
What I said earlier that me’akev of zeh vazeh doesn’t mean that you need to hold it together, but you need to have all of them. So matzinu an eitzah can also be something in shul, he knows that in shul there’s an esrog, he now makes the blessing on the lulav, when he’ll arrive in shul to take the esrog, it shouldn’t be by him on the table, that’s what he means.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Halacha 8 (Continued) — Kamah Notlin Hen: The Number of Each Min
Speaker 1: Okay, says the Rambam further, “kamah notlin hen”, how many should there be? On arvei nachal it’s lashon rabbim, and… I mean only arvei nachal is lashon rabbim, but chachamim knew, chachamim had in halacha l’Moshe miSinai that there are numbers in this.
There’s a machlokes in this, “kamah notlin hen, lulav echad”. The Rambam paskens however.
Speaker 2: What? You’ll say that there’s a machlokes.
Speaker 1: No, Rabbi Akiva said that there’s only one hadas and one aravah, so it can already be a halacha l’Moshe miSinai, because the Rambam has a rule, a halacha that paskens on a machlokes. Anyway, that’s the halacha.
“Kamah notlin hen, lulav echad v’esrog echad u’shnei badei aravah u’shlosha badei hadas”.
Says the Rambam, by all of them there needs to be the amount that I said, but by hadas it’s different. “V’im ratza l’hosif bahadas kedei shetehei agudaso gedolah”, if he wants from hadasim to make a larger bundle, “mosif”, you can add, “v’noi mitzvah hu”.
“V’noi mitzvah” I mean is an explanation of why specifically hadas you can, because hadas is a beauty when there’s more. It seems that hadas is a beautiful… You see, you can look at hadas, it’s actually out. Hadas is actually more beautiful than aravos, it’s a beautiful leaf, and therefore there’s actually the… I don’t know. Aravah there are also conditions how an aravah looks, I don’t know. But in any case, that’s how chachamim said that hadasim is a beauty.
Mamila, if you add more hadasim it doesn’t bother me. The main mitzvah is the three. And actually for example, many of the poskim here, Rav Elimelech says that three should certainly be kosher, but afterwards the rest you can add hadasim that aren’t completely meshulash, that aren’t exactly…
Speaker 2: Ah, that’s already in the…
Speaker 1: But you add it for the noi mitzvah, and that’s not called lo tosif. Lo tosif is when you add… another min. But also, perhaps when there’s no noi, it would perhaps have been perhaps a chashash of lo tosif, why are you adding it? But here you understand why you’re adding it. You’re adding it for beauty, to make more beautiful…
Practical Methods in Number of Hadasim
The custom of the Geonim was that you put at least sixty-eight hadasim, k’minyan lulav. That brings the Magen Avraham and the Hagahos Maimoniyos on the spot.
Yes, it’s very hard for me, I always buy more hadasim, but hadasim are large. Sixty-eight will come out a bucket so large. I don’t know how it’s possible to hold. Perhaps in the… whether you don’t from… perhaps will learn then about smaller hadasim? I don’t know. Sixty-eight is very much. Even the small hadasim that they sell in stores, sixty-eight? Where! Very large. It looks like a whole bucket, so much literally…
Sixty-three in minyan hadar, which brings Rabbi Igel.
Speaker 2: Yes, another shita.
Speaker 1: It’s still one amount. But I say, I can put ten, fifteen, it’s already huge… I’ll put nine. Three times three.
And the Pobitcher Rebbe also used to, he used to take a lot, but look not, it could be that once we see that v’im lo agadon v’notlin echad echad, they had there a large bucket of beauty, and they didn’t take only three of them. He said kedei sheyihiyeh agudah gedolah. When he holds that, they hold the whole agudah gedolah at once. It could be that the noi mitzvah is that he has there a large bundle of hadasim. Just to lie on the table? We don’t know.
The Ra’avad: Aval She’ar HaMinim Ein Mosifin
But, says the Ra’avad, that’s hadas, where there’s a concept of noi. Aval she’ar haminim ein mosifin al minyanam, you don’t add to the number of three, two, and the like. V’im oseh v’hagra, lo pasul, it doesn’t become invalid, but it’s not the same.
One needs to know an interesting fact. Look the Ra’avad here,
Shiur Orech HaMinim, Agad HaLulav, V’Ne’anuim
Continuation: Hasagas HaRa’avad — Mosif V’Gorei’a Lo Pasal
Speaker 1: Says the Ra’avad, you don’t know what’s going on here? V’shama’ti me’olam pesulos bazeh. Even Rabbi Yehuda who says that it’s tzarich agad, doesn’t say that… if lulav tzarich agad, we understand that we look at the agad like one davar metzuyam. If there lies more, it’s not the correct agad. If lulav ain tzarich agad… But the Ra’avad says, even Rabbi Yehuda speaks when he adds another min, and with that he’s oged the lulav. Therefore one oged is lulav ela bemino. But to add another piece of hadas, that’s not what it says. Because he has a proof. You see that Rabbi Yehuda said that you may not be oged the lulav except with a lulav. But he has two lulavim, that’s not a problem, it’s still the same min.
Chiddush: The Rambam Retracted
So actually the holy Rambam himself agreed, this is one of my proofs, not a good proof. But I say that in general, that the Ra’avad usually is right when he’s mashig on the Rambam, this is a source that the Rambam himself agreed. I don’t know if he saw the Hasagas HaRa’avad, but he himself rewrote what he changed in the tikun sofrim. Says the holy Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam, chazar bo z”l v’tiken es sifro b’yado ka’ar, u’mosif v’gorei’a lo pasal. Interesting.
And he actually, you see that the Rambam had somewhat a side that there’s a question of bal tosif, and he retracted. But the question of bal tosif is connected with the pesul. It could be that bal tosif is a separate lav. Could be that it won’t be pasul, he’ll have another lav of bal tosif.
Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam says that his father said that he has a proof from a gemara in Sanhedrin that lulav you can be mosif. Meaning in the gemara. And I don’t know what he means exactly, but you see that the Rambam first thought that there’s perhaps yes somewhat a question of bal tosif. That’s what he thought in his hava amina. Okay.
Customs of Geonim — Adding Hadasim
And there were however others who yes, one needs to know, there were customs that yes added on it also, also Geonim. See, ah, see? The Rambam yes understood, he brings in Teshuvos HaRambam about this, and about aravah the Rambam said that he thinks that there’s in this a concept of bal tosif also, it’s not a way. But it’s not really such an issur. You see further that it’s not an issur bal tosif, but there’s a geder of the chachamim, you shouldn’t do differently.
Discussion: Why Is Hadasim Noi Mitzvah and Aravos Not?
But it’s interesting, he doesn’t say a very clear distinction between hadasim and aravos. Why on hadasim do you say that it’s noi mitzvah and the other not? Is it about hadasim smells good? It has a rei’ach? Is the noi mitzvah that the whole bundle smells good?
Speaker 2: I think that the reason, I didn’t know the reason that you’re saying until now, but I think it’s a good reason. Hadasim is much more beautiful than aravos. Look at the hadasim and look at the aravos.
Speaker 1: You’re telling me exactly the opposite.
Speaker 2: I think, perhaps the word is actually the good smell that it brings. The concept of the fruits are mesamei’ach, the green is mesamei’ach.
Speaker 1: But you may not smell on yom tov.
Speaker 2: You may not bend to smell, but if it brings a good smell, then that’s a noi mitzvah.
Speaker 1: It’s not clear.
Halacha 8: Shiur Orech Kol Min Mehem
Okay. So, we learned how many you need and how many of each min. Now you can learn how big the shiur orech kol min mehem. In the width you see that there’s no shiur, but in the length… on aravos there is yes, esrog there is yes in the width, but the other is a lengthwise thing. So how long?
Shiur Lulav
Says he, lulav has a minimum, ain pachot me’arba’ah tefachim. I mean, if you remember, every gemara says like three tefachim, except the tefach, the first hand where he grabs the whole thing. U’mehu aroch kol shehu, however long it is, kosher, there’s no difference, he can have very long.
Says the Rambam, from where do you count the arba’ah tefachim? Midaso mishidrah bilvad, from the shidrah and further, lo merosh ha’alin. That the shidrah needs to be four tefachim. Ah, the shidrah itself needs to have four tefachim. That’s a chumra, lo merosh ha’alin.
Shiur Hadas V’Aravah
Translation
The Rambam says further, regarding the hadassim and the aravos, what is the measure? Also no less than three tefachim. And how long? How long? And they should be any length longer, there’s no difference how much longer than that is kosher.
The Rambam says about the hadassim, even if on each stem there are only three fresh leaves, it is kosher. About hadassim… I mean, let’s say it’s about hadassim and aravos, because the Rambam doesn’t tell us clearly. Bad, he called both bad. Hadassim and aravos are called badim.
Speaker 2: Yes, by the hadas.
Speaker 1: Even if it has only three fresh leaves it is kosher, but they should be at its top, that they should be from above, that is the beauty. It already had to be three tefachim, it could be that the three tefachim are bare, they don’t have any leaves, but the branch is three tefachim, and it only has three fresh leaves at the top.
Discussion: The Measure of Aravos
Speaker 2: I think that the aravos, perhaps the aravos is even less? How much less? One leaf? You don’t have here three. A hadas needs to be meshulash. He doesn’t say here about three.
Speaker 1: It happens to be that by hadas the three need to be on one line, but also it’s not necessarily that the three are… One needs to know that it’s the species that is meshulash. That’s also not yet clear.
Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s not at all one leaf. Hello, what exactly?
Speaker 1: Okay, no, you have two, and under that you have a third from the next line.
Speaker 2: Okay, there need to be three in one place.
Speaker 1: I think yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, he says at the top of the bad, apparently the three should be…
Speaker 1: At the top of the bad is simply that one should be able to see it. It’s so… but there’s still some reason for it.
Law: The Spine of the Lulav Must Extend a Tefach from the Hadas
And if one binds the lulav, if… yes, if he does bind the lulav. I said the Rambam then, the spine of the lulav must extend from the hadas and aravah a tefach or more. Not just that the leaves of the lulav should stick out, it will stick out anyway because this is four tefachim and that is three. But not necessarily. However long. But if one binds them together, the lulav should go up higher, a tefach higher. And the reason is apparently, as he said earlier, that the lulav is the most important of them, and the others accompany it.
Law: The Measure of the Esrog
Now, and until now is the measure of the other three species. The measure of an esrog, no less than an egg’s volume. How high? How big? Whoever adds more, this is praiseworthy, there’s no difference how big, it can be huge.
Law 9: Lifting the Four Species
Now, now the Rambam will discuss the lifting and shaking. What does one do with the four species? Says the Rambam. Once one lifts these four species, when one lifts the four species, whether he lifted them together, or whether he lifted them one after another, as was said that if one lifts one again but also fulfills the obligation, whether in the right hand or in the left, he has fulfilled his obligation, earlier he said one should specifically have the lulav in the right hand, these are all arrangements, but any lifting, if one lifts it up, one has fulfilled the obligation.
But what is indeed invalidating from what he said earlier? The way of their growth is indeed invalidating, reversing the way of their growth, but if not in the way of their growth he has not fulfilled his obligation, one has not fulfilled the obligation at all.
Law 10: The Mitzvah According to Halacha — Waving
The Rambam says further, “The mitzvah according to halacha,” the mitzvah as it should be is, “that one should lift the bundle of the three species in the right hand and the esrog in the left,” this he already said earlier, and here he adds, and how should the shaking be? “And he should extend and bring back and raise and lower.” He should shake on all sides, he should shake in front of himself, he should bring up and… no, “extend and bring back” means to push further from oneself and bring toward oneself, and this must be done up and down.
Speaker 2: Exactly, so according to the Rambam there are only two movements, right? That’s how it says in the Gemara, “extending and bringing back, raising and lowering.”
Speaker 1: Yes, up and down, up and down, front and back.
And He Should Wave the Lulav Three Times in Each Direction
And this is apparently the waving, “and he should wave the lulav three times in each direction,” meaning that the thing is done three times.
Speaker 2: So try to say the minimal interpretation. Each time he pushes it out three times, not once, but three times. That is the waving? That’s not extra waving from the halachos?
Speaker 1: “In each direction.” He says, it could be “extending and bringing back” in each direction. “Extending and bringing back” he says… he means to say… it could be, no, I think differently from you. He means to say that the waving is not enough that at each side he should make a wave, but he should move it. He can’t make any wave in place on one spot and shake, but he should actually move it. He needs to lift it up, and then he brings it back. He does this three times. That’s called waving. That’s the simple interpretation that the Rambam says, according to the simple interpretation of the Gemara and of the Rishonim says three times.
How? — Explanation of the Wavings
“How?” says the Rambam, “How? He extends while waving the top of the lulav three times, and brings back while waving the top of the lulav three times, and so too with raising and lowering.” That means, extending and bringing back three times, and raising and lowering three times.
Speaker 2: Exactly that. Correct.
Speaker 1: Rabbeinu Manoach on the spot says that although it says one should face all seven firmaments, but that is the intention should be toward the seven firmaments. It doesn’t need to be that the shaking should be…
Speaker 2: Yes.
When Does One Do the Wavings?
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, when does one do this extending and bringing back? In any case, I need to say this, because people don’t have the strength for my troubles about wavings. But the point is, that waving means, according to the Rambam and simple interpretation, one can argue otherwise, but simple interpretation, waving means, in English it’s called “waving.” Like this and like that. That means, up and down. And one can do, one does it, the truth is, I even hold that one doesn’t need to do two extra things, but the Rambam does lay it down as two different things.
And in the Gemara it says “he made a sign, toward the One whose winds are His, toward the One whose heaven and earth are His,” beautiful hints. But extending and bringing back is like a “wave.” He lifts it up, I think it’s like a dance.
Speaker 2: No, it’s not a dance. It’s “waving.”
Speaker 1: Dance, a person has a flag, he “waves” it, he lifts it up. And two ways you can do it, front, you can do it up and down. Later other tzaddikim come, they say, if so, one should do from all six sides and all kinds of things, until it came out that waving is some kind of Shemoneh Esrei that one stands and does some funny things that nobody knows what it is. Okay. And whoever wants to learn at length should come to…
Speaker 2: Shh, I’m not transgressing bal tosif.
Speaker 1: Shh, yes. Because the whole thing is calm. Waving is simply a joy, it has to do with… one says Hallel, and one stands. It should be a part of the recitation, it should be a part of nothing. One may not do it that way.
And Where Does One Extend and Bring Back?
Now. “And where does one extend and bring back?” When in the davening does one do it? How… with what is the davening connected? That means, the… the essence of shaking lulav after saying the blessing al netilas lulav would already be done when one lifts it up. The extending and bringing back is indeed something an extra matter of… what does matter mean? Matter means that one does this during Hallel. The extra matter is indeed an extra joyful way of…
Waving in Hallel and the Bundle of Lulav
Waving During the Recitation of Hallel
Speaker 1:
The matter of Hallel is a… the matter is in Hallel. The matter means that one says Hallel, one shakes during the recitation of Hallel, one says “Hodu LaHashem at the beginning and end” – the beginning of “Hodu LaHashem,” and the end of “Hodu LaHashem,” and “Ana Hashem hoshia na.” That means only three times. “Hodu” is a chapter that begins “Hodu LaHashem,” and it ends “Hodu.” And the chapter, at the beginning, when it says “Hodu LaHashem,” when it says “Hodu” at the end. Right at the beginning it says “Hodu” four times. The Rambam doesn’t say that one should shake four times at the beginning. He says, one can say what one wants, but it doesn’t say “Hodu LaHashem at the end,” meaning “Hodu at the beginning of the psalm” – yes, in Tehillim 118 it is, but it begins “Hodu” and at the end. In the middle it says “Ana Hashem hoshia na,” then also. So three times one comes out doing wavings according to the Rambam.
We have other customs, it’s not invalidating, there are beautiful things, but one needs to know the halacha that’s in the Rambam. And it’s also very important, there are no wavings without Hallel, it doesn’t really make sense. There’s a connection that is part of the joy of Hallel. One needs to explain that Hallel is something originally is a joyful thing that has a certain way how one says it, chazan and congregation, it’s a kind of recitation where the chazan says certain things, and the congregation answers back like a choir. And there also comes in very well, one waves species that bring joy. The whole thing has a certain form.
But like many things in Judaism, it already received a form of its own, and whoever encounters a whole order already, it’s already such a big order that one does as it says in the Mishnah.
Criticism of Customs That Are Not Related to Hallel
I tell you, the truth is that… why should we do wavings? Both, I don’t remember who invented the idea of doing wavings without Hallel. I don’t remember where, one needs to look, who was it, who was innovative about this. But I don’t see why one should do it. I have no idea why.
Speaker 2:
You’re saying that right at the beginning when one makes the blessing one already does wavings too?
Speaker 1:
Yes.
Speaker 2:
You do wavings when you make the blessing?
Speaker 1:
Yes. Why? What does it come in for? In the Rambam it doesn’t say so. What should I do? In Shulchan Aruch… in short, forced interpretations, innovations of Acharonim, Rishonim, Rishonim, Rishonim… that doesn’t mean that’s the Hallel wavings. On the contrary, one means that he knows where one holds by Hallel.
Speaker 2:
No, one isn’t talking there about the obligation of Hallel, there one is talking about the very essence of the mitzvah.
Speaker 1:
He doesn’t need to say Hallel, he hears Hallel with everyone. He doesn’t need to say anything, he just needs to see that people are saying Hodu, and he shakes along. I have no problem. I don’t see any problem at all. And that’s it.
Also the way that is customary in Hallel, that the essence of the mitzvah is one doesn’t fulfill the obligation at all, because it doesn’t connect at all with the Hallel, the wavings. One says Hodu, and one stands shaking, and one sings there something, one doesn’t fulfill the obligation, what should I do?
The mitzvah min hamuvchar that exists to do wavings, it says in the Gemara that it repels evil winds, it’s a great matter in this, it says in Kabbalah great secrets, it’s not like they do by the Rebbes, they do it at some unrelated time, I don’t know what salvations the Rebbe accomplishes with this, then it’s not the mitzvah at all, one doesn’t fulfill the obligation.
Speaker 2:
You know what, do you want to make a leniency that one fulfills the obligation? Let’s ask Reb Yoel Asher, he likes to make shortcuts. Everything is fine. You’re putting pressure now, the Rebbe puts pressure? One must have joy.
Speaker 1:
I already did. I make counter-pressure. Jews enjoy shaking with a groan. Let them shake. That’s their joy, the Rebbe’s joy is with a groan.
And All Day Is Valid for Taking the Lulav
Speaker 1:
The Rambam says, when is shaking the lulav? That means, when during davening is one question. Now he says, when is the essence of the mitzvah of taking the lulav? He says, and all day is valid for taking the lulav, but it should not be taken at night. Because it says here, beautiful citrons on the day. That means, apparently, the wavings one can also, Hallel one can also say the whole day. That’s part of the same thing. It’s interesting.
Innovation: The Essence of the Mitzvah of Taking the Lulav Is in Hallel
It could be that the essence of the mitzvah of taking the lulav is actually in Hallel, but one can’t make a blessing with Hallel and the like, so one does it beforehand, and one already fulfills the essence.
Speaker 2:
Yes, I don’t understand the word.
Speaker 1:
It could be that the whole form of the mitzvah is that one should celebrate Hallel with species that bring joy. The whole… that there is the mitzvah, there is the minimum that one does. It’s actually interesting, that one makes the al netilas lulav, that means before Hallel one needs to do a taking of the lulav. That’s the point. In the siddur it says it’s before Hallel, but it was still the custom early on to do it so one doesn’t go to the study hall with all the species.
Speaker 2:
No, no, that’s only all the species, it’s not correct. The blessing one needs to make… that means, ah, certainly, whoever goes to the study hall can make the blessing before that. The blessing doesn’t have to do with matters, but doing matters.
Speaker 1:
Early on has no part, now, I want to do that I hold differently from the whole world. Should I make sense. Go to any other Jew, go ask people on Sukkos, what is the matter? What connects the matter with the Hodu? Nobody knows. I say, it’s so simple, so simple.
Hallel Like a Choir
Okay, the same people also don’t say Hallel, as it says in the essence of the laws, that Hallel should have a certain form of a choir that sings together. Now, it’s a choir. What does that mean? Each one says Hodu, and one continues, and so on.
Speaker 2:
True, but the Rambam has more, one calls back Hallelukah, yes, it’s a beautiful choir.
Speaker 1:
True, that one needs… I don’t know if you call it a choir. A choir sounds too professional. If one does it dozens of times, it becomes everyone, it goes into the system, it becomes a beautiful recitation, it becomes a beautiful kind of recitation. But that is reciting Hallel, one isn’t… we spoke about this on Chanukah, I mean they’re going to learn about this on Chanukah. But not necessarily, one needs to do it that way.
Innovation: One Can Say Hallel on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur
It’s certain that the way one says in many Chassidic shuls Hallel, one may calmly say Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah Hallel. Because the Gemara says Hallel, one doesn’t say on Rosh Hashanah, because there are too many praises. I’ve seen, one says Hallelukah alone, you can say on Rosh Hashanah, it’s calm. Do you understand my Torah?
Speaker 2:
People here will think that you’re some kind of… Reb Yitzchak is the great Choni Yokel, he’s a great servant. But lively, not uptight, like Reb Shmaya Mangshtern does. One doesn’t know, subtle distinctions. We’re talking, everything we’re talking about is only in subtleties.
Speaker 1:
He cries too.
Speaker 2:
You’ll say it’s a young man of doubt.
Speaker 1:
No, he doesn’t cry. If he really cries, he’s not holding up.
Speaker 2:
I thought he dances.
Speaker 1:
Okay.
The Bundle of Lulav – Binding and Interposition
Speaker 1:
Now, the Rambam says further. Now, let’s say about this bundle. Okay, how did he make the bundle of lulav? He made the bundle of lulav. One needs to bind it with something. So he bound it with a gimon. A thread, he says.
Speaker 2:
Yes. Gemi, he bound it with gemi.
Speaker 1:
Yes, but gemi means a grass. Gemi is a kind of grass. He says, agmon at its head. What is agmon? He also means a grass. Kol kach gaba, like a grass that is so. It means such a thing, he made a holder of silver and gold. He made a holder of silver and gold. Or he wrapped it with a sheet, or he made some beautiful holder of cloth. The taker took it like this, he lifted it like this. He fulfilled his obligation, because it doesn’t need to be specifically that he needs to touch it with his hands, because it doesn’t say he needs to touch it, it only says he needs to take it. Taking by means of something else is called taking. When someone takes something in a bag, hasn’t he taken it?
But the Rambam says, and it should be in a way of honor, a way of beautification, when the reason why he puts around some order is because it’s a way of honor, a way of beautification, a beautiful holder, a beautiful container, then it’s in order. For anything that is for its adornment does not interpose. But if he placed these species in a basket if he placed it in just some crude basket, it’s not for beauty, and took it, he has fulfilled his obligation.
Question: Contradiction in the Rambam
It’s very difficult for me to understand this Rambam, because at the beginning it looks like taking, the thing itself is called taking means it doesn’t matter to me at all how he took it, it only matters to me that he took it. As I said, when a person takes something in a bag, he still says that he took it. But the second part looks like one does need to take it, but there’s a law that when it’s for beauty it’s not an interposition, because it’s nullified because it’s there for beauty.
Answer: Distinction Between Beauty of the Bundle and Something Completely Different
Translation
It could be there’s a difference in the beauty of the species. When he places a golden ring, he makes the bundle more beautiful, or when he places something that doesn’t make the bundle more beautiful, it’s something completely different, understand? It’s not invalid. But the principle was “lekicha al davar acher shema lekicha” (taking through another object is called taking), what kind of law is this? That the main thing is that the lulav is carried by you, it makes no difference to me how it’s carried, that’s what he’s saying, lekicha al davar acher.
I’m afraid that lekicha al davar acher doesn’t mean that, it means that an interruption doesn’t disturb as long as the interruption is nullified to the bundle, no? I don’t know, this is very difficult for me.
Question: Esrog Box
And there will also be the big question of… here is the question, an esrog box… because the Rambam makes a distinction between a beautiful species and an esrog box. He doesn’t say an esrog box that isn’t beautiful. You can’t say an esrog box that’s used for cooking, that isn’t made properly. I want to say a bit more. The esrog box isn’t beautiful. It’s still a whole thing. It’s not such a way that you now hold an esrog. But an esrog, yes, on this I say. An esrog box that’s specially made for this is certainly not made [for beauty].
Speaker 2:
What is a mitzvah?
Speaker 1:
A Litvak once asked that there’s no mitzvah to have a beautiful esrog box, because there’s no mitzvah when the esrog is lying on the table. Only when you hold it is it a mitzvah. And the “zeh keli ve’anveihu” (this is my God and I will beautify Him), there are teachings from the Brisker Rav that it’s only during the mitzvah. That’s nonsense, because certainly zeh keli ve’anveihu is everything around the mitzvah also. But according to what I’m saying it’s not true, because you lift up the esrog with the box, so you’re certainly fulfilling the mitzvah.
Chatzitza and Lekicha – Two Separate Questions
Speaker 1:
It seems like… when the Rambam says lekicha al yedei davar acher shema lekicha (taking through another object is called taking). For example, he brings here that the Mishna Berura says that someone takes it with a glove. Seemingly, lekicha al yedei davar acher, in such a case there shouldn’t be any problem, because he lifts it up. It would be even easier than a golden thing around the lulav, because he holds it in his hand. It just happens that his hand has now put on a glove. I really don’t know.
There are two different questions: chatzitza (interposition) and lekicha (taking). It’s not that there shouldn’t be any chatzitza. There’s someone who washes his hands well before the lulav, wouldn’t there be any chatzitza?
Speaker 2:
No.
Speaker 1:
It’s different than by shofar where we had a different thing, that you must hear the sound of the shofar. No one would have any problem when you take the shofar with a glove. Its sound should just enter into the… it should be a sound of the shofar, nothing should be blocking between his tongue, between the thing that makes the sound. He says that the Rema says that you should remove the…
Laws of Lulav – Chatzitza, Binding, and Time of Taking
Law 7 (continued) – Taking Through Another Object
Speaker 1: Did you know? It’s a great wonder to me. It could be that a pot, your question about a beautiful silver box, whether it’s called a pot. I mean that when the Rema says pot and bowl, everyone knows that a pot is a plant [pot], something you usually put plants in. He’s talking about ugly things, things used in the kitchen. If there’s a special esrog box, and not just because it’s beautiful, but yes.
I mean to say, when the Rambam – the Rambam doesn’t need to make a distinction between a pot that’s beautiful and not beautiful, because a pot isn’t a beautiful thing. A pot is something you plant in.
Lekicha Al Yedei Davar Acher Is Not a Matter of Chatzitza
Speaker 1: Why did he say lekicha al yedei davar acher shema lekicha? Why doesn’t he say because this isn’t chatzitza and that is chatzitza? There shouldn’t be chatzitza, lekicha al yedei davar acher is never… it’s not a matter of chatzitza, it’s a different matter, that’s what you mean to say.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes.
Speaker 1: No, according to the thing lekicha al davar acher shema lekicha, it would help even with a pot also. And the Rambam says lo yatza yedei chovato (he hasn’t fulfilled his obligation). He says, you also can’t make a distinction between that it’s biblical when you fulfill it and it’s only some beautification. He says, lo yatza yedei chovato. He says, go back to where you were.
Speaker 2: Where? I want to see if it actually says in the… what does it mean that you must… on shofar?
Speaker 1: On shofar nothing was stated about holding it in the hands.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, in the exact language, the simple meaning is the Rebbe says that it’s not exactly similar. So how does it say that you must look at the Shulchan Aruch? How do you find the Shulchan Aruch here?
The Rema Regarding Tefillin and Rings
Speaker 1: Shulchan Aruch… well, the Rema says, “ve’nahagu ha’machmirim lehasir ha’tefillin u’taba’ot miyadam” (and those who are stringent have the custom to remove the tefillin and rings from their hands). Yes, in Ashkenaz they do wear tefillin on Chol HaMoed. The Rema says that they used to remove the tefillin and the rings. You see right away that you can do both at once. But according to the law there’s no concern.
You see that there was indeed the custom of the Maharil that they removed the rings, that they were indeed concerned about a burden. Really strange.
Speaker 2: What does it have to do? You’re saying, the ring is nullified to the hand.
Speaker 1: It’s not a good question. But it does say such a thing in the Rema. The Rema says you don’t have to, but he says there’s such a custom. But he doesn’t say you don’t have to because it’s not chatzitza. He says you don’t have to because the whole thing isn’t covered.
Speaker 2: What comes in here?
Speaker 1: I don’t know, it requires study. Reb Hershel Rabinowitz, what does he say on the simple meaning?
Speaker 2: No, let’s go further. If it’s about lulav, yes?
Lekicha Al Yedei Davar Acher – The Rambam’s Reason
Speaker 1: I want to say another thing. We learned that the normal order… he doesn’t say anything. Perhaps “lekicha al yedei davar acher lachshov es lekicha” (taking through another object to consider it taking).
Speaker 2: What does he say?
Speaker 1: He doesn’t say. He doesn’t say, I agree. He goes in this way. That is, this is the question, whether you say that the main thing is taking, but if it’s not for beauty it’s a problem, or you say that this makes it called taking. That’s the question.
Why should there be chatzitza by taking? It’s really puzzling. What does chatzitza mean by taking? What he says “lekicha al yedei davar acher” he meant because you actually lifted it up. When someone lifts something with a bag, hasn’t he lifted it? Certainly he lifted it.
Comparison to Hotza’ah on Shabbos
Speaker 1: He says that someone lifts up a… and with a bag isn’t he transgressing hotza’ah on Shabbos?
Speaker 2: Hotza’ah, certainly, he was carrying out.
Speaker 1: Hotza’ah means carrying out, not taking. The question is about… what does it mean… taking. I agree that a bag isn’t relevant, because a bag is something like… the Rambam says the language “lo derech kavod” (not in a respectful manner).
Distinction Between Bag and Esrog-Box
Speaker 1: Okay, but he says esrog. When he makes a distinction that rabbinically it’s not valid because it’s not derech kavod, he would have said that reason. I understand why. I would also say that a bag isn’t good, but an esrog box yes. Do you understand the distinction?
That’s what the Rambam means to bring out. That you’re not lifting the esrog, it’s something like, not a way of lifting an esrog. You’re lifting an esrog, the lulav, whatever. That’s what I mean.
You see indeed, the poskim say that it’s not really a question with gloves and such things. It’s not… when the Rambam says “lo yatza yedei chovato”, does he mean rabbinically, like other times when he said “lo yatza yedei chovato”?
Speaker 2: No, I agree with the Rambam, a pot is not a way.
Kaf HaChaim Regarding Rings
Speaker 1: The Kaf HaChaim says that there are several great people who go with rings on their hands, and they don’t remove them even for washing hands. Well, by us we don’t wear rings, I don’t know. And for example, in the laws of Shabbos there’s a ring that men wear, “taba’as she’yesh alav chosam” (a ring that has a seal).
Okay, fine.
Holding Lulav and Esrog Together
Speaker 1: Let’s go further. I just want to say another thing. What it says earlier that you must hold the esrog on the left hand, the Rambam doesn’t say that you must hold it together with the lulav.
Beis Yosef in the Name of Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla
Speaker 1: And we also see it very puzzling, because there is a Beis Yosef in the name of Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla, in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak HaKohen, that you must hold the lulav together because it’s then for the sake of the Name of God.
Yes, very nice, but excuse me, sorry, I don’t need to ask forgiveness, I may say my opinion. We also see it very puzzling, because you see people, he shakes the lulav, and he must take, his hand is unfortunately cramped, he can’t live normally. It’s not made, a mitzvah is made to be joyful.
Simple Meaning of “Lulav in His Right and Esrog in His Left”
Speaker 1: It says so, you shake. “Lulav bimino ve’esrog bismalo” (lulav in his right and esrog in his left) doesn’t mean both together, then it would have been “esrog imo ba’aguda” (esrog with him in the bundle). It means on the right hand a lulav, and on the left side an esrog, like this. That’s the translation. Whoever says otherwise, needs to bring proof for his words, and not a hint according to Kabbalah, because Kabbalah can be said however you want. Fine.
There Is Whom to Rely Upon
Speaker 1: I have many opinions about lulav that I have to explain. Okay, it’s very good, we’re here to balance ourselves. Whoever wants to go with his suffocating approach, as he saw by his rabbi, there is whom to rely upon, I don’t need to squeeze myself like that. I can’t convince those who aren’t convinced. I’m speaking for those who want to hear my teachings. The rabbi can go to the rabbi.
You know what? Let that rabbi teach laws of lulav. That’s his taste of the mitzvah that he saw, and that’s his enjoyment of the mitzvah. Have you ever seen something and it wasn’t pleasing to your eye? Did you develop something that that’s the reason? Afterwards I caught that the public was mixed. What should I do? Okay. Fine. Perhaps I even do like this? Who knows. You know what I do? Fine.
Law 8 – Binding the Lulav and Chatzitza Between Species
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “oged es ha’lulav im ha’hadas veha’arava” (he binds the lulav with the myrtle and willow). If you made the binding, you bound together the lulav with the myrtle and willow, ve’hivdil bein ha’lulav u’vein ha’hadas be’matlis ve’chayotza bo (and he separated between the lulav and the myrtle with a cloth or the like), between the lulav and the myrtle there’s some cloth, some thing that interrupts, harei zeh chotzetz (behold this is an interposition).
Chatzitza Between Species
Speaker 1: Because even if between the hands and the species there’s no chatzitza, but between the species there is chatzitza. Even if they don’t have to be together, but if they do lie together and there’s something that interposes, that’s my problem.
Speaker 2: How can it be worse than he takes one at a time? What he said earlier that you fulfill it.
Speaker 1: But “harei zeh chotzetz” does he mean to say that you don’t fulfill it?
Speaker 2: No, you don’t fulfill it worse. Certainly you fulfill the mitzvah itself, you don’t fulfill it worse.
Min Be’mino Eino Chotzetz
Speaker 1: “Hivdil beineihem be’alei hadas” (he separated between them with myrtle leaves), he says however, if what divides between them is the little branch, all the myrtle that’s used to bind together, the little branch is fine, the myrtle itself let’s say, then it is kosher. Why? Because min be’mino eino chotzetz (the same species doesn’t interpose). The same species doesn’t interpose. When it’s something else it interposes, but min be’mino eino chotzetz.
For this reason our custom is to take the little branch made from lulav leaves, or to bind together with lulav leaves.
Binding With Anything
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “ve’yesh lo le’egod ha’lulav” (and he may bind the lulav), you may, you may take the lulav, “be’chut o be’mesicha, ve’chol min she’yirtze” (with a thread or string, and any species he wants). Between the myrtles and the lulav you shouldn’t place something of another species to interpose, but to bind around the lulav with the other species you may indeed use anything. It’s not specifically, we do conduct ourselves to use a leaf from the lulav, but you can also bind it with anything.
“Hoil ve’ein agidato me’akeves” (since its binding is not indispensable), since the bundle is not indispensable. If there had to be a bundle specifically, then there would have been a problem, because it would give five species. It should have a law of mitzvah as if it’s part of a thing, as if you’re taking a fifth species. But since the Rambam said that the binding is not indispensable, you understand that the reason why there’s something like a rubber band there is for practical reasons, and it doesn’t look like you’re adding to the mitzvos.
Up to here is, we’ve learned it, what the lulav and esrog is and how you take it. Now you can learn when you must take it. Do you want to learn further?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Law 9 – When Do You Take Lulav
Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “mitzvas lulav lehiNatel bayom harishon shel chag bilvad” (the mitzvah of lulav is to be taken on the first day of the festival only). The main mitzvah of lulav, the Torah mitzvah of lulav, is that you should take it on the first day of Yom Tov.
In Every Place and At Every Time
Speaker 1: When should you do this? “Be’chol makom u’vechol zman” (in every place and at every time). Everywhere there’s the mitzvah, whether in the Land of Israel, whether in a place when the Temple exists, “va’afilu be’Shabbos” (and even on Shabbos), also on Shabbos, she’ne’emar “u’lekachtem lachem bayom harishon” (as it says “and you shall take for yourselves on the first day”). The first day is the mitzvah to take, and this is always, but by the first day it doesn’t say specifically in the Temple or something.
In the Mikdash – The Temple or Jerusalem?
Speaker 1: “Aval ba’mikdash levado” (but in the Mikdash alone), in the Temple itself – it’s interesting, from here it appears that Mikdash means the Temple itself, he doesn’t mean Jerusalem, like by shofar he said that Mikdash means all around Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: Why do you say so?
Speaker 1: Because he says the word “levado” (alone). If he wanted to say Jerusalem, he would have said Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: No, the Rambam said several times that Mikdash means Jerusalem. So automatically, in the Perush HaMishnayos in Sukkah he indeed says that “lulav nital biYerushalayim kol shiv’a” (lulav is taken in Jerusalem all seven [days]). So says the holy Rambam explicitly.
Speaker 1: So what should you do? It’s very hard to say that he changed his mind here from the Perush HaMishnayos. It’s also hard for me to say that he means Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: He means yes, he means yes.
Practical Difference
Speaker 1: It wouldn’t matter practically, I mean practically, I mean today, this is… it is relevant to whether there’s a permission that you should travel to Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: Someone who is here, what should you should travel to Jerusalem? What should you should travel to the Kotel?
Speaker 1: There are many Jews who indeed travel because of this. But whether you must travel to the Kotel because there is…
Lulav on Shabbos – Rabbinic Decree and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s Enactment
Law: Lulav in the Mikdash All Seven Days of the Festival
Speaker 1: Not, but not Temple times. You just need to be in Jerusalem, it doesn’t have to be the Kotel. It has to be in Jerusalem. How far is Jerusalem? Do you have to travel to the Kotel?
Ba’mikdash levado notlin oto (in the Mikdash alone they take it), Mikdash, which means the Temple or Jerusalem. It depends on the dispute of the later authorities, Rabbi Yitzchak with me.
Notlin oto be’chol yom va’yom shiv’as yemei hachag (they take it every single day of the seven days of the festival), you take the lulav every day of the seven days of the festival, because besides the verse u’lekachtem lachem (and you shall take for yourselves), which is the same verse. At the end of the verse it says u’semachtem lifnei Hashem Elokeichem shiv’as yamim (and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days).
Somehow the Sages didn’t hear, taken together from beginning to end, like for example they did kol she’yesh ba issur achilas chametz yesh ba (wherever there’s a prohibition of eating chametz there is)… they did it many things. Many times they also do like this.
You must understand this deeper, but we’re learning this chapter too long already. That by the Mikdash itself there are seven days. Like this is similar to the ba’chatzotzros lifnei Hashem (with trumpets before the Lord). Lifnei Hashem means in the Mikdash, and there it’s seven days. And what’s not so on the first day is not. The whole joy. So only on the first day it doesn’t have with joy. By Jerusalem is a place of joy, the Temple is a place of joy.
I wouldn’t, if you ask me to translate the verse I wouldn’t have said that, but I understood differently than me. What should I do? It’s very good like this. It’s very good, because otherwise I wouldn’t have had what to do, ah? Fine.
Law: Lulav on Shabbos – The Rest of the Days of the Festival
Speaker 1: Now like this, what is if Shabbos falls? Wait a minute, what does the Rabban want to bring out? You should know when there’s the… what happens that with the Rabbanan you should take all seven days? He doesn’t go later.
The Rabban says, chalil yom haShabbos lis betoch yemei hachag (if Shabbos falls in the middle of the days of the festival). What happens if one of the days of… he said, the first day, even if it’s Shabbos, you shake lulav. What happens chalil yom haShabbos lis betoch yemei hachag on one of the other seven days? Eino nital be’Shabbos (it’s not taken on Shabbos) you don’t take the lulav on Shabbos.
Why? A decree lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain, just as we decreed regarding the shofar. So he goes and carries it four cubits in the public domain, or from one domain to another. So he said by shofar, from domain to domain. Here he says only the four cubits in the public domain. Just as we decreed regarding the shofar, just like by shofar, where he was somewhat more elaborate.
There the Rambam said that seemingly it’s a novelty that one nullifies a mitzvah, but since one could come to a violation punishable by stoning from four cubits in the public domain or from domain to domain, the Sages have, the Sages have the power to make such a decree.
But here even the elaboration is not needed, because here the Sages are not nullifying any Torah law. When the Sages nullify a Torah law it’s an extraordinary thing, one must explain it with the prohibition punishable by stoning. But here, the mitzvah is only rabbinic. The same Sages, they said and they said, that in a situation where there is a concern of carrying in the public domain, there is no mitzvah of all seven days.
Discussion: Why is there a concern of carrying in the public domain?
Speaker 1: But one must understand in general, why is there this concern of carrying in the public domain? By shofar one carries in the public domain, the Rambam there… the Gemara explained because everyone is obligated in the mitzvah of shofar, but not everyone knows how, so one must go to a sage. But shaking lulav doesn’t necessarily require a sage.
Speaker 2: Yes, one does need a sage, do you know how to bind it, or I don’t know what… the details…
Speaker 1: Ah, one doesn’t need to know the Beit HaMikdash. If one must go to the Beit HaMikdash one can understand.
Speaker 2: No, the Beit HaMikdash is surrounded by the partitions of Jerusalem.
Speaker 1: But one must go from home to the Beit HaMikdash.
Speaker 2: Ah, okay. All of Jerusalem is a private domain?
Speaker 1: I don’t know. Back then it actually was something like that. I don’t know if to assume that Jerusalem was always a private domain, or perhaps only at certain times, perhaps outside the wall, there are also differences of who lives where.
Law: Why didn’t they decree on the first day?
Speaker 1: Says the holy Rambam, And why didn’t they decree this decree on the first day? Why didn’t they decree the decree of lest one carry it four cubits, also on the first day? We know that we already have such a precedent from shofar. Let’s already talk about shofar.
Because the Rambam says, Because it is a mitzvah from the Torah even in the provinces, even everywhere, as he said to take it the first day, it turns out that its law is not equal to the law of the other days. It comes out that the first day and the other days have no connection. On the other days of the festival a person is not obligated in lulav except in the Temple, therefore they forbade taking it when it’s Shabbat.
Discussion: Do we understand this answer?
Speaker 2: I don’t understand, he didn’t answer the question.
Speaker 1: No, he answered the question very well. He said that the Rabbis are not uprooting. I mean the Torah law they are not uprooting, and the rabbinic law they are uprooting.
Speaker 2: Which Torah law are they not uprooting?
Speaker 1: Master of the Universe, we’re talking now everything, we’re not talking about the…
Speaker 2: No, no, no, you’re going after me, but again, but again, but again. Now we’re talking about the Torah law. From the Torah one is obligated, he’s talking now about the Beit HaMikdash, about Jerusalem, whatever, the Beit HaMikdash. There he says, in the Temple one doesn’t take the lulav on Shabbat. Why not? Why is there a distinction? Therefore the Sages made a distinction in their decree as well. He’s not explaining why, what is the reasoning for the distinction? You see that it’s a greater mitzvah, the Sages wanted to nullify it.
Speaker 1: Perhaps actually because of this, because it’s less common that one would commit the transgression on it. Because shofar there is what was mentioned earlier, “the entire congregation is obligated,” and lulav everyone can. But when it’s a greater mitzvah, there’s still some concern for which they decreed.
Speaker 2: No, it’s not. I’ll tell you something else. That the point is, there’s seemingly a problem that actually one wouldn’t even be liable for a sin offering, because if he takes the four species, he’s doing a mitzvah when he does it. He takes it with permission, he takes it to do a mitzvah. But what then, since the mitzvah is only in the Temple, until he arrives at the Beit HaMikdash he’s carrying it for nothing.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, I don’t think so. The answer is much simpler, that in shofar there’s also a permission in Jerusalem, remember? If you ask the question about the distinction between shofar and lulav, you must remember that shofar one does blow on Shabbat in the Temple.
Speaker 2: Right, in the Temple and in the Temple.
Speaker 1: And the same thing, here they are more stringent. That is, it’s interesting, there is where we are more stringent even in the Temple, and the other thing we are more stringent that here they allow it on the first day.
Speaker 2: Right. But on the first day, which in the Temple is the same as everywhere, one goes according to the leniency that in the Temple there is no prohibition. But the whole week, which is not only in the Temple, it’s a somewhat lesser mitzvah, the Sages forbade it.
Speaker 1: In short, it doesn’t hold up terribly well.
Law: The enactment of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai – lulav all seven days as a remembrance of the Temple
Speaker 1: Afterwards came a new event, right? After the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed, when the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed, they enacted, the Sages enacted, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, that the lulav should be taken everywhere all seven days of the festival. The Sages enacted that one should take the lulav every day of all seven days of the festival, even though only in the Temple is the mitzvah, as a remembrance of the Temple, one should remember the Beit HaMikdash, one should do as was done in the Beit HaMikdash.
And on each and every day, all the days, not only the first day when it’s from the Torah, but also all the days when it’s an enactment of the Sages, one makes the blessing Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the taking of the lulav.
Hey, how can one make this blessing, it’s not a Torah mitzvah? He says, Because it’s a mitzvah from the words of the Scribes, and on a mitzvah from the words of the Scribes one can also make who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us.
He says, And this enactment, the enactment of shaking all the days, is part of the enactments that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai enacted after the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed. And when the Temple is rebuilt… He means to say this, this enactment, the enactment, along with all the other enactments that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai enacted. It’s not simple that he enacted this forever, he enacted it all as a remembrance of the Temple, and only as long as it’s relevant that we need to have a remembrance of the Temple. And when the Temple is rebuilt, things will return to their original state, one will return to the old law that only in the Temple will be the mitzvah.
Discussion: Distinction between two types of “remembrance of the Temple”
Speaker 2: The enactment of making the korech, the Rambam also said as a remembrance of the Temple. That’s different, Hillel made it. Hillel didn’t say it. Hillel used to do this, ah, in the time of the Temple he did it. He was still in the time of the Temple. It’s understood there that when the Beit HaMikdash returns, one will do as it says there.
Speaker 1: I’m saying, by both one says the words “remembrance of the Temple,” it’s a different kind of remembrance of the Temple. Here we’re talking about the enactments, there are several more enactments of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai as a remembrance of the Temple, all of them the Rambam means will change back.
Law: Lulav on the first day that falls on Shabbat – in the time of the Temple and nowadays
Speaker 1: Now one must learn another interesting law. So, it comes out, until now, that nowadays one must also shake lulav the first day on Shabbat, still. Still the prohibition hasn’t been made. Why doesn’t one do it?
Says the Rambam thus: Says the Rambam, In the time when the Beit HaMikdash existed, the lulav was taken on the first day that fell on Shabbat. As long as there was still a Beit HaMikdash, the law was indeed as we have learned until now, that one shook lulav also on the first day that fell on Shabbat, everywhere.
And likewise in other places where they knew with certainty that this day is the festival day in the Land of Israel, everywhere where one knew when the fixing of the month was, one also shook lulav on the first day.
But the distant places that did not know about the fixing of the new month, places where one didn’t know for certain which day is the fixing of the new month, even though initially they were stringent and made Sukkot from the day they thought it already makes sense to make two days, they already started a day earlier when it’s only a doubt, both days, yes. But they did not take the lulav out of doubt. But when it fell on Shabbat, it’s only rabbinic. What they made both days is only rabbinic, because each day is a doubt. We also didn’t take…
Discussion: Why not take out of doubt?
Speaker 2: That the Sages only decreed on the other days only when it’s rabbinic. The prohibition, lest one carry it, the Rabbis didn’t make it not against the Torah laws, only against the rabbinic ones.
Speaker 1: No, no. But since when it’s a doubt, both days are rabbinic.
Speaker 2: The Sages made it also on the Torah laws. It was, in the Temple they enacted that one should not take it on Shabbat. The other days, yes.
Speaker 1: The other, all seven one doesn’t take on Shabbat, and the first day one takes even on Shabbat, whether in the Temple or in the provinces, it doesn’t change. And this is to this day a mitzvah, whether in the Temple or in the provinces. The other days, here today is a new enactment, it doesn’t come in here. The rabbinic of the other seven days, that’s simply a remembrance of the Temple, that’s already finished with that. It’s simple that then one doesn’t take on Shabbat, even in the Beit HaMikdash itself one didn’t take on Shabbat. Not any question.
The question is, what about the first day? Says the Rambam that in the time when there was a Beit HaMikdash, one took the lulav on the first day,
Lulav on Shabbat after the Temple was destroyed — the mitzvah of aravah in the Temple
Law 17 (continued) — Lulav on Shabbat after the Temple was destroyed
Speaker 1: But not everywhere, only where one knows for certain that it’s actually Sukkot today, because on the side that it’s not Sukkot, one is making a rabbinic prohibition on whatever for shaking the lulav, but Shabbat is certainly Shabbat, and doubtful Sukkot one cannot because of this nullify, taking a lulav on Shabbat.
Now thus, After the Temple was destroyed, the Sages forbade taking the lulav on Shabbat on the first day. Even when the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed, they completely forbade taking lulav on Shabbat, even on the first day. Even the children of the Land of Israel who sanctified the month, it’s no longer the thing that it’s a doubt perhaps it’s not Sukkot. Even the children of the Land of Israel who did sanctify the month, why did they do this?
The children of the distant provinces who do not know about the fixing of the month, that there are people who live in the distant provinces who are not expert in the fixing of the month, why did they do this? The people who live here know indeed for certain that today is the festival, and it’s a Torah law today to shake lulav, and why would the Sages go and nullify it?
He says, So that everyone should be equal in this matter, and it should not be that these take on Shabbat and these don’t take. The Sages wanted that all of the Jewish people should conduct themselves the same, everyone should have the same thing that one doesn’t shake on Shabbat, so that it shouldn’t be that part of the Jewish people do yes and part don’t.
Since the obligation of the first day is the same everywhere, since the obligation of the first day is the same obligation everywhere. And there is no Temple to rely on. When there was still a Beit HaMikdash it was very clear that the Land of Israel is different from other places, therefore when one asks why here this way and there that way, one would understand, because here is the Beit HaMikdash. There is no Beit HaMikdash, people won’t see the distinction with which the Jews of the Land of Israel are different, or the Jews of Jerusalem are different, they didn’t want that it should… The problem is, like great virtues, the problem should look like one makes different customs for Jews.
Question: It’s dependent on the sanctification of the month, not on the Temple
Speaker 2: It’s not dependent on the Temple, it’s dependent on the sanctification of the month. The Temple doesn’t come in here, the first day is always there.
Speaker 1: The Rambam says that since there is a Temple, it’s somewhat easier for the people to swallow that there they know when it’s the new month, and we don’t know. It’s not clear this piece. Do you understand it that way?
Speaker 2: You wouldn’t be dependent on the Temple. The Temple is not a practical difference for the first day.
Speaker 1: And not only that, but today we do know when it’s the new month. The Rambam asks further, 18.
Speaker 2: Yes, nowadays…
Speaker 1: But the question becomes the same, that others ask it, that the very making that in the Diaspora there are two days of Yom Tov, and in the Land of Israel one day of Yom Tov, is already the greatest disparagement, the greatest making of two customs.
Speaker 2: Exactly on this is the month. They don’t know. That is, the Diaspora doesn’t know when it’s the month, it’s a doubt. But they do know that the first day of Yom Tov one shakes lulav, and they don’t shake. It’s strange.
Speaker 1: Ah, they actually don’t know when it’s Yom Tov. That is, the second is the doubt, the second is when one added. I don’t know clearly.
Speaker 2: No, it’s not… hey now, you’re asking a good day. I don’t know clearly.
Speaker 1: Okay. When one gives to the whole event it’s something very unclear.
Law 18 — Nowadays when everyone goes by the calculation
Speaker 1: And further, says the Rebbe, it becomes even more difficult. Today there is no scribe against. Nowadays when everyone goes by the calculation, he makes that everyone does the new month according to the calculation, according to the calendar, as we learn in the laws of sanctifying the month, there’s further no real distinction between the Land of Israel and the Diaspora. And in the Diaspora the first day is also a true certain Yom Tov.
But the matter remained as it was, the custom remained that one should not take on Shabbat at all. The custom remained further that no one takes lulav, no one takes lulav on Shabbat even on the first day, not in the provinces and not in the Land of Israel even on the first day. He says, Even though everything is known from the fixing of the month.
It’s not very clear what the distinction is, because the custom of our fathers is in our hands exists on the doubt, it makes sense, on the second day of Yom Tov, and in doubts there is no custom of our fathers is in our hands.
Speaker 2: They would have had to. Why do they do that it shouldn’t be different from the Diaspora which may not?
Speaker 1: But the Diaspora may also actually yes, only because they don’t know, here they do know. It’s something terribly not very clear.
One sees in the next piece that it’s very unclear, the Rambam troubled him, the Rambam troubled him. One has already learned that this is not a real prohibition, this is only rabbinic. Why he says it over I don’t know. It means that it’s not…
Speaker 2: No, he only says it over. I don’t know why he says, it’s not clear at all. Not clear.
Speaker 1: “And we have already explained that the essence of the prohibition of taking lulav on Shabbat is a decree lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.” Yes, not clear. And this makes the question more difficult. It doesn’t answer anything, it makes it more difficult.
And so indeed brings the Lechem Mishneh, he learns that this is still part of the question. It’s only rabbinic, always not…
In short, it’s perhaps a long history to the evolution until it became the situation that one doesn’t take lulav even the first day when it’s Shabbat. If someone can explain, one should have here some secret in this, true? I’m among those who explain secrets. Simple customs that goes, but it should make sense, there is a secret. It must be that there is in this a secret. One will arrive sometime at understanding.
A digression: A secret about the severity of the matter of Shabbat
Speaker 1: Now can one learn it, and can one further? There is a secret that stands in certain books that with this one shows the severity of the matter of Shabbat. Everyone greatly values shofar and lulav. It’s a mitzvah that one does once, and one forgets how hard it is, the concern of “lest one carry it,” because one does it every week. There is no concern. The time to show the holiness of Shabbat is the one time when one nullifies shofar and lulav for it.
Speaker 2: Tell me that the first day there is no concern. The Sages didn’t decree the first day of Sukkot. Rosh Hashanah above, Sukkot they didn’t decree the first day. The whole thing is only some new event, after the Temple was destroyed. Do you understand that it’s not…
Speaker 1: They wanted to unite all Jews yes, something. I don’t know.
Speaker 2: Ah, unity of all Jews is also a great thing, but it’s not unity either, because everyone knows.
Speaker 1: In short, the Gemara says all these things, it requires great study, one must understand it very well, but the Rambam wrote what stands in all the Gemara, and went further. Yes.
Law 19 — Who must shake lulav?
Speaker 1: Who must shake the lulav? Says the Rambam, who shakes the lulav? Who is obligated? “Kol shechayav b’shofar u’v’sukkah,” which he already calculated earlier, everyone who is obligated is obligated in taking the lulav, “kol hapatur mishofar u’v’sukkah, patur m’lulav.”
And what kind of child? By children we say that the measure is always according to that mitzvah, just as they learned regarding the sukkah, that he no longer needs his mother, he can go sleep with his father by the men. What is the measure for a child? “Katan hayodei’a l’na’nei’a chayav b’lulav midivrei sofrim k’dei l’chancho b’mitzvos.” Done.
Discussion: What Does “Yodei’a L’na’nei’a” Mean?
Speaker 1: What does “yodei’a l’na’nei’a” mean? Whatever. How hard can it be to be a na’nei’a?
Speaker 2: Very good. It must be that “l’na’nei’a” means he can know when we’re holding by Hallel, to participate in the Hallel in the middle of the shaking, because to shake even a six-month-old boy can shake.
Speaker 1: Not necessarily, it’s heavy.
Speaker 2: But “yodei’a” means that he can.
Speaker 1: No, “yodei’a” is some kind of knowledge. But it’s hard to say so, because the shaking during Hallel is divrei sofrim, the main thing is the actual taking.
Speaker 2: Now you’re asking a good question, why doesn’t it say “katan hayodei’a l’hagbi’ah”?
Speaker 1: That’s a different question. But what I’m saying that “l’na’nei’a” means during Hallel, I’m still right, not like another says the opposite. Because if not, “yodei’a l’na’nei’a” makes no sense. Understand? “L’na’nei’a” means to lift up.
Speaker 2: No, he knows how to lift up something without breaking the pitom.
Speaker 1: Not true, it’s not hard, everyone can do that. Any measure is okay, so what? That’s nonsense with noodles. It’s not true. The measure is “l’na’nei’a” because the normal order, he can still be clumsy, he can’t lift up.
Speaker 2: It doesn’t say “katan hayodei’a l’hagbi’ah”, where does it say?
Speaker 1: “Katan hayodei’a l’na’nei’a” means he can shake.
Speaker 2: Hey, you don’t need to shake at all to be yotzei?
Speaker 1: Yes, but that’s like many mitzvos, the normal way of doing it is so.
Speaker 2: Exactly, we learned that one is not yotzei with lifting up.
Speaker 1: Okay, that’s not the obligation. Ah, let’s say so, chinuch is done l’chatchilah, not that we should educate a boy to do something b’dieved that isn’t the mitzvah min hamuvchar.
Speaker 2: No, chinuch is done normally, and then that’s the measure of chinuch.
Speaker 1: But “na’nua” doesn’t mean to know what we teach children today, he needs to know all kinds of times that we teach, because if we haven’t understood what “na’nua” means. “Na’nua” means that he can participate with the Hallel and shake at the right time. How old is that? I know, six, seven, eight, ten, whatever.
Speaker 2: Today there’s no one, because the adults also can’t “l’na’nei’a”, so they’re exempt.
Speaker 1: No, they’re exempt, stop misleading, let them do what they do. They’re exempt because they’re not a “na’nua”, they do some kind of strange action.
Halacha 20 — Mitzvat Aravah in the Mikdash (Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai)
Speaker 1: Okay, enough with the lengthy discussion. Okay. I want to summarize anyway, it’s good. Done. Until now we’ve learned about the main mitzvah from the Torah, which is the mitzvah of taking four species, or the mitzvah of lulav, which lulav includes three other species.
Now there’s an interesting mitzvah. That mitzvah has a halacha l’Moshe miSinai that tells us what the lulav is, and so on. But now there’s another new mitzvah, very interesting, the whole thing is halacha l’Moshe miSinai, yes? A very interesting phenomenon. That is, it’s connected with the aravah of the lulav, but it’s a completely different thing. This we learn.
Speaker 2: Halacha l’Moshe miSinai?
Speaker 1: Yes, halacha l’Moshe miSinai. It’s not written in the Torah at all.
Speaker 2: That’s what I’m saying, it’s not even much of a hint. I don’t know if there’s a hint.
Speaker 1: It’s connected, because it’s the same type of aravah.
Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s not even written in the… I don’t remember if there’s even a hint to it.
Speaker 1: That seven days in the Mikdash, aravah acheret, a second aravah, chutz mei’aravah shel lulav. A new aravah, besides the aravah of the lulav, is brought. V’ein adam yotzei yedei chovato ba’aravah shebalulav. One is not yotzei. You shouldn’t think that one brings the lulav, that the aravah is included in it. No. A completely external halacha. It’s ein adam yotzei yedei chovato, one must bring an extra one. If one brought a shaken aravah that was already used in the lulav, one is not yotzei.
Speaker 2: I don’t know, the point is that if one brings it with the lulav, one is not yotzei.
Speaker 1: We’ll see what one does with it.
Speaker 2: No, and the commentators say one is not yotzei if it’s lying in the four species, even if it’s next to the altar.
Speaker 1: Because the mitzvah is that one should place it on the altar. Not that you can’t use the aravah that you already used on the altar. It’s a bit strange, he brings here the language v’ein adam yotzei. What comes in? We held that we see the order of aravos, that one brings, the kohanim bring before the altar, it doesn’t say that everyone brings. So what does ein adam yotzei mean? It seems it means one is not yotzei. We don’t know.
And what’s the measure? Afilu aleh echad b’vad echad. Not clear, there don’t need to be two aravos.
Speaker 2: Ah.
Speaker 1: Afilu aleh echad b’vad echad, and one is also yotzei. L’chatchilah one brought presumably more, but… he says more about the highest.
Mitzvat Aravah: Order of Bringing in the Mikdash, Laws on Shabbat, Beating Aravah and Hakafot
Halacha 2 (Continued) – Order of Bringing Aravah in the Mikdash
Speaker 1: What comes in? We held that we see the order of aravos that one brings, the kohanim bring before the altar. It doesn’t say that everyone brings. So what does “v’ein adam yotzei” mean? It seems it means one is not yotzei. We don’t know.
What’s the measure?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Do you agree?
Speaker 2: Yes, afilu aleh echad u’vad echad.
Speaker 1: There don’t need to be two aravos. Ah, very good. Afilu aleh echad u’vad echad one is also yotzei. Certainly, l’chatchilah one brought presumably more, but… he says more here than yotzei. One brings whole plants of this. But one is yotzei this way.
Keitzad haytah mitzvata? How did one… interesting, “haytah mitzvata”. Seemingly one should also now. Now is a matter. When the Beit HaMikdash will be, one will do it. I don’t know. The order is so: B’chol yom vayom b’shivat hayamim hayu mevi’in… Why doesn’t he say “yavi’u”? I don’t know, there’s presumably something here. This is called minhag zekeinim? Or… we’ll see, we’ll see. But if it’s minhag zekeinim, nothing came out how long it was until they changed the elders. In the future to come there will be new elders with new customs. No, I don’t see. The Ramban says that the chibta is minhag nevi’im. But the actual aravah is halacha l’Moshe miSinai. I think so.
Muraviyot Shel Aravah – Whole Little Trees
And what does one do? Every day one brings muraviyot shel aravah. Muraviyot means what? I think it means simply a whole… not a piece of aravah, but a whole tree like that, a whole little tree of aravah. V’zokfin otan al tzidei hamizbe’ach, one stands them up on the side of the altar, v’rosheihen kfufin al gabei hamizbe’ach. This is the secret of “halokei’ach ka’agmon rosho”, understand? The aravah, it bends a bend, it bows so toward the altar.
Teki’ot by Bringing Aravah
U’v’eit shehen mevi’in ota v’sodrin ota, there was a ceremony of bringing, yes? That was the thing. It was brought, toke’in umeri’in v’toke’in. They blew. There’s a thing that one may not bring a tree into the Beit HaMikdash, yes? There’s a prohibition that the Rambam calculated. To plant, ah. One doesn’t put it down so it should look like it’s planted, one places it already on the altar. Okay, I don’t know. You’re asking a kuntres, we don’t know.
The Source of Ropshitz Custom
And they blow. This is the source of the Ropshitzer who blow shofar on Hoshana Rabba. Also it’s because of simcha, not that one should think it’s like shofar on Rosh Hashana. Also shofar on Rosh Hashana is for simcha, as it says in Chassidus. Jews have a thing of crying when there’s such a simcha. Stop also with the uptight Jews, they should also become crying. One may not. Yes, Tisha B’Av one cries, and then the Ropshitzer tzaddik and he doesn’t cry. Okay, okay, enough, enough. But Hoshana Rabba, which it says in the Shulchan Aruch that it’s because of simcha, then he cries. He’s not a normal person, the Ropshitzer grandfather, done.
Halacha 3 – Aravah on Shabbat
“Chal yom shevi’i shel aravah lihyot b’toch hachag”, and on Shabbat one doesn’t do it if it’s just a normal day, one pair of aravah. But when yes? “Ela im ken chal yom shevi’i lihyot b’Shabbat, zokfin ota b’Shabbat, k’dei l’farsmah shehi mitzvah”. If the seventh day, the seventh day is some special day of yom aravah, then one is more engaged in the mitzvah of aravah, then even when it’s Shabbat one does it yes. In order to say something that it’s a mitzvah, you shouldn’t think it’s only a custom. No, it’s a mitzvah, and one may do it on Shabbat. There’s no concern, because one only does it in the Mikdash, and in the Mikdash they are zerizin heimish. Even a whole week isn’t a real concern, it’s only so that people shouldn’t confuse with lulav, because they’ll think lulav is also Shabbat. And here the matter is missing to publicize that it’s a mitzvah, because it’s not written anywhere, it’s only halacha l’Moshe miSinai.
Order of Preparation Erev Shabbat
Now he says how the custom, how does one do it?
Speaker 2: I think regarding Shabbat, right?
Speaker 1: Ah, correct. “Mevi’in otan mei’erev Shabbat lamikdash u’mannichin otan b’gigiyot shel zahav”. Why? Why of gold? For honor of the Beit HaMikdash. Why does one put it at all in water in gigiyot? “K’dei shelo yikmushu”, so it shouldn’t wilt. “U’lmachar zokfin otan al gabei hamizbe’ach”, one places it on the altar, meaning one takes it out from the gigiyot. “U’va’im ha’am v’lokechin mehen v’notlin otan k’derech she’osin kol yom”, the people shake with it, the people take it, lift it up as one does with the lulav. Meaning without na’anu’im, it doesn’t say “m’nan’in otan”, “notlin otan”.
Explanation of “Notlin Otan”
Says the Rambam, “aravah zo ho’il v’einah b’feirush baTorah”, that’s why people are not yotzei with aravah of the seventh. There’s something of a matter that one takes it. I don’t know what one does with it. “Notlin” means like netilat lulav. One takes it as one takes the lulav, without the na’anu’im. Ah, and what’s a segulah? What does one do with it? Nothing, one takes it. One turns around with it. Says the Rambam, and about this it’s correct what he says that “ein yotz’in ba’aravah shel mitzvah”, because there’s a matter of netilah. You shouldn’t think you can lift up your own aravah, you must take the aravah that was on the altar.
Halacha 4 – Aravah in Our Time
V’aravah zo, harei hu omer b’feirush baTorah, “arvei nachal”. One took all seven days of the festival as a remembrance of the Mikdash, all other things. Even every Birkat HaMazon he made a decree that one should take lulav as a remembrance of the Mikdash, but aravah he didn’t make the decree. But what yes? That is, one would have said that even today when there’s no longer a Mikdash, one should still do something, what do I know, one should place it around the tables in the beit midrash, or something, or take extra aravot. But one didn’t make the decree, ela b’yom hashevi’i bilvad one did yes make the decree, shennotlin ota bazman hazeh, the seventh day, which the seventh day one did even on Shabbat. Because good, so that’s the more important day? That we also do. What’s the meaning of the more? We do it even on Shabbat.
Why Hoshana Rabba Never Falls on Shabbat
But interesting, to know, that if one looks in the calendar, to see that Hoshana Rabba never falls on Shabbat. And why does it never fall on Shabbat? Because specifically, therefore there is “lo adu rosh”. One of the reasons why Hoshana Rabba never falls on Shabbat, is because we never want to miss yom aravah, and when it would have been Shabbat there would have been a bit of a problem, according to the whole calculation we had from the first day of lulav. So, an arrangement was made that it doesn’t fall on Shabbat.
The Matter of “Last Day”
It’s still a wonder to me, what is it that specifically on the seventh day it should fall on Shabbat, in order to weaken the mitzvah? Last day. Always the last day is a situation. There was once something, some thing, something departs. The last day, that’s the situation in the Beit HaMikdash. Let’s take the verse “isru chag ba’avotim”, is that the last day of yom tov? No, isru chag is the day after yom tov. Last day, as I think, the last day of everything. That is, Sukkot has another day Shemini Atzeret, but the last day of Sukkot when one takes the lulav, one makes some situation of the aravah. That even you’ll understand.
Halacha 5 – Beating Aravah in Our Time
Says the Rambam, what does one do today? “Lokei’ach bad echad o vadim harbeh”, meaning different from what he said earlier that aravah one should only take two, here one can take one or one can take many, “chutz mei’ha’aravah shebalulav”, again emphasizing that he must have an extra aravah. “V’chovet bah al hakarka o al hakli pe’amim o shalosh b’lo bracha”. Why without a blessing? There’s what this is minhag nevi’im. The thing that we should be on the seventh day, is not a… if it would have been a mitzvah d’rabbanan, we would have made it already a mitzvah in itself, but it’s not a mitzvah d’rabbanan, rather it’s a minhag nevi’im.
Minhag Nevi’im
How is it called minhag nevi’im? Were there prophets already at the time of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash? No, he’s speaking about the time of the Mikdash. Beating aravah one used to do in the time of the Mikdash. The Mikdash, from the prophets. How did the Jews take it? It could be today there’s also some obligation, because it’s a remembrance of the Mikdash. There’s like Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, I don’t know who instituted that one should do today also the seventh day. But we still do what was done in the Beit HaMikdash. Why does one beat aravah? One used to see the prophets who turned around in the Beit HaMikdash, used to do this. Chaggai, Zechariah, Malachi, I don’t know whom. We still do it. But a custom, even if it’s a custom of the holy prophets, he says, the obligation of “lo tosifu” is when it commands you to do something, when you make it again it’s not “lo tosifu”.
Reason for Beating Aravah
Minchat Pitim says that beating aravah is a matter of simcha. He brings suffering, atonement. Okay, atonement is also a joyful thing. The Gemara says that the four species come to appease in general.
Halacha 6 – Hakafot with Lulav
Done, the Gemara further. “B’chol yom vayom” – he now says how one used to do the hakafot, a new thing. One used to make hakafot. “B’chol yom vayom hayu makifin et hamizbe’ach b’lulveihen” – with the lulav, but he presumably means the four species – “b’yedeihem pa’am achat, v’omrim ana Hashem hoshi’a na, ana Hashem hoshi’a na”. Very good. This is extra from the Hallel, besides the Hallel. Ah, very good. “U’v’yom hashevi’i makifin et hamizbe’ach sheva pe’amim”. One says seven hakafot, with seven times “ana Hashem hoshi’a na”. “V’chach anu nohagim b’chol hamekomot shemani’chin teiva ba’emtza beit haknesset” – interesting, it seems like there isn’t always a teiva. You remember that we still learn that the teiva lies in the front. Now in the middle, I can walk around. “Zecher lamizbe’ach, u’makifin oto b’chol yom kaderech shehayu makifin et hamizbe’ach, zecher lamikdash”.
Halacha 7 – Lulav All Day
Now the Rama says another new halacha, that the lulav one holds all day in the hands. So was the custom of the nekiyei hada’at, that all day one turns around with the lulav. “Kach haya haminhag biYerushalayim: yotzei adam mibeto shacharit v’lulavo b’yado” – he goes out early to pray with the lulav. “V’nichnas l’veit haknesset mitpalel v’hu b’yado” – he still holds it. “V’yotzei l’vaker cholim” – whatever mitzvah he does on yom tov. We learned that one may do visiting the sick, comforting mourners on yom tov and Shabbat, one also takes the lulav, “v’hu b’yado”. “U’cheshe’yikanes lamidrash” – except when one enters the beit midrash to learn, when one goes to learn, when one goes to the shiur, then one doesn’t take any lulav. “Sholcho l’veito b’yad b’no u’v’yad avdo”.
Why Not During Learning
Why does learning disturb? Learning, as we learned from sukkah. “Shavta boi tzlota”. Praying requires clarity. Learning one learns outside the sukkah, without the lulav. Learning is a completely different level. Learning pushes aside everything. One takes away the lulav, one must be able to turn with the hands when one has a chiddush.
Lulav in Water – Shabbat, Yom Tov, Chol HaMoed
The Rambam says further, “mekabel es ha’isha alila miyad benah u’ba’alah” – it’s a semicha (juxtaposition), he just said that we send it in time so that we send it home, we receive it miyad benah u’ba’alah, “u’machzirta lamayim b’Shabbos”. Now the question is, we want to keep the lulav fresh, we put it in water. So the question is whether we may put it in on Shabbos. He says, we may, on Shabbos we may put it back. We may not put fresh water, but we may put it in the same water, “mah she’ein nosnin lulav b’Shabbos”. Why putting it in, putting it back in the water is not a concern of… okay, because it’s already cut, it’s not called planting or anything, we may. But we don’t add new water.
Apparently, apparently, for Shabbos we may not add new water, but on Yom Tov, mosifin, we may add more water. But also heating, we don’t heat it, on Yom Tov apparently there’s also not too much trouble of going now to draw water. U’vamo’ed, we may even be mechalef (change) the water. I don’t know clearly. A trouble? It’s a trouble. The same thing why on Yom Tov we may not be mechalef. U’vamo’ed we may pour in, but not completely change the water, because that would be a greater trouble.
Hilchos Lulav — Chapter 7: Changing Water on Chol HaMo’ed, The Myrtle of the Lulav, and the Esrog
Changing Water on Chol HaMo’ed — Hiddur Mitzvah to Keep the Species Fresh
Speaker 1:
And from Yom Tov, for a davar mitzvah, on the mo’ed we may even be mechalef the water, go draw new, pour out the old. It says in the Mishnah and in the Gemara, mechalifin means that one should, not that one may. Because it’s a matter that should keep…
Apparently, lulav here means the hadassim (myrtles) specifically, because the lulav doesn’t get ruined. The Rambam says clearly in Moreh Nevuchim why the Almighty said a lulav. One of the proofs he says is that the species stay fresh a whole week. That is, the esrog you see, the apple didn’t stay fresh a whole week. An esrog stays fresh better. And therefore it’s a hiddur mitzvah, we keep it fresh, we put it in water.
And it was calculated that when we speak here of lulavim we mean the species, because he said earlier “u’lulaveihem b’yedeihem,” with both hands, meaning not lulav alone.
Criticism of the People — They Should Do As It Says in the Mishnah
And here, I hold that it was a great matter that one should be mekayem the Mishnah k’peshuto (literally). Today there’s a whole list of patents that everyone has how they keep fresh. I don’t know what’s wrong with doing what it says in the holy Mishnah, and putting it in a container of water. And he shows like… and that’s what they do all year with flowers. It comes, the Sukkos crowd starts finding patents, they all become botanists.
Stop criticizing Klal Yisrael further. One should do as it says in the Mishnah, it’s a mitzvah, it’s a chiyuv (obligation). Who does differently? It’s like eating matzah. Don’t make new stories.
Halachah 26: The Myrtle of the Lulav — Forbidden to Smell It
Speaker 1:
Now, the Rambam says, “hadas shebalulav”, a new halachah, which is very similar to how he ended with noy sukkah, which is a similar halachah, “assur l’hariach bo”, a hadas has a good smell, but one should not smell it, “mipnei she’eino ra’uy ela l’rei’ach”. Because how is the tashmish (use), how do we use a hadas during the year is for smell? So when you go to use it on Yom Tov, it’s simple that you’re going to use a hadas the same way it’s used all year, and we don’t do that. Just as we learned regarding noy sukkah, that we don’t use it for other things but for the beauty of the sukkah. “Ho’il v’huktzah l’mitzvah, yihyeh assur l’hariach bo”.
Discussion: What Does “Assur L’hariach” Mean?
Speaker 2:
It’s not ra’uy. It’s an issur gamur (complete prohibition)?
Speaker 1:
It’s an issur gamur.
Speaker 2:
I mean, if when one smells it’s an issur, may one not smell on Shabbos for example from a davar mechubar (attached thing) or what?
Speaker 1:
I don’t know.
Speaker 2:
You’re asking a good question, you learned that smell has no me’ilah (misappropriation) for example. How does one use it?
Speaker 1:
I don’t know. I don’t understand. Not to think that one smells. If one smells… like when it comes to making a berachah, it must be a benefit. I don’t understand. What do you say one may? Something is missing here for me. I don’t know what it means.
Speaker 2:
Perhaps it means taking to a… bringing to another.
Speaker 1:
No, one must squeeze the little leaves a bit so that a smell should come out.
Speaker 2:
That makes sense. Or break it a bit, just that you don’t get the same smell as when you give it a squeeze.
Speaker 1:
Could be, but here he makes a distinction.
Distinction Between Hadas and Esrog
Speaker 1:
Esrog also has a good smell, there is a berachah of v’hanosen rei’ach tov b’peiros. Mutar l’hariach bo, because it’s already clear enough that now we hold it for the mitzvah, because it’s huktzah l’mitzvaso me’achilah. One can also eat it, and we don’t eat it, we hold it only for smell, and with this it shows.
From here is a proof that one must take a taste in an esrog that is ra’uy la’achilah (fit for eating).
Speaker 2:
All esrogim are ra’uy la’achilah. You don’t like it is your problem.
Speaker 1:
Okay, I want to see you bite into a big Yanever esrog.
Speaker 2:
Make it two eggs.
Speaker 1:
Okay, cook it for ten days with a bunch of sugar, and one shouldn’t feel the sharp taste.
Speaker 2:
Okay, further. You finished, it’s your question, you don’t like it.
Speaker 1:
Okay, yes. I still want to have some criticism of Klal Yisrael in a chapter where you actually criticized the people so strongly.
Halachah 27: Esrog — Forbidden to Eat All Seven Days
Speaker 1:
What is to eat all seven days? The Rambam says, that granted the esrog is muktzah me’achilah. The muktzeh is to show that now it’s a mitzvah, that it’s not just something. Granted, how does it show? Smelling is permitted, but we show it by not eating.
Granted, therefore one should indeed not eat it all seven days, but she’ein hektzeh l’miktzas hayom. Even if one has already finished shaking and it’s already afternoon, one still may not, because hektzeh l’chulo. But u’vashemini mutar l’ochlo, on Shemini Atzeres one may already eat.
Speaker 2:
Certainly. A great matter.
Speaker 1:
Certainly, very good.
In Our Time — Two Days of Yom Tov
Speaker 1:
Would already in our time, she’osim shnei yamim. This fits with the story of Rabbi Yudan, the story of Rabbi Yudan who collected the esrogim and he traveled somewhere.
Speaker 2:
Yes, it’s a well-known story in the Yerushalmi, a ba’al tzedakah was called Rabbi Yudan. Right, they collected them because the people made compote on Shemini Atzeres, it was a good market.
Speaker 1:
It says explicitly in the Mishnah: “miyad hatinokos shomtin es lulveihen v’ochlin esrogeihen”.
Speaker 2:
Ah, right.
The Law of Shemini Atzeres in Our Time
Speaker 1:
Anyway, bizman hazeh, shnei yamim tovim, af al pi she’ein notlin lulav bashemini, the esrog… we don’t take lulav on the eighth. Why actually?
Speaker 2:
Why not? So?
Speaker 1:
In zecher we eat without a berachah, but lulav and esrog we don’t take. Could be because mid’Oraisa it’s only the first day, and we only made it as zecher laMikdash, and in the Mikdash there’s no safek d’yoma (doubt about the day).
Speaker 2:
I hear, it’s a beautiful Torah.
Speaker 1:
Esrog assur bashemini, kedei sheyiheh assur bashemini bizman she’hayu osin shnei yamim, havei safek shel safek shevi’i. So the esrog is forbidden on Shemini Atzeres.
One Who Set Aside Seven Esrogim
Speaker 1:
Shemini Atzeres, hifrish… seven days?
Speaker 2:
Then it’s yes, but in order.
Speaker 1:
Kol echad v’echad yotzei b’luluvo v’ochel l’machar, because then there isn’t the thing that it’s huktzah l’mitzvaso, because it was muktzeh for one, because each person had muktzeh one esrog, so it’s already enough. We’ve shown enough that each esrog has a designation.
It would be a nice custom also, I buy myself seven esrogim, one for each day.
Speaker 2:
Okay, yasher koach.
Speaker 1:
Yasher koach, Chanina.