Laws of (Shofar, Sukkah) and Lulav Chapter 8 (Auto Translated)

Rambam Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav Chapter 8 – Invalidations of the Four Species

Introduction to the Chapter

Speaker 1: Good. We are learning Rambam Laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav, the last chapter of the laws of Shofar, Sukkah and Lulav. This is the second chapter of the laws of the four species. The previous chapter discussed the essential mitzvah of the four species, what the four species are, the measurements, the time, when one is obligated in them, and who is obligated. And here we enter into the detailed laws of which four species are mehudar (choice), which may be used, and which are invalid. That is, the previous chapter also discussed this somewhat, but it didn’t discuss what is invalid, rather it discussed what is not included in the species at all. A few things are mentioned that this is not an aravah, but here even when it is already an aravah or when it is already a lulav, there are still reasons why it should be invalid.

Before we continue, we want to mention, to recall with praise, those who support our shiur, first and foremost, our friend, the patron of our shiur, Rabbi Yoel Halevi Weltberger, may the Almighty repay him for all his charity, and especially for supporting and sponsoring this shiur.

Law 1 – General Invalidations in the Four Species

Words of the Rambam

Speaker 1: So, the Rambam says as follows: These four species, the four species that were discussed in the previous chapter, which are lulav and hadas – he spells it hadas, what is the correct word to say? We usually say the plural form, we say hadassim, but for one we say hadas. And hadas and aravah and esrog, it is as follows: if one of them, if one of them has one of these problems. Dry, it has dried out. Or stolen or robbed – stolen generally means forcibly taken from someone, or robbed is like from under his back. Even after yei’ush (despair), even if the owners have already despaired, and after the owners have despaired, it already belongs to the thief. That is, he now has a mitzvah to return it, to return a lost object, but it is already his, he has acquired it. Okay.

Or, let’s pause for a moment, let’s say the reason for each thing. Dry has no reason. Let’s say a sentence. Oh, oh, or from an asherah that is worshipped, or the four species from a tree that was used for idolatry to that tree. Apparently that was once worshipped. Ne’evedes means that is worshipped now. The Rambam says, or even a case where it is no longer ne’evedes now, present, but that the ministers nullified it from being worshipped, it has already been nullified, they have already stopped. The idol worshippers have already found some other deity more beautiful than it, they have already started worshipping others, but it has already been nullified. Bitluha means it was nullified, or they no longer worship it?

Speaker 2: No, bitluha means it was nullified apparently.

Speaker 1: Okay, it was nullified. Or that it was from an ir hanidachas (condemned city), or if one of the four species is from an ir hanidachas, behold this is invalid, all these things invalidate the four species, the esrog from the species will be invalid. Yes.

Reasons for the Invalidations

Speaker 1: The reasons are as follows: Dry, because it is not hadar (beautiful), or in the Yerushalmi it says an interesting thing, that the Yerushalmi applies to this the verse “The dead do not praise God”. A dry lulav is a dead lulav, or a dry esrog.

And stolen and robbed the reason is because it says in the Torah “And you shall take for yourselves”, it must be yours. Okay, we will find in the text some distinctions in the reasons that we will see there. Here the Rambam simply makes a list that they are all invalid, and all the same invalidation.

And idolatry and asherah and ir hanidachas, not idolatry, asherah and ir hanidachas, it says in the Gemara the reason is because since it must be burned, we look at it as if it is already burned, as if it is already on the way to being burned, we look at it as if it already has no measurement. If it will be burned it will be ash, we already look at it now as if it has no measurement. We learned in the previous chapter that all these species have a measurement. Right.

Discussion: Asherah – What Does the Rambam Mean?

Speaker 1: And what the Rambam says about asherah is a problem, because when he says even bitluha, that idolatry that a non-Jew nullified, that idolatry that belongs to a non-Jew, actually, idolatry that belongs to a non-Jew, that the non-Jew nullified, may already be used, is already permitted for benefit.

The Gemara says that the Mishnah speaks of asherah, asherah d’Moshe, it’s an expression, and most commentators say, asherah d’Moshe means a time when Moshe Rabbeinu entered Eretz Yisrael, not Moshe, as if the one that Moshe speaks about when the Jews are told… “And their asherahs you shall cut down”. Yes, and then it already belonged to the Jews, they could not nullify it. That’s what it means.

But it comes out that it’s not clear from the Rambam, because the Rambam says asherah, essentially he means to say about idolatry of a Jew. So it comes out from the simple meaning, but it’s not clear in the Rambam what the meaning is.

Speaker 2: You’re saying that it should not necessarily be asherah. The Rambam makes a distinction between idolatry and asherah. Essentially, the distinction means idolatry of a Jew and idolatry not of a Jew.

Speaker 1: Perhaps the Rambam knew that Jews had… asherah was usually a non-Jewish thing, asherah of non-Jews. Jews didn’t have an asherah, but idolatry.

Again, the answer to all these questions is always that the Rambam says what it says in the Mishnah and Gemara. The Rambam almost never rewrites. If he does write yes, that is then a chiddush (novelty). In the Mishnah it says asherah is invalid and idolatry is valid. The Gemara comes out that idolatry is valid, the Rambam writes so. And the Rambam didn’t explain what the Gemara explained, what it means asherah d’Moshe, because it’s not relevant. When will one find an asherah? It’s enough, one fulfills the obligation.

I’m somewhat despairing of always thinking up from under the earth interpretations of what the Rambam meant the Gemara means. The Rambam had one job, to write over every law that is in the Gemara. In the Mishnah it says that asherah is invalid, idolatry is valid according to some opinions. That’s what he wrote. The practical law he would have had to write, but it’s probably not relevant practically. There haven’t been any asherahs for a long time, there hasn’t been any idolatry for a long time, it’s not something that is really relevant. He must say what it says.

Why Not Mitzvah Haba’ah Ba’aveirah?

Speaker 1: The reason why we didn’t say about all these things one could have said other answers, a mitzvah haba’ah ba’aveirah (mitzvah that comes through a transgression), as the Rambam says regarding other mitzvos, for example by matzah he said so, but it doesn’t seem so, because if yes there wouldn’t need to be any distinction between the first days and other days, but these days we will see later in the Rambam.

Law – Idolatry: Initially Invalid, Post Facto Valid

Words of the Rambam

Speaker 1: So, the Rambam continues, If one of them was of idolatry, if one of the four species is from idolatry, he should not take it initially, initially one should not take from idolatry, it’s a disgusting thing. But if he took it, he fulfilled his obligation, because when he took it for the mitzvah, with that itself he nullified it.

Speaker 2: No, no, no. That is nullification, no?

Speaker 1: No, no. They learned, but the reasoning is forbidden for benefit, the act itself is not a problem. Why not? Why were mitzvos not given for benefit? Idolatry is not evil. It doesn’t need to be burned, because it can be nullified. In the laws of shofar they learned the same thing, that idolatry is not a problem unless it is obligated to be burned.

How is idolatry possible that is not obligated to be burned? One must know practically, how is idolatry not obligated to be burned. I want to ask, perhaps this itself, when a person takes it and he goes with it for the sake of heaven, is that not a nullification?

Speaker 2: But if it’s his, if it’s his it already helps in the hospital. A Jew cannot nullify idolatry, only a non-Jew who is with idolatry.

Speaker 1: So it depends because practically he didn’t have benefit from it, because mitzvos were not given for benefit.

Law – Withered

Speaker 1: So, further. If it was withered, if the esrog or one of the species began to dry out, but did not finish drying, and not completely dried out, is different from dry. Dry means completely dry. Withered, when it’s on the way to becoming dry, it is valid. Yes.

Law – In Time of Need: Dry Lulav is Valid

Words of the Rambam

Speaker 1: In time of need, says the Rambam, in time of need or in time of danger, when it’s a time of need, when it’s hard to find, or in time of danger, is the same idea, it’s hard to find because of danger or whatever, it is so, a dry lulav is valid, the lulav that is dry is then valid, but not the other species. For dry there is this distinction between time of need and not time of need, but not for the other species.

The Rambam’s Method: Saying What It Says in the Gemara

Speaker 1: This continues with the Rambam’s method of plainly saying what it says in the Gemara, and not always going with reasoning and derivations. Why? Because in the Mishnah it says a story about… Rabbi Yehudah said a story about the villagers or something like that, who would bequeath their lulavim to their children. They would bequeath their lulavim to their children. Says the Tosafos Rid, that therefore Rabbi Yehudah argued that from this we see that a dry lulav… No, the Gemara, Rabbi Yehudah argued from this that a dry lulav is valid. They answered him, they said to him, in time of danger there is no proof, or in time of need there is no proof, both of these things come.

So it comes out, and the Rambam understood that if so it says here in the Gemara that in time of need one may indeed take a dry lulav, only in time… initially, that means only one may not.

And the Gemara speaks about a lulav, it doesn’t speak about other species. So the Rambam decided that this is a special leniency for a lulav.

Discussion: Why Only Lulav?

Speaker 1: Why a distinction for lulav? Technically there is perhaps a distinction between lulav and other things, or even more than that, is there perhaps a distinction to be made between the invalidation of dry and other invalidations? Why can one say this about every invalidation? This is all when one can, but in time of danger one should take with an invalidation. So others have indeed said, I saw the Maggid Mishneh brings, other Geonim have indeed said so. But the Rambam decided that no, what it says in the Gemara we say, what it doesn’t say in the Gemara we don’t say. The Geonim said about all invalidations, also cut off. I say about all invalidations, and also about all species. Every thing where there is an invalidation, what is the distinction between dry and cut off or anything?

Opinion of the Ra’avad

Speaker 1: The Ra’avad argues, the Ra’avad says that when the Gemara says that they did it because of time of need, doesn’t mean to say that they fulfilled their obligation, but it was a time of need. They indeed didn’t fulfill their obligation, but since it was Yom Tov they wanted it to look something similar to the four species, but they indeed didn’t make a blessing. They indeed didn’t fulfill the mitzvah.

It’s interesting, two ways how one can learn. One, already, there is indeed a proof that they indeed didn’t fulfill their obligation that year. Yes, because there it says in the Gemara, we spoke about this Gemara yesterday, that the Torah of lulav should not be forgotten. The Gemara says only about a stolen one should one not do it, but about a dry one one should perhaps indeed do it, as we also learned the Gemara.

Explanation of the Ra’avad’s Opinion: Bequeathing to Their Children

Speaker 1: And the Ra’avad says an interesting thing, but that what it says Rabbi Yehudah keeps the first for his children and his children, he means to say, yes, there is a concept of bequeathing, that one inherits, and the Ramban and others say something novel, it’s an inheritance, inheritance works. What’s the distinction? That the father has something, inheritance, it doesn’t need any other Rabbi Yehudah to tell us that inheritance works. He means to say keeps the first that they should keep it, they should have it for Pesach. Not that it should be except that it should be from the first for our matter for the children, and they should use it Pesach. I mean Sukkos, not that they meant.

That’s how I understood what he says, that they kept it so that on Sukkos they should have the four species, they should remember what the four species are more. But without a blessing indeed. They understood that he means to say that there is some novelty in the laws of inheritance. And on this the Ramban asks that he doesn’t understand what the novelty in the laws of inheritance is, it’s obvious. Because he brings the matter from the first, something he wants from this, you understand? In the Tanna and Tanna it doesn’t say keeps the first and they were among them taking, it says yes. So it appears to the Rambam that it says, but it says

Chapter 8: Invalidations of the Four Species — Law 1 (Continued) and Laws 2-3

Law 1 (Continued) — Dry Lulav in Time of Need

Speaker 1: Ah, it says “and they fulfill with them on the festival”. No, one must look perhaps it’s a version. In the Mishnah it doesn’t say “and not with them”. He says that… No, he says wisdom, that this… The Ramban argues that certainly he means to say this, because what does he mean to do? Perhaps from the first simply to make from it a rope? What is the novelty?

But already, he says, this is a very nice case of the Rambam’s approach. In my opinion, if the Gemara ruled according to how the Rambam understood, although the Gemara doesn’t say this explicitly, the Rav is right that it doesn’t say explicitly, but the Rambam, as the Rambam explains, assumes that this means the Gemara to say that there is a leniency of time of need even for not dry, there is such a leniency.

On the other hand it doesn’t say, there isn’t, the reasoning is the same? I don’t care, the Rambam doesn’t care about reasoning. Only there are those who will say that by a dry lulav it’s not as bad as a dry esrog, for example. What can be? Of course yes, that the dryness is not so… a dry lulav doesn’t look so much different from a fresh one as an esrog from a fresh one.

So, now. You can say everything. So, what is there? I would say this even more. Lulav… ah, there isn’t here not. I say perhaps lulav according to Rabbi Yehudah means lulav and species, as we have seen earlier, because taking the lulav includes everything. Lulav and four species.

It can also be practically, perhaps lulav is harder to find. Lulav is a large tree. Whereas hadas and aravah grow such a small bush, it’s always there. Esrog is not always there, but it’s not there. Esrog you see the freshness or whatever it is.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Law 2 — Invalidations of Esrog: Orlah, Terumah, Tevel, Demai

Speaker 1: So. The Rambam continues with more things that invalidate esrog. The Rambam says, until now we have discussed invalidations that are for all species. Now Law 2 speaks specifically about esrog. Apparently because these invalidations are not relevant to other species. There is no orlah at all with these things for the other three species, they are not fruits. So I think.

Speaker 2: Yes?

Speaker 1: Yes. An esrog of orlah, and of impure terumah, and of tevel, which is forbidden like orlah, or because it’s terumah that became impure, or tevel from which tithes have not yet been removed, is invalid. But of demai, when it’s only a doubt whether it’s tevel, it is indeed valid, like many other laws.

Why? Because there is a possibility that he could eat it, for it is possible that he will declare his property ownerless and will be poor. The law is that a poor person may indeed eat demai. Therefore, since a person has a way that he could eat it, a leniency of eating is relevant that he can eat it, therefore one may use it for the four species. By the others there is no way at all that he could have benefit from it, therefore he lacks here “for yourselves”, it seems. Whereas when it’s relevant, it’s called “for yourselves”.

Pure Terumah and Second Tithe — “He Should Not Take”

Speaker 1: Further, an esrog of pure terumah, and the same thing of second tithe in Jerusalem, he should not take, one should not take. Why? Lest he make it susceptible to impurity. We learned earlier that the four species one is busy with water, one puts it in water, so there is a fear that he will touch it with wet hands and he will make it susceptible to impurity. Therefore it’s only an initial concern.

I mean, apparently it’s in a manner that he can find another, he can find a more valid one. I don’t believe that the concern lest he make it susceptible to impurity will say that he should not fulfill the four species this year. I don’t know. All these “he should not take”s I don’t know what they mean. Here one can say that “he should not take” should look for something else. But if he took, if one did indeed use the esrog of pure terumah, it is valid.

Discussion: What Does “He Should Not Take” Mean?

Speaker 2: The Rambam didn’t know how to write that he should look for another? He had to write “he should not take”? I don’t know, he brings the language of the Gemara or what, the language of the Mishnah.

Speaker 1: Well, perhaps he means what you’re asking, that the Mishnah couldn’t have said that. Perhaps he means that he shouldn’t, he’s not allowed to. How do you know if the Rabbis can uproot a Torah obligation? But this is a weak rabbinic decree, that it’s “lest he cause it to become impure.” We could just tell him to be careful not to touch it with wet hands.

Again, every rabbinic decree is for “lest.” Why is this different? What is the prohibition altogether, to make pure terumah impure? What is this, a negative commandment? I don’t remember what prohibition it is.

Speaker 2: No, there’s no prohibition, the terumah doesn’t want it.

Speaker 1: What? It’s permitted? There’s no prohibition to make terumah impure?

Speaker 2: No.

Speaker 1: Ah. But we don’t want to. We’re not allowed to eat it.

The Rambam’s Exposition: “Fruit” Means Fit for Eating

Speaker 1: He brings, you said that “lachem” — this is Rashi and Tosafos who argued that “lachem” is some kind of teaching. Not that if it’s not fit for eating it’s not called yours, because that’s the topic of prohibited benefits that was learned. Prohibited benefits is not a problem for all these species, except when it’s obligated in burning which has no measure. Because he clearly learns from even idolatry which is seemingly prohibited in benefit, but we learned that it’s not a problem.

But things that are prohibited in eating, an esrog which is such a food, a lulav which we saw some Hallel, but an esrog. Perhaps other things weren’t relevant, but an esrog that’s not fit for eating is such a disqualification. So Rashi and Tosafos said that it has to do with “lachem,” it’s some topic that it must be as we learned “lachem” and all your needs, it must be fit for eating.

But the Rambam in Perush HaMishnayos says an interesting language: “For behold God said ‘fruit,’ and these are not fit for eating.” Somehow “fruit” means a food. An esrog must be a food, you don’t have to eat it, but you must be able to eat it. And we restrict that something that’s prohibited in eating is not called “fruit.” So says the Rambam, it’s a separate exposition, I don’t know where he got these words from.

Discussion: Idolatry — Prohibited in Eating?

Speaker 2: But idolatry is not prohibited in eating, it’s prohibited in benefit.

Speaker 1: It’s prohibited in eating, it’s prohibited in eating, it’s worse. It’s prohibited in eating completely.

Speaker 2: Okay. I didn’t know that one may not eat idolatry. One may not?

Speaker 1: No, certainly not.

Note: Disqualifications Apply Only to Esrog

Speaker 1: Also I said to note that the Rambam says “an esrog of orlah,” he doesn’t say the four species, because only esrog is relevant, it’s a fruit that orlah applies to. On leaves and on things that are not fit for eating there is no orlah. Or with terumah, yes. So we argued this a minute ago.

Speaker 2: I didn’t hear.

Speaker 1: Yes. So these are general disqualifications of things like prohibitions, or they now don’t have fitness for eating. Now we’re going to learn about disqualifications that… all these disqualifications, I mean, if I remember, have to do with what it says “pri etz hadar,” and we learn that just as an esrog must be hadar, meaning beautiful, all species must be beautiful. But this is not the same, each species has its own rule. There are parts that are similar, but each thing has its own thing.

Law 3 — Disqualifications of Lulav: Its Top Was Cut Off, Split, Bent

Speaker 2: Yes, first is lulav.

A Lulav Whose Top Was Cut Off

Speaker 1: A lulav whose top was cut off, where the point of the lulav was chopped off, is invalid.

Split

Speaker 1: Split, but if it became split, then if its two sides separated from each other until they appear as two, if it became really like two lulavim, the split goes deep inside, it is invalid.

Speaker 2: Two lulavim?

Speaker 1: It means that the Gemara says about this “domeh k’himnuk,” that it’s strong. Split means there’s a split, but there’s a split that still stands straight, and there’s a split that already stands like this, it’s really like a himnuk, it’s such a vessel.

Speaker 2: Two lulavim?

Speaker 1: He doesn’t say himnuk, he says “k’shnayim,” it looks like two. Two of its tops.

Speaker 2: Two lulavim?

Speaker 1: No, no, no. It says “nisdak rosho,” right? Split also applies to its top. From above it looks like two lulavim, like two pieces. It doesn’t say two lulavim, it means two… It doesn’t say two lulavim, two heads. Because it says in the Gemara “domeh k’himnuk,” it’s not relevant to say two lulavim. The Rambam is when it looks like two, when it’s split enough. The sides look extreme.

Bent Forward and Backward

Speaker 1: If it was bent forward, if it’s bent forward, meaning it bends, the side of the spine goes to the front, for behold its spine is like the back of hunchbacks, the spine looks like the back of people with a hump, a hunchback, it is invalid, it’s not beautiful.

But if it was bent backward, but if on the contrary, it’s bent backwards, meaning backward, not the spine is bent, but the other side is bent… Again. The spine is the back. There’s a spine, like the back, and then there’s where it’s open. It can be bent in the direction of where it’s open, and it can be bent back the other way, toward the spine. Where the spine is, that’s valid, for this is its nature, this is more natural for it. This is the normal way of a lulav.

Speaker 2: Because that’s how it grows?

Speaker 1: Because it comes out of a tree, it goes out. Later when it opens, it becomes a ship that way. Now it’s still straight, yes, when it’s young, it’s straight. The obligation is some reality of…

Speaker 2: No no no, for this is its nature, it stands on a tree, on a tree it stands, and it doesn’t stand straight, nothing stands straight. It goes like this, it’s the outside. The spine stands from the outside, and it turns a bit. For this, this is normal. You can perhaps find a completely straight one, but if it’s bent, it’s a normal thing. That’s how a lulav goes.

Bent to the Sides

Speaker 1: If it was bent to one of its two sides, if it’s moved to one of the sides, which means it’s bent on the sides, not front or back, but right or left, it is also invalid because it’s not beautiful.

Its Leaves Spread Apart

Speaker 1: Its leaves separated from each other, if the leaves spread apart, but they didn’t droop, not completely spread and become hardened in spreadness, like palm branches, like the lulav, when it lies long on the tree it becomes completely open. Then it’s still valid, because it’s only a bit spread, this doesn’t… this doesn’t disqualify.

But if they burst open… it’s a bit open the whole thing. So when it’s completely open like palm branches, it already… burst open, not separated.

Discussion: Burst vs. Separated

Speaker 2: Burst means torn, no?

Speaker 1: No, says the Rambam. Burst. Burst. And it. Burst… ah, burst means like opened, spread, like a breach. Separated and burst is…

Disqualifications of Lulav: Burst, Separated, Twins, and Hadass Whose Top Was Cut Off

Continuation: Burst and Separated — Dispute Between Rambam and Raavad

Speaker 1:

Then it’s still valid, because it’s only a bit spread, this doesn’t… this doesn’t disqualify. But burst… it’s a bit open the whole thing. So when it’s completely open like palm branches, it already… we saw yesterday. Burst… no, this is burst, not separated. Burst means torn, no?

No, says the Rambam. Burst… burst… and it. Burst means like opened, spread, like a breach. Separated and burst is the same word, but it has to do with the secret. Even the Gemara explained that the three understood that this is the difference.

Now, it became space between the leaf and separated. And they drooped from the spine of the lulav, it became loose, instead of holding up by the spine, it became completely spread. Like palm branches, like when it’s already called palm branches, or when it’s completely open, it’s invalid. This is the Rambam’s interpretation of burst and separated.

Rebbi has some other interpretation. I don’t know that at the moment.

The Raavad argues that burst doesn’t mean like the Rambam interprets that it’s opened like palm branches, but that they split lengthwise without separating from the spine. He also doesn’t say that it’s cut off, but he says that it became divided. Somehow the… the… the… what’s it called? The leaves, the top leaves divided.

I think that the Rambam himself… the Maor Einayim will later call it twins? The Maor Einayim argues I think that… that this is also true. Yes, I think the Beur Mishnah understands that both are invalid. That is, the Rambam says here that even when nothing fell off, nothing was cut at all, but it’s open like palm branches, it’s invalid. And the Rambam says that when it’s split from above it’s invalid. Apparently, the Rambam will call this split twins later, but now the Rambam is also in dispute. About this it’s correct. When we see the next law we’ll understand this.

Discussion: Does the Raavad Agree About Palm Branches?

Speaker 1:

Yes, says the Rambam further, wait a minute, the Raavad will probably also agree about all these palm branches that it’s invalid, because he didn’t argue on the law we learned in the previous chapter, that lulav only means at the stage before palm branches.

But no, a wonderful palm branches doesn’t mean that it already became that stage, it can’t be, because about that I don’t need the Rambam to say, and he means to say it’s so. It doesn’t say in the Rambam that it became hard. You inserted a word that it became hard. It doesn’t say in the Rambam this. It means that it became…

He brings here a… I don’t know who told him, he brings from the picture perhaps from the Rambam that it depends if it falls down or up. If it opened a bit, it still stands straight, then it’s called burst, and then it’s valid. If the leaf already falls down, it’s called separated, and then it’s invalid. This argues Rav… ah… what’s his name? The commentary of Rav Chitrik, whatever, from Midras Chitrik. In the name of a picture from the Perush HaMishnah.

But in any case, it doesn’t say… see Rashi for example says yes that it becomes hard, yes, it becomes through. I don’t see that Rashi says that this is the disqualification of separated, I don’t know, of separated. The Rambam apparently speaks of an earlier stage, because then you’re right, then it’s really the disqualification of… I mean, it’s not a lulav, then it’s already palm branches. We’re not talking about it becoming palm branches. Okay. It already looks a bit like that. It can be it happens when it’s already closer to that stage, I don’t know. Or it can just be, it can be in the end it’s bent, I don’t know.

Law 4: The Twin Split — The Reality of Twins

Speaker 1:

Now the Rambam will explain a bit of reality, so he can explain the next section of lulav. The order of how the leaves of the lulav grow is thus: As they grow, they grow in pairs, they grow in sets, they grow so that each leaf is double. They are attached from their backs are attached, they are glued together from the inside. He says, and the back of each pair that are attached is called twins. The place where they’re connected, the place where the two leaves are connected and are double, is called twins, from the language of twins, yes? It’s a twin.

So the law, the twin split, if the twin became divided, invalid.

Discussion: How Many Twins Must Be Split?

Speaker 1:

He doesn’t tell us clearly if we’re talking here about how many twins, or does he mean the middle one, or does he mean all the twins became separated. The Maggid Mishneh assumed that the Rambam means to say most of them, because obviously one, you can tear off that leaf, in general it will be valid, there’s no minimum of leaves. So what he means is, so the Rambam didn’t say that he means most twins are open, then it’s invalid.

The Rambam we don’t see any distinction between the middle one and the… and the others, that is according to the Rambam, even the middle one, if it’s broken, if it’s split, as long as it’s not most, there’s no problem at all.

The other commentators, Rashi and Tosafos, argued that twin means specifically the middle one, and therefore it comes out that it’s only the middle one, so if it’s open it’s invalid even if it’s not mostly open, because this is the thing that most Jews look at in the lulav that it should be closed, this is apparently for the stringency of the opinion of Rashi. But even Rashi and Tosafos don’t mean that it’s a bit split, we mean that it’s completely split or mostly split. What we look at a bit, that’s just simply because we’re afraid that it will open later, it’s really a stringency.

Speaker 2:

Does it say somewhere how many leaves the lulav must have? Because if it tears off from the bottom leaves it’s… fine, even by most, what’s the meaning? If there will only be three leaves it’s most. So if there are ten and six are split, what will be the problem? We need to understand. Can one, perhaps indeed. We don’t know. We need to have a measure. The leaves go… yes, one.

Speaker 1:

I don’t know if one can tear out a leaf in the middle. The Rambam doesn’t speak of… that would be separated anyway. According to the other interpretation, that it’s torn off. It can be that it has to do with the measure of the spine. I learned earlier that there must be four tefachim from the spine. So from the four tefachim one already can’t tear. What’s before that, something makes sense? Okay. So from there, where there’s a measure of lulav, from there we’ll look at most twins. Apparently, because if it’s after the measure it’s not a problem.

Law 4 (Continuation): A Lulav Without Twins

Speaker 1:

Already, says the Rambam further, the leaves were not one on top of the other as is the way of all lulavim. Usually lulavim grow one leaf on the other, and they’re moved a bit, but they need to cover each other. Each leaf was single from the beginning of its creation, and they had no twins. If he finds a lulav that has no twins, each leaf is completely a single leaf, not twin leaves, it’s also invalid. Even if it’s not that it split, but this is a different species, he found a different species of lulav, it’s not a valid lulav. It’s not the right lulav. Very good. A lulav must have twins.

Discussion: Why Is This Invalid?

Speaker 2:

Interesting, he also doesn’t say that only this will be from the species called lulav, because the species lulav he calculated in the previous law. It’s a date lulav, no one knows. And why isn’t it a beautiful lulav?

Speaker 1:

Yes, it’s not beautiful. You’ve never found such a lulav. You know, I can imagine, it’s the same leaves, but instead of each leaf being double. Okay, in short, it’s not good. Already, very good.

Law 4 (Continuation): Leaves That Grow One Under the Other

Speaker 1:

Says the Rambam, what happens “the leaves were not one on top of the other as is the way of all lulavim”? Usually, lulavim go one leaf covers the other leaf, one leaf covers the other leaf. What happens when it’s not so? “But one under the other”, they grow more in rows, and there’s only like one leaf at a time. When one leaf ends, the next leaf begins.

There’s such a condition in this: “If the top of this one reaches the base of the one above it”, if at least the whole spine is covered so that right when one leaf ends, the next leaf begins, and they touch each other, the point of this one touches the root of the next, “so that the spine of the lulav is found covered with leaves”, it comes out that the spine of the lulav is not naked, but it’s surrounded with leaves from all sides, even if it’s not beautiful enough, it’s not so covered, it’s still valid. But “and if its top doesn’t reach the base of this one”, it remained really empty, it’s invalid.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Picture

Speaker 2:

Why is it spread? Or because it grows very in rows? We’re talking about this, because it’s… no, because it’s… it doesn’t have to be like its picture, but…

Speaker 1:

Ah, he brings that the picture is simply to show what it means. But I think the picture doesn’t mean that it’s open. You’re not talking now that it’s open? A lulav is almost never open just like that. Earlier we learned that even if it’s a bit open it’s valid. I think the picture doesn’t mean that. I think he only means to show what it means that “it doesn’t reach.”

I want to see in the picture something else, that there’s the famous dispute about the Rambam’s menorah. I think this is simply the Rambam, this was his easy way of drawing, because this looks really, just cut off only the top piece, this is the same as his form of the menorah. Okay, further, not relevant here. A lulav with a menorah, not the same thing. But there’s a connection, it’s a Greek in the sukkah. Okay. No, there’s no holiness. This is like… if it’s based on the Rambam’s picture… yes, I don’t know. Okay.

Speaker 2:

Laws of Lulav – Continuation: Hadass, Aravah, and Ruach HaKodesh of the Raavad

But I don’t know, you say that the point is because it’s spread out, he goes because it’s very… No, not because it’s spread out. No, no, it has nothing to do with spread out. When one makes it… Continue. It has nothing to do with spread out.

Law 5: A Hadass Whose Top Was Cut Off

Speaker 1:

Up until here, the laws of lulav. Now we go to hadass. A hadass whose top was cut off – a hadass where the tip of the hadass was cut off, is kosher. This is the position of the Rambam. And the commentators say that the beauty of the hadass is primarily that it’s surrounded by three leaves. Therefore, one doesn’t even see how the tip was so much, therefore it’s kosher even if it’s cut off, because after all the leaves cover it.

Raavad: Ruach HaKodesh in Our Beis Midrash

Speaker 1:

On this there is a very interesting Raavad. Will you learn the Raavad? Ah, is that the whole thing? No, the Raavad argues on this. The Raavad says with a very interesting language. The Raavad says a language that the Chazon Ish struggles with a lot. Let me learn the language of the Raavad. Say it, say it, say it.

Said Avraham, ruach hakodesh has already appeared in our beis midrash for several years – already several years that a ruach hakodesh has come to our beis midrash, whatever that means. And the ruach… I learned with this ruach hakodesh and ruled differently than the Rambam, and it is indeed invalid. It’s a dispute in the Gemara. The Raavad says that when he learned with his ruach hakodesh… he ruled differently than the Rambam that it is indeed invalid, and he interprets the Gemara differently.

Laws of Lulav – Continuation: Hadass, Aravah, and Ruach HaKodesh of the Raavad

Digression: Ruach HaKodesh in the Beis Midrash of the Raavad – Continuation

And another place, I think somewhere in the laws of sacrifices, there is also the same language that the Raavad says that a ruach hakodesh came to his beis midrash and ruled. The later authorities discuss this, whether we learn Torah lo bashamayim hi, how does a ruach hakodesh come and say the explanation in a Gemara?

But it’s clear in the text. The Raavad doesn’t say that one should rule like him because he had ruach hakodesh. It doesn’t say, I haven’t seen it. The Raavad says that he received ruach hakodesh, and I remember that it came clear in the text in the sugya. Last year we learned it.

That is, it goes like this: In the Gemara it says, in one Mishnah it says “niktam rosho pasul” (if its top was cut off, invalid), and the next Mishnah says Rabbi Tarfon, “even if all three are cut off, they’re kosher.” So the Raavad learned that “all three cut off” doesn’t refer to “niktam rosho,” it means something else. The Rambam understood that if Rabbi Tarfon says it’s kosher, we rule like Rabbi Tarfon, so it says that we rule like Rabbi Tarfon. But the Raavad learned a different explanation in the Gemara – he doesn’t bring the Raavad’s explanation here – that it doesn’t mean the “niktam rosho” at all, the “all three cut off,” it means something regarding the three, if I remember, something another topic.

So, yes, there was a dispute. Rabbi Chaim Vital said that from this piece of Raavad one sees that the Raavad was a mekubal, he had ruach hakodesh. And with this he brings some piece of proof for ruach hakodesh, for kabbalah, I don’t know exactly.

And what you say, that others say that the Raavad doesn’t mean to say that it came to millions and greater, he means to say… But the truth is that it did come to millions and greater. I have to tell you the fact. You know, we go with the people who go with history. Historically the truth is that the dove told him. That would be if you weren’t a rationalist, and rationalists always go against reality.

They say that it doesn’t fit him that Eliyahu HaNavi should come, you don’t know who the Raavad is talking about, so he makes it into some metaphor. No, Eliyahu HaNavi should come and speak with the Raavad. Eh, you don’t hold of this? That’s a problem for you, because Eliyahu HaNavi doesn’t come to you. So you say he doesn’t come to anyone. Hello? Okay, calm down.

Hello, we need to make preparations. Did you say that one should make preparations? Yes, but you think that the Raavad was very sick, he stood in ruach hakodesh. You shouldn’t begrudge the other person. Calm down. Not that it doesn’t move, pack it in. You’re not yet at that level.

It’s a known thing that people who don’t have levels themselves convince themselves that no one has it. Do you know the story of the bald person, of the one who became bald? No, you didn’t hold that this is a higher level, a clarity. Everything is really a certain tradition from his… The tradition of the people who don’t have any ruach hakodesh, and they’ll say it means “sour grapes.” If I don’t have ruach hakodesh, no one has it.

Hello, can you tell me clarity? He has every piece of speech. There’s something novel. The Rambam says, because it came through ruach hakodesh. What’s the problem?

Law 5: Nashru Rov Alav – A Hadass Whose Leaves Have Fallen Off

Speaker 1: The Rambam says, “nashru rov alav” by the hadass, that we’re holding in the middle of discussing hadass, the Rambam says, “nashru rov alav”, if most of the leaves have fallen off… But “if three leaves remained on one stem”, if there remained… the beauty of hadass is that it’s thick, that it’s tripled with three leaves on each line. If the three leaves on each line remained by each one of the hadassim, it’s kosher.

This law he already also said in the previous chapter. It’s interesting, this is one thing. Ah, it could be that he doesn’t mean what he meant in the previous chapter. I don’t know in which way.

Speaker 2: What?

Speaker 1: In the previous chapter we already spoke earlier, in the previous chapter he spoke about the species, Ribbono Shel Olam HaKollel. In the previous chapter he spoke that a species is such a type of species that grows this way. Now he’s speaking about something else, that one has already bought that species, and it fell off. One didn’t do, you understand? You understand what I’m saying?

Speaker 2: Aha.

Speaker 1: Okay. It fell off, but if it fell off, there must remain on one. There are those who say that here there’s a dispute. However, must remain, because…

Speaker 2: They get, there’s no measure, right?

Speaker 1: No, no, they get. Here is the position. However, in the previous earlier we learned that the thing that has a measure, it must be the God forbid less what… But let’s understand, again, here it says that three leaves remained in the entire hadass, it’s kosher. That’s the simple meaning of the Rambam.

Speaker 2: No, not three leaves in the entire hadass, three leaves on one stem.

Speaker 1: No, that was initially. “On one stem,” what does “stem” mean? “Stem” means only on the… one, I tell you, one remained with its three leaves. It grows… But are the three leaves a thick branch? Or is it at all…

Speaker 2: Yes yes, “on one stem.”

Speaker 1: No, I’m translating “on one stem.” “On one stem” means what? “Stem” means a twig?

Speaker 2: No, “stem” means a measure, one row.

Speaker 1: Yes, as it said before, “on one level,” the same thing. So one is enough. It doesn’t have to be the entire measure like that. Others say differently. The Raavad says… And what will be the measure of three tefachim will be on the empty twig?

Speaker 2: Difficult.

Speaker 1: Yes yes, certainly, what’s the problem? Why is it called difficult? We’re going to learn the same law by aravah, because we already learned explicitly by the aravah from the mitzvah of aravah that it’s so, one leaf is enough. Certainly it’s nice that it should be whole, but if it’s not whole, it’s also kosher.

It’s simple that the Raavad holds differently. The Raavad says that separated to a thousand, it’s not clear what it refers to. I think it refers to the law that most of the measure must remain three, and he also learns this way in the Gemara that and the three leaves means that initially it had seven leaves, somehow, because it had more. Sometimes there’s not just a third, but more, a fifth, how much further. The Egyptian hadass says there seven, and he was left with only three on each one of the rows.

But that’s not the Rambam’s measure, because that depends on the dispute of the Rambam’s measure with the Raavad in the previous chapter, that the Rambam said that three is a type of hadass. And therefore, as long as it’s the type of hadass, all the leaves don’t have to remain, only one three is enough, it must be three, because that’s a hadass of three, an aravah is one, but this must be three.

But the Rav who holds that three is something a law in the beauty of a hadass, not any type of hadass, so he’s right. I mean, he has a reasoning, he argued it, I don’t know if it’s necessary, but he argued that it must have remained in each one three. And what it says nashru means from the row it’s nashru. From the row it’s nashru.

One needs to know, because for example, in a case when the three are at the bottom of the hadass, there will be a measure, what the stem does a minute one counts for… The measure of three tefachim is on the… is on the… is on the… certainly on the twig. Already, when it’s on top, one can say that the rest is already…

Speaker 2: Here it says on top?

Speaker 1: Here it says a distinction that it’s on top. By the aravah it said that it’s on top, true?

Speaker 2: It said that it’s on top. Not here.

Speaker 1: Yes, one leaf on one stem it said that it’s on its top. I don’t remember. Somewhere it said, but here it doesn’t say that there’s on top. Okay, we’ll see further.

What’s the problem? It’s a hadass, and it’s with a bloom, with a leaf.

Law 5 (Continuation): Invo Merubah Me’alav – Fruits on the Hadass

Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, this is nashru. What if there’s another problem? Yes, on the hadassim grow such little grapes, such fruit of the hadass. It’s more like “berries” we would call it.

Yes, so, “if its fruit is more than its leaves”, if it has more of the little grapes more than leaves, “if they’re green”, if it’s green, it blends in, it’s still the main part of it, one doesn’t see so clearly that it’s different. But “if they’re red or black, invalid”.

Speaker 2: Oh, why? It’s not beautiful?

Speaker 1: Yes, it seems. If it’s not beautiful, it’s something not so “cute.” But it’s not invalid forever, that means one can remove them. “And remove them”, if he removed from the red or black and it’s not now more than the leaves, it’s kosher.

“But one may not remove them on Yom Tov because he is fixing”, because one may not fix on Yom Tov, therefore he may not fix it on Yom Tov. Why? Because the fixing is only with what he makes it into a kosher hadass.

If he did transgress and he placed it, or “another person plucked it”, another person plucked it in a manner that one may, because for eating one may pluck on Yom Tov. One may always pluck, yes, from something attached one may never, even Yom Tov, but this he already cut off, he may eat. So he himself may not even for eating, because we’re concerned about a trick to what? Still means he can fix. I don’t know, perhaps he may, perhaps it doesn’t occur to him. “Another person plucked it for eating”, I understand, but it’s not clear. Perhaps he’ll be able to make a trick, if he really eats it perhaps he’ll be able to. Not clear. “Behold it’s kosher”.

There are other versions. Yes, okay.

Law 6: Aravah Whose Top Was Cut Off

Speaker 1: This is hadass. Now we go to aravah. The Rambam says, aravah. “An aravah whose top was cut off” is also kosher. And also on this the Raavad argues, yes? According to the Raavad it’s the same. Both have three positions on this.

There are those who say that a hadass is kosher but aravah is invalid, because of the distinction that you said, that aravah is the tip beautiful, it’s surrounded by leaves, one doesn’t see how the tip was cut off. But the main part of the hadass is not the tip, it doesn’t look so bad. But aravah has no point without a tip.

There’s the Rambam who holds that both are kosher. And the Ramban said that both are invalid.

Speaker 2: Yes, but on this he didn’t have the ruach hakodesh in the beis midrash, only the first novelty.

Speaker 1: Another way means also that he had ruach hakodesh, or only for the law that it’s invalid?

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, it has to do with how he learns the same Mishnah. I think that…

Speaker 1: He learns to the leaf, if the leaves of the aravah were torn off, invalid. Further, apparently it means all leaves, right? He doesn’t say how many leaves. He also doesn’t say nafretzu, what’s the meaning? Because there wasn’t yet any measure of how many leaves. Not clear what nafretzu means.

He says that the Maggid Meisharim argued that nafretzu means as much as the lulav that it falls off. No, the aravah always hangs, it’s never up like a lulav. So it’s a problem. And indeed, indeed, he makes… The Chayei Adam says, that according to this most aravos are invalid. Doesn’t make sense. Most? Except which?

Speaker 2: Have you ever seen an aravah that grows upward?

Speaker 1: Yes, when it’s very fresh it stands up, and afterwards when it becomes a few days it falls down.

Speaker 2: Yes.

Speaker 1: But it’s difficult, it doesn’t make sense. Apparently it means fallen off. Yes, I go after nafretzu from the language of breach, it was torn. But by lulav it said nafretzu. I don’t think, something indeed about this one will be explained, but here it means yes, literally. Yes, I don’t know. It’s indeed very funny that it must stand. It’s right that it’s almost no more… Already.

Up until here one learned about lulav, hadass, aravah. Now one can learn about an esrog.

Laws of Esrog — Punctured, Missing, Pitom Removed, Stem Removed, Chazazis, and Peeled

Esrog — Punctured and Missing (Law 7)

Speaker 1: But it’s difficult, it doesn’t make sense. I have it fallen off. Yes. Usually nafrats is from the language of breach, it was torn. But by lulav it said nafrats, I don’t think, something indeed about this one will be explained, but here it means yes, literally. Yes, I don’t know. It’s indeed very funny that it must stand. I thought that it’s almost no more… Already.

Up until here one learned about lulav, continues upward. Now one can learn about an esrog. Yes, the Rambam says, an esrog is like this: An esrog that was punctured through and through, any amount – there’s a hole through and through, even a small hole is invalid. Because… there’s no reason, there’s no beginning. And a hole that’s not through and through – if there’s a hole but it’s not through and through, if it was like an issar or more – if it’s as big as a certain coin called an issar, so it’s a big hole, it’s also invalid, even if it’s not through and through. Missing any amount – if a piece of the esrog is missing, it’s invalid even without a hole, even without an esrog. This is the position of the Rambam.

Dispute Between Rambam and Raavad

Speaker 1: The Raavad also disputes this, right? The Raavad says that even a hole is only invalid when there’s a deficiency. Through and through is any amount, not through and through is like an issar, but I think that the Raavad holds that even missing must be simply missing without a hole. And I think from the same approach it comes out that also missing must be missing like an issar, not missing any amount. It can’t be that missing should be stricter than a hole through and through. That it should be any amount… right. It must be like an issar missing. There’s a dispute between Rambam and Raavad.

Speaker 2: And the Rambam doesn’t say it on issar kush.

Speaker 1: Yes, but I think that comes out. That’s how I saw in the side. Yes.

Esrog — Pitom Removed (Law 7)

Speaker 1: Another thing, the Rambam says, pitom removed – if the pitom of the esrog came off, only the Rambam became. What is the pitom? And it is the small head where its blossom is. The esrog has such a tip, where on it there is what we call the pitom. The blossom we call the pitom.

Speaker 2: Does it grow on it, or does it grow on the main part?

Speaker 1: No, no, it grows from the other side. Why is the tip of the esrog? We once said that one must hold it in the direction of its growth. The blossom is the brown piece on top, right? Such a crown.

Speaker 2: The brown piece or the piece where it becomes very narrow?

Speaker 1: No, the blossom. The pitom means… the blossom is the brown piece, yes, it’s the pitom. The dad is on the piece on which it sits. Both are the entire pitom. The dad is the… yes, but the dad is still green or yellow, it’s still a part of the esrog. The blossom is already a different color, it’s already… That’s the pitom. So it’s also invalid, because it’s missing.

Speaker 2: You shouldn’t say that only by the regular ones, but… it’s also invalid.

Speaker 1: What does missing mean?

Speaker 2: No, it’s removed, it’s certainly missing from the pitom.

Speaker 1: But there’s also a novelty here, because it could be that there isn’t such a strong ugliness there, because the esrog still has a nice shape, you don’t see clearly that something is missing a little bit from the esrog.

Dispute Regarding the Definition of Dad

Speaker 1: There’s a dispute about this. There are those who say that dad doesn’t mean the… they say that the shoshanso already means the…

Speaker 2: Yes, exactly. Simply the top of the esrog, as it is… It has such a bump, yes? It’s such a point.

Speaker 1: Again, there are three other things that could be nittal dada. That is, not nittal dada. The shoshanso means the brown piece. The dad can mean the small piece, as it’s still green, sometimes it already becomes brown too, on which lies the brown like very small pieces. Or it can mean the esrog itself, like the pointed esrog. And seemingly, but it’s correct that if it’s pointed, it’s actually truly lacking. It could be that it’s more an issue that it’s… truly not a part of the esrog, it’s more a… I can still hear that it is indeed a matter of lacking, but the initial assumption would have been that it’s not like… it’s very repulsive, obviously repulsive when it’s bitten into the esrog. There it’s not repulsive, the esrog ends somewhere after all. But it’s still invalid as long as it’s not a nice ending on top. So, that’s the thing.

Esrogim Without Pitom Originally

Speaker 1: And the poskim say that if it fell off, it’s a new novelty, the Rambam doesn’t hold. If it fell off, every pitom, the ending fell off on the tree. Ah, very many esrogim that you buy come originally without any pitom, because they claim that it already fell off when it was growing, and then it’s called not… it’s derech gidullo. It’s not simple that there’s a condition that there must be a pitom. And he says, if the esrog is complete with a pitom and that is missing… so they claim, the poskim. I don’t know. Based on this, one takes those esrogim that for the most part don’t have a pitom.

Speaker 2: Right, there are such and there are such.

Speaker 1: I don’t know, it already fell off while it was growing, I don’t know. Okay. I think simply everyone should do what comes out. So.

Esrog — Nittal Oketz (Law 7)

Speaker 1: Nittal, another… yes? Nittal. Nittal the oketz that hangs on the tree from the base of the esrog — what’s called the oketz, right? Yes, the piece of wood that’s still connected to the esrog, on the bottom of the esrog, on which the esrog hangs on the tree from the base of the esrog, and its place became a pit — there remained in that place a hole, a depression, it’s invalid. Seemingly also that the oketz is missing, is invalid.

Speaker 2: Yes, but it’s interesting from the Rema, if a pit remains, not just… because it takes away something, a piece from the esrog.

Speaker 1: No, he sees that only the oketz itself came out. He doesn’t say that it came out with a piece, but because the oketz always goes in deep.

Speaker 2: Because the oketz goes in deep. Perhaps for that reason it’s not nice.

Speaker 1: I don’t know. I don’t see that it’s not nice, I mean it must be an issue. I don’t know. It’s certain that if only a piece of the oketz is cut off, that’s about how one takes down the esrog from the tree. But he says, if it’s completely removed and below is such a deep hole, it’s like lacking. Perhaps it’s a concern of lacking. But he says invalid that it’s not.

Speaker 2: Ah, he says invalid.

Speaker 1: We’ll see when one may use the esrog, but now we’re talking about what it says.

Esrog — Chazazis (Law 7)

Speaker 1: A chazazis arose. A chazazis arose, there arose a… it got such a… tzaraas such a… he says that chazazis is the translation of… garav? What is one of the things? Tzaraas.

Speaker 2: Ah, okay.

Speaker 1: No, but it says in the… I saw someone brings that it says in the Torah garav, or something like that, one of the terms of tzaraas that appears in the Torah appears in Chazal. Tzaraas became a rash on the esrog. So, if in two or three places — in several places, it’s invalid, why isn’t it nice? But if in one place — if it’s in one place, so, if it covered most of it — if the place is very large and takes up most of the esrog, it’s also invalid. The same thing when if it arose on its dad — if the chazazis is on the point. Even any amount is invalid — because there even any amount, because there one sees clearly.

Dad Doesn’t Mean the Brown Color

Speaker 1: Here begins a question, does the dad mean the point? But because every point has such a chazazis, it has such a brown color, it’s not green on top. That’s not any chazazis. Chazazis doesn’t mean a brown color. A brown color is not any problem. Chazazis means that it’s a tzaraas, something disgusting, something such… something such… such a disease like the skin of the esrog, let’s say. But… the Rebbe doesn’t bring up, but if not it’s kosher. It also means it’s not on most of it, or it’s not on most of it, or it’s not… it’s only one, and it’s not on the dad, it’s not any problem.

Menumar — Different Colors

Speaker 2: Two. He says two or three, it’s interesting. Two or two or three, two already becomes invalid?

Speaker 1: No, it means how it looks. The Gemara calls it menumar. If you look at the esrog and you see that it’s different colors, it’s invalid. In short, what people look at all the stringencies of such a tiny… it’s all the appearances. What people look at something, a dot on the esrog, I say I it’s not menumar. I’m not talking, I mean that there perhaps exists an esrog can have such rashes but what the world looks at is simply imaginary fears.

Speaker 2: Heaven forbid imaginary fears. Perhaps they have Eliyahu HaNavi?

Speaker 1: You say that the world has Eliyahu HaNavi, but I haven’t yet been lucky.

Speaker 2: So perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi said.

Speaker 1: I’ll say more further on.

Esrog — Niklaf (Law 7)

Speaker 1: Niklaf in its outer layer — if the outer peel of the esrog peeled off, it has such a… very the outside, the shine. But that doesn’t make it lacking — nothing is missing. Rather it remains green as it was created — interesting, I don’t know of such a reality, of peeling that it should still remain green? Or yellow? But like the most outer… if there is such a reality, I don’t know of this. It could be that one can peel off very very a thin layer of the peel. I guess, if the peel is thick, it could be for example Yemenite peel. There are those that have very a thick peel. I mean that… you can still peel, it should still remain yellow.

Speaker 2: The thickness of the Yemenite is the white, mostly.

Speaker 1: The thickness of the Yemenite is the white, mostly. There are those that are delicate. The Yanover is those that are delicate, and if you scratch off a little you’re already in the white. Green as it was created, as it was created. And that doesn’t mean lacking, because the lacking is from outside, is from the peel. But if it was completely peeled — if it’s completely peeled, that’s one, one piece of the proper part. But if any amount remains from it — it’s kosher. Interesting.

Elevation of the Sparks

Speaker 1: It appears that one needs, a little peels one needs to have. It’s after all a matter of elevation of the sparks and worthwhile. Okay.

Discussion: Lacking Any Amount by Niklaf

Speaker 1: Okay. A few more things that are invalid. An esrog has many invalidations.

Speaker 2: Why if almost the entire thing is peeled, isn’t it any amount that’s missing?

Speaker 1: One says that doesn’t mean a part of the esrog.

Speaker 2: How comes the law that there’s a table? There’s an esrog? It’s an esrog.

Speaker 1: No, no, no, there’s an esrog. There’s like an esrog. Lacking means that it looks like a hole, not that look under a microscope you see… I don’t know what. Okay, one must know. There’s a real thing, that our esrogim are more… I mean that one can now, you’ve never tried to peel. One must ask.

Practical Difference — Removing a Spot

Speaker 1: He says that if so one can indeed yes, people always have fear of removing a spot, because it also doesn’t mean peeling. If one goes with a tiny scratch with a small needle to remove a spot, will it only mean… it won’t mean a lacking, it will mean niklaf.

Speaker 2: I agree with you. Except if it will become brown on that place, isn’t it indeed simple that it’s also only if it becomes menumar.

Speaker 1: I agree. What people seek, have problems with their esrogim.

Invalidations of Esrog Due to Appearance and Blemishes, and Distinction Between First Day of Yom Tov and Other Days

Law 8 (Continued) — Invalidations of Esrog: Natfach, Sarach, Kavush, Shaluk, and Changes in Appearance

Speaker 1: He says that there are three levels, and there’s some level. I mean that… if so one can indeed yes, a person should always have fear of removing a spot, because it will mean… it will mean not peeling. It will mean not peeling. If one goes with a tiny scratch with a small needle to remove a spot, it will only mean… it won’t mean a lacking, it will mean niklaf.

Speaker 2: I agree with you. Also only if it becomes more noticeable. I agree. What people seek, have problems with their esrogim, it was sometimes because it’s something a matter. Yes, it’s a matter of beautifying the mitzvah. Further, says the Rambam, further, he must be happy. Much with being particular about damaging someone else’s hat, not about the esrog. Yes, or about one’s own honor not.

Says the Rambam, an esrog that became swollen, an esrog that is bloated, it became swollen, or so wet and swollen, yes? Or that became rotten, it doesn’t smell good. It means, one of the commentators says that simply inside there are worms or what? It means, outside one doesn’t see, but it smells and one sees that inside it’s moldy. Or pickled, one soaked it. One put it away from a year, one pickled it, or cooked, or boiled. Or black, an esrog that is black, or an esrog that is white, or menumar, an esrog that is… it has freckles, whatever, yes, it’s colorful. Or green like a leek. Karsi is our term. It’s very green, like leaves. Not green like a green esrog, but such a strong green. Karsi is like… it’s green like… it’s a leek such a sort of thing. Yes, I know. It’s a very green thing, yes. Yes, is invalid. It’s not a nice thing. It’s not quite a form, it must be yellow.

Law 8 (Continued) — Grew in a Mold

Speaker 2: Grew in a mold, if a person made it grow in a frame, he placed on the esrog when it was tiny, he placed around a frame, and it should grow into the frame. So, if it’s made like another creature, it now looks completely different. He made an esrog look like a cucumber perhaps, it’s invalid because it doesn’t look like an esrog. But made it like a creature, if he indeed made the fruit approximately like an esrog, perhaps made it side by side, that he made for example that it shouldn’t be round, but it should be more boxy, it shouldn’t be as it was created.

Speaker 1: I mean side by side by side, like the protrusions.

Speaker 2: No, side by side by side, as it says in the commentators explain, like a daf which is a box, a daf means a page.

Speaker 1: No, no, no, I don’t agree. It means as he explains, he made such too large depressions and protrusions, something more, a little more than how much it comes, or something funny, so I mean.

Speaker 2: I mean Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam and all the others say like a side, that he made the fruit grow boxy. That’s after all another creature, it can’t be boxy. An esrog still has, let’s say, the roundness, it still has the… that’s honest.

Speaker 1: Okay, one must know.

Speaker 2: In short, he made a small distinction, not such a big joke. So.

Even though, even though means it’s not really any kind of creature that’s a joke, a little different, but not too far.

Speaker 1: No, that’s some distinction.

Speaker 2: Okay. I want to say, because the… a clever esrog merchant figures out a way how it will do that it will grow nicely and exactly shaped and nice growth.

Speaker 1: I don’t believe. It must be kosher.

Law 8 (Continued) — Twin and Unripe

Speaker 2: Further, the twin, an esrog that grows like a… that means the twins which is one…

Speaker 1: No, but by people there’s also… like a twin, such a thing, an esrog… two come on one, like?

Speaker 2: Or unripe, an esrog that is cut from the tree very early, it’s tiny, it’s kosher. It’s surprising by an unripe, one says that it has the measure, we learned after all that it must be a measure.

Speaker 1: No, but it’s not yet fresh, not yet finished.

Speaker 2: Not green like a cucumber, but it’s not yet finished. It’s not green, perhaps it’s something else, it’s not yet developed. Whatever, one can something not. Kosher.

Law 9 — The Black Esrog, Place Where They Grow Black

Speaker 2: So, says the Rambam, the place where their esrog is like a little blackness, if there’s a place where there the esrogim grow that are more to the black side. Blackish. That’s only when it’s a little black, like blackness. But and what are very black like a black person, if it’s completely black, like a person from Ethiopia, I don’t know what. Behold it’s invalid in every place it’s completely a black person. That means it says esrog hakushi is invalid, and on this it says in the Gemara something that it turns. In Babylonia it says that the Gemara it also grew a little blackish, but that doesn’t fit.

Speaker 1: Yes, I don’t remember that the Gemara makes that distinction that it’s not so blackish.

Speaker 2: Says this, the Rambam understood so, that even though it says esrog hakushi in a place where it grows there, doesn’t mean that it’s really blackish like a Cushite, it’s more brownish perhaps. Interesting.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: So this we have learned all sorts of invalidations.

Law 9 (Continued) — All the Invalidations Are Only on the First Day of Yom Tov

Speaker 2: And all these laws that we have now learned so much about how it should be invalid, says the Rambam, it’s not so simple. All these things are essentially not always invalid. All these that we counted that are invalid because of blemishes that we explained, or about the blemishes, because it’s not all these things that it’s not so nice, I know, it has a spot, or it’s missing, or whatever.

Speaker 1: Missing, I don’t know. Yes yes, missing also. Missing is also a blemish?

Speaker 2: Certainly. Lacking is a blemish.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: Or because of theft and stealing, or the thing that he said that it’s invalid because of theft and stealing, all these laws are on the first day of Yom Tov only, because only the first day of Yom Tov, or the first two days of Yom Tov.

Speaker 1: No, no, it’s after all a doubt of the day. Afterwards he says on the second day of Yom Tov.

Speaker 2: The second day of Yom Tov means the second day.

Speaker 1: Ah, on the second day of Yom Tov. Ah, very good.

Speaker 2: On the first day of Yom Tov only, the first day of Yom Tov. Why indeed? Do you understand why?

Speaker 1: Because there’s a custom.

Speaker 2: Yes, but the word is after all about “and you shall take for yourselves on the first day.”

Speaker 1: Okay, the Rambam doesn’t say what the word is by him.

Speaker 2: On the first day of Yom Tov only, which on that day it says “and you shall take for yourselves on the first day”, pri etz hadar. Yes, pri etz hadar. But on the second day of Yom Tov and the other days, which this one learns from the verse “and you shall rejoice before Hashem your God”, not from the same verse. The verse goes up the pri etz hadar.

Speaker 1: Yes, okay.

Speaker 2: Everything is kosher. But the second day of Yom Tov and the other days everything is kosher. It’s very interesting, because for example by chametz and matzah he said the first two days have the same law regarding all laws.

Discussion: Why Is the Second Day of Yom Tov Different by Esrog?

Speaker 1: It could actually be as you say, because the second day is only a safek yoma (doubtful day), they weren’t stringent with all these laws. It’s actually a chakira (fundamental question). That is, what you’re saying that yom tov sheni is, when the Rambam, that is, apparently the Rambam, yom tov sheni is clearly translated as safek yoma. But there were actually other poskim who said no, that the Gemara means the first day, but when you make two days, both days must be safek yom harishon. And it appears the Rambam, I think that regarding esrog in general it doesn’t make it a safek yoma, because on the eighth day one doesn’t take an esrog. It comes out, regarding esrog we know quite well. Regarding sukkah, one doesn’t eat Shemini Atzeres, according to the Rambam also, in the sukkah. But we don’t know. But it could just be that not every chumra, yom tov sheni in general one is stringent like yom tov rishon, but not every single thing. There are distinctions. This is one of the things where there is indeed a distinction. The Rambam also doesn’t make a distinction between bizman hazeh (nowadays) and bizman hamikdash (in Temple times). In Temple times all the days were d’oraisa (Torah law).

Speaker 2: Still, I mean that still, in the Beis Hamikdash you mean.

Speaker 1: I already know that this has to do with it, but still, and I learn that there is a distinction. The same way one learns a distinction, one sees that this is a distinction.

Speaker 2: Interesting. The first day it’s a matter that it should be beautiful, and it should be yours, and everything. Further, think which thing isn’t with me from the right? Because nosrei alef is from the right, or isn’t it spread out? Everything is only from the right, except for what he’s going to say.

Speaker 1: Who? Like Ruth.

Speaker 2: Who? There’s only one thing that he doesn’t mean.

Speaker 1: Who? If one makes an esrog an aseh (positive commandment) through eating, because it’s for example ir hanidachas (condemned city), is that by me the first day.

Speaker 2: No, avoda zara (idolatry) he means that, it’s ir nidachas. Aseh with terumah and the like.

Speaker 1: Ah.

Speaker 2: So that, by him the first day, by him if it’s stolen one is invalid. Or avoda zara which is lacking shiur (measure), that it doesn’t have a shiur, a shiur you must have the two days also. Or what is forbidden for eating. These things the Rambam held is still in some regard. That isn’t the word regarding lachem, because lachem means that it’s raui la’achila (fit for eating). So we already spoke about this a minute ago, that this isn’t the Rambam. The Rambam’s explanation says a different Torah, that it must be a fruit. It’s a giant.

Speaker 1: Against, why? The logic of this I don’t understand so well, not the verse isn’t the logic.

Hasagas HaRaavad — Gazul and Yaveish Invalid Also Other Days

Speaker 2: And here the Raavad says that it’s not agreed.

Speaker 1: You want to say that what? The Rambam didn’t say the word mitzvah, the Rambam said nothing, but the Rambam said nothing that when the invalid is mitzvah ba’aveira (commandment through sin), then it’s always relevant, even when it’s mitzvah ba’aveira also. Therefore, in other words. What the Rambam says that gazul (stolen) is invalid only on yom harishon, the second day one may take it. Says the Rav, no, a stolen one may never be used. Why is this a sin? What it says lachem is only the first day means a borrowed one, which we’ll see in the next halacha, but borrowed is also not good the first day. That is kosher the second day, but stolen is not invalid the second day also. This is one thing that the Rav disagrees. A second thing that the Rav disagrees is on yaveish (dried). Yes? The Rambam says that even all these invalidations, that is clearly regarding yaveish, is kosher the second day, the Rav is no.

Speaker 2: Ah, not hadar, because it’s something I know what. Whatever it’s a defect, that he understands. But yavush is a new thing. He brings a Yerushalmi that it’s not dead, and from some Rav he was decisive that this is yes the second day also.

Speaker 1: Ah, because that makes it, that’s part of the simcha and hallel.

Speaker 2: It could be that this is also the second day according to the Rav, the yavush. Interesting chiddush. Apparently it would also in the Mikdash have been so the halacha, because if not possible one wouldn’t… If the whole thing is zecher lamikdash (remembrance of the Temple), one wouldn’t have had to make it like in the Mikdash.

Speaker 1: I mean do you see someone speaking about this?

Speaker 2: I mean that this isn’t a thing of… bizman hazeh. This is I mean… Ah, there’s another thing that apparently, I see that the Maor Einayim says that it’s also invalid the second day, for that which the things that aren’t the type. What we learn in the first chapter?

Speaker 1: Ah, but the chiddush that the Rambam put in there meshulash, hadas shoteh, according to the Rambam it’s invalid the second day also. If someone says that hadas shoteh is an aseh of hiddur, then hadas shoteh must also be invalid the second day. This is a distinction apparently.

Speaker 2: Until now we’ve learned that all the invalidations of the right or theft is only the yom tov rishon, but the other invalidations of the right, as we’ve seen actually that not from the right, but from forbidden for eating, are the whole yom tov.

Halacha 10 — Borrowed Invalid on First Day

Speaker 2: Now we’re going to learn actually details of the topic of, not theft, but the positive commandment that it must be yours on the first day. Says the Rambam, halacha yud, yes? There is the Rambam, ein adam yotzei beyom tov rishon shel chag belulavo shel chaveiro sheshe’alnu mimenu. If he borrows his lulav, or presumably he means the daled minim (four species) that he borrows from his friend, he is not yotzei with it, ad shenitno lo bematana — he must give it to him. He brings it says “lachem”. For the same reason why gazul is… Yes. By the way, it doesn’t say why. The Rambam says so the halacha. Already.

Matana Al Menas Lehachzir

Says the Rambam such a thing, what happens? Natno lo al menas lehachziro — but a gift, it’s yours if you give it back to me later, harei zeh yotzei bo yedei chovaso, and he must actually return it to him afterwards. There is in this a sugya of matana al menas lehachzir shema matana (a gift on condition to return, is it called a gift). The Rambam rules that this is called a gift, it’s a condition in the gift, and therefore he was yotzei, but when he held it it was his. It’s not called she’eila (borrowing), it’s called matana.

But if he doesn’t give it, afterwards he doesn’t give it back, lo yatza, shenisbarar lemafre’a shenimtza kegazul. Because kegazul means there is a condition in the gift, because he transgresses the condition and he held it through theft. Kegazul, perhaps actually gazul? I don’t know. It’s not actual, because it’s lemafre’a gazul. In any case, yes.

Ein Nosnin Oso Lekatan

Says the Rambam, for this reason, ve’ein nosnin oso lekatan — for the same reason one shouldn’t give daled minim to a minor. Why? We learned yesterday that a katan hayodei’a lena’ane’a (a minor who knows how to shake) must already shake. But there’s a problem that one shouldn’t give it to a minor. Why? Shehakatan koneh, a minor can acquire, aval ve’eino makneh la’acheirim min haTorah. From the Torah he cannot transfer ownership. Can he acquire yes from the Torah? Yes. It doesn’t say here a difference min haTorah miderabbanan, by the way. It says that he can, and why do you put in more things? It says ve’eino makneh la’acheirim min haTorah. Both not from the Torah. He can acquire, but from the Torah he cannot transfer ownership.

It could be miderabbanan he can yes transfer ownership. I mean both is a tikun olam that a minor should yes be able, so I remember from a Mishna in Gittin. So both is only miderabbanan. Only miderabbanan is he… is he makneh. To acquire he can yes. One can transfer ownership to him, because the daas of the adult is transferring to him, one doesn’t need any daas to acquire. A minor can own things, one doesn’t need any problem. One can be even a baby can own things, even a tinok ben yomo can own things. But he cannot transfer ownership. Therefore it comes out that when you give it to the minor and you are transferring it to him, he is acquiring it with your transferring to him. But back, what is he not acquiring, it remains his. Nimtza she’im machziro lo eino chozer, it comes out back. Therefore you should for a minor you should only lend it, it’s only mitzvas chinuch, it doesn’t need to be lachem.

Discussion: Katan Hayodei’a Lena’ane’a Chayav Belulav — What Does This Mean?

Speaker 1: The Rambam doesn’t say properly about chinuch, I want to say it. Simple translation, what was stated earlier? Earlier it was stated by katan yodei’a lena’ane’a, what was stated by katan yodei’a lena’ane’a? What was stated?

Speaker 2: Okay. I’ll say what the Rambam says and what the Gemara says. Where does it say about a minor?

Speaker 1: Who is obligated?

Speaker 2: Very good. And this is the lashon of the Rambam. But what is the lashon of the Gemara?

Speaker 1: Perhaps melamdim? I don’t remember the lashon.

Speaker 2: Okay, I’ll already say it. In chapter 7 halacha 19, so it says on the side, katan, hayodei’a lena’ane’a chayav belulav. What does it say? Let’s see, there’s a lashon here. I didn’t find a Mishna. No. Ah, the Mishna. But there’s also a Braisa that says here, no? Ah, yes. Katan hayodei’a lena’ane’a, tanu rabbanan. Katan hayodei’a lena’ane’a, chayav lulav. Ah, no, we’re right. It says chayav lulav. It doesn’t say… But rabbanan, it appears that the chayav lulav doesn’t mean that it should be his.

Speaker 1: No, simple translation, let’s understand, simple translation it can mean that the father buys him a lulav, it’s his, he makes him a gift. What it says here is that one gives him, this life is not transferring ownership the first day, but one can buy him his own. Simple katan eino dealin, means he buys him his own, then there’s no problem. And if he didn’t buy him his own, he must only do it essentially as chinuch, to learn how to do it, it doesn’t need to be his. So the question is when one does for chinuch does it need to be in the manner how the Chachamim established it, it must be in the manner how it’s kosher. But here it appears, apparently, the poskim say that others say that it means that it’s a subsidiary, that one won’t educate with the entire chiddush of lachem, but it’s not stated clearly in the halacha. Do you understand so?

Speaker 2: Yes. For ein nosen. It says ein nosen.

Speaker 1: I hear. But can’t one give to the minor with a matana al menas lehachzir?

Speaker 2: Apparently, this was discussed. No, one can’t, because he can’t give back.

Speaker 1: But does it mean that one must transfer ownership back to me, or…

Speaker 2: Yes, certainly.

Speaker 1: Or it’s a condition.

Speaker 2: If that one doesn’t give back, it was lemafre’a like dear mine. It was lemafre’a gazul. But this is the condition. Condition means, if the condition doesn’t happen, no kinyan ever happened, it remains mine.

Speaker 1: Yes, but he must return it. Return it means but that he must return it. And if he doesn’t return it, one is lemafre’a mine. You remained mine.

Speaker 2: Yes, until when? About this he says, it never became yours. This is the meaning of condition. If it turns out that you don’t give it back. I tell him, on condition that you don’t give it back until an hour. If you don’t give it back until an hour, it was never yours. Just an hour the time, why do you do here?

Speaker 1: You do nothing. What does it mean? If he gives to the child actually… you don’t do because the child won’t be lachem, because the regular person will yes work it.

Speaker 2: Shenimtza kegazul means, because when you had it it was kegazul, because it was never truly yours.

Speaker 1: Very good, but it was never automatic, it doesn’t go back to you. One can’t make a… It doesn’t say here… I don’t know if one can’t. It’s not a kinyan for an hour, I’m only transferring for the hour. It’s not a kinyan for an hour, but it’s with a condition. If you don’t do the condition, it never became yours, it was yours. Agree, but you want to yes give him. What I don’t have that it should be gazul?

Speaker 2: No, no, no, I’m only saying earlier. About this, now I understand better the shenimtza kegazul. Certainly. It’s the same as gazul, but when you had it it wasn’t as a gift, you used someone else’s lulav.

Speaker 1: It won’t have a problem for the person for tomorrow, that he won’t be able tomorrow to shake that it’s not lachem.

Speaker 2: Tomorrow isn’t a problem, anyway.

Speaker 1: Okay, the person should say later, himself, later in the day, the first day, yes?

Speaker 2: Again, the ein nosen lekatan must be if he must still be yotzei. If he’ll already have been yotzei, it doesn’t matter, because tomorrow it’s not a problem. Yes? And this isn’t only the lulav, but… It says earlier in machziro, it’s worthwhile the second one, the one for whom he had transferred ownership should be yotzei.

Speaker 1: No, in machziro is because he wants it. The reason that one makes a matana al menas lehachzir, should have been yotzei. Because if not the condition is void, and the person just held someone else’s item.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, you’re saying again what the Rambam said explicitly. But you didn’t understand until half a moment ago.

Speaker 1: I understood very well, you didn’t understand, I don’t know exactly understood. And the Ramban said explicitly this, I don’t understand you’re not saying any chiddushim, you’re saying simple translation.

Speaker 2: The… I’m saying that the reason why we make al menas lehachzir is plain because people want back their lulavim. There’s no other reason, that otherwise you could give yourself a gift and he should return it. The al menas is only a way… I want to say, people say a whole matana al menas lehachzir. It doesn’t come out, if you trust someone that he’ll give it back to you as a gift, it doesn’t come out the al menas lehachzir. An al menas lehachzir is only a monetary thing, that if someone will be cheated it should be you, not me.

Speaker 1: Yes, the halacha isn’t specifically lulav, but echad al halulav, ve’echad kol hadaled minim shel sha’ul eino yotzei beyom rishon, means an esrog and the like. As one says lulav one means daled minim.

Halacha 11: Partners Who Bought an Esrog in Partnership

It comes out now a new halacha. Says the Rambam further, more conditions in the matter that there should be ownership. Says the Rambam thus: Shutafim shekkanu lo esrog beshutafus is not fully lachem, because there is in it also fifty percent another person’s partnership. So ein echad meihem yotzei I know what to explain, ad sheyiten lo chelko bematana — he should give him the gift your fifty percent.

Now there is another type… Just, the Rambam here one could have made the same Torah also about chatzi eved vechatzi ben chorin, because the slave doesn’t have any ownership in things. Okay, I don’t know what I’m equal to. A slave… ah, okay. The part that is a slave is exempt. Okay.

Minhag Hakehel — Esrog in Partnership

There was once a custom that the kehilla used to buy an esrog for the whole community in partnership, as if. So there’s a question, the Maggid Mishne says that then one is yes yotzei, although it’s not partners, because one means to say that each one is fully the owner… He calls it “yesh breira”. It’s an interesting breira that he calls it. That is, as if each one is entirely, when he shakes it means it’s entirely his.

Brothers Who Bought an Esrog from Tefisas Habayis

Afterwards there is another type of partnership, yes. Ve’achim shekkanu esrog mitefisas habayis — brothers whose father died, and they haven’t yet divided the inheritance. The period in between is called “tefisas habayis”, that the inheritance belongs to all the members of the household. It belongs to the father, and perhaps to the mother who still lives there, or whatever. To the estate, yes. So thus, venatal echad meihem esrog veyatza bo — one took an esrog from the house, from the thing that belongs to the father’s house, veyatza bo, and he was yotzei. He means that he was yotzei, yes? Yes, yes, yes, it’s so.

Laws of Lulav and Esrog – The Law of Tefisas Habayis and Simchas Beis Hashoeva

So it is, if he is able to eat it and doesn’t eat it – if there is a situation where there is already an understanding among the brothers that each one can eat from the tefisas habayis, he fulfills his obligation, because we view this as sufficient ownership. It has become his. That means, he took it to fulfill his obligation, the brothers forgave him for it, they transferred ownership to him. But if they were particular – if there is still a situation where the brothers are particular that until the inheritance is divided it still belongs to no one, he doesn’t fulfill his obligation, he must pay them something for it and the like.

If they are baalei batim, so to speak, they fulfill their obligation. If they are quarrelsome, and there is a whole battle over the inheritance… “Particular” means it’s all like partners. They are indeed many partners. There are partners, it’s not that one is particular, it’s that one may take for himself one esrog.

Continuation of the Law of Tefisas Habayis – Brothers Who Are Not Particular

He took it to fulfill his obligation, the brothers forgave him for it, and he acquired it. If they are particular, if there is still a reality where the brothers are particular that until the inheritance is divided it still belongs to no one, he doesn’t fulfill his obligation, and they must pay him something for it and the like. If they are baalei batim, so to speak, they fulfill their obligation. If they are quarrelsome, and there is a whole dispute over the inheritance…

Particular means basically like partners. They are indeed many partners. There are partners who are not particular, that one may take for himself one esrog, I’m certainly not going to ask him about the esrog. This means, they are a type of partners. No, by partners it doesn’t help. By partners we always say one must… By partners each one has fifty percent. But by the brothers it is indeed a partnership. Each one has a percent, it’s in their partnership. If they are not particular they can fulfill their obligation.

The Aruch HaShulchan’s Innovation – Partners Who Are Not Particular

The truth is, he brings here, the Aruch HaShulchan says that truly by partners who are not particular there should be the same law, but brothers it works out that he says. A normal brother allows, but a partner can also allow, there are many partners who are not particular, and then one will also fulfill his obligation.

Discussion: Why Is a Son’s Use of His Father’s Esrog Not Enough?

Speaker 1:

It’s interesting, why shouldn’t we say for example that if this is the situation of a family that the father can give to his son, and it’s not “not yours.” Just as the son may eat, my boy doesn’t need to ask me permission before he eats something from the closet. He doesn’t need to acquire it.

Speaker 2:

No, no, no, you allow him, I allow him. It wouldn’t be enough that it means only when he shakes the esrog, he shakes from his own. Like partners… If he’s not a partner with you, when one buys for the entire community… Your son is not a partner with you in your house. You have permission to eat. He’s an adult anyway. I mean, you can give him what you want. He’s an adult or my son-in-law. People come in, strangers. No, he’s not a partner. He’s a different type of community. Simply he allows, he allows, allows. It won’t be “yours.” I wouldn’t be “yours.” You’ll give him a gift to be his.

Tefisas habayis is a real thing, it’s all the heirs, it belongs to everyone. It’s very good. It’s the father allows while living. Certainly, a good father allows, but he allows, he gives him a gift.

The Law of “This One Acquired an Esrog and This One a Peach” – Tefisas Habayis

Yes, says the Rambam further, another case in the tefisas habayis law is as follows: If this one acquired an esrog and this one a peach. He bought an esrog, and the other bought another type of fruit, I know for an example. “Or if one acquired an esrog and one a pomegranate or peach in tefisas habayis”, or they bought together several fruits, so there is one fruit against the other. There are several things that are worth approximately the same, or whatever, that are approximately the same value. So one fulfills his obligation with the esrog until he takes his portion and gives it to him. The way that he can fulfill his obligation with the esrog is, he says, “Okay, you know what? The peach should be yours, and the esrog should be mine.” Why? Later they can exchange.

The Innovation – Even If Particular Is Stricter

Even if particular? No! “And even though if he ate it they are not particular about it.” This becomes worse. I don’t understand why. It’s not clear what’s going on here. Why now has it become worse? Perhaps because then it shows that this is mine and this is yours, and it’s only can have yours if you give me mine. He may eat it though, he says. No one understands this law, nu? In short, I don’t want to not understand. There are different explanations. I’ll remain with not understanding, because I don’t understand. I don’t know. Until here the laws of esrog and lulav.

The Rama’s Ruling – Everyone Should Buy Their Own Lulav

The holy Rama says, do you know a halachic ruling from the Rama? It is that although there is a way that one can fulfill his obligation with another’s, that is one can make a gift on condition to return, and sometimes there was a partnership that one can also make, says the holy Rama, but each person should try as much as he can to buy his own lulav, because it’s better. It’s more mehudar that one should have one’s own, not have all these concerns. In today’s times, thank God, although it’s so expensive, everyone has enough money, everyone buys their own lulav, also for the children, their own lulav. Certainly, it’s a mitzvah to educate them in mitzvos. And especially, one makes poor people together. If someone doesn’t have, it’s simply embarrassing that the children or the young men don’t have… don’t have a lulav to shake during Hallel, it has no taste without a lulav. Everyone bought for each person a lulav, and therefore yes.

Rabbeinu Manoach’s Explanation – Revelation of Intent of Being Particular

Rabbeinu Manoach explains that in the last case, the “this one acquired an esrog and this one a peach,” that although they are not particular, but with the fact that each one bought one fruit, he indeed showed that this is mine and this is yours. It’s the opposite, it comes out stricter. When you own a house, there are times when someone buys for the house a bunch of fruit, everyone can take. But he has his corner, he put his, he put his. It’s a certain way of showing particularity, that although essentially there isn’t a great particularity.

Perhaps “Fulfills His Obligation” Means Rabbinically

Interesting. It could be when he says one fulfills his obligation he means rabbinically. There’s a concern that perhaps they are not particular. One must understand the reality. There’s a reality here. I want to say, let’s say, you can look at it like everyone has their own closet where they keep their things. This is a kind of example how he grasps it, he buys his fruit, he buys his fruit. If in the tefisas habayis each person has their place where they keep their drawer, it is indeed a certain… With this he shows a certain particularity. Even if another would have eaten, he and the particularity is not so great, but if each one has their own belongings, it’s not clear.

The Rashba’s Distinction – Buying for the Sake of a Mitzvah

Ah, the Magen Avraham says, I want to say, the Rashba says, I’m speaking of the previous laws, the Rashba says that what it says that one doesn’t fulfill his obligation, this speaks of when one buys simply an esrog. If one buys for the mitzvah, certainly they mean that everyone should fulfill their obligation with it, so there’s no choice. Therefore they say that when one buys an esrog for the community, everyone fulfills their obligation, because that’s what is meant indeed.

Applied to Brothers Who Make Shabbos Together

I can hear the “this one esrog this one peach.” For example, if brothers live together and they make Shabbos together, and one goes and buys one whole meal, one must know that everyone should eat. But each one brings their own thing, there is in this something of such a revelation of intent that I’m going to be particular that you ate so much, how much did I bring, how much did you bring. Therefore there must be more clarity that he indeed agrees. I can hear it. I didn’t say something wrong there, no? I don’t get it. Okay, let’s go further.

Laws of the Joy of the Festival of Sukkos

I say, let’s learn about the joy of Yom Tov. Not the joy of Yom Tov, but a special joy of Sukkos. Now we’re going to learn about the mitzvah of the joy of the festival of Sukkos.

Law 12 – Extra Joy on the Festival of Sukkos

Says the Rambam, although all the festivals have a mitzvah to rejoice on them. All mitzvos there is a mitzvah of joy, as the Rambam said in the laws of Yom Tov, because we learn from “on the day of Hashem”… it says “and you shall rejoice only,” we learn from this all the Yamim Tovim, yes? It says “and you shall rejoice only,” it stands on Sukkos, that we learn from this to all Yamim Tovim, mutual derivation. The festival of Sukkos there was in the Temple extra joy, and the festival of Sukkos in the Beis HaMikdash there was extra joy. As it says “and you shall rejoice before Hashem your God seven days”, meanwhile we only know in the Temple. We’re never going to know more than the Temple. The Rambam rules the law for the Beis HaMikdash. Yes, but later one speaks of the joy of always, yes? No, not in the laws of Sukkah, in the laws of the deed he spoke, but the extra joy.

Rashi vs. Rambam Regarding the Source of Extra Joy

It’s interesting that this is the… Certainly it comes from the chapter of the flute, from the fifth chapter in Sukkah, and Rashi there said that the joy is about the mitzvah of… what is it called? There is like the water drawing it’s called, there is the mitzvah of the water libation. So says Rashi in tractate Sukkos. But the Rambam didn’t hold that way. Perhaps he doesn’t know that Rashi holds differently. The water libation is a part of the Temple service, this means this is the joy of the Temple. Yes, it’s not a special service for Yom Tov Sukkos. The Rambam understood that this is not something… According to Rashi this means that it’s something a mitzvah, it’s a special mitzvah. The water libation in honor of the mitzvah one makes a joy of the mitzvah. The Rambam says, no, this is the joy of Yom Tov Sukkos.

Speaker 1:

Understandably, you’re right. Itself is a part of the festival celebration of Sukkos. But there’s a verse, “and you shall draw water with joy,” that the Gemara brings this verse. We see that one does it with joy, but…

Speaker 2:

The Rambam learns that this is a topic of the joy of the festivals. The joy of Sukkos comes with extra joy, and he doesn’t speak at all of the water libation in this piece, he only speaks of the joy.

The Radak’s Interpretation – “And You Shall Celebrate” From the Language of Dance

I saw the Radak interprets “and you shall celebrate” making a festival to Hashem. Simply “celebrate” means a language of celebration, but he says that “celebrate” is a language of dance, of dancing, of dancing in a circle. There is making a festival, one should rejoice seven days. It could be that the festival is called so because one dances, I mean not.

How Did They Do It – The Order of the Joy

Says the Rebbe, how did they do it? How was the joy in the Temple? We see here that joy is a thing of action, it’s not something a mood, it’s a thing of action.

He says, on the eve of the first day of Yom Tov it’s also not the usual joy. Joy of every Yom Tov, joy is meat and wine, but here there was something extra joy, one danced. How did one do this? On the eve of Yom Tov, says the Rambam thus, it begins with modesty, it begins with… No, he only says the order. Yes, okay. On the eve of the first day of Yom Tov they would set up in the Temple a place for men above and for women below, so that they should not mix with each other. It could be yes that here already begins the joy, because if it would have been everywhere for men and women, one would have had to be restrained. So everyone could be with full enthusiasm. One must restrain oneself, but one knows that there is no concern.

When Does the Joy Begin?

And they begin to rejoice from the night after the first day of Yom Tov. From when does one begin to rejoice? From the night after the first day of Yom Tov. That means, the first day of Yom Tov there is only the regular mitzvah of the joy of Yom Tov. Yes, because it’s Chol HaMoed, because one uses it for mussar. And they rejoice each and every day of the days of Chol HaMoed, from the night after the first day of Yom Tov, so every day of the days of Chol HaMoed one did what he’s going to say. When does one begin? They rise early after they offer the daily afternoon offering, and they rejoice the rest of the entire day and the night. From afternoon until the next morning one rejoiced on all these days.

Law 13 – How Was This Joy

Says the Rambam, and how was this joy? It’s not only at night, how it was the whole thing with the lights, but it began already from the afternoon offering, basically. At the afternoon offering until… Then began the water libation? No, it’s nothing of the water libation. But when was it? Did it have something to do with some offering at the same time? It had to do with nothing. After the afternoon offering, after one finished offering the daily afternoon offering, which is the last offering that one makes during the day, one began to rejoice.

The Music and the Dance

And how was this joy? The flute strikes, he lays down the orchestra. The flute, the piper struck. Flute doesn’t mean a piper, because a piper blows, not strikes. Striking means it’s a drum. No, no, no. Flute is something that pipes, and the term is strikes, who knows. Okay. They play with harp, with lyres, with cymbals, one plays with different types of music. Who? Each and every one means… I don’t know what all these things are. I saw earlier someone tries to say explanations. What are they? Each and every one with the musical instrument that he knows how to play. But the commentator says that this is not necessarily. Bring what he can. On the invitation it said bring your own instruments. So it says here. Everyone brought the musical instrument that he can sing with.

Simchas Beis Hashoeva — Laws of Sukkah Chapter 8 (Continuation)

Law 13 — The Manner of Joy: Playing, Singing, Dancing and Words of Song and Praise

The Rambam: And how was this joy? The flute strikes, and they play with harp and with lyres and with cymbals, and each and every one with the musical instrument that he knows how to play, and whoever knows with the mouth — with the mouth. And they dance and clap and strike and leap and whirl each and every one as he knows, and they say words of song and praise. And this joy does not override neither the Shabbos nor Yom Tov.

Or the Levites or the musicians. Yes, of the musicians. I imagine, one can see it in the secular world. Right? And whoever knows with the mouth sings with the mouth. Who? Not just, not only music, but they dance, and they clap, they clap with the hands, and strike, and leap, and whirl, I don’t know exactly, all kinds of ways, one turns, one does all kinds of dances that one can. Each and every one as he knows. It seems that one must know how. Someone who is a faker in singing and dancing should stand on the side looking at those who know. Yes?

Discussion: What Does “They Say Words of Song and Praise” Mean?

And they say words of song and praise. Everyone says words of song and praise. Does one sing words of song and praise, or does one say? One says. Okay. And this joy… No, not necessarily. One says, one says, one says. One can be one sings it. I don’t know. One says. Yes. Or they say, it says in the Gemara that Hillel said “If I am here all is here.” It’s song and praise that Hillel said about himself. This simply means about the Almighty. They say means words. It doesn’t necessarily mean that one says it specifically singing. There’s no such thing. Playing means one plays, and saying means one says words. The words come with a tune? Presumably it comes with a tune. I don’t know what the reasoning is…

No, but I say in the Gemara here the “fortunate is our youth that did not shame our old age.” It doesn’t have to be that words of song and praise is for the Almighty. One says things that uplift the people. One says praises for other Jews. One praises other Jews perhaps.

And This Joy Does Not Override Neither Shabbos Nor Yom Tov

Says the Rambam, and this joy does not override neither Shabbos nor Yom Tov. Yom Tov and Shabbos one doesn’t use musical instruments because of lest one fix a musical instrument, because of this one began the night after the first day of Yom Tov of the festival, or if it’s Shabbos, Chol HaMoed also one didn’t do it.

Law 14 — Who Dances? The Great Ones of Israel

Says the Rambam, it is a mitzvah to increase in this joy, it is a mitzvah in this joy to increase. He says about this, and it was not done by the common people and whoever wanted. If it’s not a mitzvah, let it be whoever wants. Rather the great sages of Israel and the heads of the yeshivos and the Sanhedrin and the pious ones and the elders and men of deed, they are the ones who would dance and clap and play and rejoice in the Temple during the days of the festival of Sukkos. But all the people, the men and the women, all would come to see and to hear.

All these things that I said that one dances and sings, the important people dance and sing, and the rest of the people give them the space that the masters of mitzvos, the men of deed, they should be the ones who stand in the middle of the center and dance.

Comparison to the Laws of Shabbos

Joy of Mitzvah Performance — The Maggid Mishneh’s Explanation and the Rambam’s Servant from Love

It reminded me of the halacha in the laws of Shabbat, that when there is a matter of danger where one may desecrate Shabbat, it should be done by the great ones of Israel. I thought of an explanation that there is a place where every ignoramus suddenly wants to perform the mitzvot. He says, leave it for the one who is a great mitzvah performer. Suddenly you become the baal mitzvah, suddenly you become the rescuer, my mitzvah.

Discussion: What Does “Shehashimcha” Refer To?

But the holy Rambam himself wrote the reasons why it is so. No, I don’t know if the “shehashimcha” refers to the pieces. Does it say “shin”? No. Why? Tzaddik. Read the translation. It refers to the entire thing, the entire matter that we just discussed. I learn a different explanation. You don’t learn a different explanation if the explanation is like “kamah shekol merubim,” what did he say? No. Okay, very good. I don’t know if it refers to the reason that the people of distinction… He says that the entire reason for the great joy is… No, no, not true, not true. He speaks exactly about this. Look what he says.

The Rambam says to him, why? Why? Joy is not joy for simple Jews. Simple Jews don’t know at all how to be joyful. A great Jew knows how to be joyful. And if one thinks it’s not fitting, that dancing is fitting for women and children? No, this is specifically a simcha shel mitzvah that belongs to the great Jews. The next two sections explain why the joy belongs to the great Jews.

Halacha 15 — Joy in Performing Mitzvot and in Love of God: Great Service

The Rambam: “Shehashimcha sheyismach adam ba’asiyat hamitzvot uv’ahavat ha’El shetzivah bahem avodah gedolah hi.”

The joy of rejoicing with the mitzvot and with the love of God who commanded the mitzvot, “avodah gedolah hi” means, what does one dance at the joy that he just mentioned, the joy of the festival of Sukkot? One rejoices with the abundance of mitzvot. There are many mitzvot in the month of Tishrei, and in Sukkot there are many mitzvot. And when one performs mitzvot, one remembers the love of Hashem who commanded us to perform the mitzvot. Perhaps also because in Sukkot there are many positive commandments, there are no negative commandments, and positive commandments indicate love of God. Yes, a beautiful Torah insight thrown in.

Foundation: Simcha Shel Mitzvah Means Joy in the Love of God Who Commanded Them

On this he places… You remember a great principle in the Rambam, one of my principles of the Rambam’s language, that when the Rambam says two things, he means the second thing once, and that is an explanation of the first thing. That is, in the Gemara there is such a concept “simcha shel mitzvah.” Would a Jew unfortunately think that the joy is with performing the mitzvah? No, there is no joy whatsoever in performing a mitzvah, a mitzvah must be performed. The joy is, what does simcha shel mitzvah mean? “Simcha b’ahavat ha’El shetzivah bahem.” One rejoices with the mitzvah that the Almighty commanded us. Not with the mitzvah, with the Almighty who commanded the mitzvah. The mitzvah is not the Almighty, in Hasidism, I will learn in Hasidism. But the performance of the mitzvah is the “ahavat ha’El shetzivah bahem.” There are things that you can know that I don’t know how the Rambam thinks such things, and he doesn’t say that one should rejoice with the mitzvot. One should rejoice with simcha shel mitzvah, meaning one should rejoice with the God who commanded us the mitzvot.

It’s understood that the mitzvah is only an action that is already over, one has already finished the mitzvah. The love of God is the thing that… Not that one has finished, because the mitzvah itself is one of the wonders of Hashem, which one understands and can have pleasure from understanding. But the joy is not with the matter of performing the mitzvah, because the Almighty didn’t… Let’s not get into the… Okay.

Positive Commandments and Love

But I mean, I say this, it’s not a weak explanation that I said, that in Sukkot there is no negative commandment at all, it’s all positive commandments. The same thing with shofar, unlike… No, in Pesach there are exactly as many positive as negative commandments regarding chametz, or Shavuot there is Atzeret. The entire month of Tishrei has many positive commandments. Shofar, sukkah and lulav, he ends with this shofar, sukkah and lulav, “ahavat ha’El shetzivah bahem,” because mitzvot that the Almighty said is a command, positive commandments are a matter of love, not a matter of fear, is “avodah gedolah.” When there is also fear, the joy is lacking, because of fear, but when there is love it is a joy.

“And Whoever Withholds Himself from This Joy Deserves to Be Punished”

The Rambam says further, “v’chol hamonei atzmo misimcha zo ra’uy lehipara mimenu,” one who holds himself back from this love, deserves punishment. And as it says in the verse, among the punishments it says “tachat asher lo avadta et Hashem Elokecha b’simcha uv’tuv levav.” It’s interesting that the Rambam learns here the explanation that the punishment comes not only because “lo avadta et Hashem Elokecha,” but that you didn’t do the joy and good heart regarding the service of Hashem. Yes.

It’s interesting, because the simple meaning in the verse that you said applies to both things, you didn’t do the service of Hashem. In the simple translation, this isn’t in the verse at all. I don’t have the strength now to go into it, whoever wants to translate it, look on my website, the Rambam’s explanation is written there. The verse doesn’t say that the punishment comes because one didn’t serve the Almighty with joy. No, the verse says that “tachat asher lo avadta et Hashem Elokecha b’simcha uv’tuv levav meirov kol.” So the joy and good heart in the verse actually means the reward of the mitzvah, not the situation of joy, not that there is a matter of serving Hashem with joy. The Rambam says wait a moment, “tachat asher lo avadta et Hashem Elokecha b’simcha,” that the sin is that you weren’t with joy regarding the service of the mitzvah. The Rambam also didn’t mean such a mistaken explanation in the verse. I know exactly what the Rambam meant, because if you look at length in the lectures you’ll be able to review it, I don’t think I should repeat it here.

Ruach HaKodesh from Simchat Beit HaShoevah

Why? Because you don’t want to utilize, you say I don’t have ruach hakodesh. You know that from Simchat Beit HaShoevah comes ruach hakodesh. I thought, from this the Rambam had ruach hakodesh in the laws of Sukkah, because he went in the sukkah, from Simchat Beit HaShoevah he received ruach hakodesh.

Discussion: What Does “Shehashimcha” Refer To?

From here the Rambam refers to what he said that the great ones and the elders should also dance. The Rambam says, “v’chol hamagis da’ato…” It’s great service, therefore it belongs to one who is a great sage. And conversely, it applies to everyone. Not true, it doesn’t apply to everyone. From here he goes very clearly to this matter. What… she… he meant she… “shin” can refer to the entire thing, the entire matter of joy. Okay.

Halacha 15 (Continued) — “And Whoever Is Haughty… Is a Sinner and Fool”

The Rambam: “V’chol hamagis da’ato, v’choshev kavod l’atzmo,” one who is very arrogant, and loves himself very much, and attributes great honor to himself, “u’mitchabed b’einav bimkomot eilu,” he attributes great honor to himself, he honors himself in his own eyes, and in these places, he doesn’t fit to dance, “harei zeh chotei v’shoteh.” Or he dances like a rebbe dances, which looks like unfortunately he will die. On the contrary, he is one who is haughty and considers honor for himself. “Al zeh hizir Shlomo v’amar, ‘al tithadar lifnei melech.’” No, no, no, a person must make himself presentable, but before a king the honor is specifically that you are close to the king and that you submit yourself to the king. Not the place to make yourself upright.

“And Whoever Humbles Himself… He Is the Great and Honored One Who Serves from Love”

He says, “v’chol hamashpil atzmo,” one who does the opposite, he humbles himself, “u’meikal gufo bimkomot eilu,” he makes his body light, usually the opposite of heaviness of head, he makes his body, he dances easily with his feet. “Hu hagadol hamechubbad ha’oved mei’ahavah.” Don’t think that when he dances he humbles himself, he is a small person, or he lacks honor? On the contrary. See him that he serves the Almighty with love, not only with fear, with withdrawal, but with love.

Proof from King David

“V’chein David melech Yisrael amar,” this was in the story of King David of Israel. King David of Israel was indeed the king, but he goes and dances, leaping and whirling. And Bat Sheva thinks he makes himself like one of the empty ones. Michal bat Shaul, excuse me, thinks he makes himself like one of the empty ones. But King David says the opposite, “v’nikaloti od mizot.” Truly I should have been more lenient, I should have debased myself even more than the dance, “v’hayiti shafal b’einai,” because I am lowly compared to the honor of the Almighty.

“And There Is No Greatness and Honor Except to Rejoice Before Hashem”

The Rambam says further, “v’ein hagedulah v’hakavod ela lismo’ach lifnei Hashem.” The greatest greatness and honor is specifically to rejoice before the Almighty. It says, one who stands with such… he holds himself so nicely, is the opposite of greatness and honor. “Shene’emar,” as we see by David, “hamelech David mefazez umcharker.” But I mean, his point here is that here it says “the king,” here it doesn’t just say “David.” That here itself his kingship came out, yes? Here one emphasizes the word “king.” That specifically in leaping and whirling, a king showed that he is a true king. The story speaks exactly about this, that there was Michal bat Shaul who honored herself, and this is not the way, and King David did do it. But I say, everywhere it says “the king,” but here is the word “the king.” One must check with him.

Conclusion

The holy Maggid Mishneh explains the topic, and we will only say what he says. And whoever wants to understand, I didn’t say, should come to another lecture. It’s already enough.

Simcha Shel Mitzvah — The Maggid Mishneh’s Explanation and the Rambam’s Servant from Love

King David’s Story — The Point of “The King”

Speaker 1: One doesn’t need to say that this is enough plain and simple. King David? The story speaks exactly about this, that there was Michal bat Shaul who honored herself, and this is not the way, and King David did do it. But I say, everywhere it says “the king,” but here there isn’t the word “the king.” One must check with him.

The Maggid Mishneh’s Explanation of Simcha Shel Mitzvah

The holy Maggid Mishneh explains the topic, and we will only say what he says, and whoever wants to understand, he said, should come to him.

The Maggid Mishneh explained, the essence of the matter is thus: “She’ein ra’uy l’adam la’asot hamitzvah mitzad she’ein chovah alav u’muchrach v’anus ba’asiyatah.” The Maggid Mishneh translates, what does simcha shel mitzvah and love of its performance mean? A person should not do mitzvot because he must. “Ela chayav la’asot v’yismach ba’asiyatan.” Why? Why is he joyful? What is the matter of such a joyful mitzvah? “V’ya’aseh hatov mitzad shehu tov, v’yivchar ba’emet mitzad shehu emet.”

This Is the Language of the Rambam Regarding Servant from Love

This is the language of the Rambam regarding servant from love. You who say servant from love means he acts from love as opposed to fear. You must remember that the Rambam translates servant from love in the laws of repentance as opposed to not for its own sake, because servant from fear means not for its own sake, acting out of hope for reward or fear of punishment, the same thing.

The Rambam’s Explanation of Servant from Fear and Servant from Love

In other words, the Rambam explained at length in the laws of repentance, later in the introduction to the chapter of Chelek, that a servant from fear is one who doesn’t know that the mitzvot themselves are good for him, he thinks that the mitzvot are not good, but one must do them in order to arrive at something better. It turns out that he holds that the reward or benefit is better than the mitzvah, he doesn’t rejoice in the mitzvah, he does the mitzvah by compulsion in order to arrive at something else.

One who knows that the good things, that is, apprehension of Hashem and truth, are good in themselves, and conversely, all things are in order to arrive at this, he is joyful with this. This is the purpose, because this is the purpose.

This is the Maggid Mishneh’s translation of simcha shel mitzvah, and it’s certainly what the Rambam says in other places. So naturally he will be very joyful, “v’chach notzar, k’she’osin mah shenivra bishvilo yismach v’yagel.” Why? Why is this a great joy? “Delo k’simchat she’ar devarim teluyim bidvarim beteilim she’einan kayamin,” it doesn’t remain. “Aval hasimcha ba’asiyat hamitzvot hi hasimcha ha’amitit.”

Simcha Shel Mitzvah and Sukkot — A General Matter

This is the translation of simcha shel mitzvah, and already… May it be His will that we merit. So all Jews should… This is the mitzvah of Sukkot. What does it have to do with Sukkot? Actually it’s a general topic, only joy, one does it on Sukkot. The Rambam’s entire explanation has nothing to do with Sukkot, and nothing to do with the specific mitzvot of Sukkot, not any special quality of the time of Sukkot. This is the time that one took to rejoice with the service of Hashem over…

The Custom of Simchat Beit HaShoevah

I mean that today there is a custom, there is a Torah, “to magnify the positive commandments and love” is a beautiful Torah, it fits very nicely there in those words. It’s very nice, but for us, I’m just saying casually about the custom, there is perhaps a custom, I mean it’s an accepted custom to make the Simchat Beit HaShoevah where one dances, but apparently this is already a newer custom, right? It wasn’t always.

But the, apparently, we also do this, that Simchat Torah for example, which one makes on Sukkot, Shemini Atzeret, is the greatest joy that all Jews make, even those who don’t know about Simchat Beit HaShoevah. This is probably connected to this, because this is the time, the greatest joyful holiday, one makes all these things.

Discussion: The Rambam’s Approach Regarding Simchat Beit HaShoevah

Speaker 2: Yes, the Rambam says one should begin on the night after the holiday of the festival. This is in the Temple, the Rambam says one should do it today.

Speaker 1: Just say regarding the custom, the custom to make Simchat Beit HaShoevah, I mean I have… But the Rambam says that there is a remembrance of the Temple, it’s true that one didn’t want to do it.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes, it’s true, it’s not a service.

Speaker 1: This makes it the same, and already say Hallel in the morning with lulav and etrog. Already, this is the mitzvah to be very joyful, and one must have the rosh yeshiva dance. There are rebbes who dance, but I don’t think they make their bodies light. Relatively, I give a little shake with my hands more than usual. Good.

Tractate Ketubot — “Leave Him Alone, a Fool to His Foolishness”

Speaker 2: And also in Tractate Ketubot one sees this topic. I thought this, you remember the “leave him alone, a fool to his foolishness,” one also sees the topic that he…

Speaker 1: Yes, but it’s also apparently the mitzvah, I know, he debased his honor in order to do the joy.

Speaker 2: Yes, yes.

Speaker 1: Okay.