Daf Ditty Succah 36: Binding of Arba Minim (and Israel)

Pesikta Rabbati – c 845 CE)

1
Another symbolic interpretation of the “Four Species” is based on the assumption that “Taam,” or
Taste, represents knowledge of Torah while “Re-ach,” or Aroma, represents the accomplishment
of good deeds.

Thus, the “Etrog” which has good “Taam” and good “Re-ach,” represents the individual who has
much knowledge of Torah, and a treasure house of good deeds to his credit.

The “Lulav,” associated with the date, has good taste, but little aroma, and represents the individual
who is a Torah Scholar, but has only a few good deeds.

“Hadasim,” symbolize the individual who has “Re-ach,” but little “Taam,” good deeds, but only a
little knowledge of Torah.

The poor “Aravot,” though creations of Hashem, are beautiful, have neither taste nor aroma. Thus,
they represent individuals who have just a little Torah knowledge and very few good deeds to their
names.

Thus, just like at the Pesach Seder Table, the Four Sons symbolize the Jewish People, which
contains all types of individuals, so the act of holding the “Arba Minim,” the Four Species together,
represents the unity of the Jewish people, and the fact that it is made up of individuals with all
possible mixes of Torah knowledge and good deeds.

2
 3
 4
MISHNA: One may bind the lulav only with its own species; i.e., one of the four species taken
with the lulav. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: One may do so even
with a string or with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: There was an incident involving the men of
Jerusalem who would bind their lulavim with gold rings. The Sages said to him: They would
bind it with its own species beneath the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not
a halakhic one.

According to some sages, three of the species (all except the etrog) must be bound together. Our
mishnah debates whether the cord used to bind the three together must be from the same species
as one of the three species. The problem with it being from another type of tree is that when he
picks up the lulav, he will be carrying five species the four mandated ones and the one from which
he made his cord. This might be a violation of the prohibition of adding on to the Torah’s
commandments. The Torah says four species it would be prohibited to add a fifth.

5
Rabbi Meir defends his opinion by relating a story in which the people of Jerusalem bound their
lulavs with strands of gold. This proves that the binding need not be from the same type of material
as the four species. The other sages admit that those lulavs were bound with gold, but they claim
that underneath the gold there was a layer of binding that was made of one of the four species.
Since this was the layer that affected the binding, only it must be from one of the four species. An
alternative explanation is that “underneath” means at the bottom of the lulav. The lulav needs to
be bound only at the bottom and the men of Jerusalem bound their lulavs with gold only at the top.

RASHI

Jastrow

Steinzaltz

6
GEMARA: Rava said: One may bind the lulav even with fibers that grow around the trunk of
the date palm, and even with a piece of the trunk of the date palm. And Rava said: What is
the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? He holds that a lulav requires binding, and if
one brings another species to bind the lulav, there will be five species and he will violate the
prohibition against adding to the mitzvot.

7
 8
And Rava further said: From where do I say this halakha that fibers and the trunk of the date
palm are the species of the lulav? It is as it is taught in a baraita that it is written:

,‫ ָה ֶאז ְָרח‬-‫שׁ ְבעַת יָמִים; כָּל‬

ִ ,‫מב ַבּסֻּכּ ֹת תֵּ שְׁבוּ‬ 42 Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are home-
.‫ ַבּסֻּכּ ֹת‬,‫ יֵשְׁבוּ‬,‫ְבּיִשׂ ְָראֵל‬ born in Israel shall dwell in booths;
Lev 23:40

“You shall reside in sukkot for seven days” which means a sukka of any material, as the Torah
was not particular about the material to be used for the roofing; any species may be used as long
as it grew from the ground and it is not susceptible to impurity. This is the statement of Rabbi
Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The mitzva of sukka is practiced only with the four species of the lulav
as roofing. And, he claims, logic dictates that it is so, as it is derived by means of an a fortiori
inference: Just as the mitzva of lulav, which is not practiced at night as it is during the day, is
practiced only with the four species, with regard to the mitzva of sukka, which is practiced at
night as it is during the day, is it not right that its roofing should be only from the four
species?

The Rabbis said to him: That is not an a fortiori inference, as any a fortiori inference that you
infer initially to be stringent, but ultimately it is to be lenient, is not a legitimate a fortiori
inference. If ultimately the stringency leads to a leniency, the entire basis of the inference is
undermined.

9
According to your reasoning, if one did not find any of the four species to roof his sukka, he will
sit idly and fail to fulfill the mitzva of sukka; and the Torah states: “You shall reside in sukkot
for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), meaning a sukka of any material. Likewise, in the book of
Ezra, which can refer also to the book of Nehemiah, it says:

‫ אֲ שֶׁ ר ִצוָּה‬:‫ַתּוֹרה‬ ָ ‫ כָּתוּב בּ‬,‫יד ַויִּ ְמצְאוּ‬ 14 And they found written in the Law, how that the
‫יִשְׂ ָראֵ ל‬-‫ אֲ שֶׁ ר יֵשְׁ בוּ ְבנֵי‬,‫מ ֹשֶׁ ה‬-‫יְהוָה ְבּיַד‬ LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of
.‫ַבּסֻּכּוֹת ֶבּחָג בַּח ֹדֶ שׁ הַשְּׁ בִיעִי‬ Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh
month;

-‫ ְויַ ֲעבִירוּ קוֹל ְבּכָל‬,‫טו וַאֲ שֶׁ ר יַשְׁ מִיעוּ‬ 15 and that they should publish and proclaim in all
‫צְאוּ ָההָר‬--‫ע ֵָריהֶם וּבִירוּשָׁ לַ ִם לֵאמ ֹר‬ their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: 'Go forth unto
‫ ַו ֲעלֵי‬,‫עֵץ שֶׁ מֶן‬-‫זַיִת ַו ֲעלֵי‬-‫ְו ָהבִיאוּ ֲעלֵי‬ the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of
‫ ַלעֲשֹׂת‬:‫הֲדַ ס ַו ֲעלֵי תְ מ ִָרים ַו ֲעלֵי עֵץ עָב ֹת‬ wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches,
{‫ }פ‬.‫ ַכּכָּתוּב‬,‫סֻכּ ֹת‬ and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is
written.
Neh 8:14-15

“Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches,
and palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, to make sukkot, as it is written”
Apparently, a sukka may be constructed even with materials other than the four species.

Daf Shevui writes:1

According to some sages, three of the species (all except the etrog) must be bound together. In the
mishnah there is a debate whether the cord used to bind the three together must be from the same
species as one of the three species. As we shall see in the Talmud, the problem with it being from
another type of tree is that when he picks up the lulav, he will be carrying five species—the four
mandated ones and the one from which he made his cord. This might be a violation of the
prohibition of adding on to the Torah’s commandments. The Torah says four species—it would be
prohibited to add a fifth.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.36b?lang=bi&p2=Daf_Shevui_to_Sukkah.36b.11-37a.2&lang2=bi

10
Rava says that any part of the palm tree can be used to bind the three species together, even the
sinew or parts of the base of the tree. The reason that R. Judah demands one use parts of the palm
is not so that the lulav looks good, but because if he uses a different species, he would be taking
five species, as I explained above.

Rava explains that the fact one uses sinews and roots of palm-trees to make a sukkah, and that R.
Judah demands that the sukkah be made from any of the four species, proves that these parts of
the date-palm count are considered part of the species. We shall return to this point below. For
now, we will first explain the baraita itself.

The main dispute in this baraita is quite interesting. R. Meir says that one can use any material to
make a sukkah, as long as it follows the normal rules of making a sukkah. In other words, while
the sekhach must have grown from the ground, it need not be of the four species.
R. Judah says that it must be one of the four species.

The background of this dispute is Nehemiah 8:15, which is quoted below. In this verse Nehemiah
and Ezra and the people who have returned to Israel after the first exile seem to interpret Leviticus
23:40 as if it mandates building the sukkah from the four species. However, their identification of
the species slightly differs from the normative rabbinic interpretation and from the precise wording
of Leviticus. Biblical scholars nevertheless interpret this verse as referring to building the sukkah
from the four species. The rabbinic way of dealing with this verse is found below.

The rabbis respond to R. Judah that his stringency (the sukkah must be built of the four species)
will actually lead to a leniency, for if he doesn’t find enough of the four species to build a sukkah,
he won’t be able to dwell in the sukkah.

Here the rabbis note that in Nehemiah the Jews don’t use just the four species as identified in
Leviticus to build their sukkot, they seem to use other species as well. Indeed, five are mentioned,
and the etrog seems to be absent. In other words, since the species mentioned here are not exactly
the same as those in Leviticus, the rabbis assume that these are different and that the Jews referred
to here also took the four species in Leviticus and used them for what we call a lulav. Again, this
is not how biblical scholars read the verse. The rabbis read this verse in this manner so it doesn’t
contradict their reading of Leviticus.

Paradoxically, while the verse might have originally been the source of R. Judah’s ruling that the
sukkah must be built of the four species, here it becomes a difficulty against him. The Jews here
use more than just the four species from Leviticus to build their sukkah.

This section accomplishes two things. First of all, R. Judah offers his interpretation of the verse.
The species mentioned in the book of Nehemiah that are not part of the four in Leviticus were used
for the walls, and R. Judah agrees that the walls need not be made of the four species. Only the
sekhach, according to R. Judah, must be made of the four species.

11
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:2

BINDING THE SPECIES WITH THE SPECIES THEMSELVES

(a) (R. Yehudah): The species must be bound with the species themselves.
(b) (R. Meir): Any string is adequate, as supported by the people of Yerushalayim who would use
gold thread.
(c) (R. Yehudah): They would tie them with species underneath the adornment. 9)

IGUD USING OTHER MATERIALS

(a) (Rava): Any material from the species, even the least significant (such as Siv), is adequate
for R. Yehudah, who does not require Hadar.

(b) (Rava): The rationale of R. Yehudah is his requirement that the species be bound, thus
lending significance to the binding material which, if another material is used, would
introduce a fifth specie.

(c) (Rava): I learn the inclusion of Siv as a type of Lulav material from the implication of this
Beraisa:

1. (R. Meir): Any vegetation may be used (as derived from the Pasuk).
2. (R. Yehudah): The S’chach must be made only of the leaves of the species, (from a Kal
va'Chomer).
3. (Chachamim): Any Kal va'Chomer which results in a Kulah (since one who cannot find
S’chach of the species would be without a Sukah) may not be learned.
4. Rather, any vegetation may be used, as seen clearly from the Pasuk in Nechemiah wherein
Ezra tells the People to bring various leaves in addition to the species.

5. (R. Yehudah): The other vegetation was meant for the walls, and the leaves of the species
were meant for the S’chach.
6. Now we know from the Mishnah that R. Yehudah permits planks as S’chach, which must
be the planks of wood from the trees of the species.
7. Hence we know that even Siv (which is part of the palm tree) is valid!

Biblical Laws and their Rationale

Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the maximum measurement of an esrog is the size at which one can
hold two esrogim in one hand. Rabbi Yose maintains that an esrog is valid even if one needs two
hands to hold one esrog.

Rav Yosef Engel lists approximately twenty instances throughout Shas where we find that the
Torah states that something is not allowed and the prohibition is due to a concern that one will

2
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sukkah_36.pdf

12
violate a different transgression. One example that he cites is the Ran in Pesachim who suggests
that perhaps the reason the Torah prohibited one to see chametz on Pesach is because the Torah
was concerned that a person will eat the chametz, as chametz is something that a person usually
does not stay away from.

Another example that Rav Yosef Engel cites is a Medrash in Parshas Naso that states that the Torah
prohibited a nazir from drinking vinegar wine because the Torah was concerned that the nazir may
come to drink regular wine.

In the Sefer Ma’adanei Chaim, Rav Chaim Cohen wonders how Rav Yosef Engel, with all his
erudition and scholarship in Shas and Poskim, did not cite our Gemara as one of the examples.
Rabbi Yehudah maintains that an esrog cannot be too large as there is a concern that he may have
mistakenly placed the lulav bundle in his left hand and the esrog in his right hand, and when he
attempts to reverse them, he may drop the esrog.

Rashi (based on the explanation of the Sfas Emes) and the Ritva explain that if one drops the esrog,
it may cause the esrog to become deficient and the person may not realize it, and he will
unknowingly not have fulfilled the mitzvah of taking the four species. Although the measurements
for the four species are derived from a Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai which is a Biblical requirement,
it is nonetheless apparent that the rationale for the maximum measurement of an esrog is due to a
concern that perhaps one may drop the esrog.

The Sfas Emes maintains that based on this Gemara, we must say that Rabbi Yehduah’s
requirement regarding the size of an esrog is only rabbinical in nature.

Gold and Humility

The Mishnah states that the people of Jerusalem would bind their lulav bundles with gold strings.
The Chachamim said to Rabbi Meir that they would first bind the lulav with material of the same
species in order to fulfill the mitzvah properly and then they added the gold strings as decoration.
It is interesting that the word that the Mishnah uses for these gold strings is gimoniyos, which
Rashi explains is derived from the word ki’agmon, which means bent. Perhaps the Mishnah is
teaching us that the people of Jerusalem would glorify the mitzvah of lulav with gold fibers, which
usually can be interpreted to be a display of arrogance. Nonetheless, the people of Jerusalem acted
for the sake of Heaven, and their actions were done “bent over,” i.e. in a humble fashion.

13
 Branches with Almond Blossom by Vincent Van Gogh

Tying it all together

Mark Kerzner writes:3

It is good to tie the bunch of Sukkot branches together. Rabbi Yehudah even considers
this a necessary requirement: the branches must be bound together. Thus, the material
you use to tie it together is part of the mitzvah, and if so, it must be one of the same four
species that you are tying, otherwise you are adding to a mitzvah and taking together
five species, and not four, and the Torah said, Do not add to the mitzvot or subtract
from them.

However, Rabbi Meir says that the binding is not strictly required; thus, it is not a
mitzvah, and can be of any material. In fact, the important people of Jerusalem were
using golden threads. What does Rabbi Yehudah answer? That the gold was on top of
the branches, for beautification, but the real binding was done with one of the four
species, most likely a luval leaf.

3
http://talmudilluminated.com/sukkah/sukkah37.html

14
Similarly, Rabbi Yehudah permits to make sukkah only out of the same four species.
His logic?

Here it is: sukkah is more stringent than the lulav bunch, since it applies both by day
and by night, whereas lulav only by day.

Therefore, if the lulav bunch can have only on of the four species, then certainly the
sukkah must be made of the same materials.

And what did the Sages answer? That this logic, seemingly strict, is in fact lenient, and
thus does not apply. For, if he does not have the right materials, he can ignore the sukkah
and go live at home which is an unacceptable lenience; thus, the logic is incorrect.

Rabbi Akiva's gigantic etrog.

SARAH WOLF WRITES:4

Our daf continues to explore one of the themes of this chapter of Tractate Sukkah: What constitutes
beauty?

As we saw on Sukkah 34, the Torah commands that one of the four species — the one we know
today as the etrog — should come from the “fruit of a beautiful tree” ( Leviticus 23:40 ). Though
there were different opinions about what beautiful might mean, including a possible reference to
the taste of the fruit, today’s daf returns to a more surface understanding of beauty.

On the topic of aesthetics, the mishnah discusses the minimum and maximum size the etrog must
be. At its smallest, it might be the size of a nut (or perhaps an egg). At its largest, it must be possible
to hold two in one hand, according to Rabbi Yehuda, or perhaps two in both hands together,
according to Rabbi Yosei.

In a beraita (early tradition) on our daf, Rabbi Yosei raises a possible precedent for why even his
more lenient position about size should still be considered conservative.

There is a story about Rabbi Akiva that he came to the synagogue with an etrog on his shoulder.

Apparently, the great Rabbi Akiva used to carry around an etrog that was so large he couldn’t even
carry it in both hands and had to hoist it on his shoulder. If Rabbi Akiva used to carry such an
enormous etrog, then perhaps everyone should be allowed to carry one that is maybe not quite so
gigantic, but at least large enough that two hands are needed to hold it.

But immediately Rabbi Yehuda challenges that teaching:

4
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/sukkah-36/

15
Is there proof from there? Even then the others said to him: This is not beautiful.

In the end, Rabbi Yosei’s appeal to Rabbi Akiva’s precedent is refuted. Rabbi Yehuda reminds
him that even though Rabbi Akiva did have a practice of schlepping a gargantuan etrog, his own
colleagues found this massive etrog to not be beautiful at all — perhaps it even weirded them out.

This might be interpreted as suggesting that the law should err on the side of limiting the size of
etrogs. But it also reminds us that even when a community tries to establish a standard of beauty,
it is always still to some extent in the eye of the beholder. While most of Rabbi Akiva’s colleagues
would have preferred to prohibit such a large etrog, Rabbi Akiva himself must have loved his
outsized citron and found it to be beautiful indeed.

So what constitutes beauty? It depends who you ask.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:5

The Mishna (Sukkah 3:8) towards the end of today’s daf (Sukkah 36b) records a debate between
Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir about the type of material that may be used to tie the lulav bundle
(lulav, hadassim & aravot) together.

According to Rabbi Yehuda, it may only be tied ‫ – במינו‬with material of its own kind, and this is
why many of us use lulav leaves to bind our lulav bundle together. Contrasting this, Rabbi Meir
rules that other materials may also be used to bind the lulav bundle together such as a linen thread,
and it is noteworthy that some communities have the custom to bind and adorn the lulav bundle
with different coloured ribbons.

As part of their exchange, Rabbi Meir noted that ‫ – מעשה באנשי ירושלים‬it occurred amongst the
people of Jerusalem that they would bind their lulav bundles with gold threads. In response, Rabbi
Meir was then told that though this was the case, the lulav bundles were held together with material
of their own kind, and the gold threads to which he referred were then bound on top.

Clearly, the main focus of this Mishna is the halachic question whether or not the bundle must be
tied ‫( במינו‬with its own kind), although we should also consider the possibility that the different
economic perspectives of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir might have influenced their respective
positions on this matter. However, what particularly drew me to this Mishna was the use of the
word ‫‘ – מעשה‬it occurred’ - which Rabbi Meir used and which suggested that he was referring to
a particular incident. But if this is so, what was the incident?

Before proceeding, it is important to note that both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir lived in Israel
during the second half of the 2nd century soon after the Bar Kochba revolt and during a time of
considerable poverty, challenge and turmoil. What this means, as pointed out by Rabbi Yisachar
Tamar (1896-1982) in his ‘Alei Tamar’ commentary on Sukkah 3:8, is that it is highly unlikely
that Rabbi Meir saw the people of Jerusalem on Sukkot holding their lulav bundles with gold
threads. Instead, at that moment Rabbi Meir was reminiscing about stories of the past when ‘it

5
www.rabbihohnnysolomon.com

16
occurred’ that this was how people would wrap their lulav bundles in Jerusalem. In fact, perhaps
this is why he needed to be corrected by being told that ‘the lulav bundles were held together with
material of their own kind, and the gold threads to which he referred were then bound on top’ –
because he never actually saw this. Instead, it was part of the memory that he had formed from the
stories he had been told when he was young.

Understood this way, our Mishna does not only revolve around the halachic question of whether
or not the bundle must be tied ‫במינו‬, but also around the message of hope - and specifically, the
hope of a Torah Sage who was reflecting back on a time when things were better, and hoping that
the difficult situation faced by the Jewish people will soon improve.

Rabbi Mendel Weinbach writes:6

Rabbi Chanina bit off a piece from his esrog, dipped it and ate it. He used the remaining esrog to
fulfill the mitzvah of taking the four species on Succos.

Three questions are raised in regard to this incident:

The gemara asks: How could he use an esrog which is missing any part of it when
the mishna (Succah 34b) explicitly disqualifies such an esrog?

Tosefos asks: How could he eat from an esrog set aside for fulfilling the mitzvah when
the gemara (Succah 46b) explicitly prohibits doing so?

Tosefos further asks: How could he eat before fulfilling the mitzvah when the mishna (Succah
38a) even requires him to interrupt his meal if he started eating before taking the species?

In regard to the first question, the gemara answers that the mishna's disqualification of an
incomplete esrog is limited to the first day when there is a Torah obligation to take the four species.
Rabbi Chanina used this incomplete esrog on one of the other days when taking the four species
is only of rabbinic origin; the Sages who extended this mitzvah to the other days of Succos did not
insist upon all the Torah requirements on those days. Just as they did not disqualify a
borrowed esrog on those days, so too they did not rule out an incomplete one.

Two solutions are offered for the second problem. Tosefos answers that Rabbi Chanina set aside
for the mitzvah only as much esrog as was necessary for fulfilling the mitzvah, so that the part he
ate was not included. This approach is problematic, because on the first day he needed the
entire esrog. Tosefos solves this problem as well by proposing that Rabbi Chanina set the

6
https://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/daf_yomi/the_weekly_daf/317

17
entire esrog aside for the mitzvah on Day One, but only as much as he needed for the mitzvah for
the remaining days. Ritva suggests a much simpler approach, that Rabbi Chanina ate from
an esrog which had been designated for eating and only later decided to use it for the mitzvah.

The third question and the answer provided by Tosefos form the basis for an interesting discussion
on the issue of eating before taking the four species. Tosefos writes that Rabbi Chanina did not eat
from the esrog and then fulfill the mitzvah on the same day; rather, he ate from the esrog on the
previous day (after having fulfilled the mitzvah) and he used this incomplete esrog for the mitzvah
the next day.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 652:2) rules that it is forbidden to eat before taking the four
species. Magen Avraham (Footnote 4) explains that this refers to eating a meal, but not to eating
some fruit or light refreshment. This would be permitted, just as it is permitted before saying
the Ma'ariv prayer at night (Orach Chaim 235:2) or before searching for chametz the night before
Pesach (421:2), even though a meal is prohibited in these cases. The aforementioned answer given
by Tosefos seems to challenge this position, because he could simply have answered that Rabbi
Chanina was not indulging in a meal, only eating a piece of esrog fruit.

Magen Avraham responds to this challenge by citing the gemara's language in describing the
incident: Tosefos understood that the report of Rabbi Chanina "dipping" the esrog suggests that
he was eating a regular meal in which it was customary to dip the components into something
before eating them.

Lulav in the Sukkah

18
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:7

We tend to view the mitzvoth of sitting in the sukkah and the arba minim (henceforth referred to
as the "lulav") as distinct mitzvoth each focusing on different, perhaps even contradictory aspects
of Sukkot. The taking of the lulav celebrates the harvest and is the source of the mitzva to "rejoice
before the Lord your G-d for seven days" (Vayikra 23:40). On the other hand the sukkah reflects
the frailty of life, exposing us to the at times harsh elements of nature, emphasizing our need for
Divine protection.

It is these opposite themes that the Rashbam (Vayikra 23:43) claims is the reason these two
mitzvoth are linked. Specifically at the time when one is celebrating his material bounty and is
susceptible to minimizing G-d's role in one's success claiming that "my strength and might of my
hands made me all this wealth" (Devarim 8:17), we are told to leave our protective homes to help
us better recognize that our protection comes from G-d [1].
"On the fifteenth day of the seventh month when you gather in the yield of the land you shall
observe a festival to G-d for seven days...and you shall take for yourself on the first day pri etz
hadar, the fruit of a beautiful tree, kapot temarim, branches of date palms, anaf etz avot, twigs of
a plaited tree, and arevei nachal, willows of the brook, and rejoice before the Lord your G-d for
seven days. And You shall celebrate a chag laShem a festival to G-d". What is fascinating to note
is that there is no mention of the holiday of Sukkot here. Lest we assert "my strength and might of
my hands made me all this wealth" we need a seven day chag laShem, festival to G-d. The simple
reading of the text obligates man to take the produce of his harvest for one day and celebrate a
holiday to G-d for seven days. The focus is not on the bounty itself but on G-d's providing of that
bounty.

While we take the lulav for just one day we are to sit in the sukkah for all seven days. We only
need one day to wave our bounty but we need seven days to drive home the message of our
dependence on G-d.
The rabbis had an additional reading of this text. The lulav is the expression of our joy and if we
are to rejoice for seven days we must take the lulav for seven days. Yet the Torah says we are to
take the lulav on the first day only. Our Sages understood that the "taking on the first day" and the
"rejoicing before the Lord your G-d for seven days" were thus referring to two distinct aspects of
the mitzvah. When we are before the Lord, i.e. in the Beit HaMikdash we are to rejoice for seven
days. Being in, and more importantly feeling the presence of G-d is the ultimate definition of joy,
a joy expressed with waving the bounty that G-d has bestowed upon us. We need not fear that in
the Temple itself one will forget the Divine source of one's blessings and we can rejoice with the
lulav for all seven days [2].
Only at this point does the Torah tell us "you shall dwell in sukkot for seven days". In the presence
of G-d the sukkah and the lulav merge into one. We can better understand that G-d is the source
of our blessings and our Protector.

7
https://torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/sukkah-36-lulav-in-the-sukkah

19
This merging of lulav and etrog finds expression in the halachic view of Rav Yehuda that in order
for s'chach to be kosher it must be from four species of the "lulav" (Sukkah 36b). This rather
extraordinary view, one which is not accepted in practice, sees the sukkah and lulav as flip sides
of the same coin and we can't properly observe one without the other [3].
Interestingly there are those who see the sukkah as representing not our frailty but our great power
made possible by G-d's protection. The sukkah does not commemorate our flimsy huts in the
desert, but rather the clouds of glory of G-d.

[1] See here where I discuss this topic from a different angle.

[2] After the destruction of the Temple Rav Yochanan ben Zackai ordained that Jews everywhere are to take the lulav for seven
days, "to remember the Temple". Rav Yochanan ben Zakai wanted us recall and yearn for the joy of the Temple days. With the
Jews in exile (he could not imagine the luxury that so many Jews in exile enjoy) and subjugated to the whims of the nations he was
not afraid that Jews would come to forget about G-d as they celebrated.

[3] Perhaps this is the explanation of the custom that some have to bench lulav specifically in the sukkah.

Rav Shmuel Shimoni writes:8

1. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MITZVA OF SUKKA AND

THE MITZVA OF LULAV

We move from occupation in the mitzva of sukka to study of the second unique mitzva of

the festival of Sukkot, namely, the mitzva of lulav. In our consciousness, these

two mitzvot constitute two important layers of the same festival, and therefore it is quite surprising

to see the following suggestion raised in Torat Kohanim (beginning of parasha 12):

"And the Lord spoke to Moshe, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, The

fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of booths for seven days to the

Lord" (Vayikra 23:33-34). What does this teach you? Since it is stated: "You shall

8
https://etzion.org.il/en/talmud/seder-moed/massekhet-sukka/mitzva-lulav

20
 dwell in booths seven days" (ibid. v. 42), and I don't know whether this refers to the

seven first days or the seven last days - when it says: "The fifteenth day of this

seventh month shall be the feast of booths for seven days to the Lord" – the first

seven days and not the last seven days.

The commentary attributed to R. Shimshon of Sens explains:

For it is written: "You shall celebrate it in the seventh month" (Vayikra 23:41), and

adjacent to it: "You shall dwell in booths seven days" (ibid. v. 42), and I don't know

whether the first seven days of lulav are the seven days of sukka or the last seven

days. For [perhaps] the seven first days are for lulav, as it is stated above, and the

eighth day is Shemini Atzeret, and after these eight [days] are seven other [days] for

the mitzva of sukka. Therefore it is stated regarding the fifteenth, "the festival of

booths." Thus you learn that they are the first seven days,

and sukka and lulav constitute a single festival.

In other words, we might have thought that there are two different festivals - a festival

of lulav and a festival of sukka – and therefore it was necessary for the Torah to emphasize that

we are dealing here with a single festival. But now there is room to raise certain questions. It is

possible to understand that indeed we are dealing here with two unconnected mitzvot, both of which

share the same time frame. This, of course, is not by chance, and it is connected to the reasons

underlying the mitzva of the harvest festival, but from a halakhic perspective, we are dealing with

two unconnected elements. Moreover, in last week's shiur we made use of the fundamental

distinction between the two mitzvot suggested by HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein, shelita:

21
 It seems obvious that a distinction may be drawn between eating matza and dwelling

in a sukka, on the one hand, and lulav and maror, on the other. For the taking of

a lulav, and so too the eating of maror… are only mitzvot that must be observed on

their [respective] festival, but they do not shape and define that festival. Go out and

see, that in the scriptural verses and in the formulation that the Sages gave to the

blessings, these festivals are called the festival of matzot and the festival of sukkot,

on account of the eating and the dwelling, whereas the lulav and the maror do not

determine the name of the festival. It is also possible that this distinction is reflected

in the fact that these two mitzvot apply only on the first day. (Alon Shevut, no. 150).

It is, however, possible to suggest a different understanding, according to which the Torat

Kohanim's initial assumption is entirely rejected, and that now we are dealing with two mutually-

connected mitzvot that join together to fashion the character of the festival. A radical expression

of this position is found in the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehuda:

As it was taught [in a Baraita]: "You shall dwell in booths" – a sukka out of

anything; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: A sukka can only

be [made out of] the four species in the lulav. Logic dictates this: If lulav, which

does not apply at night as during the day, only applies to the four

species, sukka which applies at night as during the day, is it not right that it should

apply only to the four species? (Sukka 36b)

There is no doubt that Rabbi Yehuda sees a strong connection between the four species

and sukka, for they constitute the only raw material from which the sukka may be constructed. And

while alongside this there is also a separate mitzva to take the four species without any connection

to sukka, this teaches us about the connection between the two mitzvot. Of course, the kal va-

22
chomer argument brought by Rabbi Yehuda to support his position is very astonishing, for the fact

that lulav is limited to the four species is not a particular law governing lulav that can be applied

to another mitzva, but rather the essence of that mitzva. In this context, it seems that we should

adopt the explanation proposed by Rav Elyakim Krumbein in his article, "Netilat Lulav ke-Kiyyum

Tzibbur":

Rav Yehuda's kal va-chomer argument may be understood in light of the assumption

that part of the mitzva of lulav is impressing the seal of the four species on the day. If

the Torah obligates this in the mitzva of taking the lulav, despite the fact that its

ability to have an impact on the character of the day is limited to the daylight hours,

it is certainly reasonable to use for this purpose the mitzva of sukka, which applies

even at night, and is therefore most effective for this end. (Alon Shevut 150)

HaRav Lichtenstein, in the aforementioned article (note 23), concedes that Rabbi Yehuda's

position cannot be reconciled with his distinction. In my humble opinion, however, it is not at all

clear that the Sages completely reject Rabbi Yehuda's position. Let us examine the argument that

they raise and the proof that they adduce as support:

They said to him: Any [kal va-chomer] argument that starts with a stringency and

ends with a leniency, is not an argument. If he did not find the four species, should

he sit about idly, when the Torah said: "You shall dwell in booths seven days" –

a sukka out of anything. And similarly it is stated in Ezra: "Go out to the mountain,

and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm

branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written"

(Nechemiah 8:15). (Sukka 36b-37a)

23
 The implication is that fundamentally the Sages accept the kal va-chomer, only that there

exists the problem that it leads to a leniency, and here a special derivation enters into the picture:

"'You shall dwell in booths' – a sukka out of anything." This also finds expression in the proof that

they adduce from the verse in Nechemiah. Surely the verse is exceedingly surprising in the way it

mixes together the two mitzvot. For it mentions terms clearly connected to the mitzva of the four

species – palm branches and myrtle branches – in connection with the mitzva of sukka,[1] and the

Sages bring proof from that verse against the position of Rabbi Yehuda, since other materials are

mentioned there as well. Thus, it seems possible to suggest that according to the Sages, le-

khatchila, one should build a sukka out of the four species. This, however, does not lead to a

leniency; if one doesn't have a sufficient quantity of the four species, other materials may be used.

I have not found any mention of such a stringency in the posekim, but the Magen

Avraham brings a different connection between the two mitzvot:

The Shela writes that a person should wave [his lulav] in the sukka before he goes

to synagogue. (Magen Avraham 652:3)

This position is also cited in Peri Etz Chayyim (sha'ar ha-lulav, 3) in the name of the

Ari. Many do not follow this custom, because they prefer (based on the Shulchan Arukh 644:1) to

take the lulav immediately prior to Hallel without putting the lulav down in between, and thus to

include the waving of the lulav in Hallel in the framework of the mitzva of taking the four species

and its blessing. It stands to reason that the Ari's view is based on the approach of Tosafot (37b,

s.v. be-hodu), that there is a law of waving at the time of reciting the blessing, and another law of

waving during the Hallel, as a fulfillment of "Then shall all the trees of the wood sing for

joy" (Tehilim 96:12). This in itself strengthens the position that the four species share in shaping

the nature of the day, for we see that they find expression in other mitzvot besides the mitzva of

24
the taking the lulav itself: in the Hallel of Sukkot there are obligations that do not exist in

the Hallel of the other festivals.

In this context, mention should also be made of the customary practice of the people of

Jerusalem:

It was taught: Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Thus was the practice of the people of

Jerusalem. A person leaves his house with a lulav in his hand; he goes to synagogue

with a lulav in his hand; he recites shema and prays with a lulav in his hand. When

he reads from the Torah and recites the priestly blessing – he sets [the lulav] down

on the ground. He goes to visit the sick and comfort the mourners with a lulav in

his hand; when he enters the study hall – he sends the lulav with his son, his servant,

or his agent. What does this teach us? It teaches us about the alacrity with which

they performed the mitzvot. (Sukka 41b)

We see then that the idea of carrying the lulav continues even after it was already set down

on the ground. While it is possible to understand that we are dealing here with nothing more that

a fitting custom, some authorities appear to have understood that we are dealing here with a real

halakhic fulfillment. The Meiri even noted that the two Talmuds disagree about whether or not a

blessing should be recited over it:

And only when he takes it to fulfill [his obligation]. But regarding the taking based

on custom, whereby a person takes [the lulav] all day, as we mentioned regarding

the custom of the people of Jerusalem, even on the first day he does not have to recite

a blessing, even if he already set it down and then took it up again. [This is true,]

25
 even though the western Talmud [= the Yerushalmi] implies the

opposite. (Meiri, Sukka 45b)

On the assumption that we are dealing with a real halakhic fulfillment, there is room to ask

whether we are dealing with an expansion of the mitzva of taking the lulav (as is implied by

Rabbenu David [Pesachim 7b], who defined the practice as shayarei mitzva – nonessential

components of the mitzva – and explained thereby the laws governing the blessing over the lulav;

see there), or a separate fulfillment of establishing the nature of the day, similar to what we saw

in Tosafot. Either way it seems that the custom of the people of Jerusalem strengthens the approach

that sees the mitzva of lulav not as a specific obligation, but as a significant element in establishing

the nature of the festival.

It should be mentioned as an aside that the Tur (652) codifies this customary practice as

law:

One who is meticulous in his actions should do as did the people of Jerusalem. A

person leaves his house with a lulav in his hand; he recites shema and prays with

a lulav in his hand. When he reads from the Torah and recites the priestly blessing

– he sets [the lulav] down on the ground. He goes to visit the sick and comfort the

mourners with a lulav in his hand; when he enters the study hall – he sends

the lulav with his son or his servant.

The Mishna Berura (no. 50) writes, however, that this is no longer the practice today, when

it would appear as arrogance.

2. THE MITZVA OF LULAV ON THE FIRST DAY AND ALL SEVEN

DAYS

26
 The Mishna on p. 41a states:

At first the lulav was taken in the Temple [all] seven days, and in the provinces

(medina) [only] one day. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yochanan ben

Zakkai enacted that the lulav should be taken [all] seven days [even] in the

provinces, in remembrance of the Temple.

At this point let us try to focus on the Torah obligation. The simple implication of the

Mishna is that by Torah law there is an obligation to take the lulav on the first day in all places,

and in the Temple for seven days. The source for this distinction is in Parashat Emor, where it is

stated (Vayikra 23:40):

And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of the hadar tree, branches

of palm trees, and the boughs of thick leaved trees, and willows of the brook; and

you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.

The Torat Kohanim (chap. 16) expounds this verse as follows:

"And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days" – and not in the

provinces all seven days. And after the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yochanan

ben Zakkai enacted that the lulav should be taken in the provinces seven [days] in

remembrance of the Temple.

In other words, "And you shall take for yourselves on the first day" is a mitzva in all

places, and there is an additional mitzva before God for seven days, which is also performed with

the lulav.

The Yerushalmi (halakha 11, according to the reading of the Penei Moshe), however,

records a dispute concerning the meaning of the aforementioned rejoicing:

27
 It is written: "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days." There

are some who teach: The verse refers to the joy of lulav. Others teach: The verse

refers to the joy of peace offerings. According to the one who says that the verse

refers to the joy of lulav, the first day is by Torah law and the rest of the days are by

Torah law and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai added an enactment to the Torah

law. According to the one who says that the verse refers to the joy of peace offerings,

the first day is by Torah law and all the other days are by rabbinic decree, and

Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai added an enactment to rabbinic law, and there is an

enactment following an enactment.

It seems, however, that it was the first position that was accepted (the Penei

Moshe understands that the Yerushalmi rejects the second possition), in accordance with the plain

sense of the Mishna that the obligation all seven days in the Temple is by Torah law. Now we

must examine the relationship between the obligation on the first day in the provinces and the

obligation all seven days in the Temple. It is possible to understand that we are dealing with

different obligations: there is an obligation of taking on the first day; and there is an obligation of

joy before God all seven days – there is an opinion that this joy is achieved through peace offerings,

and while this position is rejected, and we rule that this joy is achieved through lulav, the lulav is

not the substance of the mitzva but the vehicle through which we express our joy before God. Even

if we are dealing with a single mitzva in the count of mitzvot, it is composed of two obligations,

different in their very essence.[2] This understanding has various practical ramifications:

1) R. Y.F. Perla in his commentary to Rabbenu Sa'adya Gaon's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (addenda,

no. 5) argues that the rule "that the moment he lifts it up he fulfills his obligation" (42a) applies

28
only to the mitzva of taking the lulav. Regarding the mitzva of joy, however, the waving is part

of the essential obligation.

2) If a person has a lulav that is kosher only for the mitzva of joy, but not for the mitzva of

taking, and he is in the Temple on the first day of Sukkot, he must take the lulav in order to fulfill

at least the obligation of joy (see Responsa Chacham Tzvi, no. 9, and Kehilot Yaakov, no. 28).

3) If a person took a lulav outside the Temple on the first day of the festival, and then he

arrived in the Temple, he must take the lulav a second time, for on the first day there is a double

obligation, and he fulfilled thus far only the obligation of taking the lulav.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, ztz"l, appears to have adopted this position:

It stands to reason that in addition to the mitzva on the first day that exists even in

the provinces, in the Temple there is also another mitzva of taking the lulav for seven

days from the verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days,"

which applies also on the first day. It is not merely an expansion to take the lulav in

the Temple another six days, but rather a new mitzva imposed upon those who are

found in the Temple to rejoice with the taking of the four species because of the law

of joy regarding them, all seven days. Even the first day is included in this

mitzva. The mitzva on the first day that applies even in the provinces is not connected

to the idea of joy, for with respect to joy there is no difference between the first day

and the rest of the days of Sukkot, for they are all obligated in joy. Regarding the

extra element of joy that was added on Sukkot, in addition to the joy of the meat of

peace offerings and other aspects of joy that apply on every festival, it is

unreasonable to distinguish between the first day and the rest of the days. It is not

like Shemini Atzeret which is a festival in its own right, and its law of joy is from the

29
 law of joy of other festivals, on which there is no joy of lulav. Rather, without a

doubt it because in the provinces, this mitzva of joy through the lulav was not

stated. Rather it is a command of taking the lulav itself, and not joy, and regarding

this, the first day is distinguished from the other days. And in the Temple where a

mitzva of joy through the lulav was added on the festival of Sukkot, there is truly no

distinction, and so they are obligated all seven days in taking the lulav. Perforce,

then, that in the Temple there is this mitzva of joy through the taking of

the lulav even on the first day. When a person is in the Temple on the first day, with

a single taking he fulfills his obligation regarding the mitzva of taking

the lulav unconnected to the joy, and also this second mitzva. And therefore, even

though there is no obligation to come for this to the Temple, if he already fulfilled

the obligation of appearing in the Temple, all the people of Jerusalem wished to

fulfill this mitzva. And therefore they brought their lulavs to the Temple Mount

already on Friday. (Responsa Iggerot Moshe, Yore De'a, IV, no. 63)

Alternatively, it is possible to understand that we are dealing with a single obligation having

two stages: A wide-scoped obligation at the first stage, which constricts in the second stage. This

is what is implied by the wording of the Ba'al Ha-Ma'or: "For it is written: 'And you shall rejoice

before the Lord your God seven days' (Vayikra 23:40). And it is as if it said until the completion

of seven days, for on the first day there is a mitzva by Torah law in all places" (21a in Alfasi).

This may be understood in one of two ways:

1) Even the obligation in the Temple is one of taking, that is to say, that the obligation of the

provinces continues in the Temple for seven days.

30
2) The obligation of rejoicing by means of the lulav widens on the first day to include even

the provinces.

The Rambam implies that we are dealing with a single obligation. In his Sefer Ha-

Mitzvot (positive precept no. 169) he writes:

By this injunction we are commanded to take a lulav and rejoice with it before the

Lord seven days… It is only in the Temple that this mitzva is obligatory for seven

days; elsewhere it is binding, under the Torah, on the first day [of Sukkot] only.

The implication is that the basic definition is rejoicing before God for seven days, only that

in the provinces this obligation is constricted to one day. In principle no. 11 in his Sefer Ha-

Mitzvot, the Rambam writes: "He commanded us that we should rejoice before the Lord on the

first day of Sukkot, and it is explained that this rejoicing is through the taking of such and such."

Here the Rambam for some reason relates specifically to the first day, but it is clear that then too

the obligation is based on a law of rejoicing that is executed through the taking of the lulav.

In the headings to Hilkhot Shofar, Sukka ve-lulav, however, the Rambam writes: "To take

a lulav in the Temple all seven days of the festival." Here the wording is "to take," rather than "to

rejoice," but it would seem that in light of the previous citations, we should understand that he is

referring to the practical manner of fulfilling the mitzva, which is by way of taking. In any event,

here too it is clear that the basic mitzva is all seven days in the Mikdash, and that on the first day

it applies even in the provinces.

We find an expression of this understanding in the Rambam in his famous words in his

commentary to the aforementioned Mishna:

31
 Medina refers to the rest of Eretz Israel outside of Jerusalem, as we have already

explained in tractate Ma'aser Sheni.

Many have raised questions about the Rambam's novel understanding that the seven-day

Torah obligation applies not only in the Temple, but in all of Jerusalem. If we are dealing with a

law of rejoicing before God, there is indeed room to compare the law regarding lulav to the law

of ma'aser sheni, so that all of Jerusalem should be included.

It may be noted as an aside that based on this position of the Rambam it is possible to

suggest a different explanation of the custom of the people of Jerusalem, that it is not a general

law that expands the mitzva of lulav as it was understood by the Tur, but rather a part of the special

mitzva that applies in the Temple, i.e., in all of Jerusalem. This may be inferred also from the

wording of the Rambam (Hilkhot Lulav 7:24), who did not see this as a custom of the people of

Jerusalem, but rather a custom in Jerusalem:

In Jerusalem, in ancient times, the custom was as follows: In the morning one would

leave home carrying his lulav, go to the synagogue with lulav in hand, pray holding

the lulav, and then go visit the sick and comfort the mourners with the lulav still in

hand. But when one was about to enter the schoolhouse, he would send

his lulav home with one of his sons or servants.

A full clarification of the relationship between the mitzva in the provinces on the first day

and that mitzva in the Temple all seven days must relate to the question which of the various

disqualifications that apply on the first day, apply also the rest of the week, but we shall deal with

this issue in one of the upcoming shiurim. Those who are interested in other aspects of this

question are advised to see the words of R. Y.P. Perla on the issue (positive commandment no. 52,

and addenda, no. 5), and in the article written by R. Mosheh Lichtenstein in Alon Shevut no. 83.

32
 Let us conclude with the relationship between this topic and the first topic we dealt with –

do we see the mitzva of lulav as a specific obligation that applies on the festival of Sukkot or as a

factor that fashions the basic character of the holiday. It is very reasonable to say that even if the

mitzva of taking the lulav is a specific obligation, as argued by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein, who

among other things based his view on the fact that in contrast to the mitzva of sukka, the

mitzva of lulav applies only on the first day, the mitzva of rejoicing with a lulav all seven days –

assuming that it constitutes an obligation that is separate from that of taking the lulav – expresses

the fact that the lulav is part of what fashions the character of the holiday. On Sukkot there is a

special mitzva of rejoicing, as the Rambam writes:

Although a commandment prescribes rejoicing on all festivals, there was a day of

special rejoicing in the Temple during the festival of Sukkot, in accordance with the

verse, "And you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven

days" (Vayikra 23:40). (Rambam, Hilkhot Sukka 8:12)

In the framework of this obligation of "And you shall rejoice," there are also specific

obligations. According to one opinion in the Yerushalmi, as we have seen, we are dealing with a

special obligation of peace-offerings, and according to the accepted opinion, we are dealing with

an obligation of lulav. But the lulav serves here as an obligation that is not at all part of the

specific mitzva of lulav, and this obligation indeed applies all seven days of the festival, just

like sukka. There is no reason to be surprised that we find a specific law that applies only on the

first day, for we find the same thing regarding sukka and matza on the first night of the festival.

NOTES

1) 29b, "Lulav ha-gazul," until 30a, "de-hava lei mitzva ha-ba'a be-aveira."

2) 31a, "Tanna yavesh pasul… be-etrog divrei ha-kol hadar be'inan"; 31b, "Ta shema: Etrog ha-yashan… teyuvta de-

Rava, teyuvta"; ve-ela le-Rabbi Yehuda ha… mi-shana le-shana."

33
3) Ramban, Vayikra 23:40. Is hadar a quality of the etrog? Can an analogy be drawn between an etrog and the other species?

4) 29b, Tosafot, s.v. lulav; Meiri 29b (see below).

Meiri 29b: "After having explained the law of gazul (stolen), we must explain the law of yavesh (dry). Yavesh is

disqualified, and it too is disqualified for all [seven] days, in our view. And so is it explicitly demonstrated by

what is stated in the Gemara: There is no difference between the first day of the festival and the second day of

the festiva. Granted yavesh – we need hadar and it is lacking. But gazul why? Surely when it says 'for

yourselves,' it is on the first day. And it answers: Because of a mitzva that is performed by way of a transgression,

and by rabbinic law. This implies that yavesh is disqualified all [seven] days, in the Temple, by Torah law, and

in the provinces, on the first day by Torah law, and on the rest of the days by rabbinic law, and for the reason

that it is not hadar.

And the great rabbis explained this hadar, that it is not an embellished mitzva, and we require an embellished

mitzva, since it is written, 'This is my God, and I will beautify Him.' But Tosafot reject this explanation, for if

for this reason, bedi'eved it should not be disqualified. For we say below that there is a mitzva to tie them, but

if he did not tie them, it is kosher, and it says there: What mitzva – the mitzva of 'This is my God, and I will

beautify Him.'

They explained that it refers to the hadar in the verse. And even though the hadar in the verse refers to the first

day, the great commentators write that, according to the one who raises the objection, the verse is interpreted so

that 'on the first day' attaches to 'for yourselves,' and 'seven days' is also attached to what is in front of it until

'on the first day.' Thus hadar refers to all seven days. But it seems to me that 'for yourselves' can only be cast

onto 'first,' for 'on the first day' interrupts between it and the other things. But 'peri etz hadar' and the rest can

be cast either on 'first' or on 'seven days,' and we cast it on the more stringent and disqualify yavesh all [seven]

days. Still it is difficult in my eyes to explain it in reference to the hadar mentioned in the Torah, for the hadar in

the Torah refers to the etrog. Even its name testifies to this, that is to say, etrog having the sense of 'beautiful'…

Thus I go back to explain it like the great rabbis, on account of 'This is my God, and I will beautify Him.' And

even though without tying, it is kosher after the fact, the disqualifications rooted in an absence of hadar are nota

all the same. For a dry lulav – all its vitality and beauty are gone, like a person whose vitality is gone. And in

the manner of how they disqualified it in the Jerusalem Talmud, because of 'The dead shall not praise You.' But

if it was not tied, its beauty has not been entirely removed, and bedi'eved it is kosher. And even though in this

passage they said: A dry lulav – the Rabbis say it is disqualified, and Rabbi Yehuda says it is kosher. And we

34
 explain the dispute that according to the Rabbis lulav is learned by analogy from etrog, and according to Rabbi

Yehuda there is no analogy, which implies that we are referring to the hadar in the verse, and an analogy

between lulav and etrog. Nevertheless that passage was left with a refutation, for Rabbi Yehuda says that even

a dry etrog is kosher, and he interprets the hadar of the verse as 'it lives [hadar] on its tree from year to year.'

And since it is not reconciled for Rabbi Yehuda, it is also not reconciled for the Rabbis, and so we do not interpret

the analogy at all."

How to Bind the Lulav Bundle

Chabad.org Staff write:9

In order to beautify the mitzvah, we fasten together the lulav, hadassim and aravot (palm frond,
myrtle branches and willow branches). For those who’ve never done it before, binding
the lulav can be a bit tricky. In most cases, your Four Kinds vendor will do this for you.

Though technically one can bind them together with any material, the custom is to
use lulav leaves—thus no foreign substance will separate between the Four Kinds and the hands
of the person fulfilling the mitzvah.

9
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1019429/jewish/How-to-Bind-the-Lulav-Bundle.htm

35
 A lulav-leaf holder.
There is no single universally followed way of tying the lulav. Different methods are employed in
different communities.

In most communities, the three kinds are bound together by way of a special holder woven
of lulav leaves, which slides up the bottom of the lulav and has pockets for
the hadassim and aravot. This holder is then securely tied to the lulav with a strip of lulav leaf.
The hadassim should be placed in the pocket to the right of the person holding the lulav (as he will
be shaking it on Sukkot), and the aravot to the left. The thickish green exterior of the lulav’s spine
should be facing the person.

36
 Lulav-leaf rings.
It is customary to have three lulav-leaf ring ties around the lulav, symbolizing our three Patriarchs.
As such, in addition to the ring with which the holder is fastened, (at least) another two rings are
fastened around the lulav’s midsection.

Chabad Custom
Chabad custom is to bind the lulav on the day prior to the holiday, while in the sukkah.

In addition, Chabad custom is not to use the woven holders, but rather to tie
the hadassim and aravot directly to the bottom of the lulav using three lulav-leaf strips (all bound
within the span of one handbreadth):

37
 A lulav bound according to Chabad tradition.
One aravah (willow branch) is placed on the right of the lulav (meaning, to the right of the person
holding the lulav, as above) and one on the left. Then, one hadas (myrtle) is placed on the right of
the lulav and one on the left (somewhat covering the aravot), and a third hadas is placed in
middle—a bit towards the right side. Once these are all in place, they are all bound together with
the three lulav strips.

(Many have the custom of using more than three hadassim. In 1991, the Rebbe suggested that
everyone use at least six hadassim. The extra hadassim are just added to the mix.)

Then, in addition to the three lulav ties that hold together the three species, another two ties are
fastened higher up, around the midsection of the lulav itself—with the lower one covered, at least
partially, by the hadassim and aravot.

Notes:

1. It is important to ensure that the top of the hadassim and aravot end at least one handbreadth (approx. 3.2 inches)

beneath the top of the lulav’s spine (i.e., beneath the point where the lulav leaves stop protruding from its sides), so to

38
 ensure ample “shaking” area on the lulav’s top. If the hadassim and aravot are too long, they can be trimmed from their

bottoms, as long as they remain at least three handbreadths long.

2. If the lulav has not been bound before the holiday, it should be bound on the first day of the holiday (or the second day,

if the first falls on Shabbat), but via slipknots, not regular knots (as it is forbidden to tie a regular knot on the first two

days of the holiday).

Four Organs and a Hand

Moshe Bogomilsky writes:10

You shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a citron tree, the branches of date
palms, twigs of myrtles and brook willows (Leviticus 23:40).

"And you shall take": We learn that in order for one to fulfill the Mitzvah one has to take the four
species in his hand.1 Why does the Torah insist that they be taken in one's hand?

According to our sages,2 the four species represent different parts of the human body. The citron
(etrog) resembles a heart, the palm branch (lulov) represents the spine, the myrtle (hadas) has
small leaves which are like eyes, and the willow (aravah) resembles the lips.

By telling us "you shall take" the Torah is conveying a message of great importance: that these
four major body parts must be taken in hand—that is, be under the person's control.

The heart sometimes lusts for dangerous things. From the citron man learns to control the desires
of his heart. At all times, the brain must rule over the desires of the heart.3

The palm branch needs to be firm and upright. It should not be loose, curved, or bending to all
sides. The spine provides major support for body and the spinal cord controls it. A weak spine
can, G-d forbid, cause a person to be paralyzed or of bent stature. The requirement that the palm
be taken in hand teaches us that a Jew must be firm in his convictions, walk upright, and be proud
of the fact that he is a member of the Jewish people. He must never bend—compromise in his
Jewishness.

The myrtle leaves, resembling eyes, must grow upright on their stems. This teaches us that a Jew
must always look up to G-d in Heaven with optimism and not look down upon other people. The
message implied by the requirement that the myrtle be taken in the hand is that one must learn to

10
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/382253/jewish/Four-Organs-and-a-Hand.htm

39
control his eyes and also to be happy with one's lot and not look enviously on other people's good
fortune.

The leaves of the willow must be smooth and not have sharp serrated edges. The mitzvah of taking
it into the hands emphasizes the importance of controlling one's lips. In particular, one should be
careful not to make biting remarks; rather one should speak words of Torah and speak well of one's
fellow.

FOOTNOTES

1. see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 651.

2. Midrash Rabbah 30:14.

3. Zohar, Vayikra 224a.

40
 The unusual view of Ehrlich about the origin of Sukkot

Israel Drazin writes:11

People who pay attention to what they read realize, as I describe in detail in my book “Mysteries
of Judaism,”12 that none of the Jewish holidays are practiced today as the Torah mandates. The
rabbis made extensive changes in Torah laws because of changes in human circumstances. What
do we know about Sukkot? The following is the unusual answer by the sage Arnold B. Ehrlich
(1848-1919).13

The fall holiday of Sukkot begins on the fifteenth day of the seventh Jewish month and lasts for
seven days. It generally occurs in September or October. The biblical rules of Sukkot are
mentioned in five places: Exodus 23:16, 34:22; Leviticus 23:23–43; Numbers 29:12–
39; Deuteronomy 16:13–15. Leviticus 23:40 states that the Israelites should take four species on
the first day and “rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.” While the latter words indicate
that the Israelites are to use the species “before the Lord,” meaning in the temple, the rabbis
extended the requirement and said Jews should use them even outside the temple. While the
Hebrew words used for the four species are obscure, the Jewish Publication Society’s 1960
translation defines them as “the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick
trees, and willows of the brook.” A separate command in verse 42 states, “Ye shall dwell in booths
seven days.”

The first biblical description of the implementation of this command is in the biblical
book Nehemiah. It is entirely different than the way the holiday is celebrated today. It is as if the
author of Nehemiah who states he read the law in the Torah, had a different text. The holiday is
not called Sukkot but chag, meaning “holiday.” Not four but five items are taken and at least three
of the five, and perhaps four, seem unlike the four mentioned in Leviticus. And most startlingly,
the people were told to use the five items to build sukkot.[1]

11
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-unusual-view-of-ehrlich-about-the-origin-of-sukkot/
12
Gefen Books 2014
13
Arnold Bogumil Ehrlich (15 January 1848 in Włodawa, Poland – November 1919 in New Rochelle, New York) was a scholar
of bible and rabbinics whose work spanned the latter part of the 19th and the early 20th century. A formidable scholar, he is said
to have possessed perfect recall, with an outstanding knowledge of Bible and Talmud, and to have spoken 39 languages. He is best
known for his book Mikra Kiphshuto (The Bible according to its Literal Meaning) in three Hebrew volumes published from 1899–
1901, in which he sought to bring the results of modern textual criticism of the Bible to a wider Hebrew audience, emphasising the
Torah to be a document made by humans complete with scribal and copying errors, not a perfect work dictated to Moses at Sinai;
and as a formative intellectual influence on the young Mordecai Kaplan. Ehrlich earned a living as a private tutor, and teaching at
the Hebrew Preparatory School of the Temple Emanu-El Theological School of New York. However, he was never considered for
a professorial post at Hebrew Union College, apparently because in his early twenties he had helped the
German Lutheran theologian Franz Delitzsch revise his Hebrew translation of the New Testament, a work used to proselytize Jewish
converts to Christianity. (Wikipedia)

41
Scholars differ on the question of when Nehemiah lived and when the book that bears his name
was edited. All agree that these events occurred more than a century after some Judeans returned
to Judea after the Babylonian exile in 536 BCE. He may have been in Israel around 430 BCE, but
perhaps later. The book states in 8:17, that the holiday had not been observed since the days
of Joshua.[2] In 8:14, the book records that the Judeans “found written in the Torah how the Lord
had commanded by Moses that the Israelites should dwell in booths (sukkot) in the holiday (chag)
of the seventh month [and proclaims], Go to the mountain and fetch olive branches (zayit), and
branches of wild olive (eitz shemen), and myrtle (hadas) branches, and palm (temarim) branches,
and branches of thick trees (eitz abot) to make booths (sukkot).”

Since the holiday is not called Sukkot in Nehemiah, but chag, the practice of taking four species
is not mentioned, and the key requirement was to build a sukkah made of five species, it seems
apparent that the holiday was named Sukkot after 430 BCE, when its practices and significance
were changed, and the biblical mandates were placed in the Torah when these changes were made.

This is the view of Arnold B. Ehrlich in his Mikra Ki-Pheshuto (The Bible According to its Literal
Meaning).14 He writes that originally, the ancient Israelites celebrated only one harvest festival. It
was the fall festival which concluded all the harvests and was simply called chag, and was “the
festival.” Passover and Shavuot did not exist at this time. This is supported by I Kings 8:2,
65; Nehemiah 8:14; II Chronicles 5:3 and 7:8 where the holiday is called chag and there is no
mention of Passover or Shavuot. Also, in 932 BE, when Jeroboam led the ten tribes, seceded from
the rule of Solomon’s son Rehoboam’s kingdom in Judea, created a new country, Israel, and
changed the holiday chag from the seventh to the eighth month to differentiate Israel’s worship
from the traditional worship in Judea, the holiday is called chag in I Kings 12:32. Jeroboam did
not change Passover and Shavuot, Ehrlich states, because they did not exist.

Additionally, Ehrlich argues, Leviticus 23:43 gives the reason for dwelling in sukkot because the
Israelites dwelt in sukkot when they left Egypt. This seems to be a late forced interpretation. There
is no mention in the text that the Israelites dwelt in sukkot except for this verse. Secondly, if the
holiday is celebrated as a recollection of how the Israelites lived when they left Egypt, the holiday
should have been celebrated in the spring, during the season when the Israelites left Egypt. The
rabbis were bothered by these questions and responded that the sukkot mentioned in the Bible
are the clouds that are mentioned in the Torah (Exodus 13:21) that covered the Israelites during
the forty years in the desert and protected them,[3] and the holiday is celebrated in the fall because
of its second significance of being a harvest festival.

When did the holiday called Sukkot, in contrast to the harvest holiday chag, begin? Ehrlich
imagines that in ancient times the Israelite pilgrims coming to the then-small Jerusalem city to
celebrate chag were unable to find lodging and had to make do with hastily constructed booths
(Hebrew, sukkot). This was so onerous that many pilgrims stayed home.

To counteract this “strike,” Israelite leadership, most likely the priests of the Second Temple period
(520 BCE-70 CE), mandated that all Israelites dwell in sukkot during chag as a way of joining the

14
Leipzig: 3 vols, 1899–1901; reprinted New York: Ktav, 1969.

42
pilgrims who had traveled to Jerusalem. The priestly plan worked. Since the Israelites had to dwell
in sukkot wherever they were located, they resumed coming to the temple during chag and the
holiday assumed the name of its new main practice. The prophet Zechariah, who lived at this time,
reflected the failure of many Jews coming to Jerusalem. He called the holiday Sukkot, and
threatened the people that if they do not travel to Jerusalem for this holiday “there shall be no rain”
(14:17). He does not mention Passover or Shavuot.[4]

NOTES
[1] The Sadducees, Samaritans, and Karaites also understood the Leviticus command to construct the sukkah of these items.
Each is arguably reflecting the ancient practice. Rabbi Yehudah in the Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 36b, said “The sukkah must be
constructed of the same four species as the lulov,” although Rabbi Meir ruled that the sukkah can be made of any material. Rabbi
Yehudah’s view may reflect some recollection of the ancient practice.
[2] This may mean that the holiday was not observed in this manner in the past, but was observed as a harvest festival.
[3] Ehrlich argued that clouds are not huts; at most they are ceilings without walls.
[4] Ehrlich states that some Israelites objected to the new requirement to dwell in huts for seven days. He theorizes that these
resisters inserted into Genesis 33:17 that when the patriarch Jacob returned to Canaan he built a house for himself and sukkot for
his cattle, for sukkot are only fit for animals.

Three Short Essays on Modern Sephardic Posekim

Rabbi Haim Jachter writes:15

Sephardic Rabbinic Approaches to Zionism

Rav Baruch Gigi, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion (Israel’s largest Yeshivat Hesder),
served as scholar-in-residence at Congregation Shaarei Orah, the Sephardic Congregation of
Teaneck, on Shabbat Parashat Vayikra 5778. One of Rav Gigi’s outstanding presentations was a
fascinating lecture on the topic of Sephardic Rabbinic approaches to Zionism.

15
https://www.jewishideas.org/article/three-short-essays-modern-sephardic-posekim

43
The Anti-Zionism of the Satmar Rav

Rav Gigi began by presenting the anti-Zionist approach of the Satmar Rav. This approach is rooted
in the Gemara (Ketuvot 111a), which states that God imposed an oath upon us that we would not
take Eretz Yisrael by force (“shelo ya’alu Yisrael b’ḥoma”).

Rav Meir Simḥa of Dvinsk (the author of the Meshekh Ḥokhma and the Ohr Same’aḥ) reacted to
the League of Nations’ ratification of the Balfour Declaration, which granted the Jews a national
home in Eretz Yisrael, with three words: “Sar paḥad haShevua”—the concern for the oath not to
take Eretz Yisrael by force no longer applies, since permission was granted by the international
community. The Avnei Nezer (Teshuvot, Yoreh De’ah 456) agreed with this assessment.[1]

In contrast, the Satmar Rav insisted that the oath remained in effect even when permission for Jews
to reside in, and eventually govern, part of the land was granted by the League of Nations and the
United Nations. The Satmar Rav regarded the political pressure placed on the League of Nations
and United Nations delegates by Zionist leaders as constituting returning to Eretz Yisrael by force.
This represents a fundamental opposition to Zionism, not simply a feeling of unease with
cooperating with non-observant Jews. Rav Gigi argues that such fundamental opposition to
Zionism is virtually non-existent among leading Sephardic rabbis.

Rav Yehuda Alkalai

Rav Yehuda Alkalai (1798–1878), a great Sephardic Rav from Serbia, is counted among the
founders of modern Zionism. His work espousing large-scale Jewish settlement in Eretz
Yisrael, Minḥat Yehuda, predated Theodore Herzl. Moreover, in his Goral LaHashem, Rav Alkalai
presented a detailed plan for the reestablishment of the Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael, which is said
to have greatly influenced Herzl’s extremely influential work, The Jewish State.

Rav Alkalai argues that natural redemption precedes the supernatural redemption. He refers to this
as the Mashiaḥ ben Yosef preceding the Mashiaḥ ben David. A central idea of Rav Alkalai (that
appears in Minḥat Yehuda) elaborates on the statement of Rav Eliezer (Sanhedrin 97b, codified by
the Rambam, Hilkhot Teshuvah 7:5): “En Yisrael nigalin ela beTeshuvah,” “The Jewish People
will not be redeemed without teshuvah (repentance).” Rav Alkalai distinguishes
between teshuvah of the individual and teshuvah of the community. The individual must repent in
the most straightforward manner; one must correct any lapses in Torah observance. In contrast,
national teshuvah refers to our nation returning to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Alkalai proves this point
from the etymology of the word teshuvah, which means to return to one’s original place of
residence, as in the pasuk, “U’teshuvato haRamata ki sham beto” (“And his return was to Ramah,
for there was his house,” Shemuel I 7:17).

After Rav Alkalai made aliya in 1874, he moved to Jerusalem, where he engaged in major debates
with the rabbis of the Yishuv HaYashan, the traditional Jewish community in Jerusalem, which
opposed activist settlement in Eretz Yisrael.

44
Support for Zionism among Great Moroccan Rabbanim

The great Moroccan Rabbanim, ranging from Rav Shalom Messas to the famous Baba Sali, were
enthusiastic supporters of Zionism. Indeed, Rav Gigi recalled from the years in which he was
raised in Morocco that there was widespread support and enthusiasm for Zionism in all circles.
Rav Shalom Messas maintained that one should recite Hallel on Yom HaAtzma’ut with a blessing.
However, out of respect to the ruling of Rav Ovadia Yosef, he ruled that Hallel should be recited
without a blessing (Teshuvot Shemesh U’Magen 3:63:6).

The Baba Sali asserted that the State of Israel was created in the merit of the poem composed by
his son, the Baba Meir, called “Degel Yisrael Herima,” “The flag of Israel has been raised.” When
the Baba Sali was told that secular Jews were building the State of Israel, he replied by citing
the Naḥem prayer, which we recite on Tisha B’Av: “Ki Atah b’esh hitzata, uva’esh Atah atid
l’vnota”—with fire Yerushalayim was destroyed and with fire it will be rebuilt. He explained that
just as Jerusalem was destroyed by the fire of idolatry, it will sadly be rebuilt by idolatry.

Israeli agents for aliya were well received in Morocco. Rav Yitzchak Abuḥatzeira, the Chief Rabbi
of Ramle, is remembered for allowing his house to serve as a place of transition for Jews
making aliya. Although there was great debate in Moroccan communities about the Alliance
schools, which brought secular studies to Sephardic communities, the debates related to the fact
that these schools influenced their students to abandon Torah ways; they had nothing to do with
Zionism.

Finally, Rav Amram Aburbeh was a noted Moroccan Rav who was an enthusiastic supporter of
Zionism and predicted Israel’s massive victory in the Six Day War with God’s help, months before
his passing in 1966.

Rav Ovadia Yosef

Rav Ovadia Yosef recited a MiSheberach prayer for the soldiers of Tzahal (the IDF) each time the
Ark was opened to remove the Torah on Shabbat morning. Rav Ovadia expresses his strong
support for the State of Israel in one of his Responsa (Yabia Omer 11: Ḥoshen Mishpat 22), where
he explains his position permitting the exchange of Israeli land for peace. Members of Kenesset
from the Shas party, which was guided by Rav Ovadia, are permitted to serve as cabinet ministers
in the Israeli government, unlike the Ashkenazic Ḥareidi members of Kenesset, who join the
governing coalition but are forbidden by their rabbinic leaders to serve as cabinet ministers.
The Yalkut Yosef—written by Rav Ovadia’s son, Rav Yitzḥak Yosef—is replete with instructions
for Israeli soldiers, something that is (sadly) anathema in many Ashkenazic circles.

A contrast between Rav Ovadia’s reaction to the great Entebbe rescue in 1976 with that of the
Satmar Rav is most instructive. Whereas the Satmar Rav reacted with condemnation (based on the
Mishna in Gittin 45a),[2] Rav Ovadia reacted with the utmost enthusiasm (Yabia Omer 10: Ḥoshen
Mishpat 7; Yeḥaveh Da’at 2:25).

45
Rav Ovadia rules (Yeḥaveh Da’at 5:63) that one must fully comply with Israeli tax regulations. In
this responsum, Rav Ovadia even endorses Rav Kook’s ruling that a government accepted by the
Jewish People in Eretz Yisrael enjoys the status of a king in certain regards. Rav Ovadia frequently
cites Rav Kook in his Responsa in the most respectful and reverential manner, which unfortunately
in not always the case among Ashkenazic Ḥareidim.

Sephardic Rabbinical Opposition to Zionism

Rav Gigi noted that there were Sephardic rabbis who opposed Zionism and even issued
proclamations to refrain from voting in Israeli elections. He observed, however, that their
opposition was not rooted in a fundamental opposition to Zionism, but rather stemmed from
disapproval of nonobservant members of the Israeli government and the improper pressure placed
on Sephardic olim to enroll their children in secular public schools, which encouraged the
abandonment of a Torah lifestyle.

Rav HaLevy, Rav Uziel, and Rav Hadaya

Rav Gigi concluded by noting two great Sephardic rabbis who were enthusiastic supporters of the
State of Israel and Religious Zionism, Rav Ḥayim David HaLevy and Chief Rabbi Ben Tzion Meir
Ḥai Uziel.

Rav Ḥayim David HaLevy, who for many years served as the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv,
makes his support for Religious Zionism clear in his works, such as his Teshuvot Asei Lekha Rav.
His Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh, Mekor Ḥayyim has served for decades as the basic halakhic work taught
in Religious Zionist schools.

Rav Ben Tzion Meir Ḥai Uziel served as the first Sephardic Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel and
composed, together with Chief Rabbi Yitzḥak Herzog and Shai Agnon,
the Tefillah L’Shlom HaMedina (prayer for the State of Israel). Rav Uziel wrote: “A great and
miraculous merit has been revealed in this generation, to fulfill the words of the prophets to
establish a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael.” Rav Uziel proceeded to implore all Jews “to return to
full Torah observance and to guard the people and State of Israel.”

We should add that Rav Ovadia Hadaya, a major Sephardic mid-twentieth century halakhic
authority, describes the establishment of the State of Israel as “teḥilat haGeula,” the beginning of
our redemption (Teshuvot Yaskil Avdi 6:10). He describes the miracles of Israel’s War of
Independence as comparable to the miracles of Ḥanukkah and the splitting of the Red Sea.
Although he believes that a blessing should not be said on Hallel recited on Yom HaAtzma’ut, his
enthusiasm for Medinat Yisrael is presented unambiguously.

Conclusion

46
Support for Zionism is quite strong among Sephardim, even in Ḥareidi circles.[3] Fundamental
opposition to the State of Israel, such as was voiced by the Satmar Rav, is virtually unheard of in
the Sephardic community.[4] Thus, I was not surprised to hear that Rav Eli Mansour, a Sephardic
Ḥareidi leader in Brooklyn, strongly encouraged his followers to attend the AIPAC policy
conference in Washington in 2018.[5]

*****

Four Distinct Elements of Yemenite Practice

The most cogent way to describe Yemenite Jews and their halakhic practice is “very
distinctive.” Their pronunciation of Hebrew,[6] appearance,[7] and halakhic rulings mark them as a
unique segment of the Jewish people.
There are four elements of Yemenite practice that give it its unique flavor.

Element #1: A Very Conservative Bent

Yemenite halakha is the most conservative of all of the streams of our people; Yemenite
Jews adhere closely to the original practice recorded in the Talmud and Rishonim. Yemenites are
virtually the only Jews who still read the Targum Onkelos during Torah reading (as
per Megilla 23b). In addition, unlike other Jews who have a ba’al keri’a read the Torah on behalf
of those who receive an aliya at the public Torah reading (a practice already noted
by Tosafot, Megilla 21b, s.v. tanna), Yemenite Jews preserve the original custom for the oleh to
read the portion himself.

Other examples are the Yemenite practice to eat meat during the Nine Days until
the se’uda haMafseket, the pre-fast meal, as is the original practice recorded in the Mishnah and
Gemara (Ta'anit 26b and 30a). Many Yemenites do not perform the ritual of Tashlih, as it doesn’t
appear in the Talmud, Rambam, or Shulḥan Arukh.[8] On Rosh Hashana, many Yemenites sound
only 40 kolot (shofar blasts), the original practice in the time of the Talmud (as described by the
Rambam, Hilkhot Shofar 3:10), as opposed to the 100 kolot sounded by most other Jews. Yemenite
Jews are the only Jews who still practice atifat haRosh (covering the head with a tallit)
and ḥalitzat katef (exposing the shoulder) during shiva, as is the original practice presented in the
Gemara (Moed Katan 22b).

The most famous example of Yemenite halakhic conservatism relates to Ḥerem D’Rabbenu
Gershom, which prohibited marrying more than one wife. Whether de facto or de jure, Yemenite
men did not accept the practice to refrain from marrying more than one wife. Until their arrival in
Eretz Yisrael, they continued the original practice to marry more than one wife.[9]

Element #2: Maintaining Traditions

47
 There is a distinct advantage to the ultra-conservative bent of Yemenite Jews. As a result
of their extraordinarily strong inclination to preserve the past, they have succeeded in preserving
many of our traditions (mesora) that have been lost by most other Jews over the centuries.
Rashi (Vayikra 11:22) already notes the loss of the tradition as to how to distinguish between
kosher and non-kosher grasshoppers. Yemenite Jews have kept this tradition alive. The same
applies to the processes of nikur ḥelev and gid hanasheh (removing forbidden fats and sinews from
slaughtered animals). Rav Eliezer Melamed explains:

The accepted custom in Israel today goes according to nikur Yerushalmi, i.e., to be very stringent
and to perform nikur on everything that is close and similar to ḥelev and the branches of
the gid hanasheh and its fats, to the point that approximately 13–25% of the weight of the hind
flesh is lost. Only the immigrants from two communities, Yemen and Morocco, meticulously
guarded the tradition of nikur, according to which only about 5% of the weight of the hind flesh is
lost.[10]

Similarly, although many Sephardic Jews maintained a tradition to bake soft matzot, the Yemenites
are the most renowned for their fidelity to this practice.

Element #3: Allegiance to the Rambam

As is well-known, Yemenite Jews had a very close relationship with the Rambam. The
Rambam’s grandson, Rav David HaNagid, reports that Yemenite Jews posed more questions to
the Rambam than any other group of Jews. This special bond is maintained to this day, although
to varying degrees.

Yemenites follow rulings of the Rambam that most other Jews do not accept. One example is the
practice to recite a blessing upon entering a sukkah even if one is not going to eat in the sukkah (as
per Hilkhot Sukka 6:12). Another is allowing reheating of liquids (such as soup) on Shabbat that
were cooked before Shabbat. Many Yemenites follow the Rambam’s ruling (Hilkhot Shabbat 22:8)
that the rule of “en bishul aḥar bishul” (once a food is fully cooked, there is no further cooking
process) applies even to liquids.[11]

Most famously, Yemenites respond “Halleluya” to each section of Hallel, for a total of no less
than 123 times, in accordance with the Rambam’s ruling (Hilkhot Ḥanukkah 3:12). Yemenites
similarly follow the Rambam’s requirement (Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Assurot 6:10) that meat be boiled
(ḥalita) after salting to seal in any remaining blood. The Shulḥan Arukh (Yoreh De’ah 69:19), by
contrast, does not require ḥalita.

Interestingly, many Yemenite Jews recite a Borei Peri HaJofan on all four cups of wine at
the seder, in accordance with the ruling of the Rambam (Hilkhot Ḥametz U’Matza 8:5, 10). This
stands in contrast to Sephardic Jews, who follow the Shulḥan Arukh’s ruling to

48
recite Borei Peri HaGefen only on the first and third kosot (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 474:1,
480:1).

The custom accepted by the Shulḥan Arukh (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 46:1) is to recite all the Birkot
HaShaḥar (early morning blessings) at once, so as not to forget one of them. However, the original
enactment of Ḥazal was for the Birkot HaShaḥar to accompany the process of arising in the
morning and for everything to be blessed adjacent to its benefit (Berakhot 60b). This is how the
Rambam (Hilkhot Tefillah 7:9) ruled in practice—but only in the Yemenite community do some
still follow this custom to this day.

Element #4: Unique Practices

Yemenites maintain some unique practices. Whereas the Ashkenazic and Sephardic shofar is made
from the horn of a domestic ram, a Yemenite shofar is made from the horn of an African kudu and
has an elongated and curvy body. Interestingly, Yemenite Jews developed the practice to use this
type of shofar in light of the preference to use the horn of a ram in order to invoke the memory of
the Binding of Isaac (see Rosh Hashana 16a).

The Yemenite etrog is a classic example of a type of etrog with a highly respected tradition that
ensures it was not grafted with a lemon (see Daf Ditty Succah 35). The Yemenite etrog is
distinguished by its lack of pulp. Yemenite Jews typically use a very large etrog, somewhat
reminiscent of the story recorded in the Gemara (Sukka 36b) about the extraordinarily
large etrog that Rabbi Akiva brought to his synagogue.[12]

Many Yemenites tie their tzitzith in a manner consistent with that which is set forth in the Rambam
(Hilkhot Tzitzith 1:6).

Many Yemenites eat roasted meat at the Seder. The Mishna (Pesaḥim 53a) records the differing
communal practices as to whether roasted meat is consumed on the first night of Pesaḥ. The
potential concern is the appearance that one is partaking of the Korban Pesaḥ (which was roasted)
outside of the Temple. The Mishna Berura (476:1), Arukh HaShulḥan (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 476:1), and
Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yeḥaveh Da’at 3:27) all record that the Aḥaronim agree that the
custom is to refrain from roasted meat on the night of Pesaḥ. Despite this, the Yemenite community
is the only Jewish community that still consumes roasted meat on the seder night!

Conclusion

One’s knowledge of Jewish practice is not complete without awareness of Yemenite

practices. When noting Jewish practices, one should be cognizant to note Ashkenazic, Sephardic,
and Yemenite practices. Although outside of Israel Yemenite congregations are relatively few in
number, in Israel their presence is keenly felt. Most Israeli communities boast not only Ashkenazic

49
and Sephardic synagogues, but a Yemenite one as well. Our investment in discovering Yemenite
practice is well worth the effort, as only when including Yemenite practice is the picture of Jewish
practice complete.

*****

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu: A Major Twentieth-Century Sephardic Posek

Many Jews outside the Sephardic orbit think that three individuals constitute the corpus of
Sephardic Halakha: the Rambam, Rav Yosef Karo, and Rav Ovadia Yosef. Of course, the Rambam
was far from the lone Sephardic great Rishon, and Rav Yosef Karo is joined by a phalanx of great
Sephardic Aḥaronim, such as the Peri Ḥadash and the Ḥida. Rav Ovadia Yosef, in turn, was far
from the only great Sephardic posek of the second half of the twentieth century. In this chapter,
we discuss another twentieth century Sephardic “superstar,” Rav Mordechai Eliyahu.

Three Distinctions from Rav Ovadia

Rav Eliyahu, who served as Israel’s Sephardic Chief Rabbi from 1983 to 1993, adopted a very
different style from that of Rav Ovadia Yosef. We can point to three significant differences.

Rav Ovadia did not emphasize Kabbalah, and his rulings famously differed quite often from those
of the great nineteenth-century authority the Ben Ish Ḥai, Rav Yosef Ḥayim of Baghdad, who
incorporated a great deal of kabbalistic thought and practice in his rulings. Rav Ovadia even
composed a multi-volume work entitled Halikhot Olam in which he defends his deviations from
the Ben Ish Ḥai’s rulings.

By contrast, Rav Eliyahu retained a fierce loyalty to the rulings and approach of the Ben Ish Ḥai.
For example, Rav Eliyahu’s edition of the siddur, Kol Eliyahu, and his sefer Darkhei Taharah are
replete with references to the Ben Ish Ḥai. This is hardly surprising, considering that Rav Eliyahu’s
father and grandfather were close to the Ben Ish Ḥai and Rav Eliyahu’s wife, Mazal, was the Ben
Ish Ḥai’s great-niece. One can fairly assert that Rav Eliyahu presented a contemporary version of
the Ben Ish Ḥai’s rulings, which are characterized by its infusion of kabbalistic influence and an
orientation to accommodate a broad base of opinions.

Rav Eliezer Melamed describes Rav Mordechai Eliyahu’s approach to halakha:

Rav Yosef Ḥayim of Baghdad was unique in that he merged and incorporated all the significant
opinions in his halakhic rulings. The base of his rulings was the Bet Yosef and Shulḥan Arukh.
However, in addition he considered the other great posekim, both Ashkenazic and Sephardic. Rav
Eliyahu remarked that at times the Ben Ish Ḥai followed the [Ashkenazic] Magen Avraham and
the Shulḥan Arukh HaRav.

50
Rav Eliyahu continued in this path. He would remark that it is not our role to discover lenient
approaches and follow them. Rather, we should find the path to satisfy the consensus opinion, and
only in case of pressing need (sha’at haDeḥak) rely on the lenient opinions.[13]

This stands in stark contrast to Rav Ovadia Yosef, whose halakhic rulings are renowned
for their lenient orientation. This difference in orientation is specifically pronounced with regard
to taharat haMishpaḥa (laws of family purity). Rav Ovadia’s three-volume work on this area of
Halakha, entitled Taharat HaBayit, adopts a far more lenient approach than Rav
Eliyahu’s Darkhei Taharah.
A third difference relates to the attitude toward the State of Israel specifically and modernity
in general. While Rav Ovadia certainly adopted a positive approach to Medinat Yisrael, Rav
Eliyahu was more of an ardent Zionist. He thus captured the loyalty of Israel’s “Ḥareidi-Le’umi”
(scrupulously observant Zionist) community. He served as a soldier in Israel’s War of
Independence, enthusiastically embraced Jewish settlement of Yehuda and Shomron, and often
visited soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces to offer encouragement.

With regard to modernity, one example highlights a difference between Rav Eliyahu and
other great rabbis. Rav Eliyahu wrote (Teḥumin, vol. 3, p. 244) that under current circumstances,
religiously observant judges can make a positive contribution to the Israeli civil court
system.[14] This is quite a contrast with the stance of Rav Shalom Messas (Teshuvot Shemesh
U’Magen 3: Even HaEzer 44), who invalidated a wedding because one of the witnesses served as
a judge in the Israeli civil court system. Although the witness was a practicing Orthodox Jew, Rav
Messas claims that anyone who serves as a judge in civil court is considered a thief, because he
forces people to pay money even when the halakha does not necessarily require the payment.

Rav Yisrael Rozen, in his dedication of Teḥumin vol. 31 in memory of Rav Eliyahu, writes:

At Machon Tzomet, we have stored numerous rulings of Rav Eliyahu regarding security in
settlements and the Israel Defense Forces on Shabbat, as well as other government and
communal service providers, such as hospitals, fire departments, and allied sectors. All of these
rulings were thoughtful and effective.[15]

Three Specific Areas of Disagreement

Three disputes regarding prayer bring to life the difference in approach between Rav
Mordechai Eliyahu and Rav Ovadia in terms of conflicting fidelity to the Ben Ish Ḥai and the Bet
Yosef.

One who Omits HaMelekh HaMishpat

51
Rav Ovadia (Teshuvot Yeḥaveh Da’at 1:57) rules that a Sephardic Jew who omits “haMelekh
haMishphat” during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva (the days from Rosh Hashana through Yom Kippur)
must repeat his Amida, in accordance with the ruling of the Shulḥan Arukh (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 582:2).
Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Siddur Kol Eliyahu; Teshuvot Ma’amar Mordechai, Aseret
Yemei Teshuva 19), on the other hand, rules that one should follow the ruling of the Ben Ish
Ḥai (year 1, Parashat Nitzavim 19).

She’asa Li Kol Tzorki on Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur

Rav Ovadia for many years ruled that one should not recite the early morning blessing
of She’asa li kol tzorki on Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. Since this blessing is an expression of
thanks for shoes (Berakhot 60b), this blessing would appear to be inappropriate for Tisha B’Av
and Yom Kippur, when we are forbidden to wear leather shoes. However, later in life, in his Ḥazon
Ovadia (Yamim Nora’im, p. 320), Rav Ovadia disagreed with the Ben Ish Ḥai and ruled that a
person should indeed make the blessing of She’asa li kol tzorki even on Tisha B’Av and Yom
Kippur.[16]

Among Rav Ovadia’s explanations are that since there are Jews who legitimately wear shoes on
Tisha B’Av (for example, a pregnant woman or the elderly), all Jews may say She’asa li kol
tzorki on Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur. Most important for Rav Ovadia, Rav Yosef Karo does not
distinguish between Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur and all other days with regard to this
blessing. Thus, She’asa li kol tzorki should be said even on these two days.

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Siddur Kol Eliyahu) remains loyal to the ruling of the Ben Ish Ḥai (year
1, Parashat Vayeshev 9) that we should follow the Ari z”l, who urged that She’asa li kol
tzorki should not be recited on Tisha B’Av and Yom Kippur.[17]

Reciting the Amida Audibly

Finally, Rav Eliyahu and Rav Ovadia disagree as to which is the proper way to recite the Amida—
silently or audibly. The Shulḥan Arukh (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 101:2) rules that when praying the Amida,
one must move his or her lips and enunciate the words; thinking the words in one’s mind does not
fulfill the obligation. This is indicating in the verse describing the prayer of Ḥannah, mother of the
prophet Shmuel: “Only her lips were moving…” (Shmuel I 1:13). This view of the Shulḥan
Arukh is shared by all authorities.

There is, however, disagreement among the authorities as to how loudly the Amida should be
recited. The Shulḥan Arukh rules that people should recite the Amida softly enough that those
standing near them will not hear their prayer, but loudly enough to allow them to hear their own
prayer. Among the Kabbalists, however, we find a different tradition in this regard. The Ben Ish
Ḥai (year 1, Parashat Mishpatim 3) cites from the Zohar that while people must enunciate the
words of prayer, they should not be audible even to the extent that the one praying hears the words.
The Ben Ish Ḥai cites from the Ari z”l’s student, Rav Ḥayim Vital, that if one’s prayer is even

52
slightly audible, the “ḥitzonim” (harmful spiritual forces) are capable of disrupting the prayer’s
efficacy and preventing it from reaching its destination.[18]

Nonetheless, the Ben Ish Ḥai, in his work Od Yosef Ḥai (Parashat Mishpatim 3), rules that the
halakha on this issue depends on the individual’s ability to properly pronounce the words and
concentrate on prayer. People who feel that they can accurately enunciate the words and pray with
concentration when reciting the Amida inaudibly should do so, in accordance with the approach of
the Zohar and Rav Ḥayim Vital. If, however, one suspects that he or she might swallow words or
experience difficulty concentrating, should follow the Shulḥan Arukh’s ruling and pray
the Amida loudly enough to hear the words.

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (Siddur Kol Eliyahu) rules in accordance with the Ben Ish Ḥai. By
contrast, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Halikhot Olam 1:157; Yalkut Yosef, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 101:2:1) writes
that the halakha follows the position of the Shulḥan Arukh, that the Amida should be recited
audibly. Of course, those who recite the Amida audibly must ensure to recite it softly enough that
only they—and nobody else in the synagogue—can hear their prayer, in keeping with the example
set by Ḥannah.

Conclusion

Rav Mordechai Eliyahu unfortunately does not get much attention, even among Sephardic Jews in
the United States. However, his influence in certain circles in Israel, especially in the Ḥareidi-
Le’umi community, is profound.[19] While his halakhic style may not suit every individual or every
Sephardic community, his voice must be considered in rendering decisions, especially for the
Sephardic community.

Far from detracting from the greatness of Rav Ovadia, considering Rav Eliyahu’s opinions actually
enhances Rav Ovadia’s influence. A great musician, l’havdil, is enhanced when teamed with other
great musicians. The symphony of Sephardic halakha is similarly upgraded by including the entire
cast of great players in the orchestra.

Notes

[1]
Rav Gigi noted that the Maharsha on the Gemara in Ketuvot clearly supports the approach of the Meshekh Ḥokhma and Avnei
Nezer. The Maharsha explains that Neḥemiah was permitted to rebuild the walls of Yerushalayim (Neḥemia 1–9) because he had
permission from the Persian emperor Artaxerxes.
[2]
As cited in the weekly newspaper that serves as the organ of the Satmar community, Der Yid, Aug. 20, 1976.
[3]
It is striking that the Artscroll Sephardic Siddur includes Rav Ovadia’s version of the prayer for Israeli soldiers, whereas the
Ashkenazic version of the Artscroll Siddur does not include this prayer.
[4]
Numerous Sephardic rabbis have told me that Zionism for Sephardic Jews did not have the secular political overtones that were
pervasive in the Ashkenazic community. Rather, for Sephardic Jews, Zionism is an expression of love for Eretz Yisrael, and thus
fundamental opposition to Zionism among Sephardic Jews is uncommon.
[5]
I was also delighted to see that Rav Mansour writes (http://www.dailyhalakha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2949): “Special
preference should be given to the etrogim of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yeḥiel Michel Epstein (Arukh HaShulḥan, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 648)
elaborates on the importance of using an etrog grown in Eretz Yisrael when such an etrog is available. He writes that it would be

53
a grave affront to our land if one has the option of using an etrog from Eretz Yisrael but chooses instead to use an etrog grown
outside the land.”
[6]
For example, Ashkenazic Jews recite Borei Peri HaGofen, Sephardic Jews say Borei Peri HaGefen, and most Yemenite Jews
pronounce Borei Peri HaJofan.
[7]
There is ample DNA evidence that demonstrates that Ashkenazic, Sephardic, and Yemenite Jews stem from the same genetic
background and geographic origin. For more on this topic, see: http://www.cohen-
levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/jewish_genes_-_dna_evidence.htm.
[8]
As noted by Rav Zecharia Ben-Shlomo, Orot HaHalakha, p. 819.
[9]
Although today even Yemenites refrain from marrying more than one wife, in case of a woman’s get recalcitrance, a recognized
and competent Bet Din has considerable flexibility in relieving a Yemenite male from his predicament. Yemenite Jews neither
accepted the Ḥerem D’Rabbenu Gershom, nor do they incorporate into their ketubot a solemn oath to refrain from marrying more
than one wife, as other Sephardim did.
[10]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23093.
[11]
Rav Melamed writes that it is permissible for all Jews to consume soup (even when it is hot) when served at a home of Yemenite
Jews who follows their ancestral practice. The Yalkut Yosef (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 253:11) similarly permits food cooked in accordance
with legitimate opinions even when the one eating the food does not usually follow that lenient approach.
[12]
Yemenite etrogim were the etrogim of choice of Rav Ben Tzion Abba Sha’ul. For a review of the range of etrogim with a
distinguished pedigree, see Rav Mordechai Lebhar’s essay at https://theshc.org/an-etrog-or-a-lemon-2/.
[13]
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/14089.
[14]
Rav Eliyahu writes that the same applies to observant Jews serving as journalists working in a predominantly secular framework.
[15]
Rav Rozen was the long serving head of Machon Tzomet, which works to forge a working connection between Torah, the State
of Israel, and contemporary Israeli society.
[16]
I heard Rav Yitzḥak Yosef explain that in his earlier years, Rav Ovadia would apply the principle
of saba”l (safek berachot l’hakel, omitting a blessing in case of doubt) in regard to this issue. However, in later years Rav Ovadia
was more confident and felt we should undoubtedly follow the straightforward meaning of the Shulḥan Arukh and not concern
ourselves with the Kabbala-influenced rulings of the Ari z”l in this context.
[17]
Interestingly, the Moroccan siddurim indicate agreement with Rav Ovadia regarding this issue. In general,
Moroccan posekim are less influenced by kabbalistic concerns in their halakhic rulings than other Sephardic decisors.
[18]
The Ba’er Hetev (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 101:3) writes that the practice of the Ari z”l was to pray very low during the week; only on
Shabbat did he raise his voice a bit.
[19]
Rav Eliyahu’s influence in the area of taharat haMishpaḥa is especially strong due to the flourishing of Machon Pu’ah, which
assists couples experiencing fertility challenges. Machon Pu’ah is led by Rav Menahem Burstein, a leading student of Rav Eliyahu.
Rav Eliyahu’s influence extends to both Ashkenazic and Sephardic members of the Religious Zionist community in Israel.

54