Daf Ditty Succah 42: ‫ְוֵהן ְמַחְטִּפין וַּמִכּין ִאישׁ ֶאת ֲחֵבירוֹ‬

Lulav as a weapon (of mass confusion)

1
2
MISHNA: The lulav is taken and the altar is encircled together with the willow branch either six
or seven days, depending on which day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat. The obligation to recite
the full hallel and the mitzva of rejoicing, i.e., eating the meat of the peace-offering, is in effect
for eight days, seven days of Sukkot and the Eighth Day of Assembly. The mitzva of sukka and
the ritual of the water libation on the altar are in effect for seven days. The flute is played in the
Temple for five or six days, depending on which day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, to enhance
the rejoicing on the Festival.

3
The mishna elaborates: The lulav is taken for seven days. How so? If the first day of the Festival
occurs on Shabbat, since the mitzva to take the lulav on the first day is a mitzva by Torah law, it
overrides Shabbat and one takes the lulav that day. As a result, the lulav is then taken for seven
days. And if the first day occurs on one of the rest of the days of the week and one of the other
days of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, the lulav is taken only six days. Since the mitzva to
take the lulav is a mitzva by rabbinic law throughout the rest of Sukkot, it does not override
Shabbat.

The altar is encircled with the willow branch for seven days. How so? If the seventh day of the
mitzva of the willow branch occurs on Shabbat, since on that day it is a mitzva by Torah law, it
overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the willow branch is then performed for seven days. And if
the seventh day occurs on one of the rest of the days of the week, and one of the other days of the
Festival coincides with Shabbat, since the mitzva of the willow branch is then by rabbinic law and
consequently does not override Shabbat, it is performed for only six days.

4
How is the mitzva of lulav fulfilled in the Temple when the first day of the Festival occurs on
Shabbat? If the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim
to the Temple Mount on Friday. The attendants receive the lulavim from them and arrange
them on a bench [itztaba], while the Elders place their lulavim in the chamber.

They were given permission to do so due to the concern that they would be injured the following
morning in the rush of people in search of their lulavim. And the court teaches the people to say:
With regard to anyone whom my lulav reaches his possession, it is his as a gift.

5
They did so to avoid the likely situation where people would inadvertently take lulavim that did
not belong to them, as on the first day of the Festival one does not fulfill his obligation with a lulav
that does not belong to him.

The next day everyone rises early and comes to the Temple, and the attendants throw the
lulavim before them. And in the confusion, the people snatch the lulavim and in the process
strike one another. And when the court saw that they came to potential danger, they instituted
that each and every person will take his lulav in his house and fulfill the mitzva there.

6
7
Summary
While the Temple stands, Jews should take the lulav to the Temple even when the first day of
Sukkot falls on Shabbat.1 We also learn that in modern times, we do not take lulav to the synagogue
on Shabbat. Why would the rabbis allow this carrying on Shabbat in Temple times? Usually we
are not permitted to carry from the private to the public domain on Shabbat, which could easily
happen (ie. exiting an eiruv) while walking to the Temple. In addition, usually we are not
permitted to carry beyond four cubits within the public realm on Shabbat. The rabbis are willing
to find reasons to make an exception. One of these is that our determination of dates might not be
correct. As we know, none of our dates were known for certain, as they relied upon sightings of
stars.

What is amazing to me is that the rabbis are willing to consider this particular argument for this
particular reason. What was so important about the act of taking the lulav to the Temple on the
first day of Sukkot? Why were the rabbis willing to break the halachot of Shabbat? What were
they afraid might happen if they insisted that people take lulav at home when the first day of Sukkot
falls on Shabbat?

The rabbis elaborate on the Mishna further: the first day as different; those in outlying areas as
different, whether or not we need a verse to allow moving the lulav, how different rabbis
understand the requirement of taking lulav during the day versus during the night. One of the
concepts used is the principle of verbal analogy, which is explained in a note. when the same
word/phrase appears in two different places in the Torah AND a halacha is stated explicitly
regarding one of these instances, the same halacha must apply to the other word/phrase. Thus
verbal analogies apply to linguistic similarities rather than similar concepts. They must be based
on ancient tradition - we cannot create new verbal analogies today.

Does this apply to the halacha of residing in the sukka during the day versus during the night, as
well? The rabbis attempt to apply the same verbal analogy and discuss where it works and where
it does not work.

1 http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/03/

8
So many rules and principles and guidelines to help us understand the intentions of the Torah. And
yet so many of those structures are created by people. We like to believe that G-d gave us hints
toward understanding the Torah. Why would it take this much work to find G-d's intended
patterns? How do we know that we found the 'true' intentions? As I have mentioned numerous
times, it seems more than likely that the creative human spirit has found a treasure trove in Torah;
a puzzle to be solved.

Most of amud (b) is devoted to understanding why we are to break the laws of Shabbat to carry
the willow branch around the altar for seven days. The basic reasons:

• Torah law overrides rabbinical halachot regarding Shabbat

• we should publicize this Torah law

The rabbis wonder what is different about the willow branch and the lulav. They question whether
carrying the willow branch simply coincides with Shabbat or whether it in fact overrides
Shabbat. They wonder whether we did not march with the willow branch at all; perhaps we placed
it standing against the altar. This would break no halachot of Shabbat. Then the rabbis argue
about whether we circle the altar with the willow branch or with the lulav.

Attempting to solve this dilemma, Abaye tells of the Boethusians (said to be a sect that disagreed
with rabbinical authority, like the Sadducees), who would hide the Jews' willow branches under
stones near the altar, causing ignorant Jews to break the halachot of Shabbat by lifting the stones
on Shabbat to retrieve their branches. Interestingly, Steinsaltz shares a note: scholars have
discounted this possibility, as Boethusians would not know the halachot of lifting on
Shabbat. How telling that Jews would suggest such malintent.

This reminds me of today's Jewish community that is continually looking for those who are trying
to do us in. Of course there is true anti-Semitism in the world and we are at risk as a small
people. However, we are speaking about different sects of Jews - those who follow rabbinical law
and those who interpret Judaism differently. Just like the Orthodox and the Reform of today. To
tell a story about a group of people as if it were truth; to discredit another group of Jewish people
-- this is something special that we Jews have done to each other for thousands of years.

DAF Shevu’i writes:2

Today’s section includes only the mishnah that opens chapter four. My commentary is taken from
Mishnah Yomit.

2 https://www.sefaria.org/Sukkah.42b.5?lang=bi&p2=Daf_Shevui_to_Sukkah.42b.5-6&lang2=bi

9
The mishnah opens with an introduction to the remainder of the tractate Sukkot. On Sukkot there
are some mitzvot that are observed for the full eight days (seven days of Sukkot and one day of
Shmini Atzeret) and there are other mitzvot that are observed for a lesser number of days, either
because they are not observed on Shabbat or because they do not apply to Shmini Atzeret.

Section one: The lulav and the special mitzvah of the aravah are observed for either six days or
seven days. We will learn why below. The mitzvah of the aravah refers to circling the altar with
the aravah, a mitzvah described in detail later in the chapter.

Section two: The full Hallel is recited for all eight days of Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret. Similarly,
there is a mitzvah to rejoice on all eight days of the festival. Both of these are referred to later in
the chapter.

Section three: The mitvah to sit in a sukkah is for only seven days. On Shemini Atzeret one does
not sit in the sukkah. The water libation was a special libation of water poured onto the altar only
on Sukkot. It is described in detail later in the chapter. Here we learn that they would perform this
special water libation for all seven days of the festival, even on Shabbat.

Section four: The flute is played at a special celebration that occurred in the Temple called
“Simchat Bet Hashoeva.” This celebration does not take place on Shabbat, the first day of the
festival (Yom Tov) or on Shmini Atzeret. Hence the flute is played for only five or six days,
depending on whether the first day of the festival is on Shabbat. Simchat Bet Hashoeva is described
at length in chapter five.

Section five: As we have learned before, outside of Jerusalem it is a mitzvah from the Torah to
take the lulav only on the first day of the festival. Hence, if the first day of the festival falls on
Shabbat, one still performs the mitzvah of the lulav. We saw this described in chapter three. In
such a case the lulav will be taken for seven days—one day in which the mitzvah is “deoraita”—
from the Torah, and the rest of the days it is “derabbanan”—from the rabbis.
However, if Shabbat falls on another day besides the first day of the festival, then since the mitzvah
is only of rabbinic origin, it is not observed. In other words, the derabanan mitzvah of the lulav
does not override the Shabbat. In such a case the mitzvah is observed for only six days.
Since the time of the Babylonian Talmud it has become customary not to take the lulav on Shabbat,
even if it falls on the first day of the festival. However, this is not the custom reflected in the
mishnah.

Section six: The only difference between this section and the previous section concerning the lulav
is that the lulav is taken on Shabbat if Shabbat is the first day of the festival, whereas the aravah
(the willow) is taken on Shabbat if Shabbat falls on the seventh day of the festival. If Shabbat falls
on one of the other days, the aravah ritual is not performed on that day and it will turn out that the
aravah ritual happens on only six days. Later in the chapter we will learn more about the aravah
ritual as it was performed in the Temple. The reason that only the seventh day supersedes Shabbat
is that the seventh day is the climax of the ritual.

Section seven: The question is not really how the mitzvah of lulav was in general performed, but

10
rather how the mitzvah was performed so as to avoid the problem while avoiding certain halakhic
problems that would arise on Shabbat.

Section eight: The problem of taking the lulav in the Temple on Shabbat is twofold. First of all it
is forbidden to carry a lulav through the public domain on Shabbat, so they would have to bring
their lulavim to the Temple Mount on Friday. Secondly, one has to be able to recognize his own
lulavim because one can fulfill one’s obligation only with one’s own lulav. In chapter three we
saw that in the synagogue everyone recognized their lulav. In the Temple there were just too many
lulavim to hope that everyone would recognize which was theirs. Therefore the leaders in the
Temple trained everyone to say that if someone else took their lulav, then that lulav should belong
to them. In this way everyone would own the lulav that they actually ended up with.

Section nine: While this solution resolved the halakhic problem, it created a social problem—
people were still jostling each other over who gets which lulav. It might have been that everyone
was trying to get their own lulav, despite what they had said the previous day. Equally likely in
my opinion, is that everyone wanted to take the nicest looking lulav they could find, even if the
one that they had brought was not the best. In any case, the mad scramble for lulavim led to brawls.
This seems to be another case of people allowing their religious zeal to go overboard causing them
to neglect the welfare of their fellow human being.

Section ten: The court was quick to put an end to this situation and ruled that it is better for people
just to stay at home then to potentially harm each other over the taking of the lulav. I think it is
essential to notice how far the court was willing to go to ensure the safety of the people and to
prevent religious zealotry from becoming a dominant force. Better that the opportunity to join
together in fulfilling the mitzvah of the lulav should be lost than that it should bring violent results.

The chapter begins with a discussion of why one doesn’t take the lulav on Shabbat.

According to the mishnah, the lulav does not override Shabbat except for the first day of Sukkot.
What this means is that if Shabbat falls on any day of Sukkot besides the first, one does not take
the lulav on that day.

But it is not clear why taking the lulav on Shabbat should be problematic. We are not talking about
carrying it out in the public domain—that is certainly prohibited on any day. But why shouldn’t
one leave it in the synagogue or in one’s home and take it on Shabbat? There doesn’t seem to be
any prohibition for this.

Rabbah answers that the sages prohibited taking the lulav on Shabbat lest one not know how to
wave it correctly (or not know something else about how to perform the mitzvah) and one carry it
through the public domain to bring it to an expert who can show him how.

This is also the reason why we don’t blow the shofar on Shabbat or hear the megillah if Purim falls

11
on Shabbat. In all three cases there is no real Torah prohibition. We are only concerned lest he
carry it through the public domain to find an expert who knows how to blow the shofar correctly
or read the megillah.

The problem with Rabbah’s explanation above is that it doesn’t explain why one still takes the
lulav if the first day falls on Shabbat.

At first, this is easily answered. The end of the mishnah itself says that the rabbis decreed that if
the first day falls on Shabbat, one should take the lulav in one’s own home. Not in the synagogue.
The Talmud now has an additional problem—what about before they made this decree. As we
recall, the mishnah describes people bringing their lulavim to synagogue before Shabbat so they
wouldn’t have to carry them. But why allow this at all—why didn’t we fear that they would forget
to bring them the day before and then they would end up carrying on Shabbat.

The answer is that since taking the lulav on the first day of Sukkot is a mitzvah from the Torah,
the rabbis did not decree that one should not do so. The mitzvah from the Torah overrides the fear
that one will carry on Shabbat.

The question that the Talmud asks is very illustrative, for it shows that in Babylonia Jews did not
take the lulav on the first day of Sukkot even when it fell on Shabbat. In other words, even though
the mitzvah is from the Torah on the first day, they still do not take the lulav.

The answer is that in Babylonia they did not know exactly when Sukkot fell because they didn’t
know when the New Moon (first of the month, Rosh Hodesh) was determined. I’m not going to
get into this too deeply, but in Israel every month they would determine when Rosh Hodesh fell;
whether the previous month had 29 days or 30 days. There was no set calendar as we have today
(and from the fourth century). This would have consequences for the date of Sukkot and Pesah
(and the other holidays as well). But in Babylonia or elsewhere outside of Israel, they wouldn’t
find out when Rosh Hodesh was until much later. That is how the custom to keep two days of Yom
Tov in the Diaspora was formed. Since they weren’t really sure if the day was the first day of
Sukkot or not, they did not take the lulav.

The Talmud asks somewhat rhetorically—why doesn’t the lulav override Shabbat in Israel where
they do know when the New Moon is declared? The answer is that it does. This is proven by
comparing two mishnayot. In one mishnah the people are described as bringing their lulavim to
the Temple and in another mishnah they bring their lulavim to the synagogue. The first mishnah
refers to a time when the Temple still stood and the second mishnah to the period following its
destruction, proving that Jews in Israel continue to take the lulav even in the absence of the Temple.
I should note that currently in Israel, the same rules as the Diaspora apply. No one takes the lulav
on Shabbat, even if it falls on the first day.

12
Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

There is a concern that one who is not proficient regarding the laws of waving the lulav or reciting
the blessing will carry the lulav four amos in the public domain on Shabbos, which is a biblical
prohibition. For this reason the Chachamim enacted a decree that when Shabbos occurs on one of
the last six days of Sukkos, one does not take the lulav in the Bais HaMikdash.

The residents of Eretz Yisroel were permitted to take the lulav even when the first day of Sukkos
occurred on Shabbos. The reason for this was because they were aware of the institution of the
new month.

There is a dispute whether one can cut a lulav from a tree or tie the lulav with the other species on
Shabbos. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that since it is said and you shall take for yourselves on the first
day… the word bayom, the first day, teaches us that the preliminaries involved in taking the lulav
also override the Shabbos restrictions. The Chachamim, however, maintains that one cannot
perform the preliminaries of the lulav on Shabbos, and they use the word bayom to teach us that
the lulav obligation only applies during the day and not at night.

The Gemara concludes that the mitzvah of Sukkah applied by day and by night. This is derived by
employing a gezeirah shavah from the Miluim, when Aharon and his sons were inaugurated into
the service of the Mishkan, where it is said and at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall
dwell day and night for seven days.

The taking of the aravah in the Bais HaMikdash when the seventh day of Sukkos occurs on
Shabbos was permitted so that everyone would be aware that there is a biblical obligation to take
the aravah in the Bais HaMikdash. There was no concern that one would carry the aravah on
Shabbos four amos in a public domain because the agents of the Bais Din, the court, would bring
the aravos to the Bais HaMikdash. There was also no concern that one would bring the aravos to
an expert to learn how to recite the blessing, because only the Kohanim took the aravos, and the
Kohanim were knowledgeable regarding the laws of reciting the blessings.

There is a dispute whether they circled the mizbeiach with the aravah or with the lulav. Abaye
maintains that they circled the mizbeiach with the aravah, whereas Rav Yosef maintains that they
circled the mizbeiach with the lulav and they performed the biblical obligation of aravah by
standing the aravos around the mizbeiach.

Aravos on Shabbos The Gemara states that the Chachamim would always ensure that the seventh
day of Sukkos, known as Hoshanah Rabbah, would not occur Shabbos. Tosfos wonders why it
was more important to ensure that the seventh day of Sukkos not occur on Shabbos as opposed to
ensuring that Rosh HaShanah or the first day of Sukkos do not occur on Shabbos. On both Rosh
HaShanah and the first day of Sukkos there are biblical mitzvos to perform. The Chachamim
should have been more concerned with ensuring the observance of these mitzvos than ensuring the
continuity of the aravah mitzvah which is only a rabbinical institution to commemorate the mitzvah
that was performed in the Bais HaMikdash.

3 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Sukkah_43.pdf

13
Tosfos answers that there was no concern that people would assume that the mitzvah of blowing
shofar on Rosh HaShanah and taking the lulav on the first day of Sukkos were rabbinical in nature.
Regarding the mitzvah of aravah, however, if the seventh day of Sukkos would occur on Shabbos
and the aravah would not be taken, people would view the custom as irrelevant and they would
not take the aravah in the future. Furthermore, if the seventh day of Sukkos occurs on Shabbos,
there would not be another opportunity to take the aravah, because one would not be able to take
the aravah on Shemini Atzeres because it may be an independent festival and taking the aravah
would contradict the theme of the day. Regarding the mitzvah of shofar and lulav, however, one
would be able to perform the mitzvah on the second day of the festival.

Sukkah and the Mishkan

The Gemara states that the obligation to dwell in a Sukkah is by day and by night. This is derived
by employing a gezeirah shavah from the Miluim, the inauguration of Aharon and his sons into
the service of the Mishkan. It is noteworthy that the sefarim write that the Sukkah reflects the Bais
HaMikdash, so it is appropriate that we derive the mitzvah to dwell in the Sukkah from the
Mishkan. A further association between Sukkos and the Mishkan is that the Vilna Gaon is of the
opinion that we celebrate Sukkos on the fifteenth of Tishrei because that is when the Clouds of
Glory returned to shield the Jewish People. The Clouds of Glory were a sign that HaShem was
pleased with the Jewish People, and the building of the Mishkan was also a sign that HaShem had
forgiven the Jewish People for worshipping the Golden Calf.

CARRYING FOUR AMOS IN "RESHUS HA'RABIM"

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

Rabah says that the Rabanan decreed that one may not hold the Lulav on a day of Sukos which
occurs on Shabbos, lest one carry it four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim in order to bring it to an
expert to learn how to perform the Mitzvah.

RASHI asks why Rabah says that the Rabanan were concerned only that one might carry the Lulav
four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim ("Ha'avarah"), and he does not say that they were concerned that
one might carry it from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim ("Hotza'ah"). Rashi answers that
the transgression of carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim is more common than the
transgression of Hotza'ah from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim, because it applies to a Lulav
that is resting anywhere, even in a Karmelis. (If one picks up a Lulav in a Karmelis and carries it
four Amos through Reshus ha'Rabim, he transgresses only Ha'avarah and not Hotza'ah, since the
Lulav was not brought from a Reshus ha'Yachid to a Reshus ha'Rabim.)

4 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/sukah/insites/su-dt-043.htm

14
Rashi explains further that even if the Lulav is in one's home (a Reshus ha'Yachid), there is more
cause for concern that he will transgress Ha'avarah than Hotza'ah. This is because he might pick
up the Lulav with no intent to carry it outside and then change his mind and walk out with it. In
that case, he will not be liable for Hotza'ah because he performed no Akirah with intent to take the
Lulav into Reshus ha'Rabin. He will be liable, however, for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim.

There are a number of difficulties with Rashi's explanation:

When one picks up the Lulav in a Karmelis and carries it into Reshus ha'Rabim, why is he liable
for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim? One transgresses Ha'avarah only when he performs both an
Akirah and a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim. In this case, he performs the Akirah in a Karmelis
and not in Reshus ha'Rabim, and thus he should not be liable for Ha'avarah. (REBBI AKIVA
EIGER, Shabbos 5b; see Insights to Eruvin 34:2:b.)

It is even more difficult to understand why one is liable for Ha'avarah in the second case that Rashi
mentions, where one picks up the Lulav in his home in order to shake it and then decides to walk
out with it into Reshus ha'Rabim. Just as one is not liable for Hotza'ah (bringing the Lulav from
Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim) since he did no Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid with intent to
bring it into Reshus ha'Rabim, he should also not be liable for Ha'avarah in such a case, since he
did no Akirah for the sake of Ha'avarah (see Shabbos 153a). (TOSFOS DH v'Ya'avirenu)

If Rashi maintains, as his words imply, that one does not need to do an Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim
in order to be liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, then he should explain the Gemara
as the RA'AVAD does (as cited by the ME'IRI). The Ra'avad explains that since a person normally
picks up a Lulav in his house, the Rabanan were concerned that he might take his Lulav from his
house to the house of the expert. In that case, he will carry the Lulav from one Reshus ha'Yachid
to another Reshus ha'Yachid and thus he will not be liable for Hotza'ah, but he will be liable for
carrying the Lulav four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim. This is why Rabah's only concern is that the
Lulav will be carried four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim, and he is not concerned that the Lulav will
be carried from Reshus ha'Yachid to Reshus ha'Rabim.

The RE'EM (in his notes to the SEMAG, cited by the KAPOS TEMARIM here) and REBBI
AKIVA EIGER explain the words of Rashi as follows:

Rashi understands that the expert to whom the person might bring his Lulav is in Reshus ha'Rabim
and not in Reshus ha'Yachid. Rashi maintains that one is liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim
only when he does both an Akirah and Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim. Accordingly, when the
expert is in Reshus ha'Rabim and one brings his Lulav from its place in Reshus ha'Rabim and sets
it down next to the expert, he is liable for Ha'avarah because he has performed Akirah and
Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim. The reason he is liable in a case in which he picks up the Lulav
from a Karmelis, even though he did no Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim, is because it is natural for a
person who walks a moderate distance to stop for a moment to rest. At the moment that he stops,
the item he carries is considered to have come to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim, and when he starts to
walk again he does an Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim. When he reaches the expert and sets the Lulav
down, he does a Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim and becomes liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus
ha'Rabim. This answers the first question.

15
The second question can be answered the same way. Rashi does not mean to say that when one
does an Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid without intent to bring the Lulav out of his home, he will still
be liable for Ha'avarah if he walks four Amos with it in Reshus ha'Rabim. Rather, Rashi means
that one will be liable for walking four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim because, at some point after his
arrival in Reshus ha'Rabim, he will probably stop to rest. When he starts to walk again, he does an
Akirah in Reshus ha'Rabim. However, he is not liable for Hotza'ah from Reshus ha'Yachid to
Reshus ha'Rabim, because he did not do the Akirah with intent to bring the Lulav outside to Reshus
ha'Rabim. There is no concern that he will stop to rest in his house and then start to walk again
with intent to go outside (which would constitute a proper Akirah in Reshus ha'Yachid), because
one normally walks only a short distance in his house until he reaches the threshold and has no
need to stop and rest before he exits.

With regard to why Rashi does not explain as the Ra'avad does (that the concern is that one might
carry his Lulav from his house to the house of the expert and walk four Amos with it in Reshus
ha'Rabim), apparently Rashi maintains that in such a case one does not transgress the Isur of
Ha'avarah. According to Rashi, in order to be liable for carrying four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim,
one must do an Akirah (and Hanachah) in Reshus ha'Rabim. Accordingly, if he stops to rest in
Reshus ha'Rabim on his way to the expert he will be liable for both Hotza'ah and Ha'avarah. If he
does not stop to rest in Reshus ha'Rabim, he will be liable for neither Hotza'ah nor Ha'avarah.

TOSFOS, who questions Rashi's explanation (see question (b) above), does not understand Rashi
in this manner. Tosfos understands that Rashi maintains that if one does an Akirah in a Karmelis
or Reshus ha'Yachid, one can be liable for carrying the item four Amos in Reshus ha'Rabim (even
if he does not stop to rest and subsequently perform a new Akirah), regardless of whether or not
he intended to carry the object in Reshus ha'Rabim at the moment he picked it up.

According to this understanding, Rashi makes two important points. First, he asserts that one can
be liable for Ha'avarah in Reshus ha'Rabim even if his act of Akirah was not in Reshus ha'Rabim
but in Reshus ha'Yachid. Second, he teaches that one can be liable for Ha'avarah even if his Akirah
was not done with intent to carry the object through Reshus ha'Rabim.

Tosfos, who questions Rashi's explanation, seems to take issue only with Rashi's second point, as
he does not question the first point. According to Tosfos, as long as the person intends to carry the
object in Reshus ha'Rabim at the moment he picks it up, he will be liable for Ha'avarah, even if he
picks it up in a Karmelis or Reshus ha'Yachid. (This is also evident from TOSFOS to Eruvin 33a,
DH v'Ha, and 34a, DH v'Amai; see TOTZA'OS CHAYIM at the beginning of Maseches Shabbos.)
The RA'AVAD (mentioned in question (c) above) clearly follows this opinion as well.
The ME'IRI also mentions this opinion in Shabbos (97b).

In conclusion, there are three opinions with regard to the prohibition of carrying four Amos in
Reshus ha'Rabim:

1. RASHI, according to the RE'EM, maintains that one is not liable for Ha'avarah unless he
performs both the Akirah and the Hanachah in Reshus ha'Rabim.

16
2. TOSFOS maintains that one is liable for Ha'avarah even if his Akirah was not done in Reshus
ha'Rabim.
3. The RA'AVAD, who offers a novel but simple interpretation of the Gemara, rules that one is
liable even if neither the Akirah nor the Hanachah were done in Reshus ha'Rabim.

Those Who Know How, Must Do

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The final Mishna in our perek closes with the statement "a minor who knows how to wave [a lulav]
is obligated in the mitzva of lulav." This is one of the statements in the Mishna that teach the
concept of hinukh – of educating children before they are obligated in mitzvot on a biblical level.
The baraita that appears in the Gemara expands on this idea, enumerating commandments that a
child becomes obligated in – for reasons of education – as soon as he knows how to perform them.
Aside from lulav they include:

• A child who knows how to wrap himself in clothing is obligated in tzitzit.

• When a child knows how to take care of tefillin, his father should purchase a pair for him.
• When he knows how to speak, his father should teach him Torah and keri'at shema.
• The child of a kohen who knows how to bless the congregation can already receive tithes.
• Once a child can eat and recognize food, he should be included in the korban Pesah and a
ka-zayit (an olive-size piece) of the sacrifice should be set aside for him.

Rav Hamnuna explains that teaching Torah does not mean learning complicated ideas, rather the
passage in Devarim (33:4) that emphasizes the connection between the Torah and the Jewish
people. The Yerushalmi interprets the baraita to mean that a child who is old enough to learn to
speak should be taught lashon Torah – the language of the Torah – that is to say, he should be
taught how to speak Hebrew. Once he knows Hebrew he should be taught keri'at shema. Rabbenu
Yehonatan explains the idea of the kohen's son participating in blessing the congregation as a
public statement that he is a kohen, removing any suspicion that he is living in the kohen's house
as a guest or even as an eved – a slave. Once this statement is made, he is permitted to receive
terumah like any kohen.

5
https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

17
 Milestones

Heather Miller: W R I T E S 6

As a rabbi and mother of two preschoolers, I am constantly observing and expressing gratitude for
the development of my children. I praised the first time my youngest opened his eyes to look at
me and the world around him. I praised the first time my eldest figured out how to control his own
hand. First steps and first bike rides, first times floating in the pool, and more and more blessings
never to be taken for granted. Today’s page offers a rare glimpse into the rabbinic view of child
development.

Let’s start by looking backward for a moment. Back on Eruvin 82, we learned that a child who no
longer needs their mother is obligated to sit in the sukkah. What are the developmental signs that
the child is ready for greater independence? The child does not call out for their mother when they
wake in the middle of the night, nor do they need the mother to wipe their tuches. The gemara
suggests this happens around age four or five.

Here, in Sukkah 42 , the sages describe more milestones by which children are ready for
other mitzvot, but without pinning them to an age — instead, the child simply takes on the
obligation when they show that they are ready:

A child who knows how to wave the lulav, is obligated in the mitzvah.

A child who knows how to wrap himself in a garment is obligated in the mitzvah of tzitzit (ritual
fringes).

A child who knows how to preserve the sanctity of tefillin, his father buys him tefillin.

A child who knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah and Shema.

In case you thought teaching a tot all of Torah seemed ambitious, Rabbi Hamnuma clarifies that
“Torah” refers specifically to a single verse of Deuteronomy 33:4 : “Moses commanded us Torah, an
inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.” This single verse from Torah teaches what Torah is
and what it means — a starting point for a child just learning to speak.

A consistent theme here is that children take on obligations not at an arbitrary age or an age when
other children seem ready, but when they themselves show readiness.

6 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/sukkah-42/

18
In addition to listing personal milestones children achieve, today’s page also includes a list of
milestones that indicate a child is ready to take on various communal responsibilities as well. It is
noteworthy that it is incumbent upon the community to honor that child’s competency.

If the child knows how to protect his body from ritual impurity, it is permitted to eat ritually pure
food that came into contact with his body.

If the child knows to protect his hands from ritual impurity, it is permitted to eat ritually pure
food that came into contact with his hands.

When children demonstrate ability, not only do we trust them to perform their own mitzvot, but
we can also rely on them for things like purity (and trust food that has come into contact with
them). In this way, coming of age is consequential not only to the child or the child’s parents, but
indeed to the entire community.

That said, there are limits:

If a child knows ow to slaughter an animals, one may eat from animals that he slaughtered. But
warns Rav Huna: This is provided that an adult is standing over him.

Wielding a large knife? Even for a competent child, that still requires supervision!

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:7

“A child who knows how to wave the lulav is obligated in lulav”. These words, found in the
Mishna (Sukkah 3:15) in our daf (Sukkah 42b), inform us that the duty of Chinuch (education) of
children for the mitzvah of Arba Minim (Four Species) begins once a child has reached the age
and stage when they are capable of waving the lulav in the manner that is performed by adults.
This is because when we educate children towards mitzvah observance, we must not only teach
them enthusiastically so that we foster within them an interest and love of mitzvot, but we must
also teach them accurately so that we show them how to practically keep the mitzvot when they
become adults.

Significantly, both these elements of fostering interest & love, and teaching towards technically
correct performance are central to raising and educating a Jewish child - and they are required from
both parents and teachers. However, not every Jewish adult necessarily experienced this ideal level
of Jewish education in their youth. Some received the interest & love but not the technical
knowledge. Others were taught the technical knowledge but didn’t experience the interest & love.
And some others who didn’t have a Jewish education had neither. Given this, many Jewish adults
often feel that they are playing ‘catch-up’.

Personally, while I’ve been teaching for over 25 years – first in Cheder (Sunday school) and then
in High Schools - most of my teaching is now with young adults and older adults either in
Midrashot and adult education centres or online in one-to-one learning sessions. Yet when I
introduce an adult to a Torah idea or perspective which engages and inspires them or which helps
them know how to observe a particular mitzvah, something magical occurs. This is because while

7
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

19
they are now learning these ideas as an adult, the smile they have when being introduced to these
ideas is the smile of a young person who has just been introduced to, or who has just discovered,
a valuable wisdom or insight.

Today are many products that are marketed to try and help us stay young. But in my humble
opinion one of best products available to help us stay young is education, because whenever I –
and those I am privileged to teach - encounter a new idea, whether or not it was one that should
have been taught in our younger years, it taps into and awakens a youthful spirit found deep inside
which wants to learn, grow and discover new ideas.

Rav David Brofsky writes:8

Mitzvat Arava in the Beit Ha-Mikdash

Aside from the mitzva to take the arba minim, which applies mi-de’oraita for seven days
in the Beit Ha-Mikdash and for one day outside of the Beit Ha-Mikdash, the Talmud discusses

8 https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/orach-chaim/holidays/hoshanot

20
another mitzva of Sukkot – that of the “arava.” The mishna (Sukka 42b) teaches that this mitzva is
practiced for all seven days of the Festival in the Beit Ha-Mikdash.

The Talmud (Sukka 44a) cites a debate regarding the origins of this mitzva:

According to Abba Shaul … It is written, “arvei nachal” (willows of the brook) –

implying two, one referring to the [willow-branch in the] lulav and the other to [the
willow-branch for use in] the Beit Ha-Mikdash… According to the Rabbis … it is an
accepted tradition, since R. Assi citing R. Yochanan who heard it from R. Nechunia of
the Plain of Beth Churatan, stated: The laws of the ten plants, the willow-branch, and
water libation were given to Moses upon Mount Sinai.

According to Abba Shaul, the mitzva of arava in the Mikdash is of biblical origin, while according
to the Rabbis, it is a Halakha Le-Moshe Mi-Sinai, an ancient tradition received at Sinai.

The mishna (Sukka 45a) describes how the ceremony was performed on the first six days of
Sukkot:

How was the precept of the arava [carried out]? There was a place below Jerusalem
called Motza. They went down there and gathered there young willow-branches and then
came and fixed them at the sides of the altar so that their tops bent over the altar. They
then sounded a teki'a, a teru'a and again a teki'a. Every day they went round the altar
once, saying, “Ana Hashem, hoshi’a na – Ana Hashem, hatzelicha na.” R. Yehuda said:
[They said], “Ani Ve-Ho, hoshi’a’ na.”

After retrieving the aravot from Motza, they were stood up against the altar (“zekifa”).
These aravot were quite long; the gemara describes, “They were large and long and
eleven amot (cubits) high, so that they might bend over the altar one ama.” The shofar was
sounded, the altar was circled once, and the pleas of “Ana Hashem” or “Ani Ve-Ho” were recited.

Although the mishna describes standing the aravot up against the altar, the
Talmud (Sukka 43b) records that the Amoraim disagree regarding whether the mitzva of arava is
fulfilled through “netila” (taking) or “zekifa” (standing up against the altar). Even according
to those who maintain that the mitzva of arava is fulfilled through the “netila," however,
the arava is still placed against the altar, either before (Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 7:23-24) or
after (Rashi, Sukka 43b, s.v. ve-vevi’um; Tosafot, Sukka 45a, s.v. zokfin) the “netila."

The gemara (Sukka 43b) relates this to another question: Was the lulav or the arava taken
around the alter each day? If the mitzva of arava if fulfilled through “netila," then,
the gemara assumes, it must be the arava that is taken around the altar. If, however, the mitzva
of arava is fulfilled through the “zekifa," then the arba minim are most likely taken around
the mizbe’ach.

The gemara concludes that the mitzva of arava includes “netila." Therefore, according to
some (Rashi, Sukka 43b, s.v. ve-hevi’um; see also Or Zaru’a 315) the mizbe’ach was circled (hakafa)

21
with the arava. Others (Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 7:23; Ran, Sukka 22a, s.v. u-vegemara; see also Or
Zaru’a 315) maintain that even if the arava is “taken," the hakafa is still performed with the lulav.

So far, we have seen that the aravot were possibly “taken" and then stood up against the
altar, and the mizbe’ach was circled once each day. The Rishonim question who actually
performed these rituals in the Beit Ha-Mikdash. This debate revolves in part around another
question. Some Rishonim (Rashi, Sukka 43b, s.v. sheluchei; see also Tosafot, s.v. sheluchei) explain
that only the kohanim fulfilled the mitzva; in general, only “unblemished” kohanim were
permitted to enter the area on the Temple Mount between the UIam, the entrance hall of the Beit
Ha-Mikdash, and the mizbe’ach, the altar (Keilim 1:9). Others (Or Zaru’a 2:315; see also Shita
Mekubetzet, Menachot 27b; Responsa Ri Mi-Gash 43, and possibly Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 7:22-3;
see also Tosafot Yom Tov 4:5) insist that even “zarim” (non-kohanim) would encircle the altar.
The Yalkut Shimoni (Tehillim 703) also states: “And how was the altar circled? All of Israel, the
adults and the children, would take their lulavs in their right hands and their etrogs in their left
hands and would circle [the altar] once.”

Interestingly, the Ritva (Sukkah 43b, s.v. u-farkinan; see also Ran, Sukka 21b, s.v. garsinan)
explains that although only the kohanim took the aravot and stood them against the mizbe’ach, and
then circled the mizbe’ach, the rest of the people would take the arava while standing in the Azara,
the Temple courtyard.

Hoshanot During Sukkot Nowadays

Although the Talmud never mentions reenacting the daily observance of the mitzva
of arava after the destruction of the Beit Ha-Mikdash, sources as early as the Siddur of R. Saadia
Gaon (p. 238) record that it was customary for the congregation, led by the shaliach tzibbur, to
encircle the bima. This custom spread to most Diaspora communities, and R. Hai Gaon (Otzar Ha-
Geonim, Sukka 43b) comments that “we have not heard of a place in which this is not the custom.”
The Shibbolei Ha-Leket (Seder Chag Ha-Sukkot 469), however, records that this was apparently
not the custom in Italy. It is now customary to encircle the bima, either after Hallel (Sha’are
Teshuva 751:20) or after Musaf (Tur 759–760; see Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 3:99), while reciting
the hoshanot prayers for each specific day.

Incidentally, the Sefer Chassidim (730) relates that R. Saadia Gaon would travel to Eretz
Yisrael each year in order to encircle the Mt. of Olives (or, possibly, on the Mt. of Olives) seven
times on Hoshana Rabba.

The Shulchan Arukh (760) describes that it is customary to bring a Sefer Torah to the bima,
or as the Rema records, to bring all of the Sifrei Torah to the bima, and to encircle the bima just as
they would encircle the altar in the Beit Ha-Mikdash, beginning from the right side. Although we
do not take the lulav on Shabbat, it is still customary to recite the hoshanot on Shabbat. The
Shulchan Arukh rules that even one who does not have a lulav encircles the bima, but the Rema
writes that one who does not have a lulav does not participate in the hakafot. Finally, the Rema
rules that an avel, a mourner during the entire 12 months of mourning for his parent, does not circle
the bima. The Mishna Berura (760:9), citing the Gra, explains that since taking the lulav around
the mizbe’ach was the primary fulfillment of “And you should rejoice before the Lord your God

22
for seven days,” a mourner, who is not happy, does not participate in this ritual. Usually, those
who do not have a lulav, as well as the mourners, hold the Sifrei Torah during the hoshanot.

Hoshana Rabba in the Beit Ha-Mikdash

The mitzva of arava in the Beit Ha-Mikdash differed on the seventh day of Sukkot, known
as Hoshana Rabba, in two ways. First, on Hoshana Rabba, the altar was encircled seven times, and
not just once:

But on that day [i.e., the seventh day], they went around the altar seven times. When they
departed, what did they say? “Yours, o altar, is the beauty! Yours, o altar, is the beauty!”
R. Eliezer said: [They said]: “To the Lord and to thee, o altar, to the Lord and to thee, o
altar.” (Sukka 45a)

Some (see Abudraham, Seder Tefillat Sukkot, for example) cite the verse, “I will wash my hands
in innocence; so will I compass (asovava) Your altar, O Lord, That I may make the voice of
thanksgiving to be heard, and tell of all Thy wondrous works” (Tehillim 26:6-7) as a precedent for
encircling the mizbe’ach as a form of praising God. Furthermore, the Yerushalmi (Sukka 4:3)
suggests that taking the lulav around the mizbe'ach seven times may serve as a “remembrance” for
the seven times the city of Yericho was encircled before it was captured. The Kol Bo (72) cites the
Maharam of Rotenburg, who brought a textual proof for this comparison: The encircling of the
altar parallels the encircling of “the city," Yericho, as the verse says (Shir Ha-shirim 3:2), “I will
rise now, and I go about (asovava) the city." The commentaries offer different explanations of the
relationship between encircling Yericho seven times and the encircling of the mizbe’ach.

Second, on Hoshana Rabba, the arava was taken in the Beit Ha-Mikdash even on Shabbat.
This issue was of great contention between the Rabbis and the Boethusians (Baitosim). In fact,
the gemara (Sukka 43b) relates:

On one occasion, the seventh day of the [ceremonial of the] willow-branch fell on a
Sabbath, and they brought saplings of willows on the Sabbath eve and placed them in
the courtyard of the Temple. The Boethusians, having discovered them, took, and hid
them under some stones. The next day, some of the ignorant Jews discovered them and
removed them from under the stones, and the priests brought them in and fixed them in
the sides of the altar. [The reason for hiding the willows was that] the Boethusians do
not admit that the “chivut” of the willow-branch overrides the Sabbath.

The gemara further explains that we are not concerned that taking the arava may lead to the
desecration of the Sabbath, as it is entrusted to the “messengers of the beit din.” Since the mitzva
of taking the lulav in the Beit Ha-Mikdash can only performed on Shabbat when the first day of
the Festival falls out on Shabbat, the Rabbis did not want the arava, which is not explicitly
mentioned in the Torah, to appear to be a more important mitzva than taking the lulav, and
therefore allowed it to be taken on Shabbat only on Hoshana Rabba.

As mentioned above, the Amoraim disagree as to whether the altar was circled seven times
with the lulav or with the arava (Sukka 43b). In addition to circling the altar, the gemara refers to a

23
mysterious ritual called “chivut arava." The gemara elsewhere (Sukka 44b), describing the taking of
the arava nowadays, relates that “a man brought a willow-branch… and he took it and ‘chavit
chavit’ without reciting any blessing.” What was this “chivut arava” which was performed on the
seventh day?

Most Rishonim, including the Rambam (Commentary to the Mishna, Sukka 4:5 and Hilkhot
Lulav 7:20-21) explain that one should beat the arava on the ground or on a vessel.
Rashi (Sukka 42b, s.v. ve-hevi’um and 44b, s.v. chavit) explains that the arava was waved (na’anu’a).

What is the significance of the “chivut arava”? Seemingly, if “chivut arava” refers to
waving the arava, then the waving of the arava should be similar to the na’anu’im of the arba
minim – just as the arba minim serve as an object that one uses to praise God, the “arvei nachal"
serve as an instrument for petitioning God for rain. If, however, as most Rishonim understand, the
“chivut arava” refers to beating the aravot on the ground or on a vessel, there must be some other
significance to the practice.

We can identify two broad approaches to chivut arava.

On the one hand, one may view the chivut arava as a prayer for rain, among the other
prayers for rain recited on Hoshana Rabba, since the world’s supply of rain is decided on the
Festival of Sukkot (Rosh Ha-Shana 2a). Beating the aravot on the ground may symbolize
surrender or prostration. It may also demonstrate how desperately we need rain to hit and penetrate
the earth.

Why are aravot used for this purpose? The aravot, or “arvei nachal," grow on the water and
depend on water for their sustenance. Furthermore, Chazal suggest that all four minim correspond
to the parts of the body – the lulav parallels the spine, the etrog the heart, the hadassim the eyes,
and the aravot resemble the mouth – as all parts of the body are used to praise God (see Midrash
Tanchuma [Buber], Parashat Emor 28). Therefore, the aravot may be the most appropriate
instrument used for our prayers for rain, as they resemble the mouth, the vessel of prayer. (See
also Teshuvot Ha-Geonim, Sha’arei Teshuva 340, where R. Tzemach Gaon suggests that hitting
the aravot to the ground atones for sins committed by one’s speech.)

Interestingly, R. Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Kohen Kook (1865-1935), as cited by R. Moshe

Tzvi Neria (Mo’adei Ha-Ra’aya, p. 128), offers a different explanation. The midrash (Vayikra
Rabba 30:12
), explains how each of the four minim correspond to a different type of Jew. The etrog,
with its smell and taste, represents a Jew with “Torah and good deeds,”
the hadasim and lulav represent Jews with good deeds but no Torah or no Torah but good deeds,
and the arava, which has neither a nice smell nor a good taste, represents those Jews who have no
Torah or good deeds. This beautiful midrash explains that when taken together, “they atone one
for the other.” R. Kook, however, understood the role of the arava slightly differently.
The arava represents the “am ha’aretz” – the simple Jew, who often demonstrates intuitive,
healthy, and natural religious instincts (see Sukka 43b). On Hoshana Rabba, R. Kook explains, we do
not “beat the aravot," but “beat WITH the aravot,” invoking that simple religious fervor in our
pleas for rain.

24
 On the other hand, beating the aravot may indeed symbolize “beating," in the negative
sense. R. Tzemach Ga’on (Teshuvot Ha-Geonim, Sha’arei Teshuva 340), for example, in response
to a query regarding the reason for this practice, cites those who explain: “During the preceding
holidays [Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur], Satan incites, and the Jewish People, with all of
their mitzvot, repel him. From now onwards, anyone who rises against us will not be able to control
us, and will fall to the ground.” Some Kabbalistic sources speak of beating the strict attribute of
justice (middat ha-din).

Some understand this custom to refer to our relationship to other Jews. For example, R.
Moshe Shternbuch (b.1926), in a somewhat shocking essay (Mo’adim U-Zemanim, vol.1, p. 179),
writes:

It is well known that the arava, which has no taste and no smell, is pleasant to us only
when bound together with the lulav, etrog and hadassim. This hints to the sinners of
Israel, who have no taste or smell… When the arava is taken alone, we are obligated to
beat it on the ground, to hint to us that those sinners who separated into their own
groups, such as the Reform, Conservative, Nationalists (le-umi’im), and the like, since
they come by themselves, we are obligated to “beat them” until they surrender and are
lowered, and not to bring them closer at all, and certainly not to bind ourselves to them.

R. Kook’s explanation, cited above, stands in sharp contrast to these harsh words.

Hoshana Rabba outside of the Beit Ha-Mikdash

The gemara (Sukka 44a–44b) explains that outside of the Beit Ha-Mikdash,
the mitzva of Arava was observed for one day – on the seventh day, Hoshana Rabba.
The Amoraim disagree as to whether this practice is considered to be a “yesod nevi’im” (actual
legislation of the later prophets) or a “minhag nevi’im” (a custom of the prophets):

It was stated: R. Yochanan and R. Yehoshua b. Levi differ. One holds that the rite of the
willow-branch is a “yesod nevi’im,” and the other holds that the willow-branch is a
“minhag nevi’im." It can be concluded that it was R. Yochanan who said that it is a
“yesod nevi’im," since R. Abbahu stated in the name of R. Yochanan: The rite of the
willow-branch is a “yesod nevi’im." This is conclusive.

The Rishonim (see Rashi, s.v. minhag) explain that while one may recite a blessing over a “yesod
nevi’im, similar to a Rabbinic enactment, one may not say a blessing over a “minhag nevi’im."
The Tur (664) cites R. Shmuel ben Chofni, who rules that outside of the Beit Ha-Mikdash, arava is
a yesod nevi’im and a blessing is therefore recited. Most Rishonim (Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 7:22;
Rosh Sukka 4:1, et al.), however, as well as the Shulchan Arukh (664:2), rule that arava outside of
the Beit Ha-Mikdash is a minhag nevi’im, and therefore no berakha is recited.

Incidentally, the Rishonim disagree as to whether one may derive from this gemara that
one may never recite a blessing over a custom (Rambam, Hilkhot Berakhot 11:16) or whether there are certain
customs, such as the recitation of Hallel on Rosh Chodesh (see Ta’anit 28b), upon which one may one
day a berakha (Rabbenu Tam, cited by Tosafot, Sukka 44b, s.v. kan).

25
 The Talmud further discusses whether the arava taken on Hoshana Rabba much be taken
separately, or whether one can use the arava taken with the lulav:

R. Ammi ruled: The willow-branch… must be taken separately only, and no one can
fulfill his obligation with the willow-branch in the lulav. But since the Master said that
it must be taken separately only, is it not self-evident that no one can fulfill his obligation
with the willow-branch in the lulav? I might have said that that applies only where one
does not lift [the lulav] a second time, but not where one does lift it a second time;
therefore he informs us that it is not so. R. Chisda citing R. Yitzchak, however, ruled:
One may fulfill his obligation with the willow-branch in the lulav. (Sukka 44b)

Some Rishonim (Ra’avya 699; Rosh 4:1) rule in accordance with R. Chisda, who permits one to
take the arba minim a second time in order to fulfill the mitzva of arava, but others (Rabbeinu
Chananel 44b; Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 7:20) rule that one must take the arava separately. The
Shulchan Arukh (664:6) cites both opinions. The Mishna Berura (664:21) cites the Bikkurei Ya’akov, who
writes that if one takes the arba minim and then unbinds them, removes the aravot, and takes them
separately, he fulfills his obligation.

The gemara relates to the minimum physical characteristics of the arava:

What is its prescribed minimum? R. Nachman said: Three fresh twigs with leaves. R.
Sheshet, however, said: Even one leaf and one twig. One leaf and one twig! Can such a
rule be imagined? Say rather: Even one leaf on one twig.

The Tur (764) cites R. Hai Gaon, who writes that although the gemara validates an arava branch
with only one leaf, it is “mekhu’ar” (repulsive) to use such a branch for the mitzva. Therefore, the
Rema (764:4) writes, one should take a bundle of aravot, known as “hoshanot,” in order to fulfill
the principle of “This is my God, and I beautify Him” (hiddur mitzva). The Mishna Berura (764:16) writes
that one should have at least three, if not five aravot, in accordance with the custom of the Arizal.
The Mishna Berura (764:17) also writes that these aravot should be tied together.

Rashi (Sukka 44b, s.v. ale) implies that the arava may be shorter than three tefachim, the
minimum length required for aravot when taken with the arba minim. The Ran (Sukka 22a, s.v. ve-
khama), however, disagrees, and argues that all agree that the arava branch must be at least
three tefachim long. The Shulchan Arukh (664:4) rules in accordance with the Ran; although one
may take one branch with one leaf to fulfill the mitzva of arava outside of the Beit Ha-Mikdash,
the branch must be at least three tefachim long.

The Rishonim debate whether on Hoshana Rabba, one encircles the bima while holding
the lulav or also the arava. The Shulchan Arukh (764:3) records that it was customary to take
the arava as well. The Rema (764:7), however, writes that one should preferably not take
the arava with the lulav at all. The Mishna Berura (764:26-27) cites the Arizal, who opposed taking
the arava with the lulav. The Mishna Berura relates that nowadays, it is customary to take
the lulav alone, put it down when one reaches the prayer “Ta’aneh Emunum,” and only afterwards

26
to take the bundle of aravot (Mishna Berura 760:8). Some follow the practice of the Arizal and do not put
down the lulav until after the full Kaddish, and then to take the aravot and beat them.

What should one do with his “hoshanot” (bundle of aravot)? As we mentioned above,
the gemara (Sukka 44b) describes a ritual called “chivut arava," which was performed both in the Beit
Ha-Mikdash and, according to the story related in the gemara, after its destruction as well.
The Rishonim disagree as to whether chivut refers to “beating” the arava or shaking it. The
Shulchan Arukh (764:4) cites the Rambam and rules that one should beat the arava on the ground
or on a vessel two or three times. The Rema, however, writes that it is customary to shake and then
beat the arava. The Mishna Berura, citing the practice of the Arizal writes that one should beat
the arava on the ground five times, and then beat them on a vessel in order to remove some of the
leaves. The Arukh Ha-shulchan (764:2) records that he has not heard of this custom, but does
recommend “shaking it a bit” before beating it (764:7).

The Significance of Hoshana Rabba

In the Talmud, Hoshana Rabba is simply known as “the seventh day of the arava” (Sukka 42b).
The phrase “Hoshana” or “Hoshana Rabba” appears in the midrash (Vayikra Rabba 37, Midrash Tehillim 17:5).
Although the arava ritual described above indicates that the seventh day of Sukkot is unique, its
significance is not discussed by the Talmud.

The Yerushalmi (Rosh Ha-Shana 5:8) teaches, “Yet they seek Me daily (yom
Yeshayahu 58:2
yom) ( ) – this refers to the teki’a (shofar) and the arava” – implying that Hoshana
Rabba is similar to Rosh Ha-Shana, as they are both days in which objects are employed as
instruments of prayer. The Zohar (vol. 3, p. 31b) adds that Hoshana Rabba is a day of judgment:
“This [Hoshana Rabba] is the final day of judgment for water, source of all blessings. On the
seventh day of Sukkot, the judgment of the world is finalized and the edicts (pitkin) are sent
forth from the King.”

The Rishonim (Shibbolei Ha-Leket 371; Sefer Ha-Manhig, Hilkhot Etrog 38) expand on
this idea, explaining that Hoshana Rabba is the final day of the period of judgment, which began
on Rosh Ha-Shana. Indeed, as the Tur (664) reminds us, the world’s water supply is judged
on Sukkot, and therefore we lengthen our prayers on Hoshana Rabba, like on Yom Tov.

Based upon this view of Hoshana Rabba, many customs developed. Some are accustomed
to learning the entire night of Hoshana Rabba (see Magen Abraham 664). Others read the entire
book of Devarim, which emphasis the love and fear of God, on the night of Hoshana Rabba (see
Arukh Ha-shulchan 664:11). In addition, the Acharonim (Arukh Ha-shulchan, ibid., for example)
record that it is customary for the shaliach tzibbur to wear a kittel and to recite the long Pesukei
De-Zimra of Yom Tov (except for Nishmat and Shokhen Ad). Based upon the Zohar cited above,
it is customary to great one another with the salutation, “pitka tava,” wishing one a “good edict."

The Conclusion of Sukkot – Leaving the Sukka

27
 Towards the end of Hoshana Rabba, we begin our transition from the festival
of Sukkot to Shemini Atzeret. The mishna describes:

When a man has finished his [last] meal, he may not dismantle his sukka. He may,
however, remove its furniture from the afternoon onwards in honor of the last day of the
festival. (Sukka 48a)

Many have the custom of eating a bit in the sukka before the end of the day, and declaring, “It
should be His will that we will merit to sit in the sukka of the Levithan” (Rema 667:1).

Hoshanot procession on Sukkot, engraving by Bernard Picart, c.1723

What Sukkot Meant to Jews and Gentiles in Greco-Roman Antiquity

Prof. René Bloch writes:9

9
https://www.thetorah.com/author/rene-bloch

28
Sukkot was a festival of paramount importance to Jews in Greco-Roman antiquity, and was

well-known to non-Jews. In fact, its processions with festive palm branches (lulavim) reminded

pagans of Bacchic rituals with the thyrsos carried by the votaries of Dionysus/Bacchus and

used in his festivals.[1]

Today, for many non-observant Jews, Sukkot is a vaguely known holiday with palm fronds and
perhaps an annual synagogue sukkah-hop for the kids. In contrast, Sukkot was a central holiday
for Jews in antiquity. The very fact that Sukkot could simply be called “the festival” (‫ )החג‬is an
indicator of its prominence.[2]

In Greco-Roman antiquity, if Jews had been surveyed about which of the Jewish festivals was the
most important to them (besides the weekly Shabbat), Sukkot, the feast of tabernacles, might very
well have emerged as the winner. A survey of non-Jews about Jewish festivals would probably
have arrived at the same answer.

The Place of Sukkot in Jewish Antiquity

The importance of Sukkot in Greco-Roman antiquity can be inferred from a number of sources.
The book of Jubilees (2nd century B.C.E.), which predates many Torah laws to a time preceding
the Sinaitic revelation, describes Abraham celebrating the feast of booths (16.20-31):[3]

1:353).

29
In Jubilees, Abraham’s celebration of Sukkot avant la lettre follows the joyful event of Isaac’s
birth. This fits with the general theme of Sukkot which is described in Jewish and pagan sources
as a festival of joy,[6] filled with agricultural symbols of blossoming.

But Sukkot could also be understood as a time of earnest reflection: Philo of Alexandria, the great
Jewish philosopher and theologian of the first half of the first century C.E., takes Sukkot as an
occasion to think about justice as well as the ephemerality of peace and security. To Philo Sukkot
is an ideal moment to consider difficult times:

How fragile safety and peace can be, Philo himself witnessed when, in the year 38 C.E., an anti-
Jewish riot broke out in Alexandria and the Jews huddled in their homes in fear. Referring to that
year’s Sukkot, Philo wrote, when “it is the custom of the Jews to live in booths, none of the usual
customs at this festival were carried out at all.”[8]

Epigraphic Evidence of Sukkot’s Importance

In addition to literary documents, epigraphic evidence also points to the significance of Sukkot in
antiquity: The symbols of Sukkot carved in numerous funeral inscriptions. For example, a Latin
inscription from the Jewish catacomb Vigna Randanini in Rome commemorating “Nepia Marosa
who lived four years,” is decorated with the most important symbols of Jewish antiquity: the
menora, the shofar, an oil (?) flask, and – from the symbolic world of Sukkot – an etrog and a lulav
with open leaves. [9]

30
Funeral inscription from the Jewish catacomb Vigna Randanini in Rome
(photograph courtesy Katharina Heyden).

Plutarch on Jewish Rituals

The attitude of Gentiles of the Greco-Roman period to Sukkot is particularly striking. In his Table
Talk, Plutarch, a philosopher and biographer from Chaeronea (Boeotia) in Greece, writing in Greek
(1st to 2nd century CE), launches a dialogue in which the participants of a symposium debate Jewish
rituals.

First they wonder whether the Jewish abstention from pork the result of admiration or contempt of
this animal is.[10] And then they discuss the nature of this god of the Jews. In the context of the
latter question, one of the participants of the symposium, the Athenian Moeragenes, refers to
parallels between the Jewish feast of Booths and festivals in honor of Dionysus or Bacchus, the
Greek and Latin names for the fertility god of the grape-harvest and wine making:

31
Moeragenes then adds another parallel between Jewish customs and Dionysus: The Sabbath can
also be understood as a Bacchic festival, since among other things “when they celebrate the
Sabbath they invite each other to drink and to enjoy wine.” Even “when something important
interferes with this custom, they regularly take at least a sip of neat wine.”[12]

32
The Greek god of wine, Dionysos (Bacchus) leading the Horai (Seasons).
Roman copy of the 1st century CE. Louvre Museum.

Parsing Plutarch’s Passage

The passage in Plutarch is difficult, and the transmission of the Greek is not always clear.[13]Some
of what is reported about Jewish customs concurs with Jewish sources, while other observations
seem to be the result of misunderstanding or confusion. Clearly, some aspects and names related
to the Jewish rituals are replaced with terms from the pagan world (a phenomenon
called Interpretatio Graeca).[14]

These seeming misunderstandings include:

A Fast Called Booths – By referring to the festival of Sukkot/Booths as a “so-called fast day” the
author (or his source) is mixing up Sukkot with the preceding Yom Kippur.[15]

33
A Few Days Later – What does Plutarch mean by the festival that is celebrated “a few days later”?
Shemini Azeret has been suggested, since, biblically speaking, it is the next
festival.[16]Nevertheless, a more likely candidate may be Hoshana Rabbah, the seventh day of
Sukkot with its seven circuits.

Such confusion notwithstanding (of which some may be the result of textual transmission),
Plutarch’s presentation of Sukkot fits many aspects of the actual Jewish festival as it is described
in ancient Jewish sources and as it continues to be celebrated up until today:

Booths – At the core of Sukkot are booths or huts which gave the festival its name. Plutarch’s
description of a Sukkah has parallels in the discussion of the Mishnah (cf. m. Sukkah 1:4 on huts
plaited of vines and ivy. Incidentally, the Mishnah uses the same word for ivy (‫ )קסוס‬as Plutarch
(κιττός, the Attic form of κισσός).

Trumpets – Mishnah Sukkah (4:5, 5:1) describes the blowing of trumpets as a prominent part of
the Sukkot celebration.

Levites playing harps – Levites playing music are already known to us from the later books of
the Bible, and Levites playing harps specifically on Sukkot is mentioned in the Mishnah as well
(Sukkah 5:4).

Tacitus: The Jewish God is Not Like Dionysus

Plutarch is not the only ancient source connecting Sukkoth with Dionysiac rituals. The Roman
historian Tacitus, a contemporary of Plutarch, also knows of the comparison between the Jewish
God and Dionysus:

34
Tacitus however, in his polemic against Judaism,[18] rejects any kind of correspondence between
Jewish and Roman rituals (nequaquam congruentibus institutis: “the institutions have nothing in
common at all”).

The Lulav and Dionysian Ritual

Plutarch and Tacitus, both writing after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., in their
remarks on Sukkot seem to refer to the Sukkot rituals as performed in the Jerusalem Temple. But
the parallels must also have been visible (or even more visible) in and around synagogues and
communities after the Temple’s destruction. Although Tacitus denies the connection, to others
Sukkot, arguably the only festival in the Jewish calendar in which materiality is at the core, invited
“ethnographic” comparisons.

Especially the procession with the lulav must have looked to outsiders like a Dionysiac ritual. The
lulav could be compared to the thyrsus: a rod covered with ivy and vine-leaves which was one of
the attributes of Dionysus and his entourage of Maenads and Satyrs. The joyful feast of Sukkot
when Jews built huts of vine and ivy and made processions accompanied by the sound of trumpets
and other instruments reminded non-Jews of Dionysiac revelry.

35
Maenad pouring a libation to Dionysos. Side B of an Attic red-figure pelike, ca.
430 BC.

The Thyrsus and the Lulav

In Greek cult the thyrsus, often understood as a phallic symbol of fertility, was also carried by
priests of Dionysus. Remarkably a Jewish-Hellenistic author such as Flavius Josephus uses the
Greek word thyrsos for the Hebrew lulav.[19] Now Josephus certainly did not intend to align the
Sukkot festivities with rituals of Dionysus. But it is safe to assume that parallels between the Greek
and Roman cult of wine and ecstasy on one hand and the Jewish festival rods on the other, were
also noted by Jews.

Both Jews and pagans were aware of some parallels between the Jewish festival of booths and
rituals of Dionysus. Was there some kind of Greek influence on Jewish Sukkot rituals? While this
would be hard to prove, it certainly cannot be excluded either.

36
Footnotes

1. This is a revised version of an article printed in German in the Swiss Jewish weeklyTachles from October 4,

2017.

2. In Mishnaic times, but also already in Tanakh: 1 Kings 8.2, 2 Chron 7.8.

3. Jubilees 16.31.

4. In Ethiopic, the word used here for tents can also mean “booths” or “huts.” Similarly, the word regularly used

in Greek for “sukkah” (skēnē) can mean either “tent” or “booth”.

5. Jubilees’ prescription to wear crowns or wreaths is unique. See, Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot

in the Second Temple, and Rabbinic Periods (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 53. But see below also Tacitus’ comment

on Jewish priests wearing wreaths.

6. Lev 23.40 (‫ ;)ושמחתם‬Deut 16.14 (‫ ;)ושמחת בחגך‬on Plutarch’s description of Jewish revelry during Sukkot see

below.

7. Philo, On Special Laws 2.208, transl. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press, 1937). See, Isaak Heinemann, Philons griechische und jüdische Bildung: Kulturvergleichende

Untersuchungen zu Philons Darstellung der jüdischen Gesetze (Hildesheim: Olms, 1962), 134-135.

8. Philo, Against Flaccus 116-17, transl. (slightly adjusted) H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library(Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941).

9. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum 254. Nepia could also be read as a Greek word meaning “child”.

10. Editor’s note : For an example of Hellenistic Jews and Christians grappling with the meaning of kashrut laws,

see Joshua Garroway, “The Earliest Explanation for Kosher,”TheTorah.com (2016)

11. Plutarchus, Quaestiones Convivales 4.6.2 (671 D-E). Translation, adjusted, by P.A. Clement and H.B.

Hoffleit, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969).

12. Ibid. (672 A).

13. Cf. the critical edition by François Fuhrmann, Plutarque. Œuvres Morales. Propos de Table, Livres IV-VI

(Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1978). For a thorough discussion of the Plutarch passage and its potential sources cf. Adolph

Büchler, “La fête des cabanes chez Plutarque et Tacite,” Revue des Etudes Juives 37 (1898): 181-202 (accessible under

37
 http://www.sefarim.fr). Cf. also the comments in Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol.

One: From Herodotus to Plutarch (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), 545-562.

14. See Fritz Graf, “Interpretatio, II: Religion”. In: Brill’s New Pauly, vol. 6 (2005) 869-871.

15. Büchler (loc. cit., p. 193) and later Raffaello Del Re, “Plutarco e gli Ebrei,” La Rassegna Mensile di Israel 19

(1953): 496, tried to solve this problem by adding meta (“after”) at the beginning of the sentence. The translation would

then read as follows: “After the so-called Fast, at the height of the vintage, they set out tables of all sorts of fruit (…).”

Several modern editors follow this emendation.

16. Del Re (op.cit.) 496-97; Stern (op.cit.) 561.

17. Tacitus, Histories 5.5, transl. C.H. Moore, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press, 1931).

18. See René Bloch, Antike Vorstellungen vom Judentum: Der Judenexkurs des Tacitus im Rahmen der griechisch-

römischen Ethnographie (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002).

Sukkot, Hoshana Rabbah 2013 at the Hurva Synagogue, Jerusalem.

Thinking about how they had to him attendants receive the lulavim from them and arrange them
on a bench [itztaba], while the Elders place their lulavim in the chamber.

38
They were given permission to do so due to the concern that they would be injured the following
morning in the rush of people in search of their lulavim.

The gemara says ‫ וְּכֶשָׁראוּ‬.‫ ְוֵהן ְמַחְטִּפין וַּמִכּין ִאישׁ ֶאת ֲחֵבירוֹ‬,‫ ְוַהַחָזּ ִנין זוֹ ְרִקין אוָֹתם ִלְפֵניֶהם‬,‫ְלָמָחר ַמְשִׁכּיִמין וָּבִאין‬
‫ֵבּית ִדּין ֶשָׁבּאוּ ִליֵדי ַסָכָּנה — ִהְתִקינוּ ֶשׁ ְיֵּהא ׇכּל ֶאָחד ְוֶאָחד נוֵֹטל ְבֵּביתוֹ‬.

The next day everyone rises early and comes to the Temple, and the attendants throw the lulavim
before them. And in the confusion, the people snatch the lulavim and in the process strike one
another. And when the court saw that they came to potential danger, they instituted that each
and every person will take his lulav in his house and fulfill the mitzva there.

This got me thinking about the hagiographical legends about brotherly love that formed the basis
for the site of the temple…

What’s the Truth about . . . the Legend of Two Brothers and the
Temple Mount?
ARI Z. ZIVOTOFSKY WRITES:10

Misconception: God’s choice of Mount Moriah as the site for the Beit Hamikdash is based on
a midrash involving two brothers who expressed their mutual devotion to each other by each
surreptitiously giving of his grain to the other.

Background: The holiest site in Judaism is Mount Moriah, Har Habayit, the Temple Mount. It is
the site where both batei mikdash stood for a combined period of almost 1,000 years. The first was
built by King Solomon in the tenth century BCE and the second by those who returned from the
Babylonian Exile in the fifth-sixth century BCE and was later rebuilt by Herod (first century BCE).
To this day, more than 1,900 years since the Second Temple’s destruction, Jews all over the
world face in the direction of Har Habayit when offering their prayers, and ascent to the Mount is
permitted only when one is in a state of ritual purity. This location is said to be the place where
God’s presence resides, never to depart.

The Legend

The story relates that long before the Beit Hamikdash was built, two brothers lived and farmed on
that site. One was married and had a large family, while the other was single. They lived in close
proximity to each other, and each worked his land growing wheat. When harvest time arrived, each
was blessed with a bountiful crop and piled up his grain for long-term storage. The unmarried
brother, observing his good fortune, thought to himself that God had blessed him with more than
he needed, whereas his brother, who was blessed with a large family, could surely use more. He
arose in the middle of the night and secretly took from his grain and put it in his brother’s pile.
Similarly, the married brother thought to himself that he was fortunate to have children who will

10
https://jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-the-truth-about-the-legend-of-two-brothers-and-the-temple-mount/

39
care for him in his old age, while his brother will depend on what he saved. He, too, arose in the
middle of the night and quietly transferred grain from his pile to his brother’s. In the morning, each
pondered why there was no noticeable decrease in his own pile, and so they repeated the transfer
the next night. These nocturnal activities went on for several nights, until one night the brothers
bumped into each other. In that instant, in the dark of night, the glow of brotherly love lit up the
mountain sky; they each understood what the other had been doing and fell into each other’s arms
in a loving embrace. According to the legend, when God saw that display of brotherly love, He
selected the site for His Temple. In other versions, it was the Jews who, based on the story, chose
the site for building a House for God.

This fable is well known and circulates, for the most part, orally. More often than not, no source
for the story is offered. When a source is offered, it is usually a vague reference to “a Talmudic
legend” or “a midrash.” There is never a specific reference, and that is for a good reason—the
story is not found in any of the classic rabbinic sources.

Origin of the Legend

The story, however, does appear in collections of Jewish legends from the last few centuries,
including some that are important and reliable.1 Zev Vilnay, in his classic Legends of
Jerusalem ([Philadelphia, 1973], 77-78) includes this story. But the author is aware of its tenuous
origin and introduces it with the following: “Israel Kosta, a printer and bookseller in the middle of
the nineteenth century, relates . . . ” as if to say that the earliest source he could find was from the
nineteenth century and that he knew it was not an ancient Jewish legend. In his sources (n. 75, p.
320) he reveals: “The legend appeared first in the description of travels by A. de
Lamartine, Voyage en Orient I” ([1875], 329). In this note, he identifies Israel Kosta mentioned in
the text as a rabbi from Livorno, Italy, who authored an anthology of educational lessons, Mikveh
Yisrael, which appeared in 1851, where he mentions this legend (p. 30-31, story 59).2

Another source that mentions the legend is Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg (1909).3 In a
footnote, the author mentions Kosta’s Mikveh Yisrael but he does not provide an ancient classic
source.

Based on the exhaustive scholarly research of Professor Sándor (Alexander) Scheiber (1913-1985)
of Budapest,4 it appears that the first written reference to the legend is found in a non-Jewish
French book by Alphonse de Lamartine (1790-1869) published in Paris in 1835.5 De Lamartine
claims to have heard the legend from an Arab peasant while visiting Palestine in 1832, and that
the Arabs claim that this story explains how King Solomon chose the location to build the House
of God. It seems that Jews read this book, identified with the message of the story, adapted it, and
rapidly disseminated it.

Further research by Haim Schwarzbaum6 revealed a fascinating twist to the history of the story.
He wrote that “Scheiber has, however, overlooked the primary source of all the versions of this
lovely legend.” He found a strikingly similar, but “less ideal” tale in the eighth-century prologue
of an Arabic translation of the Indian collection of legends Kalilah wa-Dimnah. In this variant,
two partners replace the loving brothers and in the dark of night each tries to cheat from the other
rather than add to the other’s pile.7 This story would not have been unknown to Jews; there was a

40
thirteenth-century Hebrew version of Kalilah wa-Dimnah that was reprinted as Deux versions
hebraiques du livre de Kalilah et Dimnah in 1881 that contains the story.8

It thus seems the story originated in India, made its way to the Arabs in the eighth century where
it was given a positive spin, and then in the early nineteenth century migrated to Europe where the
Jews adopted it and applied it to the Temple. In order to posit an original Jewish origin, one would
need to explain how it got from the Jews to India and then how all trace of it was lost from Jewish
texts.

How the Temple Site Was Selected

If the site of Har Habayit was not chosen because of the fable involving the two brothers, how was
it selected? In the Torah the location is never specified, but rather is described as “the place God
will choose to rest His name” (e.g., Deuteronomy 12:5, 11, 14; 17:8).9 The location was revealed
to King David, and was originally the threshing floor of Aravnah the Jebusite. A devastating plague
had killed 70,000 Israelites as punishment for King David’s sin and as the Destroying Angel
approached Jerusalem, God stopped him at Aravnah’s threshing floor. King David saw the angel
and immediately confessed his sin to God, at which point God, via the Prophet Gad, commanded
him to build an altar on the site. Despite Aravnah’s generous offer, King David purchased the
location for full price,10 erected an altar and offered sacrifices (II Samuel 24:16-25). When this
incident is retold in Chronicles (I Chronicles 21:14-27), it continues with King David proclaiming
that the site should be the House of God, and he commenced preparing for building the Temple (I
Chronicles 21:28-22:19). And indeed, when Shlomo Hamelech begins the construction of God’s
house, it is at the site where God appeared to his father, King David, at the threshing floor of Arnan
(the name by which Aravnah is known in Chronicles [II Chronicles 3:1]). The Sifrei
(Devarim, Parashat Re’eh, pasuk 62) understood that King David correctly searched for a location
on his own and then had the selection confirmed by the navi, Gad.

That is as much as is explicit in Tanach. Many other historically significant events are said to have
taken place at the site. The location where Shlomo Hamelech built the Temple is called “Mount
Moriah” (II Chronicles 3:1) and the place where the Akeidah took place was the “land of
Moriah” (Bereishit 22:2). The name Moriah appears nowhere else in Tanach; thus, it is clear that
the site where the Temple was built (Aravnah’s threshing floor) is the site where
the Akeidah occurred.11 Hermeneutics based on the name Moriah led Chazal to conclude that
multiple other events of significance took place at that site. Chazal state that it was from the Even
Shesiya, the Foundation Stone, located on Har Habayit, that the world expanded into its present
form, and it was from Mount Moriah that God gathered dust to create the first man, Adam (Targum
Yonatan to Genesis 2:7; found also in Yerushalmi Nazir 7:2; Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer ch. 11, 12,
20; and Bereishit Rabbah 14:9). It is also a site historically used for altars. According to Chazal,
after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam built an altar on the Temple Mount, as did
Noach after the flood. It was this altar that Avraham and Yitzchak saw on the way to
the Akeidah and that indicated to them that they were at the correct location.12 In addition,
according to some opinions, Yaakov’s dream of the ladder took place on the Temple
Mount (Pesachim 88a; Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 35).

41
The legend of the two brothers is so popular and its message resonates so deeply with Jewish
values that some have suggested that Arabs living in the Land of Israel may have been
unknowingly preserving what had been an oral Jewish midrash. Others contend that whether or
not it is originally of Jewish origin, it is a worthwhile story and should be admitted to the Jewish
corpus.

The main message of this “midrash” is one of brotherly love and ahavat chinam. The pasuk in
Tehillim (Psalm 133:1) states: “Hinei matov u’mah naim, shevet achim gam yachad,13 Behold,
how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity.” How appropriate that so
many assume that the site of the Temple, which was destroyed because of sinat chinam, among
other reasons,14 should have been chosen because of brotherly love. Despite this tale having no
basis in Jewish sources, the notion that the Temple will be rebuilt only after we all get along and
show respect and compassion for each other is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. Indeed, the
Rambam (Guide of the Perplexed III: 45) suggests that the reason the location was not originally
revealed in the Torah was to avoid fighting between the tribes. According to the
Talmud (Zevachim 116b), King David collected money from all Twelve Tribes in order to
purchase the threshing floor. The Maharal explained that “Israel unites through the Temple, where
there is one priest and one altar” (Netzach Yisrael 5). May we speedily in our day have the unity
that will lead to the Temple being rebuilt on Mount Moriah.

Notes
1. For example, Micha Josef Berdyczewski, also known as Mikhah Yosef Bin-Gorion (1865-1921), in his classic work on Jewish
legends and folktales, Mimekor Yisrael, mentions it (see Indiana University Press edition, pages 491-492 or the abridged edition,
pages 272-273 along with the bibliographical notes for this legend on page 272).

2. Vilnay also references A. Kopish, Gesammelte Werke I (London, 1856), p. 23; Gedichte von Aug. Kopish, p. 149; Shlomo
Bakhor Hutzin’s Maasei Nissim (Baghdad, 1890), p. 53; and Alexander Scheiber, “La Legende de l’emplacement du Temple de
Jerusalem,” REJ IX (1948-49), 108-109.

3. In the JPS edition, it is in 4:154, and it is discussed in 6:293-294.

4. “La Légende de l’emplacement du Temple de Jérusalem,” in Essays on Jewish Folklore and Comparative Literature (Budapest,
1955) and Alexander Scheiber, “The Legend about the Temple Location in Jerusalem” in Essays on Jewish Folklore and
Comparative Literature (Budapest, 1985), 291-299.

5. Souvenirs, impressions, pensées et paysages pendant un voyage en Orient, 169.

In 1848, an English translation was published in New York by D. Appleton and Company entitled A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
The entire book can be read online at http://archive.org/stream/apilgrimagetoho00lamagoog#page/n288/mode/2up. The story is
found on page 289 of the online version.

6. Studies in Jewish and World Folklore (Berlin, 1968), 462-463.

7. Attributed to Abdallah ibn al-Muqaffa, died circa 760.

8. The positive version of the story is also found in Eastern thought but with no connection to selecting a sacred site. It is also found
in Caravan of Dreams (New York, 1988), p. 133, a collection of Sufi stories by Idries Shah. In that version, the stealth shifting of
grain continues for years without the brothers knowing why their piles don’t decrease.

9. Interestingly, all of the verses (including the above) in which the selection is stated in the future tense in the Torah are modified
in the Samaritan version to be in the past, indicating that God had already selected and revealed the location. In their version, this
revelation immediately follows the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13) where they have additional verses that say that Har
Gerizim will be the location of the permanent altar.

42
10. The midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 79:6) points out that the Temple Mount, together with Me’arat Hamachpelah and Shechem, are
the three places whose Jewish ownership no one can question because, according to the Bible, they were purchased at full price by
King David, Avraham and Yaakov, respectively.

11. This tradition is mentioned in the Book of Jubilees (18:13) and Josephus (e.g., Antiquities I:13:224, 226). Rashi makes this
connection as well. When Avraham names the site of the Akeidah “Hashem Yir’eh,” Rashi states, “The Lord will see: Its simple
meaning is . . . God will choose and see for Himself this place, to cause His Divine Presence to rest therein and for offering sacrifices
here” (Bereishit 22:14).

12. See Bereishit Rabbah 55:9; Yerushalmi Berachot 4:5, Yoma 54b; Rambam’s Hilchot Beit Habechirah 2:1-2, among many other
similar midrashim.

13. The Zohar (Acharei Mot) sees the two brothers in this verse as representing the two keruvim above the aron.

14. See my previous article “What’s the Truth about . . . the Cause of the Destruction of the Beit Hamikdash?” Jewish
Action (summer 2004), 52-54.

43