Commentaire sur Soucca 3:17

לולב הגזול פסול – as it is written (Leviticus 23:40): “[On the first day] you shall take the product of hadar trees….,” that which belongs to you and after the owners despair, let it be his, for he acquires it through despair, nevertheless, it is a commandment/Mitzvah that comes through a transgression.

Introduction The third chapter of Sukkah deals with the four species, which are together called the “Lulav.” These four species are described in Leviticus 23:40, “On the first day you shall take the product of ‘hadar’ trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.” The four species are identified by the rabbis as 1) the etrog or citron; 2) the lulav or palm-branch; 3) the hadas or myrtle; 4) the arava or willow. I will refer to them by their Hebrew names. The Torah does not say exactly what one is to do with these four species and this led to different interpretations among ancient groups of Jews. In Nehemiah 8:14-18 we see Israelites using them, or more precisely, something similar to them, to build their sukkot. Other groups of ancient Jews used them strictly in the Temple to walk around the altar. For the rabbis the mitvah of the lulav was incumbent upon every Jew, whether at the Temple or outside of it. The rabbis explain that each Jew must simply pick these four species up once a day on Sukkot and wave them in each direction. This remains our custom to this day. The first seven mishnayot deal with the physical attributes of the four species. To this day, observant Jews are extremely cautious to make sure that the four species look like they are supposed to look, or in Hebrew are “mehudar”, adorned. You can find many interesting pictures and information about the four species by googling them and looking at the images.

והיבש פסול – for all of them require “beauty” and it is missing.

A stolen or a dried up lulav is invalid. There are two potential reasons why a stolen lulav is invalid. First of all, the Torah states, “And you shall take for yourselves (lachem) on the first day…” The extra word “lachem (for yourselves)” is understood to mean that a person’s lulav must be their own and not one that was stolen or even borrowed. Secondly, performing a mitzvah with a stolen item is considered a “commandment that derives from a transgression” and such an act is invalid. A dried up lulav is invalid because it is not “adorned”, meaning it does not look good.

של אשירה – a tree that is worshipped.

One [that came] from an asherah tree or from a condemned city is invalid. An asherah is a tree used for idol worship. Since it is forbidden to use anything from this kind of tree, its palm-branch cannot be used to fulfill the mitvah of lulav. A “condemned city” refers to an idolatrous city which must be utterly destroyed, according to Deuteronomy 13:13-18. Everything in the idolatrous city must be burned. Hence it is impossible to use a lulav that comes from such a city.

ושל עיר הנדחת פסול – for it refers to burning. But a Lulav requires a measurement, and these, since they exist for burning, their measurements are not valid.

If its top was broken off or its leaves were detached, it is invalid. The lulav must not be broken off at its top and its leaves must still be attached to the spine, the middle leaf that goes through all lulavim.

נקטם ראשו פסול – for there is no “beauty.”

If its leaves are spread apart it is valid. Rabbi Judah says he should tie it at the top. If the leaves are still attached but they are spread apart, the lulav is still valid. Rabbi Judah says that if the leaves are still attached one should tie the lulav (just the palm-branch) together at the top. We shall learn more about tying all four species together in mishnah eight.

נפרצו עליו – and they are not attached other than through binding.

The thorny palms of the iron mountain are valid. The “iron mountains” are identified in Josephus, Wars of the Jews 4, 8, 2 as being mountains north of Moab, on the other side of the Jordan river. From our mishnah we see that the palm trees that grew there seem to have been a slightly different type of palm. Their leaves are shorter and do not grow on the whole length of the spine. Nevertheless, they are valid for the mitzvah of lulav.

נפרדו עליו – they are attached at the spine, but above they are separated to this side and that side like the branches of a tree.

A lulav which is three handbreadths in length, long enough to wave, is valid. The lulav must be three handbreadths, long enough so that one can wave it. The Talmud explains that the lulav must actually be three handbreadths long, like the hadas and aravah, and then an additional handbreadth so that it can be waved. We will learn more about waving the lulav and other four species in mishnah nine.

יאגדנו מלמעלה – if the leaves became separated, he should bind them in order that they ascend with the spine like the other Lulavim, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

ציני הר הברזל – there are palm-trees where the leaves on their Lulavim/palm branches are very short and do not ascend the length of the spine. If they are so long that the head of one reaches to the side of its root of the other, they are valid.

כל לולב שיש בו שלשה טפחים – corresponding to the length of the myrtle/Hadas and a handbreadth more, in order to wave/shake it, for the Lulav is required for waving/shaking, as we will see further on (see Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 9).

כדי לנענע בו – it is taught, and in order to wave/shake it, that is a handbreadth greater than the three handbreadths.

נקטם ראשו פסול – But the Halakha is not according to the anonymous Mishnah, but rather according to Rabbi Tarfon who said further on (Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4), that even if all three [of the myrtles/Hadasim] were broken off, they are valid.

A stolen or withered hadas is invalid.
One [that came from] an asherah or a condemned city is invalid.
If its tip was broken off, or its leaves were detached, or its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is invalid. But if he diminished them it is valid. But he may not diminish them on the festival.
This mishnah deals with the hadas, the myrtle. Many of the details of this mishnah are the same as those in yesterday’s mishnah concerning the lulav. I will comment only on aspects of the hadas that differ from those of the lulav.
Sections one and two: See sections one and two of yesterday’s mishnah.
Section three: The first two rules of this section are the same as that in section three of yesterday’s mishnah. The third is unique to the hadas. Some hadasim have berries attached to them. While hiking last week I think I actually saw a wild hadas that had many berries (I’m not a botanist, so I’m not sure it really was a hadas). They weren’t really berries as much as little black things that looked liked capers. In any case, too many of these berries renders the otherwise valid hadas invalid. However, the hadas is invalid only if the berries are still on the branch. If he removes the berries, the hadas again becomes valid. Finally, the mishnah states that he may not remove the berries on the festival itself. This is because it is forbidden to “make a vessel” on a festival or on Shabbat and by making an invalid hadas valid, he is making a vessel.

ענביו – the fruit that is upon it that is similar to grapes.

מרובות מעליו פסול – they did not teach other those which are black or red, but if they are green, it is a species of the myrtle/Hadas and it is valid.

ואין ממעטין אותן ביו"ט – that he should have repaired them.

נקטם ראשה פסולה – even this is not the Halakha.

A stolen or withered aravah is invalid.
One [take from an] asherah or from a condemned city is invalid.
One whose tip was broken off or whose leaves were detached, or a tzatzefah is invalid.
One that was shriveled or had lost some of its leaves, or one grown in a rain-watered soil, is valid.
This mishnah deals with the aravah, the willow.
Sections one and two: See mishnah one.
Section three: The first two details are again the same as in mishnah one. The third is unique to the aravah. The Torah specifies that an aravah that grows on a brook, or a wadi, is the type of aravah that should be used. According to the mishnah, this rules out the species of aravah called the “tzaftzefah”, which grows in the mountains and whose leaves are a different shape than the brook-aravah.
Section four: Of the four species, the aravah is the one that most easily dries out. Hence, the mishnah rules that if it is shriveled or lost some, but not most of its leaves, it is still valid.
The Torah states that the aravah is to be one that grows on a brook. The mishnah expands this to include an aravah that grows on a field watered by rain. The important thing is that the species of aravah is the same as that which grows on a brook. It is valid even if it is not actually found on the brook. This contrasts with the tzaftzefah, which is of a different species and does not look like a brook-aravah.

צפצפה – a kind of willow where its leaf is round,.

ושל בעל – where it grew in the field but not in a brook, it is valid. The words “willows of the brook” (Leviticus 23:40) were not said other than the fact that the Bible speaks in terms of words that are current.

אפילו שנים קטומין – it is referring to the myrtles/Hadasim and in the Talmud (Sukkah 34b) it raises the objection if they are broken on the top they are invalid, for it requires three and all of them whole, but if it is broken off, it is valid, even to validate all three of them which are broken on the top. And it finishes that Rabbi Yishmael retrated from the beginning of his words that he would require three Hadasim and validates even two which are broken off at the time. And this is the law if they did not bring them at all that they are broken off, according to the one who does not hold like this.

Introduction In this mishnah the sages debate how many of each of the species he must take.

אפילו שלשתן קטומין – for beauty is not required for the Hadas/myrtle. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Tarfon.

Rabbi Ishmael says: three hadasim, two aravot, one lulav and one etrog, even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off and [only] one is whole. According to Rabbi Ishmael, one takes three hadas branches, two branches of aravot, one lulav and one etrog. He probably derives these numbers midrashically from the verses. However, the hadasim need not all be perfect. Two of them may have their tips broken off, as long as the third one does not. The Talmud questions this addendum to Rabbi Ishmael, wondering if a hadas with its tip cut off is valid. If it is, then why must the third one have its tip intact, and if it is not, then why bring two invalid hadasim?

Rabbi Tarfon says: even if all three have their tips broken off. Rabbi Tarfon agrees with Rabbi Ishmael regarding the numbers of each species that must be brought, but he disagrees concerning the tips of the hadasim. He holds that a lulav with its tip broken off is valid.

Rabbi Akiva says: just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so too only one hadas and one aravah. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael concerning the number of each species. According to Rabbi Akiva one must only bring one of each species. The accepted halakhah with regard to the number of each species is according to Rabbi Ishmael.

של ערלה ושל תרומה טמאה פסול – as the Biblical verse states (Leviticus 23:40): “[On the first day] you shall take” – that it should be fitting for you.

An etrog which is stolen or withered is invalid.
One from an asherah or a condemned city is invalid.
Of orlah or of unclean terumah it is invalid.
Of clean terumah, he should not take it, but if he did take it, it is valid.
Of demai (doubtfully-: Bet Shammai says it invalid, And Bet Hillel says it valid.
Of second tithe, it should not be taken [even] in Jerusalem, but if he took it, it is valid.
This mishnah deals with what makes an etrog invalid. Of the four species, only the etrog is a food and hence only an etrog is subject to the normal agricultural laws tithes, terumah, and orlah. The mishnah therefore focuses on these subjects.
Sections one and two: See mishnah one.
Section three: Orlah is fruit grown from a tree less than three years old. It is forbidden to eat such fruit or derive any benefit from it. Hence an etrog that is from an orlah tree cannot be used. Similarly, it is forbidden to eat or derive any benefit from unclean (impure) terumah. Therefore it too cannot be used in the performance of the mitzvah.
Section four: A pure terumah etrog should not be used to perform the mitzvah, although if it is used it is valid. In the Talmud they debate why it should not be used. The core of the reasoning seems to be that by using it he may ruin it from being a food and terumah is supposed to be eaten. Alternatively, by using a terumah etrog with the lulav he may cause the etrog to get wet and thereby susceptible to impurity [produce is susceptible to impurity only after it has been in contact with liquid].
Section five: Demai is doubtfully-tithed produce, produce that was purchased from someone who is suspected of not separating tithes. There is a frequent debate between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel over the use of demai produce in the performance of a mitzvah. The talmudic explanation is that demai can be eaten by the poor. Since anyone can renounce ownership over all his possessions and thereby become poor, Bet Hillel holds that anyone can use demai to perform a mitzvah. In other words, every person is potentially a poor person. Bet Shammai holds that since it cannot be eaten by anyone but the poor it cannot be used as part of the lulav.
Section six: Second tithe must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. Nevertheless, the mishnah says that even in Jerusalem he should not use a second tithe etrog as part of his mitzvah. The reasoning is the same as that in section four concerning pure terumah. However, if he did use it he has performed the mitzvah, again the same rule as with terumah.

ואם נטל כשר – for it has the permission of eating it.

ובית הלל מכשירין – for it is appropriate for the poor, as it is taught in the Mishnah (Tractate Demai, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1): “The poor may be given Demai/doubtfully tithed produce.”

בירושלים כו' – but not outside of Jerusalem, for we require, “for you” (ibid.), that it be fitting for you.

עלתה חזזית – like thin blains/pustules.

If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid.
If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid.
An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid.
An etrog which is green as a leek: Rabbi Meir declares it valid And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid.
The Torah says calls an etrog “the beautiful fruit of the tree” or “the fruit of the beautiful tree.” Due to the mention of the word “beautiful (hadar)" the rabbis were more demanding regarding the physical perfection of the etrog than of the other three species. Indeed, to this day people are very concerned that they should have a beautiful “mehudar” etrog. An extreme example of this is the man who paid one thousand dollars for an etrog in the movie “Ushpizin,” a movie which I recommend.
Sections one and two: If there is a rash, which might refer to some discoloration, or things like warts (not just bumps, which are considered desirable in an etrog) on a majority of the etrog, than it is invalid. The pitom is the funny looking mushroom which sticks out of the ends of some etrogim (Google pitom and etrog and you can find some nice pictures). I should note that not all etrogim have a pitom. An etrog without a pitom is valid, indeed in some ways it is preferable because it is less likely to become invalid. The etrog is invalid only if the pitom was there and was then removed. However, if its stem, the part of it which attached it to the tree is removed, it is still valid. The stem is basically not part of the etrog.
Likewise it is invalid if it is peeled, split or any part of it is missing.
Section three: A black etrog is invalid.
Section four: There is a debate over the green etrog, Rabbi Meir declaring it valid and Rabbi Judah invalidating it. In Israel one sees many green etrogim, which never fails to surprise my family (as does the pitom-less etrog).

על רובו – it is one place, for we require the majority, but in two or three places, even on the minority, it is invalid. And on its pestle-like protuberance on the blossom-end (i.e., of the Etrog/citron), even a little bit is invalid, for it appears there more than in the rest of the places.

פטמתו – the beauty at its head, like the protuberance on the blossom end of the pomegranate.

נקלף פסול – and specifically if was completely peeled off, but it is valid if only part of it [was peeled off]. And there are those who say the opposite – that if part of it was peeled off, it is invalid, for it appears like it is striped/speckled, but if it is completely peeled off, it is valid. But that being peeled off is not that the peeling was removed until the whiteness that is in it appears, for this is lacking and invalid, but rather, that a thin crust/coating was peeled off from it and its appearance is green as at the beginning.

ניקב – a perforated hole from side to side, even of a little bit of it is invalid, but if it is not perforated, and is not missing anything, such as when he inserts a thick peg/nail , if the puncture is as wide as an Issar, it is invalid; less than this it is valid. And this puncture which is not missing a little bit is valid, as we teach further on that which is not perforated and is not as wide as an Issar.

אתרוג הכושי – that grew here and is black is invalid. But, a Cushite/dark-colored Etrog that grew in the land of Cush, which is its manner and is valid.

ורבי יהודה פוסל – And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda. And all of these are invalid on the First Day of the Festival [of Sukkot]., but on the Second Day of the Festival with the rest of the days, everything is valid.

רבי יהודה אומר כביצה – But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda for less than an egg’s bulk is invalid.

Introduction This mishnah teaches the minimum and maximum size for an etrog.

רבי יהודה אומר אפילו בשתי ידיו – And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yosi.

The minimum size of an etrog: Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. Rabbi Meir sets the minimum size of an etrog at that of a nut, assumedly something about the size of a walnut. I have never seen an actual etrog this size, but I suppose that if they are picked early from the tree one can find them this size. Rabbi Judah sets the minimum size at that of an egg.

The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands. In this section they argue about the maximum size of the etrog. According to Rabbi Judah (who is the stricter sage in both parts of the mishnah), it must be small enough so that one could hold two with one hand. The reason is that sometimes a person might need to hold the lulav and the etrog in one hand. If the etrog is too big he might drop the etrog which might ruin it by disfiguration. Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that the etrog can be so big that one needs both hands to hold it. In the Talmud, Rabbi Yose tells a story of Rabbi Akiva who came to the synagogue with an etrog so large that he had to carry it on his shoulder! In Israel, I have seen very large etrogim, ones that look like they would be difficult to carry with one hand.

בגימוניות של זהב – folded gold threads like a little yoke, like (Isaiah 58:5): “…Is it like bowing the head like a bulrush [and lying in sackcloth and ashes…]?,” and the band surrounds it.

Introduction 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.

במינו היו אוגדין אותו למטה – to fulfill the commandment of tying/binding, and this is for merely beauty, for Rabbi Yehuda according to his reasoning who said that a Lulav requires a bind, therefore, if he binds it with something not of its species, he would have five species (instead of four), and we hold that a Lulav does not require a band, therefore in this, the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.

They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Judah holds that the lulav must be bound together. The consequence of this rule is that the binding is an integral part of the lulav without it one cannot perform the mitzvah. Since the binding is integral to the lulav, it must be made from one of the four species. Assumedly, this would be from a string made from a palm tree.

Rabbi Meir says: it may be bound even with a cord. In contrast, Rabbi Meir holds that the lulav need not be bound together. Since the binding is unnecessary, it is not part of the lulav. Therefore, it can come from any species.

Rabbi Meir said: it happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold. They answered him: but they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold]. 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.

והיכן היו מנענעין – now the Tanna/teacher returns to that which we taught above (Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 1): Any Lulav that has in it three handbreadths in order to [hold it in his hand] and shake it, so we see that it is a Mitzvah to shake it (Talmud Sukkah 37b).

Introduction The first part of this mishnah deals with when during the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) one waives the lulav. The second part of the mishnah deals with when during the day one should perform the mitzvah of taking the lulav.

בהודו לה' תחלה – the beginning of the Biblical verse (Psalms 118:1).

And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm 118), at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.” The mitzvah of taking the lulav involves waving it in six directions to the directions of the four winds and up and down. The custom was and still is to waive the lulav the first time one takes it up, and then to waive it again in the synagogue at various points during the recitation of Hallel at the morning service. This is the background to our mishnah. Here we see that there is a debate about one of these wavings. According to all of the sages, one waves at the beginning of Psalm 118 and at the end, a Psalm that begins and ends with “Give thanks to the Lord.” Everyone agrees that there is also a waving in the middle of this Psalm, but they disagree as to the extent of the waving. Bet Hillel says that one waves during the first half of verse 25, “O Lord, deliver us”, but not during the second half, “O Lord, let us prosper.” Bet Shammai says that one also waves during the second half of the verse. Rabbi Akiva, who lived long after Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai were no longer really in existence, testifies that he saw all of the people waving at “O Lord, let us prosper” as Bet Shammai stated, while Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, two of Rabbi Akiva’s elders, waived only at “O Lord, deliver us,” as Bet Hillel posited. The halakhah is according to Bet Hillel. As an aside, while it is typical for the rabbis to follow Bet Hillel, it is interesting to note that in this case most of the people acted like Bet Shammai.

וסוף – the end of the Biblical verse, “for God’s lovingkindness endures forever” (Psalms 118:29). But there are those who interpret the beginning of the first “Praise the LORD for He is good” (Psalms 118:1) and the end, and the end, the last “Praise the LORD [for He is good]” at the conclusion of Hallel (Psalms 118:29), and this makes sense. And how does he shake it? He moves it back and forth in order to prevent the evil winds, moves it up and down to prevent evil dew (Menahot 62a). And when he moves it, he shakes it three times ad similarly when he moves it [back and] forth, and similarly when he moves it up and similarly going down, on each and every one three times.

One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav. It is preferable to take up the lulav first thing in the morning before one eats. This is usually done today during the morning prayer service, right before Hallel. However, one can fulfill the mitzvah any time during the day. If one is returning from a trip and he didn’t have a lulav with him, he should take one as soon as he gets into his house. Even if he is in the middle of a meal and then remembers that he hasn’t performed the mitzvah of taking the lulav, he should put aside his meal and take the lulav. One can perform the mitzvah all the way through dusk.

והם לא נענעו אלא באנא ה' הושיעה נא בלבד - and this is not the Halakha but rather according to the words of the School of Hillel.

יטול על שלחנו – if he forgot and did not take up the Lulav prior to eating, he interrupts his meal and take it up at his table.

מי שהיה עבד או אשה או קטן וכו' – Whomever is not obligated in a matter cannot fulfill that obligation on behalf of others. Therefore, he must answer after him word by word what he recites.

Introduction In the time of the Mishnah not every person in the synagogue would recite the Hallel on his own, as we normally do today. Rather, the leader would recite part, or perhaps most of the verse and the rest of the congregation would respond with the second half of the verse, or with “Halleluyah.” In this way, the leader would aid the congregation in fulfilling their obligation to recite Hallel. In this mishnah we learn that slaves, women and minors cannot aid a free adult male in his recitation of the Hallel because they themselves are not obligated to recite Hallel. This fits in with two general rules: 1) women and slaves are exempt from positive time-bound commandments; 2) a person who is not obligated for something cannot fulfill that obligation on behalf of someone who is.

ותהא לו מארה – for he had not studied.

One who has a slave, a woman, or a minor read [the Hallel] to him, he must repeat after them what they say, and a curse be upon him. The mishnah describes an adult man who doesn’t know how to recite Hallel and therefore needs someone else to recite it for him. Usually, this would be done by another free adult male, but for some reason, this person cannot find another free adult male who knows how to recite the Hallel. He therefore turns to a slave, a woman or a minor who does know how to recite Hallel. This is allowed, except unlike a normal case where the person would only answer “Halleluyah” (as is the case in section two), in this case he must repeat the entire verse after the slave, woman or minor. In this way, he fulfills the obligation himself and they do not fulfill it on his behalf. It is interesting to note that it sounds like the rabbis had to confront the possibility that a slave, woman or minor would be more educated, at least religiously, than a free man. It is hard to know how realistic this situation was or how often it might arise. Nevertheless, it is at least a theoretical possibility. The mishnah is clearly disturbed by the man’s lack of knowledge and hence it says that a man who allows this situation to happen should be cursed.

עונה אחריו הללויה – on every word that he says, for that is how they are accustomed to respond after the recitation of Hallel on every single word, Hallelujah.

If an adult recited to him, he repeats after him [only] Halleluyah. This is the normal way in which Hallel was recited during the time of the Mishnah and Talmud.

מקום שנהגו לכפול – Each and every verse from (Psalms 116:21): “I praise You, [for You have answered me],” and below until the conclusion of Hallel, we double/recite this twice, because the entire chapter from “Praise the LORD, for He is good” (Psalms 116:1) until “I praise You, for You have answered me” (Psalms 116:21), all of it is doubled in the Bible, but from “I praise You” and below is not double; therefore, it became the practice to recite these Biblical verses twice.

Introduction The first half of this mishnah continues to deal with the recitation of Hallel. The second half contains another rule regarding the lulav and etrog.

לברך אחריו – everything is according to the custom of the locale/country, but the Blessing before the [recitation of] Hallel is a Mitzvah in every place and is not dependent upon custom.

In a place where the custom is to repeat [verses], he should repeat; [Where the custom is] to say them only once, he should say them once. Today it is our custom to recite certain verses of Hallel twice, specifically from Psalm 118:21 till the end of the Psalm. In the time of the Mishnah not everyone had this custom. The mishnah states that when it comes to this issue, one should follow whatever is his local custom.

הלוקח לולב מחבירו – an ignoramus.

[Where the custom is] to recite a blessing afterwards, he should recite the blessing afterwards. Everything is dependent on local custom. Similarly, there were different customs regarding reciting a blessing after Hallel some recited the blessing and some did not. Today our custom is to recite a blessing after Hallel on all occasions, even on those occasions where Hallel is only a custom and is not mandated (such as Rosh Hodesh and the last six days of Pesah).

בשביעית – for the ignoramuses are suspect on the Seventh year [produce], and assuming that the cost of the Lulav he can give him because the Lulav is a mere tree, and it has no [intrinsic] holiness of the Seventh year, but the cost of an Etrog/citron he cannot give him, for the fruits of the Seventh year must be removed in the seventh year, them and their value; therefore, it is necessary to take the Etrog from him as a gift and not to give him its monetary value, lest the ignoramus not remove them in the holiness of the Seventh Year.

One who purchases a lulav from his fellow in the sabbatical year, [the latter] should give him the etrog as a gift, since one is not permitted to purchase it in the sabbatical year. On the sabbatical year all produce must be removed from one’s house and destroyed once it no longer grows in the field. A person can harvest the etrog and use it, but once etrogim are no longer found in the trees he must get rid of the etrogim in his house. When a person sells an etrog (or any other produced) which grew on the sabbatical year, the money retains the status of the etrog (or other produce) itself. That is to say, when there are no more etrogim in the field he must get rid of the money as well. The person in our mishnah is purchasing the four species from someone he fears does business in produce grown in the sabbatical year. He shouldn’t buy from him the etrog lest the seller not get rid of the money when he is supposed to. A person shouldn’t aid another in transgressing the commandment of observing the sabbatical year. To avoid this problem and still obtain a lulav, he should pay for the lulav (the palm) which is not subject to the laws of the sabbatical year (because it sprouted in the previous year) and have the price of the etrog included in the price of the lulav. He receives the etrog as a present when he buys the lulav. In this way the money used to buy the etrog need not be removed from the seller's house when etrogim are no longer found on trees.

במקדש שבעה – as we expound (Leviticus 23:40): “[and you shall rejoice] before the LORD your God seen days” but not outside of Jerusalem for seven days.

Introduction Leviticus 23:40 reads, “On the first day you shall take...and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.” The beginning of the verse states “on the first day” and the end of the verse says, “seven days.” From here the rabbis derived that the mitzvah of taking the lulav is for a different amount of time in different places. They read the second half of the verse as applying to the Temple, “before the Lord your God.” Hence, the lulav should be taken up for seven days in the Temple. Outside of the Temple, or according to other commentaries, outside of Jerusalem, the lulav need be taken for only one day.

במדינה – in Jerusalem, and even though it is like that which is outside of Jesrusalem in this matter.

In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the Temple still stood the lulav was taken in the Temple (or in Jerusalem) for seven days and outside of the Temple for only one day, as explained in the introduction.

ושיה יום הנף – of the Omer, that is on the sixteenth day of Nisan.

When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was a problem. If people only observed the commandment for one day, they would soon forget that originally the commandment was observed for seven days, at least in some places. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, one of the leading rabbinic figures after the destruction of the Temple, decreed therefore that the lulav should be taken up for seven days in all places, in memory of the Temple.

[He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce]. Having related one of the decrees that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai made after the destruction of the Temple, the mishnah now relates another, similar decree. We need to note a little bit of background to understand this. On the second day of Pesah, when the Temple still stood, the Omer offering of barley was harvested and brought to the Temple and waved by a priest. After this day, it was permitted to eat from the new grain harvest (see Leviticus 23:9-14). Since people outside of Jerusalem would not know precisely when the Omer had been offered, they would wait at least half of the day before they would eat from the new harvest. When the Temple was destroyed and they could no longer offer the Omer, the rabbis derived from the Torah that the new produce could be eaten as soon as the second day of Pesah began. In other words, without an Omer sacrifice the day itself allowed the new harvest. Again, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai perceived a problem. If people would eat from the new harvest immediately on the 16th of Nissan, when the Temple is rebuilt they would forget that they need to wait until the Omer is offered. Therefore he decreed that the new produce could not be eaten for the entire day. It is interesting to note that the rabbis who lived close to the destruction of the Temple believed that it would speedily be rebuilt. Just as they began working on the rebuilding of the First Temple only 70 years after its destruction, rabbis who lived in the first and early second century probably assumed that their Temple would also be rebuilt in a short time. However, after the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, it probably began to dawn on many that the realistic chances of the Temple being speedily rebuilt were not good. The hopes of course never died, but this type of legislative activity making decrees lest the Temple be rebuilt quickly, were more characteristic of the pre Bar Kokhba period.

כולו אסור – and at the time when the Temple existed, when they offered the Omer [sacrifice], they would eat new [grain] on that selfsame day, as it is written (Leviticus 23:14): “until you have brought [the offering of your God].” But, when the Temple had been destroyed, it is permitted from the Torah [to eat new grain] from when the sun rose in the East, as we say: One verse says (ibid.): “Until that very day,” for it implies, when the sun rose in the East, and another verse states, “until you have brought” (ibid.); at the time when there isn’t Omer “until that very day.” But Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai prohibited [new grain] the entire day, because speedily, the Temple should be rebuilt, and people will say that last year, did we not eat from when the sun rose in the east, and now also, we should eat.

יום טוב ראשון וכו' – for we say further on (Tractate Sukkah, Chapter 4, Mishnah 2) that the command of [taking up and waving] the Lulav supersedes the Sabbath on the first Day of the Holy Day alone. Therefore, they would bring to there their Lulavim/palm branches (literally, but it refers to the Four Species) from Friday.

Introduction Today we don’t take the lulav on Shabbat. However, in the time of the Mishnah if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, they would take the lulav, because as we learned in mishnah twelve, the taking of the lulav on the first day of Sukkot is mandatory even outside of the Temple. Our mishnah teaches how they avoided the problem of carrying the lulav to the synagogue on Shabbat, which is clearly a transgression.

אין אדם יוצא וכו' – as it is written (Leviticus 23:40): “On the first day, you shall take [the product of hadar trees…..],” “you/yourself” – from that which is yours. , and if one’s fellow gave it to him as a gift even with the condition of returning it, it is called a gift, and he waves it and fulfills with it [his religious obligation] and afterwards he returns it to him. But if he did not return it to him, it has been revealed retroactively that it was [actually] stolen in his hand from the outset, and he did not fulfill his [religious] obligation.

If the first day of the festival falls on Shabbat, all the people bring their lulavim to the synagogue [on Friday]. In order to avoid the problem of carrying on Shabbat, the people would bring their lulavim to the synagogue on Friday and leave them there for the next day.

The next day they arise early [and come to the synagogue] and each one recognizes his own [lulav] and takes it, since the sages said “one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the festival with his friend’s lulav.” The only problem with this is that a person needs to use his own lulav on the first day of the festival, because the Torah says “and you shall take for yourselves on the first day” understood to mean that the lulav must belong to the person taking it. If all of the lulavim were heaped together in the synagogue a person might not know which lulav is his own. Therefore the mishnah says that everyone must be able to recognize his own lulav.

But on the other days of the festival one may fulfill his obligation with the lulav of his fellow. The verse which implies that the lulav must belong to the person taking it refers only to the first day of the festival. After this day a person may fulfill his obligation with someone else’s lulav. The result is that if Shabbat falls on another day of the festival, not on the first day, they need not recognize which lulav belongs to them. They therefore would bring their lulav to the synagogue on Friday but they wouldn't have to worry about recognizing their own lulav.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah which discussed taking the lulav on the first day of the festival which falls on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yose says: if the first day of the festival fell on Shabbat, and he forgot and carried out his lulav into the public domain, he is not liable, since he brought it out while under the influence [of a religious act]. According to Rabbi Yose, since a person is supposed to take the lulav on Shabbat if it is also the first day of the festival, he is not obligated if he mistakenly carries it out into the public domain. In other words, since he was allowed to take it in the first place, he is excused for making the mistake of carrying it outside. However, if he did this on another day of the festival, meaning if another day of the festival fell on Shabbat, he would be liable since he should not have taken it at all. If he carries it outside into the public domain intentionally he is always liable

Introduction As anybody who has ever fulfilled the commandment of lulav knows, or for that matter, as anybody who has ever dealt with cut flowers knows, they tend to dry up over time. This is especially true for the aravah and the hadas they simply won’t last when they are taken out of water. Our mishnah deals with putting the lulav back into water on Shabbat and on the festival.

A woman may receive [a lulav] from her son or from her husband and put it back in water on Shabbat. This section really teaches two things. The first is that putting a lulav back in water on Shabbat is permitted. This is not similar to watering plants which is prohibited because the plants are still attached to the ground. Secondly, the mishnah teaches that a woman may handle a lulav on Shabbat even though she is not liable to take the lulav. We might have thought that since she is exempt from the laws of lulav, that the lulav is muktzeh to her (forbidden for her to handle). The mishnah teaches that since a man is obligated to take the lulav on Shabbat (if it is the first day of the festival), then the woman may handle it as well.

Rabbi Judah says: on Shabbat they may be put it back [into the water in which they were previously kept], on a festival day [water] may be added, and on the intermediate days [of the festival the water] may also be changed. Rabbi Judah expands on the previous opinion. He agrees that on Shabbat one may put the lulav back into the water. However, he is not allowed to add new water. On a festival he can even add new water, but he may not completely switch the water. That he may do only on the intermediate days of the festival (hol hamoed).

A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated [to take] the lulav. Once a child has reached an age where he is big enough to hold the lulav (all four species) and shake them properly, he is obligated to do so. The Talmud Bavli and subsequent commentators interpret this to mean that at this age his father has an obligation to teach him how to shake the lulav. His real obligation does not begin until his bar mitzvah, at age 13.