YESHIVAT HAR ETZION VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH PROJECT(VBM)
**************************************************************

             YHE-ABOUT: UPDATES AND SPECIAL MAILINGS

                      SPECIAL SUKKOT PACKAGE



                         LULAV AND ARAVA

                   by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein 


	Enumerated in the mishna at the beginning of the fourth 
chapter of Sukka are the various additional mitzvot which 
pertain to Sukkot, aside from the one for which the festival 
is named.  Two of these - lulav and arava - are grouped 
together in the mishna and share certain characteristics: they 
are both mitzvot specific to the day, are both performed with 
the four species (or a part thereof), and both are mitzvot 
which involve an act of lifting (netila).

	Despite their similarities, however, we can discern 
several differences as well:

a. According to Biblical law, the lulav is taken in the Temple 
all seven days and outside it on only one, while arava is not 
prescribed at all outside the Temple, even though it too is in 
effect all seven days in the Temple.
b.  Rabbinically, lulav is prescribed outside the Temple for 
seven days but arava only one (as discussed in Sukka 44a).
c.  Not only the timing but also the authority of their 
respective obligations differs.  While lulav is a full-fledged 
rabbinic obligation outside the Temple, stemming from an 
enactment of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, there is a lack of 
consensus among the amoraim in the gemara regarding whether 
the arava in such circumstances is an institution of the 
prophets ("yissud nevi'im") or a custom that arose in the days 
of the prophets ("minhag nevi'im"). We conclude that it is a 
minhag nevi'im, and as such, we do not make a blessing, as is 
concurrent with practices that only have a status of minhag.

	Arising from these points is a clear distinction between 
the obligation of arava outside the Temple, and the obligation 
of lulav outside the Temple.  Unlike lulav outside the Temple, 
which is mandatory, whether by Torah law (on the first day) or 
rabbinic (the other six days), arava outside the Temple is 
prescribed neither biblically nor rabbinically, except as a 
mere minhag which is applicable for only one day.

	To all this can be added the statement of Rabbenu Tam 
that arava does not even share in the full status of minhag.  
The Rishonim disagree as to whether one must say a blessing on 
a minhag.  Even Rabbenu Tam, who differs from Rambam, 
maintaining that a minhag does require a blessing, excludes 
arava which is a mere shaking ("tiltul be'alma") and thus is 
of a lower status than that of other minhagim.

	In order to understand those peculiarities, we must 
analyze the mitzva of arava within the Temple.

"How was the mitzva of arava fulfilled?  There was a 
place below Jerusalem called Motza.  They went down to 
there and gathered large willow branches, and came and 
stood them upright along the sides of the altar with 
their tips bent over the top of the altar.  They blew 
teki'a, teru'a, teki'a."
							(Mishna Sukka 4:5)

	It appears from this that the mitzva of arava is not an 
obligation upon an individual, a "chovat gavra", which is 
fulfilled through the action of he who takes the arava.  
Rather, the fulfillment relates to the Temple: there is a 
requirement to place willow branches upright alongside the 
altar, as praise and decoration.  The focus, then, is on the 
altar and not on the person.

	However, we must continue to analyze the picture 
suggested by an examination of the sugyot.

	The gemara (43b) deals with the question of whether the 
mitzva of arava lies only in standing it upright (zekifa) on 
the side of the altar, or also in the actual taking of it 
(netila).  If arava does have a mitzva of netila then there is 
certainly room to say that there is a personal fulfillment 
achieved by the act of taking, just as there is in lulav.  
However, this would all depend upon one's understanding of the 
mitzva of netila.  At the beginning of the sugya, the gemara 
equates the netila of arava with the netila of lulav, but 
further on, the gemara tries to prove that there is a 
fulfillment of the netila of the arava from the circling of 
the altar (hakafa), and it is apparently in this hakafa that 
the gemara sees the fulfillment of the netila of arava.  If 
the fulfillment of the netila is in the hakafa of the altar, 
then one must still see the essential fulfillment of the 
mitzva as relating to the altar.  That is, the fulfillment 
that is centered on the altar is not just a function of its 
being decorated with branches of willow but also in its 
becoming a focal point around which people circle.

	It would seem that this question is repeated in an 
amoraic disagreement.  Resh Lakish opines that Kohanim barred 
from Temple service nevertheless enter between the hall (the 
entrance to the Hekhal) and the altar (from where they are 
generally prohibited) in order to fulfill their obligation of 
hakafa.  To this responds R. Yochanan:  "Who said it [the 
mitzva] is with netila - it might be with zekifa; who said it 
is with those [Kohanim] with physical defects - it might be 
with sound ones."  Resh Lakish's words - that they enter there 
in order to fulfill it - imply that there is a personal 
obligation in this mitzva, and that is why we allow those 
Kohanim to enter where it is normally prohibited, for they 
have an individual obligation to perform.  Thus, Rashi defines 
this disagreement as relating to whether there is an 
obligation incumbent upon each individual or solely a 
requirement that the altar be decorated, which can be 
accomplished by a single Kohen.  Similarly, Rashi lines up the 
two opinions on either side of the netila versus zekifa 
question; Resh Lakish, for whom there is a mitzva of netila, 
holds that there is likewise an individual obligation, while 
R. Yochanan regards only zekifa as a mitzva which is fulfilled 
at the altar, for which the services of no more than one Kohen 
would be sufficient.

	According to Rashi, then, the opinion which states that 
there is a mitzva of netila would also maintain that there 
exists an individual fulfillment thereof, similar to lulav.

	Tosafot there disagree with Rashi's assessment and 
categorize R. Yochanan's statement as merely a hypothesis ("im 
timtzei lomar").  In their opinion, R. Yochanan states that 
even according to those who claim that the mitzva is one of 
netila, this is not incumbent upon every individual to 
fulfill, but rather, is directed only to Kohanim who are fit 
for Temple service.  Thus, according to Tosafot, both R. 
Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that the mitzva relates to the 
altar as part of the Temple service.  Ritva explicitly 
formulates this approach:  "Perhaps it [the netila] is like 
other forms of ritual service which are given only to fit ones 
and not unfit ones."

	Tosafot point out that the whole sugya implies that the 
Kohanim alone did the hakafa, and the netila was incumbent 
only upon them, and it is patently clear that Israelites did 
neither netila nor hakafa. Ritva writes in disagreement that 
Israelites did do netila in their section of the Temple, 
though they did not enter to surround the altar. Rambam holds 
similarly that there is a mitzva of netila even without hakafa 
(for he rules that hakafa was done with the lulav).  Thus he 
rules that "the whole nation" did netila.  So too, it is 
written in the Yalkut that all Israel, old and young, did 
hakafa, and this is cited by Ra'avia as well (based on the 
Sefer Yerushalmi).

	Our question then, revolves around this disagreement of 
the rishonim.  For the Ritva and the Rambam, who believe that 
there can be netila even without hakafa, there is a personal 
obligation to take the arava, which is incumbent upon all 
Israel.  Hakafa, according to Ritva, was limited to Kohanim 
because Israelites simply could not enter.  Moreover, even 
when netila is seen as obligatory for everyone, hakafa may be 
of a different nature, as seen in the disagreement of R. 
Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

	Conversely, for Tosafot, who maintain that only Kohanim 
did hakafa and netila (for the two go together, as the words 
of R. Yochanan are most easily understood), even netila is not 
a personal obligation, but rather a function of the altar.

	It should be added that according to Abba Shaul (34a), 
arava is derived from the verse, "You shall take for 
yourselves" which is said regarding lulav, and is not learned 
from a separate halacha leMoshe miSinai.  If so, it appears 
that for him, too, there was a mitzva of netila.  Indeed, even 
Tosafot concur that according to the opinion of Abba Shaul 
there was a mitzva of netila for Israelites in their section 
of the Temple, entirely separate from the surrounding of the 
altar.

	From all this, we see that our question of whether arava 
has an individual fulfillment or a fulfillment only regarding 
the altar is actually a disagreement among tanaim (Abba Shaul 
vs. Rabbanan), amoraim (Resh Lakish vs. R. Yochanan) and 
rishonim (Rambam and Ritva vs. Rashi and Tosafot).

	Accordingly, we can now return to our point of departure 
and illuminate the distinction between lulav and arava outside 
the Temple.  As we have seen, the essence of the fulfillment 
of arava is in the Temple, specifically at the altar, as per 
the simple meaning of the mishna that the main point of the 
mitzva of arava lies in the zekifa and the resulting 
fulfillment of the altar.  Although it has been established 
for us that there is a netila aspect of arava as well, that 
can be seen as an expansion of the altar's function.  In this, 
arava differs from lulav, for lulav even in the Temple was not 
a function of the altar (except according to R. Yochanan ben 
Beroka in Sukka 45a who held that they placed along the altar 
upright palm branches and not willows) but rather an 
obligation upon the individual which was fulfilled by the act 
of netila in the Temple.  Despite the fact that even regarding 
lulav one must inquire whether the main fulfillment is that of 
the lulav itself or that of rejoicing in the Temple (cf the 
Rav's article on this issue which appeared in his book "Kovetz 
Chidushei Torah"), there still is much to differentiate it 
from arava.  Even if simcha is the essence of the mitzvot of 
lulav, that simply means that there is a mitzva to be happy 
before God. However, the mitzva is a personal simcha incumbent 
on the individual, similar to the eating of ma'aser sheni and 
shalmei simcha, and is not a function of Temple ritual.  This, 
though, is not the case with arava, which is not simply a 
function of the mitzva to rejoice in the Temple but rather is 
integrally a Temple-related mitzva (in the same way that the 
guarding of the temple gates is) and therefore is performed 
only by Kohanim.

	Therefore, the difference between the two outside the 
Temple is, also, evident.  Lulav, which is an obligation upon 
the individual, applies both in and out of the Temple, as the 
action of the individual can retain its significance outside 
the Temple.  Thus, the biblical obligation of lulav applies 
outside the Temple.  The biblical mitzva of arava, on the 
other hand, does not pertain outside the Temple, for there is 
no significance to arava without the altar.  For this reason 
they differ on the rabbinic level as well.  Lulav, which has 
significance outside the Temple, was enacted as a fully 
obligatory rabbinic mitzva.  The significance of doing 
something "in memory of the Temple" lies in replicating 
outside the Temple exactly what had, in previous times, been 
performed inside it, and thus it applies all seven days, as it 
did in the Temple.  Arava, however, which lacks all meaning 
outside the Temple, cannot be replicated, for without the 
altar, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original 
mitzva in the Temple.  Because of this, it is simply a minhag 
which serves to remind us of the Temple, and is not a full 
fledged enactment "zecher lemikdash."  For this purpose, one 
day suffices.  This is the meaning of the gemara's statement 
that:  "Lulav, which has a root in the Torah, is performed 
outside the Temple all seven days 'zecher lemikdash'.  Arava, 
which has no root in the Torah, is not performed outside the 
Temple all seven days 'zecher lemikdash'."  That is, as we 
have explained, the fact that lulav is biblically prescribed 
outside the Temple (for one day) shows that its practice has 
significance there, and thus can be rabbinically enacted for 
all seven.

	Arava, however, which has no biblical precedent outside 
the Temple, and in fact lacks all significance there, cannot 
be rabbinically prescribed as a mitzva for seven days as in 
the Temple, but only as a mere allusion (which is accomplished 
with one day).

	This explains the opinion of Rabbenu Tam that this minhag 
is of lesser status than others and is, in fact, no more than 
a mere shaking.  That is, that arava outside the Temple, 
without an altar, can only be "tiltul be'alma", and therefore 
cannot be transformed into an act of mitzva.  This is not, 
however, the case with other minhagim like the recitation of 
"half-Hallel" and second-day Yom Tov which bear significance 
as acts of mitzva resembling "whole Hallel" and one-day Yom 
Tov, and thus require a blessing.

	It appears to me, that with this in mind one may attempt 
to explain an additional point which is unique to arava.  We 
mentioned that Abba Shaul disagreed with the sages regarding 
the source of the mitzva of arava.  According to Abba Shaul 
the mitzva of arava is derived from the verse which speaks 
about lulav, while the sages maintain that it is not explicit 
in the Scriptures, but is rather a "halacha leMoshe miSinai" 
alone.  This has been stated by R' Nehunia of the Beit Churtan 
Valley, "[The law of] ten trees, arava and nissuch hamayim 
(the water libation on Sukkot) are halachot leMoshe miSinai."  
Although there are many halachot leMoshe miSinai, what 
distinguishes arava (and nissuch hamayim) is that the entire 
mitzva has no source other than halacha leMoshe miSinai, as 
opposed to other instances where the primary source is within 
the Torah, and the halacha merely provides supplementary 
details (as in the black color of tefillin, the five invalid 
shechitahs, and the like).

	It seems that this is connected to our previous 
discussion:  Only in the Temple can there be mitzvot which are 
completely halacha leMoshe miSinai!  Two reasons for this can 
be offered:

a.  The Temple is the earthly dwelling place of God, and 
therefore its procedures can be determined by means of an oral 
transmission from God to Moshe, as instructions pertaining to 
"His House".  However, for other mitzvot which apply outside 
the Temple, and are directed to people at their home and work, 
His wisdom decreed that a Torah source is necessary, in order 
to establish the basic principle.
b.  One can further suggest that in the Temple, arava and 
"nissuch hamayim" can be seen as components of the broader 
framework of Temple service in general and Sukkot ritual in 
particular, and as such they are in fact details of a 
framework which has its source in the Written Law.

	However, it should be noted, there are limits to how far 
one can delve, and all this cannot but remain within the realm 
of speculation.


(Originally appeared in Daf Kesher 359; Translated by Pnina 
Ra'anan)

**************************************************************

To subscribe send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il: subject:(leave 
blank or type word 'subscription'), on first line of text 
type: subscribe yhe-holiday  .

For a complete list of YHE Virtual Beit Midrash curriculum, 
send e-mail to: majordomo@etzion.org.il:, on first line of text type: 
get yhe-about courses .

Copyright (c) 1995 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

**************************************************************

                         **********

SHIURIM MAY BE DEDICATED TO VARIOUS OCCASIONS - YAHRZEITS, SEMACHOT, 
BIRTHDAYS, ETC.  PLEASE E-MAIL YHE@JER1.CO.IL FOR AN APPLICATION AND A 
LIST OF OPPORTUNITIES.


                          YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
                     VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
               ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
        E-MAIL: YHE@JER1.CO.IL or OFFICE@ETZION.ORG.IL