ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
(a) The problem with the prohibition of taking Lulav on Shabbos is - that the only Isur Shabbos that one might contravene by taking a Lulav on Shabbos is that of 'Tiltul' (i.e. Muktzeh), so why did they forbid it, seeing as min ha'Torah, it is a Mitzvah.
(b) Rabah therefore attributes the prohibition - to the fear that someone may take his Lulav to an expert to teach him how to shake it, carrying it four Amos in the street in the process.
(c) Rabah refers to carrying the Lulav four Amos in the street, rather than carrying from one domain to another - because of a case where either the Lulav is lying in a Karmelis, an enclosure or a garden to begin with, or where one initially picks it up not with the intention of carrying it into the street, and one then changes one's mind. In all of these cases, transferring from one domain to another (min ha'Torah) will not apply (see also Tosfos DH 've'Ya'avirenu').
(d) The same decree applies - to Shofar and to Megilah.
(a) The problem with Rabah's Takanah is - why then do take Lulav when the first day falls on Shabbos (seeing as it no less applicable then)?
(b) Initially, we propose that the first day that falls on Shabbos is different, because Chazal decreed that one should take the Lulav at home (see Tosfos DH 'Ha'). This explanation is inadequate however - because that was only a later Takanah, as we saw in our Mishnah. Originally, they would take their Lulavim in the Beis Hamikdash (in which case, the decree is still fully applicable).
(c) So we conclude that Chazal only issued their decree on Shabbos which falls during the week, because then, taking the Lulav is less Chashuv - since unlike the first day (which is Chayav even outside the Beis Hamikdash), they have no source outside the Beis Hamikdash.
(d) And the reason that we do not take Lulav nowadays when the first day falls on Shabbos - is because we are uncertain about when Rosh Chodesh (and therefore Yom-Tov) is. We do not therefore take Lulav on Shabbos, because we are not sure that it is the first day of Sukos.
(e) Eretz Yisrael is different, we suggest, because there they know exactly when the first day of Sukos falls. We now prove that the decree not to take the Lulav on the first day which falls on Shabbos, does not extend to Eretz Yisrael, even nowadays from two local Mishnahs - which speak about taking the Lulav on the first day of Sukos which falls on Shabbos, one in Shul, the other, in the Beis Hamikdash. Clearly, both Mishnahs are referring to Eretz Yisrael, the latter in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, the former, nowadays.
(a) The Beraisa learns from ...
1. ... "u'Lekachtem" - that every individual is obligated to take Lulav.
2. ... "Lachem" - that, on the first day at least, it must be owned by the person taking it (and may be neither borrowed or stolen).
3. ... "ba'Yom" - even on Shabbos.
4. ... "ha'Rishon" - that the previous Derashah is confined to the first day that falls on Shabbos (even outside the Beis Hamikdash [seeing as the Pasuk makes no reference to the Beis Hamikdash until later in the Pasuk]).
(b) We establish this Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer - who rules that even Machshirei Lulav (preparing the Lulav, such as cutting it from the tree) overrides Shabbos. Otherwise - why would we need a Pasuk to include Shabbos in the Mitzvah of Lulav, seeing as the only prohibition is that of Muktzeh, and we do not require a Pasuk to include Muktzeh (which is only an Isur mid'Rabanan in the first place).
(c) Rebbi Eliezer learns his ruling from "ba'Yom" (as we just explained). The Rabanan learn from "ba'Yom" - 've'Lo ba'Laylah' (to preclude night-time from the Mitzvah of Lulav).
(d) The Rabanan do not want to learn "Yamim", v'Lo Leilos' from the end of the Pasuk "u'Semachtem Lifnei Hash-m ... Shiv'as Yamim" - because without the Derashah of "ba'Yom', we would learn "Yamim" "Yamim" from Sukah that the Mitzvah of Lulav applies by night, too.
(a) We now know that "Yamim" by Lulav means days and not nights. Nevertheless, when in Tzav, Moshe told Aharon and his sons (regarding the Milu'im) to sit inside the Mishkan "Shiv'as Yamim", he meant both by day and by night (because, in another Pasuk there, the Torah writes "u'Fesach Ohel Mo'ed Teshvu Yomam va'Laylah").
(b) We prefer to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Yamim" "Yamim" (by Sukah) ...
1. ... from the Milu'im rather than from Lulav - because, like Sukah, Milu'im applied all day (whereas Lulav only applies for one moment each day).
2. ... from Lulav rather than from the Milu'im - because, like Sukah, Lulav applies at all times (whereas Milu'im only applied in the desert).
(c) We ultimately learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Teshvu" "Teshvu" - that we must learn "Yamim" "Yamim" by Sukah, from the Milu'im, and not from Lulav.
(a) The reason that Rebbi Yochanan gives to explain why Aravah on the seventh day overrides Shabbos is - in order to publicize that Aravah (which is not explicitly written) is basically min ha'Torah.
(b) The problem with this is - that Lulav in the Beis-Hamikdash ought then to override Shabbos all seven days, for the same reason.
(c) We answer that the reason that Chazal decreed by Lulav is because of Takanas Rabah, which does apply to Aravah - because, unlike Lulav, which every individual had to bring, the Aravah was brought by the Sheluchei Beis-Din, and taken by the Kohanim (who were generally careful), so there is no basis for such a decree.
(d) Chazal did not want to go so far as to allow all the days of Aravah (on whichever day Shabbos fell) to override Shabbos - because that would give Aravah the edge over Lulav, and people would begin to treat the Lulav with disrespect.
(a) Chazal did not choose the first day of Aravah to override Shabbos - because people would then think that Aravah over-rode Shabbos because Lulav did, and not in its own right (because it is min ha'Torah).
(b) And the reason that they picked the seventh day of Yom-Tov - is because if it cannot be the first day, then it is preferable to make it the last (so that it should be on a specific day).
(c) Aravah does not override Shabbos nowadays in Chutz la'Aretz - because they are not absolutely certain that it is the seventh day (see Tosfos, Amud a. DH 'Lo Yad'inon').
(d) Bar Hedya explained that there is no question of the Mitzvah of Aravah not overriding Shabbos, in Eretz Yisrael or anywhere else - because the calendar was arranged (even at that time, when they were still fixing Rosh Chodesh by means of witnesses and Beis-Din's declaration) in such a way that it could not happen (even to make Elul a full month if need be, to avoid it).
(a) Ravin and 'all the sailors' disagree with Bar Hedya. According to them, the seventh day of Sukos could indeed fall on Shabbos. Nevertheless, they maintained, the Mitzvah of Aravah did not override Shabbos - because who said that the Mitzvah of Aravah constituted taking it (which could be properly commemorated)? Perhaps the Mitzvah was really placing it on the Yesod of the Mizbe'ach (which cannot really be commemorated nowadays), and would not therefore override Shabbos!?
(b) Abaye tries to disprove Ravin from ...
1. ... our Mishnah, which mentions Lulav and Aravah together - implying that the Mitzvah of Aravah, like Lulav, is to take it (rather than to place it).
2. ... the Mishnah later, which differentiates between the last day, when they would go round the Mizbe'ach seven times, and the first six days, when they would only go round it once. Clearly, there was a Mitzvah of walking round the Mizbe'ach holding something in their hands. Now, if that something is the Aravah (as would appear from the earlier part of the Mishnah), then we have a proof, says Abaye, that the Aravah had to be taken, and not just placed on the side of the Mizbe'ach.
(c) We refute Abaye's ...
1. ... first Kashya - by establishing each Mitzvah to be performed in its own way; Lulav, by taking, and Aravah, by placing.
2. ... second Kashya - by establishing the Seifa of the Mishnah by a Lulav (and not by an Aravah).
(a) When Abaye told Ravin that Rav Nachman quoting Rabah bar Avuhah, established the Mishnah by Aravah (and not by Lulav) - he retorted: 'He establishes it by Lulav', and I establish it be Aravah'!
(b) Various Amora'im dispute whether the Mishnah is speaking about Lulav or Aravah. Rava quotes Rabah bar Chanah, who quotes Rebbi Elazar, in whose opinion the Tana is speaking about Lulav. We ask however on this, from a Beraisa (to prove Abaye right). It happened once, when the seventh day of Sukos fell on Shabbos, and they deposited Aravah branches in the Azarah on Erev Shabbos - that the Baytusim took them and squashed them underneath stones, knowing that on the following day, Shabbos, they would not be able to retrieve them (seeing as stones are Muktzeh).
(c) The Amei ha'Aretz (who sided with the Perushim, but were not aware of the Isur of Tiltul in this case) - subsequently pulled them out from under the stones.
(d) The Kohanim subsequently - came and took the Aravos and stuck them on the side of the Mizbe'ach (specifically the Kohanim - because a Yisrael was not permitted to enter the west side of the Mizbe'ach (Bein ha'Ulam v'la'Mizbe'ach).
(a) The Baytusim hid the Aravos - because, in their opinion, shaking the Aravah does not override Shabbos.
(b) They actually disagreed with the ruling that Chibut Aravah overrides Shabbos ...
(c) ... a clear proof that the Mitzvah constitutes taking (and even shaking) the Aravah, and not just placing it - since Chibut Aravah (beating the Aravah) incorporates taking it in one's hand.
(a) In spite of having proved that the Mitzvah of Aravah constitutes taking it on the seventh day (even in Eretz Yisrael) does not override Shabbos - because, since it does not override Shabbos in Chutz la'Aretz (seeing as they are uncertain as to which day Yom-Tov falls), it does not override Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael either (so as not to split the nation, with regard to Shabbos, giving it a semblance of two Toros).
(b) We query this however, from Lulav on the first day of Yom-Tov which falls on Shabbos - which, we think overrides Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael, but not in Chutz la'Aretz.
(c) We emend this explanation statement however - by admitting that just as Lulav does not override Shabbos in Chutz la'Aretz, so too, does it not override Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael.
(a) We try to refute this answer from the two Mishnahs which permit Lulav to be taken on the first day that fell on Shabbos, one in the Beis Hamikdash, and one, outside - by citing what we said above establishing the second Mishnah nowadays, when there is no Beis Hamikdash ...
(b) The problem this creates with our previous answer - is that there we said that Aravah does not override Shabbos in Eretz Yisrael, since it does not override it in Chutz la'Aretz), yet with regard to Lulav, the Mishnah declines to draw such a distinction.
(c) To resolve the problem, we emend our interpretation of the second Mishnah - by establishing it (not nowadays, but) in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, only outside Yerushalayim.