Does the halakhic obligation to take up the arbah minim all seven days in Jerusalem from the time of the Temple still apply today?
All three pilgrimage festivals were centered around the experience of being at the Temple during the holiday. Whereas each person was required to offer a sacrifice for the festival, on Sukkot other unique rituals also took place at the Temple over the seven days of the holiday. These include the water drawing ceremony, simchat beit hashoeva, and the custom of circling the mizbeach with aravot. In addition, the mishnah (Sukkah 3:13) states that the arbah minim would be taken up in the Temple during all seven days of the holiday, whereas in the medinah, presumably outside the Temple, they would only be taken up on the first day. Though no mention of it appears in Mishneh Torah, Rambam states in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:12) that medinah did not refer to outside the Temple, but to outside of Jerusalem, implying that in the times of the Temple, those in Jerusalem also took up the arbah minim all seven days of the holiday.
After the Temple’s destruction, Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakai issued a series of enactments to enable Jews to navigate the new religious world they found themselves in. For Sukkot, he instituted a rabbinic obligation that Jews should take up the arbah minim all seven days of the holiday and not just on the first day. However, Rabbi Yakov Ettlinger (1798-1871), a noted German halakhic authority and the author of Bikurei Yakov, would later argue, based on Rambam’s comment, that even after the Temple’s destruction, there remains a biblical obligation to take up the arbah minim all seven days of the holiday in the city of Jerusalem.
Rabbi Sholomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1994), a prominent halakhic authority who lived in Jerusalem, addresses Rabbi Ettlinger’s claims in his responsa (Minchat Shlomo Tinyana, 57). He notes that Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (1843-1926), author of Ohr Sameach, a collection of novallae on Mishnah Torah, vehemently disagreed with Rabbi Ettlinger and brought several proofs from the gemara to demonstrate that his position was untenable. In response to this, Rabbi Auerbach attempts to show that it is perhaps possible to creatively read the gemara in such a way as to leave open the possibility that Rabbi Ettlinger’s position is a viable interpretation. Still, in the end, he sides with Rabbi Meir Simchah. He explains that even if it was true that the arbah minim were taken up all seven days in Jerusalem during the time of the Temple, this no longer applies today. Why is this? Because for Rambam, the mitzvah of arbah minim is also connected to the mitzvah of rejoicing in God’s presence at the Temple. When the latter is no longer is possible then so too the mitzvah of arbah minim no longer applies in the city of Jerusalem either.
In seeing Jerusalem today, it is east to attest to the fact that the city is holy. But without the presence of the Temple, it is also clear that our joy during the holiday is far from complete.
| שו”ת מנחת שלמה תניינא (ב – ג) סימן נז נטילת לולב כל שבעה בירושלם בזה”ז בפירוש המשניות להרמב”ם בסוכה פ”ג מי”ב כתב, דהא דתנן בראשונה היה לולב ניטל במקדש שבעה ובמדינה יום אחד, מדינה היא כל העיירות שבא”י מלבד ירושלם. ולדידיה צ”ל דמה שאמרו במשנה דף מ”ב ע”ב מוליכין את לולביהן להר הבית היינו משום עליה לרגל גרידא, אבל מצד המצוה שפיר יכולים לקיימה בכל ירושלם… והנה בבכורי יעקב סי’ תרנ”ח סק”א [וכיוון לדבריו הגר”ש סופר ז”ל בס’ התעוררות תשובה] כתב דלדעת הרמב”ם דקרא דושמחתם קאי גם על ירושלם, חייבין גם בזה”ז בירושלם ליטול לולב כל שבעה מדאורייתא, דהא הרמב”ם ס”ל בפ”ו מהל’ בית הבחירה הט”ז דקדושת ירושלם לא בטלה [ומה שאין חיוב לעלות לירושלם או לביהמ”ק לקיים המצוה עיין בשפ”א]. ובחידושי הג”ר מאיר שמחה ז”ל על הש”ס בסוכה דף מ”א ע”א תמה מאד על דבריו עיין שם, אך יש לדון בכל תמיהותיו. א) מה שהקשה דא”כ אמאי תיקן ריב”ז שיהא לולב ניטל שבעה משום זכר למקדש, וכדאמרינן ציון היא דורש אין לה מכלל דבעי דרישה, והא כיון שנוהג אפי’ בזה”ז בירושלם כל שבעה מה”ת הרי א”צ דרישה הוא פלאי, דהרי נחרבה ירושלם ומושפלת עד שאול תחתיה ולא היו ישראל מצויין בה. ואף אם כוונתו דכיון דלכשיבנה המקדש תתבטל התקנה, היה ראוי לבטלה מיד כשיהיה ישוב בירושלם ותהיה תח”י ישראל, נראה דמ”מ עד שיבוא גואל צדק ויבנה המקדש חוששין שמא יחזרו נכרים לכבשה ותיחרב ירושלם ושפיר בעי דרישה [אגב נראה דחייב כל אדם ללמד בביתו שנטילת הלולב כל שאר הימים היא בגלל דרישה לציון דעבדינן לה זכר למקדש, כי הרי כל התקנה היתה בשביל כך]… ג) עוד הקשה האור שמח דלדבריו הו”ל להתחייב בנטילת לולב בשבת גם בזה”ז בכל מקום ששלוחי ב”ד מגיעין, ולמה אמרו בגמ’ דף מ”ג ע”ב דכיון שבגולה אין ניטל, מיחזי כב’ תורות, והרי כיון דניטל בירושלם איכא שפיר למיתלי בה דומיא דבזמן שהיה ביהמ”ק קיים שפי’ הרמב”ם בפ”ז מהל’ לולב הי”ז דהיו נוטלין בו. אמנם זהו רק לפי מה שפירש כוונת הרמב”ם דמה שנטלו במקדש הוא מפני ששם החיוב הוא כל שבעה, וא”כ ה”נ בכל ירושלם גם בזה”ז, אבל הלח”מ פי’ דרק משום מקדש גופיה הוא דניכר הדבר ולא הוי כב’ תורות, משא”כ כשהוא רק משום ירושלם גרידא. גם יתכן דבאמת כוונת הגמ’ שם לאחר שנחרבה גם ירושלם, ומה שלא נשתנה הדין גם אח”כ כשהיתה ירושלם ברשות ישראל כבר נתבאר לעיל… אך מ”מ דברי הבכורי יעקב תמוהים, דהרי בסוף הל’ לולב כתב הרמב”ם שחייבים לשמוח שמחה יתירה במקדש משום הך קרא דושמחתם, ולענין זה הרי ברור דבזה”ז לא שייך שמחה זו, וא”כ ה”נ לענין לולב הסברא נותנת דהשתא שחרב בהמ”ק אין שייך לשמוח. וגם יתכן דהואיל והתורה קוראת את הנטילה במקדש בשם “ושמחתם”, חייבים לעשותו דוקא בשמחה (ובזה יש להבין גם הא דאבל אינו מקיף את הס”ת בהושענות אשר הם רק תפלה ותחנונים, מפני שהוא זכר ל”ושמחתם”, עיי’ ביאור הגר”א או”ח סי’ תר”ס סע’ א’), וא”כ בזה”ז אין זה שייך כלל, וע”כ דלא תליא בירושלם אלא במקדש דוקא. ואף דממה דמפרש הרמב”ם שם הך קרא גם על אכילת שלמים הנוהגת בכל העיר, משמע קצת כדבריו דירושלם נקראת לפני ד’, יתכן דהיינו רק בזמן שבהמ”ק קיים שאז גם ירושלם חשיבא לפני ד’ אבל לא בזה”ז. ומלישנא ד”ציון” היא דורש אין לה אין לדייק דתלוי בעיר ציון ולא בבנין ביהמ”ק, דגם בנוסח התפלה תקנו לומר ותחזינה עינינו בשובך לציון אף דהכוונה ודאי על בהמ”ק. | Responsa, Minchat Shlomo Tinyana (2-3) 57 Taking up the lulav during the seven days of the holiday in Jerusalem at this time: In Rambam’s commentary on the mishnah (Sukkah 3:12) he writes that because it was taught that the lulav was originally taken up in the Temple all seven days [of the holiday] and one day in the “medinah,” “medinah” is all that cities in Israel except for Jerusalem. And therefore one must say that when the mishnah (Sukkah 42b) describes that they brought their lulavim to the Temple mount, it was only because of the obligation of pilgrimage, but that they could fulfill the mitzvah [of taking up the lulav] in all of Jerusalem. And behold, Bikurei Yakov wrote (Orech Chaim 658:1) [and so too did the Gaon R’ Shimon Sofer come to a similar conclusion in his book Hitorerut Teshuvah] that according to the opinion of Rambam, the verse “And you shall rejoice” (Devarim 16:14) applies also to Jerusalem, and one is obligated even today in Jerusalem to take up the lulav all seven days as a biblical mitzvah. Rambam rules in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah (6:16) that the holiness of Jerusalem is not nullified…In the Talmudic novallae of the Gaon Rabbi Meir Simchah of Dvinsk on (Sukkah 51a) he questions this position, but there is still what to discuss regarding his concerns. 1) Regarding the difficulty he raises about Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai’s enactment that the lulav should be taken up all seven days [outside of the Temple] in comemoration of the Temple as it was said, “Zion who no one seeks out” (Yirmiyahu 30:17) implying that it [Jerusalem] requires one to seek it. [However, this enactment does not make sense according to Bikurei Yakov] Since the practice is that even in this time [taking up the lulav] in Jerusalem is a bibical mitzvah all seven days, it [Zion] therefore does not need one to remember it. This difficulty is suprising. Jerusalem was destroyed and leveled to the ground and there were no Jews dwelling in it. Even if his [Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai’s] intention was that when the Temple would be rebuilt the enactment would be nullified, it would have been appropriate to nullify it immediately when there is a Jewish settlement in Jerusalem and renewal in Israel [because then Jews in Jerusalem could take the lulav up for seven days]. Therefore [even if the biblical mitzvah of lulav applies in Jerusalem], it appears that until the righteous redeemer comes and builds the Temple, one must be concerned that non-Jews might return to conquer and destroy Jerusalem and therefore it still requires comemoration. (By the way, it appears that every person is obligated to teach their household that taking up the lulav the remaining days is because of comemorating Tzion and done to comemorate the Temple. The whole enactment was because of this.)… 3) Furthermore, Ohr Sameach [Rabbi Meir Simchah] questions that according to his [Bikurei Yakov’s] position, one would also be obligated to take up the lulav on Shabbat in this time [not only in Jerusalem but] in all the places that the emissaries of the beit din would have reached. Why is this? They say in the gemara (Sukkah 43b) that since they are in the exile, it [the lulav] should not be taken up because it will appear as two Torahs. Since they took [up the lulav] in Jerusalem [according to Bikurei Yakov], it would make more sense for the gemara to say that it would be similar to the time when the Temple existed [and those in exile who lived in places where the emissaries would have reached would also take up the lulav], for Rambam explained (Hilchot Lulav 7:17) that they took it up [on Shabbat when the Temple existed]. However, this was only according to the understanding of Rambam that when they took up [the lulav] in the Temple it was because there was an obligation all seven days there. If so, then the obligation would also be in all of Jerusalem in this time. But Lechem Mishnah explained that only because of the Temple itself was it clear that it wasn’t [a case of] two Torahs [when even Jews who lived in places the emissaries of the beit din would have reached would tak up lulav all seven days], which would not be the case for Jerusalem as a whole [and therefore the problem of two Torah would apply even after the Temple’s destruction even if there remained a biblical obligation in Jerusalem]. It is also possible that in truth, the gemara there is referring to after Jerusalem’s destruction. And the reason that the rule was not changed after Jerusalem was in Jewish hands was already explained above… But nevertheless, the words of Bikurei Yakov are not clear, for at the end of Hilchot Lulav, Rambam writes that one is obligated to experience extra joy at the Temple because of the verse, “And you shall rejoice.” Regarding this, it is clear that no such joy applies in this time. If so, then the same is true regarding [taking up the] lulav and logic dictates that because now the Temple is destroyed there is no reason to rejoice. It is also possible that since the Torah describes the taking up [of the lulav] in the Temple as “And you shall rejoice,” it must be done with specifically with joy. (And with this one can understand why the mourner does not circle the Torah scroll during hoshanot that only consist of prayers comemorating [the imperative] of “And you shall rejoice.” See Beur HaGra (Orech Chaim 460:1)). If so, then in this time it [the imperative of “And you shall rejoice”] does not apply at all and therefore the obligation [of taking up the lulav all seven days] does not depend on Jerusalem but rather the Mikdash specifically. Even though Rambam seems to explain the verse also as applying to the eating of the peace offerings in the entire city [of Jerusalem], and it appears from his words that Jerusalem is considered “before God.” It is possible that it was only during the time of the Temple that Jerusalem was considered before God but not in this time. And from the language of “Zion who no one seeks out,” one should not deduce that it [the obligation of arbah minim all seven days] is dependent on the city and not the building of the Temple. For also in the litrugy it was established to say “May our eyes behold Your return to Zion,” even though the intention was certainly about the Temple [and not the city].
|
All of the content in The Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies is released with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. It is open for reuse with the following attribution: "Authored by [name of author] from The Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies at YCT.
Rabbi Zachary Truboff ('10) is the coordinator of the International Beit Din Institute, which seeks to educate rabbis about halakhic solutions to the agunah problem. His writings on contemporary Jewish thought and Zionism have appeared in the Lehrhaus, Arutz Sheva, Akdamot, and Zerufim. His first book, Torah Goes Forth From Zion: Essays on the Thought of Rav Kook and Rav Shagar, will appear in the coming year. Before making aliyah, he served for nearly a decade as the rabbi of Cedar Sinai Synagogue in Cleveland. Under his leadership the synagogue grew substantially and became known for its inclusive community and innovative programing. In 2015, he was chosen by the Cleveland Jewish News as one of the 18 Difference Makers, a select group honored for their contributions to Jewish communal life in Northeast Ohio. He has taught in a variety of adult education settings such as the Wexner Heritage Program, the Torat Tzion Kollel, and the Hartman Institute. . He received semikha from Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. He and wife, Jen, live in Jerusalem with the four children Nahum, Elihai, Shaiya, and Orya.
3700 Henry Hudson Parkway, 2nd Floor
Riverdale, NY 10463
Phone: (212) 666-0036
Fax: (212) 666-5633
Email: office@yctorah.org
Click here to sign up to receive updates from YCT straight to your inbox.
