How is the mitzva of arba’as haminim different on the first day of Succos from the rest of the chag? Why are many careful to come to the Kosel on Succos? Should one shake arba’as haminim at the Kosel even after already doing so in his local shul? Where else in Yerushalayim can this mitzvah be performed on the same level? Does it apply on the first day as well? Are some parts of Yerushalayim considered on the same level as the Beis Hamikdash? Do the special halachos of the first day apply at the Kosel during the rest of the festival? What should we have in mind when shaking lulav and esrog at the Kosel?
These are some of the questions we will focus on in this week’s article.
Succos in Yerushalayim
In last week’s article, we explored the mitzvah of aliyah l’regel and whether it still applies today without the Beis Hamikdash. Many sources show that throughout the generations, Klal Yisrael continued to journey to Yerushalayim on the yomim tovim, coming as close as possible to the site of the Beis Hamikdash.
Today, the custom is to travel to the Kosel or to other points from which the Beis Hamikdash can be seen. This serves as a reminder of the mitzvah of aliya l’regel, and an expression of our longing for that holy site.
This week, we turn to another reason — unique to Succos — why so many choose to visit the Kosel, particularly during the daytime.
Araba’as Haminim
The Mishnah (Succah 41a) tells us that the Torah requires taking arba’as haminim in the Mikdash on all seven days of the chag, and in the Medinah (outside the Mikdash) only on the first day of Succos. After the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai enacted that the Arba’as haminim should be taken on all seven days, everywhere (except when Succos falls on Shabbos).
How does the Mishna reach this understanding? The pasuk says (Vayikra 23:40): “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day, the fruit of the hadar tree, date palm fronds, a branch of a braided tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your G-d for a seven-day period.” At first glance, the pasuk appears contradictory. At the beginning, it limits the mitzvah of taking the arba’as haminim to the first day, while at the end it commands rejoicing for seven days. Chazal therefore explain that the pasuk speaks of two distinct mitzvos: one that applies everywhere in the world — to take arba’as haminim on the first day; and another: “rejoice before Hashem your G-d seven days” — to shake lulav and esrog for seven days in the Mikdash, which is “before Hashem your G-d.”
Therefore, in the Beis Hamikdash there was a Torah obligation to take the lulav and esrog all seven days of Succos. Outside the Mikdash, however, the Torah requires it only on the first day. The remaining six days are m’drabbonon, based on the enactment of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who instituted taking them as zecher l’Mikdash.
This enactment is rooted in the pasuk (Yirmiyahu 30:17): “Tzion she is, none seek her.” Chazal explain that we are charged to “seek” Tzion, meaning we must create customs that preserve the memory of the days the Beis Hamikdash stood in Yerushalayim.
Medinah and Mikdash
The Mishnah’s wording distinguishes between the Mikdash and the Medinah. What are the boundaries of the Mikdash, and what is the Medinah?
Rashi (Succah 41a) explains that Mikdash means the Beis Hamikdash itself, while Medinah refers to the entire world which is outside the Beis Hamikdash, even Yerushalayim. This interpretation is also the understanding of the Ritva, Rabbi Avraham Min Hahar, and the Ran (ibid.).
The Rambam, however (Commentary on the Mishnah, Succah 3:10; Shekalim 1:3; Rosh Hashanah 4:1; Negaim 12:4), understands that Mikdash includes Yerushalayim, while Medinah refers the rest of Eretz Yisrael outside of Yerushalayim. This view is also found in the Aruch (G’vul II). Indeed, this explanation appears explicitly in the Yerushalmi (Succahh 3:11): “And you shall rejoice before Hashem your G-d seven days — in Yerushalayim.”
This debate is not unique to the laws of lulav. It recurs whenever the Mishnah or Gemara distinguish between Mikdash and Medinah. Time and again, the question arises: does Yerushalayim count as part of the Mikdash or as part of the Medinah? While usually the Rambam aligns one way and Rashi another, Tosfos Yom Tov (Shekalim 1:3) points out that there are instances in which Rashi concedes that Yerushalayim is not considered Medinah, and there are cases in which the Rambam agrees that Yerushalayim is not considered Mikdash. The classification, therefore, depends on the specific halachic context.
The Rambam on the Mishna vs. the Rambam in Halacha
Since the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishna is the primary source for viewing Yerushalayim as included in the Mikdash, it is important to clarify how he ruled in his halachic work, the Mishna Torah. After all, his Commentary on the Mishnah was written in his youth, while the Mishna Torah was composed later in life, and in several instances we find discrepancies between the two. [In general, if there is a discrepancy between the Commentary on the Mishna and the Mishna Torah, the latter is authoritative for practical halacha.]
Here we encounter a dispute regarding the Rambam’s intent. In Hilchos Lulav (7:13) he writes that lulav and esrog are taken only in the Mikdash for all seven days. There is no mention of Yerushalayim. However, regarding shofar on Shabbos, the halacha is that the Shofar is blown only in the Mikdash and in Yerushalayim when Rosh Hashana falls on Shabbos (Hilchos Shofar 2:8).
Rabbenu Manoach (Hilchos Lulav 7:13) explains that the Rambam’s ruling for lulav and esrog is the same as for shofar – the halacha of the Mikdash applies also to Yerushalayim, as the Yerushalmi explicitly states. The Aruch La’ner (Succah 41a; Bikkurei Yaakov 658:1) similarly writes that the Rambam relied on what he already clarified in Hilchos Shofar — that Yerushalayim is part of the Mikdash — and saw no need to repeat it again in Hilchos Lulav.
The Mishna reads: “When the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, Rabbi Yochana ben Zakkai enacted that the lulav should be taken b’medina”. The Sfas Emes (Succah 41a) points out that according to Rashi, the word “b’medina” is a redundancy. Once the Mikdash was destroyed, the whole world is Medinah. Why is it mentioned? However, according to the Rambam, the word is essential, for even after the destruction of the Mikdash, lulav and esrog continued to be taken in Yerushalayim throughout all seven days of the chag.
On the other hand, the Baruch Ta’am (glosses to Turei Even, Rosh Hashanah 30a) understands the Rambam differently: that the mitzvah of shaking lulav and esrog applied only in the Mikdash proper, and not in Yerushalayim, consistent with his ruling in the Mishnah Torah and in Sefer HaMitzvos (positive mitzvah 169). Similarly, Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (Succah 41a) strongly rejects the idea of attributing to the Rambam any view that taking the arba’as haminim in the Old City of Jerusalem has significance.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, YD IV:63:6–8) suggests that there is an error in the text of the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah, and in any case, he retracted his earlier approach in the Mishnah Torah. He proves his approach from a historic fact: Yerushalayim had 480 synagogues, yet on Shabbos Chazal required everyone to bring their arba’as haminim to Har HaBayis before Shabbos, and to stipulate ownership conditions. On Shabbos each person hurriedly seized a set, despite the commotion this caused. If Yerushalayim had carried the status of Mikdash, the people could have shaken lulav and esrog in their local shuls.
The Klausenberger Rebbe (Divrei Yatziv OC 273) explains that when the Mikdash stood, the residents of Yerushalayim were obligated to go to the Mikdash in order to fulfil the mitzvah of rejoicing there with the arba’as haminim. The Rambam’s wording does not mean to infer that those davening in a Yerushalayim synagogue had a Torah obligation of shaking lulav and esrog.
Practical Ruling L’Halacha
Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Mo’adim U’Zmanim V:80) rules that, according to most contemporary poskim, shaking lulav and esrog on Chol Hamoed, even in the Old City of Yerushalayim, has the status of a mitzvah d’rabbonon. The Brisker Rav stated this explicitly.
Nevertheless, Rav Sternbuch records (VIII, additions to II:122) that Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky zt”l would travel daily during Chol Hamoed to the Old City to shake his lulav and esrog at the Kosel. He also relates that other gedolim did the same.
The Rambam’s position is also relevant to the question of blowing shofar in Yerushalayim when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbos. In that case, all agree the halacha does not follow the Rambam. Still, there is a key difference. Blowing shofar on Shabbos may involve a prohibition according to those who limit it to the Mikdash itself. By contrast, with arba’as haminim, no prohibition is involved in shaking them in Yerushalayim on Chol Hamoed.
Thus, even if the halacha does not follow the Rambam, there is nothing to lose by performing the mitzvah at the Kosel or in the Old City. On the contrary — since the Rambam, Aruch, and Yerushalmi all support such a view — there is added virtue in making the effort to shake lulav and esrog at the Kosel.
Summary
The Rishonim differ on whether shaking the lulav and esrog in Yerushalayim carries the status of a mitzvah d’oraiysa throughout all seven days of Succos. According to Rashi, Ritva, Ran, and others, it remains a mitzvah d’rabbonon. By contrast, the Aruch and Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah maintain that it is a mitzvah d’oraiysa.
The poskim further debate how to interpret the Rambam’s final position. While all agree that the primary halacha follows Rashi, discussion continues among contemporary authorities as to whether one should nevertheless seek to shake lulav and esrog at the Kosel, attaining the Torah-level mitzvah of arba’as haminim on all seven days.
Many Gedolei Yisrael, including Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, and others, were careful to travel daily on Chol Hamoed Succos to the Kosel in order to shake their lulav there and fulfil the mitzvah d’oraiysa according to the Rambam and the Aruch. Others, however, did not adopt this custom.
Borrowed and Blemished in Yerushalayim
The mitzvah of lulav and esrog is not uniform throughout Succos. Its requirements vary from day to day, depending on whether the obligation is d’oraiysa or d’rabbonon.
- Ownership (“lachem”): On the first day, when the mitzvah is d’oraisya, the arba’as haminim must belong to the person fulfilling the mitzvah. If he does not own a set, he must receive it as a gift al menas lehachzir (“on condition that it be returned”). On the remaining days, when the mitzvah is d’rabbonon, one may fulfil it with a borrowed set.
- Wholeness and blemishes: On the first day, the arba’as haminim must be whole and unblemished. On subsequent days, however, certain imperfections are permitted, as detailed in the Shulchan Aruch (OC 649). For example, an esrog with a small blemish, invalid on the first day, is permitted on the other days.
This leads to an important question: in the Beis Hamikdash, where the mitzvah was d’oraiysa all seven days, did the stricter first-day standards apply throughout the chag, or did the later-day leniencies still apply on Chol Hamoed?
Three major views emerge:
- Tosfos and others (Succah 29b; Kapos Temarim; Rabbi Akiva Eiger; Noda B’Yehuda II OC 133) maintain that in the Mikdash, full first-day standards apply on all seven days. A borrowed set was invalid, and only complete, unblemished species allow for performing the mitzva.
- The Ramban and Ritva (Succah 29b) hold that the requirement of lachem applies only on the first day, regardless of location. However, leniencies regarding defects are permitted only outside the Mikdash, where the mitzvah is zecher l’Mikdash. In the Mikdash itself, where the mitzvah is d’oraiysa all week, all first-day standards remain.
- The Aruch La’ner, based on the Rambam, suggests a third view: even though the mitzvah in the Mikdash is d’oraiysa all week, there is no ongoing requirement of lachem, and slightly defective species were still valid. Thus, practically, there was no difference between the Mikdash and elsewhere.
Double Mitzvah
A further question debated by the Acharonim is if it is possible to earn a second mitzva in shaking lulav again in the Mikdash [or, according to the Aruch and the Rambam, in the old city of Yerushalayim] after shaking at home.
And another question: One who doesn’t have his own set on the first day, can he use a borrowed set to fulfil the zecher l’Mikdash?
The Aruch La’ner (Succah 36b) and Rav Chaim Soloveitchik (Chiddushei Hagrach 64) write that there are in fact two distinct mitzvos:
“U’lekachtem lachem” – taking the arba’as haminim, which is a mitzva de’oraiysa only on the first day, everywhere.
“U’smachtem lifnei Hashem” – rejoicing before Hashem, which is fulfilled de’oraiysa in the Mikdash (and according to the Rambam and the Aruch, also in Yerushalayim) on all seven days. Elsewhere, the mitzvah is zecher l’Mikdash and has a level of a mitzva d’rabonon.
Accordingly, one who fulfilled “u’lekachtem lachem” at home on the first day, and later came to the Mikdash, would be obligated to take the species again to fulfil the separate mitzvah of “u’smachtem.”
For this reason, the Rambam rules there is no requirement of “lachem” on the later days in the Mikdash, because that applied only to the mitzvah of “u’lekachtem lachem” on the first day. The mitzvah of “u’smachtem” is an entirely different mitzva.
Thus, one who goes to the Kosel today with arba’as haminim, according to the Rambam and the Aruch, merits fulfilling the mitzvah of “u’smachtem” de’oraiysa — a mitzvah he would otherwise never have fulfilled. Similarly, one who shakes lulav and esrog at home or anywhere in the world, and then travels to the Kosel, would need to shake them again.
The Emek Berachah (Hilchos Lulav 1), however, argues that although there are indeed two mitzvos, on the first day even in the Mikdash only “u’lekachtem lachem” applies. Thus, one who shook them at home on the first day does not need to do so again in the Mikdash. Likewise, if one only had a borrowed set on the first day, there is no need to shake them to fulfil “u’smachtem.”
Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Mikra’ei Kodesh, Chanukah & Purim 16) adds that only one who was in Yerushalayim at dawn is obligated in this mitzvah. If he arrived after dawn, he is exempt, just as the Yerushalmi (Megillah 2:3) rules that a convert who converts after dawn on Purim is exempt from Megillah. Accordingly, one who already shook lulav at home and then arrived in Yerushalayim after dawn would not need to shake again.
Not Adding or Subtracting
The Aruch La’ner raises another issue: one who fulfils a de’rabonon mitzvah but intends it as de’oraiysa violates the prohibition of bal tosif (adding to the Torah). Conversely, if one fulfils a de’oraiysa mitzvah but intends it as de’rabonon transgresses the prohibition of bal sigra (diminishing). Thus, someone shaking lulav and esrog at the Kosel during Chol Hamoed faces a problem: should he intend it as de’oraiysa (per Rambam and Aruch) or as de’rabonon (per Rashi and others)?
The solution is to have in mind that the nature of the mitzvah is in doubt, and to intend to fulfil it according to all opinions.
Defining “Yerushalayim”
The Bikurei Yaakov emphasizes that this mitzvah can only be fulfilled in the part of Yerushalayim sanctified by the Sanhedrin. He cites the Radvaz (II:453) that the Jewish Quarter is considered Tzion, not the holy city of Yerushalayim; only from the market area and on, towards the Kosel, is the sanctified area.
The exact boundaries of sanctified Yerushalayim warrants a full-length discussion of its own. In brief, however, it is clear that both the City of David (in Silwan) and the area of the Kosel lie unquestionably within the sanctified limits of Yerushalayim. (for more details, see the Devarim 5781 issue, where we touched upon the distinction between Tzion and Yerushalayim.)
