Siman 651

The mitzvah of the four species is that each person should take one lulav, one etrog, three hadassim, and two aravot. For the Torah said "fruit of a majestic tree"—one fruit; "and branches of palm trees"—"branches" is written lacking the letter vav, which implies one; "and a branch of a thick-leaved tree" is three: "branch"—one, "tree"—one, "thick-leaved"—one (Rashi 34b); "and willows of the brook"—implies two. And therefore it did not write "branches of a thick-leaved tree" because that would have implied two, like "willows of the brook," and we require three. And also from the plain meaning of the verse we learn that there are three hadassim, for it is impossible to say one—behold, this is not a "branch," and it would have been sufficient to write "a thick-leaved tree," like "a majestic tree." And it is impossible to say two—it should have written "thick-leaved trees," and it would have been like "willows of the brook." Rather, the "thick-leaved" refers back to the "branch," that there should be three branches, meaning three stalks of hadas (Bachya). And in this, it resembles a branch. (And certainly Rabbi Akiva, who says one hadas and one arava—he holds that it refers to the species. But we, since we hold according to Rabbi Ishmael, must say as I have written. And the Ramban rules like Rabbi Akiva, but the Rambam rules like Rabbi Ishmael, and such is the opinion of the Geonim, as the Maggid Mishneh wrote. And thus the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch ruled, and so we hold. And perhaps if he has only one hadas and one arava—he should take them, for in a time of pressing need we can rely on the Ramban. And also the Ra'avan and Ra'avyah ruled like the Ramban, as the Mordechai wrote. And he should take them without a blessing. So it appears in my humble opinion.)

Regarding the hadassim and the aravot – one may add as many as he desires. For if it were written explicitly "three" and "two" – it would not be possible to add. But now that it is not written explicitly, but rather in a language of multiplicity – one may add. And thus the ancients used to practice for the sake of beauty (Hagahot Maimoniyot there). And that which is found in the words of the Rambam there in this wording: And if he desired to add to the hadassim so that it should be a large bundle – he may add, and it is a beauty of the mitzvah. But the other species – one may not add to their number nor subtract from them, and if he added or subtracted – it is invalid. Thus far his words, which implies that also regarding aravot one may not add – in truth the Ran, of blessed memory, cited the version "And if he desired to add to the hadassim and to the aravot – he may add." And besides this, the Rambam wrote in a responsum that an error fell into his books, and so it must be said: "And if he added he did not invalidate" (Kesef Mishneh). For so wrote our teachers the authors of the Tosafot (34b) that "bal tosif" is only when one adds another species, see there. However, regarding the etrog and lulav, where the Torah commanded one of each – it is obvious that Heaven forbid one should add. But regarding the hadas and arava – it is obvious that one may add as many as he desires. And see in section 28.

The Tur wrote that regarding three hadassim—even if all three of them are clipped at their tops, they are valid. But the Rambam validated even a clipped aravah, and this is not clear. Thus far his words. And the laws of clipped items have already been explained in the previous simanim (Beit Yosef). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: And in a case of pressing need where there is no valid hadas—one is sufficient with one that is not clipped. Thus far his words. The Ramban holds that even with one that is clipped—it is sufficient, and he is worthy to rely upon in a time of pressing need (Magen Avraham, subsection 1). Nevertheless, it appears to me that since the berakhah is not indispensable—one should not recite a berakhah over it. And know that when one buys one of the four minim or all of them from a non-Jew—he should not denigrate the price to him, and he should also give him slightly more than its value so that he does not denigrate them (ibid. beginning of siman 649). That is to say, so that he should not say: how many mitzvot are contemptible to Israel, that they give a small amount of money for them. (But the intention is not as with tefillin in siman 39, that he should not cast them to destruction. For there is no sanctity in the four minim when they have not been used for the mitzvah. Furthermore, tefillin are not fit for them at all, but these minim are used for beauty. Rather, the intention is as the Machatzit HaShekel wrote, see there.)

From the Torah, one does not need to bind all the species of lulav, hadassim, and aravot together. Whether they are bound or not bound—it is kosher (Gemara 33a). For "binding" is not written here as it is regarding the hyssop, where it is written "a bundle of hyssop" (ibid.). Furthermore, there is not even an obligation to take them together. Rather, even one after the other—he has fulfilled the obligation, as the Rambam wrote there, and this is his wording: Once he lifts these four species, whether he lifted them as one, or whether he lifted them one after the other, whether with the right hand or with the left hand—he has fulfilled the obligation. Provided that he lifts them in the direction of their growth. But not in the direction of their growth—he has not fulfilled the obligation. And the mitzvah according to its law is that he should lift the bundle of the three species in the right hand, and the etrog in the left hand. And he should move them to and fro, and up and down... Thus far his words.

And that which he wrote, "a mitzvah according to its law," means: that even though by the strict law it does not require binding, nevertheless, it is a mitzvah of the highest standard because of "This is my God and I will glorify Him" to bind it (Gemara ibid. 33a). This is the wording of the Tur: And he should make the hadas, the aravah, and the lulav into one bundle. Even though we hold that a lulav does not require binding, it is a mitzvah to bind it for the sake of beauty. And since there is no obligation to bind it, even if he bound it with another species—it is fine. And regarding chatzitzah there is also no concern, even though the knot intervenes between his hand and the lulav, for since it is for its beauty—it does not constitute a chatzitzah. And similarly, a species with its own species does not constitute a chatzitzah; therefore, if leaves fell from the lulav or from the hadas and remained inside the bundle in a manner that they intervene—one need not be concerned. And Rashi explained: Even though it does not require binding, nevertheless, initially it is an obligation to bind it because of "This is my God and I will glorify Him"—beautify yourself before Him with mitzvot. And if he did not bind it yesterday, or if its binding came undone on Yom Tov—it is impossible to bind it with a complete knot. Rather, he binds it like a bundle of vegetables, where he wraps the binding around and tucks the end of the binding into it without tying. Thus far his words. And the same law applies that he can do it by means of a slipknot. And the difference between Rashi and the previous opinion is that Rashi holds that "This is my God and I will glorify Him" is an obligation, except that it is not indispensable. However, it is an obligation initially. But according to the previous opinion, there is no obligation at all, but merely a beautification of the mitzvah (see Beit Yosef).

Therefore, ab initio it is a mitzvah to bind them with a complete knot, meaning two knots one on top of the other. And one may bind them with a different species, as I have written. However, one must be careful that within the binding there should not be a different species that would constitute an interposition, for specifically a species with its own species does not interpose, but a different species interposes. Therefore, as is common with the old hadassim, where they wrap a thread around them, one must be careful to remove the thread from them, so that the thread should not be an interruption in the binding. But to wrap around them something for beauty—it is permitted even with a different species, for anything for beauty does not interpose according to our view that it does not require binding, as the Tur wrote.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote at the end of section 1: There are those who wrote to make the knot in another way: that they wrap around these three species, and insert the end of the wrap into the wrapped circle. Thus far his words, meaning: even on a weekday, and they do not make a knot upon a knot. And the reason appears to be: because it is more beautiful this way. Therefore, now they have the custom to make beautiful rings from the leaves of the lulav themselves, and they insert those three species into the rings. And they beautify the work with a beautiful braid with three spaces, and each and every species is inserted into its space. And this is a beauty for the mitzvah, and so they conduct themselves.

He further wrote that one should tie the hadas higher than the arava, and he should lower the hadas and the arava into the binding of the lulav, so that he takes all three species in his hand at the time of the blessing. And some have written to make three knots on the lulav, and such is the custom. Thus far his words. And all of this is not an absolute requirement, but rather for hiddur. For because the hadas is more significant than the arava, as it has a pleasant fragrance—therefore it must protrude higher than the arava. And so that he grasps them all at the time of the blessing—therefore he should not place the hadas and the arava only slightly into the binding, for if so, when he takes the lulav, these will not come into the palm of his hand. Rather, he should place them into the binding until its bottom, and grasp them all. And that which there are three knots on the lulav—is so that the leaves do not separate. And this is beauty for the lulav, for every three strengthens the matter. And now we also practice thus, except that two surround everything, and one the lulav alone. And there is no absolute requirement in all of this, but rather it is the beauty of the mitzvah. And there are also hints in this. And the binding is the hadas on the right because it is more significant, and the arava on the left, and the lulav in the middle. And such is the custom. (And according to the Arizal, they divide the hadassim to the right and to the left, and to the middle and the aravot, one to the right and one to the left.)

And he shall take the bundle in his right hand, their tops upward and their roots downward, so that they are in the manner of their growth. And for all mitzvot we require the manner of their growth. And if not—he has not fulfilled his obligation. And we derive this from a verse (42b). And the etrog in the left. And therefore the etrog is in the left, and the three are in the right, because these are three, and the etrog is one. Furthermore: because the blessing is over the lulav, therefore it must be in the right; just as with the blessings of enjoyment, where the thing over which one blesses should be held in his right, as I wrote in siman 206. And why should he not hold them all in his right? Because it is written "the fruit of a majestic tree, branches of date palms, and twigs of a plaited tree, and willows of the brook," and it is not written "and branches"—this teaches us that the Torah insisted that the etrog be by itself. However, he should bring the hands close to one another, so that the etrog is joined to the three species, and Heaven forbid to separate them from one another. And so he shall conduct himself during the recitation of Hallel, and during the Hoshanot. And when he sets down the species from his hand—he should set down the etrog first, and afterward set down the three species, for whatever is first in its taking is last in its removal. And a sign for this matter is the tefillin of the hand and of the head, for in their placement—that of the hand is first, and in their removal it is last. And he should not give the etrog to his fellow from hand to hand, but rather he sets it down, and this one comes and takes it (Magen Avraham, subsection 8 in the name of the Shelah). And I do not know a reason for this matter, and regarding the lulav there is no insistence. And our custom is to hold the lulav with the spine toward his face, and even though there are those who say that the spine should be toward the outside (ibid.), nevertheless, such is the custom.

Some say that a left-handed person takes like any person: the lulav in the right hand of the world, which is his left, and the etrog in the left hand of any person, which is his right. And so it is in the Tur. And some say that it is not so, but rather he takes the lulav in his right hand, which is the left of any person, and the etrog in his left, which is the right of any person. And such is the custom. And such is the primary ruling as in the case of tefillin, and so ruled the Rosh. And in the Tur there is an error, and it must be said to the contrary (Taz subsection 3), for the Tur himself in the Remazim ruled so. Furthermore, how could he not mention the opinion of the Rosh? Rather, it is a printing error, and so wrote the Maharshal. However, this is ab initio. But ex post facto if he changed it—it does not invalidate, for even with any person if he took the lulav in the left and the etrog in the right—this is not an invalidation, and all the more so with a left-handed person. And one who rules with both his hands—takes the lulav in the right and the etrog in the left like any person. (And that which the Taz questioned in subsection 4—is answered according to what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 9. For Rabbeinu Chananel explains that any person has not fulfilled the obligation when he reversed them from right to left. And the Magen Avraham wrote that it is proper to be concerned, and to take them afterwards without a blessing according to the law. And according to this, the words of our teacher, the Rema, are well understood. Examine and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: A person who does not have a hand—he takes the lulav with his arm, and likewise the etrog. Thus far his words. He compared this to what they said in Sanhedrin (45a) regarding the thumb of the hand, where one must sprinkle the blood upon it, that if he does not have one—he places it on its location. And this is astonishing, for the halacha is not so, see there. However, the truth is that it is not written "and you shall take with the hand," but this is when he does not have both hands. But if he has a left hand—he takes the lulav in his hand, and the etrog with his arm, for his arm relative to the left hand is considered like the left, as is understood. And if he does not have two hands—he takes the lulav with the right arm, and the etrog with the left arm. And such is the law if his hands are in pain or bound, and the like. But with the teeth it is not considered "taking" (see Eliyahu Rabbah subsection 13 and Sha'arei Teshuvah). But to take all of them in his one hand—certainly not, since the Torah was particular that the etrog be by itself, as it is not written "ve-khapat," as I have written. And it would be understandable if an agad were required—there would be room to say that the intention of the Torah was that he should not bind them together. But since an agad is not required—certainly the intention of the Torah was not to take them in one hand (see Magen Avraham subsection 10).

It is a known matter that for all mitzvot one must recite the blessing prior to their performance, and immediately adjacent to their performance. It is also known that as soon as one takes the lulav and the etrog in his hand, he has fulfilled his obligation. And now: how shall he act regarding the blessing? If he blesses after he has taken them in his hand, it is not prior to its performance. And if he blesses before he has taken them at all, it is not adjacent to their performance, for until he takes them all—at which point the mitzvah occurs—there will be an interruption. Therefore, our teachers taught us that he should take the lulav in his hand and recite the blessing "al netilat lulav," and on the first day also "shehecheyanu." And immediately he shall take the etrog and fulfill the obligation. For before he has taken the etrog, it is considered prior to its performance.

There is another piece of advice: to take the etrog as well and invert it with its stem upward, and he does not fulfill the obligation with it, for we require "the way they grow." Then he recites the blessing, and afterward inverts it properly. This is the common practice. There is yet another piece of advice: that he should intend not to fulfill the obligation with it, for even according to the one who holds that mitzvot do not require intention, nevertheless, if he intended not to fulfill the obligation—he certainly has not fulfilled it. According to this, he may take them properly and intend not to fulfill the obligation, recite the blessing, and then intend to fulfill the obligation. Nevertheless, it is not proper to do so, as he could easily come to a mishap, for there is no outward sign of this except in his thought. And who is to say that he will think in his heart properly (Taz subsection 5, and Magen Avraham subsection 12). If he did so—he has done so. There is also advice to take the lulav and the etrog in his left hand, recite the blessing, and then place the lulav in his right hand (ibid.). This too is not worthwhile, for it is certainly far-fetched to say that according to the Torah he has not fulfilled the obligation in such a manner. Even if the Torah was particular about this, as I have written—nevertheless, it seems more likely to say that he fulfilled the obligation according to the Torah. However, one could say that in such a manner—he certainly intended not to fulfill the obligation. Indeed, the straight path is the first way, as I wrote in the previous section. Nevertheless, if he forgot and took them all properly and did not recite the blessing—he should recite the blessing while they are still in his hand, for as long as they are in his hand it is called the continuation of the mitzvah. It is like one who forgot to recite "HaMotzi," who recites the blessing in the middle of the meal, as I wrote in siman 167 (ibid. subsection 11). He should recite the blessing standing. He should also take it and wave it standing. If he sat—he has fulfilled the obligation, for this is not a hindrance post facto, and even ab initio it is only due to the honor of the mitzvah. (And that which I wrote that we derive "lakhem"-"lakhem" from the Omer—this is merely a support.) Before waving, one should think of it as "prior to their performance" (Tur).

One should only recite the blessing once a day. And afterwards, when he takes it—he takes it without a blessing. For it is not similar to a sukkah, which is an obligation upon him all day and all night. And even though tefillin are also thus, that when he has donned them for one hour—he has fulfilled the positive commandment of tefillin, and nevertheless he recites a blessing whenever he dons them; nevertheless it is not similar, for in truth the commandment of tefillin is all day, and it is only because it is impossible for us due to distraction and due to the cleanliness of the body. But lulav is not a commandment except for taking it one time, and that is sufficient for him. And that which he takes it several times—it is only due to the love of the commandment, and one should not recite a blessing over this. And one should not say: Since the sages ordained to wave during Hallel, why should they not recite a blessing over it before Hallel, even though he recited a blessing in the morning? For it can be said: That the sages did not ordain a blessing for the sake of these wavings. And furthermore: For he has already waved at the time of the blessing. And know: That the blessing of "shehecheyanu" he should recite at the time of taking, and not at the time of its making before the festival. And even though by the law of the Gemara (46a) it is so, nevertheless we do not practice thus, also regarding sukkah and regarding every commandment. And also in the Gemara there it is found that they would recite the blessing at the time of the fulfillment of the commandment, and not at the time of its preparation.

It is written in the Orchot Chaim: It happened that our teacher Meshullam took a lulav on the first day of the festival, and recited the blessings "on the taking of the lulav" and "shehecheyanu." Afterward, he looked at it and did not find an aravah, so he took aravot and placed them in the lulav, and took it again, and also took the etrog, and recited the blessings "on the taking of the aravah" and "shehecheyanu" on account of the aravah. And even though he only needed to take the aravah alone (for one fulfills the obligation by taking them one after another, as I have written), rather, he desired to perform the mitzvah in the most choice manner to take the four species all at once. And so we find from the handwriting of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory (Beit Yosef). And according to this, the law is the same for all the species, that whichever species one forgot, or if one did not take it in the direction of its growth – he takes it again properly, and recites a blessing over that species. Therefore, if one took the etrog upside down and recited the blessing and did not flip it properly, and thought that he fulfilled the obligation with this, and removed it from his hand, and remembered that it was upside down – he takes them again and recites the blessing "on the taking of the etrog." And regarding the incident of our teacher Meshullam, one must also say that he delayed some time after the blessing, for if it were immediate – why would he need to repeat the blessing? On the contrary, this would be "prior to their performance," just as we take the etrog after the blessing. Rather, it is certain that he delayed some time, and had already performed the na'anuim, or was in the middle of the na'anuim. And more will be explained regarding this in section 28.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 7: If one made a handle and placed the lulav in it and took it—it is fine, for taking by means of another object is considered taking. This is provided that it is in a dignified manner. But if it is not in a dignified manner, such as if he placed the lulav in a vessel and took it—he has not fulfilled the obligation. And if he wrapped a scarf around it and took it, or if he wrapped a scarf around his hand and took it—some say that he has not fulfilled the obligation. Thus far his words, and they require clarification.

And the matter is as follows: it has already been explained that a chatzitzah invalidates the lulav. Nevertheless, if one took it by means of a handle, in the manner that one holds a vessel with tongs – it is not a chatzitzah, for this is the manner of its taking, and taking by means of another object is called taking. And there is one who wishes to say that this is specifically when the entire lulav is outside of his hand, and he holds the protruding handle made from the cloth – for then it is not a chatzitzah, since he does not hold the lulav in his hand (Magen Avraham, subsection 14). That is to say: it is only called a chatzitzah when the lulav is inside his hand and wrapped in another object, for then the other object intervenes between his hand and the lulav. But when the entire lulav is outside of his hand, and he holds it by means of a handle – chatzitzah is not applicable, and it is taking by means of another object, and it is called taking.

But it is not clear to say so. On the contrary: is it any worse if the lulav is within his hand? And so it is explicitly clear from the words of the Tur who wrote: even if he made a handle etc. – it is fine, even if the entire lulav is outside of his hand etc. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote: even if the entire lulav is outside of his hand, and all the more so when it is within his hand, for through a handle the concern of chatzitzah does not apply (and so wrote the Perishah, and the Eliyahu Rabbah subsection 20). And although there is one who wrote so (Beit Yosef), this is not the halachah (according to Rabbah and not according to Rava). For according to the halachah there is no difference whether the entire lulav extends beyond his hand, or when it is in his hand, for anything through a handle is permitted. (And so it is implied from the Bach, and Taz subsection 6. And the Tosafot in Sukkah 37a who wrote with this wording – it is according to Rabbah, see there. And even this is not literal as is proven from their words in Pesachim and Yoma 58a, see there carefully, and this is not the place to elaborate. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And this is on the condition that it be in a dignified manner. But with a vessel—it is not a dignified manner, and in any manner that he holds it with the vessel—he has not fulfilled the obligation. And there are those who distinguish between holding the vessel from above, where he has fulfilled the obligation, and from below—where he has not fulfilled the obligation (see Beit Yosef). And it is not the primary halachic view, for with a vessel it is a manner of disgrace. For the vessel is made for protection, and not to be used by means of the vessel. This is not the case with a handle, which is only for use by its means, and therefore it is fine. And all this is when the handle is a thing unto itself, and therefore the issue of chatzitzah does not apply to it. But if he wrapped a scarf around the lulav and took it, or if he wrapped a scarf around his hand and took it—it is a chatzitzah and is invalid. For this is not like a handle, and this is not taking by means of another thing, but rather taking by means of a chatzitzah. And even though there are those who say that if he wrapped it on the hand—the scarf is nullified to the hand and does not constitute a chatzitzah, nevertheless, it is not so according to the halachah, and in every manner it constitutes a chatzitzah. (See Magen Avraham subsection 16. And what he wrote in subsection 15—he follows his reasoning in subsection 14. But according to what I have written—it is not so, and see Machatzit HaShekel. And examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that it is the custom to be stringent and remove the tefillin and the rings from their hand. However, according to the law there is no concern, since the entire hand is not covered by them. Thus far his words. That which he wrote to remove the tefillin—this is according to their custom, as they would not remove the tefillin before Hallel. But we remove them before Hallel. And that which he wrote that as long as the hand is not covered it is not a chatzitzah, even though regarding tevilah it is a chatzitzah even on a part—this is because the entire body requires tevilah. But here, one does not need to hold the entire length of the lulav. And even if he holds the etrog by its pitam—it is a valid taking. Therefore, if only a part of the hand is revealed—behold, he is holding it with that part. (That which the Bach and the Magen Avraham, subsection 18, questioned from the Gemara 37a, regarding the "hosha'ana binders of the Exilarch's house," see there—I do not know. For this told them that they should not bind it entirely, and they should leave a place to hold it. And so it is implied from Rashi, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

The sages commanded to wave during the blessing and during Hallel. The matter of the waving is explained in Midrash Emor: Since on Rosh Hashanah all the world comes for judgment, and it is not known who emerged innocent and who emerged guilty—the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave this mitzvah to Israel, that they should be joyful with their lulavim. See there. And this is what is written: "Then the trees of the forest shall sing out, before Hashem for He comes to judge the earth." That is to say: they shall sing with the trees of the forest, when they emerge innocent from before Hashem, when He comes to judge the earth. And with what shall they sing? With "Hodu" and "Hoshia Na" (Beit Yosef). For after this it is written "Give thanks to Hashem... and say, Save us, O God of our salvation" (Tosafot 37b, beginning with "Be-Hodu"). And for what reason were these four species chosen? Since on the festival they are judged regarding water (Rosh Hashanah 16a), and these four species grow upon water. And when one performs a mitzvah with them—the waters are blessed, and therefore we rejoice with them.

And where are the na'anuim in Hallel? At "Hodu l'Adonai" at the beginning and the end, that is to say: at the first "Hodu" and at the last "Hodu" which is at the end of Hallel. And at "Ana Adonai hoshia na" – one performs na'anuim two times, because it is repeated. It follows that one performs na'anuim four times in Hallel. Nevertheless, also at the time of the berakhah one should perform the na'anuim. The Tosafot, the Rosh, and the Tur wrote that the congregation performs na'anuim for every "Hodu" that they answer, and at its end where it is repeated – one performs na'anuim two times. It follows that they perform na'anuim in Hallel eight times: six at "Hodu" and two at "Ana." And some say that the shaliach tzibbur also performs na'anuim when he says "Yomar na Yisrael," because this is like speaking with the congregation, therefore he performs na'anuim with them (Taz subsection 9). And such is the custom of the Ashkenazim. But the Sefardim perform na'anuim only according to the first opinion. And it appears to me that if one wishes not to perform na'anuim like the rest of the congregation – the permission is in his hand, and there is no concern in this of "lo titgodedu." And the proof is from the Mishnah ibid., where Rabbi Akiva said: I was watching Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, for all the people were performing na'anuim, and they did not perform na'anuim except at "Ana," see there. And if "lo titgodedu" were applicable to this – they would not have done so. Rather, it is certainly because since this is not an absolute obligation – one may act according to what appears correct to him. And it is simple that at the time of the berakhah in the sukkah – one performs there all the na'anuim. (And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 17 – is not understood at all. And perhaps there is some printing error, see there.)

The na'anu'im are to the six extremities: the four directions, and upward and downward. And the matter is: that one brings it out and brings it back to Him to whom the four directions belong, and upward and downward to Him to whom the heavens and the earth belong (Gemara ibid.). This is to indicate that the Holy One, blessed be He, rules in the heavens and on the earth and in all directions of the world, in the manner of "Yours, Hashem, is the greatness... Yours is the heaven and Yours also is the earth, for Hashem is God in the heavens above and on the earth below, there is no other." And it is like the matter of the intention of "Echad" in the recitation of Shema, as I wrote in siman 61, see there. Furthermore: in order to halt harmful winds and harmful dews (ibid.). That is to say: that every mitzvah prevents tribulations, and even the remnants of the mitzvah prevent them (ibid.). Especially when they are performed with joy, as it is written in the Rebuke: "Because you did not serve Hashem your God with joy." Therefore, now that it is the "time of our joy," and we fulfill the essence of the mitzvah, which is the taking, and the remnants of the mitzvah, which are the na'anu'im, and we show that we surrender our souls and our bodies to Hashem, to serve Him, may He be blessed, with joy, it follows that in this merit He will halt from upon us all types of troubles referred to by the name harmful winds and harmful dews. That is to say: that all troubles come from the portion of the Satan, who descends and incites, ascends and accuses. And we do this in the manner of "May Hashem rebuke you, O Satan" (Kessef Mishneh on the Gemara ibid., and examine carefully and you will find it simple). And this is "Save us, O God of our salvation" – from these damages. And likewise: "Please, Hashem, save now."

And how does one perform the na'anu'im? The Rambam wrote in the seventh chapter that one should move it back and forth, and raise and lower it, and shake the lulav three times in each and every direction. How so? He moves it and shakes the tip of the lulav three times, and brings it back and shakes the tip of the lulav three times. And so too with raising and lowering. Thus far his words. That is to say: he moves it and shakes, brings it back and shakes, three times one after the other. And according to this—there are six na'anu'im in each direction. And that which he wrote "three times in each direction"—his intention was three for the moving away, and likewise three for the bringing back (and so wrote the Lechem Mishneh). And the total is thirty-six times. And so wrote the Tur. And he wrote that there are those who say that the moving away and the bringing back constitute one na'anu'a. And there are those who say that it does not require a shaking at all, and the moving away and the bringing back is itself the na'anu'a, see there. But in the Yerushalmi it is explained that a shaking is required, it is only questioned whether one shaking is sufficient for the moving away and bringing back, or for the moving away by itself and for the bringing back by itself. And since it is a simple matter without exertion—the Rambam wrote to be stringent. And it is not appropriate in such a matter to follow the lenient view (and so wrote the Kesef Mishneh).

Our teacher, the Rema, appears to contradict himself. For he wrote in section 9: One shakes the lulav and rustles the leaves with every movement… and the extending and bringing back is itself the shaking, for he extends and brings back three times for each direction. Thus far his words. However, his intention is that certainly shaking is required, but the rustling is not after he extended it or after he brought it back, but rather at the time of the extending, and at the time of the bringing back he rustles the leaves. And such is our custom (and this is the intention of the Bach and the Magen Avraham, subsection 20).

He further wrote that one inclines the tip of the lulav toward every side that one shakes toward, and when one shakes it downward – he turns it downward, and it is called "the way of their growth" since he holds them in his hand in the way of their growth. And there are those who are meticulous not to turn the lulav when shaking downward, but the custom is like the first opinion. And so it appears to me to be the primary view. Thus far his words. That is to say: that one should not move the lulav level, but rather diagonally, in a manner that its tip will be toward that side. And if it is difficult: if so, downward would be not in the way of their growth? We have no concern with this, for the requirement is that in his hand he holds them in the way of their growth. But that which he inclines them – is nothing. And he agreed to this. But we do not do so. (And so wrote the Taz, subsection 12. And so it is according to the Arizal, not to incline it downward at all, and downward is like upward, only this is high and this is low. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

One should encircle via the right in his shaking: east, south, west, north, up, down. And in the writings it is brought: east, south, north, up, down, west (Magen Avraham subsection 21). And there are those who practice accordingly. And in this, even a left-handed person should do like the rest of the world (ibid.), for the directions do not change for him. And he should be careful to join the etrog to the lulav at the time of the shaking, and to shake both of them together. And there was an incident with a certain great man who separated the etrog from the lulav, and they showed another great man in a dream that he did not act well (Taz subsection 14 and Beit Yosef). And know that all the shakings are not indispensable. And in whatever manner he shook he has fulfilled the obligation, since the primary shakings are not indispensable. (See Magen Avraham subsection 22. And it is a wonder: for our teacher, the Rema, also says so when we are precise in his words, see there. And be precise and you will find it easily.)

These four species are indispensable to one another. For if one of them is missing—it is invalid, and he should not recite a blessing over the remainder. For all of them are one mitzvah, like the four tzitzit which are indispensable to one another. Nevertheless, he should take them merely as a remembrance. But he should not wave them, so that he does not think that he fulfilled the mitzvah. And there are those who instructed that only the shaliach tzibbur should take them and wave them, and the entire congregation should not take them at all, so that they do not err to make them a fixed practice. And there is no distinction in this between the first day and the remaining days, for whatever the sages ordained—they ordained similar to the Torah law regarding the essence of the matter. And if all four were available to him, and he took them one by one—he has fulfilled the obligation, as I wrote in section 4. Provided that they are all before him, so that his intent is upon them, and there need not be a long interruption between them. And he should take the lulav first, and recite the blessing "on the taking of the lulav," and his intent should also be upon all the three remaining species. And if he spoke between them—he must recite a blessing over each one individually. And there is one who wishes to say that he does not go back and recite a blessing, just as with the shofar blasts when one spoke in the middle of the blasts, as I wrote in siman 592 (Magen Avraham, subsection 25). But this is not a valid comparison, for there, by necessity, he blows one after the other. But here—the primary way is to take them together, rather, he has fulfilled the obligation even one after the other. And since he spoke between them—behold, he has completely nullified the first. (And also regarding what the Magen Avraham questioned on the law we explained in section 15, when he did not have an aravah [that he should recite a blessing] (that he recited a blessing) afterwards "on the taking of the aravah," from siman 672 regarding the Chanukah candle, where one lit three candles on the fourth night—he should not recite a blessing over the fourth when he lights it, see there. And I wonder: for there he has already fulfilled the essence of the mitzvah, and it is nothing but an enhancement. This is not the case with the lulav, for behold, his intent was not to take the aravah, as he thought it was in his bundle. And from several aspects this is not a comparison to that, nor to siman 206. And the law is clear like the Maharam there, and so wrote the Taz, subsection 16, and the Eliyahu Rabbah, subsection 36).

If he is missing one of the species – he should not take another species in its place, as he may come to err and take it also in other years. This is not the case when one takes them for a remembrance, as I have written – they will not come to err, for everyone knows that four species are required and it is a matter known even to schoolchildren. And it is forbidden to add another species to the four species because of "bal tosif." However, according to that which we establish that commandments require intent – he does not transgress until he intends [to fulfill the commandment]. And this is what the Tur wrote, specifically if he took it for the sake of the commandment. (Magen Avraham subsection 27. And the words of the Taz subsection 17 are forced.) But some say: since we establish that a lulav does not require binding – regardless, there is no "bal tosif" unless he intends to add. For how does "bal tosif" apply? Behold, each one stands on its own. And only if he intends to add does "bal tosif" apply. And such is the primary ruling. Nevertheless, even without "bal tosif" – it is not becoming to add another species to the four species, for regardless it appears as if he is adding (ibid. and Taz ibid.). And likewise, he should not take more than one lulav and one etrog. But regarding the hadas and aravah – he may add as much as he desires, as I wrote in section 2. And there is one who disqualifies placing a "wild hadas" in the lulav in addition to the three branches of "avot," for this is like another species. And some permit it, for ultimately it is of the species of hadas. And such appears to be the primary view. However, those who are meticulous do not add at all to the three hadasim and two aravot. And such is the simple custom among us. (And certainly one should not add another etrog and lulav, for some say that "bal tosif" applies to this, as I have written. And what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 28 from the Yerushalmi: if he placed it on the ground it is forbidden to move it – this is not relevant to us, for it deals with Shabbat, and for them who used to take [the lulav] on Shabbat. And how does this apply to us? For it is obvious that on Shabbat they are muktzeh.)