Rav Shmuel Eliyahu, Chief Rabbi of Safed (Tzfat), issued a psak today that people should not buy lulavs for the upcoming holiday that were grown in Gaza. Rav Eliyahu said that this would be a "mitzva haba ba'aveira", and such a person would be giving his money to the wicked people of Gaza.

Rather, one should buy from the farmers of southern Israel and we must assist them by giving them our business and not give our business to the farmers of Gaza or their brethren who burn down the fields of the Jewish farmers in the south.

Rav Eliyahu added that it is prohibited to buy anything from them - even shoelaces. One cannot buy things from people who shoot rockets at Sderot, Ashqelon or Beer Sheva. One cannot buy things from the people who dig tunnels in order to abduct soldiers or attack kindergartens.

Rav Eliyahu called on other rabbonim to refuse to give kashrut certification on lulavs from Gaza.
source: Haredim10

I have no problem with this. The one question I have is a similar one to the one asked during shmitta - are our vegetables coming from Gaza, making this moot, or are we careful to ensure that we are not buying our cucumbers either from the terrorists? I am not asking rhetorically - I really don't know the answer as to where our cucumbers and other vegetables come from, but if we only make a big deal out of the big things but are not consistent with the daily little things, the whole thing is pointless.

Every year there is an excuse for why the prices of lulavim are unusually high. One year it is due to an infestation, another year due to the Israeli government not letting them in from Egypt, another year it is the fault of the Egyptian government, another year it is due to drought, etc. Every year there is an excuse.

In light of the growing trend of social protesting, especially now that it has reached the shores of the United States with the Occupy Wall Street protest which has led to other protests around the USA, such as Occupy Boston, Occupy Atlanta, etc. someone recommended on facebook that we start a social protest campaign in a similar style in order to bring down the prices of the lulavim.

Trying to think of a name for the new social protest movement, I came up with "Occupy Gaza", or maybe "Occupy Sinai" (the majority of the lulavim come from Egypt).

What do you think? Do you have a better name?

Here is a great guide with the basics of how to pick your Four Species set, what to look for, and what to avoid.. by Rabbi Dan Roth of Torah Live

Lulav:

lulav from Dan Roth on Vimeo.

Esrog:

Esrog from Dan Roth on Vimeo.

Hadas:

hadas from Dan Roth on Vimeo.

Arava:

arava from Dan Roth on Vimeo.

(HatTip to Rabbi Green)

In an article on Ynet published before Sukkot (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3783727,00.html), Louis Gordon announced that he will be reviving an ancient practice – taking the lulav (really the four biblically mandated species; the use of the term “lulav” is a common synecdochic allusion to the entire group) on Shabbat.

This is indeed an exciting decision, as I know Louis to be an observant Jew, and observant Jews have, by and large, refrained from taking the lulav on Shabbat for close to two millennia.

Would I be in Louis’s position, I would be as equally excited as he to be able to fulfill this special mitzvah in its proper time. Unfortunately, I am unable to, and it seems that Louis, in his eagerness to restore the mitzvah of lulav to its past glory, has misunderstood the words of those who guarded our tradition during a critical time in our history, as recorded in the Babylonian Talmud.

Louis seems to misunderstand the initial reason why use of the lulav was proscribed on Shabbat. Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai (a resident of the land of Israel) instituted, following the destruction of the Second Temple, that certain mitzvot, lulav among them, not be observed on the Shabbat. His concern was that one who is not knowledgeable in the required practice may carry a ritual object (in this case a lulav, but similar enactments were made for a shofar and a megillat Esther) in the public domain, which would be a torah-level desecration of the Shabbat. While a lulav is “muktzeh” nowadays on Shabbat, this is due to Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai’s decree (which rendered a lulav useless on Shabbat), and is not, as Louis mistakenly understands, the reason for the decree.

Louis then delves into the relevant text in Talmud Sukka, which deals with taking the lulav on Shabbat. As Louis notes, the Talmud records that the Jews of the Diaspora (Babylonia) did not take the lulav on Shabbat, even on the first day of the holiday (when taking the lulav is biblically madated), since there was a doubt as to whether or not the first day of the holiday was observed on the correct day. Since this doubt did not exist for the communities in the land of Israel, they did take the lulav on the first day of the holiday, even if it coincided with Shabbat.

At this point, Louis feels that the Talmud (which was edited in Babylon) abruptly backtracks, “suddenly changes its position and surprisingly declares” that the Jews of the land of Israel should not take a lulav on the first day of the holiday if it coincides with Shabbat. He uses this as a springboard to describe “an atmosphere of competition and rivalry” between the Jews of the Diaspora and those of the land of Israel, as a result of which the Jews in the Diaspora imposed a prohibition on the Jews in Israel against taking the lulav on the Shabbat. As Louis describes it, once the Jewish community in the land of Israel had sufficiently declined, the Jews of the Diaspora were free to impose their own Halachic weltanschauung. He would have us believe that Jews in Israel took the lulav on the first day of the holiday, even if it fell on Shabbat, for two and a half centuries after the destruction of the Temple, until compelled to stop by the Babylonian Jewish community.

However, this view is not consistent with a reading of the Talmud.

After the Talmud describes the different practices of Diaspora Jewry and those in Israel in regard to lulav, it continues with a separate, but related, topic, and then discusses the custom of waving a willow branch, which was instituted as a commemoration of a similar practice performed in the Temple during the Sukkot holiday. The discussion concludes that just as a willow was not waved in the Diaspora, the communities in Israel refrained from doing so as well. This seems to be in direct contrast to the practice of taking the lulav, where the communities in the Diaspora and the land of Israel had different practices. The Talmud admits that a mistake had been made with regard to lulav, and concludes that the communities of the land of Israel did indeed refrain from taking a lulav, even on the first day of the holiday.

Several observations can be made:

First, the sudden backtracking of the Talmud identified by Louis does not exist. It is neither sudden nor surprising. As noted, this amendment comes after the Talmud had concluded its discussion of the lulav, and was only made in light of the conclusion of the discussion of the waving of the willow. Furthermore, this type of amendment is not surprising. There are innumerable instances throughout the Talmud where the conclusion of one discussion leads to the realization that an position arrived at earlier was erroneous. Keeping true to form, it identifies and corrects the discrepancy.

Second, once the mistake has been corrected, it is clear that the Jews of Israel did not take the lulav on Shabbat. Rather, as noted above, they ceased this practice following the destruction of the Second Temple, at the behest of Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai, who lived in Israel. Thus, the practice in the land of Israel since the time of the destruction of the Second Temple seems to have been to refrain from taking the lulav on the first day of Sukkot if it coincides with Shabbat.

Finally, there is no imposition of any worldviews. The Jews of Babylon did not dictate that Jews in Israel should not take their lulavim on the first day of the holiday if it falls on Shabbat. Rather, it is clear from the language of the Talmud they merely described the existing reality.

Significantly, on this last point, Rashi (who is recognized as the premier contributor to Biblical and Talmudic exegesis, and whose comments are generally assumed to reflect the most straightforward understanding of a text) explains that the reason that the Jews of the land of Israel changed their practice was to prevent the breakdown of the Jewish people into separate groups – indeed to promote Jewish unity. This is consistent with the tone throughout the entire corpus of the Talmud, which describes the open lines of communication between the Jews of Babylonia and those living in the land of Israel, and in fact the respect and reverence shown by the former toward the latter.

As the first day of the Sukkot holiday has passed, the above is for the time being moot, at least in terms of practical observance. The first day of the holiday will not occur on Shabbat for another eleven years. I look forward to that day, and to joining Louis on his way to taking his lulav in the Temple in Jerusalem, which should be rebuilt speedily in our days.

Importing the lulavim from Gaza is a mitzva via an aveira. I call upon the public "Do not bring Hamas into your houses." Pay a few more shekels for Jewish grown lulavs, and do not support the captors of Gilad Shalit.

---- MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union)

Every year, the suppliers find some reason to create a [probably] fictitious shortage in the supply of Lulavs and/or Esrogs, causing threats, that are sometimes resolved in advance to a certain extent, of high prices. Sometimes it is infestations in the crop, sometimes it is weather related, sometimes mafia related, sometimes bureaucracy, etc. Always a reason, and we hear annually in the news reports about expected high prices, unless....

Often the crisis is at least partially averted by the government being pressured to grant permits to bring in crops from other places that were not previously approved. Perhaps the goal of the suppliers in creating these crises is to get these alternate sources approved quickly.If not, and it really is a problem that gets resolved every year for real, perhaps the suppliers have to change their real source of the crops (because they are having problems every year) and get the new source approved in advance..

This year the announcement has been about a lulav shortage. We can expect high prices and fear of a cartel holding back supply, blah blah blah. Sure enough, the Defense Minsiter and Religious Affairs Minister have said they will permit importing lulavs from Gaza for the holiday to keep the prices low.

So, if you don't want to be supporting Hamas, you might want to be careful from where you buy your lulav....

An option I just thought of is to attach a lulav to each Kassam rocket being shot into israel. Cheap import method, avoiding any border guards collecting taxes, and it can even be used as a guidance system for the rocket to keep it straight (as long as the lulav is not curved).. being named the Lulav Guidance System (TM)... (image of prototype coming soon...)

As a postscript to my post on the esrogim and lulavim, I feel it worthwhile to mention this -

My brother in law has become a very serious "brisker". He is overly pedantic about his lulav and esrog, and spent three days looking around Yerushalayim for a lulav that would be satisfactory to his requirements. He could not find one. A couple hours before yom tov he calls me up to ask me if the lulavs I got were good and if there is a rav locally he could show them to. If not, he could not come for yom tov, because he did not yet have a lulav and would need to continue looking and would not have time to come.

I said I dont know about a rav - he can try goign to the house of any rav if he wants, but an hour before yom tov is not very promising on that. I said I would look at the lulavim and give him my opinion. I looked and told him that the lulavim I got from the shul all look great, but I did not know if they would look great to him.

he said ok, and came anyway.

He took a lulav and went to shul in the morning. He showed the lulav to the rav of the shul he davened in (different shul than where I had bought them), and the rav was very impressed with the lulav and told him it is a beautiful lulav and asked him where he bought it.

So despite my not understanding the costs involved and generally not wanting to pay so much for the 4 species, the quality of the esrogim and lulavim from the supplier for the shul was extremely high and was likely to be considerably cheaper than what he would charge for these in other years.

The Yated printed the following psak from Rav Elyashiv regarding the use of Lulavs and Hadassim for the upcoming sukkos holiday.

The issue is that one is not allowed to perform work, during shmitta, for improving the quality of the lulav, for the sake of the mitzva. So Rav Elyashiv paskened that if the work was performed for the purpose of improving the lulav, better not to take this lulav (note that in the letter below he does not say it is assur, but says ""ra'ui le'hader" better [not to]). If however, work was performed for other reasons that are allowed (such as preservation of the tree I assume), than using the lulav would be ok, even though it was also improved in quality.

Somebody showed me his lulav last night. He had bought a mehadrin set and paid the price of a mehudar set.

The lulav he showed was very nice. Nicely green, straight as an arrow, tight (some like it tight because it does not break as easily), and it looked like a clean tip.

Upon closer inspection the tip was slightly split. It was difficult to see and it had only been caught by the Rabbi he showed it to. While the lulav remains kosher, it is not considered mehudar.

This is the problem with the system of selling lulavs and esrogs. The guy selling the merchandise categorizes it as he wishes (note: pre-boxed items are categorized by the wholesaler) rather than by the actual quality of the item. The guy selling it might not (and is usually not) be an expert at evaluating whether the lulav/esrog is mehudar or not. Yet he sells the lulav as a mehudar lulav.

Now that the Rabbi has said the lulav is not mehudar you would think the buyer should be either given the difference (between mehudar and non-mehudar) in price back, or allowed to exchange it for one that is actually mehudar.

But that is not the case.

The way the system works is that the guarantee is only that the item is kosher, not mehudar. The lulav has to be declared passul (completely unfit for use) for the buyer to get his money back. Yet he still paid the mehudar price for a non-mehudar product.

What a scam.