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.

Machon Shilo has published a Hebrew-language dirge ("kinna") for the destroyed communities of Gush Katif and the northern Samaria. The dirge is to be recited as part of the Jewish Ninth of Av Service that commemorates the destruction of the First and Second Jewish Temples on this day, by the Babylonians in 586 BCE and by the Romans in 70 CE. The Jewish Communities of Gush Katif and northern Samaria were destroyed on the Tenth of Av in 2005. According to the Talmud, this is the very same day that the greater part of the Temple was destroyed. The motivation of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in destroying these communities has been the subject of considerable speculation.

The dirge, authored by Rav Yehoshua Buch of Machon Shilo, is written in the style of Rabbi Eliezer HaKalir, the 6th century composer of liturgical poetry. Rav Buch's dirge is based on "How the Rose of Sharon Sits", HaKalir's dirge of 24 stanzas about the 24 shifts of the Priests ("Kohanim") in the Jewish Temple ("Bet HaMiqdash"). Certain expressions are borrowed from Rabbi Eliezar's original version as well as from the first chapter of the Book of Lamentations ("Megilat Eicha"). The stanzas are arranged according to the Hebrew alphabetical order. The last line of each stanza ends with the name of one of the destroyed communities.

"This is religious poetry that truly speaks from the heart. It eloquently captures the feelings of the day, of both the destruction of our Holy Temple and the holy communities of Gush Katif and northern Samaria," says Rabbi David Bar-Hayim, the head of Machon Shilo.

"Many words in the dirge have double meanings and reflect the bitterness caused by this modern tragedy. Rabbi Buch has expended great effort to adhere to the historical style of the traditional dirge. All words of his dirge—except for one—are found in the Hebrew Bible although grammar may have necessitated minor changes. My only regret is that Rabbi Buch's beautiful poetry reflects our current state of mourning rather than celebration. I look forward to the day when we will be able to publish poetry celebrating the rebuilding of the destroyed communities and our Holy Temple."

The dirge can be downloaded from the Machon Shilo website at http://machonshilo.org/PDF/Machon_Shilo_Gush_Katif_Kinna.pdf