English translation — הושע"ר

Of the matters in which Hoshana Rabbah<sup>1</sup>

is distinguished from the other days of Sukkot:

A.

a)

On all the days of Sukkot they would circle<sup>2</sup>

the altar only once,

but on Hoshana Rabbah — seven times<sup>3</sup>.

b)

During all the days of the festival, the placing of the willow at the side of the altar⁴

was only when it fell on one of the six weekdays,

"If the seventh day of the festival falls on Shabbat, we do not place the willow unless the seventh day falls on Shabbat, we place it on Shabbat in order to publicize that it is a mitzvah"⁵.

All this was in the time of the Temple.

In the present time, however, "we do not take it

(the willow)

all seven days of the festival as a remembrance of the Temple, but only on the seventh day do we take it in the present time"⁶.

d.

e.

So in the preceding days of Sukkot, the concept of "willow" is entirely absent.

2.

Another matter with which Hoshana Rabbah is distinguished after the destruction:

They were precise in the fixing of the months,

that Hoshana Rabbah should not fall on Shabbat: When they saw that the day of the willow would fall on Shabbat, they would intercalate one of the months so that Hoshana Rabbah would be on Sunday

(after Shabbat)

and they would not need to nullify the taking of the willow⁷,

and as it is stated in the Yerushalmi⁸

: "R. Simon commanded those who calculate: Pay attention that you do not make the shofar-blast on Shabbat nor the willow on Shabbat, and if you are pressed, make the shofar-blast and do not make the willow."

And so it is also afterwards

(when they did not sanctify based on the sighting)

when the fixing of the months is according to the calculation,

it is distributed in such a way that Hoshana Rabbah never falls on Shabbat⁹

(and according to several opinions among the Rishonim¹⁰

this is the reason for the rule that "not on Aleph, Dalet, Vav, Rosh [i.e., Rosh Hashanah does not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday]",

because if Rosh Hashanah would occur on Sunday, Hoshana Rabbah would fall on Shabbat),

even though regarding shofar and lulav "not¹¹

do we worry,

even though the first day is from the Torah."

Tosafot asks¹²

: How can one say thus,

that "for the day of willow [i.e., Hoshana Rabbah] which is a mere remembrance of the Temple we worry, but for those [days] of the Torah we do not worry"?

And Tosafot answers,

that ,

"indeed, those that are explicitly written [in the Torah] do not come to cause doubt about them in other years, but the willow [custom] which is rabbinic comes to cause doubt about it"

(and in the language of the Prishah¹³

: "And because of the fear that this commandment might be forgotten from Israel, that it should be light upon a person, they made a strengthening for their words more than for the Torah"¹⁴).

3.

All matters of Torah are precise to the utmost.

It is understood,

that the very fact that only because of the mitzvah of aravah is the month intercalated in order to fulfill the mitzvah of aravah,

it is understandable,

that this particular mitzvah has in itself a special aspect with which it is distinguished from the other mitzvot.

One will understand this with the introduction of the explanation of the nature of the mitzvah of aravah in general,

which was a mitzvah in its own right in the Beit HaMikdash

(aside from the mitzvah of aravah of the lulav)

: "How¹⁵

was its mitzvah each and every day of the seven days? They would bring branches of willow and stand them on the sides of the altar, and their tops were bent over the top of the altar,

and at the time when they would bring it and arrange it, they would sound the shofar, blast, and sound the shofar."

That the willow was a separate mitzvah for itself,

one can learn in two ways:

a)

That this is only a separate action,

a separate act of the mitzvah with the willow,

d.

e.

The definition of willow is the same as with the willow of the lulav,

only there is another mitzvah that is done with the willow¹⁶.

b)

It is not only a special mitzvah act by this man

(in the Beis HaMikdash),

but it is a different object of willow.

One of the practical differences in this for halachah: according to the first manner it must come out that the measure of willow in the Temple is the same measure as the willow of the lulav,

because it is the same object of willow for both mitzvos.

But according to the second manner,

that the novelty regarding willow in the Temple is,

that this is a different object of willow,

it can be said that there is a difference between them in the measure of the willow.

And based on this one can seemingly say,

that with this is connected the dispute in the Gemara¹⁷

about the measure of the willow in the Temple — whether it needs to have three branches with moist leaves

(like¹⁸

the willow of the lulav¹⁹),

or for it even one leaf on one branch is sufficient.

And beyond this: the Rambam rules²⁰

: "It is a law from Moses at Sinai that they bring in the Temple a different willow besides the willow of the lulav, and a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow of the lulav, and its measure is even one leaf on one branch."

<b>From </b>the precise language of the Rambam

("a <b>different </b>willow besides the willow of the lulav,

and a person does not fulfill etc."²¹

it implies that this is not merely <span><span><span>a separate action and deed of the person,</span></span></span>

but it is a different object of willow.

Therefore

(a)

"A person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow of the lulav" — which from the simple meaning of the language is apparently implied,

that one does not fulfill even when he takes the willow by itself,

not together with the lulav²².

b)

"Its measure is even one leaf on one branch"²³,

as above²⁴.

Based on this it turns out,

that according to the opinion of the Rambam the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Rabbis consists in this²⁵

: Abba Shaul derives the willow of the Temple from "Willow of the brook is written, two: one for the lulav and one for the Temple",

and the Rabbis say "it is a tradition received",

it is a law from Moses at Sinai

(like "ten plantings ...

and the water libation").

According to Abba Shaul,

since the commandment of willow was commanded and is derived from the verse "willows of the brook" which is stated explicitly regarding the willow in the lulav,

the object of the willow in the Temple is the same as that of the willow in the lulav,

only it is derived that it is a separate commandment or at least an action with the willow.

But the Rabbis who hold that the willow in the Temple is a law from Moses at Sinai

and its essence and obligation have no connection to the verse "willows of the brook" which is stated regarding the willow in the lulav,

(— must)

result,

that <b>the </b>commandment of willow also has a different category,

a different object,

as above.

D.

The inner explanation in that the mitzvah of aravah is a separate type of object like the aravah of the lulav:

Regarding the content of the matter of aravah, my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, says²⁷,

that "aravah are simple people for whom the fulfillment of the mitzvot is only with simple faith."

And it can be said,

that thereby a depth is brought out in the well-known words of the midrash²⁸,

that the four species correspond to the four types of Jews: etrog has taste and has fragrance ..

Israel ..

who have Torah and have good deeds,

palm branches ..

has taste and has no fragrance ..

Israel ..

who have Torah and have no good deeds..

myrtle that has fragrance and has no taste ..

Israel ..

who have good deeds and have no Torah ..

aravah has no taste and has no fragrance ..

Israel ..

who have neither Torah nor good deeds.

From the superficial language of the Midrash it emerges,

that specifically the etrog hints at the type of Jews that have both matters,

Torah and good deeds; but regarding the other types one detail is missing — Torah or fulfillment of the commandments,

or that <b>both</b> matters are missing.

In this, the Rebbe, my father-in-law, explains — as he says there — "that all Israel are equal in the matter of <b>fulfillment of the Torah and commandments".</b>

I.e.,

that

that among all four types there is the fulfillment of <b>both</b> matters — <b>fulfillment</b> of the Torah and commandments,

study

(knowledge)

of the Torah and fulfillment of the commandments.

And it can be said that this explanation is necessary, for the type of "lulav" — study of Torah as required,

also fulfills commandments,

since study leads to action²⁹

; and the one who does good deeds

(commandments)

has knowledge of the Torah,

to know how to fulfill commandments.

And from this it is also understood regarding the type "willow",

that also among the Jews of <b>that</b> type there is fulfillment of the Torah and commandments

(in practice).

Only the explanation

(the inner one)

In the words of the Midrash is,

that the difference consists in the manner and quality of their fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos: Torah is connected with the advantage of intellect,

and good deeds — with the advantage of character traits; and this is the difference between the four types: "esrog" alludes to the Jews in whose fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos there is both the advantage of intellect and the advantage of character traits; in "lulav" are alluded the Jews who have

(mainly)

the advantage of intellect and in "hadass" —

(mainly)

the advantage of character traits; and "aravah" alludes to the simple people in whose fulfillment there lacks both the advantage of intellect and the advantage of character traits,

and their fulfillment is only with <b>simple faith.</b>

So from this itself it is understood,

that also in the type "aravah" there is an advantage³⁰

relative to the other three species.

And it is known the word of the Baal Shem Tov³¹,

that the simplicity of simple people is one thing with the simplicity of the Essence³².

5.

The above-mentioned elevation in this type of Jews of "Aravah" — that specifically in them is expressed the matter of simplicity — is reflected also in the aravah itself:

It is known³³

the explanation of the reason why the commandment "And you shall take for yourselves etc." consists specifically of the four species,

because in them is evident and felt the quality of unity:

Lulav is "its leaves bound together

(all its leaves are gathered together,

in unity)

; hadassim are the leaves "three in one branch"; aravot are called "achvana"³⁴,

because they grow in brotherhood³⁵

; and etrog is "the fruit of a beautiful tree from year to year" — in it are united all four changes also of the four seasons of the year,

and moreover: it is <b>greater </b>than all of them.

That which certain things in the world have in them the aspect of unity — although from the nature of the entity of the world there would need to be in them the quality of division and separation like worldly matters

(from the aspect of concealment)

— comes from that which in them is illuminated the simplicity above,

"the simple unity"³⁶.

And the simplicity above brings about the unification and inclusion in each of the four species,

so that even in the revealed it does not sound so much in them their entity

(from the nature of the world),

but

(also)

their nullification,

which brings about in them unity in the revealed³⁷.

But also in the quality of unity of the four species themselves,

one sees a difference: by the three species,

etrog, lulav and hadas,

the unity is in each one by itself — in the leaves of the lulav or the myrtle branch themselves

("its leaves are bound",

"three in one cluster")

and likewise the etrog

(which is "grown on its tree etc.")

— but not a unification of one lulav,

hadas and etrog with another lulav etc.

But not so the willow,

for with it the unity is in that one willow grows in "brotherhood" and unity with the other willows.

And since the unity in the willow is in a broader manner than by the other three species³⁸

which is in division and separation between one and the other],

it is understood,

that this is therefore why in it is illuminated openly more the simplicity above than by the other three species.

And this is also the reason that specifically by the willow the unity is bound with its name — acronym Achvana

(which is not the case by the other species).

6.

And it is to say,

that the reason of the matter

(that the concept of unity is more revealed by aravah)

is connected with the aforementioned concept itself:

By the other species,

"lulav" "esrog" and "hadas",

since each of them has in itself

(a virtue,

or)

particular virtues of intellect and emotions — it has taste

(lulav)

it has smell

(hadas),

or it has both of them

(esrog)

— the "virtues" are revealed

(of intellect and emotions)

conceal the "simplicity" from above that is in them,

and consequently — also the concept of unity that is in them

(which derives,

as above,

from that which the simplicity from above shines in them).

Until one might think,

that that which they were chosen is

(not because of their unity,

but)

because of their virtues

(taste and smell).

Not so regarding the category of "willow,"

which has no revealed virtues

(it has no taste and no smell),

the matter of unity stands revealed and simply,

so that aside from the reason of unity there is no rationale why the willow is one of the four species — because the simplicity of the Essence is revealed in it, in its nature and even in its name.

— analogous to how we see the difference among Jews³⁹

that although in every Jew there is a "veritable portion of G‑d from above"⁴⁰,

which is connected with the simplicity of the Essence,

we see, however, that among the Jews who are "steeped" in intellect and emotions, these revealed virtues conceal the simple faith — the simplicity and innocence that come from the essence of the soul;

Specifically by simple people,

who do not have any revealed virtues

(of intellect and character traits),

by them the simple faith is revealed,

that their simplicity is,

as above,

one thing with the simplicity of the Essence.

7.

Based on this is also understood the action

(and special matter)

of the mitzvah of aravah in the Temple on the aravah of the lulav:

The willow of the lulav,

although that in itself there are in it no revealed virtues and therefore is heard in it more strongly the virtue of unity,

"grow in the valley",

nevertheless,

since one joins and binds it together with the other three species,

until that they become <b>one</b> commandment,

therefore the matter of the simplicity that is in it

(which comes to be revealed specifically through the absence of virtues,

as above)

is not "in its purity": through this union and connection with the other species virtues are added also in the willow.

<span><span><span>But the willow of the Temple, its commandment and subject is — a separate willow,</span></span></span>

which has no connection and union with other species and types

(those of virtue)

<span><span><span><span> — this is such a commandment in which there is no concealment from virtues etc. and the simplicity of the Essence stands in it revealed.</span></span></span></span>

And one can say that this is the reason for the opinions

that when one encircles the altar seven times on Hoshana Rabbah, the circuit is only with the lulav and its species and not with the willow,

which is a mitzvah in its own right.

And therefore the willow "is not taken except by itself,

and a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow that is in the lulav"

and also its measure is not similar to the measure of the willow of the lulav — "three moist leaves"

but "even one leaf on one branch,"

which means that it is

(not a unity that is composed of details,

but)

simple unity.

8.

Based on this it is understood why the willow in the Temple is a halacha to Moshe from Sinai and not a matter explained

(and even not a matter derived from a verse)

in the Written Torah —

In the manner of what is explained in Likkutei Torah

regarding the difference between the pouring of the water on the seven days of the festival which is a halacha

to Moshe from Sinai

-and the pouring of the wine which is "explicit in the Written Torah explicitly in several places",

that the pouring of the water derives from a higher level than the pouring of the wine,

therefore it cannot come down in writing,

in a form of letters in the Oral Torah,

as explained there at length;

This is the advantage of the willow that is in the Temple over the willow of the lulav,

which does not come down in an explicit command in the Written Torah,

because it derives from such a level that is higher than coming to revelation in the Written Torah and drawing.

Which, in the soul of man, this is connected with such a high level in the soul,

which is united with the Above — the simplicity of the soul,

that one does not need to command a Jew about this explicitly in the manner of explicit letters in the Written Torah.

9.

According to the above it is understood,

that the matter of aravah in this time,

that "one takes it" only on the seventh day and that it is

(in this time)

even not any matter of halachah leMoshe miSinai,

but "a custom of prophets"⁴⁹

that "custom of prophets" means

(not that they led the people⁵¹,

but)

that "a custom⁵²

that they practiced thus and the people saw and did like them <b>of themselves"]</b>

is this itself a proof that in inwardness it is still higher than the mitzvah of aravah in the Temple,

which is halachah leMoshe miSinai.

In the manner explained in Likkutei Torah there⁵³

regarding "the hakafot of Shemini Atzeret that were not written even in the Oral Torah and are only a custom"⁵⁴

that they are still higher in their level than the nisuch hamayim which is

(at any rate)

a halachah leMoshe miSinai.

Because⁵⁵

the concept of the custom of Israel,

that which Jews conduct themselves thus,

shows that this is connected to the root of the souls of Israel,

which is prior to the Torah⁵⁶

higher than Torah — from the aspect that the simplicity of Jews is one thing with the simplicity of the Essence,

there are heard in them also the matters that are higher than being drawn into writing and depiction — namely, just as His wisdom and will, blessed be He, were revealed in Torah and His commandments and also in the words of the Scribes — and they conduct themselves thus without a directive and command in any manner whatsoever.

And from the aspect that Jews conduct themselves thus,

from the aspect that this is the custom of Israel,

it is established that this should become <b>Torah</b> — "The custom of Israel

(becomes)

Torah",

as explained elsewhere⁵⁷.

Yud.

Based on this, we can explain the inner meaning of the fact that the day of Willow does not fall on Shabbat

Although in simplicity and externality,

the reason is that "even now we calculate that the day of Willow does not occur on Shabbat"

so that the taking of the willow should not be nullified,

it is therefore because the willow is lighter and one is concerned that "one might come to be lax about it" and therefore they needed to strengthen it

("they made a strengthening for their words more than for the Torah")

That is, in internality the reason is — because of that which aravah is connected with a higher level: namely,

because in the aravah

(which is a custom of prophets)

is expressed the simplicity of the Essence in its purity,

therefore it is in a manner that one is always,

<b>every year,</b>

fulfilling the commandment of aravah in an equal manner — without any change;

And this is a matter of strengthening the mitzvah itself,

until that this effects in the time of the world,

that the court intercalates the months in it and one arranges the fixing of the calendars for all the years in a manner that it should not affect the taking of the aravah on the day of aravah.

(From the talk of the night of Hoshana Rabbah 5744)