Author Archive

From Rosh Chodesh Elul through the conclusion of Sukkot, our attention is focused on the themes of teshuva and judgement. The final day of this period which is referred to in later Halachic literature as Hashana Raba is actually known in the Mishna by the name of Yom Shevii shel Arava, the seventh day of the willow branch. We conclude this rather intense period with a seemingly esoteric gesture, that of chibut arava, the beating of the willow branches. An exploration of the sources relating to the mitzvah of arava will hopefully shed light on its role in closing the teshuva process.

The Mishna describes the complete ceremony which took place in the Mikdash throughout the holiday of Sukkot.

(ה) מִצְוַת עֲרָבָה כֵּיצַד, מָקוֹם הָיָה לְמַטָּה מִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְנִקְרָא מוֹצָא. יוֹרְדִין לְשָׁם וּמְלַקְּטִין מִשָּׁם מֻרְבִּיּוֹת שֶׁל עֲרָבָה, וּבָאִין וְזוֹקְפִין אוֹתָן בְּצִדֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְרָאשֵׁיהֶן כְּפוּפִין עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. תָּקְעוּ וְהֵרִיעוּ וְתָקְעוּ. בְּכָל יוֹם מַקִּיפִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ פַּעַם אַחַת, וְאוֹמְרִים, אָנָּא ה’ הוֹשִׁיעָה נָא, אָנָּא ה’ הַצְלִיחָה נָא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲנִי וָהוּ הוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא. וְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם מַקִּיפִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים. בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתָן, מָה הֵן אוֹמְרִים, יֹפִי לָךְ מִזְבֵּחַ, יֹפִי לָךְ מִזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, לְיָהּ וְלָךְ, מִזְבֵּחַ. לְיָהּ וְלָךְ, מִזְבֵּחַ:

In addition to the Mishnaic description of placing the aravot on the side of the mizbeach, the tosefta refers to an obligation of chibut arava.” The term chibut is open to interpretation. Rashi equates it with the expression “nanua”, suggesting that the mitzvah is to wave the arava, apparently just as one waves the lulav. The Rambam, however, clearly uses the terms chibut to indicate “beating” the willow branch rather than waving it.

The Gemara records several explanations of the source of this ritual. According to Abba Shaul, the mitzvah is derived directly from the verse in Vayikra which describes the four species, and refers to the “Arvey Nachal” in plural, indicating a dual mitzvah of arava, one to be taken in conjunction with the other of the 4 species, and the other an independent mitzvah of arava alone. Rabbi Yochanan, on the other hand, maintains that there is no Torah source, but that the mitzvah of arava is derived from Halacha LeMoshe MiSinai. Outside of the Mikdash, the practice of chibut aravot is considered a minhag Neviim, established by Chagai, Zechariya and Malachi, the last of the Neviim and members of the Anshei Knesset Hagdola.

If indeed, the mitzvah of the aravot today is merely a zecher leMikdash, a reminiscence of that which took place when there was a Mizbeach, then why not commemorate the chibut aravot every day of succot, as it took place in the Mikdash. In response to this query, Raba distinguishes between the Mitzvot of lulav and arava. Lulav did have a special relationship with the Mikdash, as it was originally performed every day of Sukkot only in the Mikdash. However, it was not a mitzvah which is uniquely associated with the Mikdash, as the lulav was always taken “bigvulin” (outside of the Mikdash, by all Jews) on the first day of Sukkot. After the churban, it was therefore natural to extend the mitzvah of lulav to be performed every day of sukkot as a zecher lechurban.

In the case of arava, however, we are dealing with a mitzva which is fundamentally about the Mikdash and originally had no role at all in the realm of the gevulin. This unique relationship is highlighted in the mishna’s description of the conclusion of the ceremony:

בִּשְׁעַת פְּטִירָתָן, מָה הֵן אוֹמְרִים, יֹפִי לָךְ מִזְבֵּחַ, יֹפִי לָךְ מִזְבֵּחַ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, לְיָהּ וְלָךְ, מִזְבֵּחַ. לְיָהּ וְלָךְ, מִזְבֵּחַ:

The application of the mitzvah of arava outside of the Mikdash seems to be difficult. Because of this tension, according to Raba, we limit ourselves to a symbolic gesture which is limited to the last day of Sukkot. Limited though it might be, this zecher leMikdash still poses a challenge. We are apparently performing a ritual whose goal is to beautify a non-existent Mizbeach!

Rashi explains that the “היופי הזה אנו עושין לך שאתה מכפר עלינו.” We do not beautify the Mizbeach per say, but rather we express our appreciation for the kapara process which the Mizbeach represents. That process is still very much alive today, even in the absence of the Mizbeach, through our Tefillot. In fact, the Rambam points out that we replace the encircling of the Mizbeach with the hakafot around the Teyva, as our tefilot have taken over the role of vehicle to kapara.

Very different imagery, however, appears in the Yerushalmi. R. Aha looks at the symbolism of encircling the Mizbeach once a day for six days, culminating in seven revolutions on the seventh day. He suggests, based on the compelling comparison, that this corresponds to the battle in Yericho, where Bnei Yisrael surrounded the city seven times, also accompanied by shofar blasts. The Maharsha spells out the analogy. He suggests that the gesture of surrounding the Mizbeach is a Tefilla that Hashem will protect us from our enemies as he did in Yericho. A close reading of the analogy, however, is troubling. In the paradigm of Yericho, the enemy itself was encircled, whereas in our case the Mizbeach is being encircled. A very precise reading of the analogy would lead us to suggest that the Mizbeach itself is the enemy!

When we combine R. Aha’s comments with the Mishna’s description, a very complex picture emerges. On the one hand, we are grateful for the existence of the Mizbeach, which allows us each year to restore our relationship with God. On the other hand, the process of Kapara can be wrenching, as suggested perhaps by the Yericho imagery. The Mizbeach, the location of our Korbanot, is indeed the battleground, where we wrestle with our sins, personal and national.

The debate over the meaning of the term chibut perhaps also reflects this ambiguity. The implication of placing the aravot, or waving them above the Mizbeach, seems quite different from the more violent imagery of “beating” the aravot. Is the act of chibut a symbol of celebration or of submission?

Interestingly, when the Rambam describes the Mitzva he does not initially mention the chibut. Only when he describes the minhag bizmenino does he mention “וחובט בה על הקרקע או על הכלי פעמים או שלש .” Perhaps this reflects our changed reality. In the absence of the Mizbeach, the aravot take on a more strident role. Barring the confidence that the Mizbeach afforded us, we are left to merely beating midat hadin into submission, concluding the period of Elul with a gesture which merely reflects the battle component. But as a weapon we still use the aravot, the very same aravot that we hope to use to beautify the Mizbeach in the future. We still express our gratitude that the possibility of kapara, rendered even more challenging by the absence of the Mizbeach nonetheless still exists.