לקוטי שיחות חלק כ״ט - הושענא רבה

Likkutei Sichos Vol. 29 – Hoshana Rabbah

1. One of the aspects in which Hoshana Rabbah is distinguished from the other days of Sukkos:

a) During all the days of Sukkos, the altar was encircled only once, but on Hoshana Rabbah, it was encircled seven times.

b) On all the days of the festival, the standing of the willow branches beside the altar occurred only when it fell on one of the six weekdays. "If Shabbos falls during the festival, the willow branches are not stood up unless the seventh day falls on Shabbos, in which case they are stood up on Shabbos to publicize that it is a mitzvah."

All this was during the time of the Temple. However, in our times, "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."

In other words, during the previous days of Sukkos, the concept of "willow" is not present at all.

2. Another aspect in which Hoshana Rabbah is distinguished after the destruction of the Temple:

There was a precision in the fixing of the months so that Hoshana Rabbah would not fall on Shabbos. When it was seen that the day of the willow would fall on Shabbos, they would intercalate one of the months so that Hoshana Rabbah would be on a weekday (after Shabbos) and there would be no need to cancel the taking of the willow. As it is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud: "Rabbi Simon instructed those who calculate the months to ensure that they do not perform the blowing of the shofar on Shabbos nor the willow on Shabbos, and if pressured, they should perform the blowing but not the willow."

This practice continued even afterwards (when the months were not sanctified by sight) when the fixing of the months was based on calculation. It is arranged in such a way that Hoshana Rabbah never falls on Shabbos. According to some opinions among the early authorities, this is the reason for the rule "Lo Adu Rosh" (Rosh Hashanah does not fall on Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday), because if Rosh Hashanah were to fall on Sunday, Hoshana Rabbah would fall on Shabbos. Even though regarding the shofar and lulav, we are not concerned, even though the first day is of Torah obligation.

2. Tosafos asks: How can it be said that "for the day of the willow, which is merely a remembrance of the Temple, we are concerned, but for a Torah obligation we are not concerned"? Tosafos answers that "indeed, for those mitzvos explicitly written, we do not come to be lenient in other years, but for the willow, which is rabbinic, we come to be lenient." In the words of the Pri Sha: "And due to the fear that this mitzvah might be forgotten by Israel and become trivial to people, they strengthened their words more than those of the Torah."

The measure of the willow in the Temple is the same as the willow in the lulav, because it is the same object of the willow for both mitzvos. However, according to the second approach, where the novelty of the willow in the Temple is that it is a different object of the willow, it can be said that there is a difference between them in the measure of the willow.

Based on this, it can seemingly be said that this is connected to the Talmudic dispute regarding the measure of the willow in the Temple — whether it needs to have three moist leaves on each branch (similar to the willow in the lulav), or if it is sufficient for it to have even one leaf on one branch.

Furthermore, the Rambam rules: "It is a halacha from Moses at Sinai that they bring a separate willow in the Temple, aside from the willow in the lulav, and a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow in the lulav, and its measure is even one leaf on one branch."

From the precise wording of the Rambam ("a separate willow aside from the willow in the lulav, and a person does not fulfill..."), it is implied that this is not only...

3....a separate action and deed of the individual, but it is a different object of the willow. Therefore, (a) "a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow in the lulav" — from the straightforward language, it seemingly implies that one does not fulfill the obligation even when taking the willow separately, not together with the lulav. (b) "Its measure is even one leaf on one branch," as mentioned above.

According to this, it follows that according to the Rambam, this is the dispute between Abba Shaul and the Rabbis: Abba Shaul learns about the willow in the Temple from "It is written 'willows of the brook' — two, one for the lulav and one for the Temple," while the Rabbis say "It is a halacha transmitted to Moses at Sinai," like "the ten saplings... and the water libation."

According to Abba Shaul, since the mitzvah of the willow is commanded and derived from the verse "willows of the brook," which explicitly refers to the willow in the lulav, the object of the willow in the Temple is the same as the willow in the lulav, but it is only learned that it is a separate mitzvah or at least a separate action with the willow.

However, the Rabbis, who hold that the willow in the Temple is a halacha transmitted to Moses at Sinai and its essence and obligation have no connection to the verse "willows of the brook" that refers to the willow in the lulav, it can (and must) be concluded that the mitzvah of the willow also has a different definition, a different object, as mentioned above.

4. The inner explanation of why the mitzvah of the willow is a different type of object than the willow in the lulav:

4. Regarding the essence of the willow, the Previous Rebbe, my father-in-law, says that "the willow represents simple people whose fulfillment of the mitzvos is solely through simple faith." We can say that this brings out a depth in the well-known words of the Midrash, which states that the four species correspond to four types of Jews: the esrog, which has both taste and fragrance, represents Jews who possess both Torah and good deeds; the lulav, which has taste but no fragrance, represents Jews who have Torah but lack good deeds; the myrtle, which has fragrance but no taste, represents Jews who have good deeds but lack Torah; and the willow, which has neither taste nor fragrance, represents Jews who lack both Torah and good deeds.

From the superficial reading of the Midrash, it seems that only the esrog symbolizes those Jews who have both qualities, Torah and good deeds. In contrast, the other types lack one aspect—either Torah or the fulfillment of mitzvos, or they lack both.

In this, the Previous Rebbe explains—as he states there—that "all Jews are equal in the matter of fulfilling Torah and mitzvos." This means that in all four types, there is the fulfillment of both aspects—Torah and mitzvos, the study (knowledge) of Torah and the fulfillment of mitzvos. It can be said that this interpretation is necessary because the type of "lulav"—proper Torah study—also fulfills mitzvos, as "study leads to action." And the one who performs good deeds (mitzvos) has knowledge of Torah, to know how to fulfill the mitzvos. From this, it is also understood regarding the type "willow," that even among Jews of this type, there is the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos (in practice).

However, the (inner) explanation of the Midrash is that the difference lies in the manner and quality of their fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos: Torah is connected with the quality of intellect, and good deeds—with the quality of character traits. This is the distinction between the four types: the "esrog" symbolizes Jews whose fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos includes both the quality of intellect and the quality of character traits; in the "lulav," Jews are symbolized who primarily have the quality of intellect, and in the "myrtle"—primarily the quality of character traits; and the "willow" symbolizes simple people whose fulfillment lacks both the quality of intellect and the quality of character traits, and their fulfillment is solely with simple faith.

From this itself, it is understood that even in the type "willow," there is an advantage over the other three species. As is known, the saying of the Baal Shem Tov, that the simplicity of simple people is one with the simplicity of the essence.

5. The aforementioned advantage in the type of Jews represented by the "willow"—where the concept of simplicity is expressed—also reflects in the willow itself:

It is known the explanation of the reason why the mitzvah "And you shall take for yourselves..." consists specifically of these four species,

5. Since the unity found in the willow is broader than in the other three species [to the extent of being contrary to the natural order, which is characterized by division and separation between one and another], it is understood that this is why the simplicity that is above is more openly revealed in it than in the other three species.

This is also the reason why specifically with the willow, its unity is connected with its name—called "Achuva" (brotherhood), unlike the other species.

6. It can be said that the reason for this (that the concept of unity is more openly revealed in the willow) is connected with the aforementioned idea itself:

In the other types, "lulav," "esrog," and "myrtle," since each of them possesses (an advantage, or) specific qualities of intellect and character traits—having taste (lulav), having fragrance (myrtle), or having both (esrog)—these "qualities" are openly revealed (of intellect and character traits) and overshadow the higher simplicity that is present in them, and consequently, the concept of unity within them (which, as mentioned, derives from the fact that the higher simplicity is revealed in them). To the extent that one might think that the reason they were chosen is (not due to their unity, but) due to their qualities (taste and fragrance).

In contrast, in the type "willow," which does not have openly revealed qualities (it has neither taste nor fragrance), the concept of unity stands openly and simply, to the point that aside from the reason of unity, there is no rationale for why the willow is one of the four species—because the simplicity of the essence is openly present in its nature and even in its name.

— Similar to what is observed among Jews, where although every Jew possesses "a part of G‑d above, truly," which is connected with the simplicity of the essence, it is seen that among Jews who are "rich" in intellect and character traits, these qualities are openly revealed and conceal the simple faith—the simplicity and sincerity that stem from the essence of the soul;

Specifically among simple people, who do not have openly revealed qualities (of intellect and character traits), their simple faith is openly revealed, and their simplicity is, as mentioned, one with the simplicity of the essence.

7. Based on this, the significance (and unique aspect) of the mitzvah of the willow in the Temple compared to the willow in the lulav is also understood:

The willow in the lulav, although it does not have openly revealed qualities and therefore its advantage of unity is more pronounced, grows "in brotherhood." Nevertheless, since it is combined and joined together with the other three species, to the point that they become one mitzvah, the aspect of simplicity within it (which is revealed specifically through the absence of qualities, as mentioned) is not "in its purity": through the union and connection with the other species, additional qualities are also added to the willow.

8. In contrast, the mitzvah of the willow in the Temple is a separate willow, which does not have any connection or association with other species and types (which possess qualities). This is a mitzvah in which there is no concealment due to qualities, etc., and the simplicity of the essence is openly revealed within it.

It can be said that this is the reason for the opinions that when one encircles the altar seven times on Hoshana Rabbah, the encircling is done only with the lulav and its species, and not with the willow, which is a mitzvah in its own right.

Therefore, the willow "is taken only by itself, and a person does not fulfill his obligation with the willow that is in the lulav." Also, its measure is not similar to the measure of the willow in the lulav—"three leaves on one stem," but rather "even one leaf on one stem," which indicates that it is (not a unity composed of details, but) a simple unity.

9. Based on this, it is understood why the willow in the Temple is a law given to Moses at Sinai and not something explicitly mentioned (and not even something derived from a verse) in the Written Torah—

As explained in Likkutei Torah regarding the difference between the water libation during the seven days of the festival, which is a "law given to Moses at Sinai," and the wine libation, which is explicitly mentioned in several places in the Written Torah. The water libation derives from a higher level than the wine libation, and therefore it cannot descend into writing, into the form of letters in the Written Torah, as explained there at length.

This level is higher than coming to revelation in the Written Torah and its form, which in the human soul is connected to such a high level in the soul that it is united with the Almighty—simplicity of the soul, which a Jew does not need to be explicitly commanded about in the form of explicit letters in Torah and mitzvos.

10. Based on the above, it is understood that the matter of the willow in our times, where "we take it" only on the seventh day, and which is (in our times) not even a matter of a law given to Moses at Sinai, but rather a "custom of the prophets" (and especially according to the interpretation of the early commentators that...

11. According to this, we can explain the inner meaning of why the day of the willow does not fall on Shabbos:

Even though, on a simple and external level, the reason is that "even now we calculate...

It can be said that the inner reason is due to the fact that the willow is connected to a higher level: namely, because in the willow (which is a custom of the prophets) the simplicity of the essence in its purity is expressed. Therefore, it is done in such a way that every year, the mitzvah of the willow is fulfilled in an equal manner without change;

And this is an aspect of strengthening itself, to the extent that it affects the time of the world, so that the court establishes the months, etc., and arranges the calendar for all the years in such a way that it does not interfere with the taking of the willow on the day of the willow.