The term "the frond of the date palm" employed by the Torah - Leviticus 23:40.

refers to the branches of a date palm - The Tzafenat Paneach questions whether or not the tree from which the lulav is taken must actually produce dates.

as they sprout, before their leaves separate - Thus, if the leaves spread out and were later bound together by human activity, it is not acceptable (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 645:2).

and spread out in various directions. - Periodically, the date palm sprouts forth new branches. Initially they are closed, and as time passes they spread out to a fanlike shape. The Torah requires that they be used for the lulav while they are still in their initial state.

This obligation is derived from the fact that the Torah spells the word כפת, without a ו, implying that the date branch should appear to be a single entity (Sukkah 32a).

There is a homiletic aspect to using the lulav while its leaves are closed. Vayikra Rabbah 30:12 emphasizes how the mitzvah of lulav and etrog expresses the unity and oneness which pervade the Jewish people. Not only is this unity expressed by the combination of the four species into a single mitzvah, it is reflected in each of the species themselves. Thus, the lulav is used while its leaves are together as one, before they separate into distinct entities.

Rather, they should appear as a scepter. - Here, too, our Sages have emphasized the homiletic lesson to be derived from this shape. Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are days of judgement. The lulav can be considered as the Jews' scepter of victory, acknowledging that they have prevailed (Medrash Tanchumah, Emor).

This is called a lulav.

The "fruit of the beautiful tree" mentioned in the Torah - Leviticus, ibid.

is the etrog. - Sukkah 35a explains that this term is used to refer to the etrog because of a unique quality possessed by this fruit. The taste of the tree itself resembles the taste of the fruit. Alternatively, the word הדר can be interpreted to mean "which dwells," and thus refer to the etrog, which can grow on the tree for an entire year.

The "boughs of covered trees" mentioned in the Torah - Leviticus, ibid.

refer to the [species of] myrtle whose leaves surround its branch; - thus, covering the branch

i.e., there will be three or more leaves in each ring - on the same level.

Our translation follows the interpretation of the Maggid Mishneh, who requires that the three leaves be on the same level over the entire length of the myrtle. However, other opinions interpret the Rambam's words to mean that a myrtle may be used if the leaves of merely one ring are on the same level. The Kessef Mishneh (and similarly, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 646:5) maintain that a myrtle is kosher if the leaves grow properly over three handbreadths (its minimum size), or at least the majority of that distance.

However, if there are two leaves on one level, with a third leaf slightly higher than them, that is not considered to be "covered." - but rather from a different species of tree. Hence, it can never be used in the lulav (Or Sameach).

Rather, it is called a wild myrtle - since its leaves do not grow in the normal pattern.

The term "willows of the brook" mentioned by the Torah - Leviticus, ibid.

does not include just any plant that grows by a brook, but rather a particular species, which is called the "willows of the brook." - That species is defined as follows:

Its leaf is extended as a brook - i.e., it comes to a point, rather than being rounded (Sukkah 33b).

This characteristic is also quoted as an explanation of the name "willows of the brook" (Rabbenu Asher).

its edge is smooth - rather than jagged (Sukkah ibid.).

and its stem is red. It is called a willow. The majority of this species grow near brooks. Therefore, it is called the "willows of the brook." - However, the use of that name is not meant to be exclusive...

Even if this species grew in the desert or on a mountain, it would be kosher - for the fulfillment of this mitzvah.

There is another species which resembles the willow. However, its leaf is rounded, its edge resembles a saw - i.e., its edge is very jagged, with large protrusions

and its stem is not red - but white (Sukkah 34a).

This is called a tzaftzefah. It is unfit [to be used for the mitzvah] - for it is not considered to be merely a different type of willow, but rather another species entirely.

There is another type of willow, whose leaf - is also extended

does not have a smooth edge, but it is not like a saw. Rather, it has tiny juttings, like the edge of a small sickle. It is kosher. - The Mishnah Berurah 647:6 mentions that willows are frequently picked by young children who are not learned and may mistake a non-kosher species for a kosher one. Hence, the purchaser should carefully examine the willows before purchasing them.

All the above definitions were explained according to the oral tradition transmitted by Moses, our teacher. - Indeed, in his introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam uses the definitions of the four species as examples of how the oral tradition is explained in the Talmud:

The explanations which we have received from Moses are not contested at all. Throughout all the ages, from Moses' time until the present, we have not heard of a dispute started by a Sage whether... the expression "a fruit from a beautiful tree" refers to the etrog. Nor have we heard of a dispute that the "covered tree" refers to the myrtle...

Concerning these and the like, it has been said: "The entire Torah, [both the mitzvot] in general, and all their particulars were given to Moses on Mount Sinai." Though the tradition was received and there is no dispute about it, one can also derive these definitions through the accepted processes of exegesis.

Thus, when the Talmud debates and discusses a concept and offers a suggestion...that perhaps, "the fruit of the beautiful tree" is a pomegranate...[and does not resolve the matter] until they bring proof from the exegesis of the verse..., one should not conclude that the matter was left in doubt until this point of exegesis was discovered.

Rather, from the time of Joshua onward, we saw that the etrog was the species taken with the lulav and there is no debate about that. They were merely investigating how they could find support from the Torah for the interpretation that had been transmitted.

These four species are considered to be one mitzvah - In contrast to putting on the head tefillin and the arm tefillin, which are considered to be two mitzvot. Here, taking all four species is considered to be a single mitzvah...

and - therefore,...

each one - of the species...

is required for its performance - and only then is the mitzvah performed. Nevertheless, as explained in Halachah 6, the species need not be bound together; it is sufficient to take them one after the other.

This statement is taken from the Mishnah, Menachot 3:6, which includes the four species of the lulav in a long list of mitzvot in which all the particular elements that make up the mitzvah are required for its performance to be acceptable.

All of them [together] are called the mitzvah of lulav. - Since the lulav is the tallest of all the species, the entire mitzvah is referred to by this name (Sukkah 37b).

One may not diminish them - doing so violates the commandment בל תגרע (Deuteronomy 13:1), which forbids diminishing the Torah's commandments.

or add to them. - doing so violates the commandment תוסיף בל (Deuteronomy 13:1), which forbids adding to the Torah's commandments.

If one of the species cannot be found, a similar species - e.g., a tzaftzefah for the willow, or a lemon for the etrog

may not be substituted for it. - Rather, the mitzvah cannot be fulfilled at all. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:12) recommends taking the species that are available, as a remembrance of the mitzvah. However, in such circumstances, a blessing should not be recited.

The most desirable way of performing the mitzvah is to bind the lulav, myrtle, and willow together, thus making a single, unified entity from the three of them. - Sukkah 11b explains that binding the three species together is considered more attractive than taking them each individually. Thus, taking the species in this manner conforms to the general directive requiring us to perform the mitzvot in the most esthetically appealing manner possible.

Sukkah 34b mentions an exegetic teaching that explains why the etrog is not bound together with the other species.

Before one takes them to perform the mitzvah, he should recite the blessing - for the blessings should always be recited before the performance of the mitzvot.

on the mitzvah of taking the lulav - Our translation follows the commentary of the Kessef Mishneh, who notes that in Hilchot Berachot 11:15, the Rambam states that if one recites the blessing before taking the lulav in his hand, he should conclude the blessing ...v'tzivanu litol lulav. The blessing should be concluded ...v'tzivanu al netilat lulav only if one has already taken the lulav in his hands.

for all the others are dependent upon it. - As mentioned in the previous halachah and commentary, since the lulav is the tallest of all the species, its name is used to refer to the entire mitzvah.

Afterwards, he takes this bound entity in his right hand and the etrog in his left hand. - Since three of the four species are bound together, they are held in the hand which the Torah considers of greater prominence (Sukkah 37b).

He must take them as they grow - Sukkah 45b derives this concept from Exodus 26:15, which states: "upright beams of acacia wood." Implied is that all mitzvot fulfilled with agricultural products must be performed while they are in an upright position. (See also Halachah 9.)

i.e., their roots below towards the earth, and their heads upward towards the sky. - Even though the etrog hangs from the tree with the pitam downwards, its "upright" position is when the pitam faces upward (Shulchan Aruch HaRav 651:12).

If a person did not bind them together, but rather took them one by one, he has fulfilled his obligation, provided he possesses all four species. - Sukkah 11b states that it is a mitzvah to bind the three species together, but one may fulfill the mitzvah even when one has not done so.

This law is accepted as halachah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:12). The preference of the Rabbis for binding the species together is so great that if one has not bound them together before the beginning of the festival, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:1) recommends binding them together with a loop on the holiday rather than taking each one individually.

However, if he has only one species or he is lacking one species, he should not take them until he acquires the remaining species. - as explained in the previous halachah.

How many does one take of each of them? One lulav - Sukkah 34b derives this concept from the fact that Leviticus 23:40 writes כפת without a ו, implying a single entity, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 1.

one etrog - because the above verse mentions "a fruit (singular) from the beautiful tree" (Sukkah, ibid.).

two willow branches - because the above verse states "willows of the brook," using the plural, and thus two are required (ibid.)

and three myrtle branches. - The above verse uses three words ענף עץ עבות, each word implying the addition of another branch (Rashi, Sukkah, ibid.).

If one would like to add more myrtle - Some editions of the Mishneh Torah also add "and willow." However, most of the manuscripts and texts of the Mishneh Torah omit that phrase. Furthermore, in one of his responsa, the Rambam states that since the Talmud mentions adding only myrtles, it is improper to add any of the other species.

branches so that the bundle will be larger, he may. Indeed, it is considered to be an adornment of the mitzvah. - The latter statement can be understood to be an explanation of the former. In contrast to the other species, the myrtle is considered an adornment of the mitzvah. Since the extra myrtle branches are viewed as adornments, they are not considered to be an intervening substance separating the person from the mitzvah. (See the commentary on Halachah 11.) Nor is including them considered to be adding to the mitzvah (and thus, a violation of בל תוסיף). (See also Rabbenu Nissim and the Rashba, Vol. I, Responsum 535.)

There are some authorities who allow additional myrtle branches to be included even though they do not meet the requirement of having all three leaves on the same level. However, others do not accept this leniency (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:15).

However, it is forbidden to add to or reduce the numbers of the other species. - because they are not considered to be "adornments."

If one adds to or reduces their number, it is not acceptable. - The Ra'avad objects to this statement, arguing that the adding to the numbers of the other species does not nullify the performance of the mitzvah. Rav Avraham, the Rambam's son, writes that, based on Sanhedrin 88b, the Rambam amended his own manuscript copy of the Mishneh Torah to state "it does not nullify it" (Birkat Avraham 31).

What is the required length of each of these species? - The Mishnah Berurah 650:8 states that if the species are smaller than the minimum limits established, they may not be used throughout the festival. Though certain leniencies are granted after the first day, they do not apply regarding this matter.

The lulav may not be less than four handbreadths. - The Mishnah (Sukkah 3:1) describes the length of the lulav as "three handbreadths [and more], so that it can be shaken," implying that, like the other species, it should be three handbreadths in length. However, since all three handbreadths of the lulav must be shaken (see the following two halachot) an additional handbreadth was required for the person to hold the lulav in his hand (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah).

[Rashi and most other commentaries based on Sukkah 32b consider the handbreadth of the lulav that extends beyond the myrtle and the willow as the addition included "so that it can be shaken." From the latter clauses of this halachah, it appears that the Rambam may have also adopted this interpretation.]

A handbreadth is 8 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 9.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish. In his commentary on the above Mishnah, the Rambam emphasizes that the measure refers to three full handbreadths, each four fingerbreadths in length. This is necessary to negate the opinion of certain authorities (see the Ra'avad), who state that here the intent is three "small" handbreadths, so that the total length is only 10 fingerbreadths.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 650:1) accepts the Ra'avad's opinion. Nevertheless, the Ramah suggests following the Rambam's view if possible.

[Beyond that,] regardless of its length, it is kosher. - Menachot 42a states that a lulav has a minimum length, but no maximum length.

Its length is measured only from its shidrah - i.e., what is measured is its center stem from its base until the portion which separates into two twin leaves that cling to each other.

and not from the tips of the leaves. - i.e., its full length.

The myrtle and the willow may not be less than three handbreadths. [Beyond that,] regardless of their length, they are kosher. - The latter principle is derived from the laws of the lulav.

Even if each branch has only three fresh leaves on it, they are kosher, provided the leaves are at the top of the branch. - Sukkah 33a states:

If most of [the myrtle's] leaves dried out, but three fresh leaves remain, it is kosher.

Rav Chisda said: "Provided they are at the top of each branch."

The Rambam maintains that the same principles can also be applied to the willow.

[Note the commentary on Halachah 8:5, which mentions certain relevant principles. Indeed, in general, this clause appears to be more closely related to the principles mentioned in the following chapter, where the Rambam mentions the characteristics that disqualify the various species, rather than in this chapter, where he relates the fundamental requirements of each one. Based on Sukkah 34a, which relates that myrtles which are not dry (a factor still common in many Diaspora communities today) are very difficult to find, we can interpret this as an almost parenthetical expression teaching that freshness is not among the fundamental requirements for a myrtle.]

If one has bound [the other species together with] the lulav, the shidrah of the lulav must extend beyond the myrtle and the willow a handbreadth or more. - The Rambam maintains that regardless of the length of the myrtles and the willows, the shidrah of the lulav must extend beyond them an additional handbreadth, so that it can be shaken. The Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:2) does not require adherence to the Rambam's view. Nevertheless, it is accepted without question by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 650:2.

The minimum size of an etrog is the size of an egg. - 57.6 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah; in this context, 100 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

[Beyond that,] regardless of its size, it is kosher. - Sukkah 36b relates that Rabbi Akiva came to synagogue with an etrog so large he had to sling it over his shoulder. (This is not out of the question, because, as mentioned above, an etrog is capable of remaining on its tree for an entire year and can attain quite a large size.)

Once a person lifts up these four species - whether he lifts them up together - as described in Halachah 6.

or one after the other - lifting up each of the four species individually. However, a person must have all four species before him when he fulfills the mitzvah.

whether in his right hand or in his left hand - Although, in Halachah 6, the Rambam suggested holding the lulav together with the myrtle and willows together in his right hand and the etrog in his left, this is the most desirable way of fulfilling the mitzvah. However, even if a person does not lift up the species in this manner...

he has fulfilled his obligation. - Rabbenu Chanan'el does not accept this decision. He interprets Sukkah 42a, "If he lifted it up in an opposite manner, he did not fulfill his obligation," as referring to such a circumstance. Nevertheless, the Rambam (and similarly, most halachic authorities, including the Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:3) interpret that statement as referring to lifting them up opposite to their natural pattern of growth.

This applies] only when he lifts them up as they grow. - See Halachah 6 and the commentary on it.

However, if he does not lift them up as they grow, he has not fulfilled his obligation. - For this reason, it is customary in many communities to hold the etrog upside down before reciting the blessing, and then to turn it right side up after the blessing has been recited.

The fulfillment of the mitzvah as the law [requires is as follows]: One should lift up the three species as they are bound together in one's right hand and the etrog in one's left hand. - holding the etrog together with the lulav (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:11).

In the Beit Yosef, Rav Yosef Karo quotes the following story from the Recanti. The latter dreamed that he saw a particular pious individual writing God's name with a space separating the last ה from the first three letters. He could not comprehend the dream at all until the next day, when he saw that individual holding his etrog separate from his lulav (Mishnah Berurah 651:21).

Then, one should pass them back and forth, up and down - The Ari suggests that one should face the east and pass the lulav back and forth in the following order; first to the south; then to the north, then east, up, down, and to the west (Mishnah Berurah 651:20). Sukkah 37b relates that shaking the lulav in all directions prevents unfavorable winds.

When shaking the lulav downward, one should not turn it upside down, for this is opposite its natural pattern of growth. (See Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:9.)

What does the above entail? One passes the lulav forward - once in each direction

and shakes the top of the lulav three times - while the lulav is extended outward in that particular direction.

brings it back - to one's chest

and shakes the top of the lulav three times. - while holding the lulav close to oneself.

The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:9) explains that passing the lulav back and forth is itself considered to be shaking it. Hence, rather than shake the lulav three times while it is extended, one must shake it as one extends it and brings it back, and repeat that process a total of three times in each direction.

One follows this same pattern when lifting it up and down. - Thus, one will have shaken the lulav a total of 36 times.

At what point [in prayer] - Rabbenu Manoach states that the lulav was also passed back and forth and shaken at the time the blessing is recited. This is our custom at present.

does one pass the lulav back and forth? During the reading of the Hallel - which is recited in its entirety on each day of the Sukkot festival.

at the first and final recitation of the verse [Psalms 118:1, 118:29]: Hodu Lado-nai ki tov... - Tosafot, Sukkah 37b explains the derivation of this practice as follows: 1 Chronicles 16:33 states: "Then all the trees of the forest will rejoice." The following verse (ibid. 34) states "Hodu Lado-nai...," and the subsequent verse: "Let them say Hoshi'eynu...."

The rejoicing of the trees - the shaking of the lulav - is thus associated with the verse "Hodu..." and the verse "Ana Ado-nai hoshi'ah na."

and at the verse [Psalms 118:25]: Ana Ado-nai hoshi'ah na. - It is customary to repeat this verse when reciting the Hallel. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:8) relates that the lulav is passed back and forth both times the verse is recited.

It is acceptable to take the lulav throughout the entire day. - However, one should not delay the performance of the mitzvah unnecessarily. Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 652:2) forbids eating before fulfilling the mitzvah.

However, it is not taken at night. - Megillah 20b derives this concept from Leviticus 23:40: "On the first day take...." We may infer: "the lulav is to be taken by day, and not by night."

If one wraps a cord of silver or gold around [the three species] as they are bound together - The Mishnah (Sukkah 3:8) relates that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would wrap their lulavim together with golden cords.

or wraps a [decorative] cloth around them and takes them, one fulfills his obligation. - Though we are commanded to take the lulav, that does not necessarily imply actually holding the lulav in one's hands, because...

Taking the lulav through another medium is still considered to be taking it - i.e., holding another substance in which the lulav is contained is still considered to be holding the lulav...

provided [that medium] is one which gives honor and beauty [to the mitzvah, because]: "any entity which makes a substance more attractive is not considered to be a separation." - between one's hands and the lulav. The substance used to bind the lulav is not considered to be an independent entity, but rather an extension of the lulav. This principle is also mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 7 of this chapter and Halachot 5:17-18. The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:8) states that it is customary to remove rings or other intervening substances that cover even small portions of one's hands before taking the lulav.

However, if one placed these species in a vase or a pot - Sukkah 42a explains that this is unbecoming to the mitzvah.

and took them, one has not fulfilled one's obligation. - The Mishnah Berurah 651:31 states that this applies even if the container in which one placed the species is made of silver or gold.

If one binds the lulav together with the myrtle and the willow and separates between the lulav and the myrtle with a cloth or the like - i.e., a substance which does not contribute to the lulav's attractiveness

it is considered to be a separation. - between the various species. Taking the lulav in this manner is not acceptable. The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:1) notes that the myrtle branches are frequently bound together with a cord. This must be removed before using them to fulfill the mitzvah.

If one separates between them with myrtle leaves - i.e., if the myrtle leaves fall off and collect between the lulav and the myrtle branches,

it is not considered to be a separation, because an entity does not separate between its own kind. - This principle applies in many different contexts. (See also Hilchot P'sulei Hamukdashin 1:21 and Hilchot Ma'aseh Hakorbanot 19:5.)

One may bind them together with a string, a cord, or with any substance one desires - i.e., using substances other than the three species used in the lulav

since binding it together is not a required element of the mitzvah. - the substance used to bind it is not considered to be significant. Therefore, using a different substance is not considered as adding a new entity to the mitzvah. However, if the binding were required, as one opinion (Sukkah 6b) maintains, it would be forbidden to use a different substance.