Shofar, Sukkah, vLulav - Chapter Seven

The Tzafenat Paneach questions whether or not the tree from which the lulav is taken must actually produce dates.

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).

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.

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).

Sukkah 35a explains that this term is used to refer to the etrog its unique quality that the taste of the tree itself resembles the taste of the fruit. Alternatively, the word הָדָר can be interpreted to mean “which dwells,” and thus refer to the etrog, which can grow on the tree for an entire year and longer.

Leviticus, ibid.

thus, covering the branch

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.

but rather from a different species of tree. Hence, it can never be used in the lulav ( Or Sameach ).

since its leaves do not grow in the normal pattern.

Leviticus, ibid.

That species is defined as follows:

I.e., it comes to a point, rather than being rounded (Sukkah 33b).

rather than jagged (Sukkah ibid.).

However, the use of that name is not meant to be exclusive ...

for the fulfillment of this mitzvah.

i.e., its edge.is very jagged, with large protrusions

but white (Sukkah 34a).

for it is not considered to be merely a different type of willow, but rather another species entirely.

is also extended

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.

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 cont’ested 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 notconclude 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.

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 ...

therefore, ...

of the species ...

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.

Since the lulav is the tallest of all the species, the entire mitzvah is referred to by this name (Sukkah 37b ).

doing so violates the commandment בל תגרע (Deuteronomy 13:1), which forbids diminishing the Torah’s commandments.

doing so violates the commandment בל תוסיף (Deuteronomy 13:1), which forbids adding to the Torah’s commandments.

e.g., a tzaftzefah for the willow, or a lemon for the etrog

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.

Sukkah 11 b 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.

for the blessings should always be recited before the performance of the mitzvot.

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 netilal lulav only if one has already taken the lulav in his hands.

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.

Since three of the four species are bound together, they are held in the hand which the Torah considers of greater prominence (Sukkah 37b).

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.)

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).

Sukkah 11 b states that it is a mitzvah סt 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.

as explained in the previous halachah.

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 no Halachah 1.

because the above verse mentions “a fruit (singular) from the beautiful tree” (Sukkah, ibid.).

because the above verse states “willows of the brook,” using the plural, and thus two are required (ibid.)

The above verse uses three words ףנע, ץע תרכע each word implying the addition of another branch (Rashi, Sukkah, ibid. ).

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.

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 לב(. ףיםרת (See also Rabbenu Nissim and the Rashba, Vol. 1, 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).

because they are not considered to be “adornments”.

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).

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.

A handbreadth is 8 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah (32 centimeters total), and 9.6 centimeters according to the Chazon Ish (38.4 centimeters total).

Menachot 42a states that a lulav has a minimum length, but no maximum length.

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.

i.e., its full length.

24 centimeters according to Shiurei Torah, and 28.8 according to Chazon Ish.

The latter principle is derived from the laws of the lulav.

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 maily 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.]

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 does not require adherence to the Rambam’s view. Nevertheless, it is accepted without question by Shulchan Aruch HaRav 650:2.

57.6 cubic centimeters according to Shiurei Torah; 100 cubic centimeters according to the Chazon Ish.

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.)

as described in Halachah 6.

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

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 ...

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.

See Halachah 6 and the commentary on it.

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.

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 ח 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).

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.)

note the following halachah for a more detailed description of these movements.

once in each direction

while the lulav is extended outward i: that particular direction.

while holding the lulav close to oneself The Ramah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:9) explains that passing the lula back and forth is itself considered to be shaking it. Hence, rather than shake the lula 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.

Thus, one will hav shaken the lulav a total of 36 times.

Rabbenu Manoach states that the lulav was also passe back and forth and shaken at the time the blessing is recited. This is our custom a present,

which is recited in its entirety on each day of the Sukkot festival.

Tosafot, Sukkah 37b explains the derivation of this practice as follows:
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.”

lt 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.

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.

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.”

The Mishnah (Sukkah 3:8) relates that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would wrap their lulavim together with golden cords.

Though we are commanded to take the lulav, that does not necessarily imply actually holding the lulav in one’s hands, because ...

i.e., holding another substance in which the lulav is contained is still considered to be holding the lulav ...

Between one’s hands and the lulav.

Sukkah 42a explains that this is unbecoming to the mitzvah.

The Mishnah Berurah 651:31 states that this applies even if tlie container in which one placed the species is made of silver or gold.

i.e., a substance which does not contribute to the lulav’s attractiveness

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.

I.e., if the myrtle leaves fall off and collect between the lulav and the myrtle branches.

This principle applies in many different contexts. (See also Hilchot P’sulei Hamukdashin 1:21 and Hilchot Ma’aseh Hakorbanot 19:5.)

i.e., using substances other than the three species used in the lulav

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.

i.e., even outside Jerusalem

i.e., whether or not the Temple is standing

See Halachah 16. See also the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:2).

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 3:10), the Rambam states that the term שדקם refers to Jerusalem in its totality, not only the Temple Mount. Thus, the Jerusalem Talmud (Sukkah 3:11) states:
“And you shall rejoice before God, your Lord, seven days”—in Jerusalem.
(See also the commentary on Halachah 2:8.)

neither in Jerusalem (where taking the lulav is a mitzvah according to the Torah) nor outside the holy city (where taking the lulav is a Rabbinic decree, as stated in Halachah 15).

instituted by the Rabbis (Sukkah 43a)

See Chapter 2, Halachah 6.

Taking the lulav on the first day was obviously a matter of great importance. Hence, the Sages did not feel that the fear that perhaps a person might carry the lulav in the public domain was sufficient reason to nullify the mitzvah. In contrast, on the subsequent days the mitzvah is not considered to be so severe a matter. Hence, the mitzvah could be nullified in Jerusalem as well.
The Rabbis question why the Sages differentiated between the lulav and the shofar, and (as explained in Halachah 2:6), nullified the mitzvah of hearing the shofar when Rosh Hashanah fell on the Sabbath. As explained in our commentary on that halachah, in Rabbenu Nissim’s commentary on the tractate of Sukkah, he states that this decree was instituted only because in most Jewish communities, the people were not aware of the date the court had established for Rosh Hashanah. (Note the details of the explanation there.)

Thus, while the Temple was standing, the lulav would not be taken outside Jerusalem during the subsequent days of the festival.

Sukkah 41a explains the source for the establishment of remembrances for the Temple practices:
[Jeremiah 30:17] states: ‘”1 will restore health to you. l will heal you of your wounds,” says God. ‘Because they called you an outcast. Zion, for whom no one cares. “’
The verse states “for whom no one cares,” implying that a show of our care is required.
On this basis, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai established a number of practices in remembrance of the Temple practices.

but only once a day (Ramah, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 651:5).

As mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 6, the Rambam explains in Hilchot Berachot 11: 15 that it is preferable to conclude the blessing, litol lulav. The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam’s present statement is only a reference to his previous one, and not a reversal of his opinion. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 651:5) and all later authoritie’s recommend reciting al netilat lulav.

In Hilchot Berachot 11:3, the Rambam writes that a blessing should be recited before the performance of a Rabbinic commandment. It is appropriate to say v’tzivanu (and He commanded us) because the commandment to follow the Sages includes the observance of all their enactments.

The Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah 2:7, states this concept explicitly. lt is also obvious from Beitzah 5b, which explains that “when in the near future, the Temple will be rebuilt,” difficulties may arise from following Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai’s decree.

and the day when a new month began was established through the testimony of witnesses who saw the new moon.

I.e., the city of Jerusalem.

as stated above in Halachah 13.

throughout Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora

the fifteenth of Tishre

As mentioned in Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh, Chapter 3, after receiving testimony of the new moon, Sanhedrin would send messengers to all Jewish communities to inform them when each new month had begun. The communities which received this information before the Sukkot festival celebrated the holidays for only one day. They would be allowed to take the lulav when the first day of Sukkot fell on the Sabbath.

and were not informed of the day on which Rosh Hashanah had fallen, would celebrate two days. Therefore, they ...

whether or not the day was, in fact, Sukkot

i.e., had they known for sure that the holiday began on this day, they would have taken the lulav. However, since they were not sure of that fact, the Sages did not want to risk the possible violation of the Sabbath laws.

Even though the new moon was still sanctified according to the testimony of witnesses. (That practice continued several hundred years after the destruction of the Temple—Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:3.)

And thus knew that they were certainly obligated to perform the mitzvah.

for the reasons mentioned in Halachah 13.

The Sages did not want confusion to arise because of a difference in local custom. Accordingly, they were willing to decree that many Jews forego the performance of a mitzvah from the Torah, in order to establish uniformity throughout the Jewish people.

and the people in the distant communities could not take the lulav when the first day fell on the Sabbath because of the doubt involved

i.e., while the Temple was standing, the difference in practice between the people living in places where the date of the month was known and those where it was not known could be explained because everyone knew that the lulav was taken on the first day in the Temple. However, when the Temple was destroyed, there was no point of distiqction, and the Sages established a totally uniform practice.
The Lechem Mishneh questions why Sages did not institute the celebration of the second day of each festival in Eretz Yisrael as well. If their desire for uniformity of observance was so great, why did they not establish a single practice in this regard as well?
He explains that the Sages were more reluctant to exercise their authority when they had to establish a new practice םוק( )השעו—celebrating an additional day as a festival—than when all that was necessary was to have the people refrain from the performance of a mitzvah בש(, לעו )השעת as in the case of the lulav.
Another concept can be derived from this halachah. The Hebrew word translated as Temple—שדקם—is used by the Rambam to refer to the entire city of Jerusalem. Thus, we can infer from the statement “there is no longer a “ שדקם that this distinction is conferred on the holy city only while the Temple is standing.

See Chapter 5 of Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh.

or in Jerusalem

when the obligation to do so is from the Torah itself.,

As mentioned regarding the celebration of the second day of a festival (Beitzah 4b; Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 5:5), according to Torah law this practice should not be followed. Nevertheless, as a mark of respect for established custom, the practice is continued.

in Halachah 13,

I.e., the lulav, like the shofar and the sukkah, is a positive commandment whose observance is restricted to a specific time. Accordingly, women and slaves are under no obligation. (See Halachot 2:1 and 6:1.)

according to the instructions of our Sages (Rabbenu Manoach). (See Halachot 9 and 10.)

See the note on Halachah 6: 1.

Note the specific instructions in Halachah 8:10 regarding a child’s performance of the mitzvah on the first day of the festival.

i.e., a commandment that has the status of Torah law even though there is no explicit commandment to that effect in the Torah.

There is another totally different mitzvah performed with the willow.

as described in the following halachot.
Rashi and Tosafot, (Sukkah 43b) explain that the mitzvah of the willow branch was only performed by the priests for only they were allowed to approach the Temple altar where the branches were arranged. However, from halachah 22, it appears that the Rambam does not share this opinion.
Sukkah 44a, b also mentions that outside the Temple there was a custom of established in the time of the prophets requiring the taking of the willow by all Jews. (See also Hilchot Berachot 11:16.)

even if after using for the lulav, he detaches it and takes it by itself (Sukkah 44b, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 664:6).

It is preferable to fulfill the mitzvah by using a branch with at least three fresh leaves. However, if no such branches are available, one may fulfill his obligation by using a branch with a single leaf (ibid. ).

from Motza, a small town slightly west of Jerusalem (Sukkah 45a).

From this fact, Rashi and Tosafot conclude that the willows were taken by priests only because Israelites were not allowed to approach the Temple altar.

These willow branches were eleven cubits high and were placed on the base of the altar.
Afterwards, they would be taken by the people, as stated in the following halachah.
Rabbenu Manoach maintains that the priests would take the willow branches and give them to the people because Israelites were not allowed to approach the altar, as above. However, he notes that Rav Yitzchak ibn Giat’s description of the mitzvah could be interpreted to mean that the Israelites themselves were permitted to approach the altar on this occasion.

as an expression of happiness (Tosafot, Sukkah, ibid.). The shofar was also sounded in connection with the communal sacrifices and other rites carried out in the Temple.

on the Sabbath, since the mitzvah of lulav was negated on such an occasion (Halachah 13). Indeed, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:3), the Rambam writes that the reason the mitzvah of taking the willow on the Sabbath was negated was so that people would not extend the leniency and take the lulav as well.

The seventh day of Sukkot falls on the Sabbath only when Rosh Hashanah is celebrated on Sunday. Since the Sages attempted to prevent the latter occurrence (Hilchot Kiddush Hachodesh 7:7)—indeed, it is impossible according to today’s fixed calendar—it was rare that the seventh day of Sukkot would fall on the Sabbath.

and the willows were taken as during the week. Though the mitzvah of lulav would not be performed on such an occasion, an exception was made regarding the willows, in order ...

Since the willows were placed near the altar by the priests, and the performance of the mitzvah was under the supervision of the court, there was no need to worry about people carrying willows in the public domain (Sukkah 43b).
ln a related context, Sukkah 43b relates that the followers of Boethus, who did not respect the Oral Law, once tried to prevent the people from following the mitzvah of the willow branches on the Sabbath. Indeed, precisely because the source for the mitzvah is the oral tradition alone, the Sages made a point of allowing it to be observed on the Sabbath at least under such circumstances (Rabbenu Manoach).
The actual performance of the mitzvah on the Sabbath is described in the following halachah.

Some commentaries explain that the golden vessels were used as an expression of respect for the mitzvah. However, the Ma’aseh Rokeach explains that, in comparison to containers made of other metals, golden ones are more beneficial in preserving the willows’ freshness.

Note the commentary on the previous halachah.

The Maggid Mishneh’s text of the Mishneh Torah reacls: “it is not explicitly [an obligation] from the Torah.” Accordingly, he and the other commentators debated whether the Rambam considers a halachah conveyed by Moses from Mt. Sinai a.s a Torah obligation or not. In Hilchot Tum’at Meit 2:10, the Rambam specifically states that a halachah conveyed by tradition has the power of Torah law.

as is the lulav (Halachah 15).

Hoshanah Rabbah.

At present, it is customary to take five.

The Zohar mentions this practice

According to Kabbalah, the custom is to hit the ground five times.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Sukkah 4:3), the Rambam writes: “The willow is a halachah conveyed by Moses .... It was a custom of the prophets to take it without a blessing.”
However, in Hilchot Berachot 11:15, he writes:
Every practice which is a custom—even if it a custom of the prophets (e.g., taking the willow on the seventh day of the festival) ...—[does not require] the recitation of a blessing.
lt is possible to reconcile the two statements as follows: A blessing was never recited upon taking the willow in the Temple (though it could have been), because of the custom of the prophets mentioned in his Commentary on the Mishnah. There was never any reason to recite a blessing over taking the willow outside the Temple because it was only a custom.

in the Temple

There is a question if this practice was carried out only by the priests, or by Israelites as well.

Sukkah 43b mentions an opinion that states that the people would walk around the altar carrying the willow branch, but concludes as the Rambam does. (See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 664:4.)

Many manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state “Please, God, save us” twice, repeating that verse as is our custom in the recitation of Hallel.

The Yalkut Shimoni notes that this recalls the miracle of the conquest of Jericho.

From Hilchot Tefillah 11:3, it appears that in addition to the main ark of the synagogue, there was a small movable ark that was positioned in the center of the synagogue. The present custom is to hold the Torah scrolls on the reader’s platform in the center of the synagogue. This is also mentioned in the Yalkut Shimoni: “The chazan stands as an angel of God, holding the Torah scroll in his arm.”

once, and seven times on Hoshanah Rabbah.

As an expression of the dearness with which the people regarded the mitzvah.

Even though one should not ordinarily hold any objects in one’s hands while praying, lest one’s concentration be distracted, since holding the lulav is a mitzvah dear to a Jew’s heart, it will not become a distraction.

for there is no difficulty in carrying the lulav while fulfilling those mitzvot.

We fear that a person’s involvement in his studies will prevent him from showing proper attention to the lulav, and perhaps he will drop it (Rashi, Sukkah, ibid.).

See Halachot 13 and 14. At present, it is forbidden to carry the lulav on the Sabbath (Ramah, Orach Chayim 558:2).

Though she was not required to fulfill the mitzvah herself, no prohibition was instituted against her carrying the lulav.

In order to keep the lulav and the other species fresh.

This was not considered a violation of the Sabbath laws which prevent causing any agricultural growth. However, it was forbidden to add to the water or change it on the Sabbath because of the trouble involved.

but not change it.

though there are certain restrictions against work

Indeed, it is proper to do so to keep the lulav fresh (Rabbenu Manoach).

As explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 15, with regard to the s’chach of a sukkah: after it has been set aside for use as a mitzvah, it may not be used for mundane purposes throughout the holiday.

in contrast to the etrog, mentioned in the second clause.

The prohibition appli~s even on the Sabbath, when the lulav is not taken (Mishnah Berurah 653:2).

An etrog is primarily used for eating. Thus, its being set aside for use for the mitzvah causes that function to be prohibited. However, smelling it is a secondary function that is not included in that prohibition. Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 653:1) recommends refraining from smelling the etrog, because of the doubt regarding the proper blessing to recite. The Mishnah Berurah (653:3) states that with the exception of the time when the lulav is being taken, one may smell the etrog (and recite the appropriate blessing; see Hilchot Berachot 9:1) throughout the holiday.

even if it has become unacceptable for use in performing the mitzvah (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 665:1).

The Mishnah (Sukkah 4:6) relates that despite this prohibition, after the mitzvah was fulfilled on the seventh day of Sukkot the children would eat their etrogim.

ln contrast, the s’chach of the sukkah might not be used for a mundane purpose on the eighth day either (Chapter 6, Halachah 15). Rabbenu Manoach explains the difference, relating that—should one desire to eat—the sukkah must also be used beyn hash’mashot—the period between sunset and the appearance of three stars—while the lulav would not be taken during that time.

because of the previously established custom, even though there is no question regarding the dates of the holidays because of the fixed calendar we use, as explained in the commentary on Halachah 18.

The Maggid Mishneh notes the contrast between the mitzvot of lulav and of the sukkah, which, as mentioned in Chapter 6, Halachah 13, must be fulfilled on the eighth day of the festival. He differentiates between the two, noting that it is a mitzvah from the Torah to dwell in the sukkah for all seven days of the holiday. Therefore, because of the doubt, that mitzvah was also observed on the eighth day. In contrast, outside of Jerusalem there was never a mitzvah from the Torah to take the lulav for seven days. Hence, that mitzvah need not be observed on the eighth day.
The Kessef Mishneh adds a further point. It is forbidden to carry the lulav for no purpose on the eighth day, the holiday of Shemini Atzeret. No such prohibition applies regarding the use of the sukkah.

However, it is permitted on the ninth day, Simchat Torah (Shulchan Aruch, ibid.).
In contrast, at present, the use of the s’chach is forbidden on the ninth day.

The Kessef Mishneh advises amending the text to read “on the seventh day.” In either case, the intent is the same—because it was forbidden by law on the seventh day, that prohibition was observed on the eighth day as well, because of the doubt involved.

i.e., during the time when the calendar was established according to the testimony of witnesses, and word of the sanctification of the new moon could not reach the people in the outlying communities in time for the celebration of·the holiday, as mentioned in the commentary on Halachah 16.

more precisely, even on the night after it was used, for the etrog was set aside only for that day alone.