Has the Time Come to Take the Lulav on Shabbat?

 By Rabbi Josh Wander

This year (and next) presents us with a fascinating halachic question that is about much more than the Four Species. When the first day of Sukkot falls on Shabbat, Jews throughout the world ordinarily leave their lulavim and etrogim untouched. But was that always the practice? More importantly, now that the Jewish people have returned in unprecedented numbers to Eretz Yisrael, has the time come to reconsider a practice that developed under radically different historical circumstances?

A fascinating article recently published in Makor Rishon by Arnon Segal discusses rabbis and scholars who intend to take the Four Species this Shabbat. Among them is Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, who argues that taking the lulav on the first day of Sukkot when it falls on Shabbat was the original practice in Eretz Yisrael. The Mishnah itself describes precisely such a reality. When the first day of Sukkot fell on Shabbat, Jews brought their lulavim to the Temple Mount before Shabbat and took them the following morning. When the resulting scramble became dangerous, Beit Din instituted that each person should instead take his lulav in his own home.[1][2]

The Gemara goes even further. It explicitly derives from the word “בַּיּוֹם” that the mitzvah applies “even on Shabbat,” and from “רִאשׁוֹן” that this first-day obligation applies even outside the Mikdash. In other words, there is nothing inherently contradictory about taking a lulav on Shabbat. On the contrary, the mitzvah of “וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן”—“You shall take for yourselves on the first day”—was historically observed even when that first day was Shabbat. The question, therefore, is why that practice disappeared.[3]

The Gemara itself asks why Jews who knew with certainty when Rosh Chodesh had been established should not continue taking lulav when the first day fell on Shabbat. At one stage it answers that, indeed, in Eretz Yisrael they did. The subsequent discussion, however, leads into the post-Churban reality in which the practice was no longer maintained universally.[4] The Rambam codifies the later practice explicitly. He writes that after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, Chazal prohibited taking lulav on the first day when it falls on Shabbat even for the Jews of Eretz Yisrael who knew the correct date, “כדי שיהיו הכל שוין בדבר זה”—“so that everyone should be equal in this matter.” He then adds that even after the fixed calendar became universal, the practice remained unchanged and lulav was not taken on Shabbat.[5]

But there is another dimension to the historical development. The Netziv, in Meromei Sadeh on Sukkah 44a, explains that after the Churban, “עיקר ישוב ישראל בחו״ל”—the principal Jewish settlement was in the Diaspora—and therefore the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael followed the practice of Klal Yisrael. Before the Churban, however, “עיקר ישראל בארץ ישראל”—the principal body of Israel was in Eretz Yisrael.[6] This raises an extraordinary question: what happens when history changes again?

That question has become increasingly relevant because the Jewish people have returned to Eretz Yisrael in numbers not seen for thousands of years. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah 5787 Israel’s population stood at approximately 10.305 million, including approximately 7.828 million people classified as “Jews and Others.”[7] That category itself requires caution because “Jews and Others” is not synonymous with “halachically Jewish.”

At the same time, however, there is a fundamental problem with using the commonly quoted worldwide Jewish population to determine a halachic rov. The numbers generally cited in discussions of whether a majority of world Jewry lives in Israel are demographic figures, not a census of halachic Jews. The “core Jewish population” used by leading Jewish demographers relies substantially upon self-identification: people may be counted as Jewish because they identify as Jewish religiously, ethnically or culturally, even though that identification is not necessarily supported by halachic Jewish status. Some demographic methodologies are broader still, incorporating people on the basis of Jewish parentage, background or other forms of Jewish identification.[8]

That distinction is not academic. A person with a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother may identify completely as Jewish and consequently appear within some Jewish demographic calculations while not being Jewish according to halacha unless he or she underwent a valid conversion. Conversely, someone who is unquestionably Jewish according to halacha may not identify as Jewish and therefore may disappear from certain sociological counts. The demographers themselves acknowledge that their categories do not necessarily correspond to halachic definitions.

If we are asking a sociological question—how many people around the world identify with the Jewish people—those definitions are perfectly legitimate. But that is not the question before us. We are asking a halachic question: whether רוב ישראל is presently in Eretz Yisrael. For that purpose, counting people whom halacha does not recognize as Jews simply because they identify as Jewish can distort the very calculation upon which the halachic argument depends.

This could be decisive. We repeatedly hear that Israel is “approaching” the point at which the majority of world Jewry will live in Eretz Yisrael. But approaching according to which definition of a Jew? If the Diaspora figure is inflated for our particular halachic purpose by people counted as Jewish sociologically but not halachically, it is entirely possible that the relevant threshold has already been crossed. We simply do not currently possess sufficiently precise worldwide statistics to know.

And that uncertainty works both ways. If the available statistics cannot prove that the majority of halachic Jews are presently in Eretz Yisrael, neither can they prove that the majority are still in the Diaspora. That brings us directly to another consideration: ספק דאורייתא לחומרא. When confronted with a genuine doubt concerning a Torah obligation, the general halachic principle is that we act stringently.

Taking the lulav on the first day of Sukkot is a Torah obligation. The Torah explicitly commands “וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן”—“You shall take for yourselves on the first day.” If, therefore, there is now a genuine safek as to whether the circumstances have returned under which the Torah obligation of first-day lulav applies in Eretz Yisrael even when that day falls on Shabbat, shouldn’t ספק דאורייתא לחומרא at least push us toward taking that possibility seriously rather than simply dismissing it?

This principle does not by itself settle the halacha. There are other considerations, including an explicit rabbinic enactment concerning lulav on Shabbat and the enormous weight of established practice. But those who respond simply, “You cannot prove that rov Yisrael is already in Eretz Yisrael,” have not necessarily answered the question; they may simply have identified the safek. When what potentially stands on the other side of that safek is the fulfillment of an explicit mitzvah from the Torah, that uncertainty deserves serious consideration.

And then comes Sukkot itself. Every year enormous numbers of Jews come from throughout the world to spend Sukkot in Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem fills with Jews from America, Europe, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere. Walk through the streets of Yerushalayim during Chol HaMoed or stand at the Kotel during Birkat Kohanim and the phenomenon is impossible to miss. Normally these people continue to be counted statistically as “Diaspora Jews,” but I question whether that is the correct way to think about them for this discussion.

My definition of Aliyah is very simple: when a Jew steps off the airplane in Eretz Yisrael, he has made Aliyah. If he makes the unfortunate mistake of getting onto his return flight, he has then made yeridah. That may sound somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there is a serious Torah concept behind it. A Jew’s actual physical presence in Eretz Yisrael can have halachic significance independent of his passport, citizenship or permanent address.

The famous position of the Chacham Tzvi provides a striking example. In Responsa Chacham Tzvi §167, Rav Tzvi Hirsch Ashkenazi addresses precisely the case of “בני חו״ל העולים לא״י דרך ארעי”—Diaspora Jews who come to Eretz Yisrael temporarily. He rules that they should conduct themselves on the festivals like residents of Eretz Yisrael. Indeed, he writes that this applies “כל זמן שהם בא״י אפילו דרך ארעי כיון שהמקום גורם”—as long as they are in Eretz Yisrael, even temporarily, “because the place itself determines the matter.”[9]

In other words, according to the Chacham Tzvi, a Diaspora Jew visiting Eretz Yisrael observes only one day of Yom Tov while he is here. This is not the universally accepted practical ruling; many poskim rule that a Diaspora resident visiting Israel continues to observe Yom Tov Sheni. But the Chacham Tzvi’s position establishes an important concept for our discussion: a Jew’s temporary physical presence in Eretz Yisrael is not necessarily halachically meaningless. According to his approach, one’s actual geographical location can have immediate consequences for the manner in which Yom Tov is observed.

That raises an intriguing question concerning רוב ישראל עליה. If a Jew from Brooklyn flies to Jerusalem for Sukkot, why should we count him, for purposes of asking where the Jewish people presently are, as though he were still sitting in Brooklyn? He isn’t; he is in Eretz Yisrael. I am not suggesting that the Chacham Tzvi thereby proves that temporary visitors must automatically be included in every mathematical calculation of rov Yisrael. That is a separate halachic question. But his position demonstrates something remarkable: temporary physical presence in Eretz Yisrael can itself determine halachic status.

That makes Sukkot particularly fascinating. We may already be extremely close to—or perhaps have crossed—the point at which the majority of the world’s halachically Jewish population is in Eretz Yisrael on an ordinary day. The demographic statistics available to us cannot definitively resolve the question because their categories do not correspond precisely to halachic Jewish status. Then, precisely for Sukkot, large numbers of Jews who ordinarily reside abroad physically enter Eretz Yisrael. Could those Jews push us decisively across the threshold of רוב ישראל עליה? It is a question worth asking.

There is something almost poetic about this possibility arising specifically on Sukkot. This is one of the Shalosh Regalim, the festivals upon which Jews historically left their homes and ascended to Jerusalem. Thousands of years later, airplanes descend into Ben-Gurion Airport filled with Jews coming to spend the regel in Eretz Yisrael. Hotels fill, the streets of Jerusalem fill, and the Kotel fills. Our demographic tables may continue to classify many of these people as members of the “Diaspora,” but during Sukkot they aren’t in the Diaspora. They are here.

This brings us back to the lulav. Professor Yoel Elitzur has devoted a detailed halachic study to the question of restoring the ancient Eretz-Yisrael practice of taking lulav on the first day of Sukkot when it falls on Shabbat.[10] There is also a particularly intriguing statement recorded in the teachings of Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Rabbi Eliyahu Weber, writing on this question, cites Shiurei Ha-Gri”sh on Sukkah 41b and reports Rav Elyashiv’s conclusion as follows: when the principal Jewish settlement is in Eretz Yisrael and רוב ישראל עליה—the majority of Israel is upon the Land—lulav is taken on Shabbat even before the coming of Mashiach.[11]

That statement must be presented carefully. The discussion appears in the context of Rav Elyashiv’s explanation of the position of the Rif, and it should not automatically be transformed into a practical ruling instructing Jews today to take lulav on Shabbat. Nevertheless, its significance is difficult to ignore. Here is a teaching attributed in a published source to one of the preeminent halachic authorities of the previous generation discussing a framework in which the return of rov Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael changes the equation, and explicitly placing that possibility before the coming of Mashiach.

Perhaps we therefore need to confront the possibility that a condition our predecessors discussed as belonging to the future is no longer entirely in the future. For nearly two thousand years, Jewish halachic life necessarily adapted itself to Galut. The great centers of Torah moved from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel, North Africa, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania and eventually America. Practices shaped by those circumstances became deeply rooted within Jewish life. That was not a mistake; it was part of the extraordinary mechanism through which Torah and the Jewish people survived exile. But Galut was never intended to be permanent.

We prayed three times every day for the ingathering of the exiles. We prayed for Jerusalem to be rebuilt. We prayed for the restoration of Jewish national life in Eretz Yisrael. Those prayers were not metaphors; they were requests for history to change, and history changed. Millions of Jews have returned to Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem is once again one of the greatest centers of Jewish life and Torah in the world. Jews arrive from throughout the Diaspora to celebrate the regalim here, and the demographic center of gravity of the Jewish people has shifted dramatically back toward the Land from which we were exiled.

Perhaps our greatest difficulty is simply recognizing what has happened. אין בעל הנס מכיר בנסו—the beneficiary of a miracle does not always recognize the miracle taking place around him. At some point we must therefore ask a much larger question than whether we should pick up a lulav on a particular Shabbat: when does the Judaism of a people living in Galut begin once again to become the Judaism of a people living in Eretz Yisrael?

This is not a license to discard established halacha or minhag whenever we choose. Major authorities oppose taking the lulav on Shabbat today, and the normative contemporary practice remains not to take it. That disagreement must be acknowledged honestly. But neither should we be afraid to ask whether the circumstances upon which earlier practices were based have fundamentally changed. There is a serious case that they have.

Indeed, this coming Shabbat, when the first day of Sukkot arrives, a good number of Jews in Yerushalayim who have studied this sugya and reached that conclusion will take their lulavim and etrogim privately in their homes, without carrying them through the public domain. Rav Ariel even published a book on the topic this year. They will not be attempting to create something new. Quite the opposite. They understand themselves to be restoring something very old: a practice explicitly described by Chazal and once observed by Jews in Eretz Yisrael when the first day of Sukkot fell on Shabbat.

For generations our ancestors held their lulavim while facing toward Jerusalem and praying for the return to Zion. We have returned. Perhaps it is time for our halachic consciousness to begin recognizing that reality as well. And perhaps this Shabbat, quietly inside Jewish homes throughout Yerushalayim and Eretz Yisrael, some Jews holding the lulav and etrog in their hands will recognize something that generations of our ancestors could only dream of: we are home.

Halachic Disclaimer: This article is intended solely as a discussion of the sugya and the sources surrounding the question of taking lulav on Shabbat in Eretz Yisrael. It is not a psak halacha and should not be understood as practical halachic guidance. The issues discussed here are subject to significant disagreement among major halachic authorities. Anyone with a practical question regarding how to conduct themselves should consult their local Orthodox rabbi or personal halachic authority.

Sources

[1] Arnon Segal, “לולב בשבת,” Makor Rishon, September 2026. [2] Mishnah Sukkah 4:2–4; Bavli Sukkah 42b. The Mishnah records both bringing the lulavim to the Temple Mount and the later enactment that each person take his lulav at home. [3] Bavli Sukkah 43a: “ביום — ואפילו בשבת; ראשון — אפילו בגבולין.” [4] Bavli Sukkah 43a–44a. The Gemara asks regarding the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael who knew the calendar, “אינהו דידעי בקיבועא דירחא לידחו,” and initially answers, “אין הכי נמי.”

[5] Rambam, Hilchot Shofar, Sukkah VeLulav 7:13–18, particularly 7:16–18. [6] Netziv, Meromei Sadeh, Sukkah 44a: after the Churban, “דהוויין עיקר ישוב ישראל בחו״ל מיגררן יושבי ארץ ישראל אחר מנהג כלל ישראל… מה שאין כן לפני חורבן בית המקדש היה עיקר ישראל בארץ ישראל.” [7] Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel in Figures—Rosh Hashana: Selected Annual Data 2026, September 9, 2026. [8] Sergio DellaPergola, World Jewish Population 2024, American Jewish Year Book 2024. The demographic literature distinguishes among the “core Jewish population,” population with Jewish parents, enlarged Jewish population and Law of Return population; these demographic categories do not necessarily correspond to halachic Jewish status.

[9] Responsa Chacham Tzvi §167: “כל זמן שהם בא״י אפי׳ דרך ארעי כיון שהמקום גורם.” [10] Rabbi Prof. Yoel Elitzur, “נטילת לולב בשבת בזמן הזה,” Techumin 29, pp. 418ff., together with the published responses to the article. [11] Rabbi Eliyahu Weber, “בעניין מצוות שופר ולולב כשזמנן בשבת,” Yarchon HaOtzar, citing Shiurei Ha-Gri”sh, Sukkah 41b: “כאשר עיקר היישוב הוא בארץ ישראל, אם רוב ישראל עליה נוטלין לולב בשבת גם לפני ביאת המשיח.”The citation appears in the context of Rav Elyashiv’s analysis of the Rif; an independently accessible scan of the cited page in Shiurei Ha-Gri”sh has not been located.