Ibn Ezra on Leviticus 23:40

ולקחתם לכם. אנחנו נאמין בדברי המעתיקים כי לא יכחישו הכתוב אף על פי שמצאנו ויקחו להם איש שה לבית אבות. גם הם העתיקו כי פרי עץ הדר הוא אתרוג ובאמת כי אין פרי עץ יותר הדר ממנו ודרשו בו הדר באילנו בדרך אסמכתא כאשר פירשתי בפסוק לעם נכרי והצדוקים אמרו כי מאלה תעשו סוכות והביאו ראיה מספר עזרא ואלה עורי לב הלא יראו כי אין בספר עזרא ערבי נחל ולא פרי עץ כלל רק עלי חמשה מינים ואין זכר לעלי הדס ועלי עץ עבות טענה על קדמונינו וכן מין הדס אין אילנו גבוה והנה הם שני מינים גבוה ונמוך והגולה מארץ קדר לארץ אדום אם יש לו עינים ידע סוד המצוה זאת: AND YE SHALL TAKE. We shall believe in the words of the transmitters,²⁴²The transmitters of tradition, the Talmudic sages. for they do not contradict Scripture.²⁴³The rabbis of the Talmud teach that the four types of plants mentioned in our verse are to be actually taken by hand. The latter is so even though we find, they shall take to them every man a lamb (Ex. 12:3).²⁴⁴Here the word “take” does not mean one has to ritually take the animal in one’s hand. Or here the word take means buy. See Mekhilta on Ex. 12:3. They²⁴⁵The transmitters of tradition. also transmitted to us the tradition that the fruit of goodly trees (v. 40) refers to the etrog (citron). In truth, there is no fruit of the tree more beautiful than the etrog. The rabbis interpreted the phrase etz hadar (goodly trees) to mean [a fruit] which dwells on its tree.²⁴⁶It doesn’t fall off the tree. The Talmud (Sukkah 33a) connects the word hadar (goodly) to the word dar (dwells). It interprets our verse as meaning a fruit which dwells ((or remains) on its tree from year to year. They used the verse as a support for their tradition. I have explained the latter²⁴⁷The use of Biblical verses as supports. in my comments on to sell her unto a foreign people (Ex. 21:8).²⁴⁸See I.E. on Ex. 21:8 (Vol. 2, pp. 458,459). The Sadducees²⁴⁹The Karaites. say that the sukkah shall be built from these plants.²⁵⁰The plants mentioned in our verse. They brought proof from the Book of Ezra.²⁵¹Neh. 8:15 tells us that the Israelites made sukkot out of olive branches, branches of wild olive, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of thick trees. However, they are blind of heart. Do they not see that the Book of Ezra²⁵²That is, Neh. 8:15. does not at all mention willows of the book and fruit of the tree?²⁵³That is, fruit of a goodly tree. It only mentions the leaves of five kinds of branches.²⁵⁴Olive branches, branches of wild olive, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of thick trees. The mention there of myrtle branches and branches of thick trees is no argument against our ancients.²⁵⁵The fact that myrtle branches and branches of thick trees were used in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah to build a sukkah does not disprove the Rabbinic tradition that these plants are to be ritually taken in the hand on sukkot. Similarly the kind called myrtle does not grow on a tall tree.²⁵⁶The Karaites claim the “boughs of thick trees” refers to a plant that grows on tall trees. According to the rabbis the “boughs of thick trees” refers to the myrtle. The latter does not grow on a tall tree. There are thus two kinds,²⁵⁷Branches of thick trees (ale etz avot) (Neh. 8:15) and boughs of thick trees (anaf etz avot) are not the exact same plant. The first-mentioned plant grows on a tall tree and the latter on a low tree. There is thus no proof from Neh. 8:15 that myrtles are to be employed in building the sukkah. one growing on a tall tree and one on a low tree. The person who wanders from the land of Kedar²⁵⁸A dry land. Kedar was one of the sons of Ishmael (Gen. 25:13). Kedar in I.E. usually refers to Moslems. The descendants of Ishmael dwelt between Egypt and Assyria. The latter area is semi-dry. to the land of Edom²⁵⁹The Land of the Christians, i.e., Europe. will know the secret of this commandment²⁶⁰The commandment of taking the four kinds mentioned in verse 40. if he has eyes.²⁶¹The land of Israel, which is located in the Middle East, is a semi-dry land and required special prayers for rain. The “four kinds” serve to induce rainfall. See Ta’anit 2:2. So Weiser. For other interpretations see Motot, Krinsky, and Filwarg.