There was never a decree in the Land of Israel. This is an exile custom that made aliyah together with the Jews.

How is this different from the kitniyot decree, where the Rabbi argued that this was a concern that has fallen away? And here we’re even talking about nullifying a Torah commandment because of the concern.

“And on the second day the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people, the priests, and the Levites gathered to Ezra the scribe, to gain insight into the words of the Torah. And they found written in the Torah, that the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the festival of the seventh month. And that they should make proclamation and pass a voice through all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying: Go out to the mountain and bring olive branches, and branches of oil trees, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.”

According to this, the four species are not what is practiced today, and they were not for waving at all; rather, they were materials from which the sukkah was built.
So on what basis did you permit yourself to take and carry building materials on the Sabbath?

So does that mean that you, “The Last Decisor,” conduct yourself every day of Sukkot by reciting a blessing in vain — “for taking the lulav”?
Or do you not take the four species at all, as practiced in Jewish law?
Or do you take olive leaves and oil-tree branches, according to your twisted understanding?
What’s going on with you? Are you a Karaite?
Are there no Mishnahs in the world??? All the Mishnahs in tractate Sukkah are nullified in the face of a verse you bring from the Prophets?

And as for the actual question of the four species on the Sabbath —
why constantly try to be clever and supposedly be a better Jew? When all Israel does not practice this way, what’s the point???

Ben-Aniyim, where do you get that from? The conclusion of the Talmud is that after the destruction, even in the Land of Israel they did not take them on the Sabbath because of a blanket rule. And the Shulchan Arukh also ruled that they are not taken on the Sabbath, and he lived in the Land of Israel.

Yossi, with kitniyot there is no enactment or decree at all. The whole matter arose after the sealing of the Talmud, when no one already had authority to establish enactments or decrees. There we are dealing with a concern, not a decree, and once the concern is gone there is no reason to prohibit it. See my column 2 on kitniyot.

Last Decisor?? (your current nickname),
I recommend that every so often you stop preaching and start addressing things substantively, for or against. I’m already getting a bit tired of these sermons.

In the Talmud there are 2 passages. The first passage says that in the Land of Israel they do take them. The second disagrees with the first and says that they do not take them. But not because of a decree; rather because on weekdays they don’t do so.
Even according to the second, it is not because of a decree. The reason is unclear — what connection is there between the Diaspora and the Land? Rashi wrote that it is משום not forming separate factions, and it’s pretty clear that that’s incorrect. (There are a million things in which there are differences between Babylonia and the Land of Israel.)
Which of the 2 passages is correct? All the sources from the Land of Israel indicate the first. Including Rabbi Abbahu, who tried to bring about taking the lulav in Alexandria. Including the Book of Differences Between East and West from the Geonic period, which indicates that in the Land of Israel they did take it.
And it’s quite clear that the second passage is from that period when the Babylonians were trying to take over the world of Jewish law (and succeeded — Pirqoi ben Baboi).
I’m attaching a link to an article that shows in detail what I wrote, and although it comes from the “Tzohar” camp, it argues that one should take them.

מנהג ארץ ישראל בנטילת לולב ביו"ט ראשון שחל בשבת

Forgive me, with all due respect to the Rabbi and the public.
I do not understand what these

“The Last Decisor” cited a verse from the Prophets and from it concluded that the 4 species are different species that were actually meant for building a sukkah.

In response, I asked him:
A. If so, according to his words, does he make the blessing over taking the lulav in vain?
B. Or does he not fulfill the commandment of the 4 species???
C. Or is he unaware of the Mishnahs in tractate Sukkah that explain the commandment of the 4 species?
Like a Karaite who does not believe in the Oral Torah.

What does it mean to address things substantively? For or against?
I addressed substantively the warped idea raised by The Last Decisor and challenged him with questions intended to undermine his words.

And I also addressed substantively the question of the 4 species on the Sabbath. And I expressed my opinion that the attempt to look for ways to do the opposite of everyone else in fulfilling the commandments, supposedly out of righteousness, seems to me a bit strange…

Why not walk on the paved and straight path and conduct oneself like everyone else?
I would be very, very happy to understand the approach…

The second line got deleted for me:
What sermons are you referring to???

By the way, maybe I’m missing something not widely known?
As far as I know, we do not take the lulav on the Sabbath because of the Sages’ enactment lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.
What reason has fallen away here?

I fear that by mistake I have stumbled into a dispute between 2 leading halakhic decisors of the generation.
As for our matter,
all the Mishnahs speak of the fact that the Sages decreed only regarding a Sabbath that falls on Hol HaMoed, but not regarding the first festival day when it falls on the Sabbath.
The prohibition on the first festival day originates in the Diaspora, and it is because of doubt about the day. There are 2 Talmudic passages debating whether in the Land of Israel they had the practice not to take it because in Babylonia they had the practice not to take it.
Justice is with the Talmudic passage that says that in the Land of Israel they did indeed have the practice of taking it, and this is proven by many sources from the Land of Israel, and also by logic (why should a Torah positive commandment be nullified in the Land of Israel because Babylonia is in doubt), and also by the Mishnahs themselves (in Temple times “all the people” took it in their homes on the Sabbath, and after the destruction “all the people” took it in the synagogue —
see Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 43–44,
Sefat Emet ad loc.).
All this is brought in the not very long article whose link I provided.

I’d be happy to discuss it after reading the article…

Unfortunately I don’t have time right now to get into the article. In Maimonides (17–18) it is explicit that even in the Land of Israel they did not take it because of the outlying areas. And that is the straightforward meaning of the Talmud in my opinion.
If there are this or that research theses, that’s a different discussion.

Last Decisor??
Nowadays we know the fixed calendar calculation (see Maimonides there).

There are theses — and why is that a different discussion?
Maimonides wrote things relevant to the year 1135–1203, after the wiping out of the settlement in the Land of Israel by the Crusaders.
And if he meant the Talmudic period, then he was mistaken.
Sefer Ha-Hillukim (Geonic period):
“The people of the East do not carry the lulav on the Sabbath…. and the people of the Land of Israel do carry the lulav and myrtle on the first festival day of the holiday when it falls on the Sabbath.”

Why do you belittle scientific research so much? It puzzles me. Why is that something else? If the research is right, then Maimonides is mistaken. And if it is right, then you are nullifying a Torah positive commandment for nothing (for nothing = in gematria: “a custom without reason and contrary to Jewish law that we keep going so The Last Decisor won’t make fun of us”).

I don’t understand what the discussion is about???
The language of Maimonides is explicit:

“And at this time, when everyone acts according to the calculation, the matter remains as it was, that the lulav is not taken on the Sabbath at all, neither in the outlying areas nor in the Land of Israel, even on the first day. And even though everyone knows the fixing of the new month. And we have already explained that the essence of the prohibition of taking the lulav on the Sabbath is a decree lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain.”

That is, at this time after the destruction, even on the first festival day, the main enactment and prohibition against taking the lulav on the Sabbath is lest one carry it, etc….

So what’s all the philosophizing about?
Neither the reason nor the enactment has been nullified!!! Not a thing, absolutely nothing!!!

By the way, let’s assume the research is correct.
But in the end the custom of the people of the Land of Israel was abolished, and the custom of Babylonia became established,
for the reason Maimonides wrote above.
And there is no error in this at all.

By the way, I have no interest in putting you down.
I’m happy to learn new things.
And thank you for the information about the Book of Differences.

Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sukkah 43a

“Rather, since the first day is a Torah obligation even in the outlying areas, the Rabbis did not decree regarding it; those others, which are not a Torah obligation in the outlying areas, the Rabbis did decree regarding them. — If so, then nowadays as well! — We do not know the fixing of the month. — They, who do know the fixing of the month, should override it.”

Indeed so!

The Talmud disagrees with Maimonides,
not me…
If you’ll be willing to read the article, then it will be possible to discuss it (you’ll also find it interesting even if you don’t agree; if you came only to argue and not to learn, that’s a shame).

I did not dispute the determination of what the custom is; I claimed that it is a mistaken custom!

Isn’t it proper to strive to change the custom, which nullifies a Torah positive commandment?

I don’t know what “strive to change the custom” means. This is the custom.

I’ll just note that this isn’t really a custom but a law.