Our Gemara on Amud Aleph tells us why we do not take the Lulav on Shabbos
Apropos the prohibition against taking a lulav on Shabbat, the Gemara asks: Why is this prohibited? After all, taking the lulav is merely moving the object and is prohibited due to the rabbinic prohibition of set-aside. Since the mitzva to take the lulav is a mitzva by Torah law, let it override this relatively minor Shabbat prohibition. Rabba said: This prohibition is a decree lest one take the lulav in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to wave the lulav or how to recite its blessing, and in doing so carry it four cubits in the public domain, thereby violating a severe Torah prohibition. And that is the reason for the prohibition against sounding the shofar on Shabbat, and that is the reason for the prohibition against reading the Scroll of Esther when Purim coincides with Shabbat.
Let us be honest, this is a very strange takana. Logically it is hard to make sense of this. Shall we really believe that someone who wants to fulfill these mitzvos is going to forget somehow and carry on Shabbos?? There are also textual difficulties here. Tosafos (Here and Rosh Hashana 29b) ask why not raise it as a concern of going from private domain to public domain, which logically comes first. After all, if the person has a question about his Lulav, Shofar or the Megillah, would he not first take it out of his home before carrying it in a public domain? Also, why does the Gemara here stress it is the same halakha in Megillah and shofar? Do other Gemaras make mention when one rule has the same reason as another? The rabbis are hinting that there is some other theme here, and drawing our attention to it by this strange emphasis.
Before we go further, it is important to understand that the rabbis did not believe in the value of transparency by leadership as we do in a secular sense. They had no problem offering a public reason for a decree that they thought would be more palatable even if they had deeper reasons. Let me offer some famous examples:
The Gemara tells us that one of the early rabbinic decrees was a form of impurity applying to holy scripture. While it seems incongruous to declare holy scrolls to be impure, the rabbis had good reason to do so. According to the Talmud, the common folk developed an ill-advised habit of storing food consecrated as Terumah in the same areas where they stored the holy scrolls. The people reasoned, “The Terumah is holy and the scrolls are holy so why not store them together?” The problem with this practice is that the rodents would come to eat the Terumah and inevitably also chew on the scrolls. Therefore, the rabbis declared that the scrolls are always impure, discouraging people from storing them near the Terumah, which was required to be ritually pure (Shabbos 14a).
This bit of social engineering begs one basic question: If the people were compliant and agreeable to following rabbinic rules and injunctions, why did the rabbis have to complicate matters by decreeing that the scrolls were impure, and of all things, have the audacity to suggest that holy scrolls are impure? Would it not have been simpler to merely forbid storing holy scrolls alongside Terumah? Perhaps a public service announcement or pashkeville? This suggests that actually the rabbis could not easily or completely secure compliance of stubborn or superstitious simple folk via this route, and therefore could not directly forbid the co-placement of Terumah and scrolls. Instead, they needed to tap into an apparent cultural taboo and respect for the laws of Terumah purity as a way to mobilize the people to comply and refrain from storing scrolls next to the Terumah. In other words, to simply tell people that rodents will chew on the scrolls and therefore it is forbidden to store Terumah next to them would not have been as effective as creating a new form of impurity. By creating a rabbinic decree of impurity, the rabbis were able to tap into an ingrained respect and taboo for the laws of purity and fear of violating them. This was apparently an effective deterrent.
This fear and respect for the laws of ritual impurity and regard for the sanctity of Terumah bread cannot be underestimated. So much so, that according to some interpretations of the Mishna Nedarim, even a thug and a murderer will still be “pious” and careful to make sure he does not defile Terumah. The Mishna states that if one is accosted by bandits, he may make a false oath declaring his produce as Terumah, so bandits will leave him alone. Incredibly, this implies that a bandit, who has no qualms robbing and murdering, will not want to transgress the boundary of defiling Terumah. At least in the Talmud, there is honor among thieves! (Nedarim 3:4, see Bartenura ad loc.)
(This is kind of like when the CDC doesn’t discuss the possibility that natural immunity from having had contracted the virus may be as effective as vaccination. “Rabbi” Fauci is afraid that maybe people who really didn’t contract COVID will be “Moreh Heter” that they did. So instead, “Mi-derabbanan”, the CDC decided to keep that bit of information less transparent. Chas V’Shalom, it might cause a Hisrashlus in the “mitzvah” of vaccination. See this article: https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html )
We can similarly suggest that the rabbis tapped into the taboo against impurity as a way to manage sexual conduct. The Sages were concerned about Jewish children being exposed to inappropriate sexual contact during playtime with their gentile neighbors whom they believed were less careful about protecting their children from sexual abuse. They therefore decreed that gentile children be considered to have the impurity of a Zav (a certain disease that was considered to cause a high degree of impurity, see Leviticus ch. 15) so that the Jewish children would not play with the gentile children. This decree was enacted to protect them from being subjected to improper sexual contact (Shabbos 17b). One would think it would have been more effective to just educate and warn parents about the dangers of inappropriate sexual contact and/or abuse, as we attempt to do nowadays. Apparently, the rabbis who enacted this decree felt the standards of modest speech would be violated if they stated their concerns directly, and/or their warnings would go unheeded because the average parent considered such acts unthinkable, even by their less modest gentile neighbors. They therefore resorted to the fear of impurity as a way to influence parental behavior and protect the children, taking care of safety concerns without overwhelming people with information beyond their ability to process emotionally.
Ultimately, I am baffled as to what the Rabbis had in mind, exactly, regarding abstaining from Lulav, Shofar and Megillah on Shabbos. However, I will try to look at some themes that are indicated though they are not a full explanation. Clearly, they are trying to emphasize Sabbath observance over these other commandments. Second, and related, they are placing the subjective internal experience of the solitude and meditative quality of the Sabbath in a higher priority relative to the public and communal observations of these other commandments. I do think they are hinting at this in the statement phrased as, “carrying four cubits in a public domain”, as well as in their statement of going to consult with a sage. It seems to be hinting at the notion that despite these very important public practices there needs to be an internal quiet and meditative experience. At least one day a week, that concept takes precedence over the public hustle bustle of communal observance of mitzvos.
That’s about as far as I can penetrate. However, if you think my ideas are too far-fetched I encourage you to look at Toras HaOlah of the Rama (3:56) and Sod Yesharim (Succah 34) who seem to be driving at a similar idea, although granted what they are saying is cloaked in difficult to grasp mystical language..
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)