Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Untitled

Untitled

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1 |Likes:
Published by outdash

More info:

Published by: outdash on Jan 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
4 Minim
Jesse HornRashi (Sukah 29b) commentating on the first Mishneh in Perek Luluv HaGazul is bothered by the fact that the first Mishneh deals with the Halachot of Luluv only. Whydoesn’t the Mishneh list the Halachot of the other Minim here along with Luluv? Heanswers by pointing to the fact that the other Minim, Hadas and Aravah, will soon betaught in its proper place.There are two issues that need to be addressed while dealing with this Rashi. Thefirst issue is the Hava Amina and Maskana. Why, in the Hava Amina, does Rashi believethat the Halachot of the other Minim belong in the first Mishneh along with Luluv?Regarding the Maskana, why aren’t they mentioned there? How does Rashi answer thequestion?The second issue that needs to be addressed is why didn’t Rashi include Etrog inhis question. Rashi asks why specifically the Hadas and Aravah weren’t listed, indicatingthat only they should have been listed along with Luluv, in the Mishneh. Nowhere doesRashi even consider having Etrog placed with the other 3 Minim. Why not? If Hadasand Aravah should have been mentioned with Luluv, why would Etrog be different?Regarding the first question, that of Rashi’s Hava Amina and Maskana, what isthe logic for each? Why should have the Minim have been listed together in theMishneh? And why L’Maskanah aren’t they?The Hava Amina seems to link the different Minim together. There is aconnection between the Minim, and that should be reflected in the Mishneh. The Minimare considered one unit and should be placed as one unit in the Mishneh.The reason why they are not together in the Mishneh can be for one of two. Itcould be that for technical reasons the Mishneh separated each of the four Minim. EachMin has it’s own Mishneh because there are certain Halachot that are applicable for onlysome of the Minim. For example, one cannot talk about Nifritzu Aluv in the context of Etrog. Therefore Luluv and Etrog need different Mishnayot. The same is true with theother Minim as well
1
.Alternatively, one can explain the Maskana to be fundamentally different from theHava Amina. Each of the four Minim have enough independence to be dealt withindependently. Each Min is therefore listed in a Mishneh of it’s own
2
reflecting that.These two approaches may depend on the relationship each of the Minim has tothe others. To what extent are the 4 Minim linked and connected to each other? And, towhat extent does each of the 4 Minim have a life of its own. It is difficult to argue themost extreme possibility, that there are 4 completely independent Mitzvot, each Min being considered a Mitzvah of it’s own
3
, being that “L’Kicha Tamah” (Sukkah 34b)
1
The Meiri, in fact, suggests this answer.
2
Methodologically speaking, the Maskana can reject the Hava Amina for fundamentalreasons being that each Min is independent, or agree essentially to the bondage betweenthe Minim, but reject the Hava for technical reasons.
3
There is, however, one Gemara that seems to indicate otherwise. The Gemara Sukah37b explains why in one hand there are three Minim and only one in the other. It says
 
mandates lifting all 4 Minim, and anything less is insufficient. Yet one may wonder towhat extent the Minim have independent value and to what extent there value exits onlywhen they are taken simultaneously. Another way to phrase this Chakirah would bewhether the 4 Minim are one collective unit, or 4 different entities that all have to betaken.Assuming that the 4 Minim lack independence, and have only a collective value,would potentially explain the Hava Amina. After all, the 4 Minim are a unit and should be placed together. This Svara would likewise explain the Maskana assuming theMaskana reject the Hava Amina for technical reasons.If, however, one assumes each Min has independence and individuality, onemight be likely to interpret the Maskana’s separating the 4 Minim from each other as areflection of that idea. Conceptually, each Min is an individual and therefore each getsit’s own individual Mishneh
4
.One of the most central questions regarding the relationship the 4 Minim havewith each other is whether one can be Yotzay Mitzvat 4 Minim lifting each Min by itself.This is actually subject to a Machloket in Rishonim (Sukkah 34b). The Bahag (TosfotSukkah 34b) believes one can fulfill his Cheyuv in 4 Minim by lifting the Minim one at atime. Tosfot himself disagrees. He demands one lift all 4 Minim simultaneously.This Machloket strikes at the heart of how interrelated that the 4 Minim are witheach other. Assuming each Min has it’s own identity; one can understand the Bahag’s position. “L’Kicha Tamah” means that all 4 Minim have to be lifted, but since each Minstand freely, there is no need for them to be lifted collectively. Tosfot, on the other hand,argues each Min alone is meaning less. Lifting the 4 Minim collectively gives the Minimsignificance. Until one lifts all 4 Minim at one time, one has done nothing
5
.This Svara suggested for Tosfot is even more convincing after reading his attack on the Behag. He asks “D’Kavun D’Kulo Mitzvah Achat, Haych Yo-elu B’zeh acher Zeh?” The entire implication is that since there is one Mitzvah, lifting each individualMin unaccompanied by the others is utterly meaningless.In truth, Rashi probably agrees with Tosfot. The Behag based his opinion on theGemara Menachot (27a), which says in the context of having all Minim, “Lo Shanu ElahShe-Ain Lo, Avel Yeish Lo Ain Mi-Akvin.” The Behag interprets this to mean that, onewho doesn’t have all of the Minim present can still lift them successively
6
. Basically, theone hand holds three Mitzvot while the other one. The Gemara does seem to count eachMin a separate Mitzvah.
4
One may still conclude that the technical reasons are strong enough to separate theMinim in the Mishnayot even thought they are conceptually linked.
5
There is a Machloket Rishonim whether one has violated Baal Tosif when one lifts a 5
th
 min outside of the Eged. Tosfot Sukah 31b believes there is Baal Tosif, while Tosfot inSanhedrin 88b believes there is no Baal Tosif on a Deorayta level. The Rabanan forbadeit M’Dirabanan. Rav Soloveitchik in the Reshemat Shiurim suggests this Machloket between the two stances of Tosfot is dependent on the Chakirah at hand.
6
Rabaynu Tam, who agrees in principle with Tosfot, changes the Girsa. Rashi has theoriginal Girsa, that the Behag has, and just rereads the Gemara.
 
Machloket boils down to what “Avel Yeish Lo Ain Mi-Akvin” means. The Behag arguesit means one has all 4 Minim, but they can be lifted one at a time. Rashi explains this tomean that one has them but can’t lift them with the Eged. Lacking an Eged doesn’tdisqualify the Mitzvah. It is however, still necessary to lift all 4 Minim simultaneously.There are several other Halachik positions that may further illustrate thisChakirah. Potentially the strongest ramification of the 4 Minim’s independence is anopinion quoted by Tosfot (Menachot 27a). The Yeish Mifarshim regarding days 2-7
7
,doesn’t mandate one to lift all 4 Minim
8
. Simply lifting any one Min is sufficient todischarge one’s obligation. This clearly assumes there is value in each specific Min, evenwhen unaccompanied by the other Minim
9
.Another potential Nafka Minah to this Chakirah would be if there ever is a casewhere one makes a Bracha “Al Mitzvat Etrog,” “Al Mitzvat Hadas” or “Al MitzvatArava.” The Taz (Orach Chaim 641:16), deals, with a case where one lifted 4 Minim,and subsequently realized the Aravot were Pasul. That person must lift new, kosher,Aravot with the other kosher 3 Minim, and make a Bracha “Al Mitzvat Arava.” The factthat such a Bracha exist seems to suggest each Min has a life of it’s own. If the 4 Minimonly attained meaning when lifted together, it would be difficult to imagine why aseparate Bracha was given to each Min
10
.The Ramah (Orach Chaim 641:12) too has a case where one makes a separateBracha on each Min. His case is where one lifts each Min subsequent to the previousMin. Ideally, one Bracha should cover all 4 Minim, but if one spoke, creating a Hefsek, anew Bracha would be needed for each Min
11
.The most extreme position, regarding the Brachot, is accepted by the Meiri(Sukah 31a). He accepts the Behag that one can lift each Min separately, and argues one
7
Tosfot doesn’t mention if the Yeish Mifarshim is referring to days 2-7 in the Mikdash or days 2-7 B’GVullin on a Dirabanan level, Zecher L’Mikdash.
8
Presumably, there is no need for “L’Kicha Tamah” days 2-7. One may further suggestit is because all Drashot that are learned from words in the Pasuk before the word“Rishon” apply to the first day only, while Drashot learned from words after the word“Rishon” apply to all 7 days. (This Svara is actually suggested by Tosfot Sukah 29b)This would learn to a revolutionary conclusion. One person would be able to lift theLuluv for all Jews days 2-7, due to the fact each person’s responsibility to lift the Luluv islearned from “O-L’Kachta.” Tosfot himself rejects this position because of its potentialconclusion.
9
Most Rishinim and Achronim disagree. Some disagree because they argue the Minimonly attain value when all lifted together. Others may agree in principle that eachindividual Min may have value, but reject the application. After all, just because eachindividual has value doesn’t mean lifting each one alone is considered a Mitzvah.
10
If, however, a separate Bracha does not exist for each Min, it does not necessarilymean that meaning was attributed only when the 4 Minim were lifted together. One canargue that Chazal only created one Bracha. Tosfot in Menachot (27a), who believes days2-7 one can lift only one Min, and clearly subscribes to their independence, also says thaton that one Min, no matter which it is, one makes a Bracha of “Al Nitilat Luluv.”
11
The Mishneh Brura (641:51) notes the Bracha mentions the name of the Min, for example “Al Nitilat Etrog.”

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->