4 Minim

Jesse Horn

Rashi (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. Why
doesn’t the Mishneh list the Halachot of the other Minim here along with Luluv? He
answers by pointing to the fact that the other Minim, Hadas and Aravah, will soon be
taught in its proper place.
There are two issues that need to be addressed while dealing with this Rashi. The
first issue is the Hava Amina and Maskana. Why, in the Hava Amina, does Rashi believe
that 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 the
question?
The second issue that needs to be addressed is why didn’t Rashi include Etrog in
his question. Rashi asks why specifically the Hadas and Aravah weren’t listed, indicating
that only they should have been listed along with Luluv, in the Mishneh. Nowhere does
Rashi even consider having Etrog placed with the other 3 Minim. Why not? If Hadas
and 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 is
the logic for each? Why should have the Minim have been listed together in the
Mishneh? And why L’Maskanah aren’t they?
The Hava Amina seems to link the different Minim together. There is a
connection between the Minim, and that should be reflected in the Mishneh. The Minim
are 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. It
could be that for technical reasons the Mishneh separated each of the four Minim. Each
Min has it’s own Mishneh because there are certain Halachot that are applicable for only
some 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 the
other Minim as well1.
Alternatively, one can explain the Maskana to be fundamentally different from the
Hava Amina. Each of the four Minim have enough independence to be dealt with
independently. Each Min is therefore listed in a Mishneh of it’s own2 reflecting that.
These two approaches may depend on the relationship each of the Minim has to
the others. To what extent are the 4 Minim linked and connected to each other? And, to
what extent does each of the 4 Minim have a life of its own. It is difficult to argue the
most extreme possibility, that there are 4 completely independent Mitzvot, each Min
being considered a Mitzvah of it’s own3, 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 fundamental
reasons being that each Min is independent, or agree essentially to the bondage between
the Minim, but reject the Hava for technical reasons.
3
There is, however, one Gemara that seems to indicate otherwise. The Gemara Sukah
37b 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 to
what extent the Minim have independent value and to what extent there value exits only
when they are taken simultaneously. Another way to phrase this Chakirah would be
whether the 4 Minim are one collective unit, or 4 different entities that all have to be
taken.
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 the
Maskana reject the Hava Amina for technical reasons.
If, however, one assumes each Min has independence and individuality, one
might be likely to interpret the Maskana’s separating the 4 Minim from each other as a
reflection of that idea. Conceptually, each Min is an individual and therefore each gets
it’s own individual Mishneh4.
One of the most central questions regarding the relationship the 4 Minim have
with 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 (Tosfot
Sukkah 34b) believes one can fulfill his Cheyuv in 4 Minim by lifting the Minim one at a
time. 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 with
each 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 Min
stand 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 Minim
significance. Until one lifts all 4 Minim at one time, one has done nothing5.
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 individual
Min unaccompanied by the others is utterly meaningless.
In truth, Rashi probably agrees with Tosfot. The Behag based his opinion on the
Gemara Menachot (27a), which says in the context of having all Minim, “Lo Shanu Elah
She-Ain Lo, Avel Yeish Lo Ain Mi-Akvin.” The Behag interprets this to mean that, one
who doesn’t have all of the Minim present can still lift them successively6. Basically, the

one hand holds three Mitzvot while the other one. The Gemara does seem to count each
Min a separate Mitzvah.
4
One may still conclude that the technical reasons are strong enough to separate the
Minim 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 5th
min outside of the Eged. Tosfot Sukah 31b believes there is Baal Tosif, while Tosfot in
Sanhedrin 88b believes there is no Baal Tosif on a Deorayta level. The Rabanan forbade
it 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 the
original Girsa, that the Behag has, and just rereads the Gemara.
Machloket boils down to what “Avel Yeish Lo Ain Mi-Akvin” means. The Behag argues
it means one has all 4 Minim, but they can be lifted one at a time. Rashi explains this to
mean that one has them but can’t lift them with the Eged. Lacking an Eged doesn’t
disqualify the Mitzvah. It is however, still necessary to lift all 4 Minim simultaneously.
There are several other Halachik positions that may further illustrate this
Chakirah. Potentially the strongest ramification of the 4 Minim’s independence is an
opinion quoted by Tosfot (Menachot 27a). The Yeish Mifarshim regarding days 2-77,
doesn’t mandate one to lift all 4 Minim8. Simply lifting any one Min is sufficient to
discharge one’s obligation. This clearly assumes there is value in each specific Min, even
when unaccompanied by the other Minim9.
Another potential Nafka Minah to this Chakirah would be if there ever is a case
where one makes a Bracha “Al Mitzvat Etrog,” “Al Mitzvat Hadas” or “Al Mitzvat
Arava.” 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 fact
that such a Bracha exist seems to suggest each Min has a life of it’s own. If the 4 Minim
only attained meaning when lifted together, it would be difficult to imagine why a
separate Bracha was given to each Min10.
The Ramah (Orach Chaim 641:12) too has a case where one makes a separate
Bracha on each Min. His case is where one lifts each Min subsequent to the previous
Min. Ideally, one Bracha should cover all 4 Minim, but if one spoke, creating a Hefsek, a
new Bracha would be needed for each Min11.
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 suggest
it 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 the
Luluv for all Jews days 2-7, due to the fact each person’s responsibility to lift the Luluv is
learned from “O-L’Kachta.” Tosfot himself rejects this position because of its potential
conclusion.
9
Most Rishinim and Achronim disagree. Some disagree because they argue the Minim
only attain value when all lifted together. Others may agree in principle that each
individual Min may have value, but reject the application. After all, just because each
individual 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 necessarily
mean that meaning was attributed only when the 4 Minim were lifted together. One can
argue that Chazal only created one Bracha. Tosfot in Menachot (27a), who believes days
2-7 one can lift only one Min, and clearly subscribes to their independence, also says that
on 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.”
should make 4 Brachot, one on each Min, even without a Hefsek. The Meiri clearly
attributes independent value to each of the 4 Minim12.
Based upon this, one may give a cursory explanation for Rashi’s Hava Amina.
Rashi had assumed the Minim attain meaning collectively and therefore expected them to
be placed in one Mishneh. The fact that the Mishnayot actually separated them
L’Maskana, as mentioned before, would indicate that each Min has it’s own
independence.
The second major issue that needs to be explained is that Rashi had never
included Etrog in his Hava Amina. Whether the Mishneh separated the other 4 Minim
for technical or fundamental reasons, Etrog was clearly separated for fundamental reason.
Why? Why is it so obvious that Etrog is conceptually different and deserving of it’s own
Mishneh?
It may be that viewing the 4 Minim as either one large group with 4
subcomponents or 4 entirely separate groups, as discussed earlier, may be helpful but
isn’t the full picture. An alternative, middle approach may also exist. The 4 Minim may
fall into two separate categories. Luluv, Hadas and Aravah fall into one group while
Etrog falls into an entirely separate one of it’s own.
After all when lifting the 4 Minim, three are bound together in the Egged. The
Etrog alone is excluded. This illustrates that there are indeed two distinct groups the 4
Minim. Furthermore, and more convincing, is the physical nature of the Minim. Three
are leaves on branches while the other is a fruit. The first category is classified as
branches. By contrast, the Etrog is a fruit.
This classification can be traced as far back as to the Pesukim. When the Torah
says to lift the 4 Minim, it say “O-LaKachtem”Lachem . . . Pri Etz Hadar, Kapot
Temarim, V’Anef Etz Avot, V’arvey Nachel.” The Torah uses the letter ‘vuv’ (and)
twice. It appears between the Luluv and Hadas and then again between the Hadas and
Aravah. It does not appear between the Etrog and Luluv. There was an intentional
separation between Etrog and Luluv indicated by omitting of the ‘vuv.’ Again, Luluv,
Hadas and Aravah are classified together while Etrog remains apart13.
This may begin to help understand why Rashi never thought to include Etrog in
the Mishneh. Rashi suggests that the branches category only be places in the first
Mishneh. There was never a Hava Amina to include Etrog because it’s not a part of the
branches group.
That may be true, but it still remains unknown, why Rashi would have preferred
specifically the branches only group to start the Perek. In order to understand why Rashi
would have wanted this, one must better uncover the nature of each category. Why does
Halacha make these two groups? What are they all about?

12
The Meiri doesn’t contradict himself where he answered that the Mishneh separated
the 4 Minim for technical reason. Just because the 4 Minim are 4 entities amongst
themselves, nonetheless, it would have been impossible, for technical reasons, to
combine them into one Mishneh.
13
The Gemara (Sukah 34b) itself uses the separation to teach that the Etrog is separated
from the other Minim. This too further supports the notion that there are indeed two
separate groups.
 In terms shedding light on these categories, the branches and fruit, a crucial
Shitah of the Harkatti14 is useful. He believes that when does the Nanauim during Hallel;
it is only with the Luluv, Hadas, and Aravah. The Etrog is not included. This position
doesn’t only further reinforce the two-category division, but offers insight on what they
are all about.
The Luluv has two aspects to it15. In addition to the simple Mitzvah of lifting it, it
also praises to Hashem. Shaking the Luluv is way of singing to Hashem16.
The Yerushalmi17, in contrast with the Bavli18, offers “Lo HaMatim YiHallilu-
ka19” as the source for disqualifying a Luluv HaYavaysh (dry Luluv). What connection
is there from a dry Luluv to this Pasuk? It’s clear a dead or dry Luluv can’t praise
Hashem and is therefore Pasul. One can conclude that one of the Luluv’s functions is to
praise Hashem.
Tosfot (Sukah 39a) wonders how one can make a Bracha before the performance
of the Mitzvah of 4 Minim, when classically one holds the Cheftza HaMitzvah while
making the Bracha. How can one hold the Cheftza HaMitzvah, in this case Luluv, and
then make a Bracha? Once one lifts the Luluv, one has fulfilled the Mitzvah20.
Tosfot offers several answers21, but one of them supports this point clearly.
Tosfot says one can make the Bracha even after one lifted the Luluv because the Mitzvah
reaches its climax at Hallel. The singing to Hashem that the Luluv does is heightened
during Hallel. That allows one to make a Bracha. This too supports this theory.

14
He describes a dream he had where the first 3 letters of Hashem’s name, ‘Yud,’ ‘Kay’,
‘Vuv’ were written by R’ Yitzhak (A Chasid from Ashkinaz) separate from the fourth,
the last ‘Kay’. At first the Harkatti disagreed with such a separation. Later, during
Tefilla, the Harkatti noticed everyone had lifted only 3 Minim during Hallel. At that
point he had realized that R’ Yitzhak was correct.
15
Often Mitzvot have two aspects to them. Many argue a Shofer has two components as
well. There is the Mitzvat Shofer (whether the Mitzvah is blowing or listening isn’t
being addressed here) as well as a Mitzvah of Tefilla.
16
This idea is often attributed to Rav Soloveitchik. It is printed in the Reshemat Shiurim.
17
The Raaved quotes this Gemara both in his HaSagot to the Rambam (Sukah 7:7) and
on the Dapay HaRiff, indicating he accepts it over the Bavli. The Ritva, by contrast
(Sukah 29b), believes this Yerushalmi is no more than a cute joke with Pesukim. The
Yerushalmi does not take this seriously.
18
The source according to most Rishonim (Tosfot, the Rosh, Ran, and others) is “Hadar.”
Although Rashi (29b), and the Meiri (29b) quote “Zeh Kayli ViAnVaHu”
19
Tehillim (115:17)
20
Tosfot seems to assume the Berchat HaMitzvah must precede the Mitzvah. This is
subject to a large Machloket in Rishonim.
21
Tosfot offers three answers. One can lift only 3 Minim, without the Etrog, and make
the Bracha before lifting the Etrog. One can lift the Etrog upside down, not fulfilling the
Mitzvah, being that it’s not “Derech G’Dulato,” while making the Bracha. The Michaber
suggests both (651:4), but the latter is more commonly accepted. Lastly, one can have
negative Kavanah until the Bracha is made. This last answer assumes negative Kavanah
allows for one not to be Yotzey. That is actually subject to a large Machloket in
Rishonim.
 Rav Soloveitchik points to another Gemara in support of this idea. The Gemara
(37b) asks why the Bracha is made “Al Nitilat Luluv?” After all, there are other Minim
as well. The Gemara responds that the Luluv stands taller. The Gemara doesn’t clarify
why the Luluv’s height causes it to receive the Bracha predominately on it. Rav
Soloveitchik explains that the Luluv's height is a reflection that it’s the center and
conductor of the praise the 4 Minim sing to Hashem.
The Ramban (Pesachim 35a) limits the concept of Mitzvah HaBa B’Avira to
Karbanot and Luluv only22. He explains his limitation to be to things that are
“M’Hallelin Bah.23” Seemingly, this too indicates that Luluv praises Hashem24.
This second element of a Luluv, the fact that it sings Hashem’s praise, may be
present or more present at the time of the Nanauim. One may suggest that the three
branches alone serve to praise Hashem. Maybe it’s only those three Minim who sing to
Hashem. This would explain the Harkatti who is of the position that one need lift only
these 3 Minim for Hallel.
The strongest evidence that only 3 of the Minim, the branches, sing to Hashem
stems from the Pasuk used for the source of Nanauim25. The Pasuk says, “Az Y’Rananu
Kol Atzay Yaar26,” that the branches of the forest praise (Hashem). Only the branches,
the “Atzay,” sing praise to Hashem. Etrog is a fruit and may not be part of the choir.
This may be what Rashi had in mind. Rashi noticed that the Pasuk placed Etrog
before the other 3 Minim, and the Mishneh had reversed the order. The Mishneh put first
Luluv, Hadas, and then Aravah, which is consistent with the Pasuk, yet placed Etrog at
the end of the list opposed to the front.
The Mishneh may have prioritized the objects that sing to Hashem, before
27
Etrog . That should include the entire category. That should include the 3 singing
Minim, the Luluv, Hadas and Aravah. Rashi, being sensitive to that, asked where Hadas
and Aravah were? He responds that each will have it’s own Mishneh.

22
The Ramban asked why the Gemara disqualified Matzah Shel Tevel with a Gezarat
HaKatuv. Why not say Mitzvah HaBa B’Avirah? In addition to limiting Mitzvah HaBa
B’Avirah, the Rambam suggests 3 other answers as well. One is that Tevel can still be
fixed, and the Isur removed. Another answer is that Mitzvah HaBa B’Avirah is limited to
the Isur of Gezalah, theft. Lastly, Mitzvah HaBa B’Avirah is a Dirabanan principle, and
the Gemara preferred to record one that’s Deorayta in it nature.
23
The Ritva (Sukah 9a) asks why the Gemara needs a Gezarat HaKatuv disqualifying a
stolen Sukah. Why not use Mitzvah HaBa B’Avirah? One response is that Mitzvah HaBa
24
Based on this idea, Rav Moshe Soloveichik made the Bracha on his Luluv just before
Hallel, opposed to earlier in the morning.
25
Taz Orach Chaim 651:8
26
Dvray HaYamim 1, 16:33
27
Tosfot Yom Tov says that the Mishnayot placed Luluv first because it’s taller, based on
the Gemara (37b), which uses the Luluv’s height to explain why the Bracha is only on the
Luluv. According to Rav Soloveitchik who assumed this was because the Luluv sings
Hashem’s praise, this works even better. Rashi had wanted the Mishnayot to begin with
Luluv because it sang. That may be what the Tosfot Yom Tov intended.
 Rashi’s Hava Amina is that since the Mishneh is teaching the Halachot pertinent
to the singing Minim, and it should include all three. The Maskana isn’t so clear from
Rashi’s words.
All of this may be couched in the structure of the Mishneh. The 3 Minim, or the
singing Minim, each are giving independence and are also grouped together. On the one
hand, each has it’s own Mishneh, giving each Min independence. Yet, on the other hand,
after the first 3 Mishnayot, there is a break, dealing with another topic, before Etrog.
This interpretation serves to distinguish the 3 Minim form Etrog.