by Chaim Weber

The Gemara (Bava Kamma 9b) quotes a halacha that for hiddur mitzvah, one has to add a third to the mitzvah.

Rashi learns that this is a universal halacha requiring one to spend additional funds to beautify a mitzva. For example, if one has the option to purchase two different esrogim or two different sifrei torah, one should purchase the more beautiful one even if it costs more – but only until a third more. Rashi learns this from the Gemara in Shabbos (133b) that learns that we have a requirement to beautify mitzvos from “zeh keli v’anveihu” – one should have a nice sukkah, a nice lulav, a nice shofar, nice tzitzis, etc.

Rabbeinu Tam disagrees.

According to Rabbeinu Tam, as quoted by the Smag (Aseh 44), there is no general obligation to spend up to an additional third to beautify a mitzvah. The Gemara specifically discusses a case where one purchased an esrog at the exact minimum shiur (either a nut according to R’ Meir or an egg according to R’ Yehuda). In that case, one is required to spend a third more to acquire a larger esrog, to make sure one’s esrog is a proper shiur. However, there is no requirement to spend a third more on an esrog just because it appears more beautiful, as long as the esrog in question has a proper shiur. Of course, there is no harm in doing so and at the very least, one fulfills the general halacha of hiddur mitzvah, but there is no mandate to spend a third more.

The Shulchan Aruch quotes both opinions, though appears to side with Rabbeinu Tam as a matter of halacha.

The Vilna Gaon rules like Rashi.

The Beis Yosef and other achronim note that even according to Rashi, one only needs to spend a third more on their initial purchase. If after buying an esrog, one then finds a nicer esrog, one does not need to reevaluate and spend another third to upgrade his esrog, as if that were the case, the process of buying esrogim would never end.

Interestingly, the Rambam does not quote this halacha, nor does he quote the general halacha of “zeh keli v’anveihu” as a stand-alone halacha. The Rambam (Issurei Mizbeach 7:12)  does quote a related halacha that when using one’s possessions for mitzvos, one should have a generosity of spirit and use the finest possessions he has. However, the Rambam does not quote the examples listed on the Gemara in Shabbos of lulav, sukkah and shofar – the Rambam instead provides his own examples that one should build a nice shul, give one’s most tasty food to the poor, among others. There is discussion among the achronim how to reconcile the opinion of the Rambam.

There is a fascinating Chasam Sofer who sheds light on the very nature of hiddur mitzvah.

Back in 19th-century Europe, many communities in Europe had a hard time getting esrogim. In fact, it was quite normal for shuls and communities to have communal esrogim. As these esrogim were used many times, they would often develop spots due to their constant use. The question would then arise as follows: Would these esrogim be invalidated because of their spots?

The Chasam Sofer (Sukkah 36a) writes that a spotted esrog is pasul because it is not hadar. However, if these spots developed over yom tov as a result of the esrog being used for a mitzvah, it is not pasul. In fact, the opposite is true. Since these spots came because it was used for a mitzvah, those spots are actually a demonstration of this esrog’s beauty. Despite the fact that the spots are not physically beautiful, we see that physical beauty is not the only way to determine what is hadar.

In this time of difficulty for klal yisrael, we hope that our mitzvos will be viewed as favorable and beautiful in the eyes of Hashem.