The mishnah (Sukkot 29b) establishes that a lulav ha-yevesh (dried out) is disqualified. While the Talmud (31a) clearly attributes this exclusion to the requirement that each of the minim (in addition to the etrog - “pri eitz hadar”) must esthetically qualify as “hadar”, it is intriguing that both Rashi and Rabad (Hilchos Lulav 8:9) apparently invoke other, broader principles. Rashi (29b s.v. yavesh) asserts that yavesh fails to meet the standard of “zeh keili ve-anvehu” (Shemot 15:2) which promotes an elevated esthetic aspiration for all mitzvot (Sukkah 11b- “hitnaeh befanav be-mitzvot”). Tosafot (29b s.v. lulav yavesh pasul) point to the contrary Talmudic evidence but reject Rashi’s more universal explanation also because the aspiration of “zeh keili ve-anvehu” typically is not typically an obstacle to the fulfillment of a mitzvah. Rashi’s stance certainly requires clarification. [I hope to address Rabad’s perspective that the mitzvah of lulav constitutes a form of hallel elsewhere, though we will allude to it briefly at the conclusion of the essay.]
It is noteworthy that in his terse formulation, Rashi employs the word “hadar” (“de’be’inan mitzvah mehuderet”) to convey “zeh keili ve-anveihu”. Evidently, he perceived the elevated requirement of “hadar” in the mitzvah of lulav not as a completely singular feature of this mitzvah (and possibly as focused on the stature of the chefzeh shel mitzvah), but as a significant expansion of the universal mandate to perform mitzvot with enthusiasm and an appreciation that mitzvot constitute an indispensable opportunity and a propitious vehicle for Divine connection. Rashi perceives the singular character of mitzvat lulav in the intensification of this broad principle of avodat Hashem. As a consequence, this more acute and urgent manifestation of “zeh keili” defines the mitzvah, and, when it is not appropriately achieved, may constitute an obstacle to it’s a attainment. Rashi’s position is not at odds with the Talmud’s assertion that yavesh is a deficiency of hadar, but is a perspective on that conclusion. It is conceivable that Rashi may have also posited that the broad value to adorn all mitzvot for the reasons previously noted constitutes a necessary foundation that enables an insufficient esthetic standard to fully undermine any particular mitzvah! Absent the general ideal of “zeh keili”, perhaps there could be no pesul hadar (outside of its obvious defining role in etrog). At the same time, the fact that esthetic standards obstruct a particular mitzvah like lulav surely elevates the universal concept of mitzvah adornment - “zeh keli”- even where its absence is not disqualifying.
The expansion and intensification of “zeh keili” and all that it embodies in the context of the mitzvah of lulav registers in other prominent sources. The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) records the debate between R. Yehudah and the CChachamim whether one must bind together the lulav and other minim (“lulav zarich eged”). The Talmud asserts that while the Chachamim did not mandate an eged, they did prefer it on the basis of “zeh keili ve-anvehu”. Rambam (Hilchos Lulav 7:6) adopts this ruling and characterizes the mode of integrated minim as a “mitzvah min ha-muvhar”. However, Rabad (commentary on Rif, Sukkah 11b) remarkably formulates R. Yehudah’s stringent view that an eged is mandatory as simply a more acute application of “zeh keili”! This position parallels Rashi’s doctrine equating the disqualification of hadar with “zeh keili”, thereby underscoring a singular sensitivity of mitzvat lulav to this esthetic mandate.
Rambam’s “mitzvah min ha-muvhar” characterization of the binding of the minim based on “zeh keili” may also reflect an intensified application of this ideal in the context of mitzvat lulav. Rambam (Hilchos Lulav 7:7) rules that adding within the four minim beyond the requisite prescribed formula (one lulav, one etrog, two aravot) with the exception of the hadasim due to the esthetic concept of “noi mitzvah” constitutes a bal tosif violation. The exception itself is puzzling. It is not self-evident that the esthetic factor might neutralize what would otherwise be a bal tosif infraction. Moreover, Rabad vehemently critiques this ruling, arguing that bal tosif is exclusively confined to adding a foreign min. Furthermore, he notes that the gemara in Sanhedrin (88b) indicates that if binding the minim is not disqualifying (as per R. Yehudah) there can be no bal tosif, as each min constitutes only a discrete, independent facet of the mitzvah (“hai lehudei kai vehai lehudei kai”) precluding a binding legal framework (a metzaref) that is a prerequisite for bal tosif. Rav Soloveitchik zt”l conveyed his father’s suggestion that in this context Rambam’s perceives “zeh keili”, the basis for eged, not merely as an extraneous pleasantry or nicety, a quantitively preferred mitzvah performance, but as an authentic qualitative enhancement of the mitzvah of four minim. This “zeh keili” transforms the very mode and character of the mitzvah by truly integrating the minim. While the gemara in Sanhedrin correctly notes that for the Chachamim, eged is not a sine qua non for this mitzvah (and hence, one may avoid bal tosif), this does not negate the integrative impact of the “zeh keili” inspired eged when employed with respect to bal tosif. Thus, Rambam’s qualitative view of “zeh keili” as applied to mitzvat lulav underpins his stance on bal tosif. This perspective on the eged of “zeh keili” is likely reinforced by another of Rambam’s rulings. He (Hilchos Lulav 7:8) posits that while the lulav’s required height is four tefachim, when integrated by eged with the other minim, it must also extend a tefach beyond the size of the aravot and hadasim. This decision, too, accentuates the qualitative transformation of mitzvat lulav when implemented with “zeh keili” idealism. [See, also the intriguing position cited in Sefer ha-Pardes.] It is interesting, particularly in conjunction with the innovative views of Rashi and Rabad hitherto cited, that these two Rambam rulings, underscoring an expanded role for the esthetic impulse in mitzvot, surface in the context of the mitzvah of lulav. Perhaps, in this light, we may also better comprehend that the esthetic consideration of “noi mitzvah” (with respect to an abundance of hadasim) is a compelling factor in assessing bal tosif, particularly in this esthetically-sensitive mitzvah of netialt lulav.
What accounts for the heightened sensitivity to and more expansive role of hadar, “zeh keili”, “noi mitzvah” in this context. There is ample evidence that the mitzvah of lulav is perceived as a form of Halel and ritzui. R. Saadia Gaon (commentary on Emor) and Rambam (Hilchos Lulav 7:10) assert that this mitzvah as integrated into Hallel. Rav Soloveitchik zt”l noted that his grandfather, R. Hayim, did not permit any hefsek between the berachah on the lulav until the conclusion of Hallel. Rabad (Hilchos Lulav 8:9 and in his Hilchot Lulav), invoking the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sukkah 3:1), attributes the disqualification of lulav ha-yavesh to the demands of Divine praise and Hallel (“lo ha-meitim yehalelu Kah”). Many of the Tosafists (See Ramban Pesachim 35a, Ritva Sukkah 30a, Tos. Rash mi-Shanz Pesachim 35a etc.) conclude that “mitzvah haba’ah beaveirah” (according to the Talmud Bavli) is confined to korban and lulav (Ritva Rosh Hashana adds shofar…) based upon the common theme of ritzui. The Talmud Yerushalmi (5:1) links the recitation of full Hallel each day of Sukkot (in contrast to Pesach) with the every-day imperative of netilat lulav in the Mikdash (while the Talmud Bavli links the phenomenon to the discreteness of the korbonot - Arachin 10a, and see, also Pesachim 117b and Sukkah 45a). The centrality of Hallel and ritzui certainly justifies a more acute and prominent role for hadar and noi.
Moreover, the likely rationale for the expanded Hallel focus of Sukkot furthers affirms and explains the importance of this motif. In the aftermath of Yom Kippur, the “achat ba-shanah” experience of “kulo la-Hashem” (intensive spirituality), a day fully devoted to being “lifnei Hashem” (Vayikra 16:30) and basking in the Divine presence, one achieves a rare measure of clarity and purpose with respect to the opportunity and goals of avodat Hashem. While the centerpiece of the day is din, teshuvah and the aspiration of kaparah, the focal point is equally Hashem’s palpable presence notwithstanding His transcendence - “ki anu amecha…”-, and the indispensability of our capacity to meaningfully access and interact with Him by means of the torah and mitzvot he has gifted us. Responding to the Divine name by bowing (hish’tacha’va’ah), loudly acknowledging “Baruch sheim…”, formulating and reciting a plethora of ecstatic piyyutim accentuating the 13 midot of rachamim, but also malkut and other facets of His Divinity is an essential experience of the kedushat ha-yom of Yom Kippur. The shir ha-yichud and shir ha-kavod, traditionally recited after maariv give enthusiastic expression to the profound and ineffable. It is unsurprising that Yom Kippur would trigger a significantly more intense and acute “zeh keli ve-anvehu”, one that joyously celebrates Hashem’s presence (Vayikra 23;40 - “u-se’machtem lifnei Hashem Elokeihem”) and enthusiastically reflects excitement and appreciation for the broad institution of mitzvot, as well as the specific opportunity of increased Hallel and ritzui. The suppression of actual Hallel on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur by virtue of their status as “yemei yirah va-pachad (Rambam Hilchos Hanukah; Peirush Hamishnayos, Rosh Hashana) gives way to abundant joy and Hallel (Rambam, end of Hilchos Lulav - “simchah yeteirah”) on Sukkot in a magnificent progression that crystalizes the loftiest of goals encapsulated by the ubiquitous perek of Tehillim that spans the entire spiritual odyssey of Elul and Tishrei: “Shivti Be-beit Hashem kol yemei chayay lachazot be-noam Hashem u-levaker be-heichalo”.