The Tapestry of the Jewish People as Seen from 4 Species

Sukkot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

There is an interesting discussion in halakha about whether it is appropriate to smell the Hadasim and the Esrogim. Shulchan Arukh says you can’t smell the Hadasim attached to the Lulav, while one may smell the Esrog. However, it is not recommended to smell the Esrog because it is unclear what blessing needs to be made on smelling it.

For example, most times someone smells a sweet smelling fruit, one is supposed to say the blessing which translates to “Blessed are You, God, etc… the One who gives nice aromas to fruits.” The argument to not say the blessing in general is because in most cases, people use a fruit for food, and thus say a “Borei Pri Ha’etz” blessing, and are then exempt from the smelling bracha.

And yet the Mishnah Brurah distinguishes between when you’re using the Esrog, and when you’re not actually using the Esrog, saying that you can certainly smell it when you’re not in the act of shaking the 4 minim (species).

The question is, what’s the difference? And where do the Hadasim fit into all this?

Two items contribute to this conversation.

The first is the one often taught in schools, that the 4 minim each have certain qualities that distinguish them. The esrog has a nice smell and nice taste, the hadasim have a nice smell but not a nice taste, the lulav has a nice taste but no smell to speak of, and the aravos have no taste and no smell.

The second point is that there is a difference between how these items are perceived when engaged in the mitzvah v. how they are perceived when not actively engaged in the mitzvah.

The point made by the Shulchan Arukh is that the hadasim’s good quality, its smell, is what designates it for the mitzvah. As a result, its smell is designated for the mitzvah and it can’t be used in some other fashion. With the esrog, however, it’s main quality and feature is its taste. As a result, since the taste is elevated for the mitzvah, the smell is available to enjoy – were it not for the bracha debate mentioned above.

This is precisely how the Arukh haShulchan couches the conversation, and how he frames the use of these two items.

On the surface it would seem that the question is silly. Meaning, it’s obvious that if something is designated for a mitzvah that it can’t have another use.

But is it really so obvious? And is it even true?

Some might make the argument that marriage is only for the fulfillment of a mitzvah of procreation. Would anyone argue that a husband and wife can’t enjoy each other’s company in other ways?

Some might argue that a synagogue is a place for davening. But for whatever reason, in Hebrew it’s called a Beit HaKnesset – a place of gathering – not a Beit Tefillah – a house of prayer. With that reality, could we really argue that the only use a Beit HaKnesset could have is tefillah?

And so I’d like to suggest that there is a distinction between mitzvah and not-mitzvah because there is a profound lesson to be learned from a metaphor.

The qualities of the esrog, lulav, hadasim and aravos are used to remind us that there are different kinds of Jews. Some with all good qualities, some with good and bad, bad and good, and some with all bad. And, of course, that the gathering of these items display a kind of unity that the Jewish people ought to have, in particular after Yom Kippur, when we vowed to be better to one another.

But it goes deeper. The Esrog proves that a fruit can have more than one good quality. And that if one good quality is unavailable, that doesn’t take away from our ability to find other good qualities.

And I would argue that the same would be true of the Hadasim, the Lulav and the Aravos. If they are meant to be metaphors for people, then people need to see them as if possessing more qualities. We can limit the appeal of a branch to one or two qualities, but that’s a branch.

PEOPLE, by definition are much more complicated. Have much more going for them, then a simple one-sidedness.

This is one reason why the deterioration of dialogue between people with different views, in politics, in society, etc is so devastating to a culture. Instead of hearing another view and properly weighing pros and cons, considering the other side and refining one’s viewpoint, we tend to put people who think differently into boxes and dismiss their intelligence and their “feelings” without really getting to know them. How many intelligent people have been unfairly painted as fools, as uncaring, as childish, for simply having a different viewpoint?

People are a lot more complex than that.

I promise you if the Hadas had another quality other than smell, we would be allowed to benefit from it – certainly when not engaged in the mitzvah.

The holiday of simcha, when we spend time in the sukkah, gives us an opportunity to walk around, and knock on busy sukkahs, and try to get to know one another. Even just a little.

And who knows? While we can easily find things about one another where we disagree, maybe with the right attitude and direction of conversation, we can find so much more areas in which we agree, as well as perspectives we never considered before.

In this way we take the lesson of the 4 minim, the different kinds of Jews, and create a tapestry of unity that puts different kinds of groups together – with whatever clear differences exist – and turns them into a unified embodiment of mitzvah-fulfilling Kiddush Hashem makers. If we can do that, we will have earned the right to gladden others and joyfully enjoy the holidays.