Siman 656

Our sages, of blessed memory, said in Bava Kamma (9b): Beautification of a mitzvah is up to a third in a mitzvah. Rashi explained that if one finds two to buy, one more beautiful than the other—he should add a third of the price and take the beautiful one. Thus far his words. And it implies that this is when he has not yet bought. But if he already bought—he is not obligated in this. However, the Rosh wrote that even if he already bought—he must sell it and add a third for a more beautiful one, see there. And perhaps Rashi also did not mean it strictly. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in his great book wrote that Rashi meant it strictly, see there. And one should not ask: that according to this, there is no end to the matter, for if afterward he finds one more beautiful—must he also add a third to this one? For it can be said: that this is only the first time, and he fulfills with this the beautification of a mitzvah.

And this is the opinion of the Tur, who wrote: An etrog that is fit to fulfill the obligation with, and one found another more beautiful than it—it is a mitzvah to add up to a third of the price of the first, in order to exchange it for the more beautiful one. Thus far his words. But our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in this wording: That if one finds two etrogim to buy, and one is more beautiful than the other—he should take the beautiful one, if they do not overcharge him more than a third from within the price of the other. Thus far his words, and he wrote according to the wording of Rashi: when he has not yet bought it. And even though the Rosh and the Tur interpret: even when he has already bought it, nevertheless, since it is only a matter of hiddur—he was not concerned to be stringent in this. For this reason he also wrote "a third from within." And in truth, in the Gemara it remained in a state of teiku, but he moved to be lenient in this matter, for a third from within is a third of the etrog he bought, and from without is half of the etrog he bought. (And as for what the Magen Avraham in subsection 5 questioned in the name of the Yam Shel Shlomo, that if so, if a hundred etrogim happened upon him etc., and he answered with difficulty, see there. And according to what I have written—it is not a difficulty at all, for we only say this one time, whether according to the interpretation of Rashi or the Rosh. And for the halachah, it seems to me that it is proper to be stringent like the Rosh and the Tur where it is possible for him, even when he has already bought it.)

And there are some of our teachers who explained this with a completely different explanation: that it does not refer to an ordinary etrog if he finds one more beautiful than it, for these are things that have no fixed measure. Rather, this is its explanation: behold, the measure of an etrog is a kebeitza. And when he has an etrog that is exactly a kebeitza, and certainly this is not hiddur when it is exactly its measure, and afterwards he finds one larger than it—it is a mitzvah to add up to a third of the previous funds in order to buy the other (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol in the name of our teacher Tam, and the Rosh in Bava Kamma ibid.). But regarding other matters of hiddur—he is not obligated in this. And so too regarding other mitzvot—this is not applicable according to this explanation (Magen Avraham subsection 2 and subsection 3). And even regarding the matter of the measure—it is only to exchange it and give an additional third from within. But if the other person does not want to accept this one, and he would be required to buy that one as well—he is not obligated (ibid. subsection 4). Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, brought both explanations.

It is stated in the Gemara there: Up to a third—from his own; from here onwards—from the Holy One, Blessed be He. Rashi explained: Up to a third from his own—that he is not repaid in his lifetime. From here onwards from the Holy One, Blessed be He—that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will repay him in his lifetime. Thus far his words. For he eats the fruits in this world, and the principal remains for him in the world to come (Tosafot). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: One who does not have an etrog, or another transitory mitzvah—is not required to squander a great fortune on them. And as they said: One who squanders—should not squander more than a fifth, even for a transitory mitzvah. And specifically a positive commandment, but for a negative commandment—he must give all his money before he transgresses. Thus far his words. And there is a doubt whether his intention is that up to a fifth one is obligated to squander on the mitzvah. And if so, regarding the Gemara that recounted about Rabban Gamliel who gave a thousand zuz for an etrog—to inform you how beloved the mitzvot were to them. We would say according to this that for Rabban Gamliel, a thousand zuz was more than a fifth of his assets, for if not so—behold, he would have been obligated by law. And it is a wondrous thing, as he was the Nasi of Israel and a very wealthy man. Therefore, it seems to me that it took a mere example. And also, there is no logic that he should give a fifth to the mitzvah, and consequently be unable to give any tzedakah at all (and see Bach, and Magen Avraham subsection 7, and it requires further study). And if he has in his hand only five sela'im, and he needs to redeem his son and buy an etrog—should he buy an etrog, as this is a transitory mitzvah and this is not a transitory mitzvah, and redeem him at another time? And know that on the first day of Yom Tov, if in one place there is a lulav and no minyan to pray, and in another place there is a minyan and no lulav—it is obvious that he must go to the place of the lulav (Magen Avraham at the beginning of siman 651). And even on the second day of Yom Tov, and on all the days of the festival, if he can pray by himself—he should go to the place of the lulav. Only if he cannot pray—he should go to whichever place he desires, as both are d'rabbanan. However, if he cannot even say Kriyat Shema—he should go to the place where they pray. But not on the first day, for a mitzvah is beloved in its proper time. (What the Magen Avraham wrote from the incident of Bar Kamtza, that it is permitted to transgress because of fear, see there. And his intention regarding the sacrifice, which Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas did not permit—there is no proof, for there it was the salvation of the collective of Israel, see there. And be precise and you will find it simple.)

If one purchased an etrog for a high price, as it was very beautiful, and another came and stole it or cut it and disqualified it. There is one who wished to say that he is not obligated to return such an etrog to him, but rather a kosher etrog. And he brought a proof from Bava Kamma (78a) where one designated an ox for an olah, and another came and stole it – that he can exempt himself with a lamb (Mahari Minz). But this is no comparison at all, for there the sacrifice is not an object of monetary value, as he cannot sell it, but rather he must bring it to the Temple. Therefore, he exempts himself with something cheaper than it. But the etrog is worth money, as he can sell it, and it is obvious that he is obligated to pay him according to its value (Mishneh LaMelekh chapter sixteen of Ma'aseh HaKorbanot). And it is simple. (That which the Ba'er Heitev wrote in the name of the Shiltei Gibborim, that if one sold an etrog and it was found to be rotten – the burden of proof is upon the one seeking to extract from his fellow, see there. And it is obvious that if there was not a length of time in which it could have rotted in the possession of the buyer – it rotted in the possession of the seller, and it is returned. And so too in any such case. It is only that sometimes there are closed sales based on luck; in such a case, the loss is the buyer's.)