Aharon was a kollel fellow. He and his wife barely eked out enough to make ends meet, but Aharon felt fortunate to be able to dedicate his life to Torah. They were frugal with their money and avoided unnecessary expenses. Despite their tight budget, Aharon and his wife set aside each month a tenth of their earnings for tzedakah as maaser kesafim.

As Sukkos approached, expenses mounted. “We need to sit down and review our budget,” Aharon’s wife said. “We gave additional donations for the Yamim Nora’im and we need new clothes and extra food for Yom Tov. We’re coming to Sukkos with very little money left.”

Aharon carefully reviewed with his wife the expenses for the remainder of the month. “We are at our limit,” she said. “We can’t afford anything beyond the Yom Tov shopping.”

“What about lulav and esrog?” Aharon asked. “I could use someone else’s, but I would like to buy my own!”

“Of course!” his wife replied. “But if we want to end the month without deficit, we have no available money to buy our own. If we cut back on certain other expenditures, we could afford $50.”

“That’s not nearly enough for the kind of beautiful set I would like to buy,” said Aharon. “It would cost about $100.”

“Maybe we can use some of our maaser money to buy the esrog?” his wife asked.

“I don’t know whether I can use maaser money to purchase a mitzvah,” said Aharon.

“Can you find out?” asked his wife. “It would make the situation much simpler.”

“I’ll ask Rabbi Dayan,” replied Aharon.

Aharon met Rabbi Dayan in the beis medrash. “Can I use my maaser money to purchase an esrog?” he asked. “What about to purchase a more beautiful [mehudar] one?”

“A person is not allowed to fulfill his obigations, even mitzvos, with maaser money,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Rema cites from Maharil that a person should not use his maaser money even for optional mitzvos, such as sponsoring candles for the shul or purchasing kibbudim, but should give it to the poor. However, later authorities allow the person to do so if he stipulated initially that he would use the maaser money also for optional mitzvos, especially if he would not do the mitzvah otherwise or if the proceeds of the mitzvah will ultimately benefit the poor” (Y.D. and Taz 249:1; Shach 249:3; Pischei Teshuvah 249:2).

“Is an esrog considered an obligatory mitzvah or an optional one?” asked Aharon.

“Esrog is an obligation; it is also for personal use, unlike purchasing sefarim and allowing public use of them,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “However, since one does not need to purchase his own esrog and can use the communal esrog or a friend’s, some consider purchasing an esrog an optional mitzvah” (Nachalas Shivah 8:7b; Minchas Yitzchak 8:82; B’tzel Hachochma 4:164).

“What about using maaser for hidur mitzvah, to buy a nicer esrog?” asked Aharon.

“The Gemara (B.K. 9b) states that one should be willing to add a third for hidur mitzvah,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Some allow even the initial third from maaser; some allow only beyond the initial third; and some don’t allow using maaser money at all for hidur mitzvah” (Hilchos Maaser Kesafim 14:24-26).

“What is the halachah, bottom line?” asked Aharon.

“Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach rules that one who is very tight on funds should not purchase an esrog from maaser money, but rather use someone else’s,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “However, if he designated a maximum amount that he can afford to purchase an esrog, he may add part of his maaser to purchase a more mehudar one. Bear in mind, though, that the ideal is to give maaser kesafim to the poor. You need to carefully weigh the hidur of a beautiful esrog versus the hidur of supporting the poor” (Halichos Shlomo, Mo’adim 11:1).

Q: If a family has only one set of arbaah minim, how should they share it so that each family member can fulfill the mitzvah?

A: The Rema writes: Every person should endeavor to acquire his own lulav and esrog to properly fulfill the mitzvah (O.C. 658:9). Commentators explain that most people do not know the laws of conveying ownership to others (Magen Avraham 12; M.B. 42). It is therefore prudent to discuss this issue properly.

On the first day of Yom Tov one must own the dalet minim and does not fulfill the mitzvah with a borrowed set, or one owned in partnership. Therefore, rather than borrowing a set, it must be received as a gift (O.C. 658:3,7).

However, the gift need not be permanent. Gifting a set on condition that it is returned is also a gift, and the recipient fulfills the mitzvah if it is ultimately returned (ibid. 4). Most poskim maintain that gifting dalet minim for a limited duration of time (matanah lizman) is not sufficient, since a gift whose time expires is comparable to a loan (ibid. 3; cf. Ketzos, C.M. 241:4). The gift must be absolute for the recipient to be considered the owner. The condition that it must be returned does not undermine the validity of the gift, like any other condition attached to a sale or gift.

Poskim disagree regarding one who asked to “borrow” a friend’s dalet minim. Some maintain that it is assumed that the intent was to gift it on condition that it is returned so that the “borrower” should be able to fulfill the mitzvah (Magen Avraham 14:4, 658:3). Others contend that one does not fulfill the mitzvah if he merely asked to borrow a friend’s dalet minim (Taz, O.C. 14:5; Beis Yaakov 114).

The conclusion is that if it was not gifted explicitly, the “borrower” should take them again without repeating the brachah (M.B. 658:9; cf. M.B. 649:15). It is clear, however, that if the owner does not realize that it must be gifted on condition that it is returned and erroneously thinks that gifting it for a short period of time suffices, the “borrower” does not fulfill the mitzvah (M.B. 649:15).

Similarly, when returning the dalet minim it is necessary to convey ownership back to the owner and the owner must perform a kinyan (proprietary act) to reacquire it; for example, to lift it (hagbahah). Although some authorities require the “borrower” to state explicitly that he is conveying ownership back to the owner (Pri Megadim, Eishel Avraham 658:12; Machatzis Hashekel 6), others contend that we assume that the borrower’s intent is to convey ownership back to the owner (Shaar Hatziyun 25; see Toras Hakinyanim, s.v. Daled Minim, pp. 55, 125 when the recipient was unaware of this halachah).

Regarding children below the age of bar mitzvah, on the first day one should not give them dalet minim before the adults fulfilled the mitzvah. (Some maintain that outside of Eretz Yisrael one should not convey ownership to a child at all on the first day, since the adults must own them on the second day of Sukkos as well; see Pri Megadim, Eishel Avraham 658:8; M.B. 2). The reason is that children can acquire when an adult conveys ownership to them but they can’t convey ownership back. Since the child would have to convey ownership to the next adult and cannot do so, that adult would not own the set and thus cannot fulfill the mitzvah (op. cit. 658:6). Even if it was stipulated that the child must return it, since that condition cannot be fulfilled the condition is meaningless and the child acquires it unconditionally, thereby preventing subsequent adults from fulfilling the mitzvah (Ran cited by Biur Halachah, d.h. Eino). 

Q: A person was niftar shortly before Sukkos, leaving an esrog. Can one of his sons use the inherited esrog without receiving explicit consent from the other sons?

A: On the first day(s) of Sukkos, a person must own the four species completely (“lachem”). Partners in an esrog can fulfill the mitzvah only if they grant their share to each other, in turn, for the duration of the mitzvah (O.C. 658:7).

Children who inherit an esrog are partners in the estate. Thus, they can use the esrog by granting their shares in turn.

If one son wants to take an esrog for himself, the Gemara (B.B. 137b) states that if there are multiple esrogim he can take one, even if they are not of identical quality, since the other sons presumably won’t mind. However, if there is only one esrog, he needs their explicit consent. Rashbam writes that it suffices if there are esrogim readily available in the city or the others already have their own esrogim (O.C. 658:8; Aruch Hashulchan 658:18-19; Pischei Choshen, Shutfim 10:17).