# Is this case of double bal tosif, bal tosif?

There are two definitions of Bal Tosif:

1 - Do the mitzva with a change in its form (for example: getting a 5th species along with the Four Species)

2 - Do the mitzva with intention when it's not its time (for example: Doing Netilat Lulav after Sukot with intention of fulfilling the mitzva of the Four Species).

My question is: If someone does Netilat Lulav with a 5th species AFTER Sukkot (combining the two definitions above), does one transgress the issur of Bal Tosif?

I am posting my initial thoughts on the subject as an answer.

• is this different if someone takes 6 minim, maybe that bal tosif is not different when one adds a 5th min on yom 8 Nov 2, 2021 at 4:51
• Maybe there is no bal tosif at all following the rishonim (Tosfot Sanhedrin 88b) who think that if there is bal tosif there is no Mitsva, so, the combination of no zman and no maase Mitsva cancel the the bal tosif of zman Nov 2, 2021 at 6:40
• Why do you think it wouldn't? As long as at least one aspect of Baal tosif is involved then there is Baal tosif. Adding another doesn't take away from the first.
– Dude
Nov 4, 2021 at 18:05
• I would think not, as the mitzva of arba minim is only on sukkos, so taking a 5th min on sukkos is bal tosef. After sukkos as well, doing the mitzva after sukkos is baal tosef. Using a 5th min after sukkos, however, when there is no chiyuv of arba minim, you wouldn't be doing the mitzva in a different way (as there is no mitzva after sukkos). Mistama you would still have the doing a mitzva outside its time bal tosef (I think you would), but I don't see how you would have the first type. Aug 2 at 1:00

The Mishnah Berura in 664:22 when discussing adding the Hoshanos to the lulav and shaking them together, says that outside the zman of the mitzvah there is no bal tosif if you don’t have specific kavvanah for the mitzvah. By inference, if you do have that intention, then there is:

הטעם דהא קי"ל דשלא בזמנו של המצוה אינו עובר על בל תוסיף עד שיכוין להוסיף על המצוה והכא כיון שעברה מצותו הוי שלא בזמנו והוא הלא לא כיון להוסיף על מצות לולב כ"א בשביל לקיחת הערבה

However, in the Biur Halacha 651:12 he brings a machlokes about it:

אבל נוטלן לזכר בעלמא - וצריך ליזהר שלא יכוין לשם מצוה דיש בזה משום בל תגרע כמו שכתב הט"ז בסקי"ז ובאמת כן הוא מפורש בהדיא בספרי ראה עי"ש. אכן מה שכתב הט"ז דבר חדש דאפילו בעת שהוא נוטלו להלולב אחר שכבר קיים המצוה ורק משום חבוב מצוה בעלמא גם אז יזהר ליקח דוקא כל הד' מינים שלא לגרוע ממנו ולא להוסיף עליו כדי שלא יעבור על בל תוסיף ובל תגרע השיגו עליו כל האחרונים [הא"ר והחמד משה והנהר שלום ומטה יהודא] ודעתם כיון שכבר קיים המצוה אין שייך בזה בל תוסיף ובל תגרע

• The beur halacha follows the magen Abraham who understands that the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah 28b saying that בזמנו לא בעי כוונה is only the opinion of man deamar mitsvot lo tsrichot cavana. But the bet Yosef in 651 and Taz in 34 as most rishonim holds that this Gemara is the halacha anyway, Nov 3, 2021 at 19:23
• This is perhaps linked to the machloket between tos in Sanhedrin 88b and tos Succah 31b if the mitzvah is fulfilled despite the bal tosif. According to tos Sanhedrin, the mitzvah is cancelled, as if the chefetz of mitzvah is not valid and so, despite that mitzvot need cavana, bal Tosif doesn't need cavana. Following the tos Succah, the mitzvah is fulfilled and bal tosif may be linked to the rule to need cavana of mitzvah to transgress bal tosif Nov 3, 2021 at 19:43
• I think you’re referring to a different Biur Halacha. It seems your talking about the one in 651:14. I’m talking about the one in 651:12. Totally different sugya Nov 5, 2021 at 2:04
• I only cited sources from the Suggia by memory. There is Beur Halacha also in 34. Nov 5, 2021 at 5:15

I though about this for a while based on Kovetz Shiurim on Pessachim Piska 54 and Kovetz Shiurim Chelek 2 Siman 33, where he discussed if in order to transgress Bal Tosif while is not the time for the mitzva, if one needs only to do the act of the mitzva (maase mitzva) or it needs that if it would be in the proper time, the mitzva would be fulfilled, he discussed it about doing Bal Tosif + Mitzvat Haba beAveira.

At the end I came to this conclusion that it depends whether Bal Tosif is an issur/defect on the cheftza (object) or on the gavra (person). If is in the cheftza (object), so there is not even a maase mitzva (mitzva act) to be considered now that he does it not in the proper time, therefore he does not transgress, if is in the gavra (person), so there is no problem in the maase mitzva (act), so when one does it not in the proper time, there is not much of a difference and the problem is only the Bal Tosif itself, which he transgresses.

• It makes sense that is on the gavra (person). I dont see how the 2nd definition of Bal Tosif would fit well being understood as a problem in the cheftza (object). Oct 7, 2020 at 20:23