Vayikra 23:40 records that on the first day of Sukkot, a person is to take four species, arba minin, which traditionally are the lulav, etrog, hadasim and aravot. The Torah does not record why a person should take these four species. For various answers see Rambam (Moreh, 3:43, 1963, pp. 572,573), Ramban (on Vayikra 23:40), Kli Yakar (on 23:40), and Abraham Chill (1979, pp. 226, 227).
An interesting geographic reason has recently been suggested by Prof. Ari Schaffer of the Volcani Institute for Agricultural Research in Beit Dagan, (quoted by Greenspan and Greenspan, 2005). Schaffer notes that the lulav, palm branches, are from the desert (Jordan Valley), the aravah, the willow, is from the river beds, the, hadas, the myrtle, from the mountains, and the etrog is grown on the plains. Yehuda Feliks (2002, on Vayikra 23:40, p. 173) suggests a similar reason based on the Talmud, Pesachim 53a.
Abravanel (2005, p. 274) writes that the taking of the four species is to thank G-d for the gathering in of the crops. This rationale connects the law with idea that the holiday is due to the harvest, see Shemot 23:16, 34:22, Vayikra 23:39 and Devarim 15:13. Yet, do the four species relate to the harvest? They are not the main products of the land, grains, olives and grapes, and they are not part of the seven species of the land (Devarim 8:8). Also, except for the etrog(?) they are not even produce. The lulav is from the date palm, but if the idea is to thank G-d for gathering the crops we should have taken dates themselves and not lulavim. Also, why are the four species not offered to G-d as a sacrifice opposed to being just taken?
23:42 then records that on the holiday of Sukkot, a person is to live in sukkot, tents, for seven days. 23:43 then records that the reason for living in sukkot is that the future generations will know that the people lived in tents when they left Egypt. This rationale is unclear since the Torah never ever referred to the people living in a sukkah with regard to the Exodus, thought the first place the people went to after leaving Egypt was called Sukkot, Shemot 12:37 and 13:20.
The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Eliezer that sukkah in 23:43 refers to the cloud(s) of glory that were on top of the people in the desert, while R. Akiva believes that they refer to actual sukkot that the people lived in when they were in the desert. The Sifra Emor 17:11 reverses the opinions, and my guess is that this is the correct attributions. It is possible that the basis for this argument is that the opinion that believes the reference is to clouds of glory is because there does not seem to be anything special about people living in tents, while the other opinion believes that the cloud(s) of glory is not considered as being a tentlike.
Is there a connection between the commandment to live in a sukkah and the taking of the four species? Mordechai Breuer (1993, pp. 570-581) argues that the commandment of living in the sukkah also relates to the agricultural theme of gathering the crops and the four species. His argument is based on the Rashbam’s explanation of 23:43 that by living in the sukkah the person is to remember that the crops comes from G-d. Devarim 8:17 records this fear that due to financial success people will forget G-d, but it is not connected there to the commandment of living in the sukkah. Breuer (p. 579) then argues that the sukkah of the people during the holiday of Sukkot in the land of Israel is a continuation of the sukkot that the people lived in in the desert, and living in the desert taught the people to realize that everything comes from G-d and this lesson was applicable to the people after they harvested their crop sin the land of Israel.
This idea is nice since it takes a natural agricultural holiday and imbues it with a religious theme. However, as mentioned above, I doubt that the four species are to show thanks for agricultural success, and I doubt that living in the sukkah will make a person realize that all of his/ her financial success is coming from G-d.
It could very well be that the main reason for celebrating the holiday of Sukkot is to thank G-d for the crops since this reason is the most oft-mentioned in the Torah, Furthermore, the law most mentioned in reference to Sukkot is to be happy on the holiday (Vayikra 23:40, and Devarim 16:14,15) which relates to the gathering of the crops, However, my guess is that the law of the four species and the sukkah are not directly related to gathering in the crops.
The taking of the four species (23:40) resembles the taking of the korban pesach in Egypt. First, the word take is used repeatedly by the korban pesach, see Shemot 12:3,4,5,21,22. In Egypt, the people could have been told to sacrifice the korban pesach on the 14th of the 1st month (Nisan), and there was no need to mention taking an animal, as of course an animal had to be taken to be sacrificed. Instead, the people were told to take an animal on the tenth of the first month and to hold the animal for four days. Two, the korban pesach was taken and held for four days, (the 10-14th, Shemot 12:3,6) while by the four species, four items are taken together once. Three, the taking of the four species is for one day, like the korban pesach that is offered on one day. Four, by the korban pesach, the people had to take some plants (azov, hyssop?) and dip them in blood, Shemot 12:22. By the four species, these plants have been transformed into agricultural motif. The lulav, aravot (willows) and hadasim (myrtles) are parallel to the bunch of hyssops by the korban pesach, while the pri etz hadar (today etrog), which is most likely some type of fruit that could be made into a liquid, could be an agricultural parallel to the blood which the hyssops were dipped into. (Ibn Ezra, on 23:40, in his polemic with the Karaites, notes that they also made a connection between the taking of the four species, and the taking of the animal for the korban pesach.)
Chazal also make this connection between the four species and the korban pesach. The Talmud (Sukkah 11b) quotes R. Yehuda who learns a law by the lulav that it needs to be joined together with the hadasim and aravot, egged, from the taking of the blood by the korban pesach, Shemot 12:22. Also, Vayikra Rabbah (30:1) quotes R. Abba b. Kahana who also makes this connection between the taking of the four species with the taking of the blood of the korban pesach to teach a different lesson.
Also, just like the korban pesach preceded the holiday of Matzot, so too, first the Torah refers to the law of the four species, 23:40, and then law of the sukkah, 23:42,43. The law of the sukkah parallels the holiday of Matzot which requires one to eat matzot for seven days, and people are to live in the sukkah for seven days, see Shemot 12:15, 13:6, 23:15, 34:18, Vayikra 23:6 and Bemidbar 28:17. Furthermore, both the holidays of Sukkot and Matzot are on the 15th of their respective months, the first and seventh months, six months apart, and both are to remember the exodus.
We now have a double parallel between the two ritual laws of Sukkot and the holidays of Pesach and Matzot. The law of the four species parallels the holiday of Pesach, and the law of being in the sukkah for seven days is parallel to the law of eating matzot which is also for seven days. Chazal (see Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim, 639:3) also learn that one has to eat an olive size amount of food in the sukkah on the night on the first night of Sukkot, just like one has to eat an olive size of matzah on the first night of what we today call Pesach.
What are to learn from this parallelism? Maybe it is just part of the goal of transforming the natural agricultural holiday to a holiday of thanking G-d. Yet, the korban pesach was part of the process of exodus from Egypt, how does the taking of the four species prepare or lead to the sitting in the sukkah?
The holidays of Pesach and Matzot are part of the historical process that led to the first covenant at Mount Sinai, and then maybe the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated to remember the second covenant the people made on the plains of Moav, Devarim, 28:69. By this covenant, Moshe told the people that they only acquired the intellectual ability to join this covenant after living forty years in the desert, Devarim 29:4. The living in the sukkah is to recall the people living in the desert, and this living was let led up to the people being able to join this second covenant. Also, the holidays of Pesach and Matzot are celebrated in the beginning of the year, which correspond to the first covenant which was established in the beginning of the people’s stay in the desert, while the holiday of Sukkot is celebrated towards the end of the year (Shemot 23:16) not just since it is the time of harvesting, but also this timing corresponds to the covenant that the people made at the end of the forty years in the desert.
How can this recollection of being in the desert from the commandment to live in the sukkah relate to the four species? The answer is that when the people were living in the desert, for most of the time they were not travelling and they had a static existence, just gathering the mahn. This was similar to the existence of Adam and Havva in the Garden of Eden, where they had some minor work and they were to live without any knowledge. Devarim 1:39 records that Moshe said that the people referred to their children, who would grow up in the desert during the forty years, as not knowing tov and ra, just like the Adam and Havva were before they ate of the tree of knowledge, Bereshit 2:9,17.
The four species can also be related to the Garden of Eden. The most obvious is the pri etz hadar, which recalls, the fruit of the tree of knowledge which was a delight to the eyes, Bereshit 3:6. The lulav, hadasim and aravot can also evoke the idea of a garden in that all are green and plants. Or one could claim that these three items are to re-call the azov that was used for sprinkling of the blood by the korban pesach in Egypt, and only the etrog is to recall the fruit of the Garden of Eden. Either way, now we can understand the significance of the taking of the four species, as by the fruit of the tree of knowledge, while Havva said that it was forbidden to be touched, Bereshit 3:3, really it was only forbidden to be eaten. The taking of the four species, but not eating them (the etrog), shows that people are now following G-d’s command. Accordingly, both the sukkah and the four species relate to the Garden of Eden, and by just taking the four species, we show that we are following G-d’s command which is the lesson that the people learned in the desert, which enabled them to establish the second covenant with G-d.
Maybe this idea can explain why the laws of the holiday of Sukkot are recorded after the concluding sentence of 23:37,38. For two other suggestions see our discussion above on 23:1-42, “The structure of chapter 23” and our discussion in the Introduction to the book of Vayikra, “The structure of the book of Vayikra.”
Our suggestion here is that the laws recorded in the section after the concluding sentence are to make the holiday of Sukkot a holiday of the second covenant that the people did on the plains of Moav, but this second covenant had not yet occurred when chapter 23 was told to the people. By the Torah separating these laws of the holiday of Sukkot from the other laws of the festivals, this was showing that these laws had a different basis than the other laws of the festivals, the second covenant and not the first covenant that was established at Mount Sinai. Note that prior to the concluding sentences of 23:37,38, there are the laws of the sacrifices on Sukkot and these could relate to the celebration of the first covenant (see our discussion above on 23:24, 26, 34 “Two sets of mikrei kodesh”), but the laws of Sukkot that related to the second covenant had to be separated in order to indicate their different rationale. Also, it was also intended that there was to be a second covenant, but initially it was supposed to be in the land of Israel. However, once Moshe was unable to enter the land of Israel, it was done on the plains of Moav by the border with the land of Israel.
Bibliography:
Breuer, Mordechai (1921-2007), 1993, Pirkei Moadot, (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Horev.
Chill, Abraham, 1979, The Minhagim, New York: Sepher-Hermon Press.
Feliks, Yehuda, 2002, The four species, in Vayikra: The World of the Bible, edited by Baruch Levine, Tel Aviv: Yediot Achronot, Sifire Hemed, pp. 173,174.
Greenspan, Ari and Ari Z. Zivotofsky, 2005, “The extraordinary history of the etrog,” The Jerusalem Post, 16 October.
No comments:
Post a Comment