Etrog

TRR 148-149

CURR 46-49

FROZEN ETROGIM

I have been successful in growing Etrogim, but due to the difference in seasons in this part of the world, they have come to fruit now. Would it be permissible to put them into deep freeze until Succoth? Equally, would it be permissible to re-use an Etrog which has been put into deep freeze after the Festival? (From Rabbi C. E. Cassell, Bulawayo, South Africa.)

THIS question is most interesting and is, I believe, much easier to answer nowadays than it would have been fifty years ago. In the last few years the development and the availability of deep-freezers have resulted in quite a good deal of rabbinic discussion which has found its way into the Responsa literature. The question is whether meat may be put into a deep-freezer and be kept for months. Since the questions involved with the deep-freezer and its use have so far been confined to the matter of freezing meat and using it months later, we ought to go into this question first and see if there are any analogies or principles developed which would aid us in the question which you ask about the Etrog.

About frozen meat, all they knew in the past was of meat that was accidentally frozen by the cold of the northern winter or had fallen into a river in winter during transportation. The question then arose about such frozen meat because of the rule in the Shulchan Aruch (Yore Deah 69:12) that meat which is kept three days without salting may not be boiled (but may be roasted), because after three days the blood is dried up in the veins and arteries and will not be drawn out any more by the salt. Isserles’ note that follows is crucial to all later decisions. He says that we prohibit the use of such meat altogether (not even permitting roasting) because some may believe that boiling also is permitted. What, then, is the status of frozen meat? On the face of it, it should be prohibited because of the lapse of time without salting. In fact, Joseph Teomim (in the Peri Megadim) says that it should be absolutely prohibited because freezing has the effect of cooking.

But a later authority (still before the time of freezers and still speaking of meat frozen by accident, etc.) Jehiel Epstein in the authoritative code, Aruch ha-Shulchan, permits such frozen meat. He says the meat so frozen is in a state of suspension; it is like a stone and the blood does not rot or spoil it. His decision became the basis of the various permissions given recently for the use of the freezer, namely, that the meat becomes like stone, no spoiling occurs and, therefore, after thawing out it is like new, and may be salted and the blood drawn out thereby. This is virtually the decision of the latest authority, Moses Feinstein, in his Responsa Igros Moshe (Yore Deah 28). He says that Joseph Teomim’s objection in the Peri Megadim that freezing is equivalent to cooking (and therefore the meat cannot be eaten since it is as if it were cooked without salting) applies only if the meat were frozen by direct contact with the ice and got wet; but if it is frozen hard and dry, it would be quite usable later. In other words, he follows the decision of Jehiel Epstein in the Aruch ha-Shulchan.

Now, what principles do we derive from this discussion of frozen meat which would apply to the frozen Etrog? One thing is sure, if the freezing is not done merely by putting it on ice, where water from melting ice would penetrate and spoil the Etrog, but if the Etrog is wrapped and frozen dry, then by analogy with the meat, it would be quite usable.

However, the main problem with regard to the suitability of an Etrog for ritual use is not quite the same as a problem with regard to meat, although it is really analogous to it. With meat the question is whether or not the freezing dries up the blood so that it can never be drawn out again. With an Etrog the liquid or the juice must not be drawn out but must remain in it for the Etrog to be usable. An Etrog that is dried up cannot be used. These laws are discussed in Orah Hayyim 648, though there are some authorities (see 648, 4) who it would permit even a dried Etrog if its outer form were intact and its inner seed chambers were intact. But in general the question of whether it was dried up or not is the crucial one. Therefore Isserles says (648, 1) that last year’s Etrog, because it surely must be dried up, cannot be used. This he bases upon a Responsum of Maharil, 5. However the Mogen David questions this decision and says it depends upon whether it is really dried up or not (i.e., not merely upon the age of the Etrog). As to whether it is dried up or not, the Shulchan Aruch gives a definite and practical test: A needle and thread is run through the Etrog and if the thread is damp, the Etrog is Kosher.

Therefore, applying all this to your question, we would conclude as follows: First of all, you do not intend to keep these a whole year but only part of a year. Therefore even Isserles would not object to it. But even if you kept them a whole year, the rule of testing by needle and thread would still apply. Since modern freezing does not involve contact with ice, which on melting would give water to penetrate and spoil the Etrog, then we can say that as long as the Etrog keeps its shape and its beauty (because it has to be hadar) and as long as it keeps its moisture, it is usable.

NRR 48-52

LULAV AND ESROG AFTER SUCCS

QUESTION:

Is there any guidance in the legal tradition as to how one should dispose of the lulav and esrog after Succos is over? (Asked by Rabbi Mark Staitman, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

IT IS VIRTUALLY impossible to preserve a lulav and esrog for another year. The esrog dries up, and the leaves of the lulav dry up and grow brittle. So the normal procedure has always been to get new esrogim and lulavim each year for Succos. This is the reason for the question which has been asked here, as to what is the proper mode of disposal of this year’s esrog and lulav after Succos is over.

In our religious life there is a large variety of objects must be removed when a larger Ark is needed, coverings of the Sefer Torah, mantles, etc., which get worn out, fringes (tzitzis) which get torn, etc. Therefore it is understandable that there has developed a great deal of law on the question of proper disposal of such objects when they are no longer usable.

It must be understood at the outset that these various objects are not all of equal sanctity. Some are much holier than others. So the Mishnah (in Megillah 3:1) discusses the necessary procedure when a community sells the public square. The square had a sort of a semi-sanctity because services were held there on fast-days. When the square is sold, we must use the money to buy a synagogue. When a synagogue is sold, we may buy an Ark with the money. When an Ark is sold, we may buy Torah covers with the money. When the Torah covers are sold, we may buy Torahs, etc. In other words, there is an ascending scale of sanctity, and in the case of sale of any of these objects, we always step upward in the order of sanctity, but never downward.

All this applies, of course, when there is an actual sale of these sacred objects. But what if there is no sale at all, but the sacred object was merely worn out and must be discarded, as happens with the mantle on the Torah or the Torah itself? What then should be done with them? This brings us close to the question which has been asked.

With regard to sacred objects which are no longer usable, and also with regard to objects which have already fulfilled their religious purpose, such as torn fringes or tzitzis or the walls of the Succah after Succos is over, the law makes a sharp distinction between two classes of such objects. One class is called “appurtenances of holiness” (tashmishey kedusha). The other class is called “appurtenances of a mitzvah” (tashmishey mitzvah). In the former class, the worn-out object retains its sanctity even when no longer in use. In the second class, after the object has been used in the performance of the mitzvah, it has no sanctity left at all. See the statement of Joseph Caro with regard to the broken fringes in Orach Chayim 21:1 (en b’ gufakedusha). Included in the former class, the “appurtenances of holiness,” are unused Sefer Torahs, coverings of the Sefer Torahs, tefillin, mezuzahs, etc. These objects, though now unusable, are still sacred and are to be hidden away (nignozin). Of course, “hidden away” may include burial in the cemetery.

The second class, objects which are no longer sacred after having served their purpose, includes the Succah itself, fringes torn off a tallis, the lulav, etc. These objects need not even be stored away but, as the Talmud says, they may be simply thrown away (“on the dunghill”) (cf. Orach Chayim 21:1, see the whole discussion in Megillah 26b).

One might mention here that printed prayerbooks, which could well be considered merely “appurtenances of a mitzvah” and therefore be thrown away when they become worn out, nevertheless are stored and often buried (even torn pages from old prayerbooks), as are the “appurtenances of holiness,” but that is because they contain the Name of God on almost every page.

The list in the Talmud of “appurtenances of mitzvah” which may be thrown away includes the lulav but does not mention the esrog. It is obvious, however, that the esrog also belongs to this class which has no more sanctity once it has served its purpose (i.e., tashmishey mitzvah). The proof of this is the fact that the esrog, being edible, was eaten after it had served its purposes of the mitzvah. So the Talmud speaks of the eating of the citron by children and by adults (Succah 46a), and the Shulchan Aruch states that in Israel esrogim may be eaten after Shemini Atzeres, but outside of Israel, not until after the ninth day.

In passing, a folkloristic use of the citron might also be mentioned here. It was a widespread folk-custom that pregnant women on Hoshana Rabba would bite off the bitter stem of the esrog, the reason being as follows: In Midrash Rabba (Genesis R. 15:7) there are many speculations as to what was the species of fruit with which Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, and one opinion is that the forbidden fruit was the esrog. So the pregnant women bite the bitter part of the esrog in order to declare that they do not share in Eve’s sin and thus hope to earn God’s protection during pregnancy and childbirth (see the explanation of this folk custom in Hershovitz, Ozar Minhagim, p. 113).

Thus it is clear that the lulav and the esrog have no sacredness at all left in them after having been used in the mitzvah on Succos and thus can be disposed of off-hand. But one can easily understand how later tradition felt uneasy about treating so cavalierly objects which just a short time ago were revered as sacred during the performance of the mitzvah. Therefore folk-custom began to add precautions as to the mode of disposal of these objects. For example, the torn threads of the fringes were used by Maharil (Be’er Hetev) as bookmarks (cf. Be’er Hetev to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 21). As for the willows used on Hoshana Rabba, the note Haga’ha to Asher ben Yechiel to Megillah, Chapter IV, states that while the willows may be thrown away, they should not be trodden underfoot. And it is reported by Maharil that pious people often save the willows to light the fire later for the baking of the matzos. Thus, though discarded, they were still used for a mitzvah (cf. Isserles to Orach Chayim 664:9).

In the light of the traditional disinclination just to throw away these objects carelessly (which would be completely permissible), we may come to the following conclusion. Strictly speaking, the lulav and esrog may indeed just be thrown away (“on the dunghill”). But we would share the feelings of the past that it would be wrong to see them lying on a heap of debris in a public thoroughfare. Therefore they should be disposed of with some respect to the status which, though they now lack, they once had. They should perhaps be wrapped up carefully, so as not to be visible to any passerby, and then put away for disposal or, since when Succos is over furnaces are soon lit, they may be perhaps burned up in the furnace. This would be a decent disposal which many authorities permit even for disused prayerbook pages (see references in Reform Responsa, pp. 71 ff.).

CARR 273-276

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

183. The Nature of the

Etrog

QUESTION: The modern nature of the lulav and

etrog are quite clear, but the original text in Leviticus 23.40 is not so specific. How do we

know that these items now used are those originally intended? (D. F. A., St. Louis, MO)

ANSWER: There are many uncertainties in the verse cited, “and you shall take on

the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and boughs of thick trees, and

willows of the brook. You shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days” (Holy

Scriptures, Jewish Publication Society, 1917). The uncertainty is conveyed by the more

recent translation of the Torah, “On the first day you shall take the product of hadar

trees, branches of palm trees, boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook, and you shall

rejoice before the Lord your God seven days,” (The Torah, Jewish Publication Society,

1967). The footnote for hadar, “leafy,” states that the meaning is uncertain. It has been

set for us by tradition. We must now try to establish the age of this tradition. Let us

begin with the phrase peri etz hadar, commonly interpreted as etrog. The

Targum Onkelos translated this as perei ilan m’shubah. The Septuagint provided a

similar translation, while the later Jewish commentaries like Rashi took it for granted that this

was the etrog, and so followed the interpretation of the Mishnah. Ramban

suggested that etrog was simply the Aramaic for the Hebrew word hadar. Ibn Ezra

similarly relied on the earlier tradition and stated that there was no fruit as beautiful, and for that

reason it was called hadar. It was, of course, clear from other uses of the words that it

meant glorious, beautiful or grandly decorated. The modern Biblical critic, Bruno Baentsch

(Handkommentar zum Alten Testament – Exodus, Levitikus, Numeri -1903), suggested

that it either refers to the fruit of paradise or to the citron for which the word etrog was

used later. He also speculated that the fruit might originally have been connected with a fruit

offering as mentioned in some Carthaginian rites (p. 418). We find the term etrog used in

the Mishnaic description of the ritual connected with Sukkot (Suk. III.4). This would make

it clear that by the second century at the very latest, the citron had been thoroughly established.

Naturally, this tradition may go back to a period earlier than the written version of the

Mishnah. We must, therefore, ask when the citron first appeared in the Near East, as it

was not native to that area. It seems that the citron was already reported by Greek

authors; it reached the Mediterranean in the third century before our era (Harrison, Masefield and

Michael, Oxford Book of Food Plants, 1969, p. 88). Immanuel Löw, the great

Jewish authority on plants, arrived at his conclusions through eliminating other possible fruits, for

example, the pomegranate. Although it is beautiful, the tree is not leafy. Another contender was

the karob. That tree is grand, but the fruit is not. That left only the etrog by elimination –

rutaceae, citrus (I. Löw, Die Flora der Jüden III, p. 53, III, pp. 103 ff).

Later Low stated that the fruit originally was the citrus medica which was introduced to the

Mediterranean by the administrators of Alexander the Great. In the time of Alexander,

the tree was first described by the ancient authority Theophrastus. Its use was also reported by

Josephus (Antiquities xiii, 13, 5). He called the etrog a Persian apple, which would

be a citron. Probably the earliest evidence that this is a citron comes from the time of

Alexander Jannaeus (104- 78 B.C.E.), when the people pelted the high priest during Sukkot

with their etrogim. The rabbinic literature made the etrog a tradition from the

days of Sinai (halakhah misinai). Löw felt that the tradition went back as far as 430

B.C.E. (Löw, op. cit., III, p. 289). The fruit had first been cultivated by the

Chinese who found it in the warmer regions of the Himalayas. Subsequently, the fruit was

introduced to Europe through the Crusaders. It may have been introduced to Roman Italy by

Jews who used it on Sukkot by the second century. Citrons were used in villas and

gardens for decorative purposes. The fruit was definitely not known in ancient Egypt (Low, op.

cit., III, pp. 278 ff). We know from the report of Jacques De Vitry, who visited Israel around

1225, that the citron had not yet been introduced into Northern Europe. The numerous

Mishnaic and Talmudic references to etrog do not tell us the precise nature of this citron,

so it is impossible to proceed further into the species of citron available. Many

commentators have found it strange that the fruit was not given a precise name, but simply

described as “the fruit of the glorious tree.” The word etrog came from the Persian

torong and originally from the Sanskrit suranga, its term for orange. Löw

also noted that the German Jews frequently used citrus limon scabiosa, which they

received from the southern lands of Europe. Currently citrus medica is generally used

(Löw, op. cit, III, p. 285). Naturally greater efforts to explain the fruit were made after the

appearance of the Karaites with their questioning attitude, but to no

avail. Maimonides, in the twelfth century, also sought a rational reason for the use of

this particular fruit; he felt it was chosen because it remained fresh through the entire festival

(Moreh Nibukhim 3.43; Yad Hil. Lulav 7.2). Both in medieval and modern times,

various efforts to equate hadar and etrog have been made, but without

success. The efforts of Biblical commentators during the last centuries to find a

solution can be divided into three efforts: 1. Both tree and fruit must be grand; 2. The tree

possess the same taste as the fruit; 3. The fruit remain on the tree throughout the year, as is true

of citrus fruit trees which bloom throughout the year, and whose leaves do not fall (Low, op.

cit, III, p. 288). In conclusion, we can state that the tradition of the etrog is

more than 2,000 years old, but its origin remains obscure.November 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.