Tu B'Shvat and Parok Shira[1]

2001

A. Tu B'Shvat is one of four new moons listed in the Mishnah Reish Tractate R'Ha:

There are four new years: one in Nisan, Rosh Hashanah for kings and slaves, one in Elul, Rosh Hashanah for the tithe of animals. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that one in Tishrei, one in Tishrei, Rosh Hashanah for years and shemitin and jubilees for planting and vegetables, and one in Shvat, Rosh Hashanah for trees, as the House of Shammai says. The House of Hillel says on the fifteenth of it:

Apparently, this is a day of only technical significance, concerning only the matter of the mitzvot that depend on the land. Thus, Maimonides writes there:

And vegetables and trees. The benefit of this is that according to the rules already explained in the Order of Seeds, there is no tithe of the new on the old, and the types of tithes are different in certain years, such as the second tithe and the poor tithe, as we explained there.

The Mishnah states that Tu B'Shvat is the beginning of the year for the purpose of tithes of the tree. According to Maimonides, Terumot Pa' 5:11:

There is no transfer of this year's fruits over last year's fruits, nor from last year's fruits over this year's fruits. And if the transfer is not a transfer as is said, year after year, if one gathers vegetables on the eve of Rosh Hashanah until the sun has set and returns and gathers them after the sun has set, there is no transfer of one over the other because it is new and it is old. Likewise, if one gathers an etrog on the eve of Tu B'Shvat until the sun has set and returns and gathers another etrog after the sun has set, there is no transfer of one over the other because one on Tishrei Rosh Hashanah is for tithes of grain, legumes, and vegetables, and one on Tu B'Shvat Rosh Hashanah is for tithes of trees.

Despite the somewhat technical impression that emerges from the Mishnah and the Gemara, today we also practice certain holiday rituals on Tu B'Shvat. Since the (late) period of the Return to Zion, attempts have been made to give it a modern, perhaps universal, flavor, as a holiday of planting, etc. Even earlier, there are versions of corrections to Tu B'Shvat, which originate from the world of Kabbalah and the occult, and there have also been attempts to give these more modern and universal flavors. The custom of eating fruits on Tu B'Shvat is also known (which is taken from the author's Lust for daysRabbi Zvin in his book The dates in Halacha Brings: "There were righteous people who wore Yom Tov clothes on Tu B'Shvat, because it is the New Year for trees, and man is the tree of the field."

The reference to Tu B'Shvat as a halachic date, beyond its technical meanings found in the Shas, begins to emerge, seemingly without any source, during the period of the Ge'onim and Rishonim. We find in Mordechai Tractate R.H. 5:13, as well as The GMII An improved version of the verse: "You fast on Tu Bishvat and you are rejected." This is the language. The Gahmi name:

In the reply of Ritzvah, he wrote that even on the 15th of Shvat, one should not fast, and those who decreed a fast on the second and the fourth, postpone this fast until the next Shabbat, lest they forget the fast of the Lord, and that since they fasted for four months, each one of them was a slave to the other, they should not fast. Therefore:

And so it is inOCG R.H. C. Kellett brought fromThe Association In the name of a guru, one should not fast on all four Rosh Hashanahs listed in the Mishnah of Reish R.H., and more.

Also inShulchan Arba'ah And so these laws are presented. For example, in the Book of the Law of the Three Kings, the 3rd chapter rules on the law of the aforementioned Rishonim:

A group that sought to declare a fast on Monday, Thursday, and Monday, and it violated the fast on Tu B'Shvat, the fast was postponed to the next Shabbat so that they would not declare a fast on Tu B'Shvat, which is the New Year of the Trees; he thought: If they have begun to fast, they do not stop, as on Rosh Hashanah and Chol HaMoed (B"Y).

And in the sixth chapter of the sixth chapter, the author ruled:

They practiced not to fall on their faces on Tu B'Av, nor on Tu B'Shvat, nor on Barach, nor on the offering before it, nor on Chanukah, and even on the offering before it (and so is the practice). On Purim, they do not fall on their faces, on Lag Ba'Omer they do not fall, in general they do not fall, and so on the eve of the Lord's Supper, even in the morning, customs).

If so, he rules that noses do not fall on Tu B'Shvat.

He increased theMGA In the 1733 SCA he wrote:

Fasting in Nissan – This is nothing but a custom (B"H) and is valid from Lag BaOmer and Marah Sivan until Shavuot and on the days between Yom Kippur and Sukkot, but on Asr on the Feast of Tabernacles and Tu B'Av and Tu B'Shvat, one does not fast, as it is mentioned in the Book of the Law of the Lord:

He rules that a son-in-law does not fast on Tu B'Shvat, in contrast to the month of Nissan, because Tu B'Shvat is a day of fasting according to the Gemara. For the reason of theMGA It appears that he understood that already in the Gemara, Tu Bishvat has the meaning of a festival.

As we have seen, the sages linked the observance of the festival to Tu Bishvat, as it is one of the four heads of the year. In other words, the very fact that Tu Bishvat is the Rosh Hashana of Ilan, seemingly a mere technical fact, is the source and root of its being a festival. Below we will attempt to explain this dependence.

on. On the first day of the month of Tishrei, we observe the actual Yot, and the Rishonim explained this (see Ramban in Deresht R.H., 5).Education Mitzvah Shia and more) which is because it is a Day of Judgment. The very fact of standing before the Creator of the world is the reason for the joy of the Yom Tov that we are commanded to have. If so, it turns out that the customs of the Rosh Hashanah holiday for the tree of life are also rooted in the fact that it is a Day of Judgment.

Although it appears from the Mishnah that Tu B'Shvat is indeed the New Year of the Tree, it has no significance at all as a Day of Judgment. We have seen that this date is intended to establish a defining line for the mitzvot that depend on the land, and there is no law there. Furthermore, the Mishnah in the Book of Rebbe, 1:12 states:

In four chapters, the world is judged on Passover over the grain, in the assembly over the fruits of the tree, on Rosh Hashanah, all the inhabitants of the world pass before Him like the sons of Meron, as it is said (Psalms 33): He who forms their hearts together, who understands all their works, and on the feast they are judged over the waters:

The Mishnah states that in the assembly the fruits of the tree are discussed, therefore the Day of Judgment regarding the fruits of the tree is in the assembly and not on Tu B'Shvat.

Despite this, the Cairo Genizah found a poem (=piyut on the order of the Amidah prayer) for Tu B'Shvat that was composed in Israel during the period of the Ge'onim, in which requests for the fertility of trees appear, such as: "May the maple drip down for the multitude, may the walnut flourish for the refined." This poem continues in the same vein, except that in each stanza a different tree appears whose fertility is prayed for. The trees mentioned in it are: walnut, cypress, grapevine, plane tree, myrtle, rose, olive, carob, hazel, myrrh, nard and safflower, willow, castor oil, pomegranate, sycamore, and sage. Scholars assume that the ancient custom in the Land of Israel was to see Tu B'Shvat as a day of judgment for trees. Similarly, in the book 'Bnei Issachar' it is reported that he received from his rabbis to pray on Tu B'Shvat on a decorated etrog.

These things are not understandable in light of the Mishnah in Tractate Reh quoted above. On the surface, it seems that Atzeret is the time to pray for the fruitfulness of trees, and not Tu B'Shvat. Furthermore, an examination of the trees that appear in the above-mentioned piyut reveals that some of them are idle trees and not edible trees, and if so, it is not at all clear why we should pray for their fruitfulness.

Perhaps an explanation of the essence of Tu B'Shvat can be offered that will answer these questions: Tu B'Shvat is the New Year for trees, not for fruits. Therefore, it applies to idle trees as well as to edible trees. If so, In the assembly, the fruits of the tree are discussed, and on Tu Bishvat, the trees themselves are discussed.

This seems to be the reason why Tu B'Shvat falls when the sap rises in the trees, that is, before the fruits appear. The focus of the day is not on the fruits but on the power that makes them grow, that is, on the tree itself.[2] The function of Tu B'Shvat as the New Year for the tithe of the tree also has significance for the fruits that we do not eat, that is, for those set aside for the tithe.

Perhaps this is the meaning of referring to Tu B'Shvat as a day of judgment, and therefore also as a time. The four days of judgment mentioned in the Mishnah concern man. Tu B'Shvat is a day of judgment for the tree in itself and not in relation to man.

third. The assumption underlying the above misunderstanding was that the fruitfulness of trees necessarily means the growth of many and fine fruits. This is a way of looking at things in which man is at the center, and the trees are intended solely for him. Tu B'Shvat comes to teach us that we are not always at the center. Man is meant to repair creation, and in this sense he is its chief servant and not its head.

This is also a possible interpretation of the prohibition against eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, a prohibition that perhaps came to teach the first Adam, and us as well, that trees have meaning in themselves and not just as they grow fruit for us (in halachic language: they have a 'body', and not just a 'body for fruit'). The trees are not only intended for eating but have meaning in themselves, and therefore an angel stands above every herb and tells it to grow.[3]

This should also be discussed in relation to the prohibition of "do not destroy" trees that are useless. It seems that the halakha does not prohibit this, and this appears in the plain text of Deuteronomy 19:20:

For when you besiege a city for many days to fight against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its counsel by moving an axe against it, for of it you shall eat, and you shall not cut it down. For man is a tree of the field, and he shall come before you in the siege: only a tree which you know that it is not a tree for food, that you shall destroy and cut down, and you shall build a siege wall against the city which he has built with you. From war to its fall:

It seems that it is permissible to destroy useless trees, and the prohibition only applies to edible trees. Thus, Maimonides writes in 1 Kings 6:9:

Any idle tree may be pruned, even if it is not needed. Likewise, an edible tree that is old and does nothing but a small thing that is not worth bothering with is permitted to be pruned. No matter how much an olive tree produces, it may not be pruned. A quarter of a bushel of olives, and a palm tree that produces a bushel of dates, it may not be pruned.

In fact, the Gm in Bk 77b teaches that the law learned from there is only that barren trees take precedence over edible trees, but edible trees are also permitted to be destroyed for the purpose of a siege. On the other hand, it is certainly possible to understand that barren trees are also prohibited from being destroyed.

And indeed, the Ramban writes there as follows:

(19 – 20) For man is a tree of the field – Rabbi Avraham beautifully interpreted the meaning of the scripture, that from him you may eat, for man is a tree of the field, and you shall not cut him down to come before you in a siege, and the reason is that man is a tree of the field, just as a soul is a vessel (below 24:6). However, according to the opinion of our rabbis (B"K" Za 2:2), it is permissible to cut down a food tree to build a siege, and the Torah did not say only a tree that you know is not a food tree, etc. – but rather to precede and say that a barren tree precedes a food tree. If so, the interpretation of the parashah in their opinion is that the Torah warned not to corrupt the advice to cut them down through corruption that is not necessary for the siege, as is the custom of the camps. And the reason is that those who fight corrupt the city and the surrounding land, perhaps they will be able to do so, as is the case with what is said (42:39) and every good tree you shall cut down, and all the springs of water you shall stop up, and you shall not do so to corrupt it, because you trust in the name of the One who will give it into your hand. For man is a tree of the field, from which you will eat and live, and in which the city will come against you in a siege, meaning you will live from it after you conquer the city, and also when you are in the camp to come against you in a siege, you will do so. And you shall destroy and cut down its fruit – because you are permitted to cut it down to build the siege and also to destroy it until it is reduced, because sometimes the destruction will be necessary for the conquered, such as if the people of the city go out and cut down trees from it, or if they are hiding there in the forest to fight you, or if they are in the city as a shelter and a hiding place from a stumbling stone:

And so it is in Rashi, in the Book of Leviticus:

This is an edible tree – and the only tree that you will know if you do not know is near the siege, but it is taken and even it is edible.

And indeed, it is clear that idle trees were not deprived of everything for human use that was forbidden in the "Bel Tashachit". Today we know that idle trees are also important to us ecologically, and therefore there is no reason to extend the prohibition to idle trees. And what the Torah divided between idle trees and fruit trees is only to teach us that in them is what is beneficial for human use (for the era of eco-ethics).

And according to the suggestion of Rashi and the Ramban, even this is not true. The Torah only prioritized idle trees over fruit trees, but when there is no need to cut them down, even idle trees are forbidden to be cut down.

In contrast, D. T. Suzuki, a well-known Japanese Zen scholar who is concerned with transmitting Eastern culture to Westerners, demonstrates the difference between the Western world and the Eastern world through two poems that are seemingly similar and express a similar experience, yet they are fundamentally different:[4]

Look closely. I see the nasuna blooming. Near the barrier                     (Basho, Japanese poet, 17th century)

A flower between the cracks in the wall, I will tear you from your hiding place, – Here I hold you here, your roots and all of you, in my hands. Small flower – If only I could, son. The face of your being, your root and all of you, For then the secret of God and man will be revealed to me.                 (Tennyson, English poet, 19th century)

Basho passively observes the flower, and he does not aspire to do anything beyond that. Tennyson, on the other hand, is active. He wants to take control of it ('and subdue it'), understand it (science), and in effect observes it from the outside ('If only I could understand the face of your being'). Normally we live the Western attitude (which actually originated from the Jewish concept), but on Tu Bishvat we must also live the Eastern experience.

If we are honest, it seems that there is nothing more suitable for study on Tu B'Shvat than a chapter of poetry, in which all of creation, inanimate, growing, and living, sing poetry before God, the Holy One.[5] This is an 'Eastern' chapter in nature, in which every creature has an independent status before the Creator, and not just as a servant of man. In fact, in some ways (see Lakman), Tu B'Shevat is their Rosh Hashanah, not ours.

Let us study the chapter of poetry a little, and in fact we will see that we have already done so in our words so far.

D. The first mishna in the Shira chapter is:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Whoever recites this verse in this world will be justified and will say in the Hereafter.…

The one who says Parok Shira corrects what Adam the first spoiled in the Garden of Eden, and thus contributes something to our return to it. As stated, the meaning of Parok Shira is that even plants and animals have their own meaning in their relationship to God, and this corrects the mistake of Adam the first, who ate from the tree that he was forbidden to eat from (turning it from 'body' to 'body for fruit').

The second mishna begins similarly to the first, but its ending says it all:

And Rabbi Eliezer the Great said, “Whoever engages in this chapter of poetry every day, I testify of him that he is a son of the universe… And let him know that everything that God, blessed be He, created He did not create except for His glory, as it is said: “Everyone who is called by My name and for My glory I created; I formed him, I made him.”

Here we also see the explanation for why the speaker of this chapter is a son of the world. He comes to the understanding that all created and made things (in the worlds of creation, work, and doing) are for the glory of God, not necessarily for his own glory, as taught in the previous mishna. In general, morality in relation to humans is also based on the image of God in man and not on the dignity of man himself (see Yair Lorberbaum's book, Image of God).

In the third mishnah, it is stated that King David also tended to follow the error of Adam the First:

The sages said about David, King of Israel, when he finished the Book of Psalms, his mind wandered about him and he said before the Blessed One: Is there any creature that You have created in Your world that says service and praise more than I do? At that moment, a frog came to him and said to him: David, do not wander about, while I say service and praise more than you do… And not only that, but I am dealing with a great mitzvah, and this is the mitzvah that I am dealing with: There is a species on the shore of the sea that has no sustenance except from the water, and when it is hungry, it takes me and eats me. This is the mitzvah to fulfill what is said: If your enemy is hungry, feed him bread, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you are heaping coals on his head, and the Lord will repay you. Do not say, "He will repay you," but "We will repay you."

Here the frog is a means and not an end, but it is a means to another animal and not to man. Earlier we saw that man is not exceptional in being an end and not a means. Here we continue and see that he is not exceptional even when he is an end for which the animals are means. There are situations where animals also constitute an end for which other animals exist as means. This insight of the frog, itself served before God.

In the mishna in the middle of the chapter, our acquaintances with the trees appear:

Other trees say: Then the trees of the forest will sing for joy before the Lord, for He comes to judge the earth.

This is literally Tu B'Shvat. Here the rejoicing of the trees is mentioned when God comes to judge the land. This is the Yot that the trees celebrate on the day they stand in judgment before God (Rosh Hashanah for the trees themselves, see above, Suss. 3).

The Hebrew Bible, in its commentary on this passage, writes:

Just as the trees that bear fruit will bear fruit in the future, so the trees of the forest that are idle trees will bear fruit in the future, and we will rejoice over this before the Lord because he comes to judge the earth. May it all be equal, growing fruit.

In the last days, the trees of the field will bear fruit, and the distinction between trees of the field and trees of food will be erased forever. The circle that was broken by the sin of Adam the first will be closed again, and completed. It seems that then ('then' will be the end of our mouths), after we have learned the lesson, we will be allowed to eat from all of them.

The Shira chapter ends with the singing of the dogs, and immediately afterwards with the incident of Rabbi Yeshaya, a disciple of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, who was sad and suffering from fasting to understand how dogs, about whom it is written that they are 'strong of spirit, they do not know satiety,' and 'evil, they do not know understanding,' and more, were privileged to sing Shira before the Creator. An angel from heaven appears to him and says to him:

An oath before God, blessed be He, from the day He revealed it to Habakkuk the prophet, has not revealed His secret to any man in the world, but because you are a great man and deserve to be needed, I have been given permission to tell you why the dogs were granted the right to sing a song. Since it is written in them and to all the children of Israel, a dog shall not lick its tongue against man or woman, so that you may know that the Lord will make a distinction between Egypt and Israel, therefore they were granted the right to sing a song. And not only that they were granted the right to use their commandments as leather to write on, the Torah, prophets, scriptures, and mezuzot. And regarding the question you asked, turn back to yourself, as it is written: "He who guards his mouth and his tongue guards himself from the troubles of his soul."

The Bible explains that the dogs were allowed to sing poetry because they served Israel, and were allowed to be used to process animal skins for tefillin and books because they did not bite their tongues even at the animals of Israel.[6] And there is some wonder, what is the great secret hidden here in the angel's words? And in particular, it is difficult to know why he says that he did not answer the question, since the entire paragraph is an answer to this question?

It seems that here the circle is closed. The dogs were granted an independent status, to sing before God, not because they served humans correctly. This was only the answer that Rabbi Isaiah received according to his anthropocentric system. The secret that God does not reveal is that the dogs are granted the right to sing to God regardless of their use of humans. They have an independent status before God. Although Rabbi Isaiah does not accept this answer, since according to his anthropocentric system it is not at all understandable. According to his system, the answer is that the dogs were granted this because they served humans' animals correctly, and the humans themselves.[7] Even with this method, we still see that the means become the end, and vice versa. As we saw above, sometimes the animal serves man, but sometimes it serves another animal. And sometimes precisely because of these two, it receives an independent status and importance, as an end and not as a servant. Perhaps the entire investigation into who is an end and who is a means is based on an incorrect assumption. We all stand before God as one whole, and the purpose of this whole, the entire world, is to sing poetry.

the. Why is it wrong to reveal the secret that dogs and the rest of creation have an independent status before God? After all, even here we have discovered this secret. And it seems that this is what the Rabbi writes in 'The Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace', that if we live with the awareness that all of creation has an independent status before God, and that all of it has its own value, then we may reach a state where we compare its value to the value of humans. This is an exaggeration that may lead to serious moral errors, and therefore it is not appropriate to reveal this secret. Only in the future will we be able to live like this, without fear of these errors.

Although already now, if we can maintain proportionality, that is, see value in living and nonliving things, and yet not compare it to the value of humans, then it is more correct to live this way. And also in the future, when we live in a way where all of these things have their own value, their value is still not the same as the value of humans, there is no fear of reaching the above-mentioned errors as a result.

This is the story of Rabbi Aryeh Levin, who came to Israel, accompanied the Rabbi on a trip, and when he was picking a leaf, the Rabbi was shocked that he was picking it unnecessarily. If one wants to use it, then it is certainly permissible to do so at the expense of living, growing, and inanimate things, but not just like that without benefit. We also saw the same thing regarding the destruction of idle trees, which is permitted for human use but not just like that. The same is true regarding edible trees, which must be preceded by idle trees, but they too are permissible to destroy if it is necessary to do so for our needs.

And so we found in the Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah (Vilna) Parsha 7:

[13] See the work of God, for who can correct what He has corrupted? When God created the first Adam, He took him and placed him among all the trees of the Garden of Eden. And He said to him, "See how beautiful and excellent are my works, and everything that I have created for you, I created them. Be careful not to spoil and destroy my world, for if you spoil, there is no one to correct it after you."

Ostensibly, the Midrash states that the entire world was created for man. But further study reveals that what is written here is that he has permission to use the entire world, but that this is not the entire purpose of creation. On the contrary, after he has been given permission to use it, God warns him not to corrupt the world, since it is not intended only for his use, and has its own purposes. Once again we see the hierarchy, in which things do have their own value, but it is certainly permissible to use them for our needs.

Therefore, it is clear that one should not conclude from these things an equal relationship between man and other creatures, as some mistaken and misleading people do.[8] What is definitely worth learning from this is a respectful attitude towards every created being.

[1] The remarks are based in part on a talk given at a yeshiva in Rabbi Shevat four years ago.

[2] Daniel Shalit in his book 'Interpersonal Conversations' (p. 119), cites on behalf of Noga Harauveni in his book 'Nature and Landscape in the Heritage of Israel' that in the fifth week of the month of Shevat, fruit trees are not included, but rather the bare trees. And in our opinion, this is very true.

[3] And one can get caught up in the dispute between Maimonides and Rabbi Gabbay (author of 'Avodat Hakodesh'), whether each detail in creation has an independent role, or whether they were all intended for man. See, for example, the beginning of the book of rules by the author of 'Leshem', who discusses this.

[4] I am preparing to take everyone out of the 'Songs from the Desert' section. Everyone should prepare to leave, not talk in the middle of the reading, etc. With all those who are shocked, my apologies.

[5] It is generally accepted that "they wrote poetry for you," with regard to the written Torah. On Tu Bishvat, even the oral Torah, the halacha, says poetry.

[6] The use for processing hides is not one of the dogs' rights, but the reward they received for their rights.

[7] In the Book of Rules, in the passage mentioned above, the author of Leshem reconciles the views of Maimonides and Rabbi Gabbay and explains that the self-goal of all creatures is to serve man. This is their self-goal, and apparently in this very fact they are saying the Their poetry Before God, the Holy One. This is truly a great secret, as the angel says to Rabbi Isaiah, and they are our words, and I will conclude with this.

[8] This refers to Zen sages, and to the extremists among those who advocate what is called 'eco-ethics', that is, ecology for moral reasons. This approach is developing in the West as a reaction to the opposite approach (expressed in the aforementioned poem by Tennyson), but we must understand that the right path is the middle path, certainly now, when the world has not yet come to its senses. The same applies to vegetarianism and veganism, and so on.