Etrog – a late sage invention?

In the article, he writes that the lemon is a hybrid with another variety of citrus tree. It is possible that there were several similar types and the Gemara ultimately ruled that only the etrog is kosher and not all the rest, or that it is just questionable dating, which is more likely.

Note – As far as I remember, in recent years articles have been published indicating that the etrog arrived in the region many hundreds of years earlier than previously assumed (based on findings of etrog seeds).
If this is true, then there is no obligation to say that the identity of the ‘fruits of the desert tree’ is something handed down to the sages and they determined that it was etrog and not other fruits, but one can also follow the method of Maimonidesࢭwho believed that this identity was a law passed down to Moses from Sinai.

Roni
I assume you mean the discovery of etrog pollen in the palace in Ramat Rachel. But the dating there is the beginning of the Persian period according to what is said in Ariel Meir's link.

Yishai, maybe. I don't remember where I read it.
I think that Zohar Amar in his work on the etrogs of the Land of Israel points to evidence of the presence of etrogs in the lands adjacent to the Land of Israel in much earlier periods.

I don't have the time, but in Beit Mikra it was announced that the find from Ramat Rachel dates back to the end of the First Temple period, when the pool was built there during the reign of the kings of Judah. In the article below, I'll look for it soon, there are many quotes from Greek writers who knew the etrog well and even praised it regardless of Alexander's conquests. In any case, if you want to be more serious, you can shake a lulav with a thorn apple, which is the fruit of a tree called “dar” in Sanskrit.

Age
Please do not mix. The palace at Ramat Rachel was built in the late First Temple. The etrog pollen was found in plaster that was dated by OSL to the early Persian period.

Even if the study Roni mentioned does not refute the hypothesis about the time the etrogs arrived here - the fact that it theoretically could refute it shows that the hypothesis is not too strong.

Yishai
I remembered that the etrog find is also ancient, I checked again and was wrong. She writes that at the latest it is from the Persian period. Although the article cites evidence for etrogs in Egypt in the 15th century BC and in Cyprus in the 12th century. These are not overwhelming evidences, but the impression from the state of research is that it is not at all unfounded that this fruit - the ancient ancestor of citrus fruits - was known in our region and was offered as an offering on the table of kings and gods. Its importance and being the ancestor of all oranges and lemons and citrus fruits, strengthens the explanation that the identification of Chazal in Dokka as the appropriate successor to fulfill this mitzvah - is a correct identification, certainly from the interpretive point of view of the compilation of the mitzvah, and perhaps even from the aspect of the authentic and precise identification of the initial intention of the Torah

Gil
I only referred to the finding of the etrog in Israel. It is impossible to conclude from its absence, certainly not when very little is known.
But precisely if the fruit was on the table of kings and gods, it is unlikely that the Torah commanded that it be taken, a rare fruit that only kings have, every year.

Yishai
God forbid that the Torah intended that each individual should have four kinds. This is ecological extinction and is not at all realistic to transport to all corners of the earth. The obligation was only in the Temple, and there, apparently, there were four kinds of storks for the worshipers, or the leaders of the congregation/priests were the people's emissaries for the sacred waving ceremonies. It seems simple to me, similar to blowing a shofar, which not everyone blew their shofar (as I believe was also the case in European communities. I don't remember the source, perhaps the miracle is that an advisor from Dorshee Reshumot, who I will type in the acronym Do not let pride come upon me, recommends this to those who claim to take an etrog for themselves as if they were people of high rank. It was not common for everyone to have an etrog and two kinds. I will look for the source) and in any case, the possibility of the rare etrog properly fulfilling the mitzvah with it returns.

It does say “before the Lord” but I find it hard to see how one can depend on this that the commandment is only in the Temple without any mention of it. In my understanding, the verse tells everyone to take the things mentioned and rejoice in them.
As for blowing the shofar, it is not really mentioned in the Torah, so everything is subject to speculation. It is certainly possible to suggest that it was done like the blowing of trumpets over the sacrifices. But in the Mishnah, one can see that each one would blow his shofar even when everyone was together, meaning it is not like today but rather in the opposite direction. Of course, the Mishnah believes that each one takes four kinds (and so did Bar Kochba).

In the 24th of Tishrei, 9th of the month

The Torah states, “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a palm tree, a palm branch, and a bough of a fig tree, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days.” And the Sages interpreted that only before the Lord, in the Temple, should it be taken for seven days, but in every place should it be taken only on the first day (and only Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai established that it should be taken for seven days in every place that is reminiscent of the Temple).

With blessings, Shatz Levinger

The fact that this is a ritual taking for a short time, only during the recitation of Hallel, and only one day a year or a week a year, “takes the sting out” of the archaeological discussion. It is very possible that the etrog was imported from outside the country from places where the conditions were suitable for its cultivation.

Why would a farmer in Palestine need to invest in maintaining an orchard that requires extensive care and preservation for once a year? Just as they brought spices, nechat and zeri and lot, tekhelet argaman, shesh and silk from afar; so they could import from afar the fruits of the citrine tree for the holiday of Sukkot,

The need to grow etrogs in the country only began in the 19th century, when Gentile growers began to assemble the etrogs, and therefore it was only possible to rely on supervision from the beginning of the cultivation. But before that, it was much more economically profitable to import the etrog from afar, and it is clear that ritual use once a year should not leave significant archaeological remains.

Prof. Yehuda Felix in his article in Beit Mikra Show that there are many species that clearly existed in the land and did not leave material traces of their existence, so that the failure to find remains does not prove that it did not exist.

It is possible that the ’apple’ mentioned in the Bible is not the apple of our day but the etrog, and as the Tosafot (Shabbat Paha, 1:14) brought in the name of Rabbeinu Tam, and brought assistance from the translation to the verse in the Shik of Songs ‘And your breath is like apples’ which he translated ‘Karicha Da'Etrungia’. The Greeks and Romans also called the etrog ‘Persian apple’ or ‘Medi apple’

Shatzel
1. The discussion here is not about the words of Chazal, in case you didn't notice. The words of Chazal are well-known.
2. Importation was only for the rich in ancient times. It turns out that it was much, much more expensive than local cultivation because of its great expenses. Local cultivation would not have been used for a ‘once a year’ ceremony, but would have been used for eating just like growing other fruit trees. In addition, if the etrog was a regular import product, it turns out that there were also those who grew it in a luxurious garden, as happened in Ramat Rachel.
3. The blue, purple, and six were not brought from afar (this is really not important to the discussion, but it affects the assessment of your entire response).
4. It has already been agreed here that evidence from absence should not be brought.
5. You are talking about the need for Jews to grow etrogs in Israel. After all, your own words indicate that until then etrogs were grown in Israel by Arabs, and were not brought from afar, as you are actually trying to claim. Do you have evidence of the importation of etrogs for the mitzvah to the Land of Israel at some time, or are your words just an invention?
6. Felix did not show this for many species but for a few species, and in fact only for one species, while for the other two he writes that there are few findings.
7. It is also possible that the apple mentioned in the Bible is papaya (and perhaps that is how it was translated to Ge'ez). The question is of course whether there is evidence that would make us think so. Evidence to the contrary is not lacking. The etrog is not sweet to anyone's taste and does not grow among the trees of the forest. The Sher says that the apple bears fruit in the month of Sivan (I do not know when the papaya does). So it is nice that the Sher came up with an idea, but it is better to rely on someone who is more knowledgeable in the boutiques of the Land of Israel, Moshe Raanan for example – https://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=20291

On the 24th of Tishrei, 9th

Hi, my dear,

May your strength be with you for the article by Rabbi Moshe Raanan on the identification of the apple, which you brought to my attention.

Without going into a detailed discussion of each example I gave (regarding the apple, you were right that it did indeed grow in Israel), international trade was widespread during the biblical period over very great distances, and it is certainly possible that a fruit that is not one of the fruits for which the Land of Israel was praised could be imported from outside, from one of the countries where it was found and cheap, because the conditions of the country made its cultivation economically viable. And it certainly did not need to be grown in the country for a once-a-year need.

If I were to look for the place where the etrog grew in biblical times, I would look for it in the direction of the southern Arabian Peninsula. Trade relations between Israel and southern Arabia existed since the days of the First Temple (as explained at the beginning of Professor Yosef Yuval Tovi's book, The Jews in Yemen, from the Beginning of Islam to the Present Day).

The question that needs to be asked is not when the etrog arrived in the Mediterranean countries, but when the etrog arrived in Yemen, and here we need to check the research literature that focuses on the botanical history of this region. I do not have the tools to search in this direction, I raise the question in the hope that someone will be able to clarify it.

With best wishes, Sh. Levinger

Our Rabbi Tam (following the translation of the Song of Songs) stated that the apple mentioned in the Bible is the etrog, which was criticized by R’ Moshe Raanan (in an article linking to him Yishai), since the apple is a symbol of sweetness, of which it is said: ‘its fruit is sweet to the palate, and isn’t the etrog sweet?

To this one must respond that the Moroccan etrog is indeed sweet (see the Wikipedia entry ‘Moroccan etrog’) and of which it would be correct to say: ‘its fruit is sweet to the palate’.

With greetings, Sh”z Levinger

You continue to claim things that I have already addressed and do not address any of my claims. Your words are like the worst of preachers, facts mixed with fiction and inaccuracies with a predetermined goal. And in the end, it is enough to say that it is possible that the etrog grew in Israel even though it is not found. As an educational method, what you are doing is very bad.

On the 24th of Tishrei, 9th

Lishi – Hello,

It is of course possible that the etrog was in the Bible period in Israel, even though it left few traces, and as I mentioned in the name of Prof.’ Yehuda Felix, and it is equally possible that since the need for it was for only one week a year – it was imported from another country where its cultivation was economically profitable. I suggested a direction for investigation – the presence of the etrog in the Bible period in southern Arabia – while clarifying that this is a hypothesis that requires clarification and substantiation.

When we do not lock ourselves into one line of thought, but also try in different directions and try to process every bit of information – the chance of arriving ‘at the end of the day’ at something well-founded increases.

Greetings, Shatz Levinger

And some comments:

A. Regarding the Moroccan etrog, note the fact that it has no seeds. If this was the nature of the fruit of the Egyptian citrus tree in biblical times, then it is clear that the chance of finding etrog seeds is extremely slim.

B. It is possible that even if etrogs were grown in Israel, they preferred to import them from another place where the finest and most beautiful etrogs were. Such a situation where they grow in Israel but are not beautiful existed in the 19th century, when the etrogs of Corfu and Calabria were much more beautiful than the etrogs of Egypt. Of course, to claim that this was also the case in ancient times requires examination and clarification.

I have no problem with ideas, even wild and even absurd ones, but only when they are presented as ideas and not as work. I have a problem with deceptions - presenting imports in ancient times as similar to imports today, presenting as if Felix showed many species, classifying goods that existed in the Land of Israel as imports from distant lands, claiming (and strictly speaking, a claim, not a suggestion) that hogs have only been grown in the Land of Israel since the mid-19th century. All of these changes were made in a very specific direction as a means of changing the situation for the sake of peace, and this is not the way to discuss the truth of things.

In the 20th century, the 5779th

Lishi – Hello,

Chen Chen for your trouble in checking after me carefully. You noted well that Prof. Felix showed only three species that certainly existed in the Land of Israel but of which only few remains remain. Indeed, it would have been appropriate to write ‘showed in several species’ instead of ‘showed in many species’. As for the substance of the matter, there is no issue, since three examples are enough to undermine the method of ‘we did not see it, it did not exist’, but accuracy in details is important, both in itself and to save yourself from the nitpicking of the point-setters..

As a token of gratitude, I will return the favor for the favor, and I will correct your mistake in understanding my words. I did not say that they only began growing etrogs in the 1st century. I said that Jews in Israel only began growing etrogs in the 19th century because there was a serious concern that Gentiles in Corfu and Calabria were making their own etrogs. For local consumption, meticulous Jews could make do with etrogs grown by Arab villagers, even though they were less beautiful, but in order to provide fancy etrogs for the Diaspora, etrog orchards were planted in the country, cultivated and tended by Jews.

And regarding the extensive international trade in biblical times, see the wonderful description in chapter 27 of Ezekiel about the trade of Tyre, where each country exported the produce in which it excelled. Thus, for example, although flax (= flax) was also grown in Egypt, the merchants of Tyre needed flax for embroidery from Egypt, and although they were snail hunters in the Salamah of Tyre, the people of Tyre needed blue and purple from the islands of Elisha, which were distinguished by their quality.

In this way, I proposed the hypothesis that etrogs were also imported during the biblical period from places where they were found cheaper or of better quality, and I proposed to examine the direction of southern Arabia, which would explain the lack or at least the paucity of remains of etrog cultivation in the country during the biblical period.

However, a new direction occurred to me, after I saw that Moroccan etrogs (which, according to tradition, originated in Egypt) do not have seeds - it should be said that the fruit of the citrus tree that grew in Israel during biblical times was also seedless, and this makes it clear why no remains of etrog seeds have been found from ancient times.

Another aspect in which the etrogs of the days of the Sages resembled Moroccan etrogs is that they were sweet, which is why the translator of the Song of Songs believed that they were "like apples" ‘As etrogs’ are sweet and worthy of being eaten as they are, is also implied by the statement: ‘They immediately drop their lulavs from the hands of babies and eat their etrogs’..

On the other hand, in terms of form, it seems to me that the etrogs in the heavenly paintings from the Second Temple period onwards look more similar to the other varieties, and they do not have a cylinder-like section like the Moroccan etrogs. Perhaps each variety took on some of the characteristics of the ’prototype’, and these things require much further clarification, ‘let the wise man be wiser’.

With best wishes, Sh”z Levinger

In paragraph 2, line 2:
… I didn't say that etrogs began to be grown in Israel only in the 19th century, …

Here is what you wrote: “The need to grow etrogs in Israel only began in the 19th century, when the gentile growers began assembling the etrogs, and therefore it was only possible to rely on supervision from the beginning of the growing. But before that, it was much more economically viable to import the etrog from afar.” You clearly said that at first there was importation, and then the gentile growers (from the context it seems that we are talking about importation) began assembling and only then did the need for growing etrogs begin. This is a misrepresentation. If you were wrong in all directions, it would be possible to understand that this was pure negligence, but for some reason all the mistakes came to support the tradition.

I should have added two words, and written ‘the need for growing etrogs by Jews in the land…’. The things are clear from the context, after all, I explain the lack of point in investing in growing etrogs by saying that there is no point in investing in an entire orchard just for the purpose of taking it for a mitzvah once a year, and it is clear that my reference was to Jews in any case, the things were clarified in my previous response.

Best regards, Sh”z Levinger

Maybe it would be worth hiring you as a permanent linguistic editor for my responses 🙂

This is not a linguistic edit. Maybe you should try to understand what you wrote. Somehow every time you try to present each of the several distortions you wrote as accidental. It's not really convincing.

Yishai, what happened to you? Did you lose your temper from the discussion with Shtzel? You don't have to tease him about all his decent responses. For some reason, he bothers and responds to you over and over again as if there was dirt under your feet, and you keep trampling on him like it's not relevant. What are you trying to achieve? As it is, this issue of the etrog is marginal and insignificant in relation to the real difficulties of the tosh'a and tosh'a, and no one is going to take a chance if there were no etrogs at all during the First Temple period. Who will listen, why is this so relevant? Is anyone alarmed if tefillin during the First Temple period were different, if at all? And about the existence of mikvahs, etc.? The main thing is the tradition of the Torah, which has been preserved very well since the days of Moses, with acceptable adaptations and changes. One of these important traditions is that one does not take any medicine that pierces the hands because “the paths are paths of pleasantness and all its paths are peace” and “the way is pleasant.”

Here is a copy of the original Mar of Lepshitz and Langut on the Etrog. From there, you can see that it could also have come from Cyprus (and the Kerethites and Pelethites in David's army came from this region):

The French archaeologist Loret (1891) claimed that etrogs can be seen in the wall paintings in the Hall of Plants at Keren in Egypt, dating from the time of Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty (15th century BCE). However, it is difficult to conclusively establish from the wall paintings that these are the etrog fruit, and it is also difficult to know exactly what reality the painting reflects. Similar observations regarding the inability to definitively link the wall paintings to the etrog fruit have been made by other researchers. 39
At Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus, in a layer dating to the 12th century BCE,
several seeds resembling The seeds are very similar to the Citrus genus, but they could not be identified to the species level. Jelmaquist relied on Laura's claims and suggested that they were etrog seeds,
because this was the first citrus species grown in Egypt. 40 However, since the findings were not directly dated using carbon-14 tests, their dating is uncertain, 41 and the few seeds found were in an unsealed context, so there is also the possibility of a later infiltration. In addition, studies from recent years 42 have also indicated the difficulty of identifying citrus seeds using the traditional methods that have been used to date, and that more advanced identification methods must be used for identification. 43 The difficulty in identification stems from the great similarity of citrus seeds to seeds that do not belong to the Citrus genus, 44 for example plants belonging to the Poaceae subfamily.

Gil
I can't stand preaching. Those who deliberately and systematically distort irritate me. I showed several points where Shchel did it. I do think it's not such a story, but Shchel does everything to twist things in the style of Amnon Yitzhak (only with more knowledge, I'm not trying to insult Shchel, who is an idiot like him, lol). It has nothing to do with the importance of the discussion - whether you distort in a discussion about the existence of God or in a discussion about an esoteric matter. When you read in an article about 3 cases of a lack of findings, and write about many cases of a lack of findings, this is demagogy of the worst kind.

On the 25th of Tishrei 9th

For Gil, greetings,

Thank you very much for the material you referred to. It is also worth reading Prof. Zohar Amar's book, Biblical Plants: A Reconsideration in Light of the Sources and Scientific Research, Jerusalem 2012, pp. 106-108 (the book can be viewed on the Kotor website).

In one of the articles by those who deny the existence of the etrog in Israel before the Persian period (The Etrog Tradition and the Giving of the Torah), he suggested that the Torah could be taken from any fine fruit, and the Sages narrowed down the choice and demanded that the mitzvah be performed specifically with the etrog.

It is difficult for me to understand the logic of such a regulation. After all, before the etrog appeared (according to them), they probably took the large and elegant fruit that was praised by God, the pomegranate. Why then would the sages decide to abandon the pomegranate, which is found everywhere and is the most exquisite in the Torah, and replace it with new ones that have recently come? And how was the revolutionary change accepted without disagreement and aroused by all the sages and all the people? *)

It seems clear that the consensus that the fruit of the date tree is the etrog and not the pomegranate, etc., is based on a tradition that dates back to Moses, the giver of the Torah.

***

The question is why the Torah commanded the taking of the etrog, which is not one of the species with which the Land of Israel was praised. The idea occurred to me that the golden etrog resembles the sun in its appearance. While all nations saw the sun as the ‘head of the pantheon’ – the Torah reduced the sun to be one of the creatures that praise the one God.

Thus in the Creation, the sun appears only after the creation of the plant world, and thus in our joy before the ’ the etrog appears, symbolizing the sun in its appearance, alongside representatives of the trees of the field ‘together they will bear glory’.

Greetings, Sh”z Levinger

*)
However, we have seemingly found a source where the pomegranate truly takes the place of the etrog, namely the poem ‘Shlomit Bone Sukkah’, in which it is said: ‘She will not forget to put, lulav and myrtle, a branch of green willow, a pomegranate in its leaf, and all the fruits of autumn with the scent of distant orchards’ – and etrog Lita!

If we assume that ’Shlomit’ in the poem is Shlomit, daughter of Zerubbabel, then there is evidence from this that at the beginning of the Persian period the fruit of the citrus tree was indeed identified with the pomegranate 🙂

And we have already discussed the poem ‘Shlomit Bone Sukkah’ and its historical context, in the inerrant journal ‘Midbar Shekar’, edited by Dr. Hagai Misgav.

Both Sh”el and Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak belong to the Halevi tribe. The ‘Yitzhak-Halevi’ family is a well-known rabbinical family in Yemen. Maybe you will write a dissertation about us both 🙂

With best wishes, Sh”el Levinger

The topic you are writing a dissertation on is more important. You better stick to it!

Best regards, Shimshon Yitzhak Halevi

In the book of Esau, the tree is beautiful to teach. On further reflection, it seems to me that there was no need in the biblical period for etrogs outside the land. Since the need for the mitzvah was sufficient in an etrog per person for a year (and there is also the possibility that one etrog could be sufficient for several people by gift with a return), a few trees in each village were enough to provide all the needs of the mitzvah of the village, while most of the cultivated land was dedicated to crops from which the land was blessed, from which there was also a harvest abroad, as described by Ezekiel in his prophecy about Tyre: “Judah and the land of Israel have supplied you with wheat of the firstfruits and with fine flour, and honey and oil and myrrh have I given you from before you.” (27, 17).. And since the proportion of etrog trees was very small among all crops, it is understood that no significant archaeological remains will be left,

With Shabbat Shalom greetings, Sh”t Levinger

The expert in such matters is of course Prof. Zohar Amar of Bar Ilan. Ask him by email.
From a short search I found this: “There is a dispute among researchers regarding the identification of the etrog with the “fruit of the citrus tree”, as to the date of its introduction to the Land of Israel. The origin of the cultivated tree is from India. In Israel it grows only through irrigation and dedicated agricultural cultivation. Prof. Yehuda Felix, an expert in botany and zoology of the Biblical and Talmudic periods, and others believe that the etrog was known in Israel during the Biblical period. On the other hand, Shmuel Tolkovsky, a citrus researcher, believes that the etrog only arrived in Israel during the Persian period, perhaps following the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Zohar Amar summarizes his position on the subject: “The lack of sources (regarding the nature of the citrus fruit) cannot serve as evidence for the existence or absence of the etrog”. This is an ancient identification tradition, and as long as there is no other reason to reject it.”