Tu BiShvat and Perek Shirah (Column 115)

In honor of Tu BiShvat, I bring here an article of which a version already appears on the site. This also connects to the series we have just completed on song.

A. Tu BiShvat is one of the four new years listed in the Mishnah at the beginning of tractate Rosh HaShanah:

There are four New Years: on the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings and for festivals; on the first of Elul is the New Year for the tithe of cattle; Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say, on the first of Tishrei. On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for years, for Sabbatical years, for Jubilee years, for planting, and for vegetables. On the first of Shevat is the New Year for the tree, according to the words of Beit Shammai; Beit Hillel say, on the fifteenth of that month.

At first glance, this is a day of merely technical significance, relevant only to the commandments dependent on the Land. And this is what Maimonides writes there:

And for vegetables and for the tree. The benefit of this, according to the principles already explained in Seder Zeraim, is that one may not tithe from the new for the old, and also that the types of tithes change in certain years between second tithe and tithe for the poor, as we explained there.

The Mishnah establishes that Tu BiShvat is the beginning of the year with respect to the tithes of trees. And so too Maimonides rules in Terumot 5:11:

One may not separate tithes from produce of this year for produce of the previous year, nor from produce of the previous year for produce of this year; and if one did separate them, it is not a valid tithe, as it says, “year by year.” If one gathered vegetables on the eve of Rosh Hashanah before sunset, and then gathered more after sunset, one may not separate tithes from one for the other, because one is new and the other old. Likewise, if one gathered an etrog on the eve of the Fifteenth of Shevat before sunset, and then gathered another etrog after sunset, one may not separate tithes from one for the other, because the first of Tishrei is the New Year for the tithes of grain, legumes, and vegetables, and the Fifteenth of Shevat is the New Year for the tithes of the tree.

Despite the somewhat technical impression that emerges from the Mishnah and the Talmud, today we also observe certain quasi-festive practices on Tu BiShvat. Since the modern return to Zion, attempts have been made to give it a modern, perhaps universal, coloring, as a holiday of tree-planting and the like. Even earlier, there were liturgies for Tu BiShvat whose source lay in the world of Kabbalah and esotericism, and these too have been the object of attempts to grant them more modern and universal shades. Also well known is the custom of eating Tu BiShvat fruits (cited in the book Chemdat Yamim). Rabbi Zevin, in his book HaMo'adim BeHalakhah, cites: "There were righteous people who wore festival garments on Tu BiShvat, because it is the New Year for the trees, and For man is a tree of the field. (man is the tree of the field)."

The treatment of Tu BiShvat as a festival from the standpoint of Jewish law, beyond its technical meanings found in the Talmud, begins to emerge in the period of the Geonim and the medieval authorities (Rishonim), apparently without any explicit source. We find in Mordechai on tractate Rosh HaShanah, ch. 1, sec. 701, and likewise in Hagahot Maimoniyot, ch. 1 of Hilkhot Shofar, that a fast on Tu BiShvat is deferred. This is the wording of the Hagahot Maimoniyot there:

In the responsum of Ritzba it is written that even on the Fifteenth of Shevat one should not fast; and if a community decreed a fast on Monday and Thursday, they postpone this fast until the following week, for we do not find fasting on a New Year. Furthermore, since the Mishnah lists the four New Years together, they are also comparable in this matter, that all of them are alike in that one should not fast on them. End quote.

And so too, in Otzar HaGeonim on Rosh HaShanah sec. 139, he cites from the Aguddah in the name of a Gaon that one should not fast on all four new years listed in the Mishnah at the beginning of Rosh HaShanah, and more.

These laws are also brought in the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries. For example, in Orach Chaim 572:3 it rules in accordance with the aforementioned medieval authorities:

If a community wished to decree a fast on Monday, Thursday, and Monday, and the fast coincided with the Fifteenth of Shevat, the fast is postponed to the following week, so that they should not decree a fast on the Fifteenth of Shevat, which is the New Year for the trees. Gloss: however, if they already began fasting, they do not interrupt, just as on Rosh Chodesh and on Chol HaMoed (Beit Yosef).

And in sec. 131:6 the Mechaber rules:

The custom is not to fall on one’s face on the Fifteenth of Av, nor on the Fifteenth of Shevat, nor on Rosh Chodesh, nor at the afternoon service before it, nor on Hanukkah; and some say also not at the afternoon service before it, and so is the practice. On Purim one does not fall on one’s face; on Lag BaOmer one does not fall; on the eve of Yom Kippur one does not fall; and likewise on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, even at Shacharit—these are customs.

Thus, it rules that one omits the penitential supplication on Tu BiShvat.

The Magen Avraham went even further, in sec. 573 subsec. 1, where it wrote:

In Nisan one may fast, since it is only a custom (Ba"ch), and it seems to me that the same applies to Lag BaOmer, and from Rosh Chodesh Sivan until Shavuot, and in the days between Yom Kippur and Sukkot. But on Isru Chag, and on the Fifteenth of Av, and on the Fifteenth of Shevat, one should not fast, since they are mentioned in the Talmud; see what I wrote in section 429.

It rules that a bridegroom does not fast on Tu BiShvat, unlike in the month of Nisan, because Tu BiShvat is grounded in Talmudic law. From the reasoning of the Magen Avraham, it emerges that he understood Tu BiShvat to have the significance of a festival already in the Talmud.

As we have seen, the Geonim tied the festive customs of Tu BiShvat to the fact that it is one of the four new years. That is, the very fact that Tu BiShvat is the New Year for the tree—apparently only a technical datum—is what constitutes the source and root of its being a festival. Below we shall try to explain this dependence.

B. On Rosh HaShanah, the first of Tishrei, we observe a full-fledged festival, and the medieval authorities explained this (see Nachmanides in his sermon for Rosh HaShanah, Sefer HaChinukh commandment 311, and others) as due to its being a day of judgment. Standing in judgment before the Creator of the world is itself the reason for the joy of the festival that we are commanded to celebrate. If so, it stands to reason that the festive practices of the New Year for the tree are likewise rooted in its being a day of judgment.

Yet from the Mishnah it appears that Tu BiShvat is indeed the New Year for the tree, but that it has no significance whatsoever as a day of judgment. We have seen that the point of this date is to establish a demarcating line for the commandments dependent on the Land, and there is no judgment there. Moreover, the Mishnah in Rosh HaShanah 1:2 states:

At four times the world is judged: on Passover for grain; on Shavuot for the fruit of the tree; on Rosh Hashanah all who enter the world pass before Him like sheep, as it is said: “He who fashions their hearts together, who understands all their deeds” (Psalms 33); and on Sukkot they are judged concerning water.

The Mishnah states that on Shavuot the fruits of the tree are judged. If so, the day of judgment for the fruits of the tree is Shavuot, not Tu BiShvat.

Despite this, in the Cairo Geniza a qerovah (= a liturgical poem arranged according to the order of the Amidah) for Tu BiShvat was found, composed in the Land of Israel in the Geonic period, and in it appear petitions for the flourishing of trees, as for example: "Adar, let streams of salvation flow forth for the multitudes; may the walnut blossom for my delights.". This piyyut continues in the same vein, except that in each stanza a different tree appears, for whose flourishing one prays. The trees mentioned in it are: walnut, cypress, vine, plane tree, myrtle, rose, olive, carob, almond, myrrh, spikenard and saffron, willow, castor plant, pomegranate, sycamore, and shirok. Scholars assume that the ancient custom in the Land of Israel was to see Tu BiShvat as a day of judgment for the tree. And in the book Bnei Yissaschar it is likewise reported that he received from his teachers to pray on Tu BiShvat for a choice etrog.

These matters are difficult to understand in light of the Mishnah in tractate Rosh HaShanah cited above. Apparently, Shavuot is precisely the time to pray for the flourishing of trees, not Tu BiShvat. Beyond that, an examination of the trees that appear in the above piyyut shows that some of them are non-fruit trees and not fruit trees, and if so it is not clear at all why we should pray for their flourishing.

Perhaps one can suggest an explanation of the essence of Tu BiShvat that will answer these difficulties: Tu BiShvat is the New Year for the tree, not for the fruits. Therefore it relates to non-fruit trees just as much as to fruit trees. If so, on Shavuot the fruits of the tree are judged, whereas on Tu BiShvat the trees themselves are judged.

This seems to be the reason that Tu BiShvat falls at the time when sap rises in the trees, that is, before the fruits emerge. The essence of the day concerns not the fruits but the power that causes them to grow—that is, the tree itself.[1] Even its function as the New Year for the tithe of the tree is in practice significant with respect to fruits that we will not eat, namely those we will separate as tithe.

Perhaps this is the meaning of the treatment of Tu BiShvat as a day of judgment, and therefore also as a festival. The four days of judgment mentioned in the Mishnah concern the human being. Tu BiShvat is a day of judgment for the tree in its own right, and not in relation to man.

C. The assumption underlying the misunderstanding above was that the flourishing of trees necessarily means producing many fine fruits. This is a perspective in which the human being stands at the center, and the trees are intended solely for him. Tu BiShvat comes to teach us that we are not always at the center. The human being is meant to repair creation, and in that sense he is its chief servant, not its head.

This is also a possible interpretation of the prohibition against eating from the Tree of Knowledge, a prohibition that perhaps came to teach Adam, and us as well, that trees possess significance in themselves and not only as producing fruit for us (in halakhic language: they have a "body," and not merely a "body for fruits"). Trees were not intended only for eating; they have significance in themselves, and therefore over every blade of grass stands an angel and says to it: Grow.[2]

This should also be discussed with respect to the prohibition of 'do not destroy' regarding non-fruit trees. At first glance, it appears in Jewish law that there is no prohibition here, and this appears in the plain sense of the verses in Deuteronomy 20:19-20:

When you besiege a city for many days, making war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an axe against them; for from them you may eat, and you shall not cut them down. For is the tree of the field a man, to come before you in the siege? Only a tree that you know is not a food tree—you may destroy and cut down, and build siegeworks against the city that makes war with you, until it falls.

It seems that non-fruit trees may be destroyed, and that the prohibition applies only to fruit trees. So too Maimonides writes in Laws of Kings 6:9:

Any non-fruit-bearing tree may be cut down, even if one has no need for it. Likewise, a fruit tree that has grown old and produces only a small amount not worth the effort may be cut down. How much must an olive tree produce so that it may not be cut down? A quarter-kav of olives. And a palm tree that produces a kav of dates may not be cut down.

In practice, the Talmud in Bava Kamma 69b derives from there only that non-fruit trees take precedence over fruit trees, but that fruit trees too may be destroyed for the needs of a siege. On the other hand, outside the needs of a siege, it is certainly possible to understand that even non-fruit trees may not be destroyed.

And indeed, Nachmanides there writes as follows:

(19–20) “For man is a tree of the field” — Rabbi Abraham explained it היטב: the sense of the verse is, “for from it you shall eat, for man is a tree of the field, and you shall not cut it down to come before you in the siege.” And the meaning of “for man is a tree of the field” is like “for he takes a life as pledge” (below 24:6). But according to the opinion of our Sages (Bava Kamma 91b), it is permitted to cut down a fruit tree to build siegeworks, and the Torah stated only, “only a tree that you know is not a food tree,” etc., in order to say first that a non-fruit-bearing tree takes precedence over a fruit tree. If so, the meaning of the section according to them is that the Torah warned: “you shall not destroy its trees” by cutting them down destructively, without need for the siege, as armies are accustomed to do. And the reason is that combatants destroy in the city and around the land if they are able to, as in the verse: “and every good tree you shall fell, and all springs of water you shall stop up” (II Kings 3:19). But you must not do so in order to destroy it, for you should trust in the Name that He will deliver it into your hand. For man is a tree of the field: from it you will eat and live, and by it the city will come before you in siege—meaning, you will live from it after you conquer the city, and even while you are in the camp coming against it in siege, you should act this way. And the meaning of “that one you may destroy and cut down” is that you are permitted to cut it down to build the siegeworks and also to destroy it until the city falls, because at times the destruction is needed for the conquest, for example if the people of the city go out and gather wood from it, or hide there in the forest to fight you, or if the trees serve the city as shelter and cover from stumbling stones.

And so too in Rashi to Bava Kamma 91b:

“It is a food tree” — and this is what it means: only a tree that you know—if you do not know, presume it is close to the siege use—that it is not such a tree; take it, even if it is a fruit tree.

In truth, it is obvious that non-fruit trees are no different from anything else useful to human beings that is prohibited under 'do not destroy.' Today we know that non-fruit trees too are ecologically important for us, and therefore there is no impediment to extending the prohibition to non-fruit trees as well. The fact that the Torah distinguished between non-fruit trees and fruit trees serves only to teach us that what matters is that which is useful for human use (as opposed to 'eco-ethics').

According to the suggestion of Rashi and Nachmanides, even that is not so. The Torah merely gave precedence to non-fruit trees over fruit trees; but when there is no need to cut, even non-fruit trees may not be cut.

By way of contrast, D. T. Suzuki, a well-known Japanese Zen scholar engaged in bringing Eastern culture to Westerners, illustrates the difference between the Western world and the Eastern world by means of two poems which are ostensibly similar and express a similar experience, yet differ from the very root:[3]

On looking closely I see the nazuna blooming by the hedge                     (Basho, Japanese poet, 17th century)

A flower in the crannied wall, From your hiding place I pluck you, – here I hold you, root and all, in my hand. Little flower – if only I could understand the inwardness of your being, root and all, and all in all, then the secret of God and man would be revealed to me                 (Tennyson, English poet, 19th century)

Basho contemplates the flower passively, and does not aspire to do anything beyond that. Tennyson, by contrast, is active. He wants to master it (and subdue it, 'and subdue it'), to understand it (science), and in fact he looks at it from outside ('if only I could understand the inwardness of your being'). Usually we live the Western attitude (which in fact arose from the Jewish conception), but on Tu BiShvat we should also live the Eastern experience.

If what we have said is correct, then nothing is more fitting for study on Tu BiShvat than Perek Shirah, in which all creation—the inanimate, the plant world, and the animal world—sings before the Holy One, blessed be He.[4] This is a chapter "Eastern" in character, in which every creature has independent standing before the Creator, and not merely as the servant of man. In fact, in certain respects (see below), Tu BiShvat is their New Year, not ours.

Let the one who reads the letter be the one to carry it out. (let the one who reads the letter be the messenger). Let us study a bit of Perek Shirah, and in fact we shall discover that we have already done so in what we have said up to this point.

D. The first mishnah in Perek Shirah is:

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says, whoever recites this Perek Shirah in this world merits to recite it in the World to Come.…

One who recites Perek Shirah repairs what Adam damaged in the Garden of Eden, and thereby contributes something to our return there. As stated, the meaning of Perek Shirah is that the inanimate, the plant, and the animal have intrinsic significance in their relation to the Holy One, blessed be He, and in this Adam's error is repaired—that he ate from the tree from which he was forbidden to eat (turning it from a "body" into a "body for fruits").

The second mishnah begins similarly to the first, but its conclusion says everything:

And it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says, whoever occupies himself with Perek Shirah every day, I testify concerning him that he is destined for the World to Come… And know that everything the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created only for His glory, as it is said: “Everyone who is called by My name, and for My glory I created him, formed him, indeed made him.”

Here we also see the explanation for why one who recites this chapter is destined for the World to Come. He comes to understand that everything created, formed, and made (in the worlds of Creation, Formation, and Action) exists for the honor of the Holy One, blessed be He, and not necessarily for his own honor, as explained in the previous mishnah. More generally, morality in relation to human beings too is grounded in the divine image in man and not in human dignity as such (see Yair Lorberbaum's book, Tzelem Elohim).

In the third mishnah it is stated that King David too tended toward Adam's error:

The Sages said about David, king of Israel, that when he finished the Book of Psalms, he became proud and said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Is there any creature You created in Your world that sings more songs and praises than I do?” At that moment a frog appeared to him and said: “David, do not let your mind grow proud over you, for I sing more songs and praises than you… And not only that, but I am engaged in a great commandment. This is the commandment with which I am engaged: on the seashore there is a certain species whose sustenance comes only from the water, and when it is hungry it takes me and eats me. This is the commandment—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 will heap coals upon his head, and the Lord will reward you.’ Do not read ‘will reward you’ but ‘will make him whole through you.’”

Here the frog is a means and not an end, but a means for another living creature and not for a human being. Earlier we saw that the human being 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 in the category of an end for which animals serve as means. There are situations in which animals too constitute an end for which other animals exist as means. This insight of the frog is itself its song before God.

In the mishnah in the middle of the chapter, our old acquaintances, the trees, appear:

The other trees say: “Then shall all the trees of the forest sing before the Lord, for He comes to judge the earth.”

This is Tu BiShvat itself. Here the jubilation of the trees is mentioned when God comes to judge the earth. This is the festival the trees celebrate on the day they stand in judgment before the Holy One, blessed be He (the New Year of the trees themselves; see above near the end of sec. C).

The Mabit, in his commentary on this passage, writes:

Just as the fruit-bearing trees will produce fruit in abundance in the future, so too the trees of the forest, which are non-fruit-bearing trees, will bear fruit in the future, and they will sing before the Lord because He comes to judge the earth, so that all of it will equally produce fruit.

At the end of days, non-fruit trees too will grow fruit, and the distinction between non-fruit trees and fruit trees will be erased forever. The circle broken by Adam's sin will be closed again and brought to completion. It seems that then (Then our mouth will be filled with laughter.), after we have learned the lesson, it will be permitted to us to eat from them all.

Perek Shirah concludes with the song of the dogs, and immediately afterward with an incident involving Rabbi Yeshayah, the disciple of Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, who was distressed and fasted eighty-eight fasts in order to understand how dogs—about whom it is written that they are 'The brazen do not know satiety.' and 'The wicked do not know understanding.,' and more—merited to sing before the Creator. An angel from heaven appears to him and says as follows:

There is an oath before the Holy One, blessed be He, that from the day He revealed it to the prophet Habakkuk, He revealed His secret to no one in the world—except that because you are a great man and worthy that one attend to you, I was given permission to tell you by what merit the dogs merited to say song. Because it is written about them: “But against any of the children of Israel not a dog shall sharpen its tongue, against man or beast, that you may know that the Lord distinguishes between Egypt and Israel.” Therefore they merited to say song. And not only that, but they also merited that their excrement be processed into hides upon which tefillin, Torah, Prophets and Writings, and mezuzot are written. And concerning the question you asked, retract and go back, as it is written: “He who guards his mouth and his tongue guards his soul from troubles.”

The Mabit explains that the dogs merited to sing because they served Israel, and they merited that their refuse be used in processing hides for tefillin and scrolls because they did not sharpen their tongues even against the animals of Israel.[5] But one may wonder: what is the great secret hidden here, according to the angel's words? And it is especially difficult why he says that he did not answer the question, since the whole passage is an answer to that very question.

It seems that here the circle closes. The dogs merited independent standing, to sing before God, not because they properly served human beings. That was only the answer Rabbi Yeshayah received in accordance with his anthropocentric outlook. The secret that the Holy One does not reveal is that the dogs merit to sing before Him irrespective of their service to human beings. They have independent standing before the Holy One. Rabbi Yeshayah, however, does not receive this answer, because from within his anthropocentric outlook it is simply unintelligible. According to his view, the answer is that the dogs merited this because they properly served the animals of human beings, and human beings themselves.[6] Even according to this view, we still see that the means becomes the end, and vice versa. As we saw above, sometimes the animal serves the human being, but sometimes it serves another animal. And sometimes it is precisely by virtue of these two things that it receives independent standing and importance, as an end and not as a servant. It may be that the whole inquiry into who is the end and who is the means rests on a mistaken assumption. All of us stand before the Holy One as a single whole, and the purpose of that whole—the entire world—is to sing.

E. Why is it not right to reveal the secret that dogs and the rest of creation have independent standing before the Holy One? After all, even here we have revealed that secret. It seems that this is what Rabbi Kook writes in 'Chazon HaTzimchonut VeHaShalom': if we live with the awareness that all creation has independent standing before the Holy One, and that all of it has intrinsic value, then we may come to equate its value with the value of human beings. That is an exaggeration liable to lead to serious moral mistakes, and therefore it is not proper to reveal this secret. Only in the future will we be able to live this way without fear of such errors.

Even now, however, if we can preserve the proper proportion—that is, to see value in living beings and inanimate things, and yet not equate that value with the value of human beings—then it is more correct to live this way. And even in the future, when we shall live in a way that grants all these things intrinsic value, their value will still not be identical to the value of human beings; but then there will be no danger of arriving thereby at the errors mentioned above.

This is the story of Rabbi Aryeh Levin, who came to the Land, accompanied Rabbi Kook on a walk, and when he plucked a leaf Rabbi Kook was shocked that he had picked it without any need. If one wants to make use of something, then it is certainly permitted to do so at the expense of the animate, the plant, and the inanimate; but not gratuitously, without any benefit. So too we saw with regard to destroying non-fruit trees: it is permitted for human need, but not just like that. And so too with fruit trees: non-fruit trees take precedence over them, but even fruit trees may be destroyed if there is a need to do so for our purposes.

And so we find in the midrash Kohelet Rabbah (Vilna edition), parashah 7:

“See the work of God, for who can make straight what He has made crooked” (Ecclesiastes 7:13). When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first man, He took him and led him around all the trees of the Garden of Eden and said to him: “See My works, how beautiful and praiseworthy they are. And all that I created, I created for you. Take care that you do not ruin and destroy My world, for if you ruin it, there will be no one to repair it after you.”

At first glance, the midrash states that the whole world was created for man. But closer examination shows that what is written here is that he has permission to use the whole world, not that this is the entire purpose of creation. On the contrary, after granting him permission of use, the Holy One warns him not to destroy the world, since it is not intended solely for his use and has purposes of its own. Once again we see the hierarchy: things indeed have intrinsic value, but it is certainly permitted to use them for our needs.

Therefore it is clear that one should not infer from these words an egalitarian relation between human beings and the rest of creation, as some erring and misleading people do.[7] What is indeed proper to learn from here is an attitude of respect toward every created being as such.

[1] Daniel Shalit, in ch. 2 of his book 'Sikhot Panim' (p. 119), cites in the name of Noga Hareuveni, in his book 'Teva VeNof BeMoreshet Yisrael,' that on Tu BiShvat it is not fruit trees that take root, but specifically non-fruit trees. According to what we have said, this fits very well.

[2] And perhaps this depends on the dispute between Maimonides and Maharam Gabbai (author of 'Avodat HaKodesh'), whether every particular in creation has an independent role, or whether all were intended for man. See, for example, at the beginning of Sefer HaKelalim by the author of the 'Leshem,' who discusses this.

[3] I mean hereby to discharge all of us of our obligation to the 'Shirah MiMidbar' column. Everyone should intend to fulfill the obligation, not speak in the middle of the reading, etc. My apologies to all the scandalized.

[4] Usually we understand Write this song for yourselves. with reference to the Written Torah. On Tu BiShvat, even the Oral Torah—Jewish law—sings.

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

[6] In Sefer HaKelalim, in the passage mentioned above, the author of the 'Leshem' reconciles the views of Maimonides and Maharam Gabbai and explains that the intrinsic purpose of all creatures is to serve man. This is their own intrinsic purpose, and apparently precisely in this they utter their own song before the Holy One, blessed be He. This is indeed a great secret, as the angel says to Rabbi Yeshayah, and these are precisely our own words here, but this is not the place to elaborate.

[7] The reference is to the sages of Zen, and to the extremists among those who advocate what is called 'eco-ethics,' that is, ecology on moral grounds. This approach is developing in the West as a reaction to the opposite approach (expressed in Tennyson's poem above), but we must understand that the proper path is the middle path, certainly at present, when the world has not yet reached its repair. So too with respect to vegetarianism and veganism, but this is not the place.