In the article he writes that the lemon is a hybrid with another citrus variety. It may be that there were several similar types and the Talmud finally ruled that only the etrog is kosher and not all the others, or else this is just dubious dating, which is more likely.

A note — as far as I remember, in recent years articles were published indicating that the etrog reached the area many hundreds of years earlier than had previously been estimated (based on findings of etrog seeds).
If that is true, then there is no need to say that the identity of “the fruit of a beautiful tree” is something handed down to the Sages and that they specifically determined it to be the etrog and not other fruits; one can also follow Maimonides' approach, who held that this identification is a law given to Moses at Sinai.

Roni,
I assume you mean the discovery of etrog pollen in the palace at Ramat Rachel. But the dating there is the beginning of the Persian period, in line with what was 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 etrogim of the Land of Israel, points to evidence for the presence of etrogim in lands neighboring the Land of Israel in much earlier periods.

I don't have the time right now, but in Beit Mikra it was published that the find from Ramat Rachel is from the end of the First Temple period, with the construction of the pool there in the days of the kings of Judah. In the above article — I'll look for it soon — they bring many quotations from Greek literature showing they were well acquainted with the etrog and even praised it, unrelated to Alexander's conquests. In any case, if you want to be stringent, you can wave the lulav with a pine cone; it is a fruit of a tree called “hadar” in Sanskrit.

Gil,
please don't mix things up. The palace at Ramat Rachel was established at the end of the First Temple period. The etrog pollen was found in plaster dated by OSL to the beginning of the Persian period.

Even if the research Roni mentioned does not refute the hypothesis about when etrogim arrived here — the fact that theoretically it could refute it shows that the hypothesis is not all that strong.

Yishai,
I remembered that the etrog find was also early; I checked again and I was mistaken. She writes that at the latest it is from the Persian period. Still, in the article she brings evidence for etrogim in Egypt in the 15th century BCE and also in Cyprus in the 12th century. These are not conclusive proofs, but the impression from the state of the research is that it is not at all far-fetched that this fruit — the ancient ancestor of citrus fruits — was known in our region and was brought as an offering to the tables of kings and gods. Its importance, and its being the forefather of all oranges and lemons and citrus fruits, strengthens the argument that the Sages identified it specifically as the fitting heir for fulfilling this commandment — that is a correct identification, certainly from the interpretive perspective of beautifying the commandment, and perhaps even from the aspect of the authentic and precise identification of the Torah's original intent.

Gil,
I was referring only to finding the etrog in Israel. You can't infer from absence, certainly not when very little is known.
But precisely if the fruit was served on the tables of kings and gods, then it is not likely that the Torah commanded taking it — a rare fruit that only kings had — every year.

Yishai,
Heaven forbid to think that the Torah intended every individual to have the four species. That would be ecological destruction and not realistic at all to transport to all corners of the land. The obligation was only in the Temple, and there apparently there were stocks of the four species for the worshippers, or the community leaders/priests were the agents of the people for the sacred waving ceremonies. That seems obvious to me, similar to the sounding of the shofar, where not everyone sounded his own shofar (if I remember correctly that was also the case in European communities. I don't remember the source — perhaps the Pele Yoetz, from those who interpret mnemonics, that “etrog” is an acronym for “May the foot of pride not come upon me,” and he applies it to those who presume to take an etrog for themselves as though they are exalted people. It was not common for everyone to have an etrog and four species. I will look for the source). In any case, that restores the possibility that the rare etrog was suitable for fulfilling the commandment.

True, it says “before the Lord,” but it is hard for me to see how one can hang on that the idea that the commandment applies only in the Temple when there is no mention of that at all. As I understand it, the verse tells everyone to take the items mentioned and rejoice with them.
As for sounding the shofar, it is not really mentioned in the Torah, so everything is open to conjecture. It is certainly possible to suggest that it was done like the trumpet blast over the offerings. But דווקא in the Mishnah one can see that each person would sound his own shofar even when everyone was together, meaning it was not like today, but actually in the opposite direction. Of course, the Mishnah holds that each person takes the four species (and Bar Kokhba held that too).

With God's help, 24 Tishrei 5779

The Torah says, “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of date palms, a bough of a thick-leaved tree, and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days.” The Sages explained that only “before the Lord” — in the Temple — must one take them for seven days, but everywhere else one takes them only on the first day (and only Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai instituted that they be taken for seven days everywhere, as a remembrance of the Temple).

Best regards,
S. Z. 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 one week a year, “takes the sting out of” the archaeological discussion. It is quite possible that the etrog was imported from abroad, from places where the conditions suited its cultivation.

Why would a farmer in the Land of Israel invest in maintaining an orchard that requires much care and preservation for something needed only once a year? Just as they brought from afar spices, gum, balm, and ladanum, blue-purple and red-purple dye, linen and silk — so too they could import from a distance “the fruit of a beautiful tree” for the festival of Sukkot.

The need to grow etrogim in the land began only in the 19th century, when the non-Jewish growers began grafting the etrogim, and therefore one could no longer rely on them unless there was supervision from the beginning of the cultivation. But before that it was much more economically worthwhile to import the etrog from afar, and clearly a ritual use only once a year should not be expected to leave significant archaeological remains.

Professor Yehuda Felix, in his article in Beit Mikra, showed that there are many species that clearly existed in the land and yet left no material remains of their existence, so not finding remains does not prove that something did not exist.

It may be that the “apple” mentioned in the Bible is not our modern apple but rather the etrog, as Tosafot brought (Shabbat 88a, s.v. “its fruit precedes its leaves”) in the name of Rabbenu Tam, and they brought support from the translation of the verse in Song of Songs, “and the smell of your nose is like apples,” which it translates as “like the fragrance of etrogim.” The Greeks and Romans, too, called the etrog the “Persian apple” or the “Median apple.”

Shatzal,
1. The discussion here is not about the words of the Sages, in case you didn't notice. The words of the Sages are known.
2. Importation was only for the wealthy in antiquity. Presumably it was far, far more expensive than local cultivation because of its high costs. Local cultivation would not be used for a ritual “once a year” but for eating, just like cultivating other fruit trees. In addition, if the etrog were a regular import product, presumably someone would also grow it in a pleasure garden, as happened at Ramat Rachel.
3. Blue-purple, red-purple, and linen were not imported from far away (this really is not important to the discussion, but it affects my assessment of your whole response).
4. It has already been agreed here that no proof can be brought from absence.
5. You are talking about the need for growing etrogim by Jews in the Land. But from your own words it follows that until then etrogim were grown in the land by Arabs, and were not imported from afar as you are actually trying to claim. Do you have proof of imported etrogim for the commandment to the Land of Israel in any period, or are your words just made up?
6. Felix did not show this regarding many species but regarding a few species, and in truth only regarding one species, while regarding the other two he writes that there are a few findings.
7. It is also “possible” that the “apple” mentioned in the Bible is papaya (and maybe it was also translated that way into Ge'ez). The question, of course, is 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 palate and does not grow among the trees of the forest. Song of Songs Rabbah says that the apple bears fruit in the month of Sivan (I don't know when papaya does). So it is nice that Rabbenu Tam raised an idea, but it is better to rely on someone more familiar with the botany of the Land of Israel, like Moshe Raanan — https://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=20291

With God's help, 24 Tishrei 5779

Yishai — hello,

Well done on Rabbi Moshe Raanan's article on identifying the apple, which you brought to my attention.

Without getting into a detailed discussion of every example I brought (regarding linen, you were right that it was indeed also grown in the Land of Israel), international trade over very great distances was common in the biblical period, and it is entirely possible that a fruit not among the “fruits for which the Land of Israel is praised” was imported into it from one of the lands where it was common and cheap, since the conditions of the land made its cultivation economically worthwhile there. And certainly there was no need to grow it in the land for something needed only once a year.

If we are already looking for the place where the etrog was grown in the biblical period, I would look in the direction of southern Arabia. Trade ties between the Land of Israel and southern Arabia existed already from First Temple times (as explained at the beginning of Professor Yosef Yuval Tobi's book The Jews of Yemen — From the Beginning of Islam to Our Times).

The question that should be asked is not when the etrog reached the Mediterranean lands, but when the etrog reached Yemen. Here one should examine the research literature focused on the botanical history of this region. I do not have the tools to search in that direction; I am raising the question in the hope that someone well versed in “the ways of Sheba” will investigate it.

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

Against Rabbenu Tam's view (following the translation to Song of Songs) that the “apple” mentioned in the Bible is the etrog, Rabbi Moshe Raanan objected (in the article Yishai linked), for the apple is a symbol of sweetness, about which it says, “and its fruit was sweet to my taste,” whereas the etrog is not sweet.

To that one can answer that the Moroccan etrog is indeed sweet (see the Wikipedia entry “Moroccan etrog”), and about it one could rightly say: “and its fruit was sweet to my taste.”

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

You keep claiming things I already addressed and do not respond to any of my arguments. What you're doing is the preachers' low-grade fallacy: facts mixed with fabrications and inaccuracies, with the target marked in advance. In the end it is enough simply to say that the etrog may have grown in the land even though it was not found. As an educational method, what you are doing is very bad.

With God's help, 24 Tishrei 5779

Yishai — hello,

Of course it is possible that the etrog existed in the land in the biblical period even though it left few traces, as I mentioned in the name of Professor Yehuda Felix; and it is no less possible that since the need for it was only for one week a year, it was imported from another country where its cultivation was economically worthwhile. I suggested one line of inquiry — the presence of the etrog in southern Arabia in the biblical period — while making clear that this is a hypothesis requiring investigation and substantiation.

When one does not lock onto a single line of thought, but also tries different directions and tries to work with every scrap of information, the chance increases that “at the end of the day” one will arrive at well-founded conclusions.

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

And a few comments:

A. Regarding the Moroccan etrog, they note the fact that it has no seeds. If that was the nature of the fruit of the beautiful tree in the Land of Israel in the biblical period, then clearly the chance of finding etrog seeds is very slim.

B. It is possible that even if etrogim grew in the Land of Israel, people preferred to import them from another place where the etrogim were more beautiful and choice. Such a situation, where they grew in the land but were not attractive, existed in the 19th century, when the etrogim of Corfu and Calabria were much more beautiful than those of the Land of Israel. Obviously, to claim that this was also so in ancient times requires investigation and clarification.

I have no problem with ideas, even wild ones and even ones that are absurd on their face, but only when they are presented as ideas and not as facts. I do have a problem with misleading presentations — depicting importation in antiquity as similar to importation today; presenting it as if Felix showed this for many species; classifying goods that existed in the Land of Israel as imports from distant lands; claiming (and note well, claiming, not suggesting) that etrogim were grown in the Land of Israel only from the middle of the 19th century. All these shifts were made in a very specific direction, in the spirit of “altering the truth for the sake of peace,” and that is not the way to discuss things truthfully.

With God's help, 24 Ethanim 5779

Yishai — hello,

Many thanks for taking the trouble to check carefully. You correctly noted that Professor Felix showed only regarding three species that certainly existed in the Land of Israel but from which only scant remains were left. It really would have been proper to write “showed regarding several species” instead of “showed regarding many species.” On the substance of the matter it makes no practical difference, since three examples are enough to undermine the method of “we didn't see it, therefore it didn't exist,” but precision in details is important, both in itself and in order to be spared the taunts of nitpickers.

As a token of thanks, I will return good for good and correct a mistake of yours in understanding my words. I did not say that people only began growing etrogim in the 1st century. I said that Jews in the Land of Israel began engaging in etrog cultivation only in the 19th century because a serious concern arose that the non-Jews in Corfu and Calabria were grafting their etrogim. For local use, meticulous Jews could make do with etrogim grown by Arab villagers even if they were less attractive, but in order to supply beautiful etrogim to the Jewish communities of the Diaspora, etrog orchards worked and supervised by Jews were planted in the land.

And regarding the extensive international trade in the biblical period, see the wonderful description in Ezekiel chapter 27 of the trade of Tyre, where every land exported the produce in which it excelled. Thus, for example, although linen also grew in the Land of Israel, the merchants of Tyre needed “embroidered linen from Egypt”; and although there were murex fishermen at the Ladder of Tyre, the people of Tyre needed “blue-purple and red-purple from the isles of Elishah,” which excelled in quality.

Along those lines I suggested the hypothesis that etrogim too were imported in the biblical period from places where they were common cheaply or of superior quality, and I suggested investigating southern Arabia; this would explain the lack, or at least the paucity, of remains of etrog cultivation in the Land of Israel in the biblical period.

However, a new direction occurred to me after I saw that Moroccan etrogim (which according to tradition originated in the Land of Israel) have no seeds — one could say that the fruit of the beautiful tree that grew in the land in the biblical period likewise lacked seeds, and that would explain very well why no remains of etrog seeds from ancient times have been found.

Another aspect in which the etrogim of the Sages' period resembled Moroccan etrogim is that they were sweet, which is why the translator of Song of Songs rendered “like apples” as “like etrogim.” The fact that the etrogim were sweet and fit to be eaten as they were also follows from the statement: “Immediately they snatch the lulavim from the children's hands and eat their etrogim.”

On the other hand, in terms of shape, it seems to me that the etrogim in paintings from the Second Temple period onward look more like the other varieties, and do not have the cylindrical section found in Moroccan etrogim. Perhaps each variety took part of the traits of the archetype, and the matter still requires much clarification: “Give to the wise and he will become wiser still.”

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

In paragraph 2, line 2:
… I did not say that they began growing etrogim in the Land of Israel only in the 19th century, …

Here is what you wrote: “The need to grow etrogim in the land began only in the 19th century, when the non-Jewish growers began grafting the etrogim, and therefore one could no longer rely on them unless there was supervision from the beginning of the cultivation. But before that it was much more economically worthwhile to import the etrog from afar.” It is perfectly clear that you said that at first there was importation, then the non-Jewish growers (from the context, apparently those of the imports) started grafting, and only then did the need for cultivation begin. This is a false presentation. If you made mistakes in all directions, one could understand that as mere carelessness, but for some reason all the mistakes came out supporting tradition.

Indeed I should have added two words, and written “the need for growing etrogim by Jews in the land…” The matter is clear from the context, since I explain the lack of point in investing in etrog cultivation by saying there is no point in investing in an entire orchard just for taking them for the commandment once a year, and clearly I was referring to Jews in any case. The matter was clarified in my previous response.

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

Maybe it would be worthwhile to hire you as a permanent language editor for my comments 🙂

This is not language editing. Maybe you should try to understand what you wrote. Somehow every time you try to present each one of the several distortions you wrote as accidental. That's not very convincing.

Yishai, what happened to you? Did your pitam snap off from the discussion with Shatzal? You don't have to needle him over every one of his decent comments. For some reason he keeps making the effort to reply to you again and again as if he were dust beneath your feet, and you keep trampling him for no real reason. What are you trying to achieve? Anyway this question from the etrog is negligible, marginal, and secondary compared to the real questions about the Oral Torah and Written Torah, and nobody is going to take off his kippah if it turns out there were no etrogim at all in First Temple times. Really — why is this so relevant? Would anyone be shocked if tefillin in First Temple times were different, if they even existed? And the existence of mikvaot, etc.? The main thing is that this is the tradition of the Torah, preserved very well since the days of Moses, with reasonable adaptations and changes. One of those important traditions is that one does not take species that prick the hands, because “her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” — note that well.

Here is a copy from the original article by Lipschits and Langgut on the etrog. From there Shatzal can see that importation could also have come from Cyprus (and the Cherethites and Pelethites in David's army came from that area):

The French archaeologist Loret (1891) argued that one can identify etrogim in the wall paintings in the Hall of Plants at Karnak in Egypt, dated to the time of Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty (15th century BCE). However, it is difficult to infer unequivocally from the wall paintings that this is the fruit of the etrog, and it is also hard to know exactly what reality the painting reflects. Other researchers likewise reached similar conclusions about the inability to connect the wall paintings with certainty to the etrog fruit.
In Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus, in a layer dated to the 12th century BCE, several seeds very similar to a citrus species were found, but they could not be identified to the species level. Jelmqvist relied on Loret's claims and suggested that these were etrog seeds, because this is the first citrus species cultivated in Egypt. However, since the finds were not directly dated by carbon-14 tests, their dating is uncertain, and the few seeds found were in an unsealed context, so later intrusion is also possible. In addition, studies from recent years indicate a difficulty in identifying citrus seeds by the traditional methods used until now, and that for certain identification one must use more advanced identification methods. The difficulty in identification stems from the great similarity of citrus seeds to seeds that do not belong to the citrus genus, for example plants belonging to the apple subfamily.

Gil,
I can't stand preaching. Someone who distorts things deliberately and systematically irritates me. I showed several points where Shatzal did that. I do indeed think it is not such a big story, but Shatzal is doing everything he can to spin things in an Amnon Yitzhak style (just with more knowledge; I'm not trying to insult Shatzal by saying he is an idiot like him, Heaven forbid). 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 issue. When you read in an article about 3 cases of sparse findings and write about many cases of absence of findings, that is demagoguery of the very worst kind.

With God's help, 25 Tishrei 5779

Gil — hello,

Thank you very much for the material you referred me to. It is also worth looking at Professor Zohar Amar's book, Plants of the Bible — A Reappraisal in Light of the Sources and Scientific Research, Jerusalem 2012, pp. 106–108 (the book can be viewed on the “Kotar” website).

In one of the articles by those denying the existence of the etrog in the Land of Israel before the Persian period (“The Etrog Tradition and the Giving of the Torah”), it was suggested that by Torah law one could take any beautiful fruit, and the Sages narrowed the range of choice and required the commandment to be fulfilled specifically with the etrog.

To my mind it is hard to understand the logic of such an enactment. Before the etrog appeared (according to them), people presumably took the large and beautiful fruit for which the Land of Israel is praised — the pomegranate. Why then would the Sages enact abandoning the pomegranate, available to all and praised in the Torah, and replace it with a newcomer? And how was such a revolutionary change accepted without dissent by all the Sages and all the people? *)

It seems obvious that the consensus that “the fruit of a beautiful tree” means the etrog and not the “pomegranate” and the like is based on an ancient tradition going back to Moses our teacher, the giver of the Torah.

***

The question remains why the Torah commanded taking דווקא the etrog, which is not one of the species for which the Land of Israel is praised. An idea occurred to me: the golden etrog resembles the sun in appearance. While all the nations saw the sun as the head of the pantheon, the Torah demoted the sun to be one of the creatures praising the one God.

Thus in the creation story the sun appears only after the creation of the plant world, and thus too in our rejoicing before God the etrog, which in its appearance symbolizes the sun, appears alongside the representatives of the trees of the field — “together they sing for joy, they lift praise.”

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

*)
Yet we seemingly do find a source where the pomegranate really takes the etrog's place, namely the song “Shulamit Builds a Sukkah,” where it says: “She will not forget to place / a lulav and myrtles / a green willow branch / a pomegranate among its leaves / and all the fruits of autumn / with the scent of distant orchards” — and the etrog is absent!

If we assume that the “Shulamit” in the song is Shulamit daughter of Zerubbabel, then we have proof from here that at the beginning of the Persian period the fruit of a beautiful tree was indeed identified with the pomegranate 🙂

They have already discussed the song “Shulamit Builds a Sukkah” and its historical context in the online journal Midbar Sheker, edited by Dr. Haggai Misgav.

Both Shatzal and Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak belong to the tribe of Levi. The “Yitzhak-Halevi” family is a well-known rabbinic family in Yemen. Maybe you should write a dissertation about both of us 🙂

Best regards,
S. Z. Levinger

The subject on which you are writing a dissertation is more important. Better that you stay with it!

Best regards,
Shimshon Yitzhak Halevi

With God's help, Friday eve, “and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom,” 5779

On further thought, it seems to me that in the biblical period there was no need for etrogim from abroad. Since for the commandment one needed only an etrog per person per year (and there is also the possibility that one etrog could suffice for several people by giving it as a conditional gift to be returned), a few trees in each village would have been enough to supply all the needs of the commandment for the villagers, while most of the cultivated area was devoted to the crops for which the land was praised, from which there was also export abroad, as Ezekiel describes in his prophecy about Tyre: “Judah and the Land of Israel were your traders, with wheat of Minnith and pannag, and honey and oil and balm they gave for your wares” (27:17). Since the proportion of etrog trees was very small among all the crops, it is understandable that they would not leave significant archaeological remains.

With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath,
S. Z. Levinger

The expert on such matters is of course Professor Zohar Amar from Bar-Ilan. Ask him by email.
With a quick search I found this: “There is a dispute among researchers regarding the identification of the etrog with ‘the fruit of a beautiful tree,’ concerning the date of its arrival in the Land of Israel. The origin of the cultivated tree is India. In the land it grows only through irrigation and devoted agricultural care. Professor Yehuda Felix, an expert in the botany and zoology of the period of the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, and others hold that the etrog was known in the land in the biblical period. By contrast, Shmuel Tolkowsky, a citrus researcher, holds that the etrog reached the land only in the Persian period, perhaps in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Zohar Amar summarizes his position on the matter: ‘The absence of sources (regarding the nature of the fruit of a beautiful tree) cannot serve as proof for the existence of the etrog or for its absence.’ This is an ancient identification tradition, and as long as there is no alternative, there is no reason to reject it.”