The four species and the festival of Succot

While in the modern era we possess Biblical manuscripts dating back two millennia (the Dead Sea scrolls), ancient pictorial representations other than those on certain artefacts are sorely lacking. Accordingly, we can only speculate as to the appearance of any mitzvah-related artefacts as they existed millennia ago – be they tefillin, tzitzit, matzot or even a succah. While archaeological discoveries occasionally assist and a menorah is depicted on the Arch of Titus, we essentially rely on oral tradition (the basis of the Mishnah and Talmud) with no visually compelling evidence to serve as a backup.

There is, however, one glaring exception to this situation.

Amid the laws of Succot, the Torah prescribes: “And you shall take for yourselves on the first day ‘pri etz hadar’ [variously translated as the fruit of a goodly tree, or of a tree where the fruit unseasonably remains on the tree over time – traditionally the etrog – branches of palm, boughs of a dense tree [traditionally the myrtle] and willows of the brook, and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God for seven days” (Vayikra 23:40).

Only the palm and willow are actually named; oral tradition associates the other two species with the etrog and myrtle.

Was it always the case that those other two species utilised were the etrog and myrtle with the myrtle and willow attached to the palm? Well, in this instance we do have clear pictorial evidence from the Temple era. The four species were a much-utilised motif on coins struck during the rebellion against Rome that preceded the destruction, as well as coins issued during the Bar Kochba revolt. Greek and Roman coins featured their respective emperors, but halachic strictures regarding sculpting human faces led independent Jewish entities to use alternatives – and the picturesque nature of the four species made them an obvious candidate.

Additionally, surviving letters from the Bar Kochba era show that even under battle conditions, soldiers were supplied with lulav and etrog – they were obviously an important element of contemporary religious practice. Incidentally, that provision of the four species to soldiers on the battlefield had uncanny echoes during the Yom Kippur War and in Gaza when again Jews fought and are fighting for the cause of independence in our land while remaining true to tradition.

And so in the coming week, we too will take the four species as direct heirs to ancient practice. Most will actually come from Israel, enhancing the connection between ourselves and our land that lies at the heart of all celebrations of Succot as a harvest festival.

Nevertheless, reference to the verse cited above does raise a question.
That verse refers to rejoicing before God for seven days – the same seven days in which we are required to dwell in succot. Yet we only take the species six times – not on Shabbat. Why?

The answer is that while originally the ceremony was carried out in the Temple for seven days, the sages decided that it was better it not be fulfilled on Shabbat rather than risk desecration of that holy day. (Similarly, the shofar is not blown on Rosh Hashanah and the megillah not read on Purim if either coincide with Shabbat.)

That aside, however, there is another difference between the laws of Succot and the four species. As is well known, Biblical festivals in the Diaspora are one day longer than in Israel because the calendar was originally dependent on monthly pronouncement by the Sanhedrin that needed to be communicated to communities outside Jerusalem.

Succot is directly followed by Shmini Atzeret, leaving no room for an extra (eighth) day Succot as such, but the custom of sitting in a succah was extended to Shmini Atzeret and (despite a clear talmudic statement that on Shmini Atzeret we sit in the succah without reciting the blessing) is so practised to varying extents by different communities. Nevertheless, if the law of lulav and etrog parallels the laws of Succot, why is it not also taken in the Diaspora on Shmini Atzeret?

The answer lies in a fundamental halachic principle. When there is a doubt regarding a Torah-mandated practice, one takes the stricter view. If, however, doubt relates to a rabbinic injunction, one is lenient. The verse cited above does not mandate taking a lulav for seven days. It prescribes that we all take the lulav on the first day, but then we only “rejoice before God” for seven days.

How did tradition interpret “before God”? In Jerusalem! Elsewhere, taking lulav beyond the first day is only a rabbinic injunction “in memory of the Temple”. Therefore, regarding the Torah law of eating in a succah for seven days we are strict; wherever we also practise a second day yom tov, we also sit in the succah on Shmini Atzeret. But as lulav in the Diaspora beyond the first day of Succot is only a rabbinic injunction, there is no need to be strict on Shmini Atzeret.

Chag sameach,
Shabbat shalom,

Yossi

Yossi Aron OAM is The AJN’s religious affairs editor.