RESPONSE: The Biblical Etrog

The Torah does not use the word Etrog. It tells us to take a peri etz hadar, literally the “beautiful fruit of a tree” (Leviticus 23:40). The Talmud asks how we know that this refers specifically to the Etrog (Sukka 35a). The Sages respond by presenting various exegeses of the verse, concluding with the identification of the Etrog (Citrus medica) as the correct species with which to fulfill the biblical command.

It may come as a surprise to some (though it is becoming increasingly well-known) that the Etrog is not native to the Land of Israel. Rather, the fruit originated in Southeast Asia. This is not itself a problem, and may well explain why it is not listed among the Seven Species with which the Land of Israel is blessed. But the problem is that according to historians of botany and agriculture, the Etrog only reached the Land of Israel just prior to the Second Temple Era. There is speculation that some may have been imported to Egypt earlier, but it is not accepted that it was cultivated in the Land of Israel. If so, how could it have been the peri etz hadar of the Torah? This is a question hinted to in Arthur (Ari) Schaffer’s recent review of The Citron Compendium: The Citron (Etrog) Citrus medica L.: Science and Tradition, edited by Eliezer E. Goldschmidt and Moshe Bar-Joseph (TRADITION, Fall 2024).

There are two broad approaches taken in response to this. Prof. Zohar Amar insists that the historical evidence on when the Etrog reached the Land of Israel is far from proven. Absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absence, such as with the absence of evidence for dinosaurs in layers of rock containing remains and fossils of modern creatures. But in cases where there wouldn’t necessarily be any evidence of a phenomenon, the absence of it does not prove anything. Accordingly, says Amar, it is reasonable to believe that the Etrog was already cultivated in the Land of Israel when the Jewish People reached the land (Zohar Amar, Tzimhei ha-Mikra [Reuven Mass, 2012], 106-109.)

Is a believing Jew obligated to subscribe to such an approach? What if his own studies lead him to suspect that the Etrog was not actually found in biblical-era Eretz Yisrael? There is another approach that I have developed which will be useful to tackling this question. I thought it was potentially quite radical, but I have heard it from two independent sources who spent many years in haredi yeshivot, and neither think that it is at all problematic. It has a lot to do with one’s understanding of the nature of the Oral Law, about which there is a history of complex controversy.

Hazal were adamant that the peri etz hadar is the Etrog and that no other fruit may be used. But Rishonim already observed that when Hazal explained how that phrase refers to the Etrog, it was by way of asmakhta, “attaching” their rabbinic teaching to a biblical verse, rather than as a biblical derivation. The actual source for Hazal’s statement that the Etrog is the peri etz hadar was the received mesora, the tradition. (See Rambam’s introduction to Zerai’im, cited by Hatam Sofer to Sukka 35a.)

What does “tradition” mean? Does it mean that they had a tradition from Sinai that such was the exclusive meaning of this verse? Not necessarily. Even the phrase halakha le-Moshe mi-Sinai (which is not invoked regarding Etrog) is sometimes used to refer to ancient tradition or rabbinic enactment that has become universally accepted, rather than actual divine dictates from the time of revelation. (See, e.g., Rosh, Hilkhot Mikvaot 1, and discussion in R. Reuven Margolies, Yesod ha-Mishna ve-Arikhata, p. 8.)

And thus an alternate scenario is that peri etz hadar originally meant nothing more than what the words mean: the beautiful fruit of a tree. It is significant that the Torah does not actually specify the particular fruit to be used. Perhaps a variety of beautiful fruits were in the running for the biblical-level mitzvah, and at a later stage, when the Etrog was imported, it won the rabbinic race gaining exclusivity in the peri etz hadar market.

Today we take citrus fruits, including oranges and lemons, for granted. We have citrus-scented soaps and citrus-scented air-freshener. But no citrus fruits whatsoever existed outside of Southeast Asia in the ancient world, and oranges and lemons did not exist anywhere at all—they are hybrids that were developed at a much later stage. The extraordinary fragrance of the Etrog, along with its unique appearance, would have been unrivaled in the Land of Israel.

In such a scenario, the Etrog would have become widely accepted as the most beautiful, mehudar way to fulfill the commandment. Ibn Ezra wrote that the Torah is not actually naming a fruit, but rather is telling us to use a beautiful fruit, and—upon its arrival—there is no more beautiful fruit available than the Etrog. At some point, it either became assumed that the Etrog had always been used, or it was enacted that it should always be used. Maybe Hazal were not insisting that peri etz hadar always meant an Etrog, but instead they were legislating that from now on it should be used exclusively.

This is in line with R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, in his Dor Revi’i, explains other halakhot of Hazal. He goes so far as to entertain the possibility that “an eye for an eye” could have originally been understood literally, and only later did the Sages insist on interpreting the Torah’s words as referring to monetary compensation. That would be going too far for some, but the case of the Etrog is much easier.

Some people will be uncomfortable with this explanation. They are welcome to follow Zohar Amar in deciding that Etrogim were already available to our forefathers in Biblical times. But I don’t think that need be the only legitimate approach to believing Jews.

Rabbi Dr. Natan Slifkin is the Executive Director of the Biblical Museum of Natural History near Beit Shemesh.