|
Good afternoon Chevra,
First, congratulations go out to David Quintas, who won the raffle for the complete set of Elucidated Mishna! (Thank you Fred!)
Also, with thanks to Talia, we now have a BDJ webpage for Mishna Yomit. You can check it out at https://www.bnaidavid.com/mishnahyomit
Mishnayot 6 and 7 include rabbinic debates around several fundamental aspects of what makes an etrog kosher. These debates are noteworthy for the absence of Biblical or logical supports for one position or the other. Esthetic considerations rather than textual ones appear to lie at the heart of the debates.
In broad terms, this can be explained by the fact that the Torah does not specify what type of fruit should accompany the lulav, hadasim, and aravot, rather simply instructing that it be a beautiful fruit, which places esthetics - subjective by nature - front and center. Equally relevant is the fact that at the time of the Mishna, the etrog was still a relatively new member of the "four species" cast, meaning that the tradition simply hadn't had the time to fully work out even some of the fundamental issues around what made a particular etrog kosher or not. Indigenous to China, the etrog made its way to India and then to the Persian empire in the 6th century BCE, where it was considered an exotic, luxury item. And at some point during the Second Temple period it began to make its way to Eretz Yisrael as well. In other words, for much of Jewish history prior to the Mishnaic period Jews used other and presumably a variety of "beautiful fruits" on Sukkot, and the establishment of the etrog as the halachikly definitive "beautiful fruit" was the doing of the Mishnaic Sages. Little wonder then that there were still a few fundamental issues to be worked out around what "beautiful" exactly entailed. (I'd be happy to share some articles about this upon request.)
I'm also delighted to include in this installment some thoughts from Fred about the stolen four species mentioned earlier in this week's perek:
The first Mishnah in the 3rd Chapter (and the accompanying Gemara) is my favorite. Why? Because it seems self-evident that stealing a lulav should render it “non-kosher,” there must be a far deeper lesson being imparted here. The Gemara discusses the technical questions as to whether or not the prohibition against using a “stolen lulav” only applies on the first day of the Holiday or throughout its duration, and whether a stolen object is technically rendered ownerless (and thus “kosher” to use as a technical matter) if it’s owner has abandoned hope that it will be returned. But, ultimately, the Gemara evokes the principle that a mitzvah cannot be accomplished through a transgression.
Our commentators have suggested other reasons as well . . . Among them are the following:
* Sukkot follows the High Holidays, from which we emerge “victorious” in our efforts to do teshuvah (the waving of the Lulav/Etrog connotes this celebration); to do so using stolen goods evidences that we clearly missed the point of the teshuvah process.
* Sukkot is know as “Z’MAN SIMCHATEINU” (a time of our joy) . . . It is impossible to be truly happy at the expense of others (in this case, the party whose lulav we have stolen).
* Sukkot is also known as the holiday of unity; harming others is the polar opposite of striving for unity.
* And, ultimately, this teaching reminds us that in Judaism (and in life), it is not only what you do, but how you do it
| 
