Exercising Good Taste

R. Yaakov Bieler

Sukkot 5765

Mishnayot in tractate Sukka attest to the Sukkot festival having been a particularly tense time during the performance of seasonal rituals in the Beit HaMikdash. Sukka 4:9 recounts how when a Sadducee priest improperly spilled the water for the water libation, one of a number of points of controversy between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, (1) the Jews attending the ceremony registered their disagreement by promptly pelting him with their Etrogim! Sukka 4:4 describes what was originally done when the first day of Sukkot coincided with Shabbat. Since carrying one’s four species to the Temple was not allowed—carrying from a private to a public domain and within a public domain constitute Shabbat violations—everyone had to deposit their sets of fruit and branches in the Temple on the day before. When on Shabbat all of the Lulavim and other species were set before the people so that they could retrieve their property, confusion ensued, and the resulting pushing and shoving led to a riot. Things became so inflamed that legislation was put into place that each individual should from that time forward fulfill this particular Commandment at home when the first day of Sukkot was Shabbat, rather than within the Temple proper. (2)

          As long as the Temple was standing, Jews who did not come to the Temple during Sukkot, only took the four species on the first day of the holiday, and this perhaps added to their desperation as described in Sukka 4:4 above. However, once the Temple was destroyed, and the Tanna (a Rabbinic authority from the Mishnaic period) R. Yochanan ben Zakai strove to make up for this traumatic blow to the Jewish psyche in order for Jewish religious life to go on, and he included among the measures that he legislated that the four species would be used for all seven days of the Sukkot holiday both inside and outside of Israel. However, the Amora (a Rabbinic authority from the Talmudic period) Rabba (see e.g., Megilla 4b), worried that the Shabbat prohibition against carrying would now be more likely to be violated were people more often to practice these rituals on Shabbat—it was relatively rare for the first day of Sukkot, when the four species were taken outside the Temple during Temple times, to coincide with Shabbat; but once they were to be used every day of Sukkot in the post-Temple era, there would be at least one such day annually. Therefore he instituted that on the Shabbatot of Sukkot, including when even the first day of the festival was a Shabbat—when the commandment was Toraitic rather than Rabbinic (3)—the four species would not be taken, paralleling the legislation not to blow the Shofar on Shabbat Rosh HaShana—see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 588:5—and not reading the Megilla when the 14^th of Adar II coincides with Shabbat.

Now that on the Shabbatot of Sukkot the four species could no longer be used, they have become categorized as “Muktza”, i.e., objects that are not to be moved or used for any non-Mitzva purpose, since their essential role of allowing one to fulfill the Commandment of taking the four species, was precluded by Rabba’s legislation for the duration of Shabbat. (4) Yet an exception to this rule is made with regard to the Etrog, which curiously, is explicitly allowed to be picked up and smelled.

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 658:2

On the day of Shabbat, one does not take the four species, even if it is the first day of the festival.

RaMA

And it is prohibited to move the Lulav on Shabbat because it is considered like a “stone”. (5) But the Etrog is permitted to be moved since it can be smelled…

Mishna Berura #5

And although it has been written by R. Yosef Karo in the Shulchan Aruch at the conclusion of #653 that one should refrain from smelling the Etrog, this is while one is fulfilling the commandment of taking the four species, or at least during the course of a day when it is possible to do so, and there is the additional problem of the uncertainty regarding which blessing to recite, (6) which is not the case on Shabbat when one does not use it in order to fulfill the commandment, and therefore it is possible to smell it and make a blessing over it.

The law concerning smelling the Etrog is in contrast to the restriction on smelling the “Hadassim” (myrtles) on Shabbat.

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 453:1

The Hadas set aside for the purpose of the Mitzva (of the four species) is prohibited from being smelled…

Mishna Berura #1

(Smelling the Hadas is prohibited) since its purpose is exclusively for giving off a fragrant aroma, and for this purpose, it is considered Muktza during the entire Sukkot festival, much like the wood that has been used to construct the Sukka. The Etrog’s purpose, however, is for eating, and therefore it is not precluded for smelling. However there is a disagreement concerning the blessing since some believe that once the Etrog has been set aside for performing a Mitzva, reciting a blessing emphasizing its smell is inappropriate.

Mishna Berura #2

(Smelling the Hadas is prohibited) even on Shabbat since it has been declared Muktza for the entire duration of Sukkot. But the Etrog can be smelled on Shabbat since at that time, no Mitzva is being performed. (7)

Jewish tradition calls upon an individual, when s/he is engaged in enjoying basic pleasures available to him/her in the world in which s/he finds him/herself, to recite a particular category of blessings, referred to as “Birchot HaNehenin” (a blessing of enjoyment). The Talmud states that an individual who partakes of the world without invoking this type of blessing is trespassing on God’s Domain, taking something for which s/he has not received permission to use.  (8) Implied in such a metaphor is that while man is given the right to utilize and enjoy the world, it is his/her responsibility to recognize and acknowledge Who the ultimate creator of the things of which s/he is partaking. The basic Halacha of not deliberately inhaling the fragrance of a particular object in the natural world without first uttering a “Birchat HaNehenin” is discussed in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 116. In his gloss on R. Yoseph Karo’s Halachic formulations in the Shulchan Aruch, Chafetz Chayim points out an interesting hierarchy of blessings, reflecting various degrees of direct pleasure being derived from the world.

Shulchan Aruch 116:1

It is prohibited to benefit from a pleasant odor before one recites a blessing; however afterwards, one does not have to bless anything at all.

Mishna Berura #4

A “Bracha Achrona” (blessing to be made after an action is completed) was only legislated for eating and drinking, in contrast to smelling, since in the latter case, the personal pleasure is only slight. The Halachic decisors have written: If an individual has before him/her two objects, one to be eaten and the other to be smelled, one should first take the object to be eaten in his/her right hand and make the blessing because it is more important since it is literally taken into one’s body, and only afterwards is one to take the object that is being smelled for its fragrance, and make the blessing. The Halachic decisors have further said that specifically with respect to smell was a blessing legislated, but not for sound, since sound is not considered to possess any substance. Similarly no blessing was legislated for bathing since nothing enters the body.

While issue can be taken with the physiological assumption that in the case of smell, nothing of the object enters the body (9)—this is truer with respect to sound but again less true in terms of the degree to which salves, ointments, and other liquids that one places on one’s skin remain completely on the surface—it is indisputable, that whereas when one eats or drinks something, the original object is irrevocably changed and no longer available for the same degree for additional eating and drinking as it was originally before anyone began to consume it, the same is not true with respect to smell. And it is for this reason that there is an objective difference between the number of blessings required with respect to eat and drink—two, one before and at least one after (10)—as opposed to the single blessing required only before one smells something.

The perception that smelling, seeing and listening constitute sensual pleasures devoid of diminishing the object generating such pleasure, is referenced in order to explain an apparently metaphysical phenomenon described in the Tora. In BaMidbar 11, Moshe becomes increasingly frustrated when the Jewish people express dissatisfaction with the Manna that they have been eating in the desert, and demand to be given meat. HaShem realizes that Moshe needs moral support and directs him to appoint seventy men to assist him in administrating the unruly nation that he must continue to lead. In order to demonstrate that these individuals have been invested with Divine Authority in the same manner as Moshe himself, God says, (BaMidbar 11:17) “And I will Descend and I will Speak with you there, and I will Spread some of the Spirit that is upon you and I will Place it upon them…” In verse 25, God Carries out His Promise, and the seventy men that have been chosen begin to prophecy as a result of being invested with this Divine Spirit. The fact that instead of giving these men Inspiration in their own right, but rather having it come to them via Moshe, might lead one to conclude that Moshe’s having to share his prophetic ability reduced him to being a lesser prophet, and this certainly would be true were we to assume that there is a finite amount of spirit available to human beings, and when it is entirely invested in a single individual, s/he will be a more substantial prophet than when this spirit must be divided among many. Then the analogy would be to a finite amount of food and/or drink that can either be consumed entirely by a single individual, or shared, resulting in everyone ultimately receiving less. It is in order to alleviate such an understanding that BaMidbar Rabba 15:19 compares the manner in which Moshe’s seventy assistants received the powers of prophecy to a particular type of consumption:

And if you will say: The seventy elders who received their ability to prophesize from Moshe, perhaps Moshe’s own prophecy diminished to some extent? To what is this to be compared? To a flame that was lit, and there was lit from it numerous other flames, with the original flame not being lessened in any manner. So too in the case of Moshe—nothing of his own prophecy was diminished, as demonstrated by (Devarim 34:10) “And no prophet would arise again in Israel like Moshe.”

BaMidbar 13:20 adds an additional analogy, most apropos to the preceding discussion:

…Like a man who smells an Etrog, he benefits and the Etrog is not diminished in the least.

 Tehillim 34:9 utilizes intriguing verbs when encouraging one to contemplate HaShem: “Ta’amu (taste) U’Reuh (and see) that God is Good.” While most commentators interpret the verbs as advocating a cerebral consideration of God’s Existence and Characteristics, e.g., RaShI and RaDaK, Sephorno adopts a more literal approach and understands the verse as advancing the idea of experiencing God with one’s senses (Ta’amu) as well as one’s mind (U’Reuh). The Midrash Yalkut Shimoni Tehillim #720 is even more specific when it states:

Says the Holy One, Blessed be He: Fulfill all of the Commandments that I have Given to you in the Tora. If you ate from the fruits of the land or of the tree, make blessings upon them, for if you ate and did not bless, you are stealing the fruits of the tree and the land from the One Who has Grown them. But if a person eats and blesses, he crowns their Creator, this is the sense of “Taste and see that God is Good”.

Finally, the directive that an individual is to recite one hundred blessings per day, may not simply be a means by which Jewish tradition assures that one spends a good deal of his/her time engaged in prayer and blessing, but it might also be an invitation to experience the world that God has Created in its manifold forms, continually enunciating one’s acknowledgement and appreciation of the wonders and pleasures which are available to us. Perhaps then, not only can one smell one’s Etrog on Shabbat Sukkot, but one should go out of one’s way to do so, to be able to say that there is one more exquisite aspect of the world for which one must offer his/her thanks to HaShem and recognize that indeed HaShem is Good and the Source of things that are good.

Moadim LeSimcha.

(1) Among the areas in which they came into conflict with the Pharisees are: a) a literal rendering of Shemot 21:24, i.e., taking literally the punishment of “an eye for an eye” (see Bava Kamma 84a); b) executing “Aidim Zomemim” (plotting witnesses) accusing someone of a capital offense only after the accused has himself been executed (see Makkot 1:8); c) lighting the incense carried by the Kohen Gadol on Yom HaKippurim before he enters the Kodesh HaKodashim (see Yoma 19b; 53a); d) counting the Omer from the first Sunday after Pesach (see Menachot 65b.) Additionally, see Sanhedrin 52b; Makkot 5b; Menachot 65a.

(2) An earlier Mishna, 3:13, reflects an intermittent stage between the original practice to take the four species in the Temple, and the eventual restriction against taking it even at home on Shabbat, regardless of whether or not Shabbat was the first day of the festival. In this case, the Mishna mentions that rather than bringing the four species to the Temple on Friday, they were brought to the synagogue and left there for use the next day. Since on the first day of the festival it was required that an individual use his own set of four species rather than those belonging to another, in accordance with the Tora’s instruction in VaYikra 23:40, “U’Lekachtem LACHEM B’Yom HaRishon…” (And you will take FOR YOURSELVES on the first day…), each person would identify his own set when he returned the next day for services. It would appear that the riot on the Temple Mount described in Sukka 4:4 was the result of the volume of people involved, preventing a civil distribution of sets of species, something that could be done when dealing with a smaller group of individuals such as would gather in a synagogue. Such an insight has implications for the size of our religious institutions, wherein are balanced the competing values of on the one hand, (Mishlei 14:28) “BeRov Am Hadrat Melech” (With a great assemblage of people there is glory to the King), cited as the basis for participating in larger rather than smaller prayer groups, and on the other, the realization that large groups lead to depersonalization and anonymity, ingredients for a lack of intensity and consideration for one another.

(3) The verse in VaYikra 23:40 appears to mandate only the first day of Sukkot as when one has to take the four species. Obligations to take the four species on any of the subsequent days therefore are considered Rabbinic in origin.

(4) See e.g., R. Yisroel Pinchos Bodner, The Halachot of Muktza, Lakewood, NJ, 1981, Chapt. 11.

(5) Pieces of wood and stones that have neither been designated for use before Shabbat not manufactured in any way, are considered the most extreme forms of Muktza since they are the most “unprepared”, an individual never considered their use prior to Shabbat, and therefore they are not to be handled during the course of Shabbat.

(6) The blessing that is to be made prior to one’s smelling a fragrant fruit is: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the Universe, “HaNotein Raiach Tov BaPeirot” (Who has Placed a goodly smell in fruits). According to Be’er Heitev on 653 #1, since the Halacha treats the Etrog as a fruit whose primary purpose is for eating rather than for smelling, there are some who feel that pronouncing a blessing on the fragrance of the Etrog would be inappropriate. Mishna Berura provides a different explanation for why some do not think that one should make a blessing on smelling the Etrog—see the reference above in the body of the text.

(7) According to Be’er Heitev’s reasoning, the blessing to be made prior to smelling the Etrog would be problematic even on Shabbat, whereas according to Mishna Berura, it becomes more clearly permitted.

(8) See Berachot 35a-b.

(9) See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/daily/graphics/nobel_100504.html which accompanies an article on the work on smell  done by Dr.’s Axel and Buck which has earned them the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology.