The Case of the Missing Etrog

The Case of the Missing Etrog

By Chaya Shuchat

It was the second day of Sukkot and my husband came home and cheerfully informed me that his lulav and etrog were nowhere to be found. He had given his set to a yeshiva student who was making rounds to hospitals and nursing homes, to give patients the opportunity to fulfill this important mitzvah. The young man, in turn, had passed in on to someone else who promised that he would personally return it. The chain broke down at that point but it was clear that someone had my husband's set of Four Species, and it was not him.

Unfortunately, I was unable to digest this news with the same equanimity that my husband displayed. A lulav-and-etrog set is not cheap—somewhere between $100 and $200 for a nicely grown, plump, unblemished citron and a firm, straight-backed lulav branch. This is on top of all the additional holiday expenses—new clothing and shoes for all the children, festive meals nearly every night.

Before I reacted, though, I recalled a story that I heard in childhood, of a poor rabbi who sold an heirloom set of tefillin, his only valuable possession, in order to afford a beautiful etrog. His wife was so incensed at what he had done that she grabbed the etrog and bit off its tip, rendering it unfit for a blessing.

My sympathies at that moment were completely with the rebbetzin, and I probably would have done worse things to the etrog, had it been in my possession. But our precious set of Four Species was currently in the hands of a well-meaning yeshiva student, who at the moment was trudging around Brooklyn to find Jews who had not managed to acquire their own set. This image calmed me down somewhat, at least enough to ask through clenched teeth: "And if you must lend out your lulav and etrog, why can't you at least buy a cheap set just for lending?"

"And why," my husband inquired patiently, "should a Jew in the street make a blessing over a lulav and etrog less beautiful than the one I choose for myself?"

I found it difficult to argue with his logic. People who spend over $100 on a set of fruit and branches will fall for a mystical argument anytime.

I reminded myself of another childhood story, of a different rabbi (or maybe it was the same one?) who set out with the precious rubles he had hoarded all year, to purchase a truly outstanding set of Four Species. Along the way, he passed a poor coachman whose horse had just keeled over and died. The poor man was now left without any means of support. Without hesitation, the rabbi handed over the entire sum to the coachman to purchase a new horse. After all, he reasoned, blessing the Four Species is a mitzvah, and charity is a mitzvah, too. When everyone else in the synagogue blesses the Four Species, he will say his blessing over a horse.

Applying the rabbi's logic to my own situation, on the cosmic mitzvah scale there really is no difference if my husband makes a blessing over his set, or if that same set is used by hundreds of other Jews on the streets of Brooklyn. Mitzvah = mitzvah, right? Especially since the mitzvah is compounded many times over, by all the people using it.

I remembered one year when my husband's etrog had been returned to him covered with brown splotches, testimony to the dozens of hands that had gripped it. I had looked distastefully at the bruised etrog, thinking of the many hours he had spent browsing the etrog market, trying to find the most perfect, unblemished fruit. But my husband had seen it differently: "All the hand-marks make the etrog more beautiful."

Putting the missing-etrog saga into perspective, I couldn't be too angry. As the rabbi in the story had remarked to his etrog-chomping wife, family harmony is also a mitzvah, and if G-d had seen fit to deprive them of one mitzvah there was no reason not to have the other. The rabbi kept his peace, and so did I. My husband mentally relinquished all claim to his lulav and etrog, and gifted it with a full heart to the student who had borrowed it.

We made do with borrowed etrogim for the duration of the holiday, as my husband's set never was returned. I still wish he had found a more reliable agent, but mess-ups do happen. As we say in Yiddish, zol es zain a kapparah--"let it be an atonement," and let our forgiving attitude in this instance stand us in good stead the next time we inadvertently lose or damage someone else's property.

I am writing this story nearly a year later. Looking back, I have to say that G-d amply repaid us for the cost of the missing etrog. In fact, we were able to set aside enough money to easily meet all of this year's holiday expenses, including the most beautiful lulav and etrog that we can find.

Footnotes

1. Berachot 18a-b.
2. Berachot 18a-bguardian to safeguard.
3. Deuteronomy 34:4.
4. Rabeinu Bechaye, Deuteronomy 34:4.
5. Although we have stated that the Talmud's conclusion is that the dead are aware of what is going on in this world, some have pointed to the commentary of Tosafot, which seems to understand the Talmud's conclusion as the opposite: that the dead don't know what is going on in the physical world. Elsewhere, where the Talmud notes that when the 12 Spies were sent to scout the Land while the Jews were still in the desert, one of the spies, Caleb, went to pray at the Cave of the Patriarchs so that he would not be swayed by the wicked counsel of his fellow spies, Tosafot question: Didn't we conclude that the dead, even the forefathers, aren't aware of the goings on in this world? So why did Caleb go there? Tosafot explain that when we pray, the deceased are informed of our suffering and needs, and they help and pray for us, bringing proof from the Talmud in Ta'anit (16a) which asks why we go to the cemetery when praying for rain, and answers: “So that the deceased will ask for mercy on our behalf." This seems to indicate that Tosafot believed the dead (albeit, unless we pray, and perhaps visit their resting place) aren't aware of what is going on in this physical world. But it is difficult to reconcile this interpretation (as some seem to), not only because a reading of the Berochot indicates the conclusion that they do in fact have an awareness, but also because there are many other stories and statements in the Talmud all of which indicate that the dead are in fact aware of what goes on in this word. This has bothered many commentators. Even the Mesoret Hashas on the gloss of Talmud Sotah 34b, in a very rare comment, wonders about Tosafot's understanding and adds that it is a mitzvah to answer and reconcile what Tosafot is saying.
6. Some (see Yaarot Devash) attempt to reconcile this discrepancy by explaining that it depends on the person. Although most of the dead know and are interested in the affairs of this world, some of those of a higher spiritual level know nothing of this world unless through prayers and\or visiting their gravesites etc.), since they are no longer interested in physical, mundane matters. This is still difficult in light of the various sources in the Zohar and elsewhere that specifically the righteous are aware of (and pray for mercy) for those in this world. The Chida, in his commentary Petach Enyaim on the Talmud in Sota 34b, explains that Tosafot addresses the Talmud's initial assumption—before its conclusion—that the dead know nothing. The problem is that Caleb's statement, "my fathers, seek mercy for me," seems to assume the dead do know. One might try to deflect this by arguing that the Talmud's opening claim ("the dead know nothing") only applies to the ordinary dead, while everyone agrees the Patriarchs are an exception and do know. But Tosafot block that easy way out. By noting that the Talmud's conclusion—that the dead do know—is proven specifically from the case of the Patriarchs, they show that the Talmud's original claim ("the dead know nothing") must have included the Patriarchs, too. Which brings the difficulty right back. How, then, could Caleb say "my fathers, seek mercy for me," if even the Patriarchs supposedly don't know what happens here?
7. Maavor Yaabok, Sefat Emet, ch. 1.
8. Zohar 2:16a-b.
9. Zohar 2:142b
10. Zohar 2:16a-b.
11. Zohar 2:142a
12. See Zohar 3:219b; Sefer Haminhagim Chabad 75. This is the source for the custom that brides or grooms who have lost a parent go to their gravesite and invite them to the wedding, See Minhag Yisrael Torah, Nisuin.
13. See Likutei Sichot, vol. 10, pp. 212-213; Igrot Kodesh, vol

Reprinted from the website of Chabad.Org