Sukkot’s Unshaken Four Species

[1] For a redaction critical discussion of this section of Leviticus, see “The First Sukkah,” TheTorah (2013).

[2] Editor’s note: The Israelite-Samaritan community interprets the verse this way as well. For more discussion of this, including what they define as the four species, see Benyamim Tsedaka, “A Fruity Sukkah Made from the Four Species,” TheTorah (2014).

[3] This assumption is discussed in detail below.

[4] The contours of the disagreement between the Rabbanites and the majority Karaite view are perhaps best summed up by Hacham Mordecai ben Nisan in his work Sefer Levush Malkhuth,

“Thus, Ezra the Priest interpreted the manner of performing the commandment for us. But [the Rabbanites] do not heed Ezra’s interpretation; rather, they say that the verse, ye shall take you on the first day, is a separate commandment, aside from that of the sukka, an obligation to take these [plant] items and play with them.” (p. 85.)

This work has recently been published by The Karaite Press under the name Royal Attire: on Karaite and Rabbanite Differences.

[5] This commentary remains in MS form and has not yet been published. The verses from Sefer HaOsher cited herein were transcribed from manuscript. I owe a debt of gratitude to Matityahu Roland for transcribing these verses, and to James Walker for translating them. To-date, the only portion of Sefer HaOsher that is available is the commentary the Book of Esther, published by The Karaite Press under the name Esther Exlained (2016).

[6] Both Karaite and Rabbanite Jews treat Ezra-Nehemiah as one book called Ezra. Thus, though Sefer HaOsher says “Ezra” he is referring to Nehemiah.

[7] This is variously understood as pine (NJPS), wild olive (NRSV), or cypress (LXX).

[8] See Inyan Chag Ha-Sukkot, Ch. 1.

[9] According to Professor Phillip Birnbaum, this was the view of Hacham Yefet ben Eli (seeThe Arabic Commentary of Yefet ben Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea, p. xxx, republished by Library Licensing, LLC (2011)).

[10] The view that the species are for eating is summarized in the Sefer Mitzvot of Hacham Levi ben Yefet (11^th Century), who ultimately does not accept this opinion:

…פתרו ואמר כי פרי עץ הדר הוא כתפוחים ואתרוגים וכיוצ[א] בהם מן הפרות הנאים… וקרא לבעל זה הדרך לומר כי הם נאכלים מפני כי אמר “פרי עץ הדר”… וכי יתם להיות לנו פירות אינם נאכלים כמו פרי הזתים ופרי האורן…

…[A]nd they [who believed the species are for eating] said that “the fruit of etz hadar” are like apples and citrons and the like – fruit that are pleasant. . . .[A]nd they who hold this way (might say that they are edible [fruit] because it said “fruit of etz hadar” but we see that there are fruit that are not edible like the fruit of olives and the fruit of the pine (pp. 470-471).”

I thank Tomer Mangoubi for helping me with citations to Hakham Levi ben Yefet.

[11] Mangoubi acknowledges that more research needs to be done to substantiate this suggestion, but his suggestion is also based on loose inference from the Sefer Mitzvot of Hakham Levi ben Yefet.

[12] For the connection between these verses compare Deuteronomy 14:28 with Exodus 23:16.

[13] This interpretation would also allow room for the Rabbanite view that Leviticus 23 is requiring the lifting of the four species.

[14] Karaite Jews of Egypt: From 1882-1985 (first edition), Mourad El-Kodsi, p. 150.

[15] This was also the case in Egypt: “Sukkot provided a good opportunity for the children who had finished their Hebrew education to attend prayers in the sukkah and join with everyone in singing.”