Waving the Lulav

The practice of נענועים (na'anu'im) -- waving and shaking the four Sukkot species in all directions -- begs for explanation.  It is an ancient ritual; though not mentioned in the Bible, it is cited in early rabbinic sources.  But despite its centrality to the Sukkot service, it remains mysterious even to insiders.

The halakhic significance of נענועים should not be minimized.  While the details of how and when to wave the lulav vary by community, the act of waving itself is considered much more than a mere “custom” in the halakhic literature. Technically, the halakhah requires only lifting or holding the four species to fulfill the mitzvah. But early sources view na’anu’im as the essential, even defining, aspect of arba minim.  Two halakhot recorded in the Mishnah, regarding a lulav’s minimum size and the appropriate age to begin performing the mitzvah, make this clear:

לולב שיש בו שלשה טפחים כדי לנענע בו, כשר (משנה סוכה ג:א)  

קטן היודע לנענע, חייב בלולב  (משנה סוכה ג:טו)

Another tannaitic source (Tosefta Berakhot 3:19, quoted in Bavli Berakhot 30a) lists na’anu’im in parallel with blowing the shofar and reading the Megillah.  As a shofar is clearly intended for blowing and a Megillah for reading, the purpose of the four species, in this formulation, is for waving:

היה משכים לצאת לדרך נוטל שופר ותוקע, לולב ומנענע, מגילה וקורא בהן ומתפלל. ולכשיגיע זמן קריאת שמע קורא.

It appears that נענועים is more closely linked to the four species obligation than any other action (see, however, the Talmudic passage below where Raba implies that waving is considered only שירי מצוה - ancillary to the primary mitzvah).

The Talmud offers two reasons for waving the lulav, which it compares to the biblical תנופה, the waving of bread and sheep offerings on Shavuot (Sukka 37b, with modified Soncino translation below):

 אמר רבי יוחנן: מוליך ומביא ־ למי שהארבע רוחות שלו, מעלה ומוריד ־ למי שהשמים והארץ שלו. במערבא מתנו הכי, אמר רבי חמא בר עוקבא אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא: מוליך ומביא ־ כדי לעצור רוחות רעות, מעלה ומוריד ־ כדי לעצור טללים רעים. אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין, ואיתימא רבי יוסי בר זבילא: זאת אומרת ,שירי מצוה מעכבין את הפורענות. שהרי תנופה שירי מצוה היא, ועוצרת רוחות וטללים רעים. ואמר רבא: וכן בלולב. רב אחא בר יעקב ממטי ליה ומייתי ליה, אמר: דין גירא בעיניה דסטנא. ולאו מלתא היא, משום דאתי לאיגרויי ביה.

R. Johanan explained, One waves them to and fro in honor of Him to Whom the four directions belong, and up and down in acknowledgment of Him to Whom are Heaven and Earth. In the Land of Israel they taught us thus: R. Hama b. ‘Ukba stated in the name of R. Jose son of R. Hanina, He waves them to and fro in order to restrain harmful winds; up and down, in order to restrain harmful dews. R. Jose b. Abin, or, as some say, R. Jose b. Zebila, observed, This implies that even the ancillary parts of a commandment prevent calamities; for the waving is obviously ancillary to the commandment, and yet it shuts out harmful winds and harmful dews. In connection with this Raba remarked, And so with the lulav. R. Aha b. Jacob used to wave it to and fro, saying, ‘This is an arrow in the eye of Satan’.* This, however, is not proper, since Satan might in consequence be provoked against him.

The reasons proposed here by the Sages - omni-directional waving of the four species acknowledges God's omnipresence; waving restrains harmful weather - reflect two major themes of Sukkot: Thanksgiving for the completed harvest, and prayer for the upcoming rainy season.  As Sukkot is the holiday on which we pray for the upcoming rains, we can readily understand how shaking the lulav could be linked with a desire to “restrain harmful winds and dews.”  It is also very reasonable that on the biblical Thanksgiving festival, we grasp the four harvest species and ritually wave them in all directions, to signify God’s omnipresence and his control over the agricultural cycle.  

Medieval Talmudists added to the Talmud's reasons.  For example, Tosafot (Sukka 37b, s.v. Be-Hodu) cites the juxtaposition of verses in I Chron. (16:33-35) to account for the Mishnah's requirement to wave the lulav while reciting specific verses within the Hallel prayer:

אָז יְרַנְּנוּ עֲצֵי הַיָּעַר מִלִּפְנֵי ה’ כִּי-בָא לִשְׁפּוֹט אֶת-הָאָרֶץ: הוֹדוּ לַה’ כִּי טוֹב כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ: וְאִמְרוּ הוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ אֱ-לֹהֵי יִשְׁעֵנוּ וְקַבְּצֵנוּ וְהַצִּילֵנוּ מִן-הַגּוֹיִם לְהֹדוֹת לְשֵׁם קָדְשֶׁךָ לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בִּתְהִלָּתֶךָ:

In this view, shaking the lulav mimics treetops blowing around in the wind, a sign of nature’s joy and delight in God's presence.  By waving the lulav, we demonstrate that our human songs of praise for God are in harmony with nature's songs. 

There are several biblical poems, especially in Psalms and Isaiah, where trees, mountains, and rivers "sing" (יְרַנְּנוּ) and "clap" (יִמְחֲאוּ-כָף) for God or for Israel:

יַעֲלֹ֣ז שָׂ֭דַי וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר־בּ֑וֹ אָ֥ז יְ֝רַנְּנ֗וּ כָּל־עֲצֵי־יָֽעַר׃ (תהלים צו:יב)

הָרִיעוּ לַה' כָּל-הָאָרֶץ פִּצְחוּ וְרַנְּנוּ וְזַמֵּרוּ: זַמְּרוּ לַה' בְּכִנּוֹר בְּכִנּוֹר וְקוֹל זִמְרָה . . . נְהָרוֹת יִמְחֲאוּ-כָף יַחַד הָרִים יְרַנֵּנו

(תהלים צח:ד)

(הֶהָרִים וְהַגְּבָעוֹת יִפְצְחוּ לִפְנֵיכֶם רִנָּה וְכָל-עֲצֵי הַשָּׂדֶה יִמְחֲאוּ-כָף (ישעיה נה:י

Each of these natural phenomena generate impressive sounds and, in the poet's imagination, joyful song; mountains also seem to sing as the wind rushes through their trees.

In one of its rabbinic usages, the word נענוע itself connotes song and music; e.g., Tosefta Sanhedrin 12:5:

רבי עקיבא אומר המנענע קולו בשיר השירים בבית המשתה ועושה אותו כמין זמר אין לו חלק לעולם

A similar musical usage is employed by the author of שמיני אשפוך, a piyyut for Maariv on Shemini Azeret, when he refers to playing a new eighth string -- there were previously seven -- on the harp of the future Temple:

שמיני לעודף שמחה לראות / לנענע שמיני בעשותו נוראות

I recently came across an intriguing and novel approach to the origin of na’anu’im.  Moshe Zeev Sole suggests that waving the four species derives from an ancient desire to create a sort of artificial wind, by which to remind the angel appointed on the wind and rain to fulfill his annual duties.**  He does not present any evidence for this claim. Leaving that aside, this theurgical interpretation – one which sees the ritual as an attempt to influence the behavior of a divinity – may make na’anu’im seem primitive and obsolete.  Today, it is laughable to imagine that anyone would shake a lulav to awaken a wind spirit.  

To be fair, a theurgical element also appears to underlie the latter part of the Talmudic passage above, which refers to "restraining harmful winds and dews” and to shooting “an arrow in the eye of Satan” by means of waving the lulav (see Maharsha's commentary, ad loc.).  Even if that were true, however, in its conclusion, the Talmud is uncomfortable with the idea of using the lulav to fight Satan. In an attempt, perhaps, to suppress overt theurgy, the Talmud rejects R. Aha's practice of invoking Satan’s name explicitly during na’anu’im.

In fact, we are already familiar with the "angel of rain" from another context in the Sukkot Machzor.  He is mentioned in the opening line of Tefillat Geshem, recited on Shemini Azeret: אף ברי אותת שם שר מטר – “The prince of rain has been named Af Beri.”  Even if not addressed directly, the שר מטר was clearly seen by Eleazar Ha-Kalir, the prayer's circa-seventh-century composer, as a prominent force in bringing rain.

When considering such theories regarding the origins of religious practices, it is important not to confuse origin with meaning.  Whatever the historical origin (real or presumed) of a practice, its meaning is far more significant - at least to those observing it.  Meaning is highly subjective and can come from a variety of sources.  For some, meaning and origin are intertwined: Insight into the origin of a practice may indeed enrich its meaning.  But historical origin need not exclude other variables from the determination of meaning.  Over the centuries, ta'ame ha-mitzvot and ta'ame ha-minhagim have been highly dynamic and open to widely varying creative interpretation precisely because they deal not so much with origin as with meaning, which changes with time and place.

As modern people and as heirs to the rationalist tradition within Judaism, we tend – for good reason – to minimize the role of angels and demons in our tradition.  It is understandable, then, that the “wind angel” theory of na’anu’im causes us much discomfort.  On the other hand, even as moderns we may allow ourselves to draw inspiration from the idea of waving the lulav in order to generate a musical wind – taken by itself, perhaps, and with apologies to any meteorological angel who may feel left out. The idea is not too distant, after all, from Tosafot’s suggestion that na’anu’im represent the joining of nature’s personified song with human paeans of joy and thanksgiving following the harvest; of אָז יְרַנְּנוּ עֲצֵי הַיָּעַר  in concert with הוֹדוּ לַה כִּי-טוֹב.

* Sharp objects, natural or man-made, shown piercing an eye was a common motif in the ancient war on the evil eye.  See, for example, this second century Roman mosaic from Antioch.

**Ha-Moadim Ve-Hamikra, (Jerusalem: Mabat, 1985), pp. 83ff. The author (1908-1994) was trained at the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin and wrote several volumes on various topics in philosophy and Jewish Studies. A brief biography in David Tidhar's recently digitized Entziklopedia Le-Halutze Ha-Yishuv U-Vonav is available here.

Clouds of Honor and Sukkot

בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כָּל-הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְֹרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת: לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי ה' אֱ-לֹהֵיכֶם:

Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths. That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 23:42-43)

Aside from this secondary reference, where does the Torah state that the Israelites constructed booths in the desert following the exodus?  There is no explicit record of such an event either in Exodus or in Deuteronomy.  Yet, in this passage from Leviticus, it is recalled as if it were a well-known milestone in Israel's early history. This problem likely gave rise to a dispute among the Sages on the meaning of the words כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי in this passage.  An early midrash, in Sifra (Emor 17:11), sets up the opposing views:

לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. רבי אליעזר אומר סוכות ממש היו. רבי עקיבא אומר בַסֻּכּוֹת -- ענני כבוד היו

Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation, סוכות ממש היו -- these were real, “brick-and-mortar” structures -- is based on a literal reading of this passage, and appears to disregard the lack of an earlier reference to the event.  The identification of סוכות with divine clouds, on the other hand, seems quite non-literal and non-intuitive, even if it refers to something mentioned previously in Exodus, i.e., the “cloud-pillar” which guided the Israelites through their travels in the desert (Ex. 13:21). The clouds which first appeared after the exodus are clearly R. Akiva’s inspiration for reading clouds into this context.  But what real connection is there between “booths” and “clouds” that allows for such a seemingly tenuous identification?  

I will attempt to show that סוכות interpreted as ענני כבוד -- “clouds of honor” -- is strongly suggested by the biblical text, and is not merely the product of free-ranging midrashic creativity.  I will also address the underlying meaning of the clouds.

Our tradition has long taken the booths-as-clouds position.  This interpretation may be familiar from Rashi’s commentary on the Torah (Lev. 23:43); in fact, young yeshiva students may not even be aware of an opposing view.  Rashi’s comment on the phrase כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי is categorical, stated in only two words: ענני כבוד (cf. Onkelos - אֲרֵי בִמְטָלַת עֲנָנִין אוֹתֵיבִית יַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל).  No allowance is made, as is common elsewhere in Rashi's commentary, for a davar aher -- an alternative explanation.  As it happens, Rashi's position here is consistent with another statement he makes, in his Talmud commentary, taking for granted that “being surrounded by clouds of honor” is the literal meaning -- the peshat -- of the words כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי.  In an offhand remark within a discussion on the maximum height of a sukka (Sukka 2a), Rashi adds the following:

למען ידעו ־ עשה סוכה שישיבתה ניכרת לך, דכתיב יֵדְעוּ כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי ־ צויתי לישב, הכי דריש ליה.  ואף על גב דאין יוצא מידי פשוטו דהיקף ענני כבוד, מיהו דרשינן ליה לדרשה.

We do not normally expect Halakha to weigh in on exegetical problems.  In this case, however, “clouds of honor” has taken on a normative status; it is cited in both the Tur and Shulhan Arukh as the authoritative, and exclusive, reason for the mitzva of sukka (OH 625) .

I stated earlier that outside of Leviticus the Bible makes no mention of booth-dwelling following the exodus.  But from the perspective of the Sages this is not completely accurate.  Some among them did, in fact, see such a reference in a passage from Exodus regarding the Israelites’ first encampment in the desert.  The following midrash (Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael, Bo 14) on וַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי-יִשְֹרָאֵל מֵרַעְמְסֵס סֻכֹּתָה (Ex. 12:37) cites the dispute mentioned earlier on the word סוכות, quoting the views of the same protagonists, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva.  In this passage, the midrash tries to account for סוכות as a place name:

וַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי-יִשְֹרָאֵל מֵרַעְמְסֵס סֻכֹּתָה. סוכות ממש דכתיב (בראשית ל״ג:יז) וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה, דברי רבי אליעזר. וחכמים אומרים אין סוכות אלא מקום שנאמר (שמות יג:כ), וַיִּסְעוּ מִסֻּכֹּת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְאֵתָם, מה איתם מקום אף סוכות מקום. רבי עקיבא אומר אין סוכות אלא ענני כבוד שנאמר (ישעיה ד:ה-ו) וּבָרָא ה' עַל כָּל-מְכוֹן הַר-צִיּוֹן וְעַל-מִקְרָאֶהָ עָנָן יוֹמָם וְעָשָׁן וְנֹגַהּ אֵשׁ לֶהָבָה לָיְלָה כִּי עַל-כָּל-כָּבוֹד חֻפָּה: וְסֻכָּה תִּהְיֶה לְצֵל-יוֹמָם מֵחֹרֶב וּלְמַחְסֶה וּלְמִסְתּוֹר מִזֶּרֶם וּמִמָּטָר.

Here we have three opinions regarding סוכות, where Israel camped between Ramses and Etam: It refers to real booths (Jacob also built booths, in a different location, and named the place סוכות); it is nothing more than a place name (just like Etam, the next station in the desert); or, in R. Akiva's exegesis of the verses in both Genesis and Leviticus, סוכות are clouds (Isaiah uses the words עָנָן and סֻכָּה in parallel).

Aside from the Isaiah verse cited in the previous midrash, several additional biblical poems use the words עָנָן and סֻכָּה -- or variations -- in parallel, or even within the same phrase.  Here are four additional examples:

1. יָשֶׁת חשֶׁךְ סִתְרוֹ סְבִיבוֹתָיו סֻכָּתוֹ חֶשְׁכַת-מַיִם עָבֵי שְׁחָקִים (Psalms 18:12; cf. II Samuel 22:12)
2. פָּרַשֹ עָנָן לְמָסָךְ וְאֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָיְלָה  (Psalms 105:39)  
3. אַף אִם-יָבִין מִפְרְשֵֹי-עָב תְּשֻׁאוֹת סֻכָּתוֹ   (Job 36:29)   
4. סַכּוֹתָה בֶעָנָן לָךְ מֵעֲבוֹר תְּפִלָּה  (Lamentations 3:44)  

Note that the image of clouds and booths (or tents) take on a variety of meanings in these verses.  They are a veil which keeps God hidden from man (nos. 1,3), a canopy spread over Israel for protection (Isaiah 4:5-6 and no. 2), and, in an ironic play on the canopy metaphor, they become a barrier blocking Israel’s prayers after the Babylonian exile (no. 4). They represent heavenly protection (God covering Israel) as well as the distance and mystery of the divine (God covering himself).  But in all of these examples, עָנָן and סֻכָּה echo each other through parallelism and metaphor.  This interplay of images surely contributed to reading כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי as heavenly clouds, especially since הוֹשַׁבְתִּי, "I made to dwell," implies a divinely constructed dwelling.


There is also a very strong contextual link between עָנָן and סֻכָּה in Exodus (12:20-23), within the “pillar of cloud” passage:   

וַיִּסְעוּ מִסֻּכֹּת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְאֵתָם בִּקְצֵה הַמִּדְבָּר: וַה’ הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָהֶם לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה: לֹא-יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה לִפְנֵי הָעָם:

In this case, the link is based on the interpretive technique of adjoining verses, semikhut pesukim.  Note how the second verse, about the divine cloud, immediately follows the report of the journey from Sukkot to Etam.  I believe this suggested to R. Akiva, possibly more than any other clue, that Sukkot -- the very first station outside of Egypt -- was the location where the cloud first appeared.  Sukkot (the place) of Exodus 12 must have been named for this great providential event; that is, it was called Sukkot in honor of divine clouds, rather than man-made tents which are, after all, absent from the exodus narrative.  And, applying this line of exegesis even further, R. Akiva concluded that בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי of Leviticus 23 also refers to divine clouds.  When the Torah tells us that Sukkot (the holiday) recalls “that I made the children of Israel to dwell 'בַסֻּכּוֹת' when I brought them out of the land of Egypt,” it refers quite literally to the event immediately following the exodus from Egypt, i.e., the arrival at a place that came to be known as Sukkot, because of clouds, rather than tents. 

In fact, the linkage between clouds and Sukkot (the place) is already implied in Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai (Bo 12), in a passage parallel to the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmael cited above:

 סוכותה.  ר' עקיבה אומ' סוכות ממש עשו להן בסוכות. ר' אליעזר אומ' סוכות ענני כבוד באו וחנו על גגי רעמסס. מושלו משל, למה הדבר דומה? לחתן שהביא אפריון לפתח ביתה של כלה כדי שתכנס לו מיד 

Note the explicit linkage in R. Eliezer's view between the clouds and Ramses, the station immediately preceding Sukkot, where the Exodus began.

(I was pleased to discover that David Zvi Hoffmann takes this overall approach in Das Buch Leviticus, 1906; Hebrew edition, Sefer Vayikra, Jerusalem, 1976, v. 2, pp. 206ff.)

Now that we have established a textual connection between tents and divine clouds, here are some thoughts on the meaning of "clouds of honor":

The ענני כבוד of the Sages are based on biblical imagery that we have cited above, but only on a subset of those images.  The clouds imagined by the Sages are intimate and protective rather than numinous or glorious. They represent the Shekhina in its familiar, maternal form.  These are not the same clouds which descended on Sinai accompanied by fire and thunder, or which filled the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple when each was dedicated.  When God appears in a cloud, the Bible often calls his presence 'כְבוֹד ה (e.g., Ex. 16:10, 24:17, 40:34).  The King James Version translates this phrase as the "glory of God."  But the ענני כבוד of the Sages are different.  Rather than a symbol of God's overwhelming glory, they are a sign of God's honor and love for Israel.

The Mekhilta (Petihta Beshalah) states that the pillar of cloud was a widely visible display of affection designed to honor Israel in the eyes of the nations - כך הודיע הקב״ה חבתן של ישראל לאומות העולם שהוא בעצמו הלך לפניהם שיהיו נוהגים עמהם בכבוד.  Therefore, we may conclude that the "כבוד" in ענני כבוד belongs to Israel, rather than to God.  For this reason I have translated this term as "clouds of honor" rather than "clouds of glory."  (The contrast between glory and honor is wonderfully illustrated in the KJV's dual translation of כבוד within a single biblical verse, Prov. 25:2: כְּבֹד אֱלֹהִים הַסְתֵּר דָּבָר וּכְבֹד מְלָכִים חֲקֹר דָּבָר - KJV: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter").

The Midrash associates the clouds of honor with parental and even romantic imagery from the Bible. With imagery drawn from the Ha'azinu poem, the Sages portray God enveloping Israel in the desert as a mother or father shields a young child:

(Deuteronomy 32:10)  יִמְצָאֵהוּ בְּאֶרֶץ מִדְבָּר וּבְתֹהוּ יְלֵל יְשִׁמֹן יְסֹבֲבֶנְהוּ יְבוֹנֲנֵהוּ יִצְּרֶנְהוּ כְּאִישׁוֹן עֵינוֹ 

(Bemidbar Rabba 2:6) יְסֹבֲבֶנְהוּ - שהקיפן בענני כבוד

Using an even more intimate metaphor, the Sages compare the clouds to the surrounding embrace of the male lover in the Song of Songs (2:6; Midrash Zuta, ed. Buber, 2):

שְֹמֹאלוֹ תַּחַת לְרֹאשִׁי. אלו ענני הכבוד שהיו מקיפים את ישראל מלמעלה ומלמטה

In yet another midrash (Shir Ha-Shirim Rabba 2) on the same verse, סוכות and clouds are again tied together, though here the divine clouds are imagined in Israel's future rather than its past:

שְֹמֹאלוֹ תַּחַת לְרֹאשִׁי, זו סוכה, וִימִינוֹ תְּחַבְּקֵנִי, זה ענן שכינה לעתיד לבא הה"ד (ישעיהו ס') לֹא-יִהְיֶה-לָּךְ עוֹד הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ לְאוֹר יוֹמָם וּלְנֹגַהּ הַיָּרֵחַ לֹא-יָאִיר לָךְ. מי מאיר לך? (שם) וְהָיָה-לָךְ ה' לְאוֹר עוֹלָם.

"A Wise and Understanding People"

וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם וַעֲשִֹיתֶם כִּי הִוא חָכְמַתְכֶם וּבִינַתְכֶם לְעֵינֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁמְעוּן אֵת כָּל-הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה וְאָמְרוּ רַק עַם-חָכָם וְנָבוֹן הַגּוֹי הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה: כִּי מִי-גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ אֱ-לֹהִים קְרֹבִים אֵלָיו כַּה' אֱ-לֹהֵינוּ בְּכָל-קָרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו: וּמִי גּוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים צַדִּיקִם כְּכֹל הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם

Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?

In its simplest reading, this passage (Deuteronomy 4:6-8) states that when Israel's neighbors encounter the mitzvot of the Torah, they will react with admiration. It thus presumes that the commandments have a universal, even self-evident, quality. As if to say: When it comes to the Torah, what’s not to like?  

But, in reality, the idea that the non-Jewish world can easily identify with our laws is not at all a given. In fact, we have been taught from an early age that the moral barriers between Israel and the nations are too high to overcome. When God offered the Torah to each of Israel’s neighbors, as we know from the oft-repeated midrash, they rejected it as fundamentally incompatible with their core beliefs and practices.  

This latter view may have led some of the Sages to minimize the scope of the verses above. For example, Rabbi Shmuel (Shabbat 75a) attributes the “wisdom and understanding” of this passage to one particular aspect of the law, i.e., astronomical and calendrical calculations. Such knowledge is undeniably universal:

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן: מנין שמצוה על האדם לחשב תקופות ומזלות? ־ שנאמר (דברים ד) ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים. איזו חכמה ובינה שהיא לעיני העמים? ־ הוי אומר זה חישוב תקופות ומזלות

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it derived that there is a mitzva to calculate the seasons and the movement of constellations? As it was stated: “And you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:6). What wisdom and understanding is there that is "in the eyes of the nations"? You must say: This is the calculation of seasons and the movement of constellations.

Mastery of astronomy -- an empirical, objective science required for establishing the halahkic calendar -- will surely impress the nations. Particularistic laws, such as Shabbat and kashrut, could never achieve the same result.

Maimonides, on the other hand, took a maximalist approach to these verses. He cites them in the Guide of the Perplexed (III:31) within an impassioned argument for the existence of intelligible reasons for all the mitzvot, including the hukkim (as traditionally understood, seemingly unintelligible statutes). After all, he says, the hukkim are singled out in this passage by name:

. . . The sole object of the Law is to benefit us. Thus we explained the Scriptural passage, "for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day" (Deut. 6:24). Again, "which shall hear all those statutes (hukkim), and say, surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people" (ibid. 4:6). He thus says that even every one of these "statutes" convinces all nations of the wisdom and understanding it includes.  But if no reason could be found for these statutes, if they produced no advantage and removed no evil, why then should he who believes in them and follows them be wise, reasonable, and so excellent as to raise the admiration of all nations?

This view should be expected from Maimonides, the foremost medieval rationalist, with his unshakeable confidence in the rational basis of every mitzvah, without exception. Because the reasons for the mitzvot are based on universally acknowledged goods, it is only natural that they display universal “wisdom and understanding.” 

It is interesting to contrast this interpretation with a much later one, by the brilliant nineteenth-century Lithuanian rabbi known as "Netziv" (R. Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, d. 1893, Ha'amek Davar, Deut. 4:6). Like the Talmudic sage R. Shmuel, he too narrows the subject of these verses, but in a very different direction. For Netziv, they refer to the "Oral Law," i.e., the Talmud. The Gentiles will one day acknowledge the Oral, rather than the Written Law, as the defining achievement of the Jewish people, he says, since Talmudic logic and methodology -- this, Netziv says, is how we should interpret the word hukkim -- are clearly the product of Israel’s “wisdom and understanding.” The ever-expanding universe of Talmudic law, even more than the written Torah, will bring honor to the Jewish people:

As you continuously add to the abundance of the [Oral] Law, over and above the Written Law, the nations of the world will be amazed [to discover] how expansive and exalted it is, due to the wisdom and understanding of Israel.

Note the two ideas implicit in this argument, alluding to hot-button issues of Netziv's day (and, indeed, our own):

1. Torah study vs. secular studies: The Talmud, rather than the sciences, represents the crowning intellectual and moral achievement of the Jewish people. Recognition by and respect of the Gentiles will be achieved only by looking inwards -- by mastering Jewish law rather than secular studies.*

2. Priority of Talmud over Tanakh: Christians have also accepted (at least part of) the Written Law and the prophecies of the Hebrew Bible. But the Oral Law is superior to the Written Law, it defines Judaism, and is unavailable to the nations.

Netziv's highly creative and apparently original interpretation of Deut. 4:6 may have been influenced by an earlier towering figure of the nineteenth century, R. Moses Sofer ("Hatam Sofer," d. 1839). R. Sofer lists a number of sciences (astronomy, geography, botany, anatomy, music, theology) whose knowledge is a prerequisite for observing many biblical mitzvot. And yet, of course, there is no mention of these at all in the Torah itself. What will impress the nations, R. Sofer suggests, is not that the Jewish people have mastered the sciences from secular books,** but that they were able to derive scientific wisdom from the Bible by means of their "understating," i.e., through esoteric hints within the words of the Torah, an epistemologically all-encompassing text (Derashot, ed. Y. N. Stern, p. 202).

*On Netziv's approach to secular studies, see Hannah Katz, Mishnat Ha-Netziv (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 109ff.

**In practice, Sofer's attitude towards secular studies was much more nuanced. See Eliezer Katz, Ha-Hatam Sofer (Jerusalem, 1960), pp. 101ff.

Dairy on Shavuot

(For an historical, peshat-oriented perspective on this topic, please see my essay on Shavuot, dairy, and gratitude for food security.)

Some holiday customs are like difficult biblical texts. We've practiced them for centuries, but their origins and meaning remain obscure. We "read" them annually, even while we may not fully appreciate their significance. And, much like biblical exegesis, the pursuit of explanations for customs (ta'ame ha-minhagim), especially mysterious customs, utilizes the full range of exegetical methods, from peshat (literal interpretation) to mystical symbolism, and beyond.

Eating dairy on Shavuot is an example of a near-universal practice whose meaning is very far from obvious. Indeed, when mentioned in the halakhic literature, what often follows is a strained attempt to offer at least one, but usually multiple interpretations. Given that dairy is absent from the traditional list of Shavuot themes -- first fruits, the wheat harvest, the offering of the two loaves, and the Revelation on Mount Sinai -- that is to be expected. Neither the Talmud nor the Geonim mention the custom. Compare this, for example, to the symbolic foods of Rosh Hashana, which has a Talmudic source and whose connection to the holiday is much easier to grasp.

In the words of Magen Avraham (Orah Hayyim 494:3, n. 6), "there are numerous reasons" for eating dairy on Shavuot. But few, if any, are satisfying. 

Rema (R. Moses Isserles) in the Shulhan Arukh provides the following explanation: 

:רמ"א או"ח תצ"ד:ג



ונוהגין בכמה מקומות לאכול מאכלי חלב ביום ראשון של שבועות ונ״ל הטעם שהוא כמו השני תבשילין שלוקחים בליל פסח זכר לפסח וזכר לחגיגה כן אוכלים מאכל חלב ואח״כ מאכל בשר וצריכין להביא עמהם ב׳ לחם על השלחן שהוא במקום המזבח ויש בזה זכרון לב׳ הלחם שהיו מקריבין ביום הבכורים

In this completely original "halakhic midrash," Rema ties the custom of eating dairy to minhat bikurim, or shetei ha-lehem, the two loaves of wheat bread offered in the Temple on Shavuot. When eating a dairy meal followed by a meat meal, he assumes that one will use two separate loaves of bread. Eating an additional dairy meal on Shavuot thus helps recall the two-loaves offering.

If this explanation strikes you as far-fetched, you are in good company. R. Hezkiah da Silva, the seventeenth-century author of Peri Hadash on the Shulhan Arukh, dismisses it as "weak" and points instead to the Talmud's comparison of the Torah to three essential liquids -- water, wine, and milk:

פרי חדש הלכות פסח סימן תצד:

הטעם כו׳ (רמ״א): כמה טעם חלוש הוא זה !ויותר נראה לומר שאוכלים מאכל חלב משום שהוא יום שניתנה בו תורה והתורה נמשלה בו כדאמרינן בפ”ק דתענית למה נמשלו דברי תורה לג׳ משקין הללו במים וביין ובחלב כו׳ .ובכל בו בסימן נב מצאתי נהגו לאכול דבש וחלב מפני התורה שנמשלה בהם כמו שכתוב דבש וחלב החת לשונך.

The most familiar explanation, by far, both in the Minhagim literature and in the popular imagination, links the custom to the Revelation at Sinai. There are a few variations, but here is the gist: After the Revelation at Sinai on 6 Sivan, the new kashrut laws required the Israelites to abandon their now-treif vessels and to practice vegetarianism (for a day) until their utensils could be kashered. This explanation is cited and endorsed by R. Yisrael Meir Kagan, author of Mishnah Berurah. No doubt, a stamp of approval by the pious and widely revered sage explains its current popularity:

משנה ברורה הלכות פסח סימן תצד,סקי"ב:

עיין מ״א. ואני שמעתי עוד בשם גדול אחד שאמר טעם נכון לזה, כי בעת שעמדו על הר סיני וקבלו התורה [כי בעשרת הדברות נתגלה להם עי״ז כל חלקי התורה כמו שכתב רב סעדיה גאון שבעשרת הדברות כלולה כל התורה] וירדו מן ההר לביתם לא מצאו מה לאכול תיכף כ״א מאכלי חלב, כי לבשר צריך הכנה רבה לשחוט בסכין בדוק כאשר צוה ה׳ ולנקר חוטי החלב והדם ולהדיח ולמלוח ולבשל בכלים חדשים, כי הכלים שהיו להם מקודם שבישלו בהם באותו מעל״ע נאסרו להם ע״כ בחרו להם לפי שעה מאכלי חלב ואנו עושין זכר לזה 

In similar fashion to Rema, this novel interpretation links dairy with the Revelation at Sinai, the most recognizable feature of Shavuot.  

The explanation cited by Mishnah Berurah in the name of an anonymous "גדול אחד" (a certain sage) was apparently popular in early Hasidic circles. It is recorded in Geulat Yisrael, an anthology of commentaries attributed to first and second-generation Hasidic masters, first published in 1821 (and cited by Abraham Y. Sperling in Ta'ame Ha-Minhagim u-Mekore ha-Dinim, Jerusalem, 1957, p. 281). After listing some of the prevalent reasons for eating dairy, and pointing out the flaws in each one, the author of Geulat Yisrael offers the original interpretation popularized later by Mishnah Berurah.

Though widely cited as incontrovertible fact, the non-kosher-dishes theory is a relatively late explanation for a much older custom, that is a forced, if creative, anachronism. His legendary stature notwithstanding, the Mishnah Berurah did not have the last word on the matter. Other great and God-fearing scholars of the twentieth century were openly skeptical: Issachar Jacobson called the theory "tenuous" (rofef), noting that the Israelites ate manna, rather than meat, before arriving at Mt. Sinai (Netiv Bina, vol. 4, Tel Aviv, 1978, p. 154; note that Jacobson quotes Sperling and Geulat Yisrael, rather than Mishnah Berurah). R. Yosef Kafih reported that the dairy custom -- as thus justified -- perplexed Yemenite Jewry, since they believed the Israelites observed kashrut from the time of the biblical patriarchs (Halikhot Teman, Jerusalem, 1982, p. 31).  

In fact, dairy on Shavuot appears to be medieval in origin. Avigdor Ha-Zarefati, a Tosafist of the early thirteenth century, is so far the earliest authority we know of to mention it (Perushim u-Pesakim al Ha-Torah, Jerusalem, 1996, p. 478. Thanks go to Marc B. Shapiro for this reference). 

The anonymous Kol Bo, apparently authored by Aharon ha-Kohen of Lunel in the early fourteenth century, is one of the oldest printed sources for the custom. The author, who also wrote the Orhot Hayyim, was exiled from France in the expulsion of 1306 and emigrated to Majorca, off the coast of northern Spain. Kol Bo records the custom of eating both milk and honey on Shavuot: 

:ספר כלבו סימן נב

גם נהגו לאכול דבש וחלב בחג שבועות מפני התורה שנמשלה לדבש וחלב כמו שכתוב (שיר השירים ד, יא) דבש וחלב תחת לשונך

In the rabbinic allegorical reading, the phrase דבש וחלב תחת לשונך (Song of Songs 4:11) is a metaphor -- either for Torah study, or for Israel's unconditional acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. See, for example, the passage below from Tanhuma (ed. Buber, Ki Tisa, 9):  

דבש וחלב תחת לשונך, אימתי? בשעה שאת עסוקה בתורה. ד״א דבש וחלב תחת לשונך, בשעה שעמדו לפני הר סיני ואמרו כל אשר דבר ה׳ נעשה ונשמע (שמות כד ז), באותה שעה אמר להם הקב״ה דבש וחלב תחת לשונך

Another fourteenth-century work, Tzeda La-Derekh (Warsaw, 1880, p. 215), refers to both milk and honey, and it too cites the verse above from the Song of Songs. The author, Menahem ben Zerah, also from a family of refugees from the French expulsion of 1306, lived in various Spanish communities. Note that Avigdor Ha-Zarefati mentions only dairy; I don't mean to suggest that the earliest custom necessarily included both milk and honey. But there is enough evidence to say that milk-and-honey, as a unit, was widespread in parts of France and Spain not long after the Shavuot practice began.

Taking milk and honey together, here is my own midrashic interpretation:

Bikurim (first fruits) is a central biblical feature of Shavuot. The mikra bikurim at the beginning of Parashat Ki Tavo concludes with the following words (Deut. 26:9-10):

וַיְבִאֵנוּ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וַיִּתֶּן-לָנוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ: וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה הֵבֵאתִי אֶת-רֵאשִׁית פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתָּה לִּי ה’

I don't know of any source which cites this verse in the context of the Shavuot custom, but I believe it's a natural fit. Shavuot was the beginning of the wheat harvest and was the first opportunity on the calendar to offer first fruits in the Temple. It is therefore the appropriate time to praise God for the land and its produce. The expression אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ  -- a ubiquitous biblical motto for the Land of Israel -- may have given rise to a custom of eating both milk and honey to recall Shavuot as the holiday of the first fruits of Eretz Yisrael.

Taking this interpretation a bit further: Recall that the verses above from mikra bikurim follow immediately the passage at the core of the maggid in the Passover Haggadah. If Shavuot is viewed as the final phase of Passover, one could argue that on Shavuot we complete the maggid by symbolically "reciting" the very next verse in mikra bikurim, i.e., by eating milk and honey (the Sages called Shavuot עצרת and sometimes more explicitly עצרת של פסח, i.e., the conclusion of Passover, in parallel to עצרת של חג; see Shir Ha-Shirim Rabba 7:2; Nahmanides and Seforno on Lev. 23:36).  

Note as well that the words וַיְבִאֵנוּ אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה recall the phrase וְהֵבֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם אֶל-הָאָרֶץ (Ex. 6:8), the “fifth expression of redemption.” The settlement and cultivation of the Land of Israel and the offering of first fruits represent the completion of the Exodus.