Re: CHAT: Citrons (was: Danny Wier's PIE (was: Vocab #5))

On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:42:58 -0000 Lars Henrik Mathiesen
<thorinn@...> writes:
> > > That site also claims that the original Sukkot fruit was that
> of
> > > the cedar tree, and that its name (Hebrew hadar > Greek kedros
> > > Latin cedrus) was changed somehow to give Latin citrus,
> presumably
> > > because of this identification. Not implausible, but I would
> want
> > > to check that with other sources before I trusted it too much.
> > That doesn't make sense.... "cedar" in Hebrew is |erez|
> Now it is. Are you sure about 3300 years ago?
> The claim on that site (not my claim) is that the tree that Moses
> called hadar was the cedar, but that Jews changed over to using the
> citron at some point. Is that unclear from my posting?
-

I remember seeing |erez| in Biblical literature...
let me go search for an example...
The website Snunit http://www1.snunit.k12.il has a searchable archive of
Jewish religious texts, including the Bible and the Talmud.
Multiple occurances of |erez| in Vayiqra (Leviticus) chapter 14, the
instructions for purification of someone smitten with |tzara`at|
(commonly translated as 'leprosy', but it probably isn't).
Multiple occurances throughout Tehillim (Psalms), including 29:5 (your
numbering may vary) - "the voice of God breaks cedars, God breaks the
cedars of Lebanon".
Various other examples of the compound "cedar(s) of Lebanon", or
association of cedars with Lebanon:
Zekharya (Zachariah?) 11:1
Kings-I 5 (multiple times)
Shofetim 9:15
Yesha`yahu (Isaiah) 2:13
Yehhezqeil (Ezekiel) 31:3

The word |etrog| (citron) doesn't occur in the Bible, although it occurs
in the Aramaic translation of the "fruit of the beautiful tree" verse,
and it occurs many times in the Mishna (first post-Biblical Jewish legal
compendium, c. 200 CE) when discussing the fruit needed for the holiday
of Sukkot.

> Where does it say they aren't? But the part I read only talked
> about
> Italian supplies of citrons to European Jews in the 11th century, so
> I didn't want to extend it.
-

That's what i assumed it was saying based on the specifying European
Jews.

> It's claiming that the Jews changed the fruit used some time during
> the last 3300 years, and that the Romans took them up on it ---
> that is, the idea of the citrus/citron being the fruit of the cedros.
> I still don't think it's a well founded claim, but your objections
> aren't that convincing either. Further evidence is needed, either
> way.
-

Hrrm... i'd consider it a safe bet that if a cedar had been meant, it
would have said |erez|.  Actually, i just realized that |pri `eitz hadar|
is an ambiguous construct-and-adjective phrase: it could be "fruit of (a)
beautiful tree" or beautiful fruit of (a) tree".  The earliest references
to |etrog| i know of are in the Mishna... although in one of those places
it talks about a priest-king of the Hasmonean dynasty (c. 100BCE i think)
getting pelted with citrons because the people disagreed with how he was
performing a ritual.
I don't know where the website is basing it's claim that |hadar| =
|erez|, though.  I've only ever seen it as an adjective meaning
"beautiful" or "splendid".

> Lars Mathiesen (U of Copenhagen CS Dep) <thorinn@...> (Humour
> NOT marked)
-Stephen (Steg)
 "eh."

Reply