LULAV AND ESROG AFTER SUCCS

QUESTION:

Is there any guidance in the legal tradition as to how one should dispose of the lulav and esrog after Succos is over? (Asked by Rabbi Mark Staitman, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.)

ANSWER:

IT IS VIRTUALLY impossible to preserve a lulav and esrog for another year. The esrog dries up, and the leaves of the lulav dry up and grow brittle. So the normal procedure has always been to get new esrogim and lulavim each year for Succos. This is the reason for the question which has been asked here, as to what is the proper mode of disposal of this year’s esrog and lulav after Succos is over.

In our religious life there is a large variety of objects must be removed when a larger Ark is needed, coverings of the Sefer Torah, mantles, etc., which get worn out, fringes (tzitzis) which get torn, etc. Therefore it is understandable that there has developed a great deal of law on the question of proper disposal of such objects when they are no longer usable.

It must be understood at the outset that these various objects are not all of equal sanctity. Some are much holier than others. So the Mishnah (in Megillah 3:1) discusses the necessary procedure when a community sells the public square. The square had a sort of a semi-sanctity because services were held there on fast-days. When the square is sold, we must use the money to buy a synagogue. When a synagogue is sold, we may buy an Ark with the money. When an Ark is sold, we may buy Torah covers with the money. When the Torah covers are sold, we may buy Torahs, etc. In other words, there is an ascending scale of sanctity, and in the case of sale of any of these objects, we always step upward in the order of sanctity, but never downward.

All this applies, of course, when there is an actual sale of these sacred objects. But what if there is no sale at all, but the sacred object was merely worn out and must be discarded, as happens with the mantle on the Torah or the Torah itself? What then should be done with them? This brings us close to the question which has been asked.

With regard to sacred objects which are no longer usable, and also with regard to objects which have already fulfilled their religious purpose, such as torn fringes or tzitzis or the walls of the Succah after Succos is over, the law makes a sharp distinction between two classes of such objects. One class is called “appurtenances of holiness” (tashmishey kedusha). The other class is called “appurtenances of a mitzvah” (tashmishey mitzvah). In the former class, the worn-out object retains its sanctity even when no longer in use. In the second class, after the object has been used in the performance of the mitzvah, it has no sanctity left at all. See the statement of Joseph Caro with regard to the broken fringes in Orach Chayim 21:1 (en b’ gufakedusha). Included in the former class, the “appurtenances of holiness,” are unused Sefer Torahs, coverings of the Sefer Torahs, tefillin, mezuzahs, etc. These objects, though now unusable, are still sacred and are to be hidden away (nignozin). Of course, “hidden away” may include burial in the cemetery.

The second class, objects which are no longer sacred after having served their purpose, includes the Succah itself, fringes torn off a tallis, the lulav, etc. These objects need not even be stored away but, as the Talmud says, they may be simply thrown away (“on the dunghill”) (cf. Orach Chayim 21:1, see the whole discussion in Megillah 26b).

One might mention here that printed prayerbooks, which could well be considered merely “appurtenances of a mitzvah” and therefore be thrown away when they become worn out, nevertheless are stored and often buried (even torn pages from old prayerbooks), as are the “appurtenances of holiness,” but that is because they contain the Name of God on almost every page.

The list in the Talmud of “appurtenances of mitzvah” which may be thrown away includes the lulav but does not mention the esrog. It is obvious, however, that the esrog also belongs to this class which has no more sanctity once it has served its purpose (i.e., tashmishey mitzvah). The proof of this is the fact that the esrog, being edible, was eaten after it had served its purposes of the mitzvah. So the Talmud speaks of the eating of the citron by children and by adults (Succah 46a), and the Shulchan Aruch states that in Israel esrogim may be eaten after Shemini Atzeres, but outside of Israel, not until after the ninth day.

In passing, a folkloristic use of the citron might also be mentioned here. It was a widespread folk-custom that pregnant women on Hoshana Rabba would bite off the bitter stem of the esrog, the reason being as follows: In Midrash Rabba (Genesis R. 15:7) there are many speculations as to what was the species of fruit with which Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, and one opinion is that the forbidden fruit was the esrog. So the pregnant women bite the bitter part of the esrog in order to declare that they do not share in Eve’s sin and thus hope to earn God’s protection during pregnancy and childbirth (see the explanation of this folk custom in Hershovitz, Ozar Minhagim, p. 113).

Thus it is clear that the lulav and the esrog have no sacredness at all left in them after having been used in the mitzvah on Succos and thus can be disposed of off-hand. But one can easily understand how later tradition felt uneasy about treating so cavalierly objects which just a short time ago were revered as sacred during the performance of the mitzvah. Therefore folk-custom began to add precautions as to the mode of disposal of these objects. For example, the torn threads of the fringes were used by Maharil (Be’er Hetev) as bookmarks (cf. Be’er Hetev to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 21). As for the willows used on Hoshana Rabba, the note Haga’ha to Asher ben Yechiel to Megillah, Chapter IV, states that while the willows may be thrown away, they should not be trodden underfoot. And it is reported by Maharil that pious people often save the willows to light the fire later for the baking of the matzos. Thus, though discarded, they were still used for a mitzvah (cf. Isserles to Orach Chayim 664:9).

In the light of the traditional disinclination just to throw away these objects carelessly (which would be completely permissible), we may come to the following conclusion. Strictly speaking, the lulav and esrog may indeed just be thrown away (“on the dunghill”). But we would share the feelings of the past that it would be wrong to see them lying on a heap of debris in a public thoroughfare. Therefore they should be disposed of with some respect to the status which, though they now lack, they once had. They should perhaps be wrapped up carefully, so as not to be visible to any passerby, and then put away for disposal or, since when Succos is over furnaces are soon lit, they may be perhaps burned up in the furnace. This would be a decent disposal which many authorities permit even for disused prayerbook pages (see references in Reform Responsa, pp. 71 ff.).