June 22, 2006
How You Like 'Dem Apples!
At last night's Chumash shiur, the topic of discussion was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. R. Gottlieb reviewed the midrash which explains the various different fruits that could have been the Forbidden Fruit. It is well known that the apple, probably the most recognizable choice, is not found in any statements of Chazal.
In Western Christian art, the fruit is most commonly depicted as an apple. One possible reason for this arises from a medieval pun. It was a source of humor to monks that the Latin word for evil was similar to the word for apple. Thus it was often said that by eating the malum (apple), Eve contracted malus (evil). There is, however, no textual or historical evidence by which to argue the literalness of this image.
I find this unlikely; rather, I would think apples were called malum because of their cultural association with evil.
I knew I had read something about this somewhere, and after a little searching found what I was looking for. In Nefesh HaRav (pg 209-210), R. Herschel Schacter writes:
I heard once from [the Rav] that the GR"A had a custom not to eat grapes on Rosh HaShannah, because according to one opinion the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine...and when he mentioned this, someone asked, "But the Tree of Knowledge was an apple (tapuach)?!?" Our teacher answered him immediately that this was incorrect, rather that according to one opinion, it was an etrog, which in the language of the Tanach is called tapuach, and the Christians mixed up the tapuach from Tanach with the tapuach of today, as in the times of the Tanach, there were no apples in the Land of Israel.
What? A tapuach even in Hazal is an apple. See for instance the most common use of the verse from Shir HaShirim to be a refernce to the apple trees the Jews in Eygpt procreated under. Thus, we have apple in haroset. Show me one place that hazal refer to etrog as tapuach.
Further, malus is an apple and malum is evil - you have it the other way around. In essence talking out of your malus
"Bob,"
First off, the quote regarding the words for apple and evil are from Wikipedia, not my own, so they have it backwards not me.
Second of all, R. Schachter deals with your questions, citing the very same pasuk from Shir HaShirim you mention. I left out this part for the sake of brevity, but I'll add it in here:
"In Shir HaShirim it mentions that 'and the smell of thy countenance like apples," the intention of the verse is most certainly to some "pri hadar" (citron), whose smell travels great distances. Also see Tosafos (Ta'anit 29B sv. shel tapuchim) which says the intetion of the pasuk reagrding "tapuchim" is etrogim.
See also here: http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/charoset.htm
which mentions:
Based on this point, Rav Hershel Schachter places a citrus fruit in his Charoset instead of apples. This practice is supported by the Gemara (Pesachim 116a), which mentions that since the Charoset serves as a reminder of the Tapuach, the Charoset should be acidic. Citrus fruits are distinctively acidic but apples are not.
"Greg"
It is of interest that the Targum to those verses in Shir HaShirim state that the Tapuch is the Tapauch of the Gan Eden - the very same one. Obviously, Tosefot may disagree with the Targum but it would seem that there is at least some support for the notion that it was an apple. Additionally, there is somethign to the widespread custom of using apples for Haroset. While it may be the case that R. S. uses an etrog, I think the vast majority of Jews don't. Apples do contain acid which is in part why you can turn them into cider.
Finally, all because you cite from Wikipedia doesn't fully excuse errors. While no one expects you to do any real research into the topics you post,you could have resorted to just being content with being a googling monkey and found the proper meaning the words you were then going to discuss .. . . their proper meaining. But perhaps I am placing the bar too high.
"Bob,"
If that's the case, then the Targum might be the original source of the idea that it was an apple.
I'm not writing a scholarly paper here, just a plain old blog post, of which a portion of the purpose is to ellicit responses from readers who may have additional information to share. In your case, I appreciate the contribution, I'm not sure why you have to do it in such an abrasive manner.
Posted by: Greg at June 22, 2006 6:59 PMsee Tosafot Shabbat 88a s.v. 'piryo'. the Gemara says that the 'tapuach' has a property that its fruit precedes its leaves. R' Tam asks that we see apples all the time, and the leaves precede the fruit. He answers that 'tapuach' here is an Etrog, and backs it up with the Targum from the verse 'rei'ach apecha ke-tapuchim'.
Re: the GRA not eating grapes on RH, I guess he didn't eat wheat or figs either.
I seem to recall that Rashi translates tapuach as 'quince', a fruit in the apple family that was indigenous to the ancient middle east, was considered a sacred but seductive fruit, and was thought to be the fruit that eve gave adam. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quince
finally, another reason that the etrog mighht be called an 'apple' is because the cognate term for apple referred to any globose fruit; 'tapuach' may have the same connotation, as it literally means 'swollen'. it's interesting that the term tapuach appears only in shir ha-shirim, whose vocabulary is the latest of any biblical work (e.g., 'aperion'). see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citron
Posted by: adderabbi at June 22, 2006 7:42 PM"Greg"
I apoligize for my abrasiveness. I was just bit surprised at this post. I have come to expect your witty and critical (read smart) commentary.
Sorry to disappoint. I thought it was a pretty good post.
I've updated the Wikipedia article to use the correct terms.
Posted by: Greg at June 23, 2006 1:02 PMHey "Greg" and "Bob"!! Thanks for all this talk about apples and such! I just bought a great fruit juicer through one of your google ads! Rock On!
Posted by: Laitz-on, Laitz-off at June 24, 2006 5:29 PM
