א. לולב [...] של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת, פסול [...]
ב. הדס הגזול והיבש, פסול. של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת, פסול [...]
ג. ערבה גזולה ויבשה פסולה. של אשירה ושל עיר הנדחת פסולה [...] ושל בעל כשרה[...]
1. A palm-branch (lulav) [...] from an Asherah, or from a condemned city, is invalid […].
2. A stolen or withered myrtle (hadas), or one of an Asherah, or of a condemned city, is invalid […].
3. A stolen or withered willow-branch (aravah), or one from an Asherah, or from a condemned city, is invalid […] and of Ba‘al is valid.
ה. אתרוג הגזול והיבש פסול. של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת פסול [...]
5. A stolen or withered citron (etrog), or one of an Asherah, or of a condemned city, is invalid […].
General observations
Chapter 3 of mSukkah deals with the qualifications necessary to make plants and fruits associated with the four species (ארבעת המינים) used in the Sukkot festival valid. In mishnayot 1, 2, 3 and 5 the same qualifications for all four species (lulav, hadas, aravah, etrog) are reiterated. In all cases it should not be stolen, withered, taken from an Asherah or a condemned city. The first category bespeaks social justice, the second – the honoring of the deity, but the third and fourth categories are associated with idolatry. A condemned city is condemned because it has turned to idolatry (Deut 13:13-18). An Asherah is an idolatrous cult object representing a Canaanite goddess. It is interesting that a willow branch (aravah) of Ba‘al is considered valid. The question what Ba‘al means is an open one. In mShev 2:9 we read that onions and vetch which were not manually watered for two seasons are called Ba‘al (בצלים הסריסים ופול המצרי [...] של בעל, שמנע מהם מים שתי עונות). Based on this source, commentators explain that the willow of a Ba’al is one that requires no water other than rain in order to grow, and does not grow near a river. Yet the origin of the term “of Ba‘al” may embody pagan connotations. Ba‘al was the Canaanite rain god and un-watered plants designated. Ba‘al may refer back to an old pagan tradition, according to which watering certain plants is left to the grace and good-will of the deity.
Feminist observations
Asherah
Both an ancient Canaanite goddess and a tree that symbolized this deity were called an Asherah. The Canaanites considered Asherah the foremost goddess and she was worshipped throughout Sidon, Tyre, the Land of Israel, Egypt and Babylonia during the second millennium BCE. Asherah was believed to be a fertility goddess and her worship apparently included sexual rites. An Asherah tree was usually planted next to the altar of the deity Ba‘al. The verbs used in the Bible to describe the destruction of an Asherah such as to cut down (כרת, גדע) and to shatter (נתץ) indicate that a large tree symbolized the goddess. Worship of Asherah became widespread shortly after the conquest of the Land of Israel, and it is often mentioned in the Books of Judges and Kings.[1]
Inscriptions dating to the period of the Divided Monarchy, or more precisely, possibly to the time of Yehoash the King of Israel, were discovered at Horvat Teiman (Kuntillat ‘Ajrud), an archaeological site in north-eastern Sinai. These include two blessings with the word Asherah. One inscription reads: ברכתי אתכם ליהוה ש(ו)מר(ו)ן ולאשרתה (My blessing to you, Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah) and another ברכתך ליהוה ת(י)מן ולאשרתה (Your blessing to Yahweh of Teiman and to his Asherah). The unusual word combination in these texts indicates that two deities, the male Yahweh along with the female Asherah, were conceived and worshipped as a couple.[2] In an article discussing the question as to whether the Prophet Huldah was a prophet of Yahweh or Asherah, Diana Edelman claims that biblical texts bear many traces of an officially sanctioned belief in a dual deity, male and female.[3] Based on the fact that Hezekiah and Josiah banished the cult of Asherah from the Temple in Jerusalem, Edelman deduces that other kings of Judah must have allowed and even supported such a practice. She therefore concludes that worship of Asherah as the spouse of Yahweh was a legitimate custom in Judah during the period of the Monarchy. Biblical and extra-biblical texts, including those from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, support this conjecture. She criticizes scholars who, based on the claim that biblical Hebrew names do not take the possessive ending, interpret אשרתה as the name of a ceremonial object, and reject the reading “his (Yahweh’s) Asherah.”[4] Edelman claims that this possessive suffix might have been written by a scribe who did not know Hebrew grammar and who merely tried to distinguish between the male deity and his spouse. She maintains that the name of a ceremonial object could not be identical with that of a female deity who was known, at least in two pantheons (in Ur and Ugarit), as El’s spouse/partner. Edelman also believes that Asherah, like other female deities in ancient patriarchal societies, functioned as an intermediary between her divine husband and human beings. With the development of monotheism, this role was eliminated – the god which had been her spouse was transformed into the sole deity ruling the world.[5]
References to Asherah in tannaitic literature demonstrate that its cult still aroused apprehensions, even in a much later period. tAZ 6:8 states: “Which is an Asherah? That which is worshiped and preserved by gentiles” (ואיזהו אשירה? כל שהגויים עובדין ומשמרין אותה). This seems to indicate that a cult of Asherah, which flourished among Gentiles, was known to the editors of the Mishnah, and they list numerous prohibitions concerning Asherah, such as “one should not sit in its shade […] one should not pass underneath it” (mAZ 3:8), “if one takes branches from it their enjoyment is forbidden” (mAZ 3:9) etc., demonstrating that they were concerned about the proliferation of her cult among Jews. The following statement in tAvodah Zarah shows that there were grounds for the sages’ apprehension: “A Jew who fashioned an Asherah, either for her requirement or for his own it is forbidden” ישראל שפיסל את) האשרה בין לצרכה ובין לצורכו אסור) (tAZ 6:9).
Based on the following references to Asherah in the Mishnah, we can deduce that people worshipped the Asherah tree, wooden idols made from it, and the site where it stood. There is no evidence that these people were Jews:
Inscriptions dating to the period of the Divided Monarchy, or more precisely, possibly to the time of Yehoash the King of Israel, were discovered at Horvat Teiman (Kuntillat ‘Ajrud), an archaeological site in north-eastern Sinai. These include two blessings with the word Asherah. One inscription reads: ברכתי אתכם ליהוה ש(ו)מר(ו)ן ולאשרתה (My blessing to you, Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah) and another ברכתך ליהוה ת(י)מן ולאשרתה (Your blessing to Yahweh of Teiman and to his Asherah). The unusual word combination in these texts indicates that two deities, the male Yahweh along with the female Asherah, were conceived and worshipped as a couple.[2] In an article discussing the question as to whether the Prophet Huldah was a prophet of Yahweh or Asherah, Diana Edelman claims that biblical texts bear many traces of an officially sanctioned belief in a dual deity, male and female.[3] Based on the fact that Hezekiah and Josiah banished the cult of Asherah from the Temple in Jerusalem, Edelman deduces that other kings of Judah must have allowed and even supported such a practice. She therefore concludes that worship of Asherah as the spouse of Yahweh was a legitimate custom in Judah during the period of the Monarchy. Biblical and extra-biblical texts, including those from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, support this conjecture. She criticizes scholars who, based on the claim that biblical Hebrew names do not take the possessive ending, interpret אשרתה as the name of a ceremonial object, and reject the reading “his (Yahweh’s) Asherah.”[4] Edelman claims that this possessive suffix might have been written by a scribe who did not know Hebrew grammar and who merely tried to distinguish between the male deity and his spouse. She maintains that the name of a ceremonial object could not be identical with that of a female deity who was known, at least in two pantheons (in Ur and Ugarit), as El’s spouse/partner. Edelman also believes that Asherah, like other female deities in ancient patriarchal societies, functioned as an intermediary between her divine husband and human beings. With the development of monotheism, this role was eliminated – the god which had been her spouse was transformed into the sole deity ruling the world.[5]
References to Asherah in tannaitic literature demonstrate that its cult still aroused apprehensions, even in a much later period. tAZ 6:8 states: “Which is an Asherah? That which is worshiped and preserved by gentiles” (ואיזהו אשירה? כל שהגויים עובדין ומשמרין אותה). This seems to indicate that a cult of Asherah, which flourished among Gentiles, was known to the editors of the Mishnah, and they list numerous prohibitions concerning Asherah, such as “one should not sit in its shade […] one should not pass underneath it” (mAZ 3:8), “if one takes branches from it their enjoyment is forbidden” (mAZ 3:9) etc., demonstrating that they were concerned about the proliferation of her cult among Jews. The following statement in tAvodah Zarah shows that there were grounds for the sages’ apprehension: “A Jew who fashioned an Asherah, either for her requirement or for his own it is forbidden” ישראל שפיסל את) האשרה בין לצרכה ובין לצורכו אסור) (tAZ 6:9).
Based on the following references to Asherah in the Mishnah, we can deduce that people worshipped the Asherah tree, wooden idols made from it, and the site where it stood. There is no evidence that these people were Jews:
[1] See FRYMER, “Asherah.”
[2] See MESHEL, “Teman, Horvat,” 1461-3.
[3] EDELMAN, “Huldah.”
[4] See EDELMAN, “Huldah,” 246, n. 1 for a list of scholars who accept the interpretation of ולאשרתה in the text from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud as “to his Asherah” and support the hypothesis that Asherah was viewed as Yahweh’s partner/spouse during the period of the Monarchy.
[5] And see also HADLEY, The Cult of Asherah [ed].
שלש אשרות הן: אילן שנטען מתחילה לשם עבודה זרה, הרי זה אסור; גדעו ופסלו לשם עבודה זרה והחליף, נוטל מה שהחליף; העמיד תחתיו עבודה זרה ובטלה, הרי זה מותר. איזו היא אשרה? כל שיש תחתיה עבודה זרה. רבי שמעון אומר: כל שעובדין אותה. ומעשה בצידן באילן שהיו עובדין אותו ומצאו תחתיו גל. אמר להן רבי שמעון: בדקו את הגל הזה. ובדקוהו ומצאו בו צורה. אמר להן: הואיל ולצורה הן עובדין, נתיר להן את האילן.
There are three [sorts of] Asherot: A tree that was planted for the purpose of idol worship is forbidden; if it was cut and sculpted for idol worship and was replaced, one may take what was replaced; if he placed idol worship beneath it and then cancelled it, it is permitted. What is an Ashereh? Each [tree] that has under it idol worship. Rabbi Shime‘on says: Every [tree] that is worshiped. There was a case in Sidon of a tree that was worshiped and they found a heap [of stones] beneath it. Rabbi Shime‘on said to them: Check this heap. They checked it and found in it a sculpture. He said to them: Since they worship the sculpture, we shall permit the tree.
Aside from sugyot discussing halakhot in the Mishnah, the Bavli usually refers to Asherah and her cult within the context of the sins of the kings of Israel or in a metaphorical sense, such as Resh Lakish’s statement that “anyone who brings a dishonest judge it is as if he planted an Asherah among Jews” (bSanh 7b). Obviously these references are of little interest to a feminist discussion of the goddess.
Following the blessing over the four species, one shakes the lulav while praying for rain. Rabbinic sources describe rain as the concrete expression of the strength and fertility of a masculine God. mTaan 1:1 describes rain as גבורות גשמים – virile rain – and mTaan 2-4 designate rainfall with the term – רביעה copulation.[1] Jeffrey Rubenstein’s explanation of the lulav’s symbolism is germane to this issue. He believes that the lulav represents “a fertility symbol and rain charm. The festal bouquet served as a function similar to that of libations and the circumambulations of the altar, and was related to the power of the temple as the ultimate source of fertility.”[2] Thus, using a lulav to worship Asherah may indicate a certain symbiotic relationship between the two. The lulav’s phallus-like shape would demonstrate the submission of male virility to the female fertility goddess. Because such concepts are foreign to the masculinized Jewish religion, this may explain why a lulav from an Asherah (as well as a myrtle and willow) is considered invalid according to mSuk 3:1-3.
On the other hand, mSuk 3:3 also determines that “the willow […] of a Ba‘al is valid.” If, as suggested in the general observations above, the term Ba‘al could refer to the Canaanite rain god, who is the counterpart (spouse or son) of Asherah, then, the expression “willow of a Ba‘al” may signify a willow-branch used in Ba‘al worship or in association with it. Such a suspicion arises especially since Ba‘al and Asherah are here mentioned together in one mishnah. How can we explain the paradox of validating the “willow of a Ba‘al” and invalidating the palm branch, willow, myrtle and citron of an Asherah? I believe that this genderbased distinction can be explained as emanating from a desire to distance Jewish ritual from goddess worship while not paying attention to the worship of a pagan (patriarchal, male) god because of its similarity to the worship of the God of Israel.
On the other hand, mSuk 3:3 also determines that “the willow […] of a Ba‘al is valid.” If, as suggested in the general observations above, the term Ba‘al could refer to the Canaanite rain god, who is the counterpart (spouse or son) of Asherah, then, the expression “willow of a Ba‘al” may signify a willow-branch used in Ba‘al worship or in association with it. Such a suspicion arises especially since Ba‘al and Asherah are here mentioned together in one mishnah. How can we explain the paradox of validating the “willow of a Ba‘al” and invalidating the palm branch, willow, myrtle and citron of an Asherah? I believe that this genderbased distinction can be explained as emanating from a desire to distance Jewish ritual from goddess worship while not paying attention to the worship of a pagan (patriarchal, male) god because of its similarity to the worship of the God of Israel.