[Avodah] Rashi and geography

[Shoshana L. Boublil]

> Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 23:12:19 +0300
> From: "Shalom Berger" <lookjed at mail.biu.ac.il>
> Subject: [Avodah] Rashi and geography
> To: <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
> Message-ID: <018101c79be4$5ec0c950$917ba8c0 at lookstei8a48c4>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
>
> I was learning Massechet Sukkah with my son and we came across the sugya 
> of "etrog ha-kushi" (31a), which concludes that whether or not a black 
> etrog is kosher depends on where you are - "ha lan ve-ha lehu."
>
> Rashi's explaination follows the usual definition of those terms, and he 
> explains that since Bavel is closer to Kush than is Eretz Yisrael, people 
> in Bavel are used to them, and black is acceptable. Since Israel is far 
> from Kush, black is abnormal and therefore pasul.
>
> Working with the assumption that Kush is Ethiopia, it appears that Rashi 
> has it backwards. Any suggestions?

In midrashim concerning Alexander Mokedone [Macedonian] we find the term 
"kush" used as well.

There is no historical or geographical doubt that in the case of Alexander, 
"Kush" refers to India, as that is where he went.

He did not travel at any time to Ethiopia.

So, it is quite possible that there was more than one tradition of the 
location/usage of "Kush", and in this case Rashi is actually referring to 
India.

I don't know sufficient about the agriculture of India to know if they grow 
such etrogim.  Perhaps someone could find out. The question would then be if 
we are talking about Etrogim from the land of Kush (which is also called 
"Etrog Kushi") or are they actually black.


Shoshana L. Boublil