648 - תרמח דברים הפסולים באתרוג ובו ל"א סעיפים

Things That Disqualify an Esrog

1. An esrog that is wilted is kosher. But if it is dried out, it is disqualified, for it is not beautiful. The measure of dryness is when all its moisture is gone and it does not release any moisture at all. (For the moisture in a fruit is like blood in living flesh. And it is written: "The dead do not praise..." etc.) As long as it is moist, it will release moisture—either when pressed with a knife or when squeezed. But after it has dried out, it will not release any moisture. However, testing this is difficult, because it is impossible to squeeze or cut it without disqualifying it. But if a hole was made in it that does not remove any of the esrog's substance, it is kosher, provided the hole does not go all the way through. That is, the hole does not reach the seed chambers inside the esrog. In such a case, it can be tested by passing a needle with a thread through it, and if there is moisture, it will show on the thread. Care must be taken that the needle does not reach the seed chambers, and also that it does not reach the opposite side, even if not opposite the seed chambers, so as not to make a hole that goes all the way through.

2. Nevertheless, there is no obligation at all to check it, unless it appears wilted. And an esrog that was used for the blessing this year should not be checked at all in the following year, for it will certainly be found dried out.

3. An esrog that was pierced, even if the hole is wide, but no substance was removed from the esrog—for example, if a thick peg was inserted and made a hole in such a way that nothing was missing—if the length and width of the area of the hole are not as large as the area of a coin called an Iisar, it is kosher. How is this measured? If the hole is round, place the Iisar over the hole. If the hole is square or long and narrow, consider it as if it were round—that is, make a circle from the length and width of the area of the hole, and if the area of this circle is less than the area of the Iisar, it is kosher. (See Yoreh Deah, siman 34, regarding how to measure the size of an Iisar nowadays, since we do not know it at all; see there.)

4. When does this apply? When the hole does not go all the way through. But if the hole goes all the way through from one side to the other, even if it does not reach the seed chambers inside the esrog—for example, if it was pierced through the thick rind (which surrounds the seed chambers) from one side to the other, not opposite the seed chambers—even if the width of the hole is only minimal and no substance is missing from the esrog, it is disqualified.

5. But if the hole does not go all the way through from one side to the other, even if it was pierced opposite the seed chambers and the length of the hole passes through all the seed chambers up to near the end of the esrog on the opposite side, or if the esrog was pierced from both sides up to the seed chambers, and some part of the seed chambers remains whole and this intact part separates between the holes on both sides—all this is not called a hole that goes all the way through.

6. Some disagree and say that whenever the hole reaches the seed chambers, even if the seed chambers and the other side of the esrog remain intact, it is called a hole that goes all the way through, because the thick rind that surrounds the seed chambers is not considered as one with the seed chambers for this matter, but is considered a separate entity. Therefore, once it is completely pierced from one side, it is considered a hole that goes all the way through. In practice, one should be stringent according to this latter opinion, but in a pressing situation where another esrog cannot be found, one may rely on the first opinion, and it is permitted to recite the blessing on such an esrog.

7. All this applies to a hole that does not remove any substance from the esrog. But if any substance is missing from the esrog, even the smallest amount, it is disqualified, even if the hole does not go all the way through and is not as large as an Iisar.

8. Some disagree with all this and say that a hole that does not remove any substance from the esrog does not disqualify it at all, even if it is much wider than an Iisar, and even if it goes all the way through. The Sages only distinguished between a hole that goes all the way through and one that does not, and between the size of an Iisar and less than an Iisar, in a case where substance is missing from the esrog. For if its width is as large as an Iisar, it is disqualified even if it does not go all the way through, and if its width is less than an Iisar, it is not disqualified unless it goes all the way through. One may rely on this opinion in a pressing situation where another esrog cannot be found, and then it is permitted to recite the blessing on such an esrog.

9. All this applies to a hole made after the esrog was detached. But holes made while it was still attached, such as those commonly made by thorns falling on it while attached, are customarily permitted, even if they are holes that remove substance. For any hole that occurred while it was still growing on the tree heals over with a new skin, since it is still growing. Even if there is a pit or missing substance on this new skin, it does not matter. But if we see that it did not heal over and there is missing substance in the hole, it is disqualified, even though the hole was made while it was still on the tree by a thorn.

10. When does this apply? When it is clear and visible that there is missing substance in this pit from the flesh of the esrog. But if there is doubt, perhaps nothing is missing from the flesh of the esrog, but rather, due to the pressure of the thorn, the flesh of the esrog was compressed to the sides of the hole, it is permitted. For whenever it is not clear that substance is missing from the esrog, one may rely on the latter opinion explained above, that as long as the hole does not go all the way through and is not as large as an Iisar, even if there is missing substance, it is not disqualified.

11. Even if there is doubt whether the hole goes all the way through to the seed chambers, it is permitted. For whenever it is not clear that the hole reached the seed chambers, one may rely on those who say that even if the hole reached the seed chambers, it is not called a hole that goes all the way through and does not disqualify unless substance is missing.

12. It has already been explained that missing substance from the esrog disqualifies it, as explained above.

Things That Disqualify an Esrog

12. When does the above apply? When the deficiency is on the outside, meaning that the outer peel of the esrog has also been pierced—that is, the thin peel that surrounds the thick peel called the flesh of the esrog, which has a sharp taste when eaten.

But if the deficiency is only on the inside, for example, if all the flesh of the esrog inside has dissolved but the outer peel remains, and the seed chambers are also intact (so that by feeling with the hand one can sense that they have not dissolved),

This matter was left unresolved by the Sages of the Gemara: should an esrog be compared to a lung, which is not disqualified due to an internal deficiency—for example, if all its flesh inside has dissolved but its outer membranes and its internal bronchi remain, it is kosher, as explained in Yoreh De’ah, siman 36.

There are authorities who rule leniently in this doubt, since they hold that all these disqualifications (which are not due to lack of beauty, as will be explained) are not disqualified by Torah law but only by rabbinic decree, and in any doubt regarding a rabbinic law, we are lenient.

And there are those who say that all these disqualifications are from the Torah, as will be explained, and therefore in this doubt we are stringent, as with any doubt regarding a Torah law.

One should be concerned for the latter opinion where possible.

13. If the esrog is cracked along its entire length, even if it is cracked only on one side from its top to its bottom, and the depth of the crack extends along its entire length to most of the thickness of the thick peel, it is disqualified, even though nothing is missing from the body of the esrog.

But if there remains any part at the top and any part at the bottom that is not cracked in depth to most of the thickness of the thick peel—even if it is cracked on both sides along its entire length, but on each side there remains some part at the top and some part at the bottom that is not cracked—it is kosher.

14. Similarly, if it is cracked around its circumference, even if it is cracked on both sides opposite each other, but there remains an intact portion at the top between the two cracks on both sides and an intact portion at the bottom between the two cracks on both sides, it is kosher, even though the depth of the cracks reaches most of the thickness of the thick peel.

All these disqualifications—namely, a hole, a missing part, or a crack—are not because it lacks beauty, but because it is not whole and complete, and the Torah says, “And you shall take,” and the Sages expounded: a taking that is whole and complete.

15. If the thin outer peel that surrounds the thick peel has been peeled off, if the entire esrog has been peeled, it is disqualified, for since it is entirely peeled, it will continue to deteriorate and is not beautiful.

But if any amount remains unpeeled, it is kosher, for by means of that small amount it returns to its healthy state.

There are those who say that it is not kosher unless an area the size of a sela coin remains unpeeled.

One should be concerned for their opinion where possible.

16. When does this apply? When the peeled area is similar in appearance to the color of the esrog. But if its appearance differs from that of the esrog, it is not kosher unless the peeled area is a minority of the esrog, and it is not scattered in two or three places but is all in one place, and it is not on the tip of the esrog but from the tip and below, as will be explained regarding a blister; see there for the reason for all this.

17. There are many esrogim on whose top grows a piece of wood, part of which enters into the body of the esrog and part of which protrudes above the top of the esrog. In some esrogim, this wood does not enter the esrog at all but protrudes entirely above the top of the esrog; this is called the “pitom” or “dad.” On this wood grows something like a lily flower, called the “shosanta,” and it is considered part of the wood called pitom or dad.

There are many esrogim that have neither this pitom nor the shosanta on it, and they are kosher, since this is how they are from the beginning of their formation, and this is their natural way of growing. It is recognizable when this is the case, for in place of the pitom there is a kind of cavity from the beginning of its formation.

But if an esrog had a pitom and its pitom was removed—even if not all the thickness of the pitom was removed, but part of the thickness remains attached to the esrog and part of the thickness was completely removed from the esrog, so that some part of the esrog is exposed in the place that was covered by part of the pitom that was removed—it is disqualified.

For this pitom is considered part of the body of the esrog, and since it is missing, the esrog is considered lacking.

Even though there are those who say that a deficiency only disqualifies if it is the size of an issar coin, as explained above,

Nevertheless, since the pitom is at the top of the esrog, and the deficiency is more noticeable there, they were stringent that even the smallest deficiency in it disqualifies.

For the main beauty of the esrog depends on its top, which is what a person sees at first glance, and if any amount is missing there, it is not beautiful.

But if nothing was removed from the thickness of the pitom at the place where it is attached to the esrog—even if the entire pitom was removed and only a small height remains, so that part of the top of the esrog is covered by the remaining thickness of the pitom as it was originally when the pitom was whole—it is kosher.

For since part of the top of the esrog is covered as it was at first, this is not considered a deficiency.

There are those who disagree and say that even if only the upper shosanta was removed and the entire pitom remains, it is disqualified, for it is not beautiful unless it is completely whole at its top.

And even though the halachah does not follow their opinion, nevertheless, it is good to be concerned for their view where possible.

That is, if one has before him two esrogim equal in appearance and beauty, and on one the shosanta is missing, he should take the one with the shosanta.

But if the one with the shosanta is not as beautiful and splendid as the one from which the shosanta was removed, he should take the more beautiful and splendid one, even though it lacks the shosanta, for the main thing is as the first opinion.

18. If the “oketz” (stem)—the wood by which the esrog hangs from the tree—was removed, it is disqualified.

This is when the oketz was removed from its base and nothing remains of it in the esrog, so that its place is left as a cavity in the esrog, and thus the esrog is considered lacking.

Defects that Disqualify an Esrog

19. However, if any amount of the stem remains on the esrog, in such a way that the entire width of the cavity is filled—that is, nothing was removed from the thickness of the stem in the place where it fills the cavity—then it is kosher, since the body of the esrog itself is not missing anything.

And there are those who permit even if the entire stem was removed and a cavity remains in the esrog in its place.

This is because the stem is not considered part of the body of the esrog regarding the law that its absence would disqualify the esrog as lacking.

And even though the halachah does not follow their opinion, nevertheless, in a pressing situation where it is impossible to find another esrog, one may rely on their view and recite the blessing over such an esrog.

For there are those who, in a pressing situation, have the custom to recite the blessing even on esrogim that are completely invalid, as will be explained in siman 649; see there for the reason.

20. If a chazazis (blister) developed on it—

(That is, "or yalfes," which is translated as "or chazazan.")

This is like small blisters that have substance, and their place can be felt by hand as being raised above the surface of the esrog.

If it is in only one place on the esrog, it is not disqualified unless it covers most of the esrog.

But if it is in two places, and between the two places there is an area free of chazazis (with no blister), at least the size of one chazazis—

That is, there could be in this area a drop of chazazis of any amount (meaning two small blisters, since less than that is not called chazazis, as will be explained), and the appearance of the esrog, even as thin as a hair, separates between this drop and the large chazazis next to it on one side, and the appearance of the esrog, even as thin as a hair, separates between the other side of this drop and the large chazazis next to it.

In such a case, it is invalid, even if all the chazazis together cover only a minority of the esrog.

Since there is an area of the esrog’s appearance between the blisters, it is considered spotted and is not beautiful.

21. When does this apply? When from the beginning of one chazazis to the end of the second there is at least the majority of the circumference of the esrog.

For example, if they are positioned across the width of the esrog, that is, around its thick circumference, and from the beginning of one to the end of the other there is the majority of the circumference of its thickness.

Similarly, if they are positioned along the length of the esrog, and from the beginning of one to the end of the other there is the majority of the circumference of the esrog’s length.

For example, one chazazis is on one side of the esrog and the second extends a bit onto the other side of the esrog.

But if all the chazazis are on one side of the esrog, even if from the beginning of one to the end of the other there is half the circumference of the esrog’s length, or half the circumference of its thickness, or even half the circumference of its length and half the circumference of its thickness—

For example, there are many blisters, some extending along the length of the esrog up to half its thickness, and some extending across the width of the esrog around its circumference up to half the circumference—

In such a case, it is kosher.

There are those who disagree and say that even if there are only two drops of chazazis of any amount, and between these two drops there is only an area of the esrog’s appearance the size of one chazazis, it is considered spotted and invalid.

One should be stringent in accordance with this latter opinion.

However, in a pressing situation where it is impossible to find another esrog, one may rely on the first opinion.

If there is only one large chazazis that spreads over half the surface area of the esrog—that is, all the area showing the esrog’s appearance is half and half with the chazazis—it is invalid.

Similarly, anything that disqualifies by covering the majority in any of the four species, if it is half and half, it is invalid.

This is because the majority must be valid, and half is not considered a majority, except regarding partitions for Shabbos and Sukkah, and regarding the schach of the sukkah, where there is a halachah l’Moshe miSinai that half is considered as a majority. But in all other areas of Torah, the majority must be valid.

There are those who disagree and say that as long as the invalid part does not constitute a majority over the valid part, it cannot disqualify, and it is as if there is no invalidity at all.

And even though the halachah does not follow their opinion, nevertheless, in a pressing situation where it is impossible to find other valid species, one may rely on their view and recite the blessing over these species.

For there are those who, in a pressing situation, have the custom to recite the blessing even on those that are completely invalid, as will be explained in siman 649; see there for the reason.

22. Any defect that disqualifies an esrog because it is not beautiful—such as dryness, or chazazis, or a change in the appearance of the esrog, meaning that part of the esrog was peeled and its appearance changed from the rest of the esrog—even though none of these disqualify unless they reach the measure specified for them,

Nevertheless, if one of these is on the chotam (the nose) of the esrog—that is, from the place where it slopes downward toward its tip and begins to narrow and become pointed, this entire area—if any of these defects that disqualify due to lack of beauty are present there, even in the smallest amount, it is invalid.

This is because the main beauty of the esrog depends on its chotam, which is more visible than other areas, and it is the first place a person looks at.

23. Nevertheless, even on the chotam, a chazazis does not disqualify unless there are at least two blisters, not less—

(Since less than that is not called chazazis.)

And they must be visible to the eye when holding it in one’s hand, not requiring close inspection to see them.

Similarly, any change in appearance does not disqualify unless it is visible to most people at first glance.

24. Neither chazazis nor a change in appearance disqualify unless they originated from the esrog itself. But if, due to being pricked by thorns, red and crooked spots formed, it is kosher.

Similarly, those blisters called in Polish "mol," should be permitted, even if they have substance and their place can be felt by hand as raised above the esrog.

This is because they are also considered the appearance of the esrog, since it is common for many esrogim to have them, and this is not considered a significant change.

Things That Render an Esrog Invalid

24. In any case where the esrog is invalid due to a change in its appearance or due to blight, whether this occurred in only one place or in several places, if all the invalid areas were peeled off and their appearance now matches the rest of the esrog, and care was taken to peel it in such a way that nothing was missing from the body of the esrog—that is, only the thin outer peel was removed—then it is kosher. Even initially, it is permitted to render it kosher in this way.

If water fell on a detached esrog and it swelled, and certainly if it became spoiled and has a somewhat foul odor, it is invalid, for this is not considered beautiful.

25. A cooked esrog is invalid.

Similarly, if it was pickled, it is invalid, for pickled is like cooked.

What is considered pickled?

Anything that was soaked for twenty-four hours in water or other liquids or fruit juices.

Even in honey, which usually preserves what is pickled in it, nevertheless, the esrog is invalid due to pickling after twenty-four hours.

If it was pickled in very strong vinegar that is extremely sharp, even if it remained in it only a short time—just enough for the vinegar to be placed on the fire and brought to a boil—it is considered as cooked, as explained in Yoreh Deah, siman 105; see there for the reason.

26. A speckled esrog is invalid, for it is not beautiful.

What is considered speckled?

When it has several colors, such as black and white, which are not the natural color of an esrog.

Even a single color in two places on the esrog is considered speckled and is invalid, even if these spots are only a minority of the esrog.

But if the invalid color is in only one place, it does not invalidate unless it covers most or half of the esrog, as explained regarding blight.

The law of a change in appearance is the same as the law of blight in every respect.

27. An esrog whose appearance is black, even slightly, is invalid.

When does this apply? In places where the esrogim that grow there are green, but in places where the esrogim that grow there are somewhat black, they are kosher, for this is their natural form and growth in that place, and it is not considered a change at all.

But an esrog that is extremely black, like the blackness of the people of Cush, even if it grew in the land of Cush, is invalid, for this is not beautiful at all.

28. An esrog that is round like a ball is invalid, for it does not have the form of an esrog at all.

For the same reason, if it was grown in a mold that was made for it while it was still small and placed inside it while still attached to the tree, and it grew inside the mold to its shape and form, so that it changed from the form of an esrog and became like a different kind of creature, it is invalid.

But if it was made in a way that resembles the form of an esrog, even if it does not exactly match it—for example, if it was made with ridges like the wheel of a mill or a waterwheel—it is kosher.

29. A "twin" esrog, meaning two that grew joined together, is kosher, for this is not considered a change at all, and one takes both together while they are attached and recites the blessing.

There is no upper limit to the size of an esrog—even if it is so large that it must be carried on the shoulder, it is kosher.

But there is a minimum size: if it is less than the volume of a beitzah (egg), it is invalid.

For most esrogim do not grow to less than a beitzah, and one that is smaller than a beitzah has not yet completed its growth, and the Torah says "fruit of a tree," meaning it must be a fully developed fruit.

Even if this esrog would not have grown any larger even if it had not been cut from the tree, nevertheless, since at the end of its growth it does not have the volume of a beitzah, it is not considered a significant fruit.

But if it has the volume of a beitzah, it is kosher even if it is unripe—that is, its growth was not complete and it would have grown larger if not cut—nevertheless, since there are many esrogim that do not grow larger than this, it is considered a significant fruit and is called a completed fruit.

30. When does this apply? When its appearance is green like saffron (called "gel"), as is the way of all esrogim whose fruit is fully developed, or even if it is not entirely green like saffron, but part of it has begun to turn green like saffron, which is a sign that its fruit is complete and it will eventually turn entirely green like saffron after being detached if left for a long time.

But esrogim that come to us while still green like grass (called "green")—there is concern that perhaps their fruit is not yet complete, and that is why they are not green like saffron.

Nevertheless, if they are very large, so that it is known and clear to us that their fruit is complete and they will eventually turn green like saffron after being detached, it is permitted to take them and fulfill the obligation with them, even while they are green.

However, the custom has already become not to rely on this expertise, and one does not take them unless they have begun to turn somewhat green like saffron.

31. A grafted esrog, meaning one where a branch from another tree was grafted into an esrog tree and a fruit grew from them that resembles an esrog, is invalid, for this is not an esrog at all, but a different species entirely.

There are four signs to distinguish between a grafted esrog and a true esrog:

The first: the grafted one is smooth, while the esrog has small bumps all over its body, with a bit of height to them.

The second: the stem of the grafted one, where it hangs from the tree, protrudes, while the stem of the esrog is recessed.

The third: the inside of the grafted one—that is, its body—is wide, and its juice is abundant, and the inner peel (the thick peel of the esrog) is not as thick in the grafted one as in the esrog, where the peel is very thick, and its inside is short and does not have much juice.

The fourth: in a true esrog, the seeds inside stand upright lengthwise, while in the grafted one, the seeds lie horizontally across its width.