1. The Importance of Tradition in Identifying a Kosher Esrog
The discussion begins with the principle that an esrog—citron used for the mitzvah of the four species—must be the exact fruit recognized by tradition. Over generations, however, there have been complications due to grafting and mixing with other citrus species, making it difficult to determine authenticity. The most reliable approach is to source esrogim from places where, for generations, people have consistently used those trees and fruits, establishing their kosher status through longstanding communal practice.
A question was posed to the Rebbe regarding communities that use certain esrogim which are established as purebred and not grafted (murkav). However, these fruits lack some of the traditional signs associated with a kosher esrog. The inquiry centers on whether such esrogim, lacking these signs but established by tradition, may still be used for the mitzvah.
2. Traditional Signs Versus Halachic Requirements
There are several commonly cited indicators of a kosher esrog: it contains seeds, its skin is bumpy rather than smooth (unlike a lemon), and other features. However, the Rebbe clarifies that these are not Torah-mandated signs. Nowhere in Torah law does it state that an esrog must have seeds or a bumpy surface to be kosher. These became practical checks only because historically, kosher esrogim tended to display these traits while non-kosher ones did not.
The Rebbe emphasizes that if an esrog's kosher status has been established through communal usage over generations (chazokah—presumption based on consistent practice), this carries more weight than external signs. If people who are known to be scrupulous in mitzvah observance have used these fruits for generations, their usage itself is proof of kosher status.
3. Chabad Custom and Calabria Esrogim
Within Chabad tradition, there is a specific emphasis on using esrogim from Calabria, Italy. The Alter Rebbe instituted this custom for reasons he did not fully disclose. While this remains the standard for Chabad Chassidim—making a blessing only on Calabria-grown esrogim—the Rebbe does not dismiss the validity of other communities’ traditions. If another group has established their own tradition over generations with different sources of esrogim, it is not appropriate to cast doubt or raise questions about their practice.
For Chabadniks specifically, however, adherence to the Alter Rebbe’s directive remains paramount: only Calabria esrogim are used for making a bracha during Sukkos.
4. The Role of Physical Signs When Tradition Is Absent
The conversation turns to cases where physical signs become relevant—namely when there is no established tradition regarding a particular fruit’s status. In such situations, one might look for features like the presence of seeds or a bumpy rind as indicators of authenticity.
Another sign sometimes discussed is the presence of a pitom—a protrusion at the top of the fruit—or at least a groove where it would have been. However, these too are not Torah requirements but rather conventions developed because historically accepted esrogim often had them.
5. Comparing Esrog Tradition to Kosher Birds (Chicken)
The Rebbe draws an analogy between determining which birds are kosher and which esrogim are acceptable. Just as we rely on tradition to identify which species of chicken are kosher (since Torah lists only prohibited birds and leaves others up to tradition), so too with esrogim. We do not innovate new criteria but continue using what has been accepted by previous generations.
This approach was also articulated by the Chasam Sofer: both in birds and in fruits like the esrog, communal usage over time establishes kashrus more powerfully than any physical sign.
6. Addressing Variations Within Trees and Fruits
The Rebbe further suggests examining multiple fruits from the same tree when questions arise about physical characteristics such as bumps or stem placement (oikits). Sometimes an individual fruit may lack certain features while others from the same tree possess them—demonstrating that all are authentic despite minor variations.
He notes that earlier authorities who required certain features may simply never have encountered authentic specimens lacking those features; thus their rulings were based on limited observation rather than absolute necessity.
7. Practical Guidance: When to Rely on Signs Versus Tradition
Ultimately, if there is an established tradition regarding a particular tree or source of esrogim, even if some fruits lack typical signs (such as bumps or a pitom), they remain acceptable for use in fulfilling the mitzvah. Only when no such tradition exists do we turn to physical indicators as evidence of kashrus.
In summary: established communal usage trumps external signs when determining whether an esrog, or even other foods like chicken, is kosher according to halacha. Physical signs serve primarily as tools when no clear tradition can be identified.
This shiur begins by explaining that an esrog used for the mitzvah of the four species must be recognized as kosher through tradition. Over time, grafting and hybridization have complicated identification, so the most reliable method is to use esrogim from sources with a longstanding communal tradition. The Rebbe was asked about communities using purebred, non-grafted esrogim lacking some traditional signs, and whether these may still be used if their kosher status is established by tradition.
The shiur clarifies that common indicators—such as seeds or a bumpy surface—are not Torah requirements for a kosher esrog. These signs became practical checks because kosher esrogim historically displayed them, but if a fruit's kosher status is established through consistent communal usage (chazokah), this outweighs external signs. The practice of scrupulous communities over generations serves as proof of kashrus.
Within Chabad, there is a strong custom to use Calabria-grown esrogim, instituted by the Alter Rebbe for reasons not fully revealed. While this remains binding for Chabad Chassidim, the Rebbe acknowledges other communities' traditions and does not question their validity if they are based on generational usage. For Chabadniks, however, only Calabria esrogim are used for making a bracha on Sukkos.
Physical signs become relevant when there is no established tradition regarding a fruit's status. In such cases, features like seeds or a bumpy rind may indicate authenticity. The presence of a pitom or its groove is another sign sometimes considered, but these are conventions rather than Torah requirements.
The Rebbe compares this to identifying kosher birds: just as we rely on tradition to determine which chickens are kosher (since Torah lists only prohibited birds), so too with esrogim—we continue using what previous generations accepted. The Chasam Sofer also articulated that communal usage over time establishes kashrus more powerfully than physical signs.
The shiur notes that examining multiple fruits from the same tree can clarify questions about features like bumps or stem placement (oikits). Variations among fruits do not undermine authenticity if others from the same tree possess typical features. Earlier authorities who required certain features may have simply never encountered authentic specimens lacking them.
In practice: when there is an established tradition regarding an esrog source—even if some fruits lack typical signs—they remain acceptable for fulfilling the mitzvah. Only when no such tradition exists do we rely on physical indicators as evidence of kashrus. In summary: communal usage takes precedence over external signs in determining kashrus according to halacha; physical signs serve mainly when tradition is absent.
Summary
This shiur teaches that longstanding communal tradition carries greater weight than external physical signs in determining whether an esrog—or any food—is kosher; physical indicators are relied upon only when no clear tradition exists.