בעלות על האתרוג, הגבלות חוקיות, ותזמון התשלום לפני סוכות

Ownership of the Esrog, Legal Restrictions, and Payment Timing Before Sukkot

This shiur explores the halachic requirement for owning the esrog on Sukkot, addresses legal restrictions such as Australia's import laws, and discusses whether delayed payment affects ownership. The Rebbe distinguishes between inherent and situational issues, emphasizing clarity in ownership before Yom Tov.

1. The Requirement of Ownership for the Four Species

The Torah requires that when performing the mitzvah of taking the four species on Sukkot, including the esrog—citron, it must be yours at the time of the mitzvah. This is derived from the verse lachem—“yours.” That’s why, for example, when someone else is using your lulav and esrog, Chabad custom is to give it as a gift with the condition that it will be returned, ensuring that the person owns it while performing the mitzvah.

2. The Australian Import Dilemma

In Australia, there was a unique issue due to government regulations prohibiting the import of fruits without a special health certificate. If an esrog did not have this certificate, it was not allowed in. However, one of the customs officers would allow people to use such an esrog for Yom Tov on condition that it be returned after the holiday, at which point he would burn it. This arrangement allowed people to fulfill the mitzvah for many years by borrowing and returning the esrog, even though technically, according to government rules, they were not allowed to possess or eat such fruit.

3. Halachic Concerns: Is Such an Esrog Valid?

The concern arose because an esrog that must be destroyed after Yom Tov might be considered valueless (davar ha’asui lissaref—something destined to be burned), and perhaps not truly “yours.” In Halacha, if something is designated for destruction before it’s actually burnt, it may already lack value and cannot be used for certain mitzvos. Additionally, since eating such fruit was forbidden by law, some questioned whether this invalidated its use for the mitzvah.

4. The Rebbe’s Response: No Inherent Problem with These Esrogim

The Rebbe addressed these concerns by distinguishing between an inherent problem in the esrog, such as if it was grown in a prohibited way (e.g., kilayim—mixed species or orlah—fruit from a tree’s first three years), versus a situational prohibition like Australia’s import law. Here, there was nothing inherently wrong with the esrog; rather, local regulations restricted its use. The Rebbe compared this to using an esrog in the Beis HaMikdash—Temple—where eating unconsecrated food was forbidden in that holy place. Nevertheless, people fulfilled their obligation with those species and even made blessings on them in the Temple.

5. Addressing Value and Ownership Issues

Another argument was whether such an esrog, destined to be burned and forbidden to eat locally, truly had value or could be considered owned. The Rebbe countered that if someone wanted to leave Australia with their esrog, authorities would not object—the restriction was only about having it within Australia without certification. Similarly, if someone wanted to eat it immediately upon arrival (accepting any health risks), they likely could do so. Thus, both ownership and potential use were present enough for fulfilling the mitzvah.

6. Payment Timing: When Should You Pay for Your Esrog?

A related question arises regarding payment: Many people buy their esrogim, but only pay after Sukkot. Does this mean they don’t fully own them during Yom Tov? The Rebbe shared that his father-in-law (the Previous Rebbe) would receive his esrogim from Rabbi Yisroel Jacobson and only pay after Sukkot once he received a report about them. When the Rebbe himself came to America for his first Sukkot, he suggested paying before Yom Tov so that ownership would be clear-cut; however, his father-in-law did not agree with this approach.

7. Chabad Practice Regarding Payment Before Sukkot

Despite this precedent, notes indicate that when people brought the four species to the Rebbe himself, he would ask for their price and pay immediately before Sukkot began so that ownership would be undisputed during the mitzvah performance. While paying before Sukkot is ideal—especially since merchants often need funds upfront—it is not strictly required according to all opinions if there is a clear understanding between buyer and seller regarding ownership during Yom Tov.

8. Practical Takeaways on Esrog Ownership and Use

In summary: Even when local laws complicate matters or payment arrangements are delayed until after Sukkot, as long as there is no inherent problem with the esrog, one can fulfill their obligation properly. It remains preferable—if possible—to ensure full ownership by paying before Yom Tov begins and clarifying any conditions with both sellers and authorities involved.

This shiur discusses the Torah's requirement that the four species used on Sukkot—including the esrog—must be personally owned at the time of performing the mitzvah. This is derived from the verse "lachem" ("yours"). Chabad custom is to give a lulav and esrog as a gift with a condition of return, ensuring ownership during the mitzvah.

In Australia, government regulations prohibit importing fruits without a health certificate. However, customs officers sometimes allowed people to use uncertified esrogim for Yom Tov on condition they be returned after the holiday to be burned. This arrangement enabled many to fulfill the mitzvah by borrowing and returning the esrog despite legal restrictions.

A halachic concern arose: if an esrog must be destroyed after Yom Tov, is it considered valueless (davar ha’asui lissaref—something destined for burning) and thus not truly "yours"? Additionally, since eating such fruit was forbidden by law, some questioned its validity for the mitzvah.

The Rebbe addressed these concerns by distinguishing between an inherent problem in an esrog (such as kilayim or orlah) versus a situational prohibition like Australia's import law. Here, there was nothing inherently wrong with the esrog; only local regulations restricted its use. The Rebbe compared this to using an esrog in the Beis HaMikdash (Temple), where eating unconsecrated food was forbidden but people still fulfilled their obligation with those species.

Another argument questioned whether such an esrog—destined to be burned and forbidden locally—truly had value or could be considered owned. The Rebbe countered that if someone wanted to leave Australia with their esrog or eat it immediately upon arrival (accepting health risks), authorities would not object. Thus, both ownership and potential use were present enough for fulfilling the mitzvah.

A related question concerns payment: Many buy their esrogim but only pay after Sukkot. Does this mean they do not fully own them during Yom Tov? The Rebbe shared that his father-in-law (the Previous Rebbe) would receive his esrogim from Rabbi Yisroel Jacobson and only pay after Sukkot upon receiving a report about them. When the Rebbe first came to America for Sukkot, he suggested paying before Yom Tov so ownership would be clear-cut; however, his father-in-law did not agree.

Despite this precedent, notes indicate that when people brought four species to the Rebbe himself, he would ask for their price and pay immediately before Sukkot began so ownership would be undisputed during mitzvah performance. While paying before Sukkot is ideal—especially since merchants often need funds upfront—it is not strictly required if there is a clear understanding between buyer and seller regarding ownership during Yom Tov.

In summary: Even when local laws complicate matters or payment arrangements are delayed until after Sukkot, as long as there is no inherent problem with the esrog, one can fulfill their obligation properly. It remains preferable to ensure full ownership by paying before Yom Tov begins and clarifying any conditions with sellers and authorities involved.


Summary

Halachic fulfillment of taking an esrog on Sukkot depends on true ownership at mitzvah time. Legal restrictions or delayed payment do not invalidate it if there is no inherent issue with the fruit; however, clarifying ownership before Yom Tov remains ideal.

Leave Feedback