Siman 648

"Fruit of a majestic tree" – this is the etrog, for "fruit of a tree" implies that the taste of its wood and its fruit are equal, and this is found in the etrog. And we likewise expound: "fruit of a majestic tree" – that which dwells (hadar) on its tree from year to year, because the etrog remains on the tree for two or three years. And when the new ones bud – the old ones still remain. And besides this, it has come to us in the tradition from the mouth of Moses our teacher, who thus received it from Sinai. And the reason that the Torah specified all the species, but regarding the etrog it remained vague – is so that we would need to rely on the Oral Torah. To show us that there is no explicit mitzvah in the Written Torah that the Oral Torah does not clarify. Just as we explained this in Choshen Mishpat siman 420 regarding "an eye for an eye," for the Oral Torah provides the spirit of life to the Written Torah. See there in section 8.

A dried etrog is unfit. The Tur wrote: The measure of dryness—the Ra'avad explained that this is when the moisture is depleted, and it emits no moisture at all. For moisture is to fruit like blood is to living flesh, for as long as it is moist, it will emit moisture, either by the pressure of a knife or by squeezing it. But after it has dried, it will not emit moisture; however, its examination is difficult, because it is impossible to squeeze it or cut it. But since a puncture that lacks a deficiency is fit, one can pass a needle or a thread through it, and if there is moisture in it, it will be visible on the thread. Thus far his words, and this is according to the Ra'avad. But we hold that a puncture from one side to the other is unfit even without a deficiency. And if so, one must be careful that the needle or the thread does not pass even until the seed chambers, and certainly not from one side to the other. For even until the seed chambers it is unfit, as will be explained (Bach and Taz, subsection 1). Therefore, one should not thrust the needle with force, so that it does not reach the seed chambers (Magen Avraham, subsection 1).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 that an etrog from the previous year—it is certainly dry, and it is pasul. Thus far his words. And it implies explicitly that the examination with a needle is of no avail, and even if it produces moisture—it is pasul. For in the Gemara (31b) it implies that it is not hadar, as it is taught: An old etrog—is pasul. And an unspecified "old" one is from the previous year. And it explains the reason that it is not hadar, see there. Or it is possible to say that it was established by our sages, of blessed memory, that its moisture is exhausted, and even if moisture appears—it is nothing. And thus the great authorities agreed (Bach and Eliyahu Rabbah). And there is one who wishes to say that if we see that it remains in its beauty—the examination of a thread is of avail (Taz subsection 2). But it is not clear, since our sages, of blessed memory, disqualified it—it is pasul in every case (Eliyahu Rabbah).

And there are those who bury the etrog in honey, as the honey preserves the moisture within it. Nevertheless, without inspection, it is impossible to declare it fit. And he should inspect it: if there is moisture in it – it is fit (Bach). And there is one who disqualifies it on the grounds of kabush (Taz, subsection 17), and kabush is disqualified as will be explained. And the first opinion holds: since the honey preserves it in its moisture, as we see with all fruits – kabush is not applicable regarding a mitzvah (and so it is implied in the Eliyahu Rabbah). However, in practice, it is difficult to rely on this. And likewise I have heard that when they bury it in wax, and they stick it all around with wax – it is preserved for a long time, and this too should not be relied upon in practice.

And even though a dry one is pasul, nevertheless, a withered one, which is called "tzu-vialet," is kasher, as with the other species. And so it is explicitly in the Gemara (31a) which says: And all of them, if they are withered, are kasher. And according to this, that which is found in the Rokeach and in the Responsa of the Maharil that a withered one is pasul is a matter of wonder. And in the Mordechai it is written that it is kasher in a time of pressing need. And regarding this as well, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great book at the end of siman 649 that it is a printing error, and it should say "pickled," see there. And it appears that those who disqualify a withered one intend that through the withering, part of it became dry as well. And so it is implied in the Hagahot Ashri, which began with withered and concluded with dry (Magen Avraham at the beginning of the siman). However, in the Ba'ag he brought the Baraita (36a): An etrog that is swollen, rotted, pickled, boiled, etc., is pasul. And in the Ba'ag it is written "withered" and not "pickled." And according to this, one must say that that which says withered ones are kasher refers to species other than the etrog. And it is clear that this is the version of the Rokeach and the Maharil. And according to this, it is simple that a withered one is pasul, and so one should instruct. (And so wrote the Eliyahu Rabbah, see there.)

The Rambam wrote in chapter eight, law 7: An etrog that was perforated with a perforation that passes through even a minute amount is pasul. And one that does not pass through, if it was the size of an issar or more, it is pasul. If it is missing any amount, it is pasul. Thus far his words, meaning: that a perforation that involves a deficiency, and the deficiency is from the actual flesh of the etrog, even if it does not pass through, it is pasul. But a perforation that does not involve a deficiency, meaning, for example, that one drove a peg or the like into it, such that the place became like a perforation, and nevertheless nothing was missing from the actual etrog, there is a distinction between one that passes through, which is pasul in any case, and one that does not pass through, which requires the size of an issar.

And what is called "perforated"? Some say specifically from side to side. And some say that certainly below at its bottom, where the seed chambers end—it requires from side to side. But in the rest of the etrog, when it is pierced until the seed chambers—it is called perforated, for this is its perforation. And know that there are three peels in the etrog until the seed chambers: the first is the upper one which is very thin, and it is like a kind of crust, and in it there is no disqualification unless it is entirely peeled. And regarding this peel, the Rambam wrote in chapter eleven of Terumot regarding etrogim of terumah, that their peels, even though they are discarded entirely—nevertheless they are forbidden to non-priests, see there. For this is like the thin peel in all fruits. And the second is the thick peel, which is the entire wall of the etrog until the seed chambers. And this too is called a "peel," just as the entire thickness of the gizzard is called "skin," even though this is the primary part eaten. And here too regarding the etrog it is so, for the essence of the fruit is the seed chambers, and the flesh upon it is called a peel. And in it is the measure of the perforations that have been explained. And the third: there is actually a very thin peel in the seed chambers, like the peel on the yolk of an egg, and it is between seed and seed (Taz, subsection 6). And in it there is no practical legal difference. And there is one who wishes to say that all the perforations revolve around the upper peel. And it is not so, as we have explained (ibid.).

The Ra'avad disagrees with the Rambam, and this is his wording: This is an error. Rather, a perforated hole—with a deficiency of any amount; one that is not perforated—with a deficiency like an issar... Thus far his words, and he challenges the Rambam who disqualifies a perforation even without any deficiency at all. Rather, even with a perforation, a deficiency of any amount is required. And it is obvious that one should be stringent like the Rambam. Also Rashi, of blessed memory, and many of the poskim hold like the Rambam. Therefore, even though our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work that the disqualification of a hole is rabbinic, see there, nevertheless one should be stringent. And so it is explained from our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 2, who wrote the opinion of the Rambam without qualification, and the opinion of the Ra'avad in the name of "some say," see there. And the measure of the issar that we mentioned—there is no difference whether it is round, or whether it is square, or whether it is long and thin; if only there is in the total of its area like the measure of an issar—it is disqualified (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). And it is not known to us how much is the quantity of an issar. And in the Ba'ag he wrote that it is like a small dinar.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that it is the custom to validate punctures made in the tree by thorns, even though they contain a deficiency, for this is the manner of their growth. However, if one sees that the skin and the flesh do not exist within the puncture—it is invalid according to the first opinion, even though it is not perforated through. And in a time of pressing need, one may be lenient like the latter opinion, to validate a deficiency that is not like an issar and is not perforated through. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: It is not because a puncture caused by a thorn is more lenient, but rather the matter is as follows: For behold, in the Gemara (36a) the etrog is compared to a lung. And regarding a lung, we hold that when there is a pit in it, if the skin exists at the bottom of the pit—it is valid, even though some of the flesh is missing, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 36. And here too regarding an etrog, there are times when during its growth a thorn from the tree enters into it, and consequently it causes a deficiency of flesh inside, and nevertheless the skin at its bottom is whole—it is valid. And this is found when there is no sharp point on the thorn. Therefore the skin is whole, only the flesh inside is slightly decayed. However, if one sees that the skin does not exist at the bottom of the puncture—the law returns to the two opinions that were explained. For according to the opinion of the Rambam it is invalid, even if it is not perforated through to the seed chambers. And according to the Ra'avad it is valid when the deficiency is not like an issar. Therefore, even though we hold like the Rambam, nevertheless in a time of pressing need one may rely on the Ra'avad and validate it.

And there is one who says that if there is a doubt whether the skin is intact or not – one should rule it kosher, since according to the Ra'avad it is kosher even if it is not intact, as long as it is not like an issar and perforated (Taz, subsection 5). And so the mind inclines, since this disqualification is rabbinic, as I wrote in section 8. And all the more so since according to the Ra'avad it is completely kosher, and therefore one should be lenient in a case of doubt. And for this reason it seems to me that if there is a doubt whether it is like an issar or not – one should be lenient according to the law of a rabbinic doubt. And this is not a doubt of a lack of knowledge, which is not called a doubt, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 110, since an issar is not common in our times – it is a doubt hidden from all people, and it is properly a doubt, as I wrote there. However, this is all in a case of pressing need, for when there is another that he can obtain with ease – why should he take the doubt? And this is all on the first day, for on the other days even a missing part – is kosher, as will be explained in the next siman with the help of Heaven. And there it will be further explained regarding this.

An etrog whose entire flesh has dissolved from within, but its outer rind remains, and the seed chambers remain inside—for example, if it is recognizable by the touch of the hand, or if they are seen through the outer rind to be remaining—is kosher. For this is a query in the Gemara, and we follow the lenient view for the reason we have written, that this is rabbinic. And there are those who are stringent, and the Tur inclines toward this, and he wrote the reason: since it is a doubt regarding a Torah law, see there. And it is astonishing: for the Rosh explicitly wrote that all of them are rabbinic doubts. And there is one who explained that it is because the matter involves a Torah commandment (Bach), and it is not understood at all. And it seems to me that the Tur holds that even though other punctures—their disqualification is rabbinic, nevertheless, whenever its essence has dissolved, it is not called an etrog, and it is disqualified by the Torah.

If it was split entirely along its length, even if it was only split from one side from its beginning to its end, and the depth of the split reaches along its entire length until the majority of the thickness of the thick rind—which is the second rind that we explained in section 7—it is pasul, even though nothing was missing from the body of the flesh. But if something remained at the top and something remained at the bottom that was not split in depth, even if it was split from two sides along its entirety, if there remained on both sides something at the top and something at the bottom, it is kosher. This law is like the law of the windpipe in an animal, in Yoreh Deah siman 34. And there is one who says that if the split touched its nose—and this is the upper part of the etrog—even in any amount, it is pasul. And they disagreed with this, for specifically regarding a change of appearance is there a distinction between its nose and other places, for it is due to the reason of "hadar," and in the nose is the primary "hadar." But not regarding a perforation or a split, where the reason is due to "complete taking"—there is no distinction between the nose and other places. Nevertheless, there are those who ruled so, that in the nose it is pasul. (Taz end of subsection 9. But the Eliyahu Rabbah subsection 9 renders it kosher. And see Magen Avraham subsection 17. And nevertheless, one should be stringent, except in a time of pressing need. And I wonder at the Graz who omitted it entirely.)

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5 that there are those who are stringent to disqualify it if the majority of it is cracked. And as long as the majority of its thick peel is not cracked—it is not called cracked. Thus far his words. And this is certainly so, for a crack that does not enter into the depth of the majority of the peel is nothing. And even when there is a doubt whether it entered the depth or not—it seems to me as well that it is kosher, for it is a doubt regarding a rabbinic law, as I wrote regarding one that is peeled. However, regarding that which he wrote that there are those who are stringent to disqualify it if the majority of it is cracked—many rejected his words. For in the Gemara it is compared to a windpipe, and regarding a windpipe we specifically require the whole of it and not the majority. Therefore they ruled that it is kosher (Taz there, and Magen Avraham subsection 6). And the Levush also omitted this.

And I wonder: for certainly the words of our teacher, the Rema, are correct, and also regarding the windpipe the law is so. For in the windpipe we require that something remains above and something remains below. But if something remains only above and not below, or vice versa – it is treifah. And here too it is so. And now it must be asked: what is the law when it is split from its top through most of it, and much remains below, but at the top nothing remains at all? And one could say that it is kosher, for the abundance in one place is no worse than something above and something below. And one could say that it is pasul, for when there are small amounts on both sides it is better than much in one place. And so it appears primary for the law. (And in this it could be said that it is worse than the windpipe. For the windpipe is very long, both above the place of slaughter and also below. And its opening is not so clearly visible, which is not the case with an etrog. And one could also say that even in the windpipe – it is treifah in such a case. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And so too if it was cracked across the circumference of its width: even if it was cracked from its two sides, one opposite the other, and a small amount remained whole above between the two cracks from the two sides, and a small amount remained whole below between the two cracks from the two sides—it is kosher, even though the depth of the cracks reaches most of the thickness of the thick rind. And know that all these disqualifications, namely punctured, missing, and cracked—are not because it is not beautiful, but because it is not complete and whole. And the Torah said "And you shall take," and the sages expounded: a complete and whole taking (the HaGra"z). And nevertheless, the disqualifications are only rabbinic according to what appears from the Rosh, for this is a mere asmachta. And see in section 12 and section 35.

If the thin outer peel was peeled from it, which is the first peel that we wrote of in section 7: if it was entirely peeled—it is pasul, for since it was entirely peeled—it continues to deteriorate, and it is not hadar. But if any amount of it remained that was not peeled—it is kosher, for through that small portion it will return to its wholeness. And this is like a "geludah" regarding an animal. Therefore, some say that it is not kosher unless there remained from it the size of a sela that was not peeled. And one should be concerned for this, since regarding a "geludah" it is also so. In what case are these words said? When the place that was peeled is equal in its appearance to the appearance of the color of the etrog. But if it is different in its appearance from the appearance of the etrog—it is not kosher, unless the place that was peeled is the minority of the etrog, and it is not dispersed in two or three places. Rather, it all stands in one place, and it does not stand on the nose of the etrog, as with a "chazazit" which will be explained (ibid.). And the reason is the same, that through this its beauty is removed, and if so, its disqualification is from the Torah.

There are in the etrog two types of thin wood: One at its end is the oketz, by which it is suspended from the tree as with all fruits, and it is the tail of the fruit at its bottom. In the language of the Mishnah it is the "oketz" (34b). Among us, the masses call this the pitum, and it sits deep within the etrog, such that if we were to remove it entirely from its root—a hole would remain. The second is on the other side at the top of the etrog, like the flower in types of apples. In an etrog, there are those that do not have this at all, and there are those that have it. It is called in the language of the Mishnah "pitma," and in our language "shoshanta," because it beautifies the etrog like the lip of a rose flower. It does not enter into the depth of the etrog, but rather is at its top. Since the terms are switched in this matter, we have therefore explained this: that one must know that the oketz is the bottom part that enters into the depth, and the shoshanta is the top part. There are etrogim that have no shoshanta at all, namely the etrogim of Corsica—they have no shoshanta. Similarly, the etrogim of Eretz Yisrael—there are those that have it, and there are those that do not. The etrogim of Corfu, Genoa, and Morocco—all of them have a shoshanta. And now we will explain their laws according to the opinions of our teachers with the help of Heaven.

This is the wording of the Rambam in chapter eight: If its dad is removed—which is the small head upon which its shoshanta sits—it is pasul. If the wood by which it hangs from the tree is removed from the body of the etrog, and its place remains a pit—it is pasul. Thus far his words. However, if that which is outside the pit is removed—it is kosher (Maggid Mishneh). And so too the dad, if the entire head was not removed, but only the upper portion that is somewhat wide like a rose—it is kosher (ibid.). And why is it pasul upon the removal of the dad, given that it does not enter into the interior of the etrog? Because the flesh of the etrog extends also over it at its base, as is visible to the eye. Therefore, when it is entirely removed—it is lacking from the essence of the etrog. This is not the case regarding the stalk, for the flesh of the etrog does not extend over it, as is the case with all fruit stalks. Furthermore: its beauty is the shoshanta, and when it is removed—its beauty is departed. But regarding the stalk, there is no beauty. (So it appears in my humble opinion, and with this several fine points are well settled. Examine and you will find it simple.)

This is the wording of the Tur: If its pitma was removed—which is the flower at its head according to the explanation of the teacher Rabbi Yaakov ben Yakar—it is pasul. But if its oketz was removed, it is kosher in any case. And according to the explanation of the Ri HaLevi: If its pitma was removed, it is kosher in any case. And if its oketz was removed: if only what is outside the cavity was removed, it is kosher; and if it was removed from its root, and its place is recognizable as lacking, it is pasul. Our teacher Chananel rules it pasul in both cases, and so wrote the Rif and the Rambam, of blessed memory. And my master, my father the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that this is how we practice, to rule it pasul in both cases. And specifically when it had a pitma and it was removed. But there are etrogim that never had pitmot, and they are not invalidated by this. And similarly, specifically when the oketz was removed and nothing of it remained at all in the etrog. But if any amount of it remained, it is kosher. Thus far his words.

And behold, according to the explanation of the teacher Rabbi Yaakov ben Yakar—the disqualification depends only on the shoshanta, and not on the stem, which we call the pitam. And the reason for the matter: because the stem is merely wood, even the part that enters the etrog, and it has no connection at all to the etrog like all stems of fruits. And explicitly we learned in a Mishnah at the end of the first chapter of Uktzin, that the stems of fruits—they have no connection to the fruit: they do not become impure, and they do not transmit impurity, except for the stems of figs and dried figs, which are the food itself. And there are those that transmit impurity because of a "handle," as is explained there. But they have no connection to the fruit. And so we learned in the eleventh chapter of Terumot, Mishnah 4, that only the stems of figs and dried figs are terumah like the fruit itself, and it is explicitly explained that other stems are not. And regarding an etrog, it is explicitly proven that its stem is not like it, for in the Tosefta at the end of Terumot it is taught that the peels of watermelon and etrog, even though they contain no food—are forbidden to non-priests. And so wrote the Rambam in the eleventh chapter of Terumot, see there. Behold, it is explicit that only the peel is included within the category of the etrog, and not the stem. But regarding the shoshanta, the reason is because of "hadar," for it is the primary beauty, as I have written. And therefore it is called "shoshanta" like the work of a flower, "shoshan." Furthermore: because upon it there is the flesh of the etrog, as I have written. And in the Yerushalmi, the tenth chapter of Terumot, it is explained that when its pitamta is removed, and it is the shoshanta—behold the fruit is as if it were cut, and it is equal to its outer peel, and as the Rambam wrote in the fifteenth chapter of Terumot at the end of law 8, and this is his wording: And so if its pitamta and its outer peel were removed—behold it is as if it were cut, see there. (And Rashi, of blessed memory, agreed to this on 35b. And according to this, the Mishnah is according to its plain meaning: that if its pitamta was removed—it is disqualified, and its stem—it is kosher. And that which was taught: if its bukna was removed—it is to explain the pitamta of the Mishnah, because it is sharp and made like a pestle.)

The approach of our teacher, Isaac HaLevi, is exactly the opposite: that if its pitam was removed, which is the shoshanta—it is kosher in any case, and the disqualification is only regarding its stem, when that which is inside the etrog is also removed. And regarding his reasoning, it can be said: since there are etrogim that do not have the shoshanta at all—how is it possible to disqualify when the shoshanta is removed? And since when they are absent—it does not prevent [validity], also when they are present and were removed—it does not prevent [validity]. And even though we find regarding the sacrificial fats of offerings, that when they are absent—it does not prevent the eating of the meat, but when they are present—it prevents it (Pesachim 77b)—that is when they exist even now. But when they are absent, meaning they were lost—it does not prevent it. And here too it is so: even though when they are present—they prevent it, when they are absent—it does not prevent it. And all the more so since there are those that never had them, and also it is not from the flesh of the etrog; even though it spread over it like a membrane—it is no better than its upper membrane, for if a part of it was removed—we have no concern with it. And the removal of its stem from within being disqualified—is not because of the lack of the stem, but because of the cavity that remains in the etrog, and it clearly appears as lacking, and this is not a "complete taking." (And in the Aruch he wrote that our teacher Gershom, Light of the Exile, also explained thus. And according to this, the pitam and stem of the Mishnah both refer to the stem. However, its stem is that which is outside the pit, and its pitam is that which is in the pit. And this is what is explained in the Baraita: its pestle was removed, meaning: that part which is like a pestle in a mortar.)

And know: that it appears to me that this dispute of our teachers is a dispute in the Yerushalmi, as we say there: If its pitam was removed – there they say the shoshanta. And Rabbi Yitzchak said: the pika. And "pika" is a round thing that is hidden in another thing, as in the twelfth chapter of Parah: one may not sprinkle on the spindle, nor on the pika. And the Bartenura explained: that which they place at the end of the spindle to weigh it down. And it is round, as we learned in the twenty-first chapter of Kelim: One who touches the pika, and the Bartenura explained: a kind of small circle etc., and they place it at the head of the spindle. And in Ohalot chapter seven: until they round the head like a pika. And this we see with our senses, that the end of the stem that is stuck into the etrog is truly round, more so than what is outside the etrog. And according to this, "there they say" is like our teacher Yaakov bar Yakar, and Rabbi Yitzchak said like our teacher Yitzchak HaLevi. (And I found this in the Ran. And he added further that Rabbi Yitzchak Chakula of the Yerushalmi – he is Rabbi Yitzchak ben Eleazar of our Shas, who explains "buknanto" as it is found in Pesachim 113b. And if so, our Shas rules that if its shoshanta was removed – it is kosher. And indeed it is a clear proof. However, what we hold is that when the Yerushalmi says "there they say" – this refers to Babylonia, and they explain "pitam" – the shoshanta. And it requires further study, and be precise and you will find it easy.)

The Rif, the Rambam, our teacher Chananel, the Tosafot, and the Rosh explained like both of them: that "its pitma was removed" refers to its blossom, and "its bukna was removed" refers to the end of the stalk that is in the etrog. And both of them, if they were removed, are invalid. And so our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled in section 7 and in section 8, and this is their wording: If its nipple was removed—which is the small head upon which its blossom sits—it is invalid. And there are those who are stringent if the blossom was removed, which is what we call the "pitma." And it is good to be stringent in a place where it is possible. However, regarding the law, one should not invalidate it unless the nipple was removed, which is the wood upon which the head of the pitma sits. And the head is called the "blossom." And all of this specifically applies if it was removed. But if it never had a nipple at all, it is kosher. And such are most of the etrogim that they bring to these provinces. Thus far his words, and it requires clarification.

And this is its explanation: Behold, the "pitma" in the language of the Mishnah and the poskim, which is the shoshanta, is a somewhat long wood that emerges at its top, and it is like a kind of teat. At its top it is somewhat wider than throughout its length. And it is the essence of the shoshanta, for the name "shoshanta" refers to the upper lip, as it is written: "the lip of a lily flower." Therefore, some say that even if only the upper circumference was removed, and the entire teat is intact—it is pasul; since it says in the Gemara "its shoshanta was removed"—they hold that the intention is that if only the upper shoshanta was removed it is pasul. In truth it is not so, for that which it says in the Gemara "its shoshanta"—the intention is to exclude the lower part of the ukatz. And this is like saying: the upper and not the lower. And because it contains the sign of the shoshanta—therefore it says that this is the pitma in the Mishnah, and not that of the lower side. But in truth it is not pasul until the entire teat is removed down to the body of the etrog. And this is what they said, that it is good to be stringent even regarding the head alone. However, regarding the law it is not so. And there is one who wrote that we require it with the bukhna (Magen Avraham subsection 9). And I wonder: for behold our eyes see that it has no bukhna at all, but rather it ends level with the etrog. And only those that do not have a shoshanta, there is that which is recognizable like a place that is slightly, slightly sunken. And also it has no depth at all. (And it requires further study regarding the Beit Yosef and the Magen Avraham, who understood from the Ran that this has a bukhna. And it is not so, see there. Examine it and you will find it easy.)

And in section 8 they wrote: If the wood upon which it hangs on the tree was removed from the base of the etrog, and its place remains a pit—it is pasul. And if some of the wood was removed, but a thickness of any amount remains such that the entire width of the pit is covered—it is kosher. Thus far their words. This implies: but if only part of the pit is covered—it is pasul. And there is one who wrote that a connection by means of a needle is considered a connection, but it is not so (Sha’arei Teshuva subsection 15 in the name of Shevut Yaakov). And it is a wondrous thing for one who permitted this, for if so, shall we permit two halves of an etrog that were joined by means of a splinter or a needle? And know that there is one who wrote that in a time of pressing need, when there is no other etrog in the city—one should permit where the entire stem was removed from the etrog, and even on the first day (Ba’er Heitev subsection 14 in the name of the Chacham Tzvi). And it is difficult to rule accordingly against all these authorities, and it requires further study.

We seek an etrog that has a shoshanta upon it. Nevertheless, if there is a beautiful etrog without a shoshanta, or if the upper part was removed and it is beautiful, and there is another with a complete shoshanta but it is not so beautiful – it is more of a mitzvah to take the beautiful one without a shoshanta than to take the one that is not beautiful with the complete shoshanta (Taz, subsection 12).

A grafted etrog is completely invalid, even when there is no other etrog. In ancient times, there was one who wished to rule leniently in this matter. All the sages of Israel in Safed rose up against him and prohibited it absolutely (Responsa of the Maharam Alshich siman 110, and the Maharam Padua in Responsa of the Rema siman 126), for since the etrog was grafted with a lemon or another species, it is nullified to the tree upon which it was grafted. As we say: A young plant that one entwined with an old one is exempt from orlah, because it is nullified to the old one (Sotah 43b). And they wrote that the grafted one has much acidity and its peel is thin. And that which is not grafted, its acidity is minimal and its peel is thick (Alshich). There is one who wrote that these are the signs: the grafted one is smooth, and the fit ones have small protrusions over their entire body. In the grafted one the pitam protrudes, and in the fit ones it is recessed. In the grafted one the juice is abundant and the peel is thin, and in the fit ones the juice is minimal and the peel is thick (the Maharam Padua). And there is one who wrote another sign: that in the grafted one the seed is placed across the width of the etrog, and in the fit one it stands upright along the length of the etrog (Magen Avraham at the end of this siman in the name of the Ir Shushan).

And the signs are not received from the ancients, but rather from what they saw in their lands. As he himself wrote, that he brought from one place etrogim about which they were in doubt (the Maharam Padua). And if the signs were received—they should have checked by the signs. Furthermore: for behold, the etrogim of Corfu, which are called "Corfiote etrogim"—they are completely smooth, and many have a protruding stem. And if we say that they are truly grafted, as many of the greats of the generation for many years now have forbidden them. And behold, even the etrogim of Eretz Yisrael and the etrogim of Morocco—many of them are also smooth. However, they wrote according to their land in Italy, where they had two types of etrogim: the etrogim of Genoa, which among us were called "Yanaver etrogim," and the etrogim of Corsica. And it is from the islands of Italy, and now it is under the government of France, and they are called "Corsican etrogim." And they are truly all with bumps, and the stem is recessed. But regarding other places, there is no proof. And also regarding the internal signs, we checked, and it was not clarified for us. Therefore, it is difficult to establish signs for practical halacha.

And according to this, we have no permission regarding etrogim, except for those that Israelites testify they know the plantings from their beginning, that they have no grafting in them. Such as the etrogim of our Holy Land, where in the name of the greats of Israel, and Torah scholars, and God-fearing people, they supervise the gardens so that there will be no grafting in them. But for the etrogim of Corfu – there is no permission, even with their certifications, for it is known to all that there are few Israelites there, and they are suppressed under their hand, and their fear is upon them. And how would they know what they do in the open field in their gardens and their vineyards, whether they graft or not? And perhaps you will say: behold, they are not suspected of causing others to stumble except in that which they have a benefit of pleasure, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 118? Truly, in this they have a great benefit of pleasure, for it is known that from every grafted tree a beautiful fruit grows, and from any that is not grafted – the fruit is not beautiful. And in all fruits it is so. And on the contrary, the improvement of these etrogim of Corfu is their ruin, for in truth they are very beautiful and there is none like them, and this is because of their grafting. Therefore, every man of Israel whom the fear of Hashem has touched his heart – shall take only etrogim of Eretz Yisrael. And how shall we not be ashamed and not be humiliated in a matter of a mitzvah that we are able to fulfill from the fruit of our Holy Land, to take specifically from the land of the nations? Woe to that shame, woe to that humiliation! And regarding this it is said: "And they despised the pleasant land." Therefore, one must be very, very careful in this. (Also the Levush, and the Magen Avraham at the end of this siman, and the Taz in the following siman – disqualified them.)

If a chazazit arose on the etrog, which is like small blisters, a type of boil, and it has substance such that its location is discernible by touch as being higher than the etrog (the Tur): if it is in one place—it does not disqualify unless it covers the majority of the etrog. But if it is in two or three places—even in a minority of it, it is also disqualified. And specifically that the places be divided by some discernible interruption. However, with a small interruption, it is like one place (Taz, subsection 114). For the reason why it is worse in two or three places: because the eye perceives it in several places, and it is not hadar. And when the interruption is not large—the eye does not perceive it, and it is like one place. (And therefore the Shas says "two or three," and is not three all the more so than two? Rather, it is to say: that the distinction must be discernible. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

In the Yerushalmi it says: If a chazazit arose on most of it from one side. That is to say: we do not require a majority of the whole, but even a majority of one side is pasul. However, there are those who explained that its intention is like our Gemara, that "from one side" is like "in one place." That is to say: when do we require most of it? Specifically in one place. But in two places, even without most of it, it is pasul. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: There are those who say that this which is pasul in two or three places is specifically when the spotting spread over most of it, even though the area of the spots is a minority. But in its minority, such as when they are all on one side of the etrog, it is kosher. And there are those who rule it pasul even in the minority of one side. Thus far his words, and this is according to the explanation of "those who explained." But according to the first explanation, that most of one side is like most of the whole, one must say according to the first opinion: that when it spread over most of one side, even though in area it would not be a majority of one side, yet in the minority of one side it is kosher. And there are those who rule it pasul even in the minority. Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, who wrote this, that one side is considered its minority, is because it was simple to him that the explanation in the Yerushalmi is like "those who explained," and not like the first explanation, as he wrote in his great book. However, there are some of the early authorities who explained like the first explanation, and we must be concerned for this (see Magen Avraham subsection 12). And even according to the explanation of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, if even a small part reached the second side, it is called "most of it," for it is most of its circumference, even though it is not most of the entire etrog. (Ibid. subsection 13, and see the HaGra"z section 20. Examine carefully and you will find it simple.)

And if the chazazit is half and half in one place – there are those who permit it, for they only disqualified it in the case of its majority, and not in the case of half and half, and it is possible to be precise. And there are those who disqualify it because we require a majority that is visible to the eyes, and it is impossible to be precise (see Beit Yosef). And such is the primary ruling. For it is true that we learned in a Mishnah: If a chazazit arose on its majority – it is disqualified, which implies that half is valid if we say that it is possible to be precise, and we do not require a majority visible to the eyes. Nevertheless, in the latter clause we learned in a Mishnah: If on its minority – it is valid, which implies explicitly that half is disqualified (Taz, subsection 16), and consequently we follow the stringent view. And so one should instruct.

We say in the Gemara (35b) that this matter of a chazazit only disqualifies on the majority, or in two or three places—this is when it is not on its head. This is the wording of the Gemara: Rava said: And on its nose—even in the slightest amount it is also disqualified. Rashi explained: On its nose—on the thickness of its height, which slopes from there and descends toward its head. Thus far his words. This is because the eye dominates there more, and it is not "hadar." And from this wording it is implied that even on the thickness of its height itself, it is like from there and onward toward its head. But the Tur wrote: And from its nose and onward, that is, from the place where it begins to slope until the pitma, etc. This implies explicitly that it is only in the place of the slope, and not on the thickness of the height itself. And so it is clarified from the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 9, who wrote: And its nose—that is, from the place where it begins to narrow and sharpen toward its head. Thus far his words. And according to this, it is possible to say that the intention of Rashi is also so. And that which he wrote "on the thickness of its height"—this is only a sign of the location from which and onward it is called its nose, but not the thickness of the height itself. And so it is clarified from the wording of the Rambam. And on the contrary, from the wording of the Rambam it is implied explicitly that he does not speak of the entire slope, as he wrote: And if it arose on its nipple even in the slightest amount—it is disqualified. Thus far his words. And "its nipple" is nothing other than the small portion literally adjacent to the shoshanta. And so the Maggid Mishneh brought that the Ri Gi'at explained "its nose"—it is the point and the head of the etrog, see there. And it is clarified explicitly that only the point is disqualified with a minimal chazazit. And I wonder at the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch for not bringing the opinion of the Rambam at all. (And the Ran brought both explanations. And the Rosh wrote that according to Rashi the entire slope is not called the nose, see there. And it requires further study.)

Just as a chazazit disqualifies from its nose and above, so too any change of appearance, if it is from its nose and above—even in the slightest amount—it is disqualified. And specifically a change of appearance that disqualifies in an etrog, which is to say black or white, and even this is when it is clearly visible to most people (Magen Avraham subsection 18). But a mere speck, we have no concern for it, even if it is of the disqualifying appearances. And redness is not a disqualifying appearance, and certainly not all types of green (and so wrote the Sha'arei Teshuva subsection 21). And the appearance of gold, for even regarding the blood of a niddah it is not like red, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 188, see there. And so too if the change of appearance is by means of a thorn or a leaf, and in our language we call this "blatish lomer" or "ritish lomer," for it is nothing. For a change of appearance is only that which becomes a change from its own essence. But that which its place became crooked and red because of the thorns that prick it—it is kosher (Magen Avraham subsection 19). And the same law applies to any change of appearance that is caused because of this.

And there is one who says that the same law applies to dryness—it disqualifies on its nose in any amount (Tur in the name of the Ra'avad). However, regarding a crack—it does not disqualify on its nose more than on the rest of the etrog (Magen Avraham, subsection 17, in the name of the Rosh). And there is one who is concerned even regarding a crack, and his reasoning is because it is not "hadar," and anything that is due to the reason of "hadar" disqualifies on its nose in any amount. But in truth, regarding a crack—its disqualification is not due to the reason of "hadar," but rather due to the requirement of a "complete taking." And if so, there is no difference (ibid. in the name of our teacher, the Rema, in Darkei Moshe). And so too regarding a perforation where a piece is missing—there is no difference between its nose and the rest of the etrog. And see in section 12.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 13: Chazazit is like blisters. It has substance, such that its location is discernible by touch, as it is higher than the etrog. Therefore, one should validate those chazazit called "mool," because they are not higher than the rest of the etrog. And there is one who wrote that they should be validated because they are considered the appearance of an etrog, since it is common for many to be so. Thus far his words. That is to say: if so, even if they are higher than the rest of the etrog—it is kosher (ibid., subsection 2). And I do not know what this "mool" is. Some have written that this is called "blatt mool," and some have explained that this is called "fleck," and in our language "pliama," and this is like a lack of cleanliness. This is found many times. And since it is not higher than the etrog—it is not included in the category of chazazit. And in truth, in our etrogim, chazazit is not found at all, like a type of boil. This used to be found in the Genova etrog, and in the Corsica etrogim, but not in our etrogim. And there is no difference in this between its "nose" and the rest of the etrog (Dagul Mervavah).

And there is a great principle to know, that both regarding the disqualification of a change in appearance and regarding the disqualification of a scab; for even if a scab arose upon it in a manner that is disqualified, or if it is very speckled, if when one peels it off it returns to the appearance of the etrog – it is kosher. And specifically provided that when he peels it, nothing will be missing from the body of the etrog. But if it is missing from the body of the etrog – it is disqualified on the first day due to the reason of "missing." And it is simple, and we have seen many times that through the sticking of wax – the adhesion was removed. And so too when they wipe it with a soft object – sometimes it is removed and it is kosher.

If water fell upon it while detached, and through this worms entered, and it became swollen or putrid and its smell is foul; or if it was pickled in vinegar for the duration of time it takes to place it on the fire and for it to begin to boil, or pickled in water for twenty-four hours, or cooked, or spotted – it is pasul. The law of a withered one was explained in section 5, see there. And "spotted" means: that on its majority it is spotted like leopard spots, and not like a chazazit. And so too if it is black or white, for these are among the pasul appearances: if in one place – it renders it pasul on its majority. And if in two or three places – its law is like a chazazit, to render it pasul even on its minority, and according to the laws that were explained regarding a chazazit.

This matter of black being disqualified—this refers to etrogim that grow in countries where their appearance is green, like our etrogim. However, an etrog that grows in the land of Cush, where due to the great heat everything tends toward black, even if they are slightly black—they are kosher, for this is the way of their creation and growth in those places, and this is not a change at all. Yet even this is only if they only tend slightly toward blackness. But if it is extremely black like the Cushite people—it is disqualified, for this is not within the category of "hadar" at all. And they are disqualified for all seven days.

And one that is round like a ball is pasul, for it does not possess the form of an אתרוג at all. And specifically like a ball, but if it is round like a pot—meaning that it is not like an אתרוג which is round in its middle and slopes downward and slopes upward, but rather from its top to its end it is in a circle, and it is long and not like a ball—it is kosher. And there are those who are concerned even for this (according to one version in Tosafot 36a, beginning with the words "An etrog" where they read "like a kettle," see there). And it is proper to be stringent ab initio (see Taz). And likewise, if one grew it in a mold that they made for it while it was still small, and placed it inside while it was still attached to the tree, and it grew inside it according to the dimensions of the mold and its image, until it changed from the form of an אתרוג and became like a different type of creature—it is pasul. But if the mold was according to the form of the אתרוג, even though it is not exactly similar to it, such as if it was made with a sort of planks like boards upon boards—it is kosher.

Twin etrogim, meaning two that grew together attached to one another—are kosher. One takes both of them as one, and recites the blessing over it. This is not a violation of "do not add," since they grew together—they are as one. On the contrary, if one separates them—it is as if it is missing. And there is room for doubt if one separated them and they became detached, and they became like two etrogim, and each one is separated from its fellow without any missing part from its body, whether they are kosher? Or is their law like half an etrog and they are invalid? The Semag invalidates a twin, but the Rambam validates it, and so they ruled in the Shulchan Aruch. (In the Gemara ibid. And some say even the twin is invalid, and they hold like the Semag, that perhaps the first Tanna does not disagree on this. And to the Rambam it was simple to him, see Beit Yosef.)

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch wrote in section 21: Green that is similar to the grasses of the field is pasul, unless it returns to the appearance of an etrog when one lets it sit, and then it is kosher. Thus far their words. And with us, the Corfu etrogim—all of them arrive green, and all of them return to the appearance of an etrog, and consequently it is kosher even while it is green, since it will return to the appearance of an etrog (Taz, subsection 18). For the disqualification of green is not due to the reason of hadar, but rather due to the reason that it has not finished its fruit growth. Therefore, since it can return to the appearance of an etrog, it has finished its fruit growth (ibid.). And there is one who disqualifies it until it entirely returns to the appearance of an etrog, but it is not so (ibid. and Magen Avraham, subsection 23). Nevertheless, the Maharil would disqualify it until part of it begins to return to the appearance of an etrog (ibid.), for perhaps this one has not finished yet. But when it begins to return to the appearance of an etrog, it is a sign that its fruit growth is finished, and in the course of time it will entirely return to its appearance. And certainly, ab initio, one should be concerned for his words, but when there is no other etrog—it appears that one may recite the blessing over it even on the first day, since it is known that almost all of them return to the appearance of an etrog.

An etrog of orlah is invalid, because it is forbidden for eating, and the Torah said: "And you shall take for yourselves" – that which is fit for you in all its manners of enjoyment (Rashi 35a). For if you wish to eat it, it must be within your power to eat it. And orlah, since it is forbidden for eating, we do not read regarding it "for yourselves." And an etrog of doubtful orlah – it appears that in Eretz Yisrael it is forbidden, and outside of the Land it is permitted according to the law of doubtful orlah, as I have written in Yoreh Deah siman 294.

An etrog of impure terumah is invalid for the reason that has been explained: since it is not fit for eating. But one of pure terumah—initially he should not take it, because since the lulav stands in water so that it does not dry out, and he brings the etrog near it, it will come to a state of susceptibility to impurity. And one may not bring terumah to a state of impurity, and even causing it is forbidden. But if he took it, he has fulfilled the obligation, for it is fit for eating. And even a Levite or an Israelite fulfills the obligation, for even though he himself cannot eat it, nevertheless we read regarding it "and you shall take for yourselves," as he can give it to his relative who is a kohen (Rashi 35b). And one of tevel is also invalid, as it is not fit for eating. And one of demai is valid, for if he wishes he can renounce ownership of his property and become a poor person, and it would be fit for him, as one may feed the poor demai. And one of ma'aser sheni in Jerusalem—likewise, initially he should not take it, for the reason of susceptibility to impurity as with terumah. But if he took it, it is valid. But outside of Jerusalem, since it has no permission for eating there, he has not fulfilled the obligation. And if he vowed to have no benefit from an etrog, what is its law—it was explained in Yoreh Deah siman 215, see there.

Regarding the size of the etrog—there is no upper limit. For even if it is very large, to the point that it is carried on the shoulder—it is kosher. However, there is a lower limit, which is that if it is less than a kebeitza—it is invalid. And the reason: because the majority of etrogim—their growth is not less than a kebeitza. And this, since it does not contain a kebeitza—behold, its fruit is not yet finished. And the Torah said: "fruit of a tree"—that it must be a complete fruit. And even if this one would not have grown more even while remaining on the tree—nevertheless, this is not a significant fruit. But if it contains a kebeitza, even though it is still unripe, such that its growth is not finished, nevertheless, since there are etrogim that at the completion of their growth are not larger than a kebeitza—this too is called a finished fruit, and one fulfills his obligation with it. And only that it should not be green like a leek.