Shulchan Aruch: Chapter 648 - Factors that Disqualify an Esrog

SECTION 648 Factors that Disqualify an Esrog. (1–31)

1 An esrog that has withered is valid,1 but one that has dried out is invalid2 because it is not considered “beautiful.”3

An esrog is defined as “dried out” when no moisture is left and it no longer discharges any moisture, (for moisture to a fruit is like blood to the flesh of a living creature, and it is written,4 “The dead shall not praise You….”).5 As long as an esrog is fresh, it will discharge moisture, either by the pressure of a knife or when the fruit is squeezed. When it is dried out, it will not exude any moisture.

Checking [this factor] is difficult, because an esrog cannot be squeezed or cut without being disqualified. Nevertheless, if one punctures a hole that diminishes nothing from the body of the esrog, the esrog remains valid, provided it is not “perforated through and through,” i.e., the perforation does not penetrate to the seed compartments of the esrog.6 Thus one can check an esrog by puncturing it with a needle and thread. If it is [still] moist, this will be detectable on the thread. One must, however, take care that the needle does not reach the seed compartments7 and also that it does not pass to the other side of the esrog8 even if it did not reach the seed compartments, so that the esrog will not be perforated from side to side. [See fig. 28.]

2 There is, however, no obligation to check an esrog unless it is visibly withered. An esrog over which one recited a blessing during the previous year need not be checked, for it will certainly be found to be dried out.9

3 [The following laws relate to] an esrog with a hole.10 Even when the hole is wide, [but] if none of the substance of the esrog11 is lacking — e.g., the esrog was pierced with a thick peg in a way that did not decrease its substance at all — it is valid. [This applies, provided] the length and width of the hole is less than the length and width of the coin called an isar.

How is this area measured? If the hole is round, the isar should be placed over the hole. If the hole is square or long and narrow, we consider it as if it were circular, i.e., we calculate the size of the circle that could be made from the area of the hole. If the size of this area is less than the size of an isar, the esrog is acceptable. (See Yoreh Deah 34[:2-3]12 [which explains] how the size of an isar is calculated today,13 for [the size of] that coin is not at all known to us.)

4 When does the above apply? When the hole does not extend from side to side. If, however, it extends to the opposite side, then even if it does not reach the seed compartments within [the heart of] the esrog — e.g., it perforated the thick peel (which surrounds the seed compartments) from one side to another on a different plane than that of the seed compartments — the esrog is invalid.14 [This applies] even if the diameter of the hole is miniscule and even if none of the substance of the esrog was lacking.

5 If, however, the hole does not extend from one side to the other, then even if the hole is on the same plane as the seed compartments and extends through [them] until near the opposite surface of the esrog, [the esrog is valid].

Similarly, if the esrog was perforated from both sides, with the perforation [from either side] penetrating the seed compartments, then as long as part of the seed compartments themselves remains unimpaired and thus that intact part intercepts the holes on either side, the esrog is not considered as having been perforated from side to side.15

6 Some authorities differ with the above and maintain that if the hole reaches the seed compartments it is considered as a perforation from side to side, even though the seed compartments and the other side of the esrog remain intact. [The rationale is that] the thick peel that surrounds the seed compartments is not considered as the same entity as the seed compartments, but in this context is considered as a separate entity. Thus if [the peel until the seed compartments] is perforated entirely on one side, it is considered as if the hole extends from one side to the other.

With regard to the halachah, one should be stringent and follow the latter view. Nevertheless, in a pressing situation, when it is impossible to find another esrog, one may rely on the first view and recite a blessing over such an esrog.16

7 The above applies to a perforation that does not diminish the substance of the esrog. If, however, even if the smallest amount of its substance is lacking, the esrog is invalid,² even if the hole does not extend from side to side, and even if it is smaller than an isar.

8 Other authorities differ with regard to all of the above and maintain that a perforation that does not decrease the substance of the esrog does not disqualify it at all, even if the hole is much wider than an isar, and even if it extends from side to side. [They maintain that] our Sages did not make a distinction between a hole that extends from side to side and one that does not, or between a hole that is the size of an isar and one that is smaller, unless the hole decreases the substance of the esrog. [In such a situation,] they maintain that if the hole is as wide as an isar, the esrog is disqualified even if [the hole] does not extend from side to side, and if the hole is not as wide as an isar, it does not disqualify the esrog unless it extends from side to side.17 In a pressing situation, when another esrog cannot be found, one may rely on the [more lenient] opinion and recite a blessing on such an esrog.

9 All of the above applies with regard to a perforation that occurred after the esrog was picked. When holes are made while the esrog is still on the tree, as commonly happens when thorns fall on it, it is customary to rule that it is valid, even when the holes decrease its substance. [The rationale is that] any perforation that occurs while the esrog is growing on the tree will be healed, for the rind will regenerate and cover it, since [the fruit] is continuing to grow on the tree. Though there will be a depression in the rind and some of the substance [of the esrog] will be lacking, this is not of consequence.

If, however, we see that the rind has not covered the perforation and that at that point the substance of the esrog is deficient, the esrog is invalid, even though a thorn perforated it while it was still attached to the tree.

10 When does the above apply? When it is clear and obvious that this depression indicates that the substance of the esrog has been diminished.18 If, however, there is reason to suspect that its substance has not decreased, but rather the pressure of the thorn [merely] compressed the fiber of the esrog to the sides of the hole, the esrog may be deemed valid. For as long as we are not certain that the substance of the esrog has decreased, we may rely on the last view explained above19 — that a perforation that does not extend from side to side and that is less than an isar in size does not disqualify the esrog, even though it decreases its substance.20

11 Even if there is reason to suspect that the perforation reached the seed compartments, the esrog should be deemed valid. [The rationale is that] as long as we are not certain that the perforation reached the seed compartments, we may rely on the authorities21 who hold that even a perforation that reached the seed compartments is not considered a perforation that extends from side to side.²⁰ Accordingly, [this factor] does not disqualify the esrog unless it decreases its substance.22

12 We have already explained that a decrease in the substance of the esrog disqualifies it, as described above.23 When does the above apply? When the decrease [begins] from the outside, i.e., when the outer rind of the esrog is also perforated. [This refers to] the thin shell that surrounds the thick shell24 which is called the fiber25 of the esrog and which has a tart taste when eaten.

[Different rules apply] if the decrease [in the substance of the esrog] is only internal, i.e., all of the fibrous interior of the esrog has decomposed, but the outer rind and the seed compartments are still intact26 and one can feel with his hand that they have not decomposed.27 The Sages of the Gemara¹⁴ were unsure whether this esrog should be likened to a lung, which is not disqualified by an internal decrease in its substance, such as when all its interior tissue has decomposed, but its external membranes and internal air passages remain intact. In such an instance, the ruling of [Shulchan Aruch,] Yoreh Deah, sec. 36,28 is that [the animal] is kosher.29

Some authorities rule leniently on this uncertain situation. They argue that all these disqualifying factors (which do not depend on whether the esrog is “beautiful,” as will be explained30) are not of Scriptural but of Rabbinic origin,31 and whenever an uncertainty arises on a point of Rabbinic Law, we rule leniently.32

Other authorities maintain that all these disqualifying factors are of Scriptural origin, as will be explained.³⁰ Hence, [they argue,] this question should be viewed stringently,33 as with all uncertainties that arise regarding Scriptural Law.34

Where possible, one should show concern for the latter view.35

13 If an esrog is split36 along [almost] its entire length, even if it is split only on one side from top to bottom, and the split along its entire length penetrates more than halfway into the thick peel, the esrog is invalid,² even though none of its substance is missing. If a minute part of the esrog near its tip and a minute part near its base remain37 without a split that penetrates more than halfway into the thick peel, the esrog is valid. [This ruling applies] even if it is split on both sides along [almost] its entire length, but there remains a minute part near the tip and near the bottom on each side that is not split.

14 Similarly, if an esrog is split around its circumference, even if it is split on two opposite sides, the esrog is valid, as long as a minute part remains intact38 on either side between [the ends of] the two splits.39 [This applies] even if the splits penetrate more than halfway into the thick peel.

The reason that an esrog is disqualified by any of the above factors — by being perforated, by lacking part of its substance, or by being split40 — is not its lack of “beauty.” The reason for the disqualification is that such an esrog is not perfect and complete, whereas the Torah stated,41 ולקחתם — “And you shall take.” From this word the Sages learned that [what is taken] should be perfect and complete.42

15 [The following rules apply] if the thin outer rind that surrounds the thick peel43 has been stripped off.44 If it has been stripped off entirely, the esrog is invalid,¹⁴ because since the rind has been removed entirely, the esrog will progressively spoil; it is not considered “beautiful.” If, however, there remains even the slightest amount of the rind that was not peeled off, the esrog is valid, for from that amount, [the entire rind] can be regenerated.45

Some authorities maintain that the esrog is invalid unless part of its rind the size of a sela46 remains. Where possible, this view should be respected.47

16 When does the above apply? When the place where the rind was stripped off remains the same color as the esrog.48 If, however, its color is different from that of [the rind of]49 the esrog, it is invalid unless: [i] the peeled part [covers only] a minority of [the surface of] the esrog; [ii] it is not scattered in two or three places, but is located entirely in one place;50 and [iii] it is not located near the tip of the esrog, but below it, as will be explained [in subsections 19-24] with regard to protrusions [that may erupt upon it]. Note the explanations provided there.51

17 Many esrogim have a woody projection growing from their tip whose [lower end] is embedded in the esrog and whose [upper end] juts out upward. In some esrogim, this projection is not embedded in the esrog at all, but its full length extends upwards from the tip of the esrog. [This projection] is called a pitma52 or a dad.53 On it grows a rose-like flower called a shoshanta, which is (considered) part of the woody projection that is called a pitom or a dad.

Many esrogim grow without this pitom and this flower at all.54 They are valid, because this is the way they were created and this is their natural pattern of growth. Those that naturally grow this way are readily identifiable, because in place of a pitom, they naturally grow with a small cavity there. If, however, an esrog had a pitom and it was removed, the esrog is invalid.55 [This applies] even if the entire thickness of the pitom was not detached, but part of its thickness remained connected to the esrog, while part was detached, and thus a small portion of the esrog which was previously covered by part of the thickness of the pitom is [now] uncovered. [The reason for this disqualification is that] the pitom is considered part of the esrog. If it is lacking, the esrog is thus lacking [some of its substance].56 As explained [above],57 some authorities maintain that a decrease in the substance of an esrog does not disqualify it unless that decrease is the size of an isar. Nevertheless, since the pitom is on the tip of the esrog and its lack is more obvious, we are more stringent with regard to it. Even the slightest decrease in it disqualifies the esrog — because the beauty of an esrog primarily depends on its tip, for that is what one sees at first glance.58 [Hence,] if even the slightest part is missing, the esrog is no [longer] considered “beautiful.”59

If, however, nothing was removed from the width of the pitom at its point of contact with the esrog,60 the esrog is valid. [This applies] even if [almost] the entire pitom was removed and there remained merely a minimal projection. Since the extremity of the tip of the esrog is [still] covered — over the width of the pitom — by this remaining minimal projection as it was originally covered when the pitom was intact, the esrog is not disqualified]61 [The rationale:] Since the extremity of the tip of the esrog is covered as it was originally, the substance [of the esrog] is not considered to be lacking anything.

Some authorities differ and maintain that even if merely the top flower was removed and the entire pitom remains, the esrog is invalid, because an esrog is not considered “beautiful” unless its tip is utterly intact. Though the halachah does not follow their view, it is preferable to respect it where possible. Thus if one has the choice of two esrogim that are equally attractive and beautiful, but the flower of one has been removed, he should use the one that has a flower. If, however, the one that has the flower is not as beautiful and splendid as the one from which the flower was removed, one should use the beautiful and splendid one even though it lacks a flower, for primacy is given to the first view.

18 If the stem — i.e., the stalk by which the esrog hangs from the tree — is removed, the esrog is invalid. [This applies] only if the stem is removed entirely and no part of it remains in the esrog, so that the esrog is thus left with a cavity, and hence is now lacking part of its substance.62 If, however, even the smallest part of the stem remained in the esrog so that the entire area of the cavity was filled, i.e., none of the thickness of the stem that fills the cavity has been removed, the esrog is valid,² for its substance lacks nothing.

However, some authorities rule that an esrog is valid even though the entire stem has been removed, leaving a cavity. [They argue that] the stem is not considered as part of the substance of the esrog to the extent that its absence would disqualify the esrog on the grounds that it is now lacking part of its substance. Though the halachah does not follow their view, one may rely on it and use such an esrog in a pressing situation in which no other esrog is available. A blessing may be recited, for in a pressing situation, there are those who follow the practice of reciting the blessing even on specimens that are outright invalid, as explained in sec. 649[:22-23]. Note the rationale stated there.63

19 The term chazazis ([in the Torah, the phrase]64 או ילפת is rendered by the Aramaic Targum as o chazezan) refers to an eruption like small boils whose substance is palpably raised from the surface of the esrog.65 If the eruption covers only part of the esrog it does not disqualify it, provided it does not cover most of the surface of the entire esrog.

[More stringent rules apply, however, if the eruption] covers two areas [on the surface of the esrog] and between them there is [a miniscule] empty space (that does not have an eruption). [If this space] is large enough to contain an eruption — i.e., there could be a miniscule eruption in this place (i.e., two small boils, for anything less is not called an eruption, as will be explained66) leaving at least a hairsbreadth of space with the natural appearance of the esrog between this spot67 and the large eruption on either side — the esrog is invalid.68 This applies even if the entire area covered by the eruption totals less than half the surface of the esrog. [The rationale is] that since there is an empty space with the natural color of the esrog in the midst of the eruption, the esrog is blotchy69 and is not considered “beautiful.”

20 When does the above apply? When the surface covered from the beginning of one eruption until the end of the second eruption extends over most of the circumference of the esrog. For example, the eruptions were positioned along the width of the esrog — i.e., around its widest circumference — and the surface covered from the beginning of the first eruption until the end of the second eruption extends over most of the circumference of its width. Similarly, [the esrog is disqualified if] the eruptions were positioned along the length of the esrog and [the affected area] from the beginning of the first eruption until the end of the second eruption extends over the majority of the circumference of its length. This is the case, for example, when there is one eruption on one side of the esrog and the other eruption extends to the other side of the esrog.

If, by contrast, all of the eruptions are on one side, the esrog is valid. [This applies] even if [the area] from the beginning of the first eruption until the end of the second eruption [covers] half70 of the circumference of the length of the esrog, half of the circumference of the width of the esrog, or even half of the circumference of [both] the length and the width of the esrog. [The esrog is thus valid if,] for example, there are many eruptions, some of them extending along its length and over as much as half its width, and others extending across its width around as much as half of the circumference.

Some authorities differ and maintain that even if an esrog has only two spots of an eruption of the smallest size and between these two spots there is an empty space with the ordinary color of the esrog no larger than the size of an eruption, [the esrog] is considered as blotchy and invalid. One should be stringent and follow the latter view. Nevertheless, in a pressing situation in which no other esrog can be found, one may rely on the former view.

If an esrog has only one large eruption that has spread over half of its area, i.e., the part with the natural color and the eruption are of equal size, the esrog is invalid. Similarly, whenever there is a factor that would disqualify any one of the Four Species were it to cover most of it, it is disqualified if that factor covers half, for the majority must be valid.

The only situations in which a valid half is considered as a valid majority are the partitions [that enclose an area, allowing one to carry] on Shabbos,71 the walls of a sukkah,72 and the s’chach of a sukkah.73 In these instances, there is a halachah communicated to Moshe at Sinai that [even] a [valid] half is considered equivalent to a [valid] majority. With regard to [the rest of] the Torah,74 by contrast, a valid majority is required.

Some authorities differ with the above and maintain that whenever there are no more of the invalid materials than of the valid materials, they cannot disqualify the valid materials, and the invalid materials are considered as if they do not exist at all. Though the halachah does not follow this view, in a pressing situation where other valid specimens cannot be found, one may rely on their view, [use such specimens,] and recite a blessing over them. For in a pressing situation, as will be explained in sec. 649[:22-23], there are those who follow the practice of reciting a blessing even over specimens that are utterly invalid. Note the rationale stated there.⁶³

21 [Various] factors disqualify an esrog because it is not “beautiful,” e.g., it is dried out,75 it has an eruption, or the appearance of the esrog has changed, meaning that part of its rind was removed and now looks different from the appearance of the esrog as a whole.76 [Generally,]77 these factors do not disqualify an esrog unless they are of the size specified in each case.78 [Different rules apply, however] if one [of these factors] is found on the tip of the esrog,79 i.e., on the part that begins to become narrower and pointed and tapers down80 towards its peak. If even the slightest trace of any of the factors that disqualify an esrog because it is not “beautiful” is found within this area, the esrog is invalid.81 [The rationale is] that the beauty of an esrog primarily depends on its tip, for this is more noticeable than the other parts of the esrog and it attracts one’s attention at first glance.

22 Nevertheless, even an eruption on the tip does not disqualify an esrog unless it comprises at least two boils. (Anything less is not considered an eruption.) [These boils] must be noticeable when one holds the esrog in hand without any need to focus one’s attention until he sees them.82 Similarly, none of the other factors [that could disqualify an esrog because of] a change in appearance disqualify it unless the factor is apparent to most people at first glance.

23 No eruption or [other] change in the appearance of an esrog83 disqualifies it unless it comes about from the esrog itself. If it came about because thorns pricked it and therefore certain parts appear red or crooked,84 the esrog is valid.

Similarly, the blotches that are called blatt mol85 can be deemed valid even if they are substantial, i.e., one can feel that they project from the surface of the esrog, because such an appearance is considered ordinary. Since many esrogim have such [blotches], this is not considered a significant variation.86

24 Whenever87 an esrog is disqualified because of a change in appearance or because of an eruption — whether the eruption is localized in one place or it is found in several places — and one cuts away the rind in all the invalid places, leaving the natural appearance of the esrog, it is valid. [One must, however,] be careful to cut away the rind in a manner that does not decrease the substance of the esrog itself, i.e., he cuts away only the thin, external rind.88 [Indeed,] even at the outset, one may use such measures to make the esrog valid.

If water fell on an esrog after it was picked and it became bloated, it is invalid,¹⁴ for this cannot be considered “beautiful.” Needless to say, this applies if it became rotten, i.e., slightly malodorous.

25 A cooked esrog is invalid.89 Similarly, a pickled esrog is invalid, for “pickling” is considered as cooking. What is meant by “pickled”? Anything that has been soaked for 24 hours90 in water,91 fruit juice, or other liquids.92 Even if an esrog is soaked in honey, which tends to preserve substances that are soaked in it, it is disqualified as “pickled,” if [it has been soaked] for 24 hours.

If it was soaked in strong vinegar that is very pungent, it is considered as cooked [and hence, disqualified. This applies] even if it was soaked in it very briefly, i.e., for as long as the vinegar takes to boil when placed on a fire, as stated in Yoreh Deah, sec. 105. Note the rationale explained there.93

26 An esrog that is not of uniform color94 is not “beautiful” and therefore invalid.¹⁴

When is an esrog “not of uniform color”? When it has several colors that are not natural to the esrog,95 such as black or white. [Moreover,] the esrog is considered “not of uniform color” and is disqualified even if one [such] color appears in two places, and even if they cover less than half of the esrog.

If the unacceptable color is found in one place, it does not disqualify the esrog unless it covers the majority or half of its surface, as stated above96 regarding an eruption, for the laws governing a change in appearance are the same in every respect as those governing an eruption.

27 If the appearance of an esrog is even slightly black,97 it is invalid.

When does the above apply? When the esrog grows in those lands which produce esrogim that are greenish yellow.98 In the lands whose esrogim grow blackish, by contrast, this is acceptable, because it is the natural pattern of growth in such places and is not considered as a deviation at all. When, however, an esrog is very dark, like the skin color of Ethiopians, it is invalid99 even if it grows in Ethiopia, for this is not considered “beautiful” at all.

28 An esrog that is round like a ball is invalid,¹⁴ because it is not shaped like an esrog at all. For the same reason, if an esrog was grown in a mold in which it was placed from the time that it was very small and still attached to the tree, and if it grows into the size and shape of the mold and is thus changed from its natural shape and now appears like a different created being,100 it is invalid.

If, however, [the mold] gives it a shape similar to that of an esrog, then even though this is not entirely like its natural shape, e.g., it appears like beams resembling the millstone of a watermill,101 it is valid.

29 Twin esrogim that grow coupled together102 are acceptable,¹⁴ for this is not considered a departure from the norm. One should take them both together in their bonded state and recite the blessing.

There is no upper limit to the size of an esrog.² It is valid even if it is so big that it must be carried on one’s shoulder.103 There is, however, a lower limit. An esrog smaller than the size of an egg is invalid, because most esrogim grow to no less than the size of an egg. Hence [the fact that] an esrog has not grown to that size shows that it is not fully grown — and the Torah’s expression,104 “The fruit of a… tree,” implies a fruit that is complete.105

Even if a particular esrog would not grow bigger even if it had not been picked, since it is not the size of an egg when fully grown it is not considered a significant fruit. Conversely, if it is the size of an egg, it is valid even if it is unripe, i.e., not fully grown. [Though] it would have grown more if it had not been picked, since many esrogim do not grow to any larger than this one, it is considered a significant fruit and may be termed a fully-grown fruit.

30 When does the above apply? When the color of [the esrog] is yarok, i.e., yellow like saffron,⁹⁸ as is the color of all the esrogim that have ripened. [It is] also [valid] even if it has not entirely become saffron colored, but part of it has begun to yellow, for that is a sign that the fruit is fully grown and ultimately, when left for a long time after being picked, it will become completely yellow.

When, however, esrogim are brought before us while they are still as green as the grass of the fields,² there is reason to suspect that they are not fully grown106 and that this is why they are not yellow. Nevertheless, if they are so big that it is clear to us that they are fully grown and that they will ultimately become yellow after being picked, they may be used [to] fulfill one’s obligation, even when they are still green. However, it has already become customary not to rely on this kind of expertise, and to [use] an esrog only if its color has started to turn yellowish.

31 An esrog produced by grafting107 — i.e., a branch from a different tree was grafted onto an esrog tree108 and the resultant fruit was a species that resembled an esrog — is invalid, for this is not an esrog, but a distinct species.

Four signs distinguish a lemon-grafted esrog from a genuine esrog:109

[i] a grafted esrog is smooth, whereas the entire surface of a genuine esrog is covered by slight protrusions;

[ii] the stem by which a grafted esrog hangs from the tree projects from the [convex] base of the fruit, whereas the stem of a genuine esrog is sunk [in the concave depression at its base];

[iii] [the fruit] inside a grafted esrog is larger and juicier, and its middle peel is not as extensive as the thick [white] peel [that characterizes] a [genuine] esrog, whose peel is very thick, and whose [fruit] inside is small and contains little juice;

[iv] the seeds of a genuine esrog stand upright, vertically, while those of a grafted esrog lie horizontally.