This article is an excerpt from our Sefer

Chapter 7: The Esrog

The Meaning of the Esrog:

The unity within the Esrog:[1] The Esrog contains a certain aspect of unity which differs from all other fruits in the world. All fruits have a season of growth during the year, while the Esrog remains on the tree for the entire year, throughout all four seasons. Thus, the Esrog fruit unifies all the seasons of the year.

The representation of the Esrog within Jewry: The Midrash[2] explains that the Esrog represents the people who spend their time performing Mitzvos and Gemilus Chassidim as well as learning Torah. Torah and Mitzvos correspond to the good taste and good smell found in the Esrog.

The validity of an Esrog is compared to the laws of Treifos of an animal:

Interestingly, throughout the laws of Esrog we find comparisons between it and the laws of Treifos of a slaughtered animal to determine its Kashrus status. For example:

1. A dry Esrog is compared to a living being which has no blood and is hence considered dead and is invalid.[3]

2. A disintegrated Esrog is compared to a disintegrated lung of an animal regarding its validity.[4]

3. A cracked Esrog is compared to a cracked esophagus of an animal.[5]

Introduction-General rules of invalidation of an Esrog:

The Hadar invalidations:[6] Hadar invalidations are Biblical.[7] It is disputed amongst the Poskim if Hadar invalidations apply even on Chol Hamoed, and practically we are stringent unless it is a case of great need.[8] The following Hadar invalidations apply to an Esrog: 1) Dryness [Halacha 4]; 2) Chazazis blister [Halacha 9]; 3) color spots [Halacha 10]; 4) A spoiled Esrog [Halacha 11]; 5) A water absorbed Esrog. [Halacha 12]; 6) A black Esrog [Halacha 14]; 7) An Esrog with a missing Pitum. [Halacha 15].

The Chaser invalidations:[9] It is disputed if Chaser invalidations are Biblical or Rabbinical.[10] Chaser invalidations do not apply on Chol Hamoed.[11] The following Chaser invalidations apply to an Esrog: 1) Missing a piece [Halacha 6]; 2) A disintegrated Esrog [Halacha 7]; 3) A cracked Esrog [Halacha 8]; 4) If it has a hole. [Halacha 5]; 5) If the Oketz fell off [Halacha 16].

Other invalidations: 1) Murkav [Halacha 2]; 2) Cooked Esrog [Halacha 12]; 3) Mutated shape. [Halacha 13]; 4) Less than a Kibeitza. [Halacha 14] 5) An Esrog that is forbidden to be eaten [Halacha 17]

The Chotem invalidations:[12] A Halachic invalidation of Hadar, such as dryness, a Chazazis, or color change, that is found by the Chotem of an Esrog, invalidates the Esrog in any amount. Even though by other areas of the Esrog a certain minimum measurement is required for them to invalidate, as will be explained in this chapter by each Hadar invalidation, by the Chotem area there is no minimum measurement of invalidation, and it is always invalid in any amount.[13] The Chotem is defined as the area [on the upper half of the Esrog[14], towards the Pitum] from the point that it begins to slope inwards towards its top and becomes narrow and gradient.[15]

Chol Hamoed: On Chol Hamoed, all Hadar invalidations are disputed if they are invalid on Chol Hamoed and therefore it is to be considered invalid unless no other Esrog is available. Chaser invalidations are valid on Chol Hamoed. All other invalidations are invalid throughout Chol Hamoed. See Chapter 5 Halacha 9, the details in each case of invalidation in this chapter.

Second day in Diaspora: On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, a Daled Minim which contains an invalidation which is permitted on Chol Hamoed is disputed if it is invalid, just like on the first day, or retains the leniencies of Chol Hamoed and practically, one is not to use such a Daled Minim, and if no other Kosher species is available, and one cannot borrow one from another person, then one is to use it without a Bracha. See Chapter 5 Halacha 10, and below by each invalidation.

Invalidation which covers exactly half of the Esrog: See Chapter 5 Halacha 12.

The law in cases of doubt of an invalidation: See Halacha 18.

1. The source for an Esrog:[16]

The verse[17] states one is to take for yourselves a “Peri Eitz Hadar.” The Sages deduced from the [superfluous] word “tree” that the fruit referred to in the verse contain a tree bark that has the same taste as its fruit, and this is an Esrog, as its tree and fruit have the same taste. [This means that the peel of the Esrog which makes up majority of the Esrog tastes similar to the bark of the tree, however the juice that it contains is not similar in taste to the bark.[18]]

2. Murkav-The law of a Grafted Esrog:[19]

A grafted Esrog is invalid. [If one is unsure whether the Esrog is grafted, it should be taken without a blessing.[20]]

Definition of grafted:[21] The definition of a grafted Esrog is an Esrog tree that was grafted with the branch of another tree [such as a lemon branch] and grew a fruit similar to the Esrog. This fruit is invalid for Esrog, as it is not an esrog at all but rather a separate species.[22] [According to some Poskim[23], this likewise applies in the opposite case, that if a regular tree was grafted with the branch of an Esrog tree, then it is considered grafted and is invalid. However, other Poskim[24] rule that it is valid in such case.]]

The signs of a grafted Esrog:[25] There are four general signs in a Kosher Esrog which are different than an Esrog which grew from a tree that was grafted with a lemon. [However, in today’s times that the modern forms of grafting can achieve grafted Esrogim with Esrog signs, we no longer rely on these signs either to validate an Esrog and rather require a tradition, as stated below in the Q&A.[26] Likewise, we no longer rely on the automatic invalidation of an Esrog if it contain the below signs of a grafted Esrog, especially if the Esrog has a tradition to be valid, unless it contains a lot of juice and thin peel, in which we deem it invalid even today.[27]]

Smooth versus bumpy: A grafted esrog is smooth like a lemon while a kosher Esrog contains slightly elevated bumps throughout its body.
Stem: The stem of a grafted Esrog protrudes outside the Esrogs body while the stem of a Kosher Esrog sinks into the Esrog.
Juice: A grafted Esrog has a thinner peel, and its inside fruit is wide and contains a lot of juice, while a Kosher Esrog has a very thick peel and its inner fruit is very minimal and does not contain a lot of juice.
Seeds: A grafted Esrog contains horizontal seeds [i.e. seeds that rest flat in the Esrog when the Esrog is positioned from top to bottom], while a Kosher Esrog contains vertical seeds [i.e. seeds that rest upright when the Esrog is positioned from top to bottom].

Q&A

Buying an Esrog that has tradition to not be Murkav:[28]

Despite the above given signs, one should be careful to only buy an esrog that has a tradition to not be grafted, similar to the requirement to only eat a bird that has a tradition despite it containing the signs of a Kosher bird. This is because in today’s times the grafting technology is so advanced that it is possible to graft an Esrog in a way that all of its signs remain.[29] The necessity for a tradition especially applies in today’s time when most Esrogim have a status of Murkav.[30] An example of an Esrog that has a tradition to not be grafted is the Yanovar Esrog which grows in southern Italy, as explained next.

Shaking more than one Esrog due to doubt:[31]

Some are accustomed to purchase and shake Esrogim from different orchards [one after the other, and not together] due to the doubt of Murkav. Many Chabad Chassidim who use an Esrog from Calabria are also accustomed to later shake with an Esrog of Eretz Yisrael, and so is testified to have been the custom of the Rebbe.

What is the status of a non-grafted Esrog which was grown from the seed or branch of a grafted Esrog?[32]

Some Poskim[33] rule the Esrog is invalid. Other Poskim[34] rule the Esrog is valid. The implication of Admur and the Tzemach Tzedek is that it is invalid[35], and likewise the Rebbe was stringent in this matter.[36] Nonetheless, in a time of need that no other Esrog is available, there is room to be lenient.

Do enzyme injections into the Esrog to help solidify its Pitum so it does not fall off, or in order to help it grow, deem it a Murkav?[37]

No.

If an Esrog contains some of the signs of a lemon, as stated above, or if it contains lemon DNA as discovered in a laboratory, is it invalid?[38]

No, as it is possible that it contains these signs due to bees which transfer the DNA of a lemon tree to the Esrog tree.

Is a seedless Esrog, such as the Moroccan Esrog, valid?[39]

Yes.

May one species of an Esrog be grafted with another species of an Esrog?[40]

Yes.

3. Calabria-Yanover Esrog:[41]

The tradition: There is a tradition from the Tzemach Tzedek, in name of his uncle Rav Chaim Avraham, in name of the Alter Rebbe, which dates back to Moshe Rabbeinu, to use specifically the Yanovar Esrog, also known as the Calabria Esrog, for the Daled Minim for reasons known to him. [It is called Calabria in reference to the region of growth in Italy, and is called Yanover, or Genova, due to the fact that it was shipped from this area in Italy. Both terms are interchangeable and used today to refer to the same Esrog which comes from the Calabria region in Italy.[42]] This tradition is recorded in both previous and later Poskim[43], and the Poskim[44] write that Rabbeinu Tam and the Maharam Merothenberg took Esrogim from this region. This tradition dates back to Moshe Rabbeinu, as the Alter Rebbe stated that when Hashem told Moshe Rabbeinu to take an Esrog, he sent emissaries to Italy to bring him Esrogim from there.[45] Thus, by Chabad Chassidim, the blessing should only be said over an Esrog from this region, unless there is no other Esrog available, in which case one may apply leniencies to allow the use of other Esrogim.[46] This tradition is also followed by Satmar Chassidim. The above tradition to prefer the Yanover Esrogim, applies even regarding Esrogim from Eretz Yisrael, that even if they are available, one is to specifically use the Yanover Esrog.[47] Nonetheless, other sects of Jewry who have a tradition to use Esrogim of other orchards and regions, may continue to do so.[48]

The reason for the tradition: The Alter Rebbe stated that the reason for the tradition is for reasons known to him.[49] Nonetheless, the following reasons are recorded: First and foremost, the reason for following this tradition is because this Esrog is verified to be a non-Murkav Esrog, while by many other Esrogim there is a doubt to their Murkav status.[50] Another possible reason for this tradition to use specifically a Calabria Esrog may be since Italy is referred to in the Midrash[51] as the fat of the earth, thus making its fruits have the most beauty, and it is a Mitzvah to choose the choicest products to perform the commands of Hashem.[52]

The status of Esrogim of Eretz Yisrael [i.e. Kfar Chabad]: The above tradition to prefer the Yanover Esrogim, applies even regarding Esrogim from Eretz Yisrael, that even if they are available, one is to specifically use the Yanover Esrog.[53] This applies even to the Esrogim of Kfar Chabad which come from a seed of a Yanover Esrog that was used by the Rebbe, that nevertheless one is to preferably use a Yanover Esrog from Italy for the blessing, and not one from Kfar Chabad.[54] Nonetheless, these Israeli Esrogim that were grown from Calabria Esrogim have the advantage of retaining the non-Murkav tradition of Yanover Esrogim, and thus due to this aspect the Rebbe encouraged such orchards to be planted in Eretz Yisrael, even though the Esrogim from Italy still remain preferable according to the tradition, as stated above.[55] Practically, many Chabad Chassidim who use an Esrog from Calabria are also accustomed to later shake with an Esrog of Eretz Yisrael, and so is testified to have been the custom of the Rebbe.

The Calabria Esrog today & the requirement for a reliable Hashgacha:[56] After the years of the holocaust, various question and suspicions of Murkav were raised regarding the status of Yanover Esrogim today, with claims that the gentile managers of the Calabria orchards are accustomed today to graft the Esrog with lemon branches, and hence the entire tradition was under risk of annihilation. The Rebbe was aware of this worry and acknowledged its seriousness, having in fact directed in the 1950’s for Rav Perlow of Milano to travel to Calabria to personally inspect its Kashrus.[57] The Rebbe gave him personal detailed instructions of how to verify the Kashrus of the Esrogim.[58] Likewise, in the 1950’s, Rav Yisrael Jacobson, who provided the Yanover Esrogim to the Rebbe and who at that time was the sole importer of these Esrogim to America, to personally travel to Calabria and verify their Kashrus, and the Rebbe relied on his supervision.[59] From that time and on Rav Yisrael Jacobson, and other Rabbahnim such as Rav Yaakov Leib Altein, Rav Moshe Lazar, and Rav Rodel, took charge of personally inspecting and supervising the orchards from which the Calabria Esrogim were shipped from to verify their Kashrus and non-Murkav status. Today, other Chabad Rabbahnim, and Rabbahnei Satmar, supervise the orchards in Calabria from which the Esrogim of their Hashgacha are shipped from. From all the above, it is clear that despite the Chabad tradition to use a Calabria Esrog, one may only use a Calabria Esrog from an orchard that has a strong Kashrus supervision to negate any worry of Murkav. To note, however, that even amongst many of the supervised orchards, there is no ongoing supervision during the year to verify that the gentile managers do not perform grafting, and hence many Hashgachas rely on Chazakah, and trust of the gentile, as well as a Safek Sfeika, and the leniency to permit Esrogim which grew from a grafted Esrog, to permit the Esrog.

4. Dry:[60]

A shriveled Esrog is valid. However, a dry Esrog is invalid.[61]

What is the definition of dry:[62] An Esrog which dried to the point that it has lost all of its inner moisture, and thus does not release moisture even when cut or squeezed, is invalid.[63]

How does one check an Esrog for moisture?[64] The way to check an Esrog to verify whether any moisture remains inside is by inserting a needle with a string inside the Esrog and then checking if the string is moist. However, one must beware not to reach the seed box with the needle or penetrate from one side of the Esrog to another [Nekev Mefulush] even if it bypasses the seed box, as doing so invalidates the Esrog. It goes without saying that one cannot squeeze or cut the Esrog, as doing so will invalidate it, and thus its check for dryness is difficult to be accomplished and must be done as stated above.

Is one obligated to check his Esrog for moisture?[65] There is no obligation to check an Esrog which appears fresh. If, however, the Esrog appears withered, then it must be checked.

Is an Esrog from the previous year valid?[66] An Esrog that was used for the Mitzvah for one year is certain to have dried to the point of invalidation by the Sukkos of the next year, and therefore it should not be checked at all. [Accordingly, an Esrog from the previous Sukkos is invalid.]

Dryness by the Chotem:[67] If there is any Halachically defined dryness in the top area of the Esrog, called the Chotem, then the Esrog is Pasul.[68] The Chotem is defined as the area [on the upper half of the Esrog[69], towards the Pitum] from the point that it begins to slope inwards towards its top and becomes narrow and gradient.[70]

The law on Chol Hamoed:[71] A dry Esrog is invalid even on Chol Hamoed being that its invalidation is due to Hadar [unless no other Esrog is available, in which case it may be used[72] even with a blessing]. See Chapter 5 Halacha 9.

Cutting off the dry area from the Esrog:[73] An Esrog which became invalid due to dryness cannot be validated by having its dry area peeled or cut off the Esrog. This applies throughout all seven days of Sukkos, even Chol Hamoed.

Q&A

If one froze or refrigerated an Esrog from the previous year and it appears fresh, may it be used?[74]

Some Poskim[75] rule the Esrog is permitted to be used if it appears fresh. However, other Poskim[76] rule the Esrog is invalid even if it appears fresh, as it is common for the Esrog to completely spoil after a few days of being outside of its preservation.

5. An Esrog with a hole without a missing piece:[77]

Size of the hole: If there is a hole in the Esrog without any piece of the Esrog missing, such as a hole that was created by sticking a large needle into the Esrog, then if the circumference of the hole of the Esrog is less than the circumference of an Issur coin[78], it is valid. If the hole is the size of an Issur coin or larger, then it is invalid.[79] However, there are Poskim[80] who rule that even a hole that is larger than an Issur coin is valid, so long as no piece of the Esrog is missing. Practically, one may rely on this opinion in a time of need if there is no other Esrog available in which case one may use it with a blessing.[81]

The law if the hole goes from one end to another [i.e. Mefulash]:[82] If the hole penetrates from one side of the Esrog to the other side of the Esrog, then the Esrog is invalid. This applies even if the hole is a very small, and short in length, and does not pass through the seed box of the Esrog but rather only through its white thick skin [and is not missing any pieces].[83] However, there are Poskim[84] who rule that even a hole that goes from one end to the other is valid so long as no piece of the Esrog is missing. Practically, one may rely on this opinion in a time of need if there is no other Esrog available in which case one may use it with a blessing.[85]

The law if the hole reaches the seed box:[86] Some Poskim[87] rule that so long as the hole does not go from one end of the Esrog to the other end [and is not the size of an Issur, and is not missing any piece], then then the Esrog remains valid even if the hole reaches the seed box.[88] Other Poskim[89], however, rule that if the hole reaches the seed box, then the Esrog is invalid even if the seed box itself, and the other side of the Esrog, remain untouched by the hole.[90] Practically, we rule like the latter stringent opinion and the Esrog is thus invalid, however, if no other Esrog is available one may rely on the first opinion and use it with a blessing.[91] If one is in doubt whether the hole has reached the seed box of the Esrog, then the Esrog is valid [so long as the hole in question is not the size of an Issur and is not Mefulash from one side of the Esrog the other side].[92]

The law on Chol Hamoed: On Chol Hamoed, an Esrog is valid even if it has a hole which is much larger than an Issur coin, and even if it goes from one end of the Esrog to the other end, as explained in Halacha 6E.

Summary:

If the hole does not reach the seed box, or go from side to side, and is smaller than an Issur, then the Esrog remains even initially valid if no piece from it is missing. If it reaches the seed box, or goes side to side, or is size of an Issur, then it is only valid with a blessing if no other Esrog available and no actual piece is missing.

6. An Esrog with a a missing piece:[93]

A. The General Law-First Day of Sukkos:

A very small amount is missing: An Esrog which is missing any part from its body[94], even of the smallest amount, is invalid. This applies even if the hole does not reach from one end of the Esrog to the other [and does not reach the seed box] and is not the size of an Issur.[95] However, there are Poskim[96] who rule that even a hole with a missing piece is valid if it is not larger than an Issur and does not go from end of the Esrog to the other end. Practically, one may rely on this opinion in a time of need if there is no other Esrog available in which case one may use it with a blessing.[97]

A large amount is missing:[98] If the Esrog is missing a piece that is as large as the circumference of an Issur coin, then it is invalid according to all opinions.

In a case of doubt if a piece is missing from the Esrog:[99] If one is in doubt whether a piece is missing from the Esrog or if it is just an indentation within the Esrog, then the Esrog is valid [so long as the hole in question is not the size of an Issur and is not Mefulash from one side of the Esrog the other side, or to the seed box].[100] This applies even if it is possible that the hole has reached the seed box of the Esrog, nonetheless, so long as one does not know for certain, the Esrog remains valid [so long as the hole in question is not the size of an Issur and is not Mefulash from one side of the Esrog the other side].[101]

The missing piece has changed color: If a change of color, from its natural born color, occurred in the missing area of the Esrog, see Halacha 9!

Q&A

How small of a missing piece invalidates an Esrog?[102]

Some Poskim[103] rule that a missing piece only invalidates an Esrog if its missing area is viewable and recognizable from a fair distance to all people. If, however, one must discern his eye in order to notice it, then it is not an invalidating missing piece, and the Esrog remains Kosher. Other Poskim[104], however, rule the Esrog is invalid if any amount is missing, even if it is a very small amount that is not discernable at first glance, and requires contemplation to be noticed, and so is implied from the Poskim.[105]

Checking with a magnifying glass if a piece is missing:[106]

According to all opinions, a missing piece that is unnoticeable to the naked eye and can only be seen through a magnifying glass, does not invalidate the Esrog.

If juice was squeezed out of the Esrog, is it considered as if it is missing a piece?

Some Poskim[107] rule that it is not considered invalid due to losing its juice. However, from other Poskim[108] it is implied that that squeezed liquid is considered missing a piece. Vetzaruch Iyun.

B. A piece is missing from the outer membrane:[109]

The above invalidation of a missing piece only applies if there is a piece missing from the actual body [white thick peel] of the Esrog. If, however, a piece is only missing from the thin outer [green] membrane of the Esrog [i.e. skin/rind] and its inner white thick peel remains complete, then the Esrog is valid.[110]

If the entire peel is missing: If, however, the entire outer peel is missing, then the Esrog is invalid [even if it is not missing any part of the inner thick white peel].[111] However, if even the most minute amount of peel still remains, then it remains valid.[112] However, some Poskim[113] rule that even if the entire peel is not missing it only remains valid if it retains a Sela size of a peel on the Esrog which has not been peeled off. Practically, one is to suspect for this opinion when possible.

If the missing membrane caused a color change:[114] If the missing outer membrane caused a change of color on the Esrog, to a color which is different than the color of the rest of the Esrog, then it receives the same Halachic status as a blister, and hence the Esrog is invalid unless the color change is not within the Chotem of 9-10 for the full details of this matter.

Q&A

If the green external peel of the Esrog has been removed, thus revealing the white underlying peel, but without removing any part of it, is the Esrog still valid?

Some Poskim[115] rule that although the Esrog is not considered to be missing any piece, [and is thus not invalid due to Chaser, as explained above], nevertheless, it is viewed as containing a color change, and follows all of its invalidating rules. Other Poskim[116], however, rule that the white rind of the Esrog is a natural color and is not defined as a color change.

C. Scars and scabs, and thorn holes:[117]

If a hole was caused by a thorn while the Esrog was still on the tree, then even if a piece of the Esrog is missing as a result of the prick, then according to custom it remains valid if the [entire] area of the hole is covered by scar tissue.[118] This applies even if there remains a piece visibly missing from the Esrog, being that the missing area is [fully] covered by the scab. If, however, the scab is not [fully] covering over the hole, or there is no scab at all, and one can tell that there is a piece missing, then the Esrog is invalid. This, however, only applies if one is certain that an actual piece is missing from the Esrog, if however, one is in doubt whether a piece is missing from the Esrog or if it is just an indentation within the Esrog that was caused due to the thorn, then the Esrog is permitted [so long as the hole in question is not the size of an Issur and is not Mefulash from one side of the Esrog the other side, or to the seed box].[119]

D. Yom Tov Sheiyni Shel Galuyos:[120]

On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, if an Esrog is missing a piece the size of an Issur coin, one may use it if no other esrog is available, but without a Bracha. [If the hole is less than the size of an Issur, it may be used with a blessing if no other Esrog is available, as ruled regarding the first day. [121]] See Chapter 5 Halacha 10!

E. On Chol Hamoed:[122]

On Chol Hamoed, an Esrog is valid even if it is missing a piece. Furthermore, on Chol Hamoed, one may even initially cut off a piece from the Esrog, and fulfill his obligation with the remaining piece, even if it is a large piece and only a minority of the Esrog remains, so long as it retains a Kibeitza in size.[123] [However, some Poskim[124] rule that initially one should use an Esrog that is not missing any piece, even on Chol Hamoed.] This validation applies even if the missing piece is much larger than an Issur coin, and even if it goes from one end of the Esrog to the other end [so long as the Esrog retains its minimum size]. [According to some Poskim[125], this applies even if the white rind of the Esrog becomes visible, nonetheless, it is not deemed invalid due to it having a color change, even if this occurs by the Chotem of the Esrog. Other Poskim[126], however, rule that it is invalid in such a case if it is found by the Chotem of the Esrog, as it is considered a color change.]

The law if one cut off a Hadar invalidation from the Esrog:[127] If one cut off a piece from the Esrog that contains an invalid color change or area of dryness [or Chazazis], the Esrog remains invalid throughout all seven days of Sukkos, even Chol Hamoed, [unless one simply peeled off the outer green skin, as explained in Halacha 9D and 10E].

F. Bitten by animal, such as mouse:[128]

An Esrog which was bitten into by mice is forbidden to be used on the first day of Sukkos being that it is missing a piece. Furthermore, even on Chol Hamoed, although it is technically valid being that a missing piece is valid on Chol Hamoed, nevertheless, it should not Lechatchila be used for the mitzvah being that it is considered repulsive, unless one removes the bitten area from the Esrog.

Summary:

If an Esrog is missing a piece, irrelevant of its size, it is invalid on the first day of Sukkos, unless either:

1. The piece is only missing from its outer green skin and not its body, and this missing area is not a different color than the Esrog [and does not reveal the white skin of the Esrog].

2. The piece fell off while the Esrog was on the tree and a scar grew over it.

G. Eating from the Esrog:[129]

An Esrog that was eaten from is invalid on the first day of Sukkos, although valid on Chol Hamoed, as explained in A and E. However, initially it is forbidden to eat from an Esrog that was used for the Mitzvah throughout any of the seven days of Sukkos, including Shemini Atzeres in the Diaspora[130], unless a Tnaiy was made. On Shemini Atzeres in Eretz Yisrael, and on Simchas Torah in the Diaspora, it may be eaten.[131]

7. A disintegrated Esrog:[132]

An Esrog whose insides have disintegrated and feels mushy on its inside, is invalid if its seed box has disintegrated, or if a a piece is missing also from its outer green membrane. However, if its seed box has not disintegrated, and can still be felt to be whole when pressing around the Esrog, then even if its entire inside white thick peel has disintegrated, if its green outer peel remains completely hole, then it is disputed[133] if the Esrog remains valid, and [although] one is to be stringent when possible[134], [in a time of need that no other Esrog is available, one may be lenient to use such an Esrog, seemingly even with a blessing[135]].

On Chol Hamoed:[136] On Chol Hamoed, a disintegrated Esrog is valid even if it has fully disintegrated inside.

8. A cracked Esrog:[137]

Crack in the length:[138] An Esrog which contains a crack is invalid if the following conditions are met:

The crack reaches from the top of the Esrog to the bottom of the Esrog.[139]
The depth of the crack reaches into majority of the thickness of the white flesh of the Esrog.

This invalidation applies even if the crack is only on one side of the Esrog and even if there is no actual piece missing from the Esrog. If the crack is not this deep throughout its entire length, but rather only in its middle, while the top and bottom area of the crack is not this deep, then the Esrog remains valid.[140] This applies even if it cracked in this method on both sides of the Esrog. [It goes without saying that if the Esrog did not crack throughout its entire length, from top to bottom, that it remains valid. This applies even if there is a crack in the Chotem area, nevertheless, it remains valid.[141]]

Crack in width:[142] If there is a crack along the circumference of the Esrog, then if there are two cracks, one on each side of the Esrog, parallel to each other, then if there remains an un-cracked area between the two cracks by each of their ends, then the Esrog is valid. This applies even if the depth of the crack reaches into majority of the width of the white thick peel of the Esrog. [If, however, a single crack stretches throughout majority of the circumference of the Esrog, then it is implied from Admur that the Esrog is invalid.]

On Chol Hamoed:[143] On Chol Hamoed, a split Esrog is valid even if it is completely split in a way that invalidates it.

9. Chazazis-Blisters and pimples that are on the Esrog:[144]

An Esrog must look beautiful, otherwise known as Hadar. This is not just a subjective form of beauty, but a beauty that carries Halachic definition and invalidations. Due to the obligation of Hadar, an Esrog which contains blisters is potentially invalid, depending on the form of the blister, its size and its location on the Esrog.

*Important note: The invalidation of a color change in an Esrog [Halacha 10] and a Chazazis are both due to a lack of Hadar, and they follow the same laws of invalidations for all purposes.[145] For additional clarity, we have separated the two Halachos of color changes and blisters into two separate Halachos, even though their status of invalidations is identical, and hence repetitive.

A. What is a Chazazis?[146]

A Chazizis is a small pimple like elevated protuberance made up of two small blisters [that grew on the Esrog either while it was still on the tree, or after it was picked[147]]. If it only has one blister, it is not considered a Chazazis and is valid even if the blister is on the Chotem.[148] [This blister growth comes as the result of an illness of the fruit and is very uncommon today to be found.[149]]

Apparent at first sight:[150] A Chazazis is only problematic if it is casually noticeable when the Esrog is held in one’s hand, without needing deep concentration or scrutinized focus in order to be able to see them. [Thus, one is not required to contemplate and search for blisters on the Esrog, and if he does so and then notice blisters which were not seeable at first glance, then the Esrog remains valid even if the Chazazis is on the Chotem.]

Bletlich-leaf mark pimples:[151] A Chazazis pimple only invalidates an Esrog if it was born from the body of the Esrog. However, if it the Chazazis is the result of a Blet Lach[152] [leaf mark] then it is not considered a blister and is thus valid even if it protrudes above the skin of the Esrog.[153]

B. The law on the First day of Sukkos:

Blister on the Chotem:[154] If there is any Halachically defined blisters in the top area of the Esrog, called the Chotem, then the Esrog is Pasul.[155] The Chotem is defined as the area [on the upper half of the Esrog[156], towards the Pitum] from the point that it begins to slope inwards towards its top and becomes narrow and gradient.[157] [See illustration below]

Single blister below the Chotem:[158] If there is a Chazazis below the Chotem, then if there is only one Chazazis, the Esrog remains Kosher so long as the Chazazis does not cover majority of the Esrog.[159]

Two or more blisters below Chotem:[160] If there are two or more sets of Chazazis in two different areas[161] with even a hair thin strike of fresh Esrog color in between them, then it is disputed[162] as to whether the Esrog remains Kosher under certain circumstances[163], or is always invalid in all circumstances even if the Chazazis blisters in total only covers minority of the Esrog.[164] Practically, one is to initially be stringent to not use such an Esrog even if the two blisters are near each other, on the same side of the Esrog.[165] If, however, the two Chazazis are so close to each other that there is no room for another Chazazis to grow between them, then it is all considered like one Chazazis, as explained below, and hence the Esrog remains Kosher. Likewise, even if the two sets of Chazazisim are not very adjacent to each other, but between the two sets of Chazazisim there isn’t any sliver at all of skin with the natural color of the Esrog, then it is all considered like one Chazazis, and the Esrog remains Kosher, as explained above.[166] However, in a time of need that no other Esrog can be found, one may be lenient like the lenient opinion of the above-mentioned debate, and use an Esrog [with a blessing[167]] that contains two sets of Chazazis blisters below the Chotem, if from the beginning of the first set of Chazazis blisters until the end of the second Chazazis blister set it only covers half [or minority] of the circumference of the Esrog’s width or length, such as if the two blisters in their entirety are on the same side of the Esrog [and can be seen simultaneously]. This allowance applies even if there are sets of Chazazis blisters found in both the width and length of the Esrog, nonetheless if neither measurement from the two sets of Chazazis in either width or length cover more than half of the Esrog’s length or width, then it may be used in a time of need. If, however, this measurement covers majority of the circumference of the Esrogs width or length, such as if the two blisters are found, or extend onto, different sides of the Esrog [and cannot be simultaneously seen in their entirety], then it is invalid according to all opinions.[168]

Definition of two sets of Chazazis blisters:[169] If there are two sets of Chazazis blisters [two small blisteres in each set, for a total of four blisters] near each other, then they are only considered two different sets of Chazazis blisters if there is enough flat space on the Esrog between the two sets of Chazazis blisters, for another third set of Chazazis blisters (which contains two small blisters) to rest in between them. However, if they are too close to each other for another set of Chazazis blisters to rest in between them, then various sets of blisters are all considered one single set. The practical ramification in this matter was explained above regarding if there is one versus two sets of Chazazis blisters on the Esrog!

C. Second day in Diaspora:[170]

On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, an Esrog with an invalid blister [as defined in A] is disputed[171] if it is invalid, just like on the first day, or retains the leniencies of Chol Hamoed [as explained next]. Practically, one is not to use such an Esrog, and if no other esrog is available, and one cannot borrow an Esrog from another person, then one is to use it without a Bracha[172] [unless the Chazazis is valid in a time of need, as explained in A, in which case it may be used with a blessing even on the first day, and certainly on the second day]. See Chapter 5 Halacha 10!

D. The law on Chol Hamoed:[173]

During Chol Hamoed, an Esrog with an invalid blister is disputed[174] if it is invalid, just like on the first day. Practically, one may not initially use an Esrog with an invalid blister even during Chol Hamoed, however if no other Esrog is available, then one may use such an Esrog [even with a Bracha[175]].[176]

E. Koshering an Esrog-Peeling off the blister:[177]

Any Esrog that contains an invalidating Chazazis blister can be re-validated/Koshered through peeling off the blister from the Esrog. This is permitted to be done even initially.[178] This applies whether the Esrog only contains a single blister or contain many blisters in many different areas, so long as all the invalidating blisters are peeled off, the Esrog returns to become Kosher. The following conditions, however, must be met for it to be considered Kosher through peeling off the blister:

Remains shaleim: One is to only peel off the external [thin green] skin of the Esrog [in a way that the white body of the Esrog does not become revealed], thus assuring that nothing is missing from the actual body of the Esrog.[179] [If the white skin of the Esrog becomes revealed, then it is invalid due to Chaser and possibly also due to Menumar.[180]] This applies throughout all seven days of Sukkos, even Chol Hamoed, and thus if one cut off a piece from the Esrog that contains an invalid Chazazis, the Esrog remains invalid.[181]
No color changes: After the invalidating blister is peeled off, the color of the peeled area must return to being similar to the color of the rest of the Esrog for it to be Kosher.

May one peel off a blister on Yom Tov?

It is forbidden to peel a blister, or any other matter, off the Esrog on Yom Tov.[182]

Summary:

If an Esrog has a blister which is noticeable at first site, then if it is on its Chotem, it is invalid. If it is below the Chotem, it is valid. If there are two or more blisters below the Chotem, it is not to be used initially, and is invalid even Bedieved if the two Chazazis take up majority of the circumference of the Esrog.

Q&A

Does a Chazazis by the Pitum invalidate the Esrog?[183]

Practically, the custom of the world is to not apply Hadar invalidations, such as a color change or Chazazis, to the Pitum or Shoshanta, and hence if there is a black spot on the Pitum, nonetheless it remains valid. Nonetheless, this only applies to the upper part of the Pitum, and wooden protuberance called the Shoshanta, however, if it is by the bottom of the Pitum near the skin of the Esrog itself, then one is to be stringent.

Does a Chazazis by the Oketz invalidate the Esrog?[184]

No, as stated above regarding the Shoshanta.

Does a Chazazis by the bottom of the Esrog, near the Oketz, invalidate the Esrog?[185]

Some Poskim[186] rule that the invalidations of Hadar, such as a color change or Chazazis, do not apply to the bottom area of the Esrog, surrounding the Oketz. This opinion has no precedent in the Rishonim or Achronim and is considered a Halachic novelty.

10. Shinuiy Mareh-The law of an Esrog that contains a color change or colored spot [i.e. white; black; green; etc]:[187]

An Esrog must look beautiful, otherwise known as Hadar. This is not just a subjective form of beauty, but a beauty that carries Halachic definition and invalidations. Due to the obligation of Hadar, an Esrog must be a single solid color and may not contain spots, and certainly shades, of other colors. This Halacha will discuss the details regarding color changes and spots found on an Esrog, its definition, and when it invalidates the Esrog.

*Important note: The invalidation of a color change in an Esrog and a Chazazis [Halacha 9] are both due to a lack of Hadar, and they follow the same laws of invalidations for all purposes.[188] For additional clarity, we have separated the two Halachos of color changes and blisters into two separate Halachos, even though their status of invalidations is identical, and hence repetitive.

**Important note: The law below discusses the status of colored spots that are found on an Esrog which is of a normal color. Regarding however the status of an Esrog which in its entirety is of a non-normal color, such as a black Esrog, or dark green Esrog, then see Halacha 14 for the full details of this matter!

A. The definition of a color change according to Halacha:

Admur records various types of color changes:

A change of color that occurred after part of the rind of the Esrog peeled off:[189] Although if only part of the external green peel of an Esrog is missing, it is not invalid due to Chaser, as explained in Halacha 6, nonetheless, this only applies if it retains the same color as the color of the Esrog. However, if a change of color occurred after the outer skin or rind of the Esrog was removed, the color change is viewed as potentially invalidating, depending on where it is found on the Esrog, or as to how many areas of color change exist, as explained in B. [This applies even if the color change in the peeled area is to a valid color that is commonly found on an Esrog.[190]]
Menumar-Spotted with two different colors:[191] A natural born color change of two different colors which are not of the [normal] color of the Esrog which is found in two areas of the Esrog, such as if there is a black and white color change in two different areas of the Esrog [one in each area], is defined as Menumar [which means spotted]. An Esrog which is Menumar is invalid due to it not considered Hadar, as explained in B. [This only applies if the color change is to a color that is not commonly found on an Esrog, such as black and white. However, if it contains changes of color which are the common color of the Esrog, such as green or yellow, then it is not defined as a color change and remains valid.[192] See the chart below for the list of valid and invalid colors.]
Keminumar-Spotted with two of the same colors:[193] A natural born color change of the same color which is found in two different areas of the Esrog, such as two white spots or two black spots, is defined as Keminumar [meaning similar to Menumar]. An Esrog which is Kemenumar has the same status as an Esrog which is Menumar and is invalid, as explained in B. [This only applies if the color change is to a color that is not commonly found on an Esrog, such as black or white. However, if it contains changes of color which are the common color of the Esrog, such as green or yellow, then it is not defined as a color change and remains valid.[194] See the chart below for the list of valid and invalid colors.]
Single color change: A natural born color change which is found in only one area of the Esrog is not defined as Menumar, and is therefore possibly deemed valid, depending on its size and location on the Esrog, as explained in B.[195]
A black Esrog:[196] See Halacha 14!

Apparent at first sight:[197] A color change of any type is only able to invalidate an Esrog if it is noticeable to majority of people at first site. Meaning, that it is noticeable to the eye when it is held in one’s hand [from a normal distance[198], at the first time[199]] without needing to focus one’s sight on it until he sees it. [Thus, one is not required to contemplate and search for color changes on the Esrog, and if he does so and then notices color changes which were not seeable at first glance, then the Esrog remains valid even if the color change is on the Chotem.]

The law of color changes caused by thorns:[200] The color change is only problematic if it occurred on its own with the growth of the Esrog. If, however, thorns punctured the Esrog and caused brown juice to come out and create red areas and indented areas within the Esrog, nevertheless it remains valid.

Bletlach-Leaf marks:[201] A color change only invalidates an Esrog if it was born from the body of the Esrog. However, if the color change is the result of a Blet Lach[202] [leaf mark] then it is not considered a color change and is thus valid even if it protrudes above the skin of the Esrog.[203] [However, if there is a black, or other color, spot which is found on a Bletlach, then it is questionable as to its status and if it can invalidate the Esrog.[204]]

If the missing membrane causes color change:[205] If the missing outer membrane has caused a change in color which differs from the color of the rest of the Esrog, it receives the same Halachic status as a blister, and hence the Esrog is invalid unless the color change is not within the Chotem of the Esrog and is not majority of the Esrog and it is not within 2-3 areas of the Esrog, as explained above in #1.

List of problematic colors that can invalidate the Esrog, as explained in B:

· Black.[206]

· White.[207] [Some Poskim[208] rule that it only invalidates if it is very white. However, other Poskim[209] rule that all white shades are invalid. Some write that white shade that comes as a result of the Esrog having been blocked from the sun, is not considered a color change and it remains valid.[210] Regarding if the white rind is considered an invalidating color if the green peel was removed, see the previous Q&A for a dispute in this matter.]

· Dark Red.[211]

· Dark Brown.[212]

· Dark Blue.[213]

List of valid natural born colors that never invalidate the Esrog [unless occurred as a result of the rind peeling off, as explained above]:

· Green.

· Yellow.

· Light red-Pink.[214]

· Light Brown.[215]

· Light Blue.[216]

Q&A

If the green external peel of the Esrog has been removed, thus revealing the white underlying peel, but without removing any part of it, is the Esrog still valid?

Some Poskim[217] rule that although the Esrog is not considered to be missing any piece, [and is thus not invalid due to Chaser, as explained above], nevertheless, it is viewed as containing a color change, and follows all of its invalidating rules. Other Poskim[218] rule that the white rind of the Esrog is a natural color and is not defined as a color change.

What is the status of black dots which come as a result of pesticide spray?[219]

Black dots that come as the result of pesticide do not invalidate the Esrog.[220] Nonetheless, being that it is difficult to tell whether a black spot is the result of pesticide versus a natural color change, therefore one should only be lenient in this if one is able to remove the black spot from the Esrog, such as through using an eraser, or soft piece of wax, or a sticker, or needle, making sure not to puncture the Esrog in the process.

What is the law if one’s Esrog became brownish and discolored due to it being used by many people?[221]

The Esrog remains valid, and on the contrary, this is its beauty for it to become browned due to the Mitzvah.

Can a problematic color spot invalidate the Esrog if it is found on a Bletlach?[222]

This matter requires further analysis.

Does a color change by the Pitum invalidate the Esrog?[223]

Does a color change by the Oketz invalidate the Esrog?[224]

No, as stated above regarding the Shoshanta.

Does a color change by the bottom of the Esrog, near the Oketz, invalidate the Esrog?[225]

Some Poskim[226] rule that the invalidations of Hadar, such as a color change or Chazazis, do not apply to the bottom area of the Esrog, surrounding the Oketz. This opinion has no precedent in the Rishonim or Achronim and is considered a Halachic novelty.

B. The law on the First day of Sukkos:

An Esrog which is Menumar is invalid, being that it is not Hadar.[227] Menumar is defined as a color change, as brought in A.

Color change within the Chotem:[228] If there is any Halachically defined color change in the top area of the Esrog, called the Chotem, then the Esrog is Pasul.[229] This applies even if the color change is a very small amount [i.e. a small black dot].[230] The Chotem is defined as the area [on the upper half of the Esrog[231], towards the Pitum] from the point that it begins to slope inwards towards its top and becomes narrow and gradient.[232] [See illustration above]

Single color change below the Chotem:[233] If there is a color change below the Chotem, then if there is only a single-color change [i.e. one black dot or one white dot], the Esrog remains Kosher so long as this color does not cover majority of the Esrog.[234]

Two or more blisters below Chotem:[235] If there are two or more color changes, then it is disputed[236] as to whether it remains Kosher under certain circumstances[237], or is always invalid in all circumstances even if the color changes in total only covers minority of the Esrog.[238] Practically, one is to initially be stringent to not use such an Esrog even if the two color changes are near each other, on the same side of the Esrog.[239] However, in a time of need that no other Esrog can be found, one may be lenient like the lenient opinion of the above-mentioned debate, and use an Esrog [with a blessing[240]] that contains two color changes below the Chotem, if from the beginning of the first color change until the end of the second color change it only covers half [or minority] of the circumference of the Esrog’s width or length, such as if the two color changes in their entirety are on the same side of the Esrog [and can be seen simultaneously]. This allowance applies even if there are sets of color changes found in both the width and length of the Esrog, nonetheless if neither measurement from the two-color changes in either width or length cover more than half of the Esrog’s length or width, then it may be used in a time of need. If, however, this measurement covers majority of the circumference of the Esrogs width or length, such as if the two-color changes are found, or extend onto, different sides of the Esrog [and cannot be simultaneously seen in their entirety], then it is invalid according to all opinions.[241]

C. The law on the second day in Diaspora:[242]

On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, an Esrog with an invalid color change [as defined in A-B] is disputed[243] if it is invalid, just like on the first day, or retains the leniencies of Chol Hamoed [as explained next]. Practically, one is not to use such an Esrog, and if no other esrog is available, and one cannot borrow an Esrog from another person, then one is to use it without a Bracha[244] [unless the color change is valid in a time of need, as explained in B, in which case it may be used with a blessing even on the first day, and certainly on the second day]. See Chapter 5 Halacha 10!

D. The law on Chol Hamoed:[245]

During Chol Hamoed, an Esrog with an invalid color change is disputed[246] if it is invalid, just like on the first day. Practically, one may not initially use an Esrog with an invalid color change even during Chol Hamoed, however if no other Esrog is available, then one may use such an Esrog [even with a Bracha[247]].[248]

E. Koshering an Esrog-Peeling off the color change:[249]

An Esrog that contains an invalidating color change may be re-validated/Koshered through peeling off the color change from the Esrog. This is permitted to be done even initially.[250] This applies whether the Esrog only contains a single-color change or contain many color changes in many different areas, so long as all the invalidating color changes are peeled off, the Esrog returns to become Kosher. The following conditions, however, must be met for it to be considered Kosher through peeling off the color:

Remains Shaleim: One is to only peel off the external [thin green] skin of the Esrog [in a way that the white body of the Esrog does not become revealed], thus assuring that nothing is missing from the actual body of the Esrog.[251] [If the white skin of the Esrog becomes revealed, then it is invalid due to Chaser and possibly also due to Menumar.[252]] This applies throughout all seven days of Sukkos, even Chol Hamoed, and thus if one cut off a piece from the Esrog that contains an invalid color change, the Esrog remains invalid.[253]
No color changes: After the invalidating blister is peeled off, the color of the peeled area must.

May one peel off a color change on Yom Tov?

It is forbidden to peel a color change, or any other matter, off the Esrog on Yom Tov.[254]

Summary:

If an Esrog has a color change which is noticeable at first site, then if it is on its Chotem area, it is invalid. If it is below the Chotem area, it is valid. If there are two or more color changes below the Chotem area, then it is not to be initially used and is invalid even Bedieved if the two color changes take up majority of the circumference of the Esrog.

11. Spoiled Esrog and an Esrog with a foul odor:[255]

An Esrog that has spoiled and contains even a slightly bad stench, is invalid.[256]

12. Cooked or soaked in water:[257]

A cooked Esrog is invalid for the Mitzvah. Thus, an esrog which stayed submerged in water, or other liquids, for over 24 hours is invalid, as it is considered cooked.[258] This applies even if it was submerged in honey for 24 hours, nevertheless it is invalid.[259] If the Esrog was submerged in very strong vinegar, then even if it did not remain there for 24 hours but rather for the amount of time for it to be brought to a boil on the fire, then it is considered cooked and is invalid.[260]

An Esrog that has become saturated with water:[261] An Esrog that had water fall on it when it was detached from the tree, and absorbed the water and became puffy, is invalid.[262]

13. Shape:[263]

An Esrog which does not have any similarity to the general Esrog shape, is invalid. However, if it still retains the general shape of the Esrog, then it is valid, even though it is not exactly similar to the general shape of an Esrog.

Round like a ball:[264] An Esrog which is round like a ball, is invalid due to the above reason [even if it has a Pitum which protrudes upwards[265]].

Mutated Esrog shape due to mold:[266] Due to this reason, if the Esrog grew within a mold, such as if it was inserted into a mold while it was still small and growing on the tree and it thus grew within the mold into the shape of the mold, then if it appears different in shape from other Esrogim and rather appears like its own species, then it is invalid. However, if it still retains the general shape of the Esrog, such as if it is similar in shape to a beam, or to the wheel of a water mill, then it is valid, even though it is not exactly similar to the general shape of an Esrog.

A Siamese twin Esrog:[267] A twin Esrog, which is two Esrogim that grew attached to each other, is valid, and one may take both of them together in his hands while they are attached and recite the blessing.[268]

In shape of pot or water tank:[269]

An Esrog which is in the shape of a water tank, or pot, is invalid.[270] However, some Poskim[271] are lenient.

Is bent and curved:[272]

A bent or curved Esrog is valid irrelevant of which direction it is bent in, as such an invalidation was only recorded regarding a Lulav.

Pitum not aligned with Oketz:[273]

An Esrog whose Pitum is not aligned with its Oketz on bottom, and are positioned in different directions, is nevertheless valid, although it is a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to use an Esrog whose Pitum and Oketz grow symmetric to each other.

Part of Esrog is narrow and part is wide:[274]

An Esrog which contains both narrow and wide areas is valid. However, some Poskim[275] are stringent to rule that any area of the Esrog that is less than the width of an egg is not considered part of the size of the Esrog. The Poskim[276] however argue on this opinion and conclude to be lenient.

14. Size, Ripeness, and Color [green, yellow, black]:

Minimum Size:[277] An Esrog must contain a minimum size of a Kibeitza [with its peel[278]], otherwise it is invalid.[279] [The size of a Kibeitza in this regard is a volume of 57.6 cc.[280] This can be measured by entering the Esrog into a full bowl of water, and measuring the amount of water that became displaced.[281] In weight, a Kibeitza Esrog with a thick peel measures approximately 61 grams in weight.[282] Nonetheless, it is a Mitzvah to take an Esrog of larger size, lest it shrink during the Holiday to a size less than a Kibeitza.[283]] One is to add up until 1/3 of its price in order to purchase a larger Esrog.[284] [Some Poskim[285] rule that it is a Hiddur for the Esrog to be two Kibeitzas in size.]

Maximum size:[286] There is no maximum size limitation applicable to an Esrog, and hence even if it is so large that it needs to be taken on one’s shoulder [for support to hold, similar to a very large watermelon], nonetheless, it remains valid.

Ripeness-Size:[287] An Esrog which is a Kibeitza in size is valid even if it has not finished ripening and growing to its full potential and would have grown more if it were to not have been cut off.[288] Nonetheless, this only applies if the Esrog is not dark green due to its un-ripened state, or will eventually yellow in color, as explained next.

Color of Ripeness-Green versus yellow:[289] An Esrog which contains a Kibeitza in size and has ripened to the point that its color is yellow similar to the turmeric spice, as is common by all Esrogim, is valid even if it has not yet fully ripened, as stated above. Furthermore, even if the color of the Esrog is not completely yellow like turmeric [and most of it is still a dark green color, nonetheless,] if part of it has begun to turn yellow like turmeric, then it is valid.[290] [Likewise, if the Esrog is a light green color, it is valid.[291]] However, those [unripe] Esrogim which come before us that are still [completely] as green as the grass of a field, are [suspected to be] invalid[292], unless the Esrog is very large in size to the point that one knows for certain that it has fully ripened, and will eventually yellow in color when detached, in which case it may be taken and used for the Mitzvah obligation even when they are still completely green.[293] Nonetheless, the established custom is not to rely on such expertise and therefore we do not use an Esrog that is completely green, unless it has begun to turn yellow in some area.[294] [Thus, in summary, it is invalid to take a completely dark green Esrog unless one is certain that it will eventually ripen and turn yellow, and even then one is to avoid taking it so long as it has yet to begin to ripen and yellow in one area, or is light green, in which case the custom of Israel is to then use it.[295] Furthermore, some write that according to Kabbalah the Esrog should retain some green color.[296] Practically, however, the Chabad custom is to take an Esrog that is completely yellow.[297] Thus, it is better to take a yellow Esrog with Beltlach then a green one which does not have Bletlach.[298]]

Dark black:[299] An Esrog which is very black, similar to the color of black Africans, is invalid even if it grows in Africa.[300]

Light black:[301] An Esrog which is only slightly black in color is invalid in those countries which generally grow green Esrogim. However, in those countries that grow slightly black Esrogim, a light black Esrog is valid.[302]

What is the law of an Esrog that was the size of a Kibeitza, and later shrink to below the size?[303]

Some Poskim[304] rule that the Esrog is now invalid. Other Poskim[305], however, rule that the Esrog remains valid, so long as it is larger than a Kezayis.[306]

How to cause an Esrog to turn green:[307]

Placing apples around an Esrog helps it turn yellow.

15. Pitum and Shoshanta:[308]

What is a Pitum:[309] Many Esrogim grow a wood stem which protrudes from on top of the Esrog. This stem is called a Pitum or a dad. In many Esrogim, the Pitum begins to grow from within the inside of the esrog, and hence it is partially indented into the body of the Esrog, while the rest of it protrudes from on top of the Esrog. By other Esrogim, however, the entire Pitum grows from the external top of the Esrog without being indented at all within the body of the Esrog. On the dad/Pitum there grows a flowery shaped stem which is called the shoshanta.

Esrogim that grow without a Pitum:[310] Many Esrogim grow without either a Pitum or Shoshanta. They are nevertheless considered valid being that this is their normal way of growth as they are formed this way from the beginning of their creation. One can identify an Esrog that grew without a Pitum through witnessing a groove or indentation on the top area where the Pitum usually grows. [In truth, all Esrogim initially grow with a Pitum, however, many fall off during their growth due to their weakness, and it is this point that the above Halacha is addressing, that if the Pitum fell off during its growth, the Esrog nevertheless remains Kosher. This applies irrelevant towards the stage of growth in which the Pitum fell off.[311] However, this only applies if the Pitum fell off naturally, as opposed to due to a blunt force injury, in which case it is invalid.[312] The way to tell whether the Pitum fell naturally or due to a blunt force injury is with using the above sign and checking for a groove by the Pitum area.]

If the Pitum fell off:[313] An Esrog which grew a Pitum and the Pitum fell off [such due to a blow and the like, as opposed to naturally while on the tree] then if any area of the esrog’s top is now revealed due to this area falling off, then the Esrog is invalid. This applies even if only part of the width of the Pitum fell off and revealed the area of the Esrog under that part while the other part of the Pitum remained on the Esrog.[314] If, however, only the top part of the Pitum became removed while the bottom part of the Pitum remains, and completely covers the area of the Esrog that the Pitum grew on, then the Esrog remains valid.[315] [Some Poskim[316], however, rule that this only applies by those Esrogim that contain a wood Pitum and on top of the wood Pitum grows a Shoshanta, in which case it is possible for the Shoshanta and even part of the Pitum to fall off without revealing the meat of the Esrog. However, those Esrogim which contain a Pitum that is part of the actual Esrog and on this Pitum grows the wooden Shoshanta, as is common with Esrogim of Eretz Yisrael, then the Esrog is invalid if the Shoshanta has fallen and revealed any part of the Pitum.] However, some Poskim[317] argue on the above and invalidate an Esrog with a missing Shoshanta, as it is not Hadar, even if the entire Pitum is still intact and covering the skin of the Esrog. Practically, although we do not rule like this stringent opinion, nevertheless it is proper to suspect for their ruling when possible, and hence an Esrog with a missing Shoshanta should not be purchased if an Esrog of similar quality and beauty can be found.[318] If, however, the Esrog with the missing Shoshanata is more beautiful than the other Esrogim, then one should purchase this Esrog as the main opinion follows the first opinion.[319] [If only part of Shoshanta fell off, or if one is in doubt if it fell off, the Esrog is even initially permitted.[320] If part of the Pitum has detached from the Esrog, but has not fallen off due to it remaining attached from its other side, then if it is still strongly attached and will not fall off easily, then the Esrog remains valid.[321]]

On Chol Hamoed:[322] During Chol Hamoed, an Esrog which was invalidated due to a fallen Pitum is disputed[323] as to whether it may be used[324], and practically, it may not be used[325] unless there is absolutely no other Esrog available in which case it may be used [even with a blessing[326]].[327]

Second day in Diaspora:[328] On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, an Esrog which was invalidated due to a fallen Pitum may be used if there is no other esrog available. It is to be used without a Bracha.

Q&A

If the Pitum fell off in an invalidating manner, does it help to attach it back to the Esrog, such as through the use of a pin?[329]

Some Poskim[330] rule that if the Pitum is reattached to the Esrog in a way that its skin is not recognizable, then the Esrog returns to being Kosher. Other Poskim[331], however, rule that the Esrog remains invalid, and so is the main ruling.

Does a color change of blister by the Pitum invalidate the Esrog?[332]

16. Oketz/Stem:[333]

What is the Oketz: The Oketz is the stem from which the Esrog grows from on the tree.

If it fell off: If the Oketz was removed from the Esrog in a way that no part of it remains on the Esrog, hence creating a groove within the Esrog, then the Esrog is invalid.[334] [Furthermore even if only part of the Oketz fell off and revealed only part of the groove, it is invalid.[335]] However, if the stem has been cut in such a way that an entire sliver of it remains on the Esrog, and the groove of the Esrog is completely covered by this sliver, then the Esrog remains valid.[336] This applies irrelevant of the thickness of this remaining sliver, and even if it is very thin, the Esrog remains valid. [It goes without saying that a chipped Oketz remains valid.] However, some Poskim[337] are lenient and rule that the Esrog remains valid even if the entire Oketz was removed and a groove remains in the Esrog.[338] Practically, although we do not rule like this lenient opinion, nevertheless in a time of need, such as if no other Esrog is available, one may rely on this opinion and use such an Esrog even with a blessing.[339]

On Chol Hamoed:[340] On Chol Hamoed, an Esrog is valid even if its stem has completely fallen off and reveals the groove of the Esrog. [Nonetheless, initially one should use an Esrog that is not missing its Oketz, even on Chol Hamoed.[341]]

Second day in Diaspora:[342] On the second day of Sukkos in the Diaspora, an Esrog which was invalidated due to a fallen Oketz follows the same laws as the first day, and hence it may not be used unless there is no other Esrog available[343], in which case it may be used even with a Bracha, as explained above.

Q&A

If the Oketz fell off in an invalidating manner, does it help to attach it back to the Esrog, such as through the use of a pin?[344]

Some Poskim[345] rule that if the Oketz is reattached to the Esrog in a way that its groove is not recognizable, then the Esrog returns to being Kosher. Other Poskim[346], however, rule that the Esrog remains invalid, and so is the main ruling.

Does a color change or blister by the Oketz invalidate the Esrog?[347]

No.

Does a color change or blister by the bottom of the Esrog, near the Oketz, invalidate the Esrog?[348]

Some Poskim[349] rule that the invalidations of Hadar, such as a color change or Chazazis, do not apply to the bottom area of the Esrog, surrounding the Oketz. This opinion has no precedent in the Rishonim or Achronim and is considered a Halachic novelty.

Pitum not aligned with Oketz:[350]

17. Kashrus-Teruma, Maaser, Arala, Shemita:[351]

An Esrog which is not Kosher to be eaten [whether Biblically or Rabbinically[352]] is not valid for the Mitzvah of Daled Minim.[353] This applies throughout all seven days of Sukkos.

Tevel-Terumah and Maaser:[354] An Esrog which is Tevel [or Terumah] is invalid to be used until it is properly tithed of its Terumah and Maaser, being that it is forbidden to be eaten in its current state. Accordingly, in Eretz Yisrael, all Esrogim that are grown and harvested by Jews must have their tithes removed in order to be valid for the Mitzvah.[355] [Therefore, they must have a Hashgacha, rabbinical supervision, to verify this. This is the common practice today for Esrog growers to have a rabbinical approval stamp on their boxes of Esrogim for this purpose. However, the Rabbinical supervision takes no responsibility for the intrinsic validation of the Esrog and that it fulfills all the other required laws in this chapter, and therefore one may not rely on the rabbinical certification to assume that the Esrog is Kosher unless it explicitly states this.] For this reason, in Eretz Yisrael one is not able to pick an Esrog from an orchard owned by a Gentile[356], unless one separates Terumah and Maaser on its behalf from another Esrog that is also Tevel.[357] Likewise, in Eretz Yisrael Esrogim that are picked by gentiles should not be mixed with Esrogim picked by Jews, even if they are from the same orchard.[358]

Arla:[359] An Esrog which is forbidden to be eaten due to Arla, is invalid for the mitzvah in Eretz Yisrael. However, in the Diaspora, even though it is forbidden to eat an Arla Esrog likewise in the Diaspora, it is nevertheless valid to be used for the mitzvah.[360] This applies even if one knows for certain that it is Arla, and certainly applies if one does not even know for certain that it is Arla, in which case it is even permitted to be eaten.

Summary:

An Esrog from Israel must have all its tithes removed and may not be from Arla in order to be valid. Esrogim from outside of Israel may be used even if they are from Arla.

Q&A

May one use an Esrog for Daled Minim if it stayed under one’s bed overnight?[361]

Yes.[362] However, some Poskim[363] are stringent in this matter.

May one use an Esrog that grew in a cemetery?[364]

It is permitted to gather [and eat] fruits from trees which are planted in a cemetery, so long as they were not planted [and do not grow] over the actual graves.[365] However, it is forbidden to benefit from the fruits of trees that grow on the actual graves.[366] Thus, such Esrogim are invalid for use on Sukkos being that they are forbidden in benefit.[367]

What is the law if a forbidden Esrog became mixed with other Esrogim?[368]

Arla:[369] If an Arla Esrog became mixed with other Esrogim, then everything is forbidden, being that an Esrog is a Davar Shebiminyan, and therefore is not nullified even in 1000x.

Tevel:[370] If a Tevel Esrog became mixed with other Esrogim, then one is to simply remove Terumah and Maaser on a different Tevel Esrog, on its behalf.

Absorbed Issur:[371] If an Esrog absorbed the taste of a non-Kosher food, such as if it touched a hot piece of non-Kosher meat, and then became mixed with other Esrogim, then it is nullified in 1:2.

Lost Pitum:[372] If an Esrog lost its Pitum and became mixed with other Esrogim which were born with a Pitum, then everything is forbidden, being that an Esrog is a Davar Shebiminyan, and therefore is not nullified even in 1000x.

Q&A on Shemita Esrogim[373]

May one sell or purchase a Shemita Esrog by Sukkos of the 7th year?[374]

It is disputed if we follow the blossom of the Esrog [i.e. like fruits] or the picking of the Esrog [i.e. like vegetables] regarding the Shemita laws.[375] It is likewise disputed whether we follow the beginning of the 7th year, or the 15th of Shevat of the 7th year. Practically, one is to be stringent like both opinions and remove from Esrogim that blossomed in the 6th year but were picked in the 7th year, Terumah and Maaser without a blessing and the fruit is to be treated as Kedushas Shevi’is.[376] Practically, for the Sukkos of the Shemita year one is to be stringent to purchase an Esrog that was picked prior to Shemita, and hence satisfy all opinions.

May one sell or purchase a Shemita Esrog by Sukkos of the 8th year?

In the Sukkos of the eighth year the Esrog of Jewish owned fields in Eretz Yisrael are treated as Kedushas Shevi’is and hence may only be purchased through Otzer Beis Din, or Havlah as explained next.

Otzer Beis Din: A Halachically reliable Beis Din takes authority over the distribution of the fields Esrogim and collects a minimal fee for the Esrog in order to cover the expenses of the distribution.

Havlaah: One may sell before Sukkos a Shemita Esrog that is not Otzer Beis Din, if he does so in Havlaah. This means that one includes the sale of Shemita produce within the sale of other products that are not from Shemita. Thus, for example one may sell before Sukkos a Shemita Esrog together with a bag of lemons. One may charge an over the market price for the bag of lemons, due to the included Esrog, if the Esrog is not given a specific price and is simply part of the package. The money received for this payment does not have Kedushas Shevi’is. [However, there are some Poskim that are stringent and prohibit selling even in Havlaah, and Havlaah in their opinion only helps in the fact that it does not give the money a status of Kedushas Shevi’is. Practically the custom is to be lenient.[377]]

May one who is traveling to the Diaspora for Sukkos take with him an Israeli Esrog of Shemita Otzer Beis Din?[378]

It is permitted to take one’s personal Esrog with him to the Diaspora. One must make sure after Sukkos that the Esrog is properly guarded as Kedushas Shevi’is. Some Poskim[379] write that one is to try to take the Esrog with him when he returns to Eretz Yisrael. Others[380] rule this is not necessary.

May one import Israeli Esrogim of Kedushas Shevi’is to the Diaspora for Sukkos?[381]

Some Poskim[382] rule it is permitted to do so even initially, on condition that the Esrogim are sold Behavlaah. Other Poskim[383] rule it is initially forbidden to do so. Some Poskim[384] rule it is permitted to do so in a situation that the city will not have any Esrogim available if they are not sent. According to all, even if an Esrog was taken out of Eretz Yisrael in a forbidden manner, it remains Kosher and can be used for the Mitzvah.[385]

What is one to do with the Kedushas Shevi’is Esrog after Sukkos?

One must guard the Esrog and may not discard it until it has spoiled and is no longer edible.

Esrog Jam: It is permitted to make Esrog jam with an Esrog of Kedushas Shevi’is.[386]

Besamim: It is unclear if one may enter cloves into the Esrog and use it as Besamim.

Must one perform Biur to Esrogim?

Some Poskim[387] rule one is not required to perform Biur to Esrogim of Kedushas Shevi’is.[388] Other Poskim[389] rule one is required to perform Biur to Esrogim.[390] Even according to the stringent opinion one is only required to perform Biur on Esrogim if he has the amount of Esrogim to suffice for three meals, which is over 1.5 Esrogim per family member.[391]

When is the Biur of Esrogim according to the stringent opinion? Some[392] write the time of Biur for the Esrog is in Shevat. Others[393] write the time of Biur is during Nissan.

18. The law in cases of doubt of an invalidation:[394]

Doubt of Tamus-Chaser: Whenever there is doubt regarding a law of Tamus/Chaser of the Esrog, such as if the inside of the Esrog has decomposed and decayed, then then it is disputed[395] if the Esrog remains valid and [although] one is to be stringent when possible[396], [in a time of need that no other Esrog is available, one may be lenient to use such an Esrog, seemingly even with a blessing[397]]. Regarding a doubt of a missing piece from the Esrog, see Halacha 6!

Doubt of Hadar:[398] Hadar is a Biblical requirement, and hence in a case of doubt one must be stringent.

Summary of conditions needed to be met for a Kosher Esrog:

1. No missing piece.

2. No Chazazis or color change by Chotem

3. No two Chazazis or two-color changes below Chotem.

4. Was not cooked

5. Was not soaked in liquid for 24 hours.

6. Had its tithes removed.

7. Is not Murkav

8. Is not dry

9. Is the size of Kibeitza

10. Is not disintegrated

11. Is not spoiled and smelly

12. Is a normal shape

13. Is not completely green

14. Does not have a Pitum or Oketz that fell off

________________________________________________________________

[1] Siddur Im Dach Shaar Halulav p. 264

[2] Vayikra Raba 30:12

[3] See Admur 648:1 in parentheses and Halacha 4

[4] See Admur 648:12

[5] See M”B 648:19; Admur 648:13; Halacha 8

[6] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:1

[7] See Admur 648:12; Chapter 5 Halacha 7

[8] See Chapter 5 Halacha 9.

[9] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:1

[10] See Admur 648:12

[11] See Chapter 5 Halacha 9.

[12] Admur 648:16 and 21; Michaber 648:9 and 12; Tur 648; Levush 648:6; Sukkah 35b

[13] The reason: As the main beauty of an Esrog is dependent on its upper slope called the Chotem, as this area is more readily apparent to the eye then the other areas, and this is the area that a person first looks at upon glancing at an Esrog. [Admur 648:21; Rashi Sukkah 35b]

[14] Biur Halacha 648 “Mimakom” that the bottom half is never considered part of the Chotem even if it tilts inwards; Alef Hamagen 648 Kuntrus Achron 6; Shevet Halevi 8:150; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:11; Sefer Arbas Haminim p. 191

[15] Admur 648:21; Michaber 648:9 and 12; Rosh 3:20

An Esrog that contains two slopes: It is questionable whether an Esrog that contains two slopes, such as a mountain on a mountain, is considered to contain two Chotems. [Ashel Avraham Butchach 648; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:11] However, see Sefer Arbas Haminim p. 191 who infers from the wording of Admur “towards its head” that there only the most upper slope is the Chotem. This especially applies if the lower mountain is below the halfway point of the Esrog. [Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 26]

An Esrog with an uneven slope: If the slope on one side of the Esrog begins at a higher point than the other side, then one may be lenient to only consider the Chotem to begin from the sloped area of each individual side. [Shevet Halevi ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:11]

[16] Admur 645:1; Sukkah 31a and Halacha 7

[17] Vayikra 2340

[18] See Kapos Temarim 35a; Chasam Sofer 207; Piskeiy Teshuvos 645:1

[19] Admur 648:31; Shut Rama 117; 126; Teshuvas Hariy Padwah; M”A 648:23; Taz 649:3; Olas Shabbos 648; Levush 649:4; Shvus Yaakov O.C. 1:36; Final ruling of Shach, brought in Shvus Yaaakov ibid; Shut Tzemach Tzedek O.C. 64; M”B 648:65; Yagdil Torah 31:341; 39:118; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:23-24; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 2 Esrog

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a grafted Esrog is valid. [Shach in his initial ruling in Prague, brought in Shvus Yaakovibid; Maharash Alfandri in his Kuntrus and Shut Mahrash Aklfandri 13-14 in great length, that one who says a blessing over it has upon whom to rely as today all the Esrogim are Murkav; See Divrei Yisrael 183] The Tzemach Tzedek once relied on a Pesak for previous Rebbes that in a time of need one may recite a blessing over the Esrog if there were to remain a Shiur Esrog that was made from the Kosher Esrog tree, if one were to diminish the amount that grew due to the rafting, then it is valid. [See Beis Rebbe]

[20] Biur Halacha 648:21 “Shedomeh”; See other opinions in previous footnote

[21] Admur ibid; M”A ibid

[22] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; M”B ibid

Other reasons: Some Poskim rule that it is invalid being that a sin was committed with it, as it is forbidden to graft a tree with another species. [Taz ibid; Levush ibid, brought and negated in M”A ibid] Other Poskim rule it is invalid being that it is considered Chaser. [Chasam Sofer ibid in name of Alshich]

[23] M”A ibid; M”B ibid; Understanding of some Rabbanim in final opinion of Tzemach Tzedek; See Tzemach Tzedek ibid and Yagdil Torah ibid

[24] Implication of Admur ibid who explicitly writes the first method and omits the second method; See Tzemach Tzedek ibid that so is the opinion of the Alshich; See Hearos Ubiurim Sukkos 5776

[25] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Olas Shabbos ibid; Shvus Yaakov 1:36

Other opinions: Some Poskim question the above signs and state that they are not accurate and hence require an Esrog to have a tradition to not be Murkav. [Chasam Sofer 207, brought in M”B ibid] This, however, is with exception to the third sign, which remains accurate to determine that it is a lemon. [Chasam Sofer ibid]

[26] See Toras Chesed 34; Nefesh Chayah 2; Moadim Uzmanim 2:118; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:23

[27] See Poskim ibid, and Shvus Yaakov and Chasam Sofer ibid

[28] Teshuvas Chasam Sofer Orach Chayim 207

[29] See Toras Chesed 34; Nefesh Chayah 2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:23

[30] Maharash Alfandri in Kuntrus; See Biur Halacha 648:21 “Domeh”; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[31] See Chelkas Yoeiv O.C. 31; Lehoros Nasan 6:38; Nefesh Chayah; Tzitz Eliezer 6:39; Moadim Uzmanim 2:118; 6:48; Orchos Rabbeinu 2:294; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:24

[32] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:23 footnote 64

[33] Chemdas Shlomo 37; Rav Shmuel Salant in Bigdei Yesah; Nefesh Chaya 2 that so is custom; Chazon Ish Kilayim 3:7; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[34] Shaareiy Teshuvah 649:7; Beis Efraim 56; Minchas Elazar 3:77; Bikureiy Yaakov 648 in Tosefes Bikurim; Implication of reason of Levush and Taz ibid

[35] See Admur and Tzemach Tzedek ibid who write the invalidation is due to it not being an Esrog at all, and hence all of its future fruits are also invalid.

[36] See Igros Kodesh 10:3056 that the Rebbe directed Rav Perlow to take branches from Calabria Esrog trees that are verified to not be murkav to plant in Eretz Yisrael

[37] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648 footnote 62 and 64 in name of Rav SZ”A that this applies even if it is injected with lemon juice, as it can only be considered Murkav if the added species has independent growing power.

[38] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 65 in name of Rav SZ”A

[39] Igros Kodesh 4:785; Shevet Halevi 5:76; Kinyan Torah 5:68; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 1:382; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:23

[40] M”B 648:65 in name of Elya Raba

[41] See Chasam Sofer Orach Chayim 207; Sefer Haminhagim p. 65; Igros Kodesh 3:590; 4:785; Otzer Minhagei Chabad p. 277-279; Yagdil Torah 31:340; Kuntrus Esrogei Calabria Beyameinu [Rosenblatt]

[42] See Sefer Haminhagim ibid; Igros Kodesh 3:590; See Kuntrus ibid p. 9-10

[43] Mentioned in Teshuvas Hariy Padwah, brought in Shut Rama 126; Teshuvas Chasam Sofer Orach Chaim 207; Bikureiy Shlomo 28

[44] Chasam Sofer ibid

[45] Sefer Haminhagim ibid; See letter of Rebbe 4,381

[46] Beis Rebbe; Igros Kodesh 4:785

[47] Beis Rebbe in name of Tzemach Tzedek

[48] Igros Kodesh ibid

[49] Sefer Haminhagim ibid

[50] Chasam Sofer ibid; Igros Kodesh 3:590; 13:110

[51] Bereishis Raba 67:6

[52] letter of Rebbe 3,056; Shaareiy Halacha Uminhag 2:271

[53] Beis Rebbe in name of Tzemach Tzedek

[54] See letter of Rebbe 3,056; 4,381; Igros Kodesh 3:590; 13:110

[55] Igros Kodesh 10:3056; 3,149; 11:3,721; 13:4,381 and 4,337

[56] See Kuntrus ibid

[57] See Igros Kodesh 7:2,023

[58] See Igros Kodesh 10:3056; 3,149; 11:3,721; 12:4,093; 13:4,390

[59] See Igros Kodesh 23:8,838; Miluim to Igros Kodesh letter of 4^th Sivan 5719

[60] Admur 648:1-2

[61] Admur 648:1; Michaber 648:1; Rambam Sukkah 8:1; Mishneh Sukkah 34b and 31a; M”A 648:1

The reason: As the Esrog is not Hadar. [Admur ibid and 649:20]

[62] Admur 648:1; Michaber ibid; Raavad in Tamim Deim 232

[63] The reason: (As the moisture of a fruit is like the blood of flesh. Thus, if the fruit is lacking moisture, it is considered dead, and the verse says “Lo Hameisim Yehalelu.”) [Admur ibid]

[64] Admur 648:1; Tur 648; Rosh; Raavad ibid; M”A 648:1

[65] Admur 648:2; M”A 648:1

[66] Admur 648:2; Rama 648:1; Braisa Sukkah 31b; Maharil 5; Bach 648; Elya Raba 648:3; Chemed Moshe 648:1; Aruch Hashulchan 648:3;

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a check can validate the Esrog even if it is from the previous year. [Taz 648:2; Bikureiy Yaakov 648:4; Shaar Hatziyon 648:8; 37]

[67] Admur 648:16 and 21; Michaber 648:12; Tur 648; Raavad in Tamim Deim 232; Ramban; Rosh

[68] The reason: As the main beauty of an Esrog is dependent on its upper slope called the Chotem, as this area is more readily apparent to the eye then the other areas, and this is the area that a person first looks at upon glancing at an Esrog. [Admur 648:21; Rashi Sukkah 35b]

[69] Biur Halacha 648 “Mimakom” that the bottom half is never considered part of the Chotem even if it tilts inwards; Alef Hamagen 648 Kuntrus Achron 6; Shevet Halevi 8:150; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:11; Sefer Arbah Haminim p. 191

[70] Admur 648:21; Michaber 648:9 and 12; Rosh 3:20

[71] Admur 649:20

[72] See Admur 649:19 regarding Hadar

[73] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5; Ravayah 797

[74] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:2

[75] Bikurei Yaakov 648; Shaar Hatziyon 648:8; Shevet Halevi 1:176; Beir Moshe 7:52; Az Nidbaru 13:38; Nitei Gavriel 35:4

[76] Igros Moshe 1:185

[77] See Admur 648:3-6 and 8; Michaber 648:2; Mishneh Sukkah 34b

Source of these invalidations: All of these invalidations of a hole, and crack is not due to Hiddur but rather because the Esrog is not considered Tam [complete] and the Torah states “Ulikachtem” and the Sages expounded this to mean a full and complete taking. [Admur 648:14]

[78] See Admur ibid regarding that a) We measure the hole it as if it were within the dimensions of the circle; b) we do not know the exact dimension of this coin today; Michaber Y.D. 34:2; Encyclopedia Talmudit “Isur” Vol. 1 p. 116, that Vetzaruch Iyun.

[79] Admur 648:3; 1^st opinion in Michaber ibid; Rashi Sukkah 36a; Rambam Sukkah 8:7; Rosh 3:18

[80] Opinion in Admur 648:8; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 648:2; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230; Hasagos Sukkos 8:7; Yireim 422

[81] Admur 648:8; Rama 648:2; Taz 648:3

[82] Admur 648:4 and 8

[83] Admur 648:4; 1^st opinion in Michaber 648:2; Sukkah 36a; Tosafos Sukkah ibid; Rosh Sukkah 3:18; M”A 648:2

[84] Opinion in Admur 648:8; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 648:2; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230; Hasagos Sukkos 8:7; Yireim 422

[85] Admur 648:8; Rama 648:2; Taz 648:3

[86] Admur 648:5-6

[87] Stam opinion in Admur 648:5; 1^st opinion in Michaber 648:2; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230; Bahag; Rif

[88] The reason: The reason for this opinion is because the hole is not considered Mefulash unless it goes from one end to another.

[89] Opinion in Admur 648:6; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 648:2; Tosafos Sukkah 36a; Rosh 18; Ritva; Ran; Taz 648:6

[90] The reason: The reason for this opinion is because the hole is considered Mefulash if it reaches the seed box even if it does not go from one end to another, as the seed box is considered like the other side of the Esrog. [Admur 648:6; Ritva, Ran and Taz ibid]

[91] Admur 648:6; Chidushei Tzemach Tzedek Sukkah 73a; Ritva ibid

[92] Admur 648:11; Taz 648:5

The reason: In a case of doubt if it reaches the seed box, one may be lenient even initially to use the Esrog as there are opinions wo rule that even if it reaches the seed box it is valid so long as it is not Mefulash and is not the size of an Issur. [Admur and Poskim ibid]

[93] See Admur 648:7-9; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:3; 649:4

[94] See below for the difference in whether it is missing from its body or merely its skin.

[95] Admur 648:7; 1^st opinion in Michaber 648:2; Rashi Sukkah 36a; Rambam Sukkah 8:7; Rosh 3:18; Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[96] Opinion in Admur 648:8; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 648:2; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230; Hasagos Sukkos 8:7; Yireim 422

[97] Admur 648:8; Rama 648:2; Taz 648:3

[98] Admur 648:8; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 648:2; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230; Hasagos Sukkos 8:7; Yireim 422; Mishneh Sukkah ibid

[99] Admur 648:10; Taz 648:5; Elya Rava 648:5

[100] The reason: In a case of doubt if there is even a missing piece, one may be lenient even initially to use the Esrog, as there are opinions who rule that even if a piece is missing it is valid so long as it is not Mefulash and is not the size of an Issur. [Admur and Poskim ibid] However, if not for this opinion we would not rule that one may even initially be lenient due to doubt, as some Poskim rule that a doubt in Shaleim is a Biblical invalidation of which we rule stringently, and initially we suspect for this opinion. [See Admur 648:12]

[101] Admur 648:11; Taz 648:5

[102] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14

[103] Elya Raba 648 in name of Mabit; M”B 648:46; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14; See Admur 645:10 and 12 that the Pesul of Chaser is when the missing area is seen and recognizable

[104] Rav Akiva Eiger in Teshuvos Derush Vichidush; See P”M 645 and Bikurei Yaakov 645:16 regarding Niktam of Lulav that the Shiur is “Kol Shehu” [however, there the invalidation is due to Hadar]

[105] See M”A 648:16 Admur 648:22 and Mabit 3:49 who all explicitly limit their discussion of “apparent at first site” to the invalidation of “Hadar” and even within that, specifically to the invalidation of Shinuiy Mareh.

[106] Tuv Taam Vadas Tinyana Hashmatos 33; Doveiv Meisharim 1; Yabia Omer Y.D. 4:21; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14 and footnote 36

[107] Chazon Ish 147:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:3

[108] See Admur 648:1 that t is squeezed it is invalid

[109] Admur 648:15 [see also Admur 648:12, Vetzaruch Iyun from his wording there]; Michaber 648:6; Rambam Sukkah 8:7; Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[110] Implication of Admur ibid whoi writes “the thick peel”; Chayeh Adam 151:5; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:4 footnote 7

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that only if the wax layer which covers the green layer is missing a piece is it valid. If, however, the inner green thin peel is missing a piece, then it is invalid, even though no piece is missing from the thick white peel. [Shaar Hatziyon 648:27; Biur Halacha 648:9; Ran; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:4]

[111] Admur 648:15; Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; Mishneh ibid and Gemara 36a

The reason: The reason for this is because once the Esrog no longer has its external peel it becomes ugly and is no longer Hadar. [Admur ibid]

[112] 1^st and Stam opinion in Admur ibid; 1^st opinion in Michaber ibid; Rif; Rambam Sukkah 8:7

The reason: As due to this small amount of peel, the Esrog will return to its healthy status. [Admur ibid]

[113] 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber ibid; Rabbeinu Chananel

[114] Admur 648:16; M”A 648:7; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230

[115] Tzemach Tzedek 1:65

[116] Implication of M”A 649:27; Chaim Ubracha 133; Chazon Ish 147:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:3

[117] Admur 648:9; Rama 648:2; Teurmos Hadeshen 99; Taz 649:4

[118] The reason: As since the hole occurred while the Esrog was still on the tree and the scab grew over the hole and covered it, it is considered like a normal growth over the Esrog and the Esrog returns to its healthy state, and hence it is Kosher. [Admur ibid]

[119] Admur 648:10; Taz 648:5; Elya Rava 648:5

The reason: In a case of doubt if there is even a missing piece, one may be lenient even initially to use the Esrog as there are opinions wo rule that even if a piece is missing it is valid so long as it is not Mefulash and is not the size of an Issur. [Admur and Poskim ibid]

[120] Admur 649:21 in the that all the invalidations of the first day [which are valid on Chol Hamoed] may be taken on the second day, as rules the 2^nd opinion there, but without a blessing, to suspect for the 1^st opinion there.

[121] See Admur 648:8 and A!

[122] Admur 649:17 and 19 #7; Rama 649:5; Rosh 3:3; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Biur Halacha 648 “Shinuiy”; Chaim Ubracha 197; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:3

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule an Esrog with a missing piece is invalid for all the days of Sukkos, including Chol Hamoed. [Ran, brought in Biur Halacha 648:12 “Shinuiy”; See P”M 648 A”A 17; Chayeh Adam 151:3; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:13]

[123] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5; Sukkah 36b

Eating the cut piece on Chol Hamoed: See Admur ibid and Rama ibid

[124] Toras Chesed O.C. 37; Mikraeiy Kodesh 2:26; Meiri Sukkah 36b; Raavad in Tamim Deim 233; Kaf Hachaim 648:76; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:4

[125] Chaim Ubracha 133; 197; Chazon Ish 147:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:3 and 13; See M”A 649:27

[126] Tzemach Tzedek 65; P”M 648 A”A 17; Chayeh Adam 151:3, 5, 12; See Ran brought in Biur Halacha 648:12 “Shinuiy”

[127] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5; Ravayah 797

[128] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5; Kol Bo 72; M”A 649:18; Sukkah 36b

[129] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5

[130] See Michaber 665:1

[131] Michaber 665:1

[132] Admur 648:12; Michaber 648:4; Sukkah 36a; M”A 648:4

[133] See Rava in Sukkah ibid who questions whether such an Esrog is invalid due to Chaser or if it is similar to a disintegrated lung which is ruled to be valid in such a case, as explained in Y.D. 36:7. Now, some Poskim conclude leniently under the basis that in their opinion the invalidation of Chaser is merely Rabbinical, and hence in a case of doubt one may be lenient. [1^st opinion in Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; Bahag; Rif; Rambam] However, other Poskim rule stringently being that in their opinion the Chaser invalidations are Biblical, and hence Safek Lechumra. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; Tur; Rosh; Ran; Shiltei Hagiborim] See Admur ibid

[134] Conclusion of Admur ibid to suspect for the second stringent opinion when possible

[135] Implication of Admur ibid; Vetzaruch Iyun

[136] Admur 649:19 # 8

[137] See Admur 648:13-14; Michaber and Rama 648:5; Mishneh Sukkah 34b; M”A 648:6; Taz 648:9; Rashi and Tosafos Sukkah ibid; Rosh 3:18

[138] Admur 648:13

[139] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; M”A and Taz ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if majority of the Esrog is cracked then it is invalid. [Rama ibid; Biur Hagr”a; See M”B 648:20]

[140] Vetzaruch Iyun regarding if only the top or bottom side is this deep, but the other side is not.

[141] Implication of Admur ibid and 648:21 who omits this opinion of Michaber ibid, and implies from wording that only if the crack is from top to bottom can it ever be invalid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if the Chotem of the Esrog is cracked, then it is invalid. [Opinion in Michaber ibid]

[142] Admur 648:14; M”A ibid; Elya Raba 648:8; See Arba Haminim p. 156

[143] Admur 649:19 # 9

[144] See Admur 648:19-24; Michaber 648:9 and 13; Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[145] See Admur 648:26 “The Halachic status of a color change is the same as that of a Chazazis regarding all matters.”

[146] Admur 648:22; Michaber 648:13; Rosh; See Arba Minim p. 193; See Hilchos Daled Minim p. 55 for picture of Chazazis [To note however that the picture there does not show a double blistered Chazazis and hence according to Admur it does not invalidate the Esrog if it does not contain a color change.]; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:10

[147] Biur Halacha 648:13 “Ababuos” in name of Bikureiy Yaakov

[148] Admur 648:19 in parentheses and 648:22; M”A 648:16; Mabit 3:49

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that even one blister is considered a Chazazis. [See M”B 649:49]

[149] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[150] Admur 648:22; M”A 648:16; Mabit 3:49; M”B 648:46; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14

[151] Admur 648:23; Rama 648:13; Maharil Esrog p. 399; Terumas Hadeshen 99; M”A 648:20; Bikureiy Yaakov 648:38; Aruch Hashulchan 648:36; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:15 that so is the widespread custom; See M”B 648:50 for the two opinions regarding an elevated Bletlach

Other Opinions: Some Poskim rule that a Bletlach which is bumpy and elevated from the Esrog is invalid due to Chazazis. [See Rama ibid; M”B ibid; Chayeh Adam 151:8 in name of Maharshal; P”M 648 A”A in end; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:15; Four Species p. 53] Accordingly, one who desires to be stringent is not to purchase an Esrog with elevated Bletlach if there is one on the Chotem, or if it is in two separate sides of the Esrog, and the same would apply if there are two Bletlach on separate sides by the bottom, near the Chotem, which is extremely common. Nonetheless, practically, the widespread custom is like the lenient opinion to validate Esrogim with Bletlach, even if there are many on the Esrog and they are found by the Chotem. [Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[152] A Bletlach is a type of Chazazis which comes as the result of thorns pricking at the Esrog. [Admur ibid]

[153] Meaning that by the leaf area one can feel a bump with his hand, hence proving it is higher than the Esrog skin. [Admur ibid]

The reason: The reason for this is because these marks are considered as part of the appearance of the Esrog, as it is common for many Esrogim to carry these marks and it is hence not a great diversion. [Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Terumas Hadeshen ibid]

[154] Admur 648:16 and 21; Michaber 648:9 and 12; Tur 648; Levush 648:6; Sukkah 35b

[155] The reason: As the main beauty of an Esrog is dependent on its upper slope called the Chotem, as this area is more readily apparent to the eye then the other areas, and this is the area that a person first looks at upon glancing at an Esrog. [Admur 648:21; Rashi Sukkah 35b]

[156] Biur Halacha 648 “Mimakom” that the bottom half is never considered part of the Chotem even if it tilts inwards; Alef Hamagen 648 Kuntrus Achron 6; Shevet Halevi 8:150; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:11; Sefer Arbas Haminim p. 191

[157] Admur 648:21; Michaber 648:9 and 12; Rosh 3:20

[158] Admur 648:19; Michaber 648:9; Mishneh Sukkah 34b and Sukkah 35b; M”A 648:12; Rosh

[159] The law if the Chazazis covers exactly 50% of the Esrog: If the blister takes up exactly 50% of the Esrog, it is disputed amongst the Poskim as to whether the Esrog is invalid [See both opinions in Admur 648:20 and Michaber 648:11 and Tur 648], and the main ruling follows the stringent opinion, although in a time of need that no other Esrog is available, one may use it with a blessing. [Admur 648:20; Taz 648:16; Elya Raba 648:21]

[160] Admur 648:19-20; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:10

[161] See below for the conditions of distance that need to be fulfilled to define the blisters as two different sets

[162] Admur 648:20

The dispute: Some Poskim rule that only if the measurement between the Chazazis takes up majority of the circumference of the Esrog, which means that they are on two different sides of the Esrog, is it invalid when below the Chotem. [1^st opinion in Admur 648:20; 1^st opinion in Michaber 648:10; 2^nd opinion in Tur 648; Raavad in Tamim Deim 232; Rosh Sukkah 3:19; Rivash 139; M”A 648:13; M”B 648:41] Other Poskim, however, rule that whenever there are two defined sets of Chazazis blisters that are a distance of one set of Chazazis blisters from eachother and contain at least a Chazazis worth of fresh Esrog color between them, it is always invalid, irrelevant of how far the sets of blisters are from each other, and even if they are on the same side. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 648:10; 1^st opinion in Tur 648 in name of his brother Rav Yecheil; Mahritz Geios Lulav 105; See Chidushei Tzemach Tzedek 73; Vetzaruch Iyun why here in the 2^nd opinion Admur requires there to be a Chazazis width of fresh Esrog color, while earlier in 648:19 he explicitly wrote that even a hair thin sliver of fresh Esrog color suffices. Vetzaruch Iyun.]

[163] See next regarding Bedieved and see previous footnote

[164] Admur 648:19; Michaber ibid; Sukkah ibid; Taz 648:14; Elya Raba 648:18

The reason: The reason for this invalidation is because the fresh Esrog skin color found between the two sets of Chazazis blisters makes it be considered Menumar [i.e. leopard skinned] and is not Hadar. [Admur ibid; M”A 649:22; Tosafos Sukkah 29b]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that two or more sets of blisters can never invalidate an Esrog unless they in total make up majority of the Esrog. [Chazon Ish 147:5; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:10 and footnote 39]

[165] Conclusion of Admur 648:20 that one should be stringent like the latter opinion

[166] The reason: As in such a case it is not considered Menumar. [See Sefer Arbas Haminim, Weiner, p. 181]

[167] Setimas Admur

[168] Conclusion of Admur 648:20 that in a time of need one may rely on the first opinion, which is the opinion of: 1^st opinion in Admur 648:20; 1^st opinion in Michaber 648:10; 2^nd opinion in Tur 648; Raavad in Tamim Deim 232; Rosh Sukkah 3:19; Rivash 139; M”A 648:13

How to measure this: Although one can always measure from right to left or left to right, and up to down and down to up and thus, depending on how one measures it, it will always take up minority and majority of the circumference, the novelty here is that it is measured by whether the two spots are on the same side. If they are on the same side, which means that they are both fully viewable simultaneously, then it is valid. If they are not viewable simultaneously, then they are considered to be on different sides and are invalid. [See Arba Minim p. 183 and p. 186; Hilchos Daled Minim p. 19]

[169] Admur 648:19

[170] Admur 649:21; Michaber 648:5; Conclusion of Ran

[171] The dispute: Some Poskim rule that the 2^nd day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora follows all the stringencies of the first day which is Biblical. [Stam opinion in Admur 649:17 and 18; M”A in 645 and 646; Darkei Moshe 649:7; Tur 649; Rosh 3:3; Raavad in Tamim Deim 227; Hamanhig Lulav; Ravaya 652 in name of Rabbeniu Tam] Other Poskim, however, rule that the second day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora follows the same status as Chol Hamoed regarding all invalidations. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; Rambam 8:9 as explains Maggid Mishneh; 1^st approach in Ran Sukkah 14a]

[172] Conclusion of Admur 649:21 that all the invalidations of the first day [which are valid on Chol Hamoed] may be taken on the second day, as rules the 2^nd opinion there, but without a blessing, to suspect for the 1^st opinion there. This certainly applies in this case of a Hadar invalidation, in which case according to some Poskim it is invalid even on Chol Hamoed; Michaber 648:5; Conclusion of Ran

[173] Admur 649:17 and 19

[174] The dispute: Some Poskim rule that all invalidations of Hadar, which includes a color change, are invalid throughout all days of Sukkos. [Stam opinion in Admur 649:17 and 19; Rama 649:5 regarding Chazazis and Menumar; M”A 649:22; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rabbeinu Yerucham 8:3; Rosh 3:15] Other Poskim, however, rule that on Chol Hamoed all Hadar invalidations, such as a Chazazis or color change, are Kosher. [2^nd opinion in Admur 649:19; Michaber 649:5; Tur 649 in name of Baal Haitur; Rambam 8:9; Ravad ibid; opinion in Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rosh 3:15 in understanding of Yerushalmi 3:6; Maharitz Geios Lulav p. 100; Taz 648:9 concludes like Rambam/Michaber regarding Chazazis; Elya Raba 649:15]

[175] So is implied from conclusion of Admur ibid who writes “as the custom is to say a blessing in a time of need on all invalidations, even on the 1^st day”; P”M 649 M”Z 9, brought in Shaar Hatziyon 649:53

[176] Admur ibid; M”B 648:49

[177] Admur 648:24; Michaber 648:14; Tur 648; Rosh 3:18

[178] Admur ibid; Rosh ibid

[179] Admur ibid; Rama ibid

[180] See Tzemach Tzedek 1:65

[181] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5; Ravayah 797

[182] The reason: If the Esrog is invalid due to the color change and will become valid due to it, then this is forbidden both due to Tikun Keli [See Admur 646:13 regarding the prohibition to pluck off the fruits from a Hadass to make it Kosher] and possibly also due to Borer [as Borer of this type is forbidden even on Yom Tov, unless one does it for the sake of eating/using the fruit on Yom Tov right away]. If the Esrog is in any event Kosher, then it is nonetheless forbidden due to Borer.

[183] See Chaim Ubracha 259-262; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:12

[184] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:12

[185] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648 footnote 39

[186] Ashel Avraham Butchach Tinyana 648

[187] Admur 648:16, 21 regarding a color change due to peeling; 26 regarding natural color change [i.e. Menumar]; 19-20 regarding a Chazazis and 648:21 and 26 that a Chazazis and color changes of peeling or Menumar have the same law regarding all matters. [As the invalidation of a Chazazis and color change are both due to it being considered Menumar or spotted. Thus, all the laws explained in Admur regarding a Chazazis are likewise applied to a color change.]; Michaber 648:12 and 16; Sukkah 35b and 36 a regarding Menumar; See Sefer Arbas Haminim p. 163

Difference between Menumar and change of color due to peeling: Admur lists two different forms of color changes. One is due to the peeling of the fruit, and the second is due to its natural growth. The former case contains more stringent laws than the latter, as explained in the section regarding an Esrog with a peeled area. See Sefer Arbas Haminim p. 163 for a full discussion on this matter!

[188] See Admur 648:26 “The Halachic status of a color change is the same as that of a Chazazis regarding all matters.”; Admur 648:16 “As will be explained regarding a Chazazis”

[189] Admur 648:16; M”A 648:7; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230; Rosh 3:17

[190] Levush 648:6

[191] Admur 648:26; Michaber 648:15; Sukkah 36a; Ritva 35a; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230

[192] Clear implication of Admur ibid; Biur Hagr”a; Opinion in M”B 648:55; See Chaim Ubracha 159; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:17

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a color change can invalidate even if it is a color that is normal for an Esrog, such as yellow or green. [2^nd opinion in M”B ibid]

[193] Admur 648:26

[194] Clear implication of Admur ibid; Biur Hagr”a; Opinion in M”B 648:55; See Chaim Ubracha 159; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:17

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a color change can invalidate even if it is a color that is normal for an Esrog, such as yellow or green. [2^nd opinion in M”B ibid]

[195] Admur 648:26

[196] Admur 648:27

[197] Admur 648:22; M”A 648:18; Mabit 3:49; M”B 648:46; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:14

[198] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[199] Admur ibid “Behashkafa Roshona; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[200] Admur 648:23; M”A 648:19; Mabit 3:49; M”B 648:49

[201] Admur 648:23; M”A 648:19; Mabit 3:49; See regarding a leaf mark Chazazis: Rama 648:13; Maharil Esrog p. 399; Teurmas Hadeshen 99

[202] A Blet Lach is a type of color change which comes as the result of thorns pricking at the Esrog, causing it to turn red and dented in that area. [Admur ibid]

[203] The reason: The reason for this is because these marks are considered as part of the appearance of the Esrog, as it is common for many Esrogim to carry these marks and it is hence not a great diversion. [Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Terumas Hadeshen ibid]

[204] See Shaar Hatziyon 648:56 in name of P”M; Sefer Daled Minim Beirurim 15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:16

[205] Admur 648:16

[206] Admur 648:26; Michaber 68:16

[207] Admur 648:26; Michaber 68:16; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:19

[208] Ashel Avraham Butchach Tinyana 648; Tiferes Yisrael Sukkah 3:7

[209] Chaim Ubracha 132; See Daas Torah 648:16

[210] See Kashrus Daled Minim p. 15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:19 footnote 51

[211] P”M 648, brought in Biur Halacha 648:16 “Im”; Chaim Ubracha 1; Kaf Hachaim 648:107; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:20

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that red is a common color of an Esrog and his hence valid. [Chayeh Adam, brought in Biur Halacha ibid]

[212] Chaim Ubracha 302; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:20

[213] Chaim Ubracha 20; Maharsham; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:20

[214] P”M 648 and Chayeh Adam, brought in Biur Halacha 648:16 “Im”; Chaim Ubracha 1; Kaf Hachaim 648:107; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:20

[215] Chaim Ubracha 302; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:20

[216] Chaim Ubracha 20; Maharsham; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:20

[217] Tzemach Tzedek 1:65

[218] Implication of M”A 147:5; Chaim Ubracha 133; Chazon Ish 147:2; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:3

[219] See Sefer Kashrus Daled Minim p. 21; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:18

[220] See Admur 648:23 and M”B 648:49, brought above in A regarding Bletlach

[221] Chasam Sofer on Shas 36a [See however Chasam Sofer Y.D. 256]; Minchas Pitim 4:648; Hisorerus Teshuvah 3:9; 4:60; Nefesh Chaya 4; Zecher Yehosef O.C. 227; Tzitz Eliezer 9:32; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:17

[222] See Shaar Hatziyon 648:56 in name of P”M; Sefer Daled Minim Beirurim 15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:16

[223] See Chaim Ubracha 259-262; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:12

[224] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:12

[225] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648 footnote 39

[226] Ashel Avraham Butchach Tinyana 648

[227] Admur 648:121 regarding Menumar and 648:16 regarding a color change due to the peel being removed; Michaber 648:15; Sukkah 36a

[228] Admur 648:16 and 21 regarding a color change due to peeling; 648:26 that Menumar has the same law as a Chazazis regarding all matters; Michaber 648:12; Tur 648; Levush 648:6; Based on Sukkah 35b regarding Chazazis; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:18

[229] The reason: As the main beauty of an Esrog is dependent on its upper slope called the Chotem, as this area is more readily apparent to the eye then the other areas, and this is the area that a person first looks at upon glancing at an Esrog. [Admur 648:21; Rashi Sukkah 35b]

[230] Admur 648:21 “Afilu Mashuhu”; Michaber ibid

[231] Biur Halacha 648 “Mimakom” that the bottom half is never considered part of the Chotem even if it tilts inwards; Alef Hamagen 648 Kuntrus Achron 6; Shevet Halevi 8:150; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:11; Sefer Arbas Haminim p. 191

[232] Admur 648:21; Michaber 648:9 and 12; Rosh 3:20

An Esrog that contains two slopes: It is questionable whether an Esrog that contains two slopes, such as a mountain on a mountain, is considered to contain two Chotems. [Ashel Avraham Butchach 648; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:11] However, see Sefer Arbas Haminim p. 191 who infers from the wording of Admur “towards its head” that there only the most upper slope is the Chotem. This especially applies if the lower mountain is below the half way point of the Esrog. [Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 26]

[233] Admur 648:16 regarding a peeled area that has a change of color; 648:19-20 regarding a Chazazis and 648:21 and 26 that a Chazazis and color changes of Menumar have the same law; Michaber 648:16; Rosh Sukkah 3:22; See regarding Chazazis: Michaber 648:9; Mishneh Sukkah 34b and Sukkah 35b; M”A 648:12; Rosh

[234] Admur 648:26 regarding Menumar “However, if the invalid color change is on only one area of the Esrog, then it does not invalidate unless it covers majority, or half of the Esrog, as explained regarding a Chazazis.”; Michaber 648:16; Rosh Sukkah 3:22

The law if the Chazazis covers exactly 50% of the Esrog: If the blister takes up exactly 50% of the Esrog, it is disputed amongst the Poskim as to whether the Esrog is invalid [See both opinions in Admur 648:20 and Michaber 648:11 and Tur 648], and the main ruling follows the stringent opinion [Admur 648:26 and 20], although in a time of need that no other Esrog is available, one may use it with a blessing. [Admur 648:20; Taz 648:16; Elya Raba 648:21]

[235] Admur 648:16 regarding two or three peeled areas that have a change of color; Admur 648:19-20 regarding Chazazis; Admur 648:26 plainly rules that the Esrog is forbidden if it has two color changes even if it takes up only minority of the Esrog; Michaber 648:16; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:10 that all Hadar invalidations, including color changes, follow all the same rules as a Chazazis

[236] Admur 648:16 [regarding a color change due to peeling] and 648:26 [regarding a natural born color change] plainly rules that two color changes which is in 2-3 areas is Menumar and makes the Esrog invalid which implies that it is always invalid in such a case. However, from his conclusion there in 648:16 “as will be explained regarding a Chazazis” and 648:26 that “The Halachic status of a color change is the same as that of a Chazazis regarding all matters,” it is proven that in truth it follows the same dispute and rulings as a Chazazis when below the Chotem, as explained next. [See Arba Minim p. 210]

The dispute: Some Poskim rule that only if the measurement between the Chazazis [or two-color changes] takes up majority of the circumference of the Esrog, which means that they are on two different sides of the Esrog, is it invalid when below the Chotem. [1^st opinion in Admur 648:20; 1^st opinion in Michaber 648:10; 2^nd opinion in Tur 648; Raavad in Tamim Deim 232; Rosh Sukkah 3:19; Rivash 139; M”A 648:13; M”B 648:41] Other Poskim rule that whenever there are two blisters [or color changes], it is always invalid, irrelevant of how far the color changes are from each other, and even if they are on the same side. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; 2^nd opinion in Michaber 648:10; 1^st opinion in Tur 648 in name of his brother Rav Yecheil; Mahritz Geios Lulav 105; See Chidushei Tzemach Tzedek 73]

[237] See next regarding Bedieved and see previous footnote

[238] Admur 648:19; Michaber ibid; Sukkah ibid; Taz 648:14; Elya Raba 648:18

The reason: The reason for this invalidation is because the color changes make it be considered Menumar [i.e. leopard skinned] and is not Hadar. [Admur ibid; M”A 649:22; Tosafos Sukkah 29b]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that two or more sets of blisters [or color changes] can never invalidate an Esrog unless they in total make up majority of the Esrog. [Chazon Ish 147:5; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:10 and footnote 39]

[239] Conclusion of Admur 648:20 regarding Chazazis that one should be stringent like the latter opinion; Admur 648:16 and 26 plainly rules that the Esrog is forbidden if it has two color changes even if it takes up only minority of the Esrog

[240] Setimas Admur

[241] Conclusion of Admur 648:20 regarding a Chazazis [and the same applies to a color change, as explained above] that in a time of need one may rely on the first opinion, which is the opinion of: 1^st opinion in Admur 648:20; 1^st opinion in Michaber 648:10; 2^nd opinion in Tur 648; Raavad in Tamim Deim 232; Rosh Sukkah 3:19; Rivash 139; M”A 648:13

[242] Admur 649:21; Michaber 648:5; Conclusion of Ran

[243] The dispute: Some Poskim rule that the 2^nd day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora follows all the stringencies of the first day which is Biblical. [Stam opinion in Admur 649:17 and 18; M”A in 645 and 646; Darkei Moshe 649:7; Tur 649; Rosh 3:3; Raavad in Tamim Deim 227; Hamanhig Lulav; Ravaya 652 in name of Rabbeniu Tam] Other Poskim, however, rule that the second day of Yom Tov in the Diaspora follows the same status as Chol Hamoed regarding all invalidations. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; Rambam 8:9 as explains Maggid Mishneh; 1^st approach in Ran Sukkah 14a]

[244] Conclusion of Admur 649:21 that all the invalidations of the first day [which are valid on Chol Hamoed] may be taken on the second day, as rules the 2^nd opinion there, but without a blessing, to suspect for the 1^st opinion there. This certainly applies in this case of a Hadar invalidation, in which case according to some Poskim it is invalid even on Chol Hamoed; Michaber 648:5; Conclusion of Ran

[245] Admur 649:17 and 19 regarding a Chazazis and Hadar invalidation

[246] The dispute: Some Poskim rule that all invalidations of Hadar, which includes a color change, are invalid throughout all days of Sukkos. [Stam opinion in Admur 649:17 and 19; Rama 649:5 regarding Chazazis and Menumar; M”A 649:22; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rabbeinu Yerucham 8:3; Rosh 3:15] Other Poskim, however, rule that on Chol Hamoed all Hadar invalidations, such as a Chazazis or color change, are Kosher. [2^nd opinion in Admur 649:19; Michaber 649:5; Tur 649 in name of Baal Haitur; Rambam 8:9; Raavad ibid; opinion in Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rosh 3:15 in understanding of Yerushalmi 3:6; Maharitz Geios Lulav p. 100; Taz 648:9 concludes like Rambam/Michaber regarding Chazazis; Elya Raba 649:15]

[247] So is implied from conclusion of Admur ibid who writes “as the custom is to say a blessing in a time of need on all invalidations, even on the 1^st day”; P”M 648, brought in Shaar Hatziyon 648:53

[248] Admur ibid; M”B 648:49

[249] Admur 648:24; Michaber 648:14; Tur 648; Rosh 3:18

[250] Admur ibid; Rosh ibid

[251] Admur ibid; Rama ibid

[252] See Tzemach Tzedek 1:65

[253] Admur 649:20; Rama 649:5; Ravayah 797

[254] The reason: If the Esrog is invalid due to the color change and will become valid due to it, then this is forbidden both due to Tikun Keli [See Admur 646:13 regarding the prohibition to pluck off the fruits from a Hadass to make it Kosher] and possibly also due to Borer [as Borer of this type is forbidden even on Yom Tov, unless one does it for the sake of eating/using the fruit on Yom Tov right away]. If the Esrog is in any event Kosher, then it is nonetheless forbidden due to Borer.

[255] Admur 648:24; Michaber 648:15; Tur 648; Sukkah 36a

[256] The reason: As it is no longer Hadar. [Admur ibid]

[257] See Admur 648:25; Michaber Y.D. 105:1

[258] Admur 648:25; Michaber 648:15; Sukkah 36a; M”A 648:22

[259] Admur ibid; Taz 658:17

[260] Admur ibid; Michaber 648:15

[261] Admur 648:24; Michaber 648:15; Tur 648; Sukkah 36a

[262] The reason: As it is no longer Hadar. [Admur ibid]

[263] Admur 648:28; Levush 648; M”B 648:59; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:21; 25

[264] Admur 648:28; Michaber 648:18; Sukkah 36a

[265] Chaim Ubracha ibid

[266] Admur 648:28; Michaber 648:19; Sukkah 36a-b

[267] Admur 648:29; Michaber 648:20; Rambam Sukkah 8:8; Sukkah 36a; Rashba 1:411

[268] The reason: As this is not considered an abnormality at all. [Admur ibid]

[269] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:21

[270] Daas Torah 648; Aruch Hashulchan 648:40; Chaim Ubracha 229

[271] See Biur Halacha 648:18

[272] See Beis Yosef 648 in name of Ramban; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:21

[273] See Tiferes Yisrael Sukkah 3:37; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:21

[274] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:25

[275] Beis Yitzchak Y.D. 2:135

[276] Shiureiy Torah 3:19; Maharsham 2:129; Maharshag O.C. 33; Ashel Avraham Tinyana 648

[277] Admur 645:29; Michaber 648:22; Rambam Sukkah 7:8; Mishneh Sukkah 34b and 31b; Rosh; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:24-25

[278] Shiureiy Torah 3:19; 3:8 footnote 15

[279] The reason: As majority of the Esrogim do not grow to a size that is less than Kibeitza, and hence if an Esrog does not have the size of a Kibeitza, it is a sign that its growth has not matured, and the Torah states that the fruit must be the fruit of a tree which means that it must be a complete fruit. Furthermore, even if this Esrog would not have grown any further even if it were to not be cut from the tree, it is invalid being that at the end of its growth it does not have a Kibeitza and is therefore not considered an important fruit. [Admur ibid]

[280] See Shiureiy Torah 2:3; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:25; See Shiureiy Torah 3:9 that a Kibeitza is 53.8cc if the egg is measured without the peel and 3:7 that it is 57.6cc if the egg is measured with the peel and 3:8 footnote 15 that an Esrog is measured as a Kibeitza with its peel; Kaf Hachaim 81:3; 168:46; 486:1; The following Poskim rule that the Kibeitza is 18 Dirham, and each Dirham is equal to between 2.7-3.2 grams, thus totaling approximately 55 grams: Rambam

Opinion of Chazon Ish: Some Poskim rule that the Kibeitza egg referred to by the Talmud was of a larger size than we have available today, and hence its volume is 100cc. This approach is formally known as Shiur Chazon Ish. [Opinion brought in M”B 271:68; 486:1 and Biur Halacha 271:13 “Shel Revius” [M”B 486:1 concludes to be stringent by a Biblical Mitzvah]; Nodah Beyehuda Tzelach Pesachim 116a; Chasam Sofer O.C. 97 and 127; Maaseh Rav 74 and 105; Rav Chaim Volozhin in Shaareiy Rachamim 165; Ashel Avraham Butchach 272; Aruch Hashulchan 168:13 that so is custom] See however Chasam Sofer 181, brought in Biur Halacha 648:22 “Pachus”, that by an Esrog one can measure by the single Kibeitza of today, as also the Esrogim have gotten smaller.

[281] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:25

[282] Shiureiy Torah p. 156

[283] Shiureiy Torah 3:19

[284] Michaber 656:1; Shiureiy Torah 3:19

[285] Bikureiy Yaakov, brought in Biur Halacha 648:22 “Pachus”

[286] Admur 648:29; Michaber 648:22; Rambam Sukkah 7:8; Mishneh Sukkah 34b; Rosh

[287] Admur 648:29; Michaber 648:22; Rambam Sukkah 8:8; Sukkah 36a

[288] The reason: Being that there are many Esrogim that do not grow more than a Kibeitza, therefore it is considered an important fruit and is called a complete fruit. [Admur ibid]

[289] Admur 648:30; Michaber 648:21; Mishneh Sukkah 34b; Sukkah 31b; M”A 648:23-24; Taz 648:18; Maharil Esrog 399; Tosafos Sukkah 31b; Rosh; Rabbeinu Yerucham

[290] Admur ibid; Taz ibid; M”A ibid; Maharil ibid; Bach 648 that so the custom; Sdei Chemed lamed Kelal 141:64

The reason: As the yellowness is a sign of ripeness, and that the fruit has reached its full potential of growth and will eventually turn completely yellow when it remains detached from the tree for a long time. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that the Esrog is invalid until it turns completely yellow, and every green spot it contains is considered a Shinuiy Marah. [Bach 648] Some Poskim rule that one should initially suspect for this opinion. [P”M 648 A”A end; Bikureiy Yaakov 648:49; Chaim Ubracha 112; Poskim in Sdei Chemed ibid; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 60] Practically, the custom of world Jewry is not like this opinion. [Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid]

[291] M”B 68:64; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:22

[292] Admur ibid that they are suspected; Michaber ibid that they are invalid; Sukkah ibid

The reason: As we need to suspect that perhaps their growth has not yet completed, and it is for this reason they are not yellow. [Admur ibid]

[293] Admur ibid; Taz ibid; M”A ibid; Tosafos ibid

[294] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Maharil ibid; Elya Raba 648:30; M”B 648:65

[295] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:22

[296] See Zohar Tikkun 21; 70; Siddur Yaavetz; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:22 footnote 60

[297] Sefer Haminhagim p. 65; See Mur Uketzia who disregards the above Zoharic source and Biur Hagra on Tikunei Zohar who writes the intent of the Zohar is for it to be a gold color; Sefer Or Yisrael p. 38; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:22 footnote 60

[298] Hiskashrus 948 footnote 143

[299] Admur 648:27; Michaber 648:17; Rambam Sukkah 8:8; Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[300] The reason: As it is not considered Hadar at all. [Admur ibid]

[301] Admur 648:27; Michaber 648:17; Rambam Sukkah 8:8; Mishneh Sukkah 34b

[302] The reason: Being that this is the normal way of growth in these areas, and it is not considered an abnormality. [Admur ibid]

[303] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:26

[304] Shaareiy Teshuvah 648 in name of Birkeiy Yosef; Chayeh Adam 151:16; Bikureiy Yaakov 648:51; Biur Halacha 648:22 “Pasul”

[305] Avnei Nezer 482; Chazon Ish 148:2; Shiureiy Torah 3 footnote 49

[306] Dovev Meisharim 3:76

[307] Kashrus Four Species p. 17

[308] Admur 648:17

[309] Admur ibid; Michaber 648:7; Rambam Sukkah 8:7; Mishneh Sukkah 34b; M”A 648:8; Taz 648:11; Tosafos Sukkah 36a; Rosh 3:16; Rabbeinu Chananel 36a

[310] Admur ibid; Rama 648:7; M”A 648:10; Raavad in Tamim Deim 230; Rosh 3:16; Radbaz 4:1182; Mabit 3:49; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:6

[311] See Shevet Halevi 1:177; Sefer Kashrus Daled Minim p. 27 in name of Rav SZ”A

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that if it fell off at the end of its growth, then it is invalid, and since this matter is not discernable, therefore everyone should purchase an Esrog with a Pitom. [Kaneh Bosem 2:28; See Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 13]

[312] Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; See there for other opinions

[313] Admur ibid and 649:17; Michaber 645:7; Rama 649:5; Rambam ibid; Mishneh ibid; Rabbeinu Yerucham; Rabbeinu Manoach; Yireim 422; Hagahos Maimanis; Mordechai; M”A 649:9 and 17; Levush 648:7-8; Biur Halacha 648:12 “Mimakom”; Shaar Hatziyon 648:32; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:5

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule an Esrog with a missing Pitom may be taken with a blessing [even on the first day] if no other Esrog is available. [M”B 648:33 based on Chacham Tzevi] Admur ibid omits this opinion and records it only regarding a missing Oketz; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:8

[314] The reason: The reason for this invalidation is because the Pitam is considered part of the actual Esrog and hence if it is missing the Esrog is considered Chasar. Now, although there are opinions who rule that even a missing piece is valid unless the missing area is the size of an Issur, nevertheless, by the Pitam, since it is the top area of the Esrog which is readily recognizable, therefore even they were stringent to invalidate even the slightest missing piece from that area. This is because the main Hiddur of the Esrog is dependent on its top which a person sees at first glance and hence if it is missing it is not Hadar. [Admur ibid] Thus, the main invalidation of an Esrog with a fallen off Pitam is due to Hadar. [Admur 649:17; M”A 649:17]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that a an Esrog with a missing Pitam is invalid due to Chaser and not Hadar. [See Rama 649:5]

[315] 1^st and Stam opinion in Admur ibid; M”A 648:9; Taz 648:11-12; Ramban in name of Mahritz Geios; Ritva; Rav; Orchos Chaim; M”B 648:31

The reason: As since the top of the Esrog is not missing it is not considered missing. [Admur ibid]

[316] Kaf Hachaim 648:48; See however Sefer Kashrus Daled Minim p. 184 and Piskeiy Teshuvos 648 footnote 10 for other opinions

[317] 2^nd opinion in Admur ibid; Rama 648:7; Rif

[318] Admur ibid; Rama ibid; Ramban ibid; M”B 648:31

[319] Admur ibid; Taz ibid; Shelah Sukkah 245b

[320] Bikureiy Yaakov 648:25; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[321] See Shvus Yaakov 1:31; Beis Efraim 11:1 [requires it to be attached in majority]; Sdei Chemed Kelal 141:17; Daas Torah 648; Chaim Ubracha 244; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid

[322] Admur 649:17 and 19; M”B 648:36; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:8

[323] Admur 649:17 prohibits due to hadar and 649:19 brings second opinion

The dispute regarding Hadar: Some Poskim rule that all invalidations due to lack of being Hadar, throughout all days of Sukkos. [Stam opinion in Admur 649:17 and 19; Rama 649:5 regarding Chazazis and Menumar; M”A 649:22; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rabbeinu Yerucham 8:3; Rosh 3:15; Ran 18a] Other Poskim, however, rule that on Chol Hamoed all Hadar invalidations, such as a Chazazis or color change, are Kosher. [2^nd opinion in Admur 649:19; Michaber 649:5; Tur 649 in name of Baal Haitur; Rambam 8:9; Ravad ibid; opinion in Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rosh 3:15 in understanding of Yerushalmi 3:6; Maharitz Geios Lulav p. 100; Taz 648:9 concludes like Rambam/Michaber regarding Chazazis; Elya Raba 649:15]

Other opinions regarding a Pitam: Some Poskim rule that if a Pitam fell off the Esrog then it is valid on Chol Hamoed. [Rama ibid] Admur and the M”A ibid negate his opinion

[324] Admur 649:17; Rama 649:5; Tur 649; M”A 649:20; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Rosh 3:3

The reason: As all Hadar invalidations are invalid throughout all seven days of Sukkos. [Admur ibid]

[325] Admur 649:17 and 19

[326] Implication of Admur ibid from the fact that some are accustomed in a time of need to to say a blessing over all invalidations even on the first day; Arba Haminim P. 278; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; See P”M 649 M”Z 9, brought in Shaar Hatziyon 649:53

[327] Admur 649:19 based on Poskim who rule that even Hadar invalidations are permitted on Chol Hamoed [Michaber 649:5; Rambam 8:9; Raavad; Yerushalmi, brought in Tosafos and Rosh ibid; Maharitz Geios; Tur in name of Baal Haittur and Rabbeinu Yona] and Admur ibid concludes that in a time of need one may be lenient like this opinion. See Taz 649:9; Elya Raba 649:15; Shaar Hatziyon 649:53

[328] Admur 649:21 that all the invalidations of the first day [which are valid on Chol Hamoed] may be taken on the second day, as rules the 2^nd opinion there, but without a blessing, to suspect for the 1^st opinion there. This certainly applies in this case of a Hadar invalidation, in which case according to some Poskim it is invalid even on Chol Hamoed.

[329] See Beir Heiytiv 648:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:9

[330] Beis Yaakov 142, brought in Beir Heiytiov ibid

[331] Shaareiy Teshuvah 648:3 in name of Shvus Yaakov, and Elya Raba; Bikureiy Yaakov 648:26; Daas Torah 648; Chaim Ubracha 244; Beis Shoeiva 648:43; Kaf Hachaim 648:57; Shoel Umeishiv Kama 1:131; Sheilas Shalom Tinyana 232

[332] See Chaim Ubracha 259-262; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:12

[333] Admur 648:18; Michaber and Rama 648:8; Rambam Sukkah 8:7; Mishneh Sukkah 34b and Sukkah 35b; Rosh; Tosafos Sukkah ibid; Rif Sukkah ibid; M”A 648:11; Taz 648:13; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:7-9

[334] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Poskim ibid

The reason: The reason for this is because the Esrog is Chasar, is missing a piece. [Admur ibid]

[335] Aruch Hashulchan 648:25; Kaf Hachaim 648:60; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:7

[336] The reason: As the actual Esrog is not missing any pieces. [Admur ibid]

[337] Opinion in Admur ibid; Taz 648:11; Tur 648; Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Sukkah ibid

[338] The reason: As the Oketz is not considered part of the Esrog and hence cannot invalidate it due to a missing piece. [Admur ibid]

[339] Admur ibid; Chacham Tzevi 120; Beir Heiytiv 648:14; M”B 648:33

The reason: The reason one may say a blessing is because some people are accustomed to say a blessing on all invalid species as will be explained. [Admur ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule an Esrog with a missing Oketz may not be taken with a blessing [on the first day] even if no other Esrog is available. [Karban Nesanel Sukkah 3:16-64; Aruch Hashulchan 648:25]

[340] Admur 649:17 and 19 #10; Rama 649:5; Rosh 3:3; Tosafos Sukkah 29b; Biur Halacha 648 “Shinuiy”; Chaim Ubracha 197; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:3 and 8

[341] Toras Chesed O.C. 37; Mikraeiy Kodesh 2:26; Meiri Sukkah 36b; Raavad in Tamim Deim 233; Kaf Hachaim 648:76; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:4

[342] Admur 649:21

[343] Admur 649:21 that all the invalidations of the first day [which are valid on Chol Hamoed] may be taken on the second day, as rules the 2^nd opinion there, but without a blessing, to suspect for the 1^st opinion there, and hence if another Esrog is available, it should be taken, while if no other Esrog is available then it may be used. This certainly applies in this case of an Oketz invalidation, in which case according to some Poskim it is valid even on the first day.

[344] See Beir Heiytiv 648:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:9

[345] Beis Yaakov 142, brought in Beir Heiytiov ibid

[346] Shaareiy Teshuvah 648:3 in name of Shvus Yaakov, and Elya Raba; Bikureiy Yaakov 648:26; Daas Torah 648; Chaim Ubracha 244; Beis Shoeiva 648:43; Kaf Hachaim 648:57; Shoel Umeishiv Kama 1:131; Sheilas Shalom Tinyana 232

[347] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:7 and 12

[348] Piskeiy Teshuvos 648 footnote 39

[349] Ashel Avraham Butchach Tinyana 648

[350] See Tiferes Yisrael Sukkah 3:37; Piskeiy Teshuvos 648:21

[351] Admur 649:15; 10; Michaber 649:5; Rambam Sukkah 8:2 and 9; Rabbeinu Manoach; Mishneh Sukkah 34b; M”A 649:20; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:6

An Esrog of Mudar Hanah: See Admur 649:16 that it is invalid on the first day, although is valid on the other days.

[352] Setimas Kol Haposkim who prohibit a Tevel Esrog even today; Bikureiy Yaakov 649:41; Chasam Sofer Sukkah 35b; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:5

[353] The reason: As the verse states “and you shall take for yourselves” from which the sages expounded from this verse that it must be fit for all accustomed forms of benefit, and since the accustomed form of benefit of an Esrog is through eating it therefore it must be fit to be eaten. [Admur ibid]

[354] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Rambam ibid; Tosafos ibid

Maaser Rishon and Ani: See Moadim Uzmanim 8; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:6 footnotes 16-17 regarding if one can suffice with simply doing “Keiras Sheim” within the Esrog or if they must actually be separated due to the issue of “Lachem.”

[355] See Admur 649:10

[356] Aa the picking itself by a Jew makes that individual Esrog now obligated in Teruma and Maaser, and since it is not possible to separate Teruma and Maaser without breaking off a piece of the Esrog, therefore it cannot be used.

[357] Admur ibid

[358] See Moadim Uzmanim 8; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:6

[359] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Rambam ibid; Mishneh ibid

[360] Admur ibid; M”A ibid; Kneses Hagedola; Shiltei Giborim 17a; See Michaber Y.D. 294:8-9; Beis Yosef 294; Bach 294; Kiddushin 38b-39a

The reason: Although even in the Diaspora it is forbidden to eat an Arla Esrog, nevertheless, since there are opinions who permit feeding Arla produce of the Diaspora to a Jew who is unaware of its Arla status, therefore it is considered fit to be eaten. Now, although we do not like this opinion, nevertheless we rely on their words to validate the Esrog for the sake of the mitzvah. [Admur ibid]

^[361] Sdei Chemed Mareches Lamed Kelal 141:31; Orchos Chaim 649:10; Chaim Ubracha 649:11; Chelkas Yaakov 3:77; Minchas Yitzchak 8:57; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:5

[362] The reason: As one who does a Mitzvah knows no evil and hence the evil spirit does not reside on it. [ibid; see Admur 455:16; Ikarei Hadat 19 regarding Mayim Shelanu

[363] See Ben Ish Chaiy Vayeishev 12 and Kaf Hachaim 673:11 regarding the Chanukah oil and seemingly the same would apply here; Orchos Chaimk ibid brings Poskim that are stringent in the event that it was not designated for the Mitzvah

[364] Michaber Y.D. 368:2 and Rama 368:1

[365] Michaber ibid; Tosfos; Rosh; Mordechai

[366] Implication of Michaber ibid; Rama 368:1; Beir Hagoleh ibid in explanation of Michaber and Rama

[367] Orchos Chaim Spinka 649:11; Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:5

[368] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:5

[369] P”M 649 A”A 28; Bikureiy Yaakov 649:41

[370] See Shach Y.D. 98:27

[371] See M”B 649:45 and Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; Y.D. 101:2 and Shach 649:4

[372] Mechzeh Avraham 143; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid footnote 11

[373] Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:7

[374] See R”H 14; Rambam 4:12

[375] Perhaps it is treated like a vegetable being that it grows daily from its water, similar to a vegetable and we should hence follow the day of its picking, being that on that day it also grew from the water. [Grach Naah p. 11; Rashi R”H 12b] Other Poskim however rule that we follow the blossom of the Esrog just like any fruit tree. [Raavad]

[376] Rambam ibid; Grach Naah

[377] Minchas Yerushalayim 7:36; Shemitah Kehilchasa 4:4

[378] See Piskeiy Teshuvos 649:7; Beis Yitzchak Y.D. 2:121; Beis Ridbaz 5:18

[379] Mishnas Yosef 2:24-28; Tzitz Hakodesh 1:15; Piskeiy Teshuvos ibid; See Beis Ridbaz ibid

[380] See Beis Ribaz ibid as Esrogim don’t require Biur.

[381] See Mishnas Yosef 2:24-28

[382] Beis Ridbaz 5:18; Igros Moshe 1:186

[383] Chelkas Yaakov Y.D. 185; Chazon Ish Sheviis 10:6; 13:4; See Beis Yitchak ibid

[384] Chazon Ish

[385] Chazon Ish ibid; Igros Moshe ibid

[386] The reason: As this is considered Derech Achilaso.

[387] Ridbaz in 5:18, brought in Gra”ch Naah Yagdil Torah 25:63; See Minchas Yitzchak 3:92

[388] The reason: As the Esrog remains on the tree for 2-3 years, and hence does not have a time of Biur. [ibid]

[389] Rosh Hashanah 15; Minchas Yitzchak 3:92; Chazon Ish 13:10; Hilchos Sheivis [Tukichinsky] 7 footnote 5

[390] The reason: As a) Even a fruit that remains the entire year is obligated in Biur. [Chjazon Ish ibid] b) Today, the Esrogim in truth do not remain on the trees past Teves/Nissan. [questioner in Minchas Yitzchak ibid]

[391] Gr”ach Naah ibid rules explicitly that ; Derech Emuna 7:58; Tziyon Halacha 7:104 that so ruled Chazon Ish and Rav Elyashiv; Ziv Hayam Shevis; Mishpitei Erech; Chut Hashani 318

Other opinions: Some question whether the three meals worth of Shemitah food must be eaten by the end of the day of Biur, before sunset. [Chazon Ish 15:7; See Derech Emuna 7:15 and 7:58]

[392] Hilchos Sheivis ibid in name of Rav Shmuel Salant

[393] Luach of Rabbanut of Israel

[394] Admur 648:12

[395] See Rava in Sukkah ibid who questions whether such an Esrog is invalid due to Chaser or if it is similar to a disintegrated lung which is ruled to be valid in such a case, as explained in Y.D. 36:7. Now, some Poskim conclude leniently under the basis that in their opinion the invalidation of Chaser is merely Rabbinical, and hence in a case of doubt one may be lenient. [1^st opinion in Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; Bahag; Rif; Rambam] However, other Poskim rule stringently being that in their opinion the Chaser invalidations are Biblical, and hence Safek Lechumra. [2^nd opinion in Admur ibid and Michaber ibid; Tur; Rosh; Ran; Shiltei Hagiborim] See Admur ibid

[396] Conclusion of Admur ibid to suspect for the second stringent opinion when possible

[397] Implication of Admur ibid; Vetzaruch Iyun

[398] Implication of Admur ibid

Chapter 7: The Esrog

Introduction-General rules of invalidation of an Esrog:

1. The source for an Esrog:[16]

2. Murkav-The law of a Grafted Esrog:[19]

3. Calabria-Yanover Esrog:[41]

4. Dry:[60]

5. An Esrog with a hole without a missing piece:[77]

6. An Esrog with a a missing piece:[93]

A. The General Law-First Day of Sukkos:

B. A piece is missing from the outer membrane:[109]

C. Scars and scabs, and thorn holes:[117]

D. Yom Tov Sheiyni Shel Galuyos:[120]

E. On Chol Hamoed:[122]

F. Bitten by animal, such as mouse:[128]

G. Eating from the Esrog:[129]

7. A disintegrated Esrog:[132]

8. A cracked Esrog:[137]

9. Chazazis-Blisters and pimples that are on the Esrog:[144]

A. What is a Chazazis?[146]

B. The law on the First day of Sukkos:

C. Second day in Diaspora:[170]

D. The law on Chol Hamoed:[173]

E. Koshering an Esrog-Peeling off the blister:[177]

10. Shinuiy Mareh-The law of an Esrog that contains a color change or colored spot [i.e. white; black; green; etc]:[187]

A. The definition of a color change according to Halacha:

B. The law on the First day of Sukkos:

C. The law on the second day in Diaspora:[242]

D. The law on Chol Hamoed:[245]

E. Koshering an Esrog-Peeling off the color change:[249]

11. Spoiled Esrog and an Esrog with a foul odor:[255]

12. Cooked or soaked in water:[257]

13. Shape:[263]

14. Size, Ripeness, and Color [green, yellow, black]:

15. Pitum and Shoshanta:[308]

16. Oketz/Stem:[333]

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Leave A Comment? Cancel Reply

Recent Posts

Products

Knowledge Base Search

About

Gut Yom Tov!

Leshana Tova Belimud Hachassidus Uvedarkei Hachassidus Tikoseivu Veseichaseimu!

Our website of the Alter Rebbe's Torah is dependent on your generous support!