Siman Taf-Resh-Mem-Chet (Section 648). A special request from one of our members was to start hilchot etrog (the laws of the etrog), so we’ll start with the etrog (citron). We never did this anyway. Siman Taf-Resh-Mem-Chet, dinei etrog (the laws of the etrog). Amru bo mem-bet se'ifim (It contains forty-two paragraphs). Peri etz hadar (the fruit of a beautiful tree), zeh etrog (this is the etrog).
Even though it doesn’t say “etrog,” deperi etz mashma sheta'am etzo uferyo shaveh (the words “fruit of a tree” imply that the taste of its wood and fruit is the same). The tree’s fruit and wood taste the same. If you ever tasted the wood of an etrog tree, it has a kind of lemony flavor. Vezehu be'etrog (and this is the etrog). Vechen darshinan (and thus we expound): peri etz hadar, hadar be'ilano mishanah leshanah (It remains on its tree from year to year). That’s another derashah (interpretation): peri etz hadar, hadar be'ilano. It remains on the tree from year to year, because the etrog can remain on the tree for two or three years. It’s amazing. It can stay on the tree until you take it off. Normally, a fruit falls; the tree is empty afterward. Here, the new ones are forming while the old ones are still there. Apples fall, but with an etrog you collect the new ones while the old ones remain.
Besides that, this came to us by kabalah (tradition), from Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses our teacher), who likewise received it at Sinai. Besides the interpretation of peri etz hadar, we have a tradition that peri etz hadar is an etrog. Without any interpretations, simply, it is a tradition. ShehaTorah pirshah kol haminim, uve'etrog satmah (the Torah specified all the species, but left the etrog unspecified). Why didn’t the Torah tell us “etrog”? Kedei shenitztarech lismoch al Torah shebe'al peh (Oral Torah). They wanted us to rely on the Oral Torah, to teach us that no mitzvah (commandment) in the Torah shebichtav (Written Torah) is explicit, because the Oral Torah explains it. That was a mussar (ethical lesson): we need Torah shebe'al peh. There’s no Sukkot (the Festival of Sukkot) without Torah shebe'al peh.
As we explained in Choshen Mishpat (the section on civil law), Section 420, regarding ayin tachat ayin (an eye for an eye), which I think we learned in a Sunday session. It had many paragraphs. “An eye for an eye” doesn’t mean an actual eye for an eye; it means money. How do you know? Only because of Torah shebe'al peh. DehaTorah shebe'al peh notenet ruach chayim baTorah shebichtav (the Oral Torah gives the Written Torah a living spirit), may His name be praised. Torah shebe'al peh is like the neshamah (soul) of the Written Torah. The Written Torah is a dead book without the ruach (living spirit) that Torah shebe'al peh puts inside.
That’s why I’ve told you many times about the Tzeduki (Sadducee) who poured the mayim (water) of nisuch hamayim (the water libation) on the floor, because they didn’t believe in nisuch hamayim. The Tzeduki priest did so because the Tzedukim believed that only nisuch hayayin (the wine libation) was written in the Torah. Nisuch hamayim is a halachah leMoshe miSinai (law given to Moses at Sinai). So what did they do to him? Veragamuhu kol ha'am be'etrogaihem (The entire people pelted him with their etrogim). Why did they throw etrogim at him? Because the Tzeduki took an etrog! They were telling him: Just as you take an etrog because of Torah shebe'al peh, so too with nisuch hamayim.
According to that interpretation, it’s not that they stoned him—of course, they physically stoned him, but they also, theoretically, stoned him ideologically by showing him the etrog. They were saying that the etrog is the biggest proof that we hold by Torah shebe'al peh. Why take an etrog? Why not a watermelon or some other item? For the same reason you take an etrog, you have to do nisuch hamayim. Veragamuhu kol ha'am be'etrogaihem.
Bechavod. Chami Yuri, Tehillim (Psalms), Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs)? Where are you up to? The Korbanot (offerings)? Usually by now, on Thursday, you have to say Shir HaShirim.
Etrog hayavesh pasul (a dry etrog is invalid), and the HaTur (the Tur) wrote the shi'ur (measure) of dryness. HaRav zal (of blessed memory) explains that its le'ichah (moisture) is gone and it gives off no le'ichah. Go slowly. What does “dry” mean? It means dry. What is the measure of dryness? The explanation is that its moisture is gone and it gives off no moisture. Ki haleichah al haperi kemo hadam babasar (moisture in a fruit is like blood in the flesh). What a mashal (analogy)! Moisture in a fruit is like blood in a human being. As long as it is moist, it gives off moisture when pressed with a knife. Moisture comes out if you pierce or squeeze it; that’s the siman (sign). But after it dries, it gives off no moisture. Take last year’s etrog if you saved it. It’s definitely dry. You could shake it, cut it up, squeeze it—but there’s no juice in it.
But the difficulty is no difficulty, because it cannot be squeezed out. With our etrogim, you can’t squeeze one, or you’ll invalidate it. So what’s the test for whether it is moist? O lechotcho, aval keivan shenikav she'ein bo chesron kasher (or cut it; but since it is pierced without any part missing, it is valid). A nekev (hole) that doesn’t cause the etrog to lose any of itself is kasher (valid). You can insert a machat (needle), or a chut (thread), and if there is moisture, it will show on the thread. But we hold that a hole passing through from side to side is invalid. We hold that a hole is invalid even if no part of the etrog is missing: if you make a hole in it, in and out, it’s invalid, even without anything missing.
Without anything missing, one must be careful that the needle or thread does not reach even the chadrei hazera (seed chambers), all the more so that it must not go through from side to side. Even reaching the seed chambers is invalid, as explained. Therefore, one should not push the needle forcefully, lest it reach the chambers. So he can really only go to the very surface of the etrog. But we don’t do that, because we can see that today’s etrog is yellow, nice, and fresh. The seller says it’s new, and it’s a little oily. Exactly: it feels oily, and you can smell it. Even a year later it could smell, but you’re not going to have a question about whether a fresh one is dry.
We’re spoiled today, my teachers. In front of every shul there’s a table of etrogim. In some communities, they had two etrogim for the whole community and used last year’s etrog because that was the only one they had. So dryness was a real issue, and they needed to know those laws. They really couldn’t get one. In Europe, you couldn’t get them; sometimes there were government embargoes against etrogim. But today, thank God, this is a generation made worthy. We’re lucky. I’m sure there are places in the world that still have limits on how many etrogim they can bring into the country. Panama has a problem every year: they have to make a deal with the government to bring etrogim into the country, because they are fruit, and customs is careful about importing fruit. When you go through customs, you have to say whether you’re bringing in any fruit; someone walking in with an etrog has a problem because it’s a fruit. But Baruch Hashem, that’s not such a practical case anymore.
In honor of Reb Akiva, according to the Rama, the Rama wrote in paragraph one that an etrog from the previous year is bevaddai (certainly) dry and invalid. That’s it; the Rama answered it. Last year’s etrog is definitely invalid because it’s dry. It’s a rock. Exactly—that’s what it looks like when it’s dry. It implies that a needle test doesn’t help, and that even if it gives off moisture, it is invalid. It sounds as if, according to the Rama, it’s invalid. Forget the pin test; don’t waste your time with it.
The discussion implies that an old etrog is invalid. It was taught: an old etrog is invalid; an unspecified old one means from the previous year, and the reason given is that it is not hadar, beautiful. That’s a different reason. The Gemara says last year’s etrog is not hadar; it’s old. Or one can say that the Chachamim (Sages) established that its moisture has already gone. Even if moisture is visible, it’s nothing. Therefore, they agreed—and there is one who wants to say that if it remains beautiful, a thread test helps. If it still retained its noi (beauty), I guess you would do the moisture test. But maybe once it loses its beauty, that’s already an indication it has dried up.
This is not convincing: the Sages established it, and therefore it is invalid in every case. Last year’s etrog is invalid even if it keeps its beauty. You know what you do with it? Use it as a noi Sukkah (decoration for the sukkah). You can put it on the refrigerator, which will probably dry it up. But he’s going to give you a secret for keeping an etrog. Rabbi, did you hear? There are those who bury the etrog in honey. That’s it, they put it in honey. The honey preserves its moisture. That’s a segulah (remedy): leave your etrog in honey for the year. Honey is a preservative. That’s why Ashkenazim have honey on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year): it preserves, and they want to be preserved for the coming year. It’s a sign of preservation.
Nevertheless, you can’t permit it without checking; its remedy is that if it has moisture, it is valid. It’s not automatic just because you left it in honey. You have to check it. There is one who invalidates it on account of kavush (pickled). That’s a problem: kavush means you pickled it. You now have a pickled etrog, and kavush is invalid because you left it in something for 24 hours. The first opinion holds that since the honey preserves its moisture, as we see with all fruit, pickling does not apply to a mitzvah. Some say it isn’t kavush; on the contrary, it’s preserved. Nevertheless, in practice it’s difficult to rely on this. I heard that they bury it in wax—that is, cover it all around in wax—and it lasts a long time. Look at all the tricks he’s giving you: put it in wax, surround it in wax, and it will preserve your etrog for the next year. Okay, Baruch Hashem, we don’t need to do all these tricks here. Try it just to see, but we don’t need last year’s etrog. You bought a new tie for this year, didn’t you? Nobody buys last year’s tie; buy a new etrog. In honor of that.
Although dry is invalid, a kamush (wilted) etrog is different. There is dry, and then there is kamush: it is starting to wilt but still has a little moisture. Yavesh (dry) is invalid; kamush is permitted. tsvelekt. The Gemara says that all the wilted ones are valid. But the Maharil says that kamush is invalid. That is puzzling: how can that be, when the Gemara says kamush is valid? The Mordechai says it is valid in pressing circumstances. So kamush is, that is, permitted in pressing circumstances, not the preferred way.
Our master, the Beit Yosef, wrote in his great work at the end of Section 648 that this is a ta'ut sofer (scribal error). It’s a printing error: how can it say that it’s invalid? One must say “kavush.” So there, he wasn’t talking about kamush; he was talking about kavush. That’s why he says it is invalid. They make chilukim (distinctions): kamush and kavush. Kavush is certainly invalid. The rishonim (early authorities) weren’t talking about kamush; they were talking about kavush. Kamush means starting to wilt; kavush means pickled. So the Beit Yosef says that “kamush is invalid” is an error; it should say “kavush is invalid.” That makes more sense and answers the Maharil.
It seems possible that they meant an etrog that is kamush in one part but has dried in another part. Since one part is wilted, presumably there is dryness somewhere else. So it’s not the kamush part that is invalid; it could be an indication that there is dryness somewhere else. It likewise seems so in the Hagahot Ashri, which began with “wilted” and concluded with “dry”: when it writes the law, it says that kamush is invalid because it is dry. It opened with one thing and ended with another. The prohibition was about dryness, not about kamush.
But the Behag brings a baraita (early rabbinic teaching): an etrog that is swollen, rotten, pickled, or boiled is invalid. And the Behag says “kamush, not kavush.” The Behag clearly says kamush, because he also quotes kavush. So you can’t say it was a scribal error: he quotes both kamush and kavush, and says kamush is invalid. How do you resolve that? One must say that the wilted ones that we say are valid are the other three minim (species), not the etrog, according to those early authorities. The Gemara says kamush is valid, and we thought that meant all four species. According to those authorities, no: the other three are valid when wilted, but even a wilted etrog is invalid. That is a big chumrah (stringency). Now it must not even be kamush, which is a stage before dryness.
It is clear that this is the version of the Roke'ach and the Maharil. We don’t have to say there was a scribal error in the Maharil; we can say kamush is invalid because he is talking about an etrog. According to this, it is obvious that kamush is invalid, and so one should rule. That’s more difficult, because now we have to make sure it isn’t even kamush. You need shimush (practical experience): what is kamush? Our etrogim aren’t going to be kamush. Maybe aravot (willow branches) can be a problem by the third, fourth, or fifth day; they become brittle. But brittle is dry, certainly. Kamush is still a little moist but starting to dry. Dry is like an etrog, when the lulav (palm branch), when the hadasim (myrtle branches), or the aravot, you go like this and they fall apart. That is dry and invalid. It usually happens toward the end.
Now, the Rambam, perek (chapter) Eight: Etrog shenikav nekev mefulash (passing through), ke'isar o yoter pasul (the size of an issar (ancient coin) or larger is invalid). A through-hole, kol shehu (any amount), is invalid. Veshe'eino mefulash, im hayah ke'isar o yoter, pasul (if it does not go through, it is invalid if it is the size of an issar or larger). Wait: if it does not go through, and it is the size of an issar or larger, it is invalid. If it is missing, even any amount is invalid.
“Does not go through” means it doesn’t go all the way through the etrog. “Mefulash” sounds like it goes through from one end to the other. So the Rambam says a through-hole of any amount is invalid. A hole that only goes partway is invalid if it is the size of an issar coin or larger. If something is missing, any amount is invalid.
That means a hole with something missing from the flesh of the etrog is invalid even if it does not go through. If there’s a hole, I don’t care how small it is: if it makes the flesh of the etrog missing, even a little, it’s invalid. How could there be a hole this small and nothing missing? They put it straight in carefully. It’s a small pinhole; it just pushes the flesh to the side and doesn’t take anything out. But if pieces of the flesh come out, that is a missing part. It’s not so easy, by the way. You see people checking their etrog: they want to know if a dot is a black spot that will disqualify it or just dirt. They take a toothpick and poke it, making a hole; now it’s definitely invalid. If you were unsure whether it was invalid, the guy with the toothpick made sure of it. Then they put it back: “I don’t want this one.” “Why? There’s a hole in it.” “Why is there a hole in it?” Because someone checked it with a lance, with an injection. You have to be careful.
But a hole without anything missing—for example, where a yated (peg) was inserted or something similar, making a hole without removing anything from the etrog itself—has a distinction. A through-hole is invalid in every case; one that does not go through must be the size of an issar. So if nothing is missing from the etrog itself, there’s no problem unless it is through-pierced. The Rambam’s wording is that an etrog pierced by a through-hole is invalid in every case. We’ll see what “through-pierced” means.
What is called a through-hole? Some say it means from one side to the other. Others say it is enough to reach the bottom of the seed chambers; it need not go from side to side. The seed chambers extend from the top to, I don’t know, three-quarters of the way down. The last part doesn’t have the seed chambers. Have you ever opened an etrog? Like any fruit, it has a chamber where the seeds are. Regarding the part with the seed chambers, once you reach them, that is considered through-pierced. At the bottom, where there are no seed chambers, some say it has to go all the way through. Where there are seed chambers, once you reach them, you’re in trouble.
Know that the etrog has three kelipot (layers) up to the seed chambers. It’s like a berit milah (circumcision): there are three skins on an etrog. The first, upper layer is very thin and like a geled (scab). That’s the oily or shiny part, the epidermis. There is no invalidity in it unless all of it is removed. A little peeling doesn’t disqualify it. The Rambam wrote about this peel regarding terumot (priestly produce): it is like the thin peel of all fruits. Think of an apple: before you reach the flesh, there’s the original peel. An etrog has the same thing, a very thin skin.
The second layer is thick and is the entire dofen (wall) of the etrog down to the seed chambers. After that, you have the wall—the flesh of the etrog—until the seed chambers. This too is called a peel, just as the thickness of the flesh is called skin. Even though this is the main part eaten, it’s called the second layer, the second peel. So too with an etrog. The main fruit is the seed chambers. I guess that’s how they ate it: they took out the white next to the seeds, and that’s the part they ate. The second part is still called the peel. The flesh on it is called a peel; it is the measure of the holes they discussed. All the holes we talked about are in that section. So if someone pierced a little of the top of the etrog, you’re okay. Exactly—but you have to be careful. It sounds like you could shave off the spot with a potato peeler if the hole doesn’t go through more than that.
The third layer is a very thin layer inside the seed chambers, like the membrane on an egg yolk, between one seed and another. There is no nafka minah (practical difference) in it. Okay, but there, it is invalid for most. In that chamber itself, apparently, there is another issue. So the bottom line is that there are three layers: the outer layer is no problem; the middle layer is where the rules about through-holes and holes that do not go through apply; and the last layer sounds like once you reach it, it’s finished. How will you know where the hole reached? If nothing is missing, you might test it with a tailor’s pin, perhaps a very fine pin like one used in acupuncture. You can wash it. Okay, one more.
The Ra'avad disagrees with the Rambam. This is his wording: “This is a shibush (error); rather, a through-hole must have a chesron mashehu (something missing), and a hole that does not go through must have an issar’s worth missing.” The Ra'avad says that a through-hole is invalid only if something is missing. What was the Rambam’s wording? “An etrog pierced by a through-hole of any amount is invalid.” The Ra'avad says, “This is an error; rather, a through-hole is invalid only if something is missing.” So the Ra'avad is more lenient than the Rambam. The Rambam holds that a through-hole is invalid, whatever “through-hole” means. The Ra'avad says it is invalid only if something is missing.
If it does not go through, the Rambam says it is invalid if it is the size of an issar or larger. The Rambam also says that any missing part, however small, is invalid. Everybody agrees that if something is missing, even any amount, it is invalid. The question is about holes. The Rambam makes distinctions among holes, and the Ra'avad argues about those distinctions. The Ra'avad says a through-hole is not automatically invalid; there must be something missing. The Rambam says a through-hole is automatically invalid, and a hole that does not go through is invalid if it is the size of an issar, even without something missing. The Ra'avad essentially says that all these holes must cause something to be missing to be invalid, so he is much more lenient.
The Rambam rules that a through-hole is invalid even without something missing. The Ra'avad says that even in a through-hole, something must be missing. According to the Rambam, even if you carefully pulled the needle out and nothing came out, a through-hole is invalid. Simply, you would be stringent like the Rambam. The whole invalidity of a hole is only derabbanan (rabbinic), by the way, so there is room for the Beit Yosef to say that since it is only rabbinic, we can take the lenient opinions. At least you know this shitah (opinion) exists. But ideally, if the person in the store tells you, “According to the Ra'avad it’s okay,” do me a favor: give me the Ra'avad; I don’t know what the Ra'avad knows over there.
Maran (our master) holds like the Rambam. Stam veyesh (an anonymous opinion followed by a dissenting opinion), the halachah kestam (the law follows the anonymous opinion), finish. Regarding the measure of an issar for a hole that does not go through, it doesn’t have to be round—say, the dime—but you go by the area, whether it is square or round; it doesn’t have to be the exact shape. But the measure is not known to us, so they’re going to invalidate everything now because we don’t know the measure of a dinar and don’t have the coin anymore. What are you going to do?
Who’s up? David Menaged. Our master, the Rema, wrote something practical that you need to know right away: holes that happened while the etrog was on the tree. Sometimes, while it’s growing, the leaves or branches damage it a little, and you see small marks or scuffs. That doesn’t invalidate it. Maybe it takes away from its hiddur (beauty), but it doesn’t invalidate it. Even if something is missing? Thank God. How do you know? The seller tells you, “I picked it off the tree like that.” You can tell what kind of hole it is and whether it came from a thorn. It’s like a scab that healed itself.
This is its natural manner of growth. However, if one sees that the skin and flesh are not intact within the hole, it is invalid according to the first sevara (reasoning), even if it does not go through. If the skin and flesh are missing inside the hole, it is invalid according to the Rambam. The Rambam doesn’t require that it go through; once something is missing, the question is how much. According to the Ra'avad, if it doesn’t go through, the missing part must be the size of an issar. In pressing circumstances, one may be lenient according to the last opinion: a missing part smaller than an issar, and a hole that does not go through.
Why would we be lenient just because the hole was made on the tree by a thorn? It’s a hole. The Gemara compares the etrog to an animal’s lung. Regarding a lung, we hold that if there is a depression—not an adhesion—and the skin is intact at the bottom of the depression, it is kosher. Even though some flesh is missing, if the skin is there, as if it healed itself, it is kosher. The same applies to an etrog: sometimes, while it is growing, a thorn from the tree enters it and removes flesh from within. If the skin is intact at the bottom, it is kosher. This can happen when the thorn has no sharp point, so the skin remains intact and only the inner flesh is a little softened. It is beaten up, but that is not the same as something being missing.
However, if the skin is not intact at the bottom of the hole, the law follows the two opinions explained: according to the Rambam, it is invalid even if it does not reach the seed chambers; according to the Ra'avad, it is valid when the missing part is less than an issar. If you’re buying an etrog, that’s something to know. Here’s a dried-up etrog; you know what that looks like. We want to look at the blemishes: an unusual bump, bruising from handling. Maybe it’s this one: “Blemish caused by thorn or twig.” I’ll pass it around. “If there is a blemish on the etrog’s surface caused by thorns or twigs of the tree on which it grew, that blemish does not disqualify.” You can see the thorn going into the etrog. This is exactly what the Rema is telling you: if it’s this kind of hole without anything missing, it is valid. It’s better if you can see it, because then you know where it came from. Or you need to trust the person who tells you and shows you a picture. But if the skin isn’t intact at the bottom, you go back to the dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad. If it’s just a very fine thorn and nothing is really missing, that is the natural manner of growth. You still have to be careful.
One more, and then we’ll go to the Shulchan Aruch. “If there is a safek (doubt) whether the skin is intact, one should validate it,” because the Ra'avad holds that even if it is not intact, a hole that does not go through needs a missing part the size of an issar. The Ra'avad’s opinion is entirely valid. Therefore, one may be lenient in a doubt; if there is doubt whether it is the size of an issar, one may be lenient, as with a rabbinic doubt. You don’t know whether it could be the size of an issar. According to the Ra'avad, perhaps it isn’t the size of an issar; and even if it is, the Ra'avad holds that up to an issar is valid. It is only rabbinic, so a rabbinic doubt is ruled leniently.
This is not a doubt caused by lack of knowledge, as written in Yoreh De'ah, Section 110. There’s a law that you don’t make a doubt out of lack of knowledge: if you don’t know what an issar is, go find out. “What do I do?” Go find an issar. But we can’t find one; there are no issarim around. This is a doubt nobody can answer. It’s not like, “Go to the coin store; you’re lazy and want to rely on the doubt.” Even at the coin store, he doesn’t know what an issar is. That is a lack of knowledge shared by everyone. If someone picks up an avocado and doesn’t know its blessing, he should make shehakol, because the Gemara says that if you don’t know the blessing, say shehakol. He can also call a rabbi or someone who knows: “Is an avocado from a tree?” “Google it!” If it’s a doubt shared by everyone, that’s another story. But if the doubt is only yours, a factual doubt, that isn’t called a doubt. Since the issar coin isn’t found in our time, this doubt is hidden from everyone.
Again, he is taking the Ra'avad in pressing circumstances. If you’re uncertain whether the missing part is less than an issar, you can rely on the Ra'avad in pressing circumstances. If you can easily obtain another etrog, why take a doubtful one? This all applies on the first day. On the other days, even a missing part is valid. This is really for the first day; all this is one day. Once there is a missing part after the first day, there’s no problem. If it comes out on Shabbat, there are no other days. So on the second day, would it pay not to buy such an expensive etrog and just get a cheaper one, because it’s rabbinic anyway? If you’re going to wear a tie with a stain on the second day, be consistent. The person says, “Give me that second-hand tie, with a pull and all this stuff coming out. It’s not really de'oraita (from the Torah), so I’ll wear my stained tie.” You can get a good one.
Open Section 648. Halachah Alef. Etrog hayavesh pasul, veshi'ur yevishut she'eino motzi shum lechah (a dry etrog is invalid; the measure of dryness is that it gives off no moisture). That’s it. It’s in the Mishnah. It should be checked by passing a needle through it, with a thread attached. Pull it through and feel the thread; if the thread is wet, you know it is moist. If it has moisture, you’ll see it on the thread. An etrog from the previous year is certainly dry. It’s invalid. Look at the Mishnah Berurah on “invalid”: it is invalid because it is not beautiful. The pasuk (verse) says peri etz hadar; it has to be beautiful. If it’s dry, it’s not beautiful anymore.
If it is kamush, even if it is entirely kamush, it is valid. It still has some moisture. Nevertheless, since we see that it is kamush, it must be checked, because if something is missing in it, that is a problem. Later authorities asked: wouldn’t this make a through-hole, which is invalid according to the first opinion in paragraph two? According to the Rambam, a through-hole is invalid even without something missing. So you sew it, pull it out, and find that it is moist—but it’s invalid according to the Rambam. The Magen Avraham answers that one should insert the needle a little at its thick part, at the eye of the needle, so that some thread enters with it. When it is removed, moisture will be seen on the thread, and there is no through-hole.
Basically, don’t go all the way through. You have to be a surgeon. Go to the thick part of it, so you have more room. “At the eye of the needle”—perhaps there’s a hole there, which is why you’re concerned in the first place? No: insert the needle a little at its thick part, at the eye. You use the end where the thread is, not the pin side, so you don’t have to put it all the way through. Correct: turn it around and insert the eye, where the thread is. Otherwise, you would have to go through until the thread reaches it. “But that side is bigger.” So what? As long as it isn’t through-pierced and nothing is missing, you’re okay. A little of the thread will enter with it; when you pull it out, moisture will show on the thread. Clearly, it isn’t through-pierced. You don’t have to go all the way through to get the thread wet.
Some answer that “through-pierced” means only when it pierces across the width of the etrog, from one side to the other. It has to go all the way through. Even if it isn’t opposite the seed chambers, it is still through-pierced. But when it is pierced through its thickness from one side, lengthwise, from its stem toward its tip, and does not reach the seed chambers, everyone agrees it is not called through-pierced. So some say it has to go across; a lengthwise hole that doesn’t reach the seed chambers is not through-pierced. You could test it from the top and weave it down in different ways. What if you go in at the top of the etrog? Do you make it invalid? No, as long as you’re careful not to make something missing. Even from the top, as long as nothing is missing, you’re okay.
So that’s the second answer: some say the only time it is through-pierced is when it goes across. Even if you don’t go opposite the seed chambers, it is still through-pierced. But lengthwise, from the stem toward the tip, if it doesn’t reach the seed chambers, everyone agrees it isn’t called through-pierced. The stem is the bottom part. “So you’re going from top to bottom?” It’s a novelty that top to bottom isn’t considered through-pierced. “Isn’t he saying from bottom to top?” No, he means that you didn’t go through the seed chambers; you went along the side, so you didn’t penetrate them. I thought the moisture had to be in the seed chambers. Apparently not; apparently it can be in the skin. I’ve never seen anyone do this test. It’s risky business.
Maran haChida (the Chida), in Machzik Berachah, added another test: insert a needle slightly and remove it from the same side. If the hole closes after the needle is removed, it is moist. If not, it’s easy to know that perhaps it has dried. That seems much simpler; it’s another way to test it. You won’t see the hole: put in a needle and pull it out lightly, and the hole will close. As long as you aren’t removing any piece of the etrog, you’re only compressing it and pushing it to the side.
One more, David. Etrog shenikav nekev mefulash kol shehu pasul. That’s the Rambam: once it is through-pierced, whatever that means, it’s invalid even if nothing is missing. Veshe'eino mefulash bimlo ke'isar pasul (one that does not go through is invalid when it is filled by an issar). If anything is missing, any amount is invalid. The first law about through-pierced and not through-pierced is talking about a hole where nothing is missing. Then he says, “And some say”—that is the Ra'avad—that even in a through-hole, we require something to be missing, and if it does not go through, the missing part must be the size of an issar.
That’s the machloket (dispute) between the Rambam and the Ra'avad, as we saw. Maran (our master) posek (rules) like the Rambam. How can you tell if something is missing? Apparently they can tell. If you weren’t there when the hole was made and you see an indentation, you may not know if the flesh was pushed aside or taken out. What could come out of that tiny hole? You can see if something is really missing; perhaps the spot would be discolored. If you used a screw, its grooves might bring something out. But with a needle, what could come out? If you don’t know how the hole was made, then you have a doubt. Indeed, you have a doubt, and you have the Ra'avad. As long as it isn’t through-pierced, the Ra'avad allows up to an issar. In pressing circumstances, if you don’t have another etrog, you could rely on that. Otherwise, get another one.
The Sirkis gives the shiur with the saw.
“The practice is to permit holes made by thorns while the etrog is on the tree.” The people in the store know this; they’ll tell you, “This is from the tree.” A leaf, yes. Even if something is missing, this is its natural manner of growth. The Torah wasn’t given to invalidate every etrog. That’s how they grow; Hashem made them like that. But if one sees that the skin and flesh are not intact inside the hole, it is invalid according to the first opinion. If you see that the skin and flesh are missing, and the hole is big enough to see inside, that is invalid according to the first opinion. According to the Ra'avad, it must be the size of an issar when it doesn’t go through, which is a lot. In pressing circumstances, one may be lenient according to the last opinion and permit a missing part smaller than an issar, as long as the hole doesn’t go through.
The Mishnah Berurah says that “any amount is invalid” even if nothing is missing from the etrog at all, for example, when pierced with a needle. The size of an issar can be measured by area; it doesn’t have to be the same shape. If something is missing, even the tiniest hole is invalid. The Mishnah Berurah also discusses whether one may recite the blessing on the second day in a doubtful case when the hole does not go through and is missing less than an issar’s worth. Some say that the Ra'avad requires two defects: it must be through-pierced and something must be missing. Without something missing, it is valid in every case. “But didn’t he say that through-pierced is a problem anyway?” Only if something is missing, according to the Ra'avad. So I could have a hole all the way through? Yes, as long as nothing is missing. That is the novelty.
The Mishnah Berurah asks only according to the Rambam. When you run a very thin needle through, it presumably doesn’t take anything out; it only removes some moisture and doesn’t make the etrog missing. But according to the Rambam, running it through makes it through-pierced, and that’s invalid even if nothing is missing. That’s why he says not to run it through the whole thing. Turn it around and do it another way, like a tailor putting a needle in a suit: it doesn’t ruin the suit. The same is true with the etrog. When something is missing, there is a distinction: if the hole goes through, it is invalid even if only a little is missing. We hold stringently, except in pressing circumstances, as the Rema wrote.
That discussion about something missing was about the thorns on the tree. It means what is sometimes seen on an etrog: it had a hole while attached to the tree, but new skin and flesh formed over it. You can see the scabs; you know it happened on the tree and healed. It has brown patches, and the seller says it came from a leaf or a twig. But if you see that it did not heal over, and there is a hole with something missing, it is invalid even if caused by thorns during its natural growth. There is no special permission for missing flesh just because it happened on the tree. We’re talking about where it covered over. When it covers over, you assume it’s okay. Many people make a mistake, thinking there’s a leniency for a hole caused by thorns. No. It’s okay when you see that it healed itself, because then you can assume nothing happened beyond a scratch on the outside that covered over. If something is missing from the tree, it is invalid too.
Paragraph eleven: if one sees that the skin and flesh are not intact within the hole, it is invalid according to everyone. If there is doubt whether the flesh is intact, we rule leniently, since the last opinion holds that even when something is certainly missing, it is valid as long as the hole does not go through and the missing part is less than an issar. That is a practical case: you have a doubt and don’t know if the flesh is missing. The Mishnah Berurah says to be lenient. When buying an etrog, if you have a doubt whether something is missing, and it’s a small spot, you have the Ra'avad. The whole law of a hole is rabbinic. It’s like sfeik sfeikot (compound doubts): maybe something is missing, maybe it isn’t; and even if it is missing, the Ra'avad allows it.
Even if you are unsure whether the hole reaches the seed chambers, one may validate it, since it is not certain that it reaches them. One can rely on those who say that even if it reaches the seed chambers, it is not considered a through-hole and is not invalid, unless something is missing. According to the Ra'avad, even if it goes through, it is okay as long as nothing is missing. You can be lenient in all these doubts. Thank God, that’s the Mishnah Berurah. If the seller says, “I have a perfect one here and a doubtful one,” take the perfect one. But we’re talking about what you ended up with—when you go to the rabbi an hour before, and it’s doubtful.
Baruch Hashem le'olam, amen ve'amen. Something came out of it. Get your etrog early so you don’t have to—yagdil Torah veya'adir (May Torah grow and be glorified), kedat (according to the law). Arvit (evening prayer)? Okay, Kaddish (sanctification prayer).
Yitgadal veyitkadash shemeh raba (May His great name be magnified and sanctified). Amen. Be'alma di vera chir'uteh veyamlich malchuteh veyatzmach purkaneh vikarev meshicheh (In the world He created according to His will; may He establish His kingdom, bring forth salvation, and bring His Messiah near). Amen. Bechayeichon uveyomeichon uvechayei dechol beit Yisrael ba'agala uvizman kariv ve'imru amen (In your lives and days, and the lives of all Israel, speedily and soon; and say amen). Amen.
Yehe shemeh raba mevarach le'alam ule'almei almaya (May His great name be blessed forever and ever). Yitbarach veyishtabach veyitpa'ar veyitromam veyitnase veyithadar veyit'aleh veyithalal shemeh dekudsha berich hu (May the name of the Holy One, blessed is He, be blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, uplifted, honored, elevated, and lauded). Berich hu (Blessed is He). Le'ela min kol birchata veshirata tushbechata venechemata da'amiran be'alma ve'imru amen (Above all blessings, songs, praises, and consolations spoken in the world; and say amen). Amen.
Al Yisrael ve'al rabanan ve'al talmideihon ve'al kol talmidei talmideihon de'askin be'orayta kadishta di ve'atra hadein vedi vechol atar ve'atar yehe lehon ulechon shelama raba china vechasda verachamei vechayei arichei umezonei revichei ufurkana min kodam avuhon devishmaya ve'imru amen (Upon Israel, the rabbis, their students, and all who study holy Torah, may there be abundant peace, grace, kindness, mercy, long life, ample sustenance, and salvation from their Father in Heaven; and say amen). Amen. Yehe shelama raba min shemaya vechayim aleinu ve'al kol Yisrael ve'imru amen (May there be abundant peace from Heaven and life for us and all Israel; and say amen). Amen. Oseh shalom bimromav hu ya'aseh shalom aleinu ve'al kol Yisrael ve'imru amen (He who makes peace in His heights, may He make peace upon us and all Israel; and say amen). Amen.