(By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times)

The Mishna in Lulav HaGazul discusses the minimum size of an Esrog.  The reasons, however, for the minimal size requirement –  may not necessarily be so clear.  The lack of clarity, may also have some interesting halachic repercussions.

THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE REASONS

For example, what happens if an Esrog was bigger than the minimum size, but got smaller later on?  May it still be used?  The Mogain Avrohom (649:27) qualifies the halacha regarding an Esrog that developed a hole.  He writes that it is only valid if a sufficient volume of an egg-size remains.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions this Mogain Avrohom based upon his understanding of the reason for the egg size requirement. Who would we follow – the Mogain Avrohom or Rabbi Akiva Eiger?

THE TWO VIEWS

But let’s start at the beginning:

The Mishna in Lulav HaGazul 34b discusses the two views as to the minimum size of an Esrog.

Rabbi Meir states that it must be the size of a walnut, but less than that volume would be invalid.  His rationale, apparently, is that the “taking” is not readily apparent because it is so tiny.  This is the understanding of Tosfos 30a “Mishum.”

Rabbi Yehudah, on the other hand states that the minimum size is the volume of an egg.  His rationale seems to be that less than such a volume is views as if the fruit has not matured sufficiently.  This seems to be how the Gemorah previously (31b) concluded was the proper understanding of Rabbi Yehudah’s view.

This is, in fact, how the plain reading of the Gemorah in 31b would appear.  The Gemorah, having previously established that Rabbi Yehudah has no requirement of Hadar that an Esrog must appear beautiful, asks why Rabbi Yehudah holds that a fully green Esrog is forbidden – isn’t it because he does have a requirement of Hadar – that it be beautiful?  The Gemorah answers that it is because Rabbi Yehudah is of the opinion that it has not matured sufficiently.

The Gemorah further asks why Rabbi Yehudah holds that an esrog that is less than the volume of an egg would be invalid – isn’t it because he does have a requirement of Hadar that it be beautiful?  The Gemorah also answers that it is because Rabbi Yehudah is of the opinion that it has not matured sufficiently.

REQUIREMENT OF HADAR – STANDS

We, however, are of the final opinion that there does exist a requirement of Hadar that the Esrog must be beautiful.  That being the case, even though the Gemorah states that Rabbi Yehudah’s reasoning for fully green esrogim and tiny esrogim being invalid is because they have not matured sufficiently – is that Gemorah’s conclusion to be disregarded? Is the original thinking of the Gemorah – that it was because of a requirement of Hadar – beauty – still in effect?

THREE VIEWS

There seem to be three different views on this matter – whether the conclusions of the earlier Gemorah as to how to understand Rabbi Yehudah’s view still stands.

• The Mishna Brurah 648:64 clearly accepts that the reasoning of “it has not sufficiently ripened” still stands. He writes this in regard to the issue of a fully green esrog.  This is also the view of Rabbi Akiva Eiger in his Chidushim on Sukkah 36b on his question on the Mogain Avrohom.  It is also the view of the Vilna Gaon.
• The Bach (648 “HaYarok”) writes that the operative principle why a green esrog is invalid is because it is not Hadar – and that the earlier Gemorah’s conclusion was only according to Rabbi Yehudah. This is also the view of the Ri M’Luneil (#11) and the Meiri.  The Mateh Yehudah in his Likkutim writes that all of the invalid aspects of the Esrog discussed in paragraphs 15-22 of Shulchan Aruch chapter 648 are on account of a lack of Hadar – beauty.  The only way to understand his view is if we say that the Gemorah ultimately did not accept its earlier conclusion.  This is also the view of the Maharik (Shoresh 62:2).  It also seems to be the view of the Chayei Adam 151:15, 16 – see Nishmas Adam – whose source is the Tur 649.  The Chofetz Chaim in his Biur Halacha cites the view of the Chayei Adam
• The Mabit in his Kiryat Sefer (Chapter 7) indicates that the halachos of the Arbah Minim are halacha l’moshe miSinai – that they were handed down from Moshe. If that is the case – then the conclusion of the Gemorah that it was because it did not sufficiently ripen would still need to be rejected ultimately.  If the requirement is halacha lmoshe misinai – we would be unable to qualify it based upon our reasoning.

A METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE

One could state that the debate between the Mogain Avrohom and Rabbi Akiva Eiger is dependent upon how one understands this very question – do we ultimately reject the Gemorah’s original conclusion or do we keep the Gemorah’s original Havei Aminah?   The Mogain Avrohom would keep it and Rabbi Akiva Eiger remains with the Gemorah’s ultimate conclusion.

There is a school of thought that when the Gemorah provides an initial pattern of thinking- that is the method of thinking with the strongest logic behind it.  When the Gemorah is forced to accept a different mode of thinking from the strength of a question – it is only on account of that question that the Gemorah changed.  In a situation where that question is no longer relevant – the Gemorah’s original line of reasoning remains intact.   This can be seen in a number of places including Eretz Tzvi Vol. II page 127, and in the introduction to the Beis Zvul Vol. I page 4.

FINAL HALACHA

So what is the final halacha regarding an Esrog that got smaller than an egg – during Chol HaMoed?  The answer is that according to those who hold that the problem is that of Hadar – it would be a problem.  Those Poskim are: The Tur, the Chayei Odom, the Bikurei Yaakov 51, and the Birchei Yoseph.  It is also interesting to note that the Mechaber is of the opinion that Hadar is not problematic after the first days.

The author can be reached at [email protected]

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)