The Laws of the Falling Off of the Pitom — Part I

What Is the Pitom?

We learned in the Mishnah (Sukkah 34b): “If its pitom was removed, it is invalid; if its oketz was removed, it is valid.” And there in the Gemara: “If its pitom was removed — Rabbi Yitzchak ben Elazar taught: if its buchnah was removed.”

The Rishonim disagree in explaining the terms “pitom” and “oketz” — in comparison with similar terms mentioned elsewhere, such as the sugya in Niddah 47b regarding signs of maturity, and the Mishnah in Uktzin 2:3 regarding the parts of a pomegranate — and in explaining the words of the Gemara, “if its buchnah was removed” — whether this is an explanation of the Mishnah’s words or an addition to the Mishnah’s words.

The approaches of the Rishonim may be divided briefly into five views, as presented in the Beit Yosef (siman 648): 1. Rashi’s view in his first explanation, in the name of Rabbeinu Yaakov ben Yakar: the “pitom” is the dad, the nipple-like protrusion at the top of the etrog, with the shoshanta above it; whereas the “oketz” is the woody stem at the tail of the etrog, where it was attached to the tree. 2. Rashi’s view in his second explanation, in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak HaLevi: both the “pitom” and the “oketz” are at the tail of the etrog. 3. Rabbeinu Tam’s view: both the “pitom” and the “oketz” are at the top of the etrog. 4. The view of Rabbeinu Chananel, the Rif, and the Rambam: the “pitom” is the dad at the top of the etrog, and the “buchnah” is the woody stem at the tail of the etrog. 5. The view of the Ritva: the “pitom” is either the dad at the top of the etrog or the woody stem at its tail, and the “buchnah” is the place where they enter into the etrog.

The Halachic Ruling

From the summary of the opinions of the Rishonim mentioned above, it emerges that according to some opinions, the falling off of the pitom, which is at the top of the etrog, invalidates it, whereas the falling off of the oketz, which is at the tail of the etrog, does not invalidate it; according to other opinions the law is the reverse: the falling off of the pitom does not invalidate it, while the falling off of the oketz does; and according to some opinions, both the falling off of the pitom and the falling off of the oketz invalidate it. It should be noted that according to the Ran, the reason to invalidate in both cases stems from the need to be stringent in accordance with both explanations mentioned in Rashi, and not because we interpret the Mishnah and Gemara in that way; according to him, the invalidity is in the category of doubt rather than certainty. See below, Part II — “A Doubt Whether the Pitom Fell Off,” where there is a practical ramification of this, and see there what difficulty arises in the words of the Shaar HaTziyun, subparagraph 37. See these matters in their original source in the Beit Yosef (siman 648).      

The ruling of the Rosh, as cited in the Tur (siman 648), follows the view of Rabbeinu Chananel, the Rif, and the Rambam, that one must invalidate both when the pitom falls off and when the oketz falls off. This is likewise ruled as halachah in the Shulchan Aruch (sections 7–8). See below, Part II — “A Doubt Whether the Pitom Fell Off,” as to whether this was ruled as a matter of doubt or as a certainty.

The Law of the Shoshanta

The structure of the pitom includes the dad — the narrow part between the tip of the etrog and the shoshanta — and the shoshanta, the broader part that protrudes above it. The structure of the dad together with the shoshanta forms a kind of mushroom-shaped structure.

From the words of the Ran it emerges that he understood the Rif to mean that the removal of the shoshanta alone also invalidates the etrog, and therefore he rejected his words, as cited in the Beit Yosef. However, the Beit Yosef explains the Rif in accordance with the Rambam’s view: the shoshanta is not included in the pitom, and its removal does not invalidate. The Rif’s mention of “its shoshanta” is only incidental to the terminology used regarding the pomegranate. This is also proven by the Biur Halachah, siman 648, section 7. See also the Bach, who initially understood that the shoshanta is the flower that precedes the development of the pitom, and ultimately concludes that the shoshanta is the dad itself; according to his words, a stringency emerges that if the shoshanta falls off, according to all opinions the etrog is invalid. See Biur Halachah there in the name of the Maamar Mordechai, who rejected the words of the Bach.

In practice, the Rema (siman 648, section 7) cites the view of the Ran — in his understanding of the Rif — who is stringent regarding the removal of the shoshanta alone, and concludes: “It is good to be stringent where possible; however, as a matter of law, one should invalidate only if the dad was removed.” The Taz there (subparagraph 12) adds that if before us there is a more beautiful etrog without a shoshanta and another, less beautiful etrog with a shoshanta, one should prefer the more beautiful etrog even though it lacks a shoshanta. This is likewise ruled in the Mishnah Berurah (subparagraph 31) and in the name of additional Acharonim (Shaar HaTziyun, subparagraph 35). It should be added that in the Shlah it is explained that even if the first etrog’s enhanced quality is not halachic but only in beauty and appearance, nevertheless one should take the more beautiful one.

In this law of removal of the shoshanta, the intent of the poskim requires examination. For it is very difficult to determine the measure of removing the shoshanta alone without some of the dad beneath it being removed together with it. If so, this matter always enters the law of removal of part of the pitom, and it has no practical ramification. However, according to the Magen Avraham (subparagraph 9), whose words will be cited below, the invalidity in removing part of the dad applies only according to the side that its invalidity is due to hadar, beauty; consequently, it depends on what is visible to the eye, like all laws of hadar. If it is not visible to the eye, it does not invalidate. If so, whenever the shoshanta was removed, even if a bit of the dad was also removed but this is not visible to the eye, it is included in “the shoshanta alone was removed.” Accordingly, one may say that this is the case about which the poskim spoke; and indeed, if it is visible to the eye that some of the dad was removed, it has already entered the law of partial removal of the pitom.

What Is the Shoshanta?

It should be noted that the structure of the shoshanta is not entirely a woody part that is separate from the dad. Rather, its inner part is fleshy like the body of the etrog, and constitutes the natural continuation of the dad; only its outer part is “woody” and serves as a covering over the flesh of the dad, so that one can carefully “peel” the covering and expose the flesh of the dad. This can be verified by examination. This reality raises a question: perhaps the law of the falling off of the shoshanta refers only to the falling off of the covering, and not to the falling off of the entire structure of the shoshanta; whereas the falling off of the entire structure of the shoshanta would be considered the falling off of part of the pitom. See regarding this in the book Chemdat Moshe (Laws of Etrog, chapter 8, sections 28–29, and siman 43).

The Measure of the Falling Off of the Pitom

The words of the Rishonim in explaining the sugya, as cited above, have implications also regarding the measure of the falling off of the pitom. According to some of the Rishonim — Rabbeinu Tam, Ran, and Orchot Chaim in the name of the Ritva — the falling off of the pitom invalidates only if the dad was removed from its base and a depression remained in its place. According to others — the Beit Yosef in the view of Rabbeinu Chananel and the Rosh — even a partial falling off of the dad invalidates.

In practice, the wording of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema indicates that the falling off of the pitom invalidates only if the entire dad was removed, and a depression was formed in its place, as written by the Taz (subparagraph 11) and the Magen Avraham (subparagraph 9). By contrast, the view of the Beit Yosef, the Bach, and the Levush is that even a partial falling off of the pitom invalidates. However, the Magen Avraham understands the stringent authorities as not intending to invalidate a case in which part of the pitom fell off, but rather a case in which it was removed flush with the flesh of the etrog, even if no depression was formed in its place. His reason is that the falling off of the pitom invalidates under the law of chaser, a deficiency; as long as some of the pitom remains above the flesh of the etrog, the deficiency is not noticeable and it is valid. Although the words of Rabbi Akiva Eiger are well known, in his writings at the end of the book Drush VeChiddush, that the invalidity of chaser applies even to the smallest amount and does not depend on whether it is noticeable to the eye, unlike the invalidity of hadar; see there, where he himself raises this difficulty regarding the words of the Magen Avraham and explains them.

From the words of the Mishnah Berurah (subparagraphs 30 and 31), it appears that he tends to be stringent in accordance with the Magen Avraham’s view, that the falling off of the pitom invalidates specifically when it is flush with the flesh of the etrog, but not when it is above that level; see Shaar HaTziyun, subparagraphs 33 and 34. However, even when a little remains above that level, it is good, as an enhancement of the mitzvah, to take another etrog if possible. The reason, as explained in Shaar HaTziyun (subparagraph 36) in the name of the Acharonim, is that according to the Magen Avraham’s words in siman 649 (subparagraph 17), where he is concerned that the invalidity of the pitom falling off derives from the law of hadar, one should consequently invalidate even when a little remains above the flesh of the etrog.

The Measure of Falling Off in a Fleshy Pitom

From the words of the poskim it appears that the reality of the pitom in their time was that the pitom was a woody part inserted into a depression at the top of the etrog, like a pestle in a mortar, as will be explained at length below, Part II — “A Woody Pitom,” and not a protrusion that is a continuation of the flesh of the etrog, like the pitoms of our time. Therefore, as long as the pitom was not removed from its base, so that a depression was formed in its place, this is not considered the removal of the entire pitom, and it is valid according to those who are lenient in this regard. However, see Shaar HaTziyun, subparagraph 32, in the name of the Acharonim, that even if a bit of wood remained inside the depression, it is invalid.

On this basis, the Taz (subparagraph 11) explains that with a fleshy pitom, such as the pitoms commonly found in our time, when the pitom is removed even flush with the flesh of the etrog, it is considered entirely removed and is invalid. These are his words: “For many times there is no depression at the top of the etrog; rather, it is sloped and sharp, and at its top the dad is attached, which is the pitma, and the plain meaning of ‘removed’ is: entirely.”

From this emerges a major stringency: with the pitoms of our time, according to all opinions, when it falls off even flush with the flesh of the etrog, it is invalid. A practical ramification of this concerns the falling off of the pitom on the remaining days of the festival, for this cannot be combined into a sefek sefeika, a double doubt, as will be explained below, Part III — “The Law of the Falling Off of the Pitom on the Remaining Days.”

However, even if we do not accept this stringency, it appears that the measure of “a depression was formed in its place” in contemporary etrogim is even the smallest depression. For, as explained above in the name of the Acharonim, even if a little wood remained inside the depression, it is invalid; if so, in the reality of our time, even if a little flesh remained inside the depression, it is invalid. The reason is simple: whenever part of the dad that is embedded within the flesh of the etrog was removed, it is already considered as though it was entirely removed.

The Falling Off of Part of the Pitom

Regarding the falling off of part of the pitom, two different scenarios must be discussed: 1. The falling off of part of the thickness of the dad. In this case, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (siman 648, section 17) explains that if part of the thickness was entirely removed in such a way that that place remained exposed on the etrog, it is invalid. It seems obvious that the same applies regarding what is mentioned in the Mishnah Berurah, that if the pitom was removed above the etrog, it is good, as an enhancement of the mitzvah, to take another; so too, if only part of the thickness above the etrog was removed, the law is the same. 2. The detachment of the pitom in such a way that a minority of it remains attached. In this case we find a dispute among the poskim: in the responsa Beit Ephraim (Orach Chaim, siman 1), he writes that the majority is considered like the whole, and it is invalid; whereas in the responsa Shevut Yaakov (Orach Chaim, part 1, siman 35), he writes that as long as it is well attached and is not likely to be easily torn off, it is valid.

The Falling Off of Part of the Shoshanta

In the Bikkurei Yaakov (subparagraph 25), it is explained that the falling off of part of the shoshanta is of no consequence. That is, even according to those who are stringent regarding the falling off of the shoshanta, as explained above, there is no concern at all in this regard. Therefore, it is clear that even if two equal etrogim are before him, and one of them is missing part of the shoshanta, he need not prefer either one over the other.

The Reason for the Invalidity When the Pitom Falls Off

The Darkei Moshe (siman 649) cites the words of Rabbeinu Yerucham that the falling off of the pitom does not invalidate on the remaining days of the festival, because its law is like that of chaser, a deficiency. Conversely, he cites the view of the Mahara of Prague that the falling off of the pitom invalidates throughout all seven days, and it appears from his words that the falling off of the pitom is due to hadar; the Darkei Moshe rejected his words. The Rema likewise rules as halachah (there, section 5) that the falling off of the pitom invalidates because of chaser, and therefore does not invalidate on the remaining days.

However, after citing the words of the Darkei Moshe, the Magen Avraham added that the Maggid Mishneh also holds that the falling off of the pitom invalidates because of hadar. He therefore concludes that one should not be lenient in this regard on the remaining days. This is likewise ruled in the Mishnah Berurah (there, subparagraph 36). See further on this subject below, Part III — “The Law of the Falling Off of the Pitom on the Remaining Days.”

In the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (siman 648, section 17), by contrast, it is explained that the invalidity of the pitom falling off stems both from chaser and from hadar.

The explanation of the side that its invalidity is due to chaser is seemingly straightforward, since the pitom is plainly considered part of the body of the etrog, especially in our etrogim, in which the pitom is fleshy. Indeed, the view of the Kaf HaChaim is that with a fleshy pitom, according to all opinions, its invalidity is due to chaser, as will be explained below, Part II — “Pitoms of Eretz HaTzvi.” As for the explanation of the side that its invalidity is due to hadar, one may say this based on the words of the Rosh, who explains the reasoning of those who hold that the falling off of the pitom does not invalidate, as explained above: “Because nothing was diminished from the body of the etrog, similar to the case in which it was peeled, etc., for the peel is not included in the etrog.” Likewise, one may say even according to our position, that the falling off of the pitom invalidates: nevertheless, the pitom is not considered part of the body of the etrog, and necessarily its invalidity is not due to chaser but rather due to hadar.

The next part, with God’s help, will discuss the various factual forms of the pitom falling off and their halachic significance.