The Laws of the Falling Off of the Pitam – Part 2

Introduction: In the previous part, we dealt in detail with the laws of the falling off of the pitam. In this part, with God’s help, we will clarify the various practical forms of the falling off of the pitam and their halachic significance.   

Etrogim that never had a pitam

The Rosh writes (Sukkah 3:16): “But there is an etrog that never had a pitamah, and it is not rendered invalid thereby.” His words are brought in the Tur and Beit Yosef (siman 648), and the Beit Yosef writes similarly there in the name of the Orchot Chaim. This is also found in other Rishonim, and it is ruled as halacha by the Rema (there, §7), who concludes: “And such are most of the etrogim brought to these countries.”

The reason is explained in the Mishnah Berurah (siman 648, se’if katan 32): “Since this is their manner of creation, and this is the way they grow, they cannot be called ‘deficient’ or ‘not hadar’” (the Mishnah Berurah is referring to the two possible reasons for the invalidation caused by the falling off of the pitam — “deficiency” and “hadar” — as explained above in Part 1: the reason for the invalidation when the pitam falls off).

In practice, there are varieties that tend to retain the pitam until the picking stage, such as Corfu etrogim in the past, or Moroccan etrogim today; and there are varieties that tend to shed it at a very early stage, such as the Yemenite etrog and the etrogim of Eretz Yisrael (in these cases this is an early shedding of the pitam, not etrogim that grow this way from the beginning of their formation without a pitam; this will be expanded upon below). 

Now, from the above words of the Mishnah Berurah, one might infer that two conditions are required: “this is the manner of their creation,” meaning etrogim that grow from the very beginning of their formation without a pitam; and “this is the way they grow,” for it is their usual manner to grow without a pitam (and perhaps these two conditions relate to the two reasons for invalidation mentioned later in the Mishnah Berurah’s words: because this is the manner of their creation, there is no issue of “deficiency,” and because this is the way they grow, there is no issue of “hadar”), similar to the reality described by the Rema, that such were most of the etrogim in that place. Based on this, one could discuss that etrogim that normally grow a pitam, such as Moroccan etrogim, should be invalid even when they grow without a pitam; and some prove this from the words of the Kaftor VaFerach (ch. 10) and Shibbolei HaLeket (siman 360).

However, it seems that there is no necessity to interpret the Mishnah Berurah’s words this way. They may be explained simply as meaning that the absence of the pitam occurred through the natural growth of the etrog, and not artificially. Therefore, there is no source to invalidate etrogim that normally grow with a pitam (it should be noted that regarding etrogim of Eretz Yisrael, which today commonly grow with a pitam, there is another reason to be lenient, since this is not their natural growth pattern but is brought about through the device of spraying, intended primarily for weed control; see Otzar Arba’at HaMinim, p. 267, note 3).

Etrogim that grow without a pitam in our times

As stated, it is clear from the words of the Rishonim and the poskim that etrogim which grow from the beginning of their formation without a pitam are kosher. However, according to the reality known today, there are no etrogim that grow from the beginning of their formation without a pitam; rather, the pitam falls off at a very early stage, about one to two weeks after the flower opens. This is so in all varieties of etrog, and in citrus fruits generally (the existence of the pitam is essential and necessary for the process of fruit formation, as will be explained below in Part 3 — the nature of the pitam and the process of its falling off).

In light of this reality, the poskim discussed whether etrogim that grow in our times without a pitam are kosher (so long as the shedding of the pitam occurred naturally), or perhaps only etrogim that never had a pitam may be deemed kosher, in the literal language of the Rishonim. Some validated these etrogim because the shedding of the pitam occurs naturally and in the manner of its growth (Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shevet HaLevi), and this is also reported in the name of the Chazon Ish. Some made this conditional upon early shedding that occurs before the fruit stage forms (Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv), and some invalidated these etrogim entirely (Kaneh Bosem).

However, it should be noted that this reality known in our time — that the pitam falls off at a very early stage — is already described in the words of some of the Rishonim (Ramban, Ritva, and others). Their words also imply that the Rishonim did not mean etrogim that never had a pitam in the absolutely literal sense, but rather etrogim from which the pitam fell off at a very early stage, before the fruit developed, so that they never had a pitam during the fruit stage. See this subject at length in the booklet Lekichah Tamah (pp. 56–57). See also there in that booklet that according to his examination “of an enormous quantity of etrogim of various varieties,” it was found that the shedding of the pitam occurs well before the time of the fruit’s formation; therefore, these etrogim should be validated lechatchilah.

Indeed, all that has been said refers to pitams that fell off naturally and while still on the tree; regarding the falling off of the pitam after the fruit has been detached, or in an unnatural manner, see below.

The pitams of Eretz HaTzvi

In Kaf HaChaim (siman 648, se’if katan 46) it is explained that one must distinguish between two types of pitams: the pitam mentioned in the words of the poskim, which is a woody pitam inserted into or above the flesh of the etrog, and this pitam is not considered part of the body of the etrog; and the pitams of Eretz HaTzvi, “where at the top of the etrog there is something like a small nipple protruding from the body of the etrog, and attached to it is something like a dried rose blossom,” and this is considered part of the body of the etrog.

Based on this, the Kaf HaChaim (there, se’if katan 48) discusses that all the words of the poskim who are lenient when the pitam falls off above the flesh of the etrog (as explained at length above in Part 1 — the measure of the pitam’s falling off) refer to the woody pitam that was found in their places. This is not so regarding the pitams of Eretz HaTzvi, which should be invalidated even if only the smallest amount is missing, since it is part of the body of the etrog and its law is that of a deficient etrog.

Thus, the words of the Kaf HaChaim yield a stringency relevant to the etrogim common in our time (in all of which the pitam is fleshy and not woody; see below regarding a woody pitam): if any amount at all is missing from the pitam, the etrog is invalid. On the other hand, his words also yield a leniency: on the other days of the festival one may be lenient regarding any falling off of the pitam, since a deficiency is kosher on the other days (and all the words of the Magen Avraham to be stringent, as cited above [there], are only because we are concerned that its invalidation derives from the law of hadar; this is not so regarding the fleshy pitam, regarding which, according to the Kaf HaChaim, the invalidation of hadar does not apply, since it is literally like the flesh of the etrog — though this still requires examination). Likewise, if it fell off at a late stage and healed over while still on the tree, it is kosher (as is the law of holes, which the Terumat HaDeshen validated, as explained in the Rema, siman 648, §2).

However, some interpret the words of the Kaf HaChaim differently: that he does not mean the fleshy pitam (common nowadays), but rather etrogim in which the flesh of the fruit itself gathers and protrudes somewhat above the top of the etrog, as is found in a lemon. They bring proof for their words from the Meiri; see Otzar Arba’at HaMinim (section of clarifications, siman 52). But this is not implied by the words of the Kaf HaChaim. Moreover, most etrogim of Eretz Yisrael are not like that, and he would not have referred to it without qualification, especially since he also mentions in his words the shoshanta above the “nipple,” as cited above. If so, he certainly means the “nipple” itself.

A woody pitam

As explained above, the words of the poskim indicate that the reality of the pitam in their places was that of a pitam hard like wood, inserted into a hollow in the flesh of the etrog, like a pestle in a mortar; whereas the reality in our time is that of a fleshy pitam, which is essentially an extension of the flesh of the etrog.

However, there is a reality somewhat similar to the words of the above poskim: a pitam that dried out while still small, yet remained attached to the flesh of the etrog. This pitam appears dry like wood (and its color is black), and appears to be inserted into the hollow at the top of the etrog. It should be emphasized that in these cases the pitam has completed the drying process and does not draw nourishment from the etrog; in most cases its connection to the etrog is extremely weak, and with any touch the pitam will fall off. This pitam is not the woody pitam of which the poskim spoke, for this pitam was originally a fleshy pitam, but it remained attached to the etrog in some manner even after drying out. By contrast, the words of the poskim refer to a pitam that is originally woody even while it draws nourishment and lives from the flesh of the etrog. See this matter at length in the book Chemdat Moshe (pp. 85–87 and the notes there).

In any event, as a matter of halacha it is reasonable that the falling off of the pitam in this case, even at a late stage, does not invalidate it, since it is considered detached already from the time of drying at the early stage, and its connection to the etrog in this manner is of no significance. It is possible that the words of the Chazon Ish cited in several places refer to this reality (see Orchot Rabbeinu, vol. 2, p. 270; Chut Shani, ch. 14, se’if katan 2, and others). See all this in the book Chemdat Moshe (Laws of Etrog, ch. 8, §12) and in the booklet Lekichah Tamah (pp. 70–73).

The falling off of the pitam after detachment or in an unnatural manner

As explained above, the poskim wrote to validate pitams that fell off at an early stage as part of the regular process of the etrog’s growth. However, all this refers to a reality in which the pitam falls off at a very early stage and naturally. But if the pitam falls off after the fruit has been detached, or even while attached if it occurs unnaturally (such as by a blow, wind, and the like), we have no source to validate it (though there is room to discuss an unnatural falling off of the pitam at a very early stage, such as a pitam that fell off in the first two weeks as a result of a blow: whether it is considered the way of its growth, since ultimately that is the natural time of falling off. Conversely, one must discuss a case where the falling off is natural but at a late stage, such as a late drying of the pitam: perhaps it is considered the way of its growth because the falling off is natural. It is reasonable that in the first case it should be validated, whereas in the second case it should be invalidated. See below [Part 3 — the nature of the pitam and the process of its falling off] further regarding late drying of the pitam).

The reason is that the entire basis for validating the falling off of the pitam is that this is the way of its growth and its shedding is natural to the growth of the etrog. Consequently, it is considered like an etrog that had no pitamah from the beginning of its formation, as explained above. But when the falling off is not natural, and certainly if it occurs after detachment, it is not considered an etrog that never had a pitamah; on the contrary, it had a pitamah and it fell off.

The method of identifying the falling off of the pitam — whether it fell off after detachment or while attached, naturally or unnaturally — will be explained below (Part 3 — the practical method of identifying the falling off of the pitam).

A doubt whether the pitam fell off

The Pri Megadim (siman 648, Eshel Avraham, se’if katan 10) infers from the words of the Magen Avraham (se’if katan 9) that one may be lenient regarding the falling off of the pitam only if it is recognizable that it never had a “nipple,” in accordance with the words of the Mabit, namely that a hollow formed in its place (this sign and its meaning today will be explained at length below — Part 3, the practical method of identifying the falling off of the pitam). But if the matter is doubtful, it is invalid. The Eliyah Rabbah, in the name of the Bach, also inclines to be stringent. However, the Pri Megadim (there) wrote that perhaps even in this case one may be lenient, because it is a sefek sefeika: perhaps the falling off of the oketz invalidates, and not the pitam (as is the opinion of some Rishonim, as explained above at the beginning of Part 1), and perhaps it never had a “nipple.” The Sha’ar HaTziyun (se’if katan 37) cites his words.

In Bikkurei Yaakov (siman 648, se’if katan 25), he challenges the words of the Pri Megadim, arguing that such a case is not considered a sefek sefeika, since the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema adopted the view of those who maintain that the falling off of the pitam invalidates. He added that even when the Rema disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch, his position is considered definite, as the Pri Megadim himself wrote in Yoreh De’ah (end of siman 110). In Sha’ar HaTziyun (se’if katan 37), he wrote to resolve the objection of the Bikkurei Yaakov: the intention of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema was not to rule definitively that the falling off of the pitam invalidates, but rather that they were concerned to be stringent regarding both (see Biur Halacha §4, that the opinion of the Shulchan Aruch is to be lenient in a doubt whether it dissolved; see Chatam Sofer, Sukkah 36a; Aruch HaShulchan §10; and see Shulchan Aruch, siman 645, §8, and this is not the place to elaborate), in accordance with the words of the Rosh cited in the Beit Yosef (indeed, it should be noted that from the words of the Rosh it does not imply that he adopts stringency here as a matter of doubt, but rather as a certainty, like the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, who explained that “pitam” is at the top of the etrog and “buchnato” is the oketz, as explained above at the beginning of Part 1; only the Ran’s opinion is that he is stringent out of doubt, and this requires further examination). Consequently, the matter can be considered a sefek sefeika.

However, one must know that where there is a simple possibility of clarifying the matter with an expert, sometimes it is considered a doubt arising from lack of knowledge, which is not a doubt (see Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, siman 98, §3; Taz there, se’if katan 6; Shach, siman 110, in the rules of sefek sefeika). One also enters the question of a sefek sefeika that can be clarified (see Rashba, Chullin 53b; Rema, Yoreh De’ah, end of siman 110; Shach there, se’if katan 66; Kuntres HaSefekot, se’if katan 45; Torat HaShelamim, Yoreh De’ah, siman 185, se’if katan 1), and one may not rely on this leniency in every situation.

The next part, with God’s help, will deal with the practical clarification of the nature of the pitam and the process of its falling off, and with the practical way to identify, on that basis, the different types of falling off. It will also address the laws of the falling off of the pitam on the other days of the festival from several perspectives.