The Laws of the Falling Off of the Pitam — Part 3

Introduction: In the previous parts, we dealt with clarifying the laws of the falling off of the pitam in their various details and in the different practical forms in which the pitam falls off. In this part, with God’s help, we will clarify the factual nature of the pitam and the process by which it falls off, as well as the practical way to identify the different types of falling. We will also discuss the laws of the falling off of the pitam on the other days of the festival from several perspectives.

The nature of the pitam and the process of its falling off

As explained above (Part 2 — the falling off of the pitam after the etrog has been detached, or in an unnatural manner), the falling off of the pitam while the etrog is still on the tree and in a natural manner does not disqualify the etrog, whereas a falling off that occurs after the etrog has been detached, or even while attached but in an unnatural manner, disqualifies the etrog. Before addressing the way to identify these kinds of falling, we should briefly introduce the nature of the pitam and the process by which it falls off, as described in the booklet Lekichah Tamah (pp. 56–83).

The pitam begins at the flower stage, and it constitutes the “style,” whose function is to mediate between the pollen at the top of the “stamens” and the ovary at its base, from which the fruit gradually develops. Thus, in fact, the body of the etrog develops from the pitam, and not the reverse. About one to two weeks after the flower opens, when the role of the petals, stamens, and style is completed, they dry out and fall off.

The process of the pitam falling off naturally may occur in three possible ways:

 A. Natural drying or cracking — at a very early stage, the pitam dries from top to bottom; at the end of the drying process the pitam falls off, leaving in its place a smooth surface of exposed etrog flesh, which over time becomes a well-scarred depression (a phenomenon resulting from the continued growth of the etrog around the place of falling). A similar process may occur through cracking of the base of the pitam and drying of the area until the pitam falls off. B. Early drying — in etrogim grown rapidly and hastily for the festival (water etrogim), it is common for the pitam to finish drying too early and to leave in the place where it fell a well-scarred half-pitam. C. A woody pitam — as explained above (Part 2 — a woody pitam), sometimes the pitam dries out and becomes detached from the etrog but remains loosely connected to it until a later stage, when it falls off.

By contrast, this process may occur after the etrog has been detached, or in an unnatural manner, in the following three ways:

A. Drying of the pitam at a late stage — the pitam begins to dry at a late stage (while it is already a fruit), leaving rings of scar tissue at the place of drying, until it falls off while taking with it part of the etrog flesh. Sometimes etrogim with such rings reach the markets, and it is important to note that the pitam is more sensitive in such cases; one must be careful of blows, dryness, or attempts to yellow the etrog, which may hasten its falling off. B. Breaking of the pitam on the tree — the pitam falls off while the etrog is still attached to the tree as a result of damage by workers or equipment. C. Falling off after detachment — the pitam falls off after the picking stage as a result of a blow.

As stated, the first three types of falling do not disqualify the etrog, whereas the last three types of falling do disqualify the etrog.

The practical way to identify the falling off of the pitam

The words of the Mabit (vol. 3, siman 49) are well known: etrogim that never had a dad can be identified by the natural depression visible at the place of the pitam (the reference is, of course, to a scarred depression, since a depression that is not scarred is precisely the opposite sign — that the pitam fell off). His words are cited in the Magen Avraham (siman 648, se’if katan 10) and in the Mishnah Berurah (there, se’if katan 32). 

However, according to present-day reality, this sign is not absolute. On the one hand, there are etrogim in which the shedding of the pitam occurred naturally, yet no depression remained there, but rather half of the pitam; this is common in water etrogim, which shed the pitam early, as explained above. On the other hand, there are etrogim that appear to have a depression, but in fact it is merely the flesh of the etrog that has dried out.

The way to correctly identify whether the falling off of the pitam occurred while attached or after detachment is essentially similar to the way of identifying “chaser” in an etrog (which requires its own explanation), and is based on the fundamental difference between the appearance of the outer tissue of a scarred depression and the appearance of the inner tissue of the dry flesh of the etrog (or moist flesh, if the pitam has just fallen off). A scarred and uniform appearance of the depression teaches that the pitam fell off while attached and in a natural manner, whereas an inner and rough appearance of the etrog flesh teaches that the pitam fell off after detachment.

Additional signs of falling off after detachment are: rot and blackening at the place of falling (although sometimes it is mold, and one must first gently clean the area), the appearance of the tips of the water veins at the place of falling (like small holes arranged in a circle), and browning of the edges of the peel at the place of falling (sometimes this is a woody ring, which actually indicates shedding of the pitam while attached).

When it is a case of late drying of the pitam, as explained above, a sort of “step” will be visible at the place of falling, indicating that part of the etrog flesh was torn away at the time of falling. When it is a break that occurred while attached, the dry flesh of the etrog will be visible there, and sometimes also the water veins.

Of course, these signs and the ability to identify them require expertise and extensive experience, which are acquired only through practical instruction.

The law of the falling off of the pitam on the other days

As already explained above (Part 1 — the reason for disqualification when the pitam falls off), there is a dispute regarding the law of the falling off of the pitam on the other days. According to Rabbeinu Yerucham, its law is due to chaser, and therefore it does not disqualify on the other days; whereas according to the Mahara of Prague, its law is due to hadar, and therefore it disqualifies on the other days (according to those who hold that a disqualification of hadar applies all seven days). The Rema (siman 649, se’if 5) rules like Rabbeinu Yerucham, that its law is due to chaser and it is valid on the other days.

The Magen Avraham (there, se’if katan 17) cites the words of the Darkei Moshe and adds that the Maggid Mishneh also agrees with the Mahara of Prague that the falling off of the pitam is governed by the law of hadar, and therefore he concludes that one should not be lenient on the other days. The Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 36) cites the Magen Avraham and adds that where it is impossible to find another etrog, one may rely on the lenient opinions, since one may combine the view of the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch that even disqualifications of hadar do not disqualify all seven days, as the Elyah Rabbah writes. Although with regard to the blessing there is a dispute among later authorities, nevertheless, when another doubt is added, one may even recite a blessing. And although in Shaar HaTziyun (se’if katan 37) it is explained in the name of the Pri Megadim that the essential disqualification of the pitam is itself in doubt — see there, that for this reason one may be lenient in a case of doubt whether the pitam fell off — nevertheless, from the words of the Mishnah Berurah here it is clear that this doubt does not combine with regard to the blessing on the other days.

Now, one must discuss whether the latter words of the Mishnah Berurah — that when an additional doubt is added, one may even recite a blessing on the other days — follow the beginning of his words, that one may be lenient only when it is impossible to find another etrog, or whether this is an independent point, and in such a case one may be lenient even lechatchilah. It appears in practice that since the words of the Mishnah Berurah are based on the words of the Bikkurei Yaakov (as noted in Shaar HaTziyun, se’if katan 33), and in the words of the Bikkurei Yaakov (se’if katan 24 and in siman 648, se’if katan 25) the condition that it is impossible to find another etrog is not mentioned at all, and with the combination of the opinions there are three doubts here, one may be lenient even where another etrog is available; and it seems that this is the accepted ruling.

We will note two cases in which an additional doubt is added, and as stated, in such a case one may be lenient even lechatchilah and also recite a blessing: A. The falling off of the pitam level with the flesh of the etrog — as explained above (Part 1 — the measure of the falling off of the pitam), the poskim dispute a case in which the pitam was removed level with the flesh of the etrog (and certainly above it). According to the Shulchan Aruch, the Rema, and the Taz, the etrog is valid, whereas according to the Beit Yosef, the Bach, and the Levush, the etrog is invalid. Although the ruling of the Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 30) is, in its plain sense, to be stringent in this, nevertheless in our matter this doubt combines to be lenient. B. Partial detachment of the pitam — as explained above (Part 1 — the falling off of part of the pitam), in a case where most of the pitam became detached but a minority of it remained connected to the etrog, the Beit Ephraim and the Shvut Yaakov dispute whether it is invalid or valid; and in our matter, as stated, this joins the doubt and one may be lenient.

However, one should mention what was stated above (Part 1 — the measure of falling in a fleshy pitam), that from the words of the Taz (se’if katan 11) it is clear that with the fleshy pitam common today one may not be lenient when it was removed level with the flesh of the etrog; according to him, with our pitams one may be lenient on the other days only when it was removed above the etrog.

On account of hiddur mitzvah

As stated above, according to the strict law one may be lenient regarding the falling off of the pitam on the other days when the falling is level with the flesh of the etrog, and all the more so above the flesh of the etrog. However, one must consider being stringent for another reason, namely because of the words of the Raavad (Laws of Lulav), that even with disqualifications that apply only on the first day and not on the second, or even disqualifications regarding which one is lenient even on the first day, nevertheless one should be stringent on account of “זה אלי ואנוהו” — “This is my God, and I will glorify Him” — or because of the law of hiddur mitzvah up to one third. For this reason it is proper to be stringent regarding chaser all seven days (and something similar is explained in the Meiri), and so it is explained in Bikkurei Yaakov (siman 648, se’if katan 39).

According to what has been said, also regarding the falling off of the pitam level with the flesh of the etrog, one should be stringent due to hiddur mitzvah, since the entire reason to be lenient is that there is a double doubt here: perhaps its disqualification is due to chaser, which does not apply on the other days; and even if its disqualification is due to hadar, one may rely on the opinion of those who are lenient when it is level with the flesh of the etrog, as explained above. If so, according to the reasoning of the Raavad, even if its disqualification is due to chaser, one should be stringent because of hiddur mitzvah. In any event, however, his stringency is lesser, since the entire obligation on the other days is only rabbinic, and it is not an obligation arising from the essential law of hadar but rather from hiddur mitzvah; and see further below that the Tur also does not agree with the Raavad.

However, what must be discussed in the words of the Raavad is whether his words also apply to a deficiency that is not noticeable. For the law of chaser applies even when it is not noticeable, as explained by Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Writings, end of the book Derush VeChiddush), because its matter is due to lekichah tamah, complete taking. Yet one may say that all this is with regard to the disqualification of lekichah tamah; but regarding the law of the Raavad from the perspective of “זה אלי ואנוהו” — “This is my God, and I will glorify Him” — this is relevant only when the deficiency is noticeable and impairs the beauty of the mitzvah, unlike when the deficiency is not noticeable. However, from the precise wording of the Raavad it implies that the deficiency is because of the very disqualification, and anything whose disqualification applies on the first day should be enhanced also on the second. Based on this, it appears that even a deficiency that is not noticeable should be avoided as a hiddur on the other days. Now, according to this, on the other days one should be particular as a hiddur in a case where the luzim have opened on the surface of the etrog, and their appearance is like narrow, elongated eyes, and their law is like that of a hole smaller than an issar; yet we do not find that people are particular about this as a hiddur. If we were to be particular about it, a mehudar etrog would be found only one among many. And according to the side that the disqualification of a hole is due to hadar, there is more room to be lenient; this requires further study.

Now we must discuss the falling off of the pitam. According to the view that there is no obligation to seek hiddur for a deficiency that is not noticeable, then according to what is explained in the Magen Avraham (siman 648, se’if katan 9), that the reason the law of chaser does not apply when the pitam falls off above the flesh of the etrog is that the deficiency is not noticeable — in such a case, at any rate, one should not be stringent even because of the Raavad’s law, since the deficiency is not noticeable. As for hadar, one may rely on the lenient opinions, and we return to the law of a double doubt to be lenient. But according to the view that even a deficiency that is not noticeable must be enhanced, it follows that even in this case one should be stringent at least because of the Raavad’s law. In any event, when it is removed level with the flesh of the etrog, in all cases it would seem that one should be stringent due to hiddur mitzvah, since the deficiency is noticeable.

However, one should add that in the words of the Tur (siman 648) it is clear not like the Raavad, but rather that a person may take an etrog that is chaser even lechatchilah on the other days. This is also implied by the plain wording of the Rema (there, se’if 5) and the other poskim, who did not mention the words of the Raavad; and this is also implied by the words of the Mishnah Berurah there (se’if katan 36), who discusses disqualification due to the law of hadar and does not mention at all that according to the Raavad, in any case one may not take a chaser lechatchilah. Some wish to distinguish that the words of the Tur and the poskim refer to the law of hadar that applies to the object itself, whereas the words of the Raavad refer to the law of hiddur that applies to the person, and they do not disagree. Nevertheless, the poskim and the Mishnah Berurah should have mentioned the words of the Raavad as practical law, and since they were silent it implies that they were not concerned for this. Since it is possible that the falling off of the pitam disqualifies due to hadar, and according to those who are lenient when it is removed level with the flesh of the etrog it is clear that there is no deficiency of hadar at all, one may combine the doubts and should not be overly stringent in rabbinic matters.

Additional concerns

One should know that although from the perspective of the disqualification of chaser there is no need, according to the basic law, to be concerned about the falling off of the pitam on the other days, and at any rate when it was removed level with the flesh of the etrog, as explained above, nevertheless other disqualifications are common in this situation, resulting from rot and blackening of the area, such as a black change of appearance, which disqualifies in the chotem even in the smallest amount, and also rot, whose disqualification is due to the law of an etrog that is swollen or foul-smelling (see siman 648, se’if 15, and Biur Halachah there, s.v. “nafal,” who discusses the measure of this disqualification in the chotem and leaves it unresolved). One must be careful about this even on the other days (see Pri Megadim, siman 649, Mishbetzot Zahav, se’if katan 12).

In conclusion: It should be emphasized that aside from the halachic concerns connected with the falling off of the pitam, there is an advantage and hiddur in the very existence of the pitam, as explained in Bikkurei Yaakov (siman 648, se’if katan 25) and in Tiferet Yisrael (Sukkah, ch. 3, letter 37). Fortunate is the one who can be particular about this hiddur even on the other days. See Shaarei Teshuvah (siman 645, se’if katan 9) in the name of the Maharil: “One who buys a beautiful etrog together with a beautiful lulav merits the life of this world and the life of the World to Come.”

See the sources in the article