Subject: Re: Etrog jam and pesticides - msg#00201

List: culture.religion.jewish.avodah

Mail Archive Navigation:
by Date: Prev Next Date Index by Thread: Prev Next Thread Index

RMB wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 04:48:32PM +0100, Rt Chana Luntz wrote:
> : And if not why is it valid for use in the arba minim? I thought
that
> : everybody held that one of the criteria for use of an esrog was that
it
> : must have a heter achila (see Sukkah 35a) due to the requirement of
> : l'chem (see eg Rashi there)? And yet I have never heard of anybody
> : enquiring into the pesticide status of an esrog to determine its
> : kashrus. Why not?
>
> Heter achilah, not ra'ui la'achilah. Maybe this a case where
> it's not true where chamira saqanta mei'isura?
>

But the Rashi I referred to specifically uses the term ra'ui -
"v'haRachmana amar lchem, hara'ui l'chem bkol darchei hanaaso"

> But the problem is that jelly is made from the esrog
> including the peel. The meat of the esrog is not poisoned.
> For that matter, I don't even know if the peel is, or if the
> problem is that the poison is /on/ the peel and pragmatically
> can't be removed.
>

I think it is fairly clear from various sources that the gemora
considers the klipa hachitzona as being edible (see eg 35b and the
discussion about declaring it not to be teruma). This does seem to be
different to the very outer part (because a peeled esrog is not not
necessarily invalid) but I think that is a very thin layer of skin and
that the pesticides would go below that skin (or else the advice to the
potential jam maker would surely be to peel the esrog).

And then RMF wrote:

>From Meorot HaDaf's weekly sheet:

...

> Esrogim sprayed with pesticides: The sefer Kashrus Arbaas
> HaMinim (p. 73) addresses a similar question, in regard to
> esrogim sprayed with dangerous pesticides. In the previous
> case of the esrog kept under the bed, the esrog itself was
> dangerous. In this case, the esrog itself is not dangerous.
> Rather, the pesticides that have seeped beneath its skin are
> poisonous, rendering the esrog inedible. Perhaps this can be
> compared to the case of a kosher esrog that absorbed the
> taste of a forbidden food. The Magen Avraham (O.C. 649 s.k.
> 20) rules that le'chatchila such an esrog should not be used
> on the first day, but b'dieved if one has no other esrog
> available, he may use it even on the first day, and may even
> recite a beracha (see Shaar HaTzion ibid s.k. 48).
>
> R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l is quoted as saying that since
> the pesticides will eventually wear off, and the esrog will
> become edible, perhaps even now when it is inedible it is
> still kosher.

This is all extremely interesting. But what I am getting from this
sheet is "some poskim are lenient", "maybe can make a bracha",
"b'dieved", "if no other esrog available". This does not sound like a
ringing endorsement of a pesticide infested esrog to me. And yet the
original poster was told that the reason these esrogim are allowed
(presumably by the governmental authorities) to be sprayed with so much
pesticide is that they had mounted an argument to such authorities that
the esrogim were being grown for religious reasons, not for food. Ie
the esrog growers are doing this l'chatchila and, it would seem, without
putting any labelling on such esrogim indicating a) they should not be
eaten and b) their kashrus for use for the arba minim relies on all
sorts of lenient opinions.

I can see a significant difference between this case and the Australian
case where the esrogim had to be returned to the government at the end
of succos as the Australian esrogim were indeed suitable to be eaten
(the government could have done so as a method of destroyimg them,
although nobody expects them to). Not to mention that here it is surely
not required by law for the esrog growers to spray with so much
pesticide - rather it sounds like they had to get a special government
exemption to do so. And rather the whole practice would seem driven
presumably by their profit margin and by the demands of consumers for
pretty looking esrogim, even if that means being lenient in relation to
other halachas. So I am still a bit puzzled as to how this practice is
allowed to go on.

Regards

Chana

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Thread at a glance:

Previous Message by Date:

Re: nice things about EY (from areivim)

I wrote: >> One of R. SY Zevin's stories in Sippurei Chassidim is of a rebbe who intended to move to Israel, but ultimately decided not to do so in order not to lose the spiritual benefits he obtained on the second days of Yom Tov. >> I found the story. The rebbe involved was the tzaddik R. Yitzchaz Eizik of Dzidichov. After deciding to make aliya, he did not experience the "mochin" of YT on the second night of Pesach; this persuaded him to change his mind about aliyah. This is tale number 325 in RSY Zevin's book of chassidic tales. Interestingly, the chassidic story RSBA recently told about the Ushpizin is also in this sefer (number 125) and involves the same tzaddik. Saul Mashbaum _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Next Message by Date:

Re: Chazarta Hashas

>> Teshuvos Mem Ayin.. >Tshuvos Menachem Azaria by Rama mePano.? It would seem so, as the Ba'er Heitev in OC124:4 (7) it says: Teshuvos HRM"Ayin mePano siman 102. - Danny _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Previous Message by Thread:

Re: Etrog jam and pesticides

Moshe Feldman wrote: > However, some Poskim are lenient, explaining that our Gemara > referred to esrogim that were subject to direct Torah prohibitions, > such as orlah. An impure and therefore dangerous esrog is not > intrinsically forbidden. It is just subject to external conditions > that render it unfit to be eaten. Therefore the esrog is kosher for > use (Marcheshes I, 20). > > However, some Acharonim object to this reasoning. They insist that > since practically speaking the esrog may not be eaten, it is not fit > for the mitzva. The technical reasons for why it may not be eaten > are irrelevant (Teshuvos Binyan Olam O.C. 33). Australia has very strict quarantine regulations, and it's very difficult to import fresh fruit. For many years a special exemption was granted for the importation of etrogim; the fruit was released from quarantine only until after yomtov, and then had to be returned to the authorities to be destroyed. (The precise details change from time to time, and I don't know what the situation is now. One year it was discovered that the old exemption was no longer valid and a new one had to be granted, which took a bit of shtadlanut; the etrogim were finally released only a few days before yomtov.) R Osher Abramson AH, the ABD of Sydney, wrote to the LR asking whether this made the etrogim passul, since they could not be eaten. The LR's response is published in various places; he wrote that they are still intrinsically ra'uy la'achila, there is neither a physical problem nor a halacha that they can't be eaten, and there isn't even a dina demalchuta making their consumption illegal, there's merely an obligation to do something else with them, which won't be possible if they have been eaten. So it's no different than an etrog received as a matana al menat lehachazir, which one also may not eat, because then one would not be able to return it. -- Zev Sero Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's zev@xxxxxxxxx interpretation of the Constitution. - Clarence Thomas _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Next Message by Thread:

ALL BEGINNINGS ARE DIFFICULT

The following is a nice vort I found from "The Weekly Aliyot" Our sages tell us that you have to dig in the Torah and you will find truth. As an example, the final letters of the first three words of the Torah are the mixed up letters of the word Emes (True). Dig a little deeper, and the truth will be clearer: The final letters of the second through fourth words spells Emes in order. To that I would add: "All beginnings are difficult." (Mekhilta Yitro, "Bachodesh" 2) Once you are able to get past the beginning in the search for truth, the truth becomes clearer. Also, it's not until you see the whole word that you realize in the end, the truth has to emerge. If, God forbid, it doesn't emerge, then there will be tohu vavohu (desolation and waste) and v'choshech al p'nei t'hom; there'll be darkness to the depths of our souls. You might note that "choshech" is a palindrome in Hebrew (chof, shin, chof). "Darkness" is darkness, no matter which way you spell it. _______________________________________________ Avodah mailing list Avodah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org