| | NEWS
The Great Debate of the Grafted Esrog
by Rav Elyokim Dvorkes
This article originally appeared in the paper in 5755 (1994). It is a comprehensive review of the many issues that arose over the centuries about using grafted esrogim. Nowadays it is generally accepted that we do not use such esrogim, and there are various testimonies to their lineage.
Part I
How halachically reliable are the signs for distinguishing between the grafted and non-grafted esrog?—Does aiding the settlement of Eretz Yisroel confer preferred status on the esrogim from that country?—The Rambam's contention that the mitzva of arba minim is to highlight our joy at having left the desert and entered Eretz Yisroel—Can the grafted esrog be invalidated because its cultivation involves transgressing the Torah's prohibition against tree grafting?—Could the esrog and the lemon in fact belong to the same family and grafting them be permitted?—The Ramban's opinion that the Torah identifies the esrog by name—The opinion that permits taking a lemon if no esrog is available—The assertion of the acharonim that an undetectable deficiency in the fruit does not invalidate it—Can a child take a grafted esrog?—What can be done if a grafted esrog becomes mixed with non-grafted esrogim?
Part One
Introduction and Overview
The halachic debate that has been generated by the horticultural procedure known as grafting has lasted for hundreds of years and has swept across the entire Jewish world. The debate centers upon the question of the permissibility of using the fruit produced by grafting an esrog branch onto a lemon tree for fulfilling the mitzva of arba minim on Succos. During four hundred years that have passed since the discussion opened, almost every major poseik has had his say on the matter. Grafting has enriched the responsa literature with many tens of teshuvos, some of which are long enough to be reckoned as independent works. On the one hand then, the debate has enlarged and enhanced the Torah in the tradition of halachic discussion. It has touched upon many tangential issues and has resulted in new clarification of a number of fundamental concepts. To our detriment however, stands the fact that for many years, there were many who added a grafted esrog to their other three minim, and attempted to fulfill the mitzva in a way that was unacceptable according to the vast majority of poskim.
Before we review the various positions that have been taken in the halachic debate, we present a brief survey of the historical background to the grafting issue. Anyone who is acquainted with the cultivation of esrogim knows just how difficult it is to grow these fruits. The esrog tree is sensitive to a range of diseases which can damage or prevent the fruit's development. Even a tree that successfully produces fruit will cease to do so after just a few years. These considerations induced the esrog growers to look around for a way to ease the burden of cultivating esrogim and indeed, such a way was found. They discovered that grafting a branch from an esrog tree onto a lemon tree yielded fruits that looked very similar to a natural esrog and were even more beautiful in their appearance.
The first to employ this method were the esrog growers in the time of the Ramo, the Maharam Alshich and the Mabit, who lived around four hundred years ago. After considering the issue, all these gedolim concluded that a grafted esrog was unfit for use on Succos. Subsequently, whichever location provided the esrogim for the Jews of Europe had to be able to boast of a clear record of providing untainted esrogim. The tenuous connections between Eretz Yisroel and the Diaspora which existed at that time, meant that Jews living in other countries had to obtain their esrogim from locations fairly close to home. For many years, it was customary to use Corsican esrogim and gedolim such as HaRav Shlomo Kluger and Rabbi Akiva Eiger used to make the brocho over them. After a time however, rumors began to circulate about the purity of their lineage and doubt was cast upon their kashrus. As a result, esrogim were imported into Europe from the Greek island of Corfu. At first these esrogim took the market by storm and were universally relied upon. It is known that the Noda Biyehudah, HaRav Yechezkel Landau and the author of Kedushas Levi, HaRav Levi Yitzchok Berditchover, used the Corfu esrogim. In addition, we possess the testimony of the son-in-law of the Chavos Da'as, who writes that "all the gedolei Yisroel and renowned tzaddikim used to take these esrogim."
In the year 5606 (1846) however, it was the turn of the Corfu esrogim to fall under suspicion of having been grafted. This particular rumor sparked off a bitter renewal of the old debate. The pages of the Jewish periodicals of the time were full of discussion as to whether grafted esrogim were acceptable or not for the arba minim. The episode rocked the entire Jewish world and drew the array of contemporary gedolim into the fray. While this is not the place for a detailed review of that discussion, it will suffice to mention that HaRav Shlomo Kluger ruled that the esrogim from Corfu were unfit for use. The Malbim too, stated that he had checked the Corfu esrogim on a number of occasions and had found indications that they were indeed grafted. His conclusion therefore was that all who were genuinely concerned about fulfilling the mitzva, should take one of the esrogim from Geneva.
Part Two
Identification—Classifying esrogim of Unknown Lineage
Besides considering the actual question of whether a grafted esrog can be taken on Succos or not, much of the rabbonim's attention was given to determining whether esrogim from particular places were free of suspicion of grafting or not. The question therefore arose as to whether, in the absence of a positive tradition that esrogim from a particular location had never been grafted, it was possible to rely on certain diagnostic features which distinguished a grafted esrog from a pure one.
In a teshuvoh, (Orach Chaim, siman 207, part of which is quoted by the Mishna Berurah, siman 648:65,) the Chasam Sofer concludes that the distinguishing signs should not be relied upon to decide that an esrog of doubtful origin is pure. The law regarding esrogim is the same as that for species of permitted fowl, namely, that besides displaying the physical features of permitted fowl which are listed in the gemora, a positive tradition must exist that this species has always been regarded as being kosher. The Genoese esrogim—concerning which we indeed possess a tradition from our ancestors and our teachers, the chachamim of France and Germany, who used to fulfill their obligation with them—are therefore fit for use.
Many acharonim expressed their puzzlement at the Chasam Sofer's comparison of esrogim to kosher fowl. Once a particular species of fowl is established as having always been regarded as kosher, it will always remain so for nothing can happen to make that species non-kosher. This is not the case with esrogim whose pure lineage in the past could certainly have been tampered with more recently through grafting.
Over the generations, a number of identifying features have been noted to enable grafted and non-grafted esrogim to be told apart, despite their apparent similarity. The Mishna Berurah (ibid.) quotes three such signs from Teshuvos Ho'Remo in the name of the Maharam Padawe (Teshuvos Ho'Remo siman 126.) 1) The surface of a grafted esrog is smooth while that of a pure esrog is covered with small vertical protrusions. 2) Where the stalk of a grafted esrog joins the fruit, the fruit's surface is smooth while with a pure esrog, there is an indentation in the esrog at that point. 3) There is a large proportion of fruit inside a grafted esrog and a large amount of juice while the external peel (between the outer layer of wax and the fruit inside,) is relatively thin. In a pure esrog, the proportions are reversed: the peel is thick and there is only a small amount of almost dry fruit inside.
The Mishnah Berurah brings a fourth sign which is mentioned by the Olas Shabbos: The seeds inside a pure esrog lie vertically, in the same plane as the direction of the fruit's growth, while the seeds inside a grafted esrog lie horizontally, in a plane that is transverse to the direction of the growth. However, the Mishnah Berurah goes on to quote the Bikkurei Yaakov who writes that upon examining a number of esrogim which displayed all the other signs of being pure, he found that in some, the seeds lay in one direction while in others they were in the other plane, thus rendering this sign unreliable. A further sign is noted in ShU"T Lev Chaim by Rabbi Chaim Falaghi: juice of a pure esrog is sweet, while that of a grafted one is bitter. One last sign is quoted from the Bach: the stalks of grafted esrogim are thin and green and the fruits are all the same size whilst this is not the case with pure esrogim.
Understanding the Chasam Sofer
Some authorities have understood the reasoning of the Chasam Sofer and the Beis Meir in not relying on these characteristic signs, to be the halacha that where Torah laws are involved, identification through signs is not regarded as conclusive. According to this understanding, the Olas Yitzchok asks that the halacha that signs are inconclusive applies only where the signs would be used to change an existing status quo. For example, if a get was lost, restoring it by identification using signs would result in changing the woman's existing status in Torah law from being a married to being a single woman. In this case, the status quo opposes the identification provided by the signs. Another example would be to force the finder of a lost object to give it up on the basis of signs (the signs discussed here are indicative but not completely conclusive,) provided by someone who claims to be the owner. In this case the status quo—the finder's possession of the article—is again in opposition to the signs.
However, argues the Olas Yitzchok, when there is no opposing status quo, we can rely on indicative signs even in matters of Torah law, such as the mitzva of arba minim, where we are simply in doubt as to whether particular esrogim are grafted or not. Furthermore, continues the Olas Yitzchok, the halacha of not relying on signs where Torah law is involved, applies only to signs which are merely indicative without being conclusive. If a sign is absolutely conclusive, we even rely on it to change a status quo in Torah law, for example, to return a get to a woman who has been known to be married until now.
The Olas Yitzchok argues that each of the above signs for distinguishing grafted from pure esrogim—which were thoroughly investigated by the earlier authorities—may well be regarded as being conclusive rather than indicative. And even if this is not the case, the halacha is that when three indicative signs converge independently, they are regarded as being conclusive so that if an esrog displayed three signs, it could certainly be assumed to be pure. These questions make it hard to understand the Chasam Sofer's unwillingness to rely on the signs.
In Likutei He'oros on the Chasam Sofer, a different understanding of the Chasam Sofer's comment that "signs are not relied upon in Torah law" is advanced, according to which there is no place for any of the questions raised by the Olas Yitzchok. The Chasam Sofer is not referring to the halacha that signs are not relied upon in matters of Torah law but is using the term in the same way that it is used in Chulin (daf 64) where the gemora states that the characteristic signs of the eggs of kosher fowl (by which the egg's kosher status can be ascertained even where the mother's status is unknown) are not Torah law. Rashi's comment here is that these signs were not handed down by Moshe Rabbenu from Sinai and that consequently, we do not rely on them.
The author of ShU"T Toras Chesed explains that since the signs did not come from Har Sinai, they are unreliable and count for even less than ordinary indicative signs. The Chasam Sofer meant to equate the signs of esrogim with the signs of bird's eggs. Even if regular indicative signs can be used in matters of Torah law where no status quo is opposed, such vague signs as those enumerated for identifying eggs and esrogim cannot be used at all. Even the convergence of three signs would not be sufficient.
A Yemenite Esrog
The Signs Are Only Local
A further reason for the unreliability of these signs is quoted from the Michtom LeDovid in ShU"T Lev Chaim, Orach Chaim siman 121, namely, that the Teshuvos Ho'Remo only states the signs for grafted esrogim originating in the countries of the author's region. (This particular teshuvoh was written to the Remo by his kinsman Rav Shmuel Yehuda, son of the Maharam Padawe.) Since he was familiar with all those types of esrogim, he was able to detect a grafted esrog on the basis of the signs he listed. However, completely different esrogim could be grown in other lands or by using different methods of grafting and esrogim could thus be obtained which would nevertheless display all the signs of being pure, according to the classification in the Teshuvos Ho'Remo.
Support for this idea is found in the words of Rav Shmuel Yehuda, the author of the teshuvoh, who writes to the Remo, "The grafted esrogim that grow in our lands are recognizable and are known to us, however some esrogim have come from the region of Polonye about which we are in doubt...I will write...the three signs with which you will be able to identify the grafted esrogim that grow in our land, for esrogim from Polonye will not reach you, for you are too far away."
If these signs applied to any esrog in the world, why would the Rav Shmuel Yehuda have mentioned that the Polish esrogim could not reach the Remo? It is clear therefore that these signs only applied to the locally grown esrogim.
The last explanation as to why the signs cannot be relied upon belongs to Rav Chaim Druck zt'l, whose work Oros Chaim is devoted to the issue of grafted esrogim. In the name of the acharonim, Rav Druck writes that nowadays, it is possible to graft esrogim so skillfully as to make it impossible to distinguish a grafted from an ungrafted esrog.
This fear was also expressed by the Toras Chesed who wrote that it seemed reasonable to suspect that in time, the esrog growers would become so knowledgeable in methods of planting and grafting as to be able to grow a graft that would be a perfect replica of a pure esrog and that the signs should therefore not be relied upon at all. This was also the reason given by the great rabbonim of Constantinople for ruling that the signs were completely unreliable, (.)
One or All?
According to those opinions that the signs can be relied upon to determine the pedigree of an unknown esrog, the question arises as to whether the esrog must display all the signs of pure lineage before it can be used or whether even a single such sign suffices.
The Ma'amar Mordechai writes that while it is unclear which way the acharonim rule on this point, it seems to be that one sign of not being grafted is enough to establish the esrog's purity. He goes on to quote the Shvus Yaakov who also writes that an esrog is not regarded as grafted until it shows all the signs of being so.
Quoting the sefer, Zchus Avos, however, Rabbi Chaim Falaghi writes that one sign of having been grafted is enough to cast doubt on the esrog's purity. The Mishna Berurah (ibid.) proves that the Chasam Sofer too, according to the view that the signs are reliable (which he himself disagrees with,) is of the opinion that all the signs of purity must be present. In Orach Chaim, teshuvoh 183, the Chasam Sofer writes that if an esrog has both of the outer signs of not being grafted i.e. the skin has protrusions and there is an indentation where the stalk is attached, one need not fear that the inner signs may be those of a grafted esrog. This implies that were this in fact discovered to be the case, the esrog would not be kosher. This is also the opinion of Rav Yaakov Emden in Mor Uketzia.
Part Three
Esrogim From Corfu vs. Esrogim From Eretz Yisroel
The heart of the grafting debate obviously revolves around the purely halachic questions of the identity of the esrog, grafting, interbreeding species and other related halachic issues. For completion's sake however, mention must be made of some of the other, secondary factors in the rulings both against using the Corfu esrogim and in favor of using esrogim from Eretz Yisroel.
Renewed opposition to trading in the Corfu esrogim came against the backdrop of a pogrom which took place there in Nisan 5651 (April 1891.) The body of a seven year old Jewish girl was found shortly before Pesach and a rumor (which emanated from the Greek Orthodox circles that were later shown to have been the true murderers) spread that the child was not Jewish but Christian and that she had been killed to provide blood for baking matzos — in the "time honored" Christian European tradition of Pesach blood libels.
While an initial foray of Greek ruffians into the Jewish quarter on the island of Corfu was dispersed by the police and the militia, a second attack several days later resulted in the Jewish quarter falling under siege for three weeks. Unable to go out to work or to buy necessary provisions, the Jewish population quickly fell victim to illness and sickness. The dead could not even be buried because the cemetery lay outside the besieged area. When the siege was finally lifted, some of the Jews who left the Jewish quarter were assaulted.
One of the issues of the newspaper Hatzefira from that year included the following call from one of the rabbonim: "Let us unanimously decree not to buy the Corfu esrogim." The rav then goes on to explain that, "The descendants of the Greeks, that wicked tribe which killed many of our people and consumed our remnant, have risen up against us once again... the Jewish Quarter is besieged and is in dire trouble. Whoever leaves it is cut down by the sword etc." The author of Toras Yonoson includes the following bitter cry, "From the end of the earth, from the isle of Corfu, we hear the sound of wailing. It is the sound of the cries of our brethren who are in great trouble over there...Should we yet kiss the hands of our oppressors and give them our good money, purchasing several hundred thousand silver rubles worth of their esrogim?!"
In the same spirit, the Av Beis Din of Radoschin writes in a letter dated in that year, "Do they prefer to take the produce of the plantations of the insensitive and uncircumcised Greek tyrants, who spilled the blood of our Jewish brethren like water, to use in fulfilling Hashem's mitzva?"
These were the other considerations for rejecting the Corfu esrogim, apart from the purely halachic ones. The indirect reasons that have been put forward for preferring the esrogim of Eretz Yisroel, have been many and varied. Various allusions to the superiority of these esrogim have been pointed out by those knowledgeable in the fields of drush, remez and sod, (i.e. teachings derived from exposition, allusion and hidden meanings of the Written Torah as distinct from the fourth category, pshat, the plain meaning of the verses.)
Preference for the Beloved Son
An halachic reason for this preference is given by the author of ShU"T Bikkurei Shlomo, basing himself on the Chasam Sofer's comments on the gemora in Succah daf 36, that working the land of Eretz Yisroel is itself a fulfillment of the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisroel. Buying an esrog from Eretz Yisroel promotes the expansion of the yishuv by providing a livelihood for the several hundred families whose support comes from farming the land and growing its holy produce. Based upon this consideration, the Bikkurei Shlomo permits using an esrog from Eretz Yisroel even if these esrogim are subject to a prohibition imposed by the rabbanan, for we find elsewhere that such prohibitions are waived to facilitate the settlement of Eretz Yisroel (e.g. see gemora Gittin daf 8.)
The author of Nefesh Chaya bases his rationale upon the Maharsho's assertion that the reason for the mitzva of ascending to Yerushalayim three times a year is in order to gladden the Leviim and the poor with the bikkurim and ma'aser sheini which people brought with them, which could only be eaten there. Tosafos write that someone who does not possess any land is therefore exempt from this mitzva.
The Nefesh Chaya observes that even though the absence of the Beis Hamikdosh prevents us from the actual fulfillment of the mitzva of going up to Yerushalayim, we are able to achieve the mitzva's intended purpose by providing trade for the families who deal in esrogim. Tens of other rabbonim invoked arguments of this nature in favor of buying the esrogim of Eretz Yisroel: the trade supported the small yishuv and the esrogim themselves have greater kedushoh.
The author of ShU"T Divrei Yisroel writes: "This year we must pay special attention to the material situation of our brothers, the Jews in Eretz Yisroel. Special encouragement is necessary where financial expenditure is involved."
The author of Yissa Bracha, who was the Rishon Letziyon, (the rav who lead the Sephardi community in Eretz Yisroel,) a century ago writes, "Even if the Corfu esrogim were of equal merit to those of Eretz Yisroel, it would be correct to make the bracha over the latter." He compares this precedence to that of the seven species of Eretz Yisroel over other kinds of fruit.
In the name of the acharonim, the author of Sdei Chemed brings a further connection between the esrog and Eretz Yisroel from hidden Torah teachings: Eretz Yisroel represents royalty, as do ma'aser and esrog. Also, ma'aser has the same numerical value as esrog.
The Rambam in More Nevuchim is adduced for a much earlier source for a special connection between the esrog and Eretz Yisroel. The Rambam writes there "concerning the arba minim of the [mitzva of] lulav, it appears to me that they are an expression of joy at leaving the desert where there were neither seeds, figs, grapes pomegranates nor water to drink, and entering the land of rivers and fragrant trees. These four species were present in Eretz Yisroel at that time."
The sefer, Melamed Hatalmidim, quoting the Rambam, explains further that the mitzva was given in order to remember that Hashem brought us from an arid, inhabitable place to a well watered land, flowing with milk and honey. We have therefore been commanded to take the four of the Land's choicest species so that we remember Hashem's kindness in bringing us there.
The extent to which the produce of Eretz Yisroel is preferred is apparent from the testimony/practice of Mahara Frankel in ShU"T Divrei Yisroel who writes that from the day he achieved maturity, he only made the blessing on an esrog from Eretz Yisroel, even in years when those esrogim were of very indifferent appearance and not at all beautiful. According to this opinion, the produce of Eretz Yisroel is preferred even when the esrogim of chutz la'aretz are more beautiful.
In a similar vein, the Sdei Chemed writes, "Even though this year's esrogim from Eretz Yisroel are not beautiful we have not lost heart, for the Chasam Sofer has written that, "if they lack beauty down in this world, they possess [spiritual] beauty up in shomayim." The Sfas Emes too rules that "It is a mitzva to try and get an esrog from Eretz Yisroel, even if it's appearance lacks beauty, so long as it is kosher according to halacha."
To conclude this section, we quote the following fiery words of the Oruch Hashulchan: "My pen cannot describe the lowness, the worthlessness, the evil nature and the shamefacedness of those who give the fruits of the hated son precedence over the esrogim of the beloved son...when has such a thing ever been heard of? Where is Hashem's honor and the honor of the holy Torah?!"
Part Four
What Exactly is the Disqualification of the Grafted Esrog?—The Levush's Suggestion
Many reasons have been advanced for explaining why a grafted esrog may not be used. We will start by considering the reason given by the Levush, despite the fact that according to his reasoning, the shortcoming does not lie in the halachos of the esrog itself but in a disqualification of more general nature.
In siman 649, the Levush writes, "I say that Torah law renders them unfit for it is known that they have been grafted and the prohibition against grafting has [thus] been transgressed. Although the grafting was carried out by a gentile, there is one opinion that gentiles are also forbidden to graft trees. Since it has been the object of a transgression, it is repugnant for any holy use. It is like an animal produced by crossbreeding which is unfit to be brought as a korbon."
According to this, a grafted esrog is as perfect an esrog as a non-grafted one. The problem lies in the fact that the aveiroh which is involved in it's cultivation renders it unfit for being used for a mitzva. The Levush's contention has generated a great deal of debate, with some opinions entirely rejecting his reasoning while others question his basic assumptions. However, we will begin our survey of this discussion with some of the questions asked by those who accept the basic premise of the Levush.
In siman 648, the Mogen Avrohom (#23) quotes the Levush and poses two difficulties. First, according to the Levush, the horn of a goat which has been crossbred should be unfit for use as a shofar due to the transgression of the Torah's prohibition against interbreeding between different species. Secondly, if it is a logical principle that something that has been the object of an aveiroh is repugnant for a holy use, why does the gemora (Chulin daf 38) need to learn from a posuk that a crossbred animal cannot be offered as a korbon?
Both these questions are rebuffed by the author of ShU"T Mitzpe Aryeh. He writes that as far as the first question is concerned, the gemora (Avodoh Zora daf 46) states that a physical change in an object that was worshiped leaves it fit once more for use as an offering. Here too, the horn of a crossbred animal has undergone a change from being the horn of an animal to a shofar and this change removes the repugnance of the aveiroh of which the animal was the object or is the result.
The Mitzpe Aryeh maintains that the Mogen Avrohom's second question is even more out of place: rather than proposing this disqualification as being obvious, the Levush was basing himself on the above gemora's derivation and was merely extending the disqualification from use for a korbon to include all other mitzvos. If not for the gemora's derivation however, he would not have suggested it himself (since the above gemora in Avodoh Zora is only speaking about objects worshiped as idols, but not necessarily about the objects of other Torah prohibitions.)
Basing himself on the same gemora in Avodoh Zora, the Taz tries to reject the Levush's reasoning by maintaining that since the esrog has developed after the time of the transgression of the aveiroh, it has therefore also undergone a change and should be fit for use. HaRav Shlomo Eliezer Alfandri (in his sefer, Saba Kadisha,) and the author of Eitz Hadar reject this argument explaining that in the case of grafting, the change comes about through the grafting itself which is the very act that is forbidden. The gemora in Avodoh Zora offers no support for saying that a change of this nature can be of help.
Must an Aveiroh Have Been Involved?
Further consideration of the Mogen Avrohom's questions on the Levush's comments provides clarification of an additional and important fundamental concept. The Levush specifies that his suggested disqualification will only hold true according to the opinion that gentiles are also forbidden to graft trees (the esrog growers in his time having been gentiles) for if they are permitted to graft, no aveiroh is involved in the growth of the esrog.
HaRav Efraim Zalman Margulies in ShU"T Beis Efraim (siman 56,) adduces an apparent proof to the Levush's argument from the gemora in Chulin which explains the posuk, "You shall not eat anything repugnant," (Devorim 14:3) as follows, "anything which I have made repugnant for you is forbidden to eat." (e.g. meat and milk that were cooked together.) The gemora goes on to explain that grafted or crossbred plants are similarly repugnant, but their consumption is permitted because the posuk compares them to crossbred animals whose special disqualification for being brought as a korbon implies that they may nonetheless be eaten normally.
Since the Levush's reasoning in rendering the object of an aveiroh unfit is based on this gemora, this posuk implies that the repugnance is still forbidden even if it came into being without any actual transgression being involved. This is clear from Rashi's explanation (Chulin daf 114) of the gemora, "It is forbidden to eat: however it came about, whether a transgression was involved or not, such as when a minor or a gentile did it, since I have made it repugnant to you, it is forbidden..." It is clear from Rashi that something forbidden to Jews but not to gentiles is still called "repugnant" even if brought into being by a gentile, who commits no transgression. Why then, does the Levush have to make his case out only according to the opinion that gentiles are also forbidden to graft trees?
In line with the above reasoning, the Mitzpe Aryeh (siman 52) proves that the Mogen Avrohom also understood the Levush to mean that a grafted esrog is forbidden even if gentiles may graft. If this were not the case, there would be a simple answer to the Mogen Avrohom's question as to why a posuk is necessary for rendering a crossbred animal unfit for offering as a korbon, namely, that the Levush's argument holds true only if there was an actual transgression but the gemora has to bring a posuk in order to teach us that even when the repugnant object came into being by itself, for example if two animals of different species interbred by themselves, the offspring is still unfit for offering as a korbon.
If the Mogen Avrohom nevertheless asked his question, reasons the Mitzpe Aryeh, it must be that he understood that the Levush meant to include even a case where there is no aveiroh and that his argument holds even if gentiles are permitted to graft. According to this understanding, the Levush's mention of the prohibition on gentiles grafting is merely to stress his point rather than to confine his argument to that opinion alone.
The Eitz Hodor argues that even if we adhere to a simple understanding of the Levush and confine the disqualification to the cases where an actual transgression was involved—which is the case only if gentiles are forbidden to graft—it is still possible to reconcile this with the reasoning put forward by the Beis Efraim by drawing the distinction between a crossbred animal and a grafted esrog. The former is repugnant even if it arises without human intervention because mingling of the species is considered abominable however it comes about. This is proven by the fact that the animals were destroyed in the flood along with the humans on account of this deviation from the natural order, despite the fact that they had transgressed no prohibition as such.
Other forbidden things however, for example meat cooked in milk or the fruits of a grafted tree, do not have the same intrinsic repugnance. They would only be considered repugnant according to Torah law, if they were brought into being through an actual transgression of Torah law. While the rabbanan nevertheless rendered them unfit, the Levush could only explain the disqualification of the grafted esrog to be by Torah law if gentiles are forbidden to graft.
Other Objections to the Levush's Explanation: Do Gentiles Regard esrog and Lemon as Different Species? Does the Torah Regard them as Different Species?
Some Acharonim argue that irrespective of whether grafting is or is not generally permitted to gentiles, a gentile may well be allowed to graft an esrog branch onto a lemon tree or vice versa. This is based on an idea that is supported by several sources in the gemora, according to which it seems that different definitions govern the areas of prohibition for gentiles and for Yisroel.
This difference has been expressed in a number of ways, for example, ShU"T Bnei Tzion distinguishes between two applications of the prohibition against performing constructive work on Shabbos (which Yisroel must observe and which gentiles must not) in the following way. Whereas for Yisroel, it is the Torah which defines what is considered melochoh and how much of each one is considered a worthwhile amount, for gentiles, melochoh is defined simply as work and effort—the absence of rest. Which activities fall into this category depend on what is customary in a particular place at a particular time.
This difference has also been expressed slightly differently by saying that Yisroel live according to the Torah's definitions and delineations while gentiles live and are bound by natural laws and circumstances. Accordingly, the Eitz Hodor argues that even if Yisroel are forbidden to graft an esrog and a lemon, gentiles may be permitted to do so since it is commonly accepted amongst educated gentiles that the esrog and the lemon belong to the same family and growing them together would not be considered as grafting separate species. Obviously there is no room for the Levush's thesis according to this view.
There are also acharonim who propose that even for Yisroel there may be no problem in grafting esrog and lemon trees. In his ShU"T Shvus Yaakov, (siman 32,) HaRav Yaakov Reischer writes that, "it may nevertheless be that esrog and lemon tree belong to one and the same species and there is no prohibition whatsoever against grafting them." Similarly, the Chazon Ish writes (Kilayim siman 3, se'if 7,) "there is room for conjecture about whether the lemon, the esrog, the grapefruit and the orange are all the same species."
The Saba Kadisha writes that this was also the conclusion reached by Maharam Alshich who holds that there is no prohibition of grafting here, unlike the Levush. The Saba Kadisha adduces the fact of the great similarities between the leaves and the fruits of the esrog and lemon trees (which are greater even than those between which are mentioned in the mishna as not being considered as separate species,) as proof for Maharam even though he revealed no other source for his stance.
Several acharonim discuss another basic objection to the Levush's idea. Amongst them is the Chelkas Yoav who draws the distinction between being unfit for offering as a korbon and being unusable for a mitzva.
End of Part 1
|
