[Avodah] Etrog jam and pesticides

[Zev Sero]

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it was discovered that the old exemption was no longer valid and a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 at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas