[Avodah] Etrog jam and pesticides

[Chana Luntz]

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