Varieties
The Torah says פרי עץ הדר which is not clearly defined, Chazal said it means esrog.
The definition of a “min” in the Torah is different than the secular word “species”, and this is relevant to many various halachos. Without getting too sidetracked, Ashkenazim only eat birds with a mesora, one of the reasons for permitting turkey which was specific to the New World was that some considered it a variety of chicken. It’s also relevant to the canary lulav.
In fact, this definition can apparently change from one halacha to another and is not rigid, as the Chazon Ish permits grafting any citrus fruit on another, as for hilchos kelayim they are all a single “min” of “פרי הדר”, however it is impossible that he would have permitted all citrus fruits for arba minim as פרי עץ הדר
Today there are a number of general families of esrogim that are prevalent, which each have unique defining factors; and they can generally be broken down into subcategories. While in Brisk it is customary to suspect that only one of these families is the true פרי עץ הדר and accordingly to make a beracha on all of them, this is not accepted by the Poskim. Rather, the accepted halacha recognizes all of the prevalent esrogim as being included in the Torah’s פרי עץ הדר, although as we will discuss later, an esrog’s yichus is still important.
The main families of esrogim that are grown commercially today are Teimani, Moroccan, Yannover, Chazon Ish and Maharil Diskin.
The Teimani is unique in that it has no flesh or juice; the white rind is so thick that it extends until the seeds. While it is traditional among many sefardim to consider this feature conclusive and they believe that if one would graft a Teimani esrog with a different citrus fruit it would develop flesh, the Poskim do not consider it authoritative—just like the simanim mentioned in Mishna Berura. Many people also believe that the Teimani esrog is also unique in having a sweet flavor, and in Yemen they are apparently grown as a food; but from personal experience this is not accurate. I have a number of different esrog trees in my yard, and I can attest that a Chazon Ish or Yannover esrog that is left on the tree until fully ripe is also sweet and delicious, just for various reasons a Teimani esrog is much more likely to reach this stage. Teimani esrogim also tend to be more duable than most esrogim, and also to have a more matte finish with less of a waxy outer layer. Many Sefardim take a Teimani esrog exclusively.
The Moroccan esrog is famous for its beautiful, symmetrical appearance as well as for its delicate coloring; however, what is truly unique about them is that they are seedless, and they can only be grown from cuttings. Furthermore, the trees apparently only bear fruit in the extreme climate of their native Atlas Mountains, where they are exposed to the borders of the Sahara Desert by day and subfreezing mountain air by night. Attempts to cultivate them elsewhere have generally been unsuccessful. The Moroccan esrogim were typically very expensive, as appropriate for their beauty; and were preferred by many gvirim due to their distinct appearance. Some Sefardim prefer a Moroccan esrog
The Yannover esrog was historically the gold standard in Europe, with a symmetrical shape and orderly rows of grooves and bumps. They were cultivated in Calabria, Italy—lending them the alternative mane of Calabria esrogim—and exported from the Italian port of Genoa or Yannova. They are mentioned as being ideal in the Shulch Aruch HaRav—who claims that Hashem took Moshe Rabbeinu from the Midbar to Italy to select an esrog—as well as the Chasam Sofer and Mishna Berura and other Poskim. Today they are primarily grown in EY, although some remain in Italy. The Yannover esrogim are preferred by many chassidim, both because of their beauty and because they were traditional in Europe.
The Maharil Diskin esrogim are a generic term for esrogim that were indigenous to Eretz Yisroel, and supposedly their authenticity was approved by the Maharil Diskin, although I am not aware of any authoritative account that he personally checked their source. For many generations they were the standard Israeli esrogim, and were also exported to America in large quantities, mainly under the Ludmir name. Over time, bnei Torah popularized the Chazon Ish esrogim and Maharil Diskin largely fell out of favor. They are still grown in significant numbers, but are generally considered “basic”, and I’m not aware of any group that specifically prefers them. Some of the varieties of Maharil Diskin have special traits; for example, Braverman esrogim are the most durable and unlikely to be damaged by rough handling. I remember the Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel always used a Braverman, as due to his Parkinsons it was difficult for him to hold his esrog gently.
What is known today as a Chazon Ish esrog has an interesting history. Initially the Chazon Ish used Maharil Diskin esrogim, but was not fully satisfied with them. He discovered certain esrog trees growing wild and uncultivated, one year near Tzfas and another year in the Shomron near Shechem, and suggested that these indigenous trees bore the traits of the original פרי עץ הדר of the Torah. Furthermore, since they were growing wild and uncultivated, he felt that there was no realistic concern that they had ever been grafted. Seeds from his esrogim were given to Rav Michel Yehuda Lefkowitz and other talmidim, and since his days they have generally been cultivated by yerei shomayim. Chazon Ish esrogim are typically from the least beautiful and esthetically pleasing esrogim, Litvishe bnei Torah who typically prefer them are prioritizing the kashrus of their yichus over the hiddur of their appearance. Essentially there is no significant distinction between Chazon Ish and Maharil Diskin esrogim, other than who supposedly approved of their lineage. Practically, there may be a general difference, as we will detail shortly.
Almost all esrogim available today come from one of these 5 varieties, and while this background information is fascinating, it has little practical application in halacha. As we mentioned previously, it is generally accepted by nearly all Poskim that all 5 of these families of esrogim are included in the Torah’s פרי עץ הדר, and there are no other esrogim today that are sold commercially.
Murkav
The biggest issue today regarding the yichus of an esrog relates to murkav, an esrog that grew on a branch that was grafted from an esrog tree onto a trunk of a different species.
For thousands of years, it has been known to farmers that it is possible to cut a branch off of one tree and to attach it to a different tree where it will become a part of the new tree and thrive and even bear fruit. Long before human organ transplants were even dreamt of or considered possible, this was essentially done to plants.
The main reason why someone would want to graft a tree would be to overcome certain disadvantages in a certain tree. For example, some trees bear beautiful and delicious fruits, while others are sterile or bear inferior fruit. On the other hand, some trees are strong and resistant to drought and disease while others are much more vulnerable. Nothing is ever perfect in our world, and in fact it often seems that the best fruits grow naturally on the weakest plants.
However, in many situations this limitation can be overcome through grafting. I can often cut off a branch that bears superior fruit and attach it to a trunk that is strong and durable, and the branch will continue to bear the same superior fruit that it grew when it was attached to its natural trunk and roots, while now it is much less susceptible to drought and disease. Generally, this will only be successful when the base and the branch are from similar and related trees, although they do not necessarily need to be from the same species, neither according to the definition of halacha nor science. However, the issur of kelayim generally forbids grafting a branch onto a trunk that is considered to be a different halachic min.
The esrog is typically a very delicate tree, and it is vulnerable to cold, drought and disease. In contrast, some varieties of lemon and orange are quite hardy and tolerant. My technical knowledge may not be fully up to date, but my understanding is that there is a variety of lemon referred to as Vulcan which is commonly used as root stock for commercial lemon trees, and even according to those who disagree with the Chazon Ish that all citrus fruits may be grafted onto each other, it is unanimously accepted that these are the same species as lemons. Similarly, there is a variety of oranges called Chushchush which is very strong but its fruit is sour and inedible. It is frequently used as a base for grafting oranges and clementines, and Rav Elyashiv ruled that this is permitted.
However, it is generally accepted that it is forbidden to graft an esrog branch onto a lemon or orange trunk; and even according to the Chazon Ish who permits Kelayim between all citrus trees, the fruit that would grow on this esrog branch is a Murkav.
The vast majority of Poskim consider a murkav to be pasul for arba minim. In fact, the only lenient opinion I can think of off hand is the Mahari Abualafiya who suggests that if a murkav was passul than any tree grown from cross-fertilization also contains the DNA of two different species and would also have to be passul. Since this would disqualify nearly every single esrog in the world, he suggests that a murkav must be kosher. Supposedly, at one point in the past, the Eida HaChareidis permitted grafting esrogim.
However, while the halacha is nearly unanimous that a murkav is passul, there is no clear source for this din and the logic behind disqualifying a murkav is subject to a major debate, with significant potential nafka mina’s in halacha.
Some suggest that an esrog murkav is physically only half an esrog, and accordingly a moderately sized esrog would be lacking the shiur of an esrog k’beitza, since half of the fruit is a lemon and not an esrog. However, according to this logic, an esrog that is at least double the minimum shiur should be kosher.
Other poskim use a similar logic with a twist, and state that the non-esrog half of the fruit is irrelevant and as-if it is non-existent regarding the mitzva of arba minim. Accordingly, the esrog is functionally chasser, as it is lacking half of the fruit. However, this sevara is also problematic, and it would imply that a murkav should only be passul on the first day of sukkos when a chasser is invalid, but this is not the accepted halacha either.
From a different angle, some propose that the issue with a murkav is because the esrog came into existence through the aveira of kilayim, and performing arba minim with it would be a mitzva ha’ba b’aveira. However, this raises other issues, as a second generation murkav grown from the seeds of an esrog murkav should be kosher, as no aveira was performed on this fruit. Furthermore, according to the Chazon Ish an esrog grafted onto a citrus fruit—which is almost always the case—should be kosher, as in his opinion there was no issur of kilayim.
Rather, the generally accepted rationale for disqualifying a murkav is because it is considered to be a new, hybridized species. This cross between an esrog and a lemon etc. is not the פרי עץ הדר of the Torah, and it and its offspring are not valid for arba minim all 7 days and regardless of its size. However, the question seemingly remains that if a hybrid esrog/lemon is not פרי עץ הדר, how do we deal with bees cross-pollinating esrogim with other citrus trees, which inevitably frequently occurs. Possibly, we would apply the rule of crossbred animals that אין חוששין לזרע האב to the “male” pollen relative to the female pestle of the flower; however, with a murkav the trunk and the branch are equal.
As an aside, it is common for someone who grows esrogim commercially to have a number of different pardeisim in proximity. For example, he may have an orchard with 200 Chazon Ish trees, and across a dirt road another 100 Teimani trees. I once saw an individual selling Chazon Ish esrogim with a reliable hechsher, but the esrogim had the very distinct appearance of Teimani esrogim. When I asked the seller, he informed me that these esrogim grew on the row of Chazon Ish trees that were closest to his Teimani trees, but he insisted that there is absolutely no risk that esrogim from the Teimani trees were confused with Chazon Ish ones. It seems that pollination could affect the appearance of the fruit itself, and certainly it would affect the fruit that grows on trees planted from seeds of crosspollinated esrogim.
I have also observed that Shapiro’s original Chazon Ish esrogim around 35 years ago had a very distinct, and unattractive appearance. Around 15 years ago, their gidul changed significantly. I don’t think there is any question that this was intentional, and that it was coordinated with the Rav HaMachshir, as Shapiro has an impeccable reputation. However, I would assume that he managed to cross pollinate his Chazon Ish esrogim with another variety (based on their appearance, it seems to me it was probably the Braverman/Maharil Diskin esroim), and then select the esrogim that acquired the desired traits; and that this is broadly accepted as retaining their kashrus and status as Chazon Ish esrogim meyuchasim, even l’chatchila.
It is important to note that while in the first half of this shiur we stated that the accepted halacha validates all of the commercially grown varieties of esrogim as genuine פרי עץ הדר, this does not automatically mean that all of them can simply be checked and assumed to be kosher. Since in the second section of the shiur we explained that a murkav is absolutely passul and that the growers have a strong incentive to graft esrogim, a reliable hechsher is an absolute necessity. Also, since all of the offspring of a murkav will also be passul, it is of critical importance to ensure the impeccable yichus of a tree when a grower plants a new orchard.
This is also the reason why many people have strong preferences for certain varieties of esrogim, even though theoretically all of them should be kosher. For example, it is widely accepted that in Yemen the Teimani esrogim were not grafted. When the Yemenites came to Israel in the 1940’s and 50s, many of them brought with them esrogim or seeds, and planted them in the yards of their new home. For decades, most Teimani esrogim were not commercially grown, and certainly did not have any hashgacha or supervision; rather, individuals sold what grew in their back yard. This meant that purchasing a Teimani esrog was relying upon a random individual, who was often not knowledgeable about halacha or even fully observant. I remember seeing people set up a table with a number of esrogim, with one of them cut open displaying its lack of juice. People would buy from him on his word that all of the esrogim were from the same tree, and on the assumption that this proved the tree to be a purebred Teimani that had not been grafted. B”H in recent years they have started growing Teimani esrogim commercially with reliable hashgacha; we have to assume that the hechsher has ascertained the yichus of the esrog back to Yemen, and is not merely certifying that the trees under their supervision were not grafted. By the way, a hashgacha is also essential for Orlah and Terumos and ma’aseros.
Additionally, the Moroccan esrogim grew in a location that did not have an established Jewish community, and certainly since the exodus of the majority of the Moroccan Jews from Morocco in the 50’s there is no year-round supervision of the esrog trees. While there seems to be a widely held assumption that esrog trees were not grafted, many people are uncomfortable relying on a mere assumption. Even though today there are reliable hashgachos that certify Moroccan esrogim, I am not sure how they can conclusively ascertain that the grandfather of this tree was not grafted 50 years ago.
The Yannover esrog was historically the hallmark of an esrog meyuchas in Ashkenazi countries, and as we mentioned previously is described by many Poskim as the epitome of an esrog meyuchas. While that inevitably was true 200 years ago, later Poskim prior to the holocaust raised a concern that many of the trees were being grown decoratively in noble gardens, and may have concerns that they were grafted. Furthermore, today in Eretz Yisroel almost all of the Yannover esrogim are grown in Kfar Chabad and from the seeds of an esrog that the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe made a beracha on. While Lubavitchers consider this an advantage, many people are not comfortable relying on their Beis Din.
Chazzon Ish esrogim, provided they have a reliable hashgacha, are considered the most accepted esrogim in the Litvishe world today; and generally their yichus from the Chazon Ish to now is impeccable. However, I find it ironic and a little incongruous that the yeshivishe, Litvishe Olam is essentially relying upon the Chazon Ish’s ruach haKodesh to identify a tree as the original פרי עץ הדר, when it had no authoritative lineage for the 2000 years before the Chazon Ish. As we mentioned previously, there is little significant difference between the origins of the Maharil Diskin esrogim and the Chazon Ish ones; however, there is a general perception that the Chazon Ish esrogim have been more rigorously supervised and are more likely to have been grown by bnei Torah than Maharil Diskin ones.
It should be noted that historically there were additional varieties of esrogim such as Corfu, but around 200 years ago a major dispute arose over the concern they were grafted which led to their use being abandoned. Once most of the Poskim forbade their use, farmers stopped cultivating them since there wasn’t any market for the fruit, and they effectively became extinct.
In conclusion, I find it disappointing, in my humble opinion, that choosing an esrog today has essentially become a political statement. According to halacha, any esrog with a reliable hechsher is valid for the mitzva of arba minim, and none of them have a perfect and unblemished yichus. I have heard it suggested that perhaps this is precisely the reason why so many people are emotionally invested in the mitzva of arba minim, and specifically the esrog. People feel a personal connection to a fruit that is so similar to the person himself; kosher and beautiful in many ways, but never completely perfect.
I would also note that while I previously dismissed the Brisker chumra of taking one of each variety of esrog out of concern that only one of them is the true פרי עץ הדר as not being accepted by any Posek, there is a different logic to doing so. Since each variety of esrogim has certain questions on its yichus as non-murkav, covering multiple options increases the chances that one esrog is truly purebred. I have jokingly said in the past that the ideal combination is a Yannover with a Chazon Ish esrog; the Yannover had impeccable yichus from Moshe Rabbeinu until 80 years ago, and the Chazon Ish is absolutely reliable for the past 80 years. Of course, according to halacha one cannot really combine the yichus of two different esrogim, and if one esrog was grafted 500 years ago that the other tree 10 years ago, taking one of each would not fulfil the mitzva. What’s truly important is not the “yichus” of the tree, it’s being certain that it is not a murkav.
Again, it should be emphasized that a reliable hechsher is of critical importance; and I am not in a position to rate the reliability of various organizations.