Are All Italian Cedri Kosher Etrogim?
A Progressive Rabbinic Responsum
In some diasporist circles, a new proposal appears to be gaining ground as a means of placing still greater distance between the Diaspora and Israel—because, apparently, that is precisely what the Jewish world requires at this particular moment.
We are told that Progressive communities should avoid etrogim produced in Israel, for a combination of political and ecological reasons: questions concerning land ownership, agricultural practices and the use of pesticides. The concern about intensive pesticide treatment is not wholly imaginary, although it concerns the cultivation of etrogim more generally and should not simply be treated as a characteristic of Israeli agriculture. Investigations of pesticide residues have produced a more qualified picture than the familiar warning that ritual etrogim are categorically unfit for consumption. (en.toraland.org.il)
In searching for an appropriately diasporist alternative, it is increasingly asserted that Italian citrons—or cedri—may in general be treated as kosher etrogim. The political motivations behind this proposal are not my immediate concern. Its botanical and halakhic assumptions, however, require clarification.
I have therefore taken some time to consult the relevant halakhic texts, the official agricultural specifications governing Calabrian citron production, and Chabad’s own accounts of its involvement in Calabria. I offer the following brief responsum in the hope that it may assist Progressive Jews and rabbis who wish to discuss the matter on the basis of accurate information.
She’elah — The Question
May any Italian cedro, and particularly a citron of the Calabrian Liscia Diamante variety, be regarded as a kosher etrog for the mitzvah of the Four Species?
Teshuvah — The Response
I. A preliminary word concerning “Italian Jewish tradition”
One should exercise particular caution when making confident generalisations about Italian Jewry.
Jews have lived on the Italian peninsula for more than two thousand years, forming one of the oldest communities of the Western Diaspora. Italian Jewish life has never constituted a single, uniform tradition: it has included the ancient Italian rite, Romaniote and southern Italian traditions, Sephardi communities, Ashkenazi communities, and communities shaped by Levantine, North African and other migrations. (MEIS)
Consequently, phrases such as “the Italian Jewish practice” or “the traditional Italian etrog” should immediately provoke the questions: which community, which period, which rabbinic authority and which agricultural provenance?
This caution is especially appropriate when Italian Jews have already been discussed in some diasporist environments through familiar ethnic caricatures—“gangsters”, “sexual obsessives” and the like. A community with a two-thousand-year history ought perhaps to be granted the minor courtesy of being researched before it is explained.
II. An Italian citron is not automatically a kosher etrog
The first principle is straightforward:
An etrog does not become kosher merely by being grown in Italy.
A central halakhic question is whether the fruit comes from an etrog tree that has been grafted onto the rootstock of a lemon, bitter orange or another species—a fruit known as an etrog murkav.
The overwhelming position of the later halakhic authorities is that such an etrog is invalid for the mitzvah. Mishnah Berurah 648:65 states that one should not rely merely upon the fruit’s visible characteristics, but upon a reliable tradition or testimony that it is not grafted. (Wikisource)
The Arukh HaShulchan is especially explicit:
יודעים הנטיעות מתחילתן, שאין בהם שום הרכבה
Those offering testimony must know the plantings from their beginning and attest that no grafting has taken place. Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chayim 648:29. (Sefaria)
The decisive criterion is therefore not national identity but agricultural pedigree. Italy is a Country. It is not a hechsher.
III. Liscia Diamante and DOP certification
This distinction becomes particularly important in relation to the Calabrian Liscia Diamante citron.
The official production specification for the DOP Cedro di Santa Maria del Cedro expressly permits two methods of propagation:
propagation by cuttings;
propagation by grafting.
For grafted plants, the permitted rootstocks include bitter orange and Volkamer lemon. (Masaf)
This has a very clear consequence:
A citron may be genuinely Calabrian, authentically Liscia Diamante, and fully entitled to DOP certification, while still coming from a grafted tree.
DOP status certifies geographical provenance and conformity with an agricultural production standard. It does not certify fitness for the mitzvah of arba’ah minim.
A Liscia Diamante citron may certainly be a kosher etrog. But the terms “Italian”, “Calabrian”, “Liscia Diamante” and “DOP” are not synonyms for “ungrafted”.
IV. The specifically Chabad preference for Calabria
This is where Chabad enters the discussion.
The special insistence upon an etrog grown specifically in Calabria is today particularly associated with Chabad. It is important, however, to distinguish three different matters:
the longstanding cultivation of citrons in Calabria;
the historical export of Calabrian etrogim to Jewish communities;
the specifically Chabad system of continuous supervision and preference.
Chabad did not establish citron cultivation in Calabria in the 1950s. Citron cultivation there is far older. What Chabad established in 1955 was a system of continuous rabbinic supervision over the selection and harvesting of etrogim intended for its religious market.
Chabad’s own historical account states that Rabbi Yisroel Jacobson had imported Calabrian etrogim since the late 1920s, and that in 1955 he travelled to Calabria to supervise the cutting of individual fruits. The Lubavitcher Rebbe required two supervisors to be present so that the fruits would be taken only from ungrafted trees. (Chabad)
That history is significant. It is also revealing.
Chabad supervision exists precisely because a generic Calabrian citron cannot be presumed to be ungrafted.
Indeed, Chabad’s own publications acknowledge that Calabrian farmers began grafting citron trees and that supervised orchards and traceable trees were consequently required. Another Chabad account states that the fruit of a grafted tree may be visually indistinguishable from a non-grafted etrog, making pedigree and supervision necessary. (Chabad)
Thus, Chabad-supervised Calabrian etrogim are accepted not because all Italian citrons are kosher, but because particular orchards, trees and fruits have been examined.
Chabad itself therefore provides some of the clearest evidence against the proposition that all Italian citrons may be used indiscriminately.
V. The tradition concerning Moses and Calabria
Chabad sources also preserve a tradition attributed to Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi: when God commanded Moses concerning the Four Species in the wilderness, messengers travelled—by means of the Clouds of Glory—to Calabria in order to obtain etrogim. (Chabad)
I do not doubt that this tradition possesses spiritual meaning for those who receive it within the Chabad chain of transmission.
It is not, however:
historical evidence that Moses travelled to Calabria;
evidence that all Calabrian trees are ungrafted;
a botanical certification;
a universal Jewish tradition;
or an obvious basis upon which Progressive communities should establish their practice.
Progressive rabbis are perfectly entitled to respect a Chabad minhag without converting it into a universal historical claim. We might also be cautious before lending normative authority to a tradition for which no independent historical evidence has been offered, particularly when that tradition functions to privilege the ritual product specifically favoured by the group transmitting it.
VI. Corfu and the complexity of Diaspora provenance
In the Italian Jewish communities I remember considerable rabbinic wariness toward Chabad messianism. Untill the 70s etrogim were imported from Corfu.
The Corfu etrog trade was historically important, particularly in the nineteenth century, when it provoked extensive halakhic and commercial controversy concerning grafting, pedigree, pricing and competition with etrogim from the Land of Israel. The controversy itself grew out of debates that had begun in Italy and the Land of Israel during the sixteenth century. (Ben-Gurion University Research Portal)
Corfu was not culturally alien to Italian Jewry. Its Jewish population included a substantial community of Italian and Apulian origin, alongside its older Romaniote community, and the island was deeply connected to the Jewish Adriatic world. (exhibitions.library.columbia.edu)
VII. Is the choice really “Diaspora versus Israel”?
The real question is :
What degree of supervision and what kind of halakhic evidence should Progressive communities require when selecting an etrog?
A community may decide:
to purchase a properly supervised Calabrian etrog;
to purchase a properly supervised Israeli etrog;
or to develop a Progressive system of transparent agricultural and halakhic certification.
What it cannot reasonably do is take an ordinary Italian commercial citron and declare it fit for ritual use merely because its country of origin better suits a contemporary political narrative.
VIII. A note concerning citrus agriculture in Calabria
As a separate observation—not as evidence regarding the kashrut of etrogim—the frequently cited investigation into citrus production around Rosarno offers a considerably less idyllic picture of Calabrian agriculture. It concerns oranges, migrant labour and the industrial citrus supply chain in a different part of Calabria; it does not concern the supervised etrog orchards of the Riviera dei Cedri. It should therefore not be misrepresented as evidence that Chabad-supervised etrogim are produced under the same conditions.
It is nevertheless a useful corrective for anyone tempted to treat “Italian agriculture” as an intrinsically local, ethical and environmentally innocent alternative to “Israeli agriculture”. The investigation documented serious exploitation among migrant workers in the Calabrian citrus industry.
Political geography is not an ethical certification either.
Pesak — Practical Conclusion
The answer to the question is therefore:
No. Not all Italian cedri are kosher etrogim.
A citron’s Italian or Calabrian origin, its identification as Liscia Diamante, or its DOP certification does not establish its suitability for the mitzvah.
For ritual use, one should obtain a fruit whose ungrafted pedigree is supported by trustworthy supervision or by an otherwise reliable and documented tradition of cultivation.
A Chabad-supervised Calabrian etrog is one possible answer, but Chabad supervision is not the only conceivable source of reliability. An Israeli etrog from a reliable producer is another. A supermarket cedro, even a magnificent Italian one, remains a supermarket cedro until evidence establishes otherwise.
The political desire to avoid Israeli produce does not transform it into an etrog.
Ethrog container, Italy, 19th Century. Source: Centre for Jewish Art