Rif Succah 17b {Succah 35b; 36a; 35b; 36b }

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
17b

{Succah 35b}
Gemara:
"if it has lost its crown {pitom}":
Rabbi Yitzchak ben Eleazar taught: if it lost its buchna....

The explanation of its pitom -- the protuberance of the etrog, and it is its nose. As we learn in the Mishna: the pitom of the pomegranate and this is its flower.
And the explanation of its buchna -- the point in the etrog from which it hangs, and at the base the wood surrounds it like a pelvis {thus, caved out} and the wood {of this stem} projects from it, and thus the wood projects from it like a rib {buchna} in the pelvis {asita}.

And if it is cut off from the wood which is its buchna from its very base, and there is not left of its asita anything at all, its place is thus like a furrow which is in the asita, and it looks like a perforation which is also missing material, and is therefore invalid.
And if the wood is cut a bit higher up and there is left any bit within the asita, it is valid.
And this is the meaning of "if it lost its stem it is valid."

"peeled":
Rava said: If an etrog has been peeled, and gets the color of a red date, it is valid.

But we learned {in the Mishna} "if it has been peeled, it is invalid." This is no question.
{Succah 36a}
Here if entirely; here when it is only part of it. If all of it has been peeled and there is nothing left of it{s peel}, it is invalid. And if some of it remains, it is valid, just like the geluda {an animal whose skin is peeled off} in which a partial one is permitted.

"perforated":
Ulla bar Chanina taught {tana}: A perforation through and through, in any amount {invalidates}; not through and through, the size of an issar {coin}.

{Succah 35b}
"If a stain spread over its majority...":
Rav Chisda said: They learned this only regarding one place {on the etrog that the stain spread}, but in two or three locations, it is like menumar {speckled} and is invalid.

Rava said: And on its nose any amount.
{definition of "nose" according to Rif is the stem of the pitom. Rashi and Rosh have different definitions}

They learnt {in a brayta}: An etrog which is swollen, ill-smelling, soaked, boiled, black {kushi} or white, or speckled, is invalid. A perfectly round etrog is invalid. And some say: Even twins {growing together} is invalid. An unripe etrog - Rabbi Akiva invalidates and the Sages validate. If a stain spreads over its majority, if its pestle {buchna -- see above for Rif's definition} was taken, if it was peeled, cracked and missing any amount, it is invalid. If a stain spread over its minority, if its stem {uktzo} has been taken, if it was perforated but not missing anything, it is valid. If it was grown in a mold to match the shape of another creation, it is invalid.

A black one {kushi} is invalid? But they learned {a brayta -- note: kushi means both "black" and Ethiopian}: A kushi is valid; similar to a kushi is invalid.
Rava said: There is no contradiction. This is according to us and that is according to them.

To explain: To the residents of Israel, a kushi {=an Ethiopian etrog - the species of etrog that grows in Ethiopia} is invalid, and all the more so the very black etrog {kushi harbei} which {thus} resembles an Ethiopian {person} is invalid. And to the residents of Bavel whose etrogs are Ethiopian {etrogim}, an Ethiopian {species etrog -- kushi} is valid, but that wihch is very black {kushi harbei} such that it resembles an Ethiopian person {adam kushi} is invalid.

{At least, that it how I would translate it, in accordance with Rashi, in light of the word כושיים, which I took to be the gentilic (=referring to the nation). However, the words כל שכן, the emphasis on כושי הרבה implying that regular כושי was just a bit dark, or something else led others to interpret Rif in accordance to Rambam and Rabbenu Chananel, which is certainly possible an may even be probable. Thus, here is another possible translation of the preceding paragraph:}

To explain: To the residents of Israel, a kushi {=a dark green etrog} is invalid, and all the more so the very black etrog {kushi harbei} which {thus} resembles an Ethiopian {person} is invalid. And to the residents of Bavel whose etrogs are kushiyim {dark green}, a kushi {=dark green} is valid, but that wihch is very black {kushi harbei} such that it resembles an Ethiopian person {adam kushi} is invalid.

{Succah 36b}
"If he grew it in a mold such that it resembles another creation it is invalid":
Rava said: They only said this regarding another creation {=species}, but the same species it is valid, even though he made it with projecting planks {like a water mill}.

It was stated {by Amoraim}:
An etrog perforated by mice -- Rav said, this is not hadar {beautiful -- and it needs to be pri etz hadar}.
But this is not so! For Rabbi Chanina would dip it {metabel -- though see how Rif in Pesachim defines this} and would fulfill with it.
That is to say, he would eat from it according to his needs at the time and the rest {of the etrog} he would fulfill his obligation therewith.

And according to Rabbi Chanina, our Mishna is difficult, for we learn {in the Mishna} that if it is missing any amount, it is invalid.
This is no question. Our Mishna speaks of the first day of Yom Tov, and Rabbi Chanina on the second day of Yom Tov.
And so is the halacha.