Succa page 36 deals with qualifications or disqualifications for an esrog. It then discusses the minimum size of an esrog. The opinion is the esrog is either the size of a nut or the size of an egg. However, out of nowhere, a crazy discussion ensues. It really is totally disconnected to the whole issue of Esrog. Succa Page 36 cites to a passage in tractate Shabbos that discusses the type of stones and the size one is allowed to use on shabbat to clean oneself after relieving oneself. Normally stones are muktzah or prohibited on shabbat, but for hygiene purposes these stones were allowed
What does this have to do with an esrog.? Just because the Succa is discussing the size of an esrog, the Talmud thinks it is appropriate to relate or compare to the stones used to clean oneself?
Esrog is the paradigm of a beautiful mitzva in the Torah. We are directed to ONLY use a beautiful one. There are stories of heroic people who sacrifice so much to have a beautiful esrog. So how can the Talmud be so crass to make such a comparison.
The SD heard a shiur of Rabbi David Aaron two years ago that keeps resonating. Essentially, he discussed that there is no distinction in this world . All has potential for holiness. Whatever function or action is in the universe is necessary and part of gds plan. He called it the Asher Yatzar speech. The blessing stated over relieving oneself.
To extend this, there is not distinction in our thought process, learning, or world view between gross or ugly and beautiful when it comes to serving Gd. The most beautiful mitzva and the most mundane of halachos can be contrasted, compared and we can derive lessons from both simultaneously.