Previous daf

1)

(a) The Torah writes in Kedoshim (with regard to Orlah) "u'Neta'tem Kol Eitz Ma'achal", and goes on to write "Lo Ye'achel", implying exclusively fruit- trees. It adds the word Ma'achal - to include a peppercorn tree (whose bark tastes like its fruit), to teach us that the peppercorn tree is subject to Orlah.

(b) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from "P'ri Eitz Hadar" - 'Eitz she'Ta'am Atzo u'Piryo Shaveh'. This cannot be referring to the peppercorn tree, however, because one peppercorn would not be noticeable.

(c) Neither can one get round this by taking a *few* peppercorns together with the Lulav - because the Torah writes "*P'ri* Eitz Hadar", implying *one* fruit, as we have already explained.

(a) Rebbi interprets "Hadar" to mean "ha'Dir" - which means 'like a sheep- pen' (which contains all different kinds of animals, big ones and small ones, healthy ones and blemished ones), so too, does the tree of which we are speaking have on it all different sizes of fruit (i.e. the Esrog- tree).

(b) True, all fruit-trees produce a variety of sizes and qualities of fruit, large and small, good and bad. But what Rebbi means is that the Esrog- tree, like a sheep-pen, produces new fruit even whilst some fruit from last year's crop is still on the tree (which no other tree does).

(c) Rebbi Avahu explains the word "ha'Dar" - to mean a fruit that remains on the tree from year to year (similar to Rebbi's explanation).

(d) Ben Azai has a third interpretation of "Hadar", which is based on a Greek word for water, which is 'Hidur' - because the Esrog-tree grows completely on water.

(a) Rebbi Chiya (bar Avin) and Rav Asi argue as to why one cannot be Yotze with an Esrog of Orlah: one says because it cannot be eaten - the other, because it does not have a Din Mamon (i.e. one does not have monetary rights in it - which does not conform with "Lachem").

(b) If the sole criterion was that the Esrog should have a Din Mamon, then our Mishnah would not invalidate an Esrog of Terumah Temei'ah, which the Kohen can use as fuel. Consequently, it is clear that, in everyone's opinion, the Esrog must be fit to eat - and they argue over whether it *also* needs to have a Din Mamon.

(c) According to one opinion then, the Esrog needs to have a Din Mamon, despite the fact that it is edible - to preclude an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim, according to Rebbi Meir, who holds that Ma'aser Sheini is Kodesh Consequently, although the 'owner' may eat it, it does not belong to him.

(d) The author of our Mishnah, which validates an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim - is Rebbi Yehudah (who holds that Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim, is Chol).

(a) The Gemara cites Rav Asi, who specifically requires the Esrog to have a Din Mamon (too).

(b) According to Rav Asi, Rebbi Meir learns from ...

1. ... "Lachem" - that one cannot use an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheini.
2. ... "Arisoseichem" - that dough of Ma'aser Sheini is Patur from Chalah.

(c) According to Rav Asi - Rebbi Meir also requires ownership by Matzah, in order to be Yotze.

(d) And he learns it from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem" from the Mitzvah of Chalah.

5) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Meir specifically exempts a dough of Ma'aser Sheini from Chalah - but this may well be because of the extra number of times that the Torah writes "Arisoseichem" (and not because "Arisoseichem" by Chalah and "Lachem" by Esrog, imply a Din Mamon), in which case it will apply to Chalah (and probably to Matzah, which is learnt from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'), but not to Esrog (see Tosfos DH 'di'Chesiv').

6)

(a) Our Mishnah forbids using an Esrog of Tahor Terumah Lechatchilah. Rav Ami and Rav Asi argue over the reason: one says because one renders it 'Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah' - by holding it together with the Lulav that one has just taken out of water (where it is Mitzvah to keep it).

(b) The other one says - because through constant handling the ESrog becomes spoilt it (thereby contravening the Mitzvah of "Mishmeres Terumosai" - the obligation to protect Terumah).

(c) The difference between the two opinions will be - in a case when the owner declared only the *inside* of the Esrog Terumah, but *not the skin*, in which case, the second reason will no longer apply.

(a) If a Kohen did use an Esrog of Terumah Tehorah, he is Yotze - because it is both edible and he has in it a Din Mamon.

(b) Terumah Tehorah cannot be redeemed.

(c) Nevertheless, a Yisrael will also be Yotze, if he used it - because he can purchase it from a Kohen and give it to his grandson who is a Kohen (or to any other Kohen) to eat, betroth the daughter of a Kohen or sell it to a Kohen (though it is unclear as to why this is called "Lachem, seeing as *he* is forbidden to eat it).

(a) Beis Hillel permit an Esrog of Demai - because of 'Migu' ('since' one is able to declare one's property Hefker, which, as a poor man, will authorize him to eat it.

(b) Beis Shamai forbid an Esrog of Demai (they do not hold of 'Migu').

(c) They also dispute whether one may feed Achsanya, Demai. Achsanya is the soldiers in the king's army, whom the citizens are obligated to feed.

(d) Chazal were extremely lenient with regard to Demai - because, due to the fact that the majority of Amei ha'Aretz separated all the Ma'asros, the entire institution of Demai is no more than a Chumra de'Rabbanan (instituted by Yochanan Kohen Gadol).

1. ... according to Rebbi Chiya bar Avin (who requires only a Heter Achilah) - is everybody (both Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah).
2. ... according to Rav Asi (who requires in addition, a Din Mamon) - is Rebbi Yehudah.

10)

(a) Rav Chisda quoting Rabeinu ha'Gadol, restricts the Pesul of spots on an Esrog, to when they only appear in one location, but not if they are in two or three places. On the contrary, asks Rava - surely if the spots appear in a few places, that is even worse, because then the Esrog appears like a spotted one and should certainly be Pasul.

(b) So we switch Rav Chisda's statement to the Seifa of the Mishnah: 'If the spots only cover the minority of the Esrog, the Esrog is Kasher. And - this is where Rav Chisda quoted Rav as saying that if this were to occur in a few places, then the Esrog would be Pasul.

(c) Rava also rules that - on the nose of the Esrog, even the smallest spot is Pasul.

(a) Rav Yitzchak ben Elazar quotes a Beraisa, which exchanges 'Nitlah *Pitmaso*' for 'Nitlah *Buchnaso*'. The Tana call a Pitum, a 'Buchna' - because it is shaped like a pestle.

(b) Rashi dismisses the interpretation of 'Nitla Buchnaso' as the Ukatz being removed, because we never find the Ukatz referred to as 'Pitum'.

(a) Rava declares an Esrog that has been peeled like a red date, Kasher, referring to a peeled Esrog as a *red* date - because peeled fruit tends to turn a reddish color (the color of a date).

(b) Our Mishnah, which *invalidates a peeled Esrog* - speaks when it is completely peeled; whereas Rava speaks when it is only partially peeled, when it is Pasul because it is marked (see also Tosfos DH 'Ha be'Kula', who learns the other way round).