Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is a type of cedar. This is as the Gemara states in Rosh Hashanah (23a) that there are ten types of cedar, one being Tora'nisa.

Question#1: This is difficult, as the Gemara later asks from the Beraisa that says, "Whatever does not have a root etc." Rashi explains that this means that it does not have a root that stays in the ground during the rainy season. How, then, can a Tora'nisa be a cedar if it had a root that stays during the rainy season?

Question#2: There is another difficulty with his explanation. Produce does not have a root in the ground during the rainy season, yet the laws of Shevi'is apply to it!

Question#3: Furthermore, if Toranisa is a tree, this implies that while one cannot sell a Toranisa, they can sell other trees. Doesn't the Mishnah say later (19b) that one does not sell them things that are connected to the ground, as is implied later (14b) regarding a good palm tree?

Explanation#2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that there are two types of Tora'nisa. The Tora'nisa discussed by our Gemara is a type of land like a Kavrisa, which is a Gafris, that has no root in the land in summer or in winter. However, produce does have a root in the summer. This is why the Gemara asks its question from Shemitah. The Gemara in Shabbos (90a) asks a similar question regarding a Kavrisa, and Rashi similarly explains there that Tora'nisa in our Gemara refers to a Kavrisa.

Observation: The implication is that Bnos Shuach are not a quality fruit, as they were eventually added to the list of fruits which are affected by Shemitah. However, originally people did not observe Shemitah regarding Bnos Shuach.

Observation (cont.): This is also implied in the beginning of Dmai (1:1), when the Mishnah says that Amei ha'Aretz were not suspected (to lie regarding the Ma'aser status of Bnos Shuach). This is as the Mishnah states that the "light" fruit regarding Dmai (where an Am ha'Aretz is believed) are Shitin, Rimin, Uzradin, and Bnos Shuach.

Question: This is difficult, as in Shevuos (12b, DH "k'Banos") the Gemara says regarding the extra Korbanos that were brought as "Kayitz l'Mizbe'ach" that this is akin to Bnos Sheva for a person who eats them or desert. This implies that they are important fruits.

Question (cont.): Bnos Sheva are Bnos Shuach, as the Bereishis Rabah says (ch.15) that there are two different names give for the figs Adam ate. Some call them Bnos Shuach, because they caused Adam to be stooped over (meaning to eventually die, see Avodah Berurah). Some call them Bnos Sheva, as they caused seven [days] of mourning for Adam.

Question (cont.): In Nedarim (27a), as well, regarding someone who takes a vow from his fruit basket that contained Bnos Sheva, the Gemara says that if he says that if he would have known it contained Bnos Sheva he would have merely said that black and white figs are forbidden, but the Bnos Sheva are permitted. The implication of this, and all of the above sources, is that Bnos Sheva are important fruits.

Answer#1: It is possible to answer that Bnos Shuach is certainly an important fruit. The reason why Amei ha'Aretz are not suspected of lying is because they are plentiful. It is a type of tree that grows in the forest like Uzradin, which is also on the list of fruit regarding which one can rely on an Am ha'Aretz. Being that they are commonly taken from the forest where they are ownerless, the Amei ha'Aretz are not even suspected of lying regarding the Bnos Shuach that grow around their gardens and orchards. This is not because they are a bad quality fruit.

Answer (cont.): Regarding Shevi'is, the Gemara originally thought that being that they are not finished in the year that they blossom, as stated in Rosh Hashanah (15b) that the Shemitah of Bnos Shuach is actually the second year of the Shemitah cycle (after Shemitah, and the year after Shemitah), being that they take three years to produce fruit, we cannot determine their Shemitah status based on their blossoming or picking. The Gemara concludes that we go after their blossoming, and therefore their laws of Shemitah apply in the second year of Shemitah.

Question: However, there is indeed a difficulty. Our Gemara explains that Bnos Shuach are white figs, as does the Gemara in Berachos (40b). However, the Gemara in Nedarim (ibid.) implies that they are neither black or white!

Answer#2: It is possible to answer that there are three types of figs. Regular figs are white or black. Bnos Shuach contain two different categories, namely bad quality figs and good quality figs. Our Gemara is referring to the bad quality figs, as is the Mishnah in Dmai. This is why they are called Bnos Shuach, as we blame the ruination (i.e. sin of the Eitz ha'Da'as) on what is already ruined, even though Adam certainly ate from the better type of Bnos Shuach. These better figs are the ones called Bnos Sheva discussed in Shevuos (ibid.) and Nedarim (ibid.), as Adam Ha'Rishon probably ate from the better ones.

Answer#3: Rabeinu Tam explains that the text here regarding Shemitah is "Muchsasin Bnos Shuach," not "and Bnos Shuach." Muchsasin Bnos Shuach are a variety of Bnos Shuach, but are not Bnos Shuach themselves. This type of fruit is of low quality.

Proof: He proves this from Bechoros (8a), where the Gemara says that a lion, bear, panther, and cheetah have three year pregnancies, similar to a Bnos Shuach tree that takes three years to bear fruit. A snake takes seven years, and there is nothing similar to that. Some say that Muchsasin Bnos Shuach are similar. Rashi there explains that this is a type of Bnos Shuach, but is not Bnos Shuach itself.

Explanation#1: These are Galonin, which are pig food.

Explanation#2: The Rashbam explains in the name of Rashi that they are fruit called Pin which has seeds, and are not fit to be eaten. This is understandable, as in Rosh Hashanah (23a), Rashi explains that Tora'nisa is Pin. The Gemara there discusses the land itself, while our Gemara refers to the fruit.

Implied Question: The Gemara says in Bava Basra (80b) that a cedar tree does not have any fruit. (How can there be such a thing as "Peiri d'Arza" - "fruit of the cedar?")

Answer: The type of cedar called Erez does not have fruit, as opposed to this cedar which is called Shitah.

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that the case is where he said, "Who has a white and black chicken?"

Opinion#2: The Ri says that the case is where the Jew has many white and black chickens. The Nochri says he wants one of each. This is implied by the Gemara later, as the Gemara says, "When is this? It is when he says, this chicken that is white." This implies that he has it in front of him. Rashi's explanation of this statement must be that he does not literally mean "This chicken that is white (rather, he means a white chicken)."

Explanation: It appears that this question is even according to the Rabbanan that forbid selling a white chicken amongst the other chickens.

Explanation (cont.): It is possible to say that they only forbade this when he has white and black chickens, and the idolater says he wants, "this one (black) and this one (white)." It is reasonable to suspect he is only buying the black chicken in order to be able to buy the white chicken (from the Jew who will not specifically sell him a white chicken). However, in this case when they give him a black chicken and he takes it and goes away, he has no idea that he will end up getting a white chicken (and therefore it may be permitted to sell him a white chicken).

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that this is a type of dates.

Proof: This is also implied in Megilah (7b). The Gemara says there, "A Taska full of Kasbi." A Taska is a basket in which people place dates. This is as stated in Gitin (78a), "A Taska which one eats dates from." The Gemara in Bava Kama (58b) implies that Kasba means a palm tree. This is implied when the Gemara discusses a person who cut down a Kasba from his friend. The Reish Galusa said, I saw this and there were three Talees all together. Talees refers to young palm trees, as is implied in Bava Basra (69b).

Question: This is difficult. Why would Rebbi Meir say first, "A good palm tree" if they are all forbidden (as indicated by the word "Chatzav")?

Explanation#2: It therefore appears that there are two types of Kasba. One bears dates, and this is what all of the Gemaros that I have just quoted discuss. However, the Kasba mentioned in our Gemara is a type of grass that Yehoshua used to mark the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.

Proof: This is also implied in Bava Basra (56a), as the Gemara says that it is used to mark the boundaries when it says, "If there is no boundary or Chatzav, what is the law?"

Explanation#3: The Aruch explains that Chatzva here means sugar canes.

Opinion: In the conclusion of the Gemara, Rabeinu Baruch ben Rebbi Yitzchak (see Seder Yaakov) writes that being that one cannot sell something to an idolater if he wants to buy the object used in his service, it is also forbidden to sell frankincense to a priest. This is like him explicitly stating that he wants it to worship idolatry, as he requires it in order to offer it to his idol. A person who sells it to him is therefore transgressing Lifnei Iver. It is similarly forbidden to sell wax to an idolater on his holiday. However, it is permitted to sell him wax on other days.

Opinion (cont.): Similarly, the vessels of idolatry that a Jew buys after an idolater partially broke it and nullified it cannot be sold to a Nochri as is until they are totally broken. One break will not make him refrain from putting wine in the vessel in order to praise his idol. Similarly, bad books that are made for their prayer in their house of idolatry cannot be sold to their priests. One who does so transgresses Lifnei Iver, even if he sells it to a regular idolater who is not a priest. This is because they will certainly give or sell it to the priest.

Explanation: They do not sell because there is a suspicion that the Nochrim will have relations with the animals, and they will therefore transgress Lifnei Iver etc.

Observation: Being that the Gemara does not differentiate between whether or not the Nochri already has an animal, the implication is that even if he has another animal, it is forbidden to sell an animal to the Nochri.

Question: Rabeinu Elchanan has difficulty with this. Why is this different from the Gemara earlier (6a) regarding sacrifices of Nochrim, where the Gemara said that if he has another animal it is permitted to sell him an animal according to the opinion that the only issue is Lifnei Iver? We are indeed going according to that opinion now, as I have explained.

Answer: Rabeinu Yehudah answers that the suspicion that they will have relations is different, as a Nochri has a new desire for every individual animal.

Question: In a place where the custom is not to sell, why don't we say that he is merely selling it to be slaughtered? This is like we said earlier that Rav Huna sold a cow to Nochrim because he said that he is selling it for slaughter.

Answer: It is possible to answer that a regular small animal is meant to be raised (not eaten), as a goat is raised for its milk and a sheep is raised for its shearings.

Explanation: We decree that animals with broken limbs cannot be sold, as people might come to sell regular animals.

Question: This is difficult. Why is this different than a cow, where we say that the person might be selling it for slaughter? It is clear that an animal with broken limbs is going to be slaughtered (by the Nochri who buys it)!

Answer: When people see an animal with a broken limb in a Nochri's house, they think that it was sold when it was healthy, and it became injured in the possession of the Nochri. They think that when he sold it, he did not sell it for slaughter. However, when people see a cow, even if they see it when it has already been in the Nochri's possession for many days, they think that it must have been sold for slaughter. This is because cows are not very appropriate for work.

Implied Question: One cannot say that a cow is totally unfit for work. (Why not?)

Answer: This is because we find that the Gemara later (15a) mentions a case where a Yisrael rented a cow from a Kohen. This implies that the cow can be used for work. Similarly, the Gemara (15b) says that he should not rent a cow to a Jew who is suspected of working on Shemitah. This implies that it can do work.

Explanation: Rashi explains that the reason Ben Beseirah permits a horse is because he only requires it for riding, as that is the only purpose for which it is used. There is no Torah prohibition that one transgresses when riding a horse, only a Rabbinic decree.

Implied Question: He was not exact in his explanation. The Gemara in Shabbos (94a) says that if a horse was only used for riding, even the Rabbanan would agree that there is no Torah prohibition (against having the animal carry a person), as a live person carries his own weight. The Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah only argue regarding a horse that is for birds. (See the Gemara in Shabbos ibid. and the Ritva there regarding the definition of a horse that is "for birds.")

Question: How do we see from the Gemara in Shabbos (ibid.) that the Rabbanan here base their reasoning on a premise that there is no law that birds carry their weight? Perhaps they hold like Rebbi, who made a decree that a horse should not be sold to Nochrim because it is similar to a weapon that is not sold to Nochrim!

Answer: Being that a horse is grouped together with other big animals who are forbidden to be sold to Nochrim because of either a decree of borrowing, renting, or that he will come to make it walk at the beginning of the sale on Shabbos, it must be that a horse is also forbidden due to these reasons.

Explanation: This means that the Rabbanan permit selling in a place where this is the custom because they are not suspected of either having relations with the animals or being secluded with them. This implies that Rav understands that the reason to forbid selling is due to a suspicion of having relations.

Question: The Ri has difficulty with this. Why don't we ask a question on Rav from our Mishnah later (15b) that says that if the custom is to sell Kusim a small animal, we do so, and if the custom is not to do so it is forbidden? We clearly do not suspect that Kusim will have relations with the animal, as the Gemara asks later that they are not suspected to have relations with the animal (and even so there is a custom that it is forbidden)! This requires study.

Answer: Rav's answer (i.e. his retraction) takes away this question.