Why does Rashi add the words on amud beis after saying we can not be podeh Terumah "anyone who says we can is a Rosha!" First of all why say anything past the halacha that one may not be podeh terumah, second why is someone who disagrees called a Rosha and not a Toeh? Someone who is mistaken.
Yaakov Goldstone, Brooklyn, NY USA
Dear Yaakov,
An Esrog of Terumah Tehorah is Kasher b'Di'eved, since it is fit to be eaten.
Tosfos learns that since it is edible for any Kohen, it is called "Lachem" even for a Yisrael since it is fit to be used.
However, Rashi requires the Esrog to be fit to be eaten by one's own relative in order to be called "Lachem" - his.
Rashi wants to emphasize that to use this as a source that Terumah is redeemable, and therefore becomes edible by a Yisrael - as the Gemara seems to imply - is totally wrong. The Schottenstein Hebrew edition, footnote 10, quotes the Or Same'ach that there were Tzedukim who claimed this opinion.
All the best,
Reuven Weiner