Question (Rav Chuna): If an Esrog [tree] was planted for its Mitzvah, is it obligated in Orlah? (Is this like a tree planted for food?)

Answer (Rav Chuna): An Esrog planted for its Mitzvah is obligated in Orlah. (Since it must be permitted to eat it, it is as if it is planted for food. We explained this like OHR SOMAYACH, Hilchos Parah Adumah 11:7)

Question (Beraisa): "U'Lkachtem Lachem'', and not from a Mitzvah (e.g. Kesef Ma'aser. Since a Mitzvah is not "Lachem'', also "Arelim Yihyu Lachem'' should not apply!)

Answer: There, "u'Lkachtem Lachem'' [means to buy it from your] money, and not from [money of a] Mitzvah. However, here it is like you say about Shofar "Yom Teru'ah Yihyeh Lachem'' - in any case. And [also] here, "Shalosh Shanim Yihyeh Lachem Arelim Lo Ye'achel'' - in any case.

Question: What is the difference between this [for a Mitzvah] and one who guards the Peros for wood (who is exempt)?

Answer: [There], just like he wants the Peros, he wants the wood (the wood is primary). However, here he wants the Peros, and does not want the wood [at all].

Answer #2: R. Chanina taught "Pri [Etz Hadar]'' - if you will say that [it is exempt from Orlah, for], it is considered wood, one is not Yotzei his obligation with its Pri (for he did not take a Pri - MAHARA FULDA)!

Question: What resembles this?

Answer #1: An olive [tree] that he planted in order to light with [its oil] on Chanukah.

Objection (R. Yosi): This (Esrog) is mid'Oraisa, and this (Chanukah) is mid'Rabanan, and you say so (that they resemble each other)?!

Answer #2: What resembles this? An olive [tree] that he planted in order to light the Menorah. Both of these are mid'Oraisa.

Question (R. Shimon ben Yakim, to R. Yochanan): If he planted [with intent that] the lower part be for a fence, and the upper part for food, or the lower part for food, and the upper part for a fence, [what is the law]?

Answer (R. Yochanan): These are the same. When the lower part is for a fence, and the upper part is for food, the law is the same as when the upper part for a fence, and the lower part is for food. (What is for food is obligated, and what is for a fence is exempt.)

Question: How does one know [which part is for a fence, and which is for food - GRA]?

Answer (R. Yonah): He brings a branch and marks - until here is for a fence, and from here and onwards is for food.

Question (R. Ze'ira): Granted, if the lower part is for a fence, and the upper part is for food [the bottom is exempt. However,] if the upper part for a fence, and the lower part is for food, [what is now above] grew [below] b'Isur, and you say so (it is exempt)?!

Remark: R. Ze'ira holds like he taught elsewhere, for R. Ze'ira said in the name of R. Yochanan, an onion of Kil'ai ha'Kerem that was uprooted and planted, even if it grew much (the Shi'ur for Bitul, i.e. 200 times the size of what was planted, permitted) growth of (i.e. that comes out of) Isur is not Mevatel the Isur. (Also here, what grows above b'Heter is not Mevatel what grew below, b'Isur.)