Explanation (Rashi): Before [40 days], it is grape juice.

Implied question: We said in Bava Basra (97a) that if one brought grape juice, it is Kosher [b'Di'eved]!

Answer: If it is 40 days, he may bring even l'Chatchilah, even if he has much other (older) wine.

Observation: Even though the Kedushah of Shemitah transfers onto the money paid for it, there is a difference between its money and itself;

Source (Shevi'is 7:2 - Mishnah - R. Meir): Its money is eradicated until Rosh Hashanah.

Note: Tosfos ha'Rosh concludes "this implies that they [Peros Shemitah] are not."

Explanation (Rashi): This is the name of the tree.

Support: In a Beraisa in Kerisus (6a), R. Shimon ben Gamliel says "Tzari is just a sap of the Ketaf tree." The sap itself is called Ketaf, due to the name of the tree, like it says here that it has Shevi'is.

Also below, it says "its Ketaf is its fruit." The Targum of "u'Tzeri va'Lot" is Ketef v'Luta.

Explanation (Rashi): It does not make fruit. Its only fruit is the sap that drips from it.

Question: This is not true, according to how R. Zeira establishes below to discuss Kitfa (sap) of fruit [of the Kitfa tree]!

Question: In Brachos (5b), R. Yochanan said to R. Elazar "[why do you cry?] If it is due to [lack of] children, this is a bone from my 10th son (all my sons died)." This implies that R. Elazar did not have children!

Answer #1: Afterwards R. Elazar had children.

Answer #2: [R. Elazar] already had many children, and some died, and R. Yochanan said so in order to console him.

Question: What do they argue about?

If it is eradicated at the time one benefits from it, what is Rabanan's reason [to permit]? Even wood of Shevi'is would be forbidden, if not that it is not eradicated at the time one benefits from it!

If it is not eradicated at the time one benefits from it, [R. Eliezer should agree that] it is not forbidden in Shevi'is!

It is unreasonable to say that they argue about whether or not it is eradicated at the time one benefits from it!

Answer: Surely, it is eradicated at the time one benefits from it. Since it is merely moisture of the tree, Rabanan permit, for it is Batel to the tree;

R. Eliezer holds that its benefit is important, and it is [considered] fruit.

Implied question: R. Yosi holds like him in Bava Kama (102a). He holds that Shevi'is applies to wood. If so, all the more so it applies to Kitfa;

[Perhaps the Halachah follows R. Eliezer, but] because R. Yosi holds like him, it is not counted with the other [such places]!

Answer: R. Yosi's reason is because he does not require that it is eradicated at the time one benefits from it, and we do not hold like him. Rather, [we hold that] Shevi'is does not apply to wood;

Also R. Yosi agrees that Kitfa is not fruit regarding Orlah.

Implied question: Also in our Mishnah, R. Yehoshua retracted and holds like him, and even so, it is counted among the four [places where the Halachah follows R. Eliezer]!

Answer: Perhaps R. Yehoshua holds like R. Yosi, who obligates three Onos for a pregnant or nursing woman. He argues with R. Eliezer;

R. Yehoshua retracted only from what he said "I heard only a Besulah."

Implied question (Maharam): Why don't we ask one Beraisa against the other Beraisa? (R. Chanina ben R. Gamliel contradicts himself!)

Answer: One might have thought that he retracted from [holding like R. Eliezer, that one says Havdalah in] Modim after he heard from his Rebbeyim;

However, now that it says that [R. Chanina] holds like [R. Eliezer], this connotes that [R. Chanina] did not retract, for if not, we could still ask "are there no other places?!" Therefore, it is a proper question "does he really hold like him?!" (Another Beraisa teaches that R. Chanina holds that he says it in Chonen ha'Da'as!)

Question (Ri of Orlins): We should include [Havdalah] in Havineinu (the Brachah that encompasses all the middle Brachos)!

We ask like this in Brachos (29a) against Shmuel's teaching, that the entire year one may pray Havineinu, except for Motzei Shabbos, because he must say Havdalah, and we ask that he should include [Havdalah] in it!

Answer: There we ask because a person should not change due to Havdalah from the way he prays the entire year (since he holds that the entire year one may pray Havineinu), rather, he should include it in Havineinu;

Here, R. Chanina says [since he holds that the entire year one does not pray Havineinu, if so] on Motzei Yom Kipur, due to difficulty of the fast, he should not change from how he prays the entire year, so that he will say Havdalah in Chonen ha'Da'as (to enable praying Havineinu).

Explanation: R. Eliezer was [much older] than R. Chanina.

Explanation (Rashi): R. Chanina was the son of R. Gamliel of Yavneh.

Support: Below (23a), R. Chanina ben R. Gamliel said "I agree with R. Meir's words regarding a Behemah and Chayah."

Question: in Toras Kohanim, regarding Pinchas Ish ha'Sasas (the quarrier), whose fortune was to become Kohen Gadol, R. Chanina ben R. Gamliel said "was he a quarrier?! He was our son-in-law, and he was a carpenter!"

If [R. Chanina] was the son of R. Gamliel of Yavneh, how could his son-in-law be Kohen Gadol? He was after the Churban!

Answer: He was not truly his son-in-law, rather, the son-in-law of his ancestors.

Support: He did not say "[he was] my son-in-law", rather, he was our son-in-law!

Question: Why does R. Pedas establish our Mishnah like R. Eliezer, since Rabanan agree about Kitfa d'Peira?

Suggestion: He wants to establish it to discuss all kinds of Ketef, even of wood.

Rejection: Still, how could R. Zeira say to him (8a) "see, you permit Kitfa to everyone"? Surely it is true that Kitfa of wood is permitted. Even R. Zeira agrees that the Halachah follows R. Eliezer only in four places!

Suggestion: People will come to err, and permit even Kitfa of fruit.

Rejection: Since R. Pedas does not establish our Mishnah to discuss Kitfa of fruit, and like everyone, this implies that he holds that even Kitfa of fruit, [only] Rabanan permit it;

People will not come to err, for we say in the Mishnah that R. Yehoshua forbids sap of unripe figs!

Answer: They will err, and think that R. Yehoshua said "I heard", but he does not hold like this, since R. Pedas did not establish our Mishnah like him, and regarding Kitfa of fruit;

It is possible that R. Pedas holds that Kitfa of fruit is permitted, and R. Yehoshua said "I heard", but he does not hold like this.

Implied question: It was taught in the name of Chachamim! (Why should we establish it like an individual?)

Answer: Even so, he wants to establish it like R. Eliezer, and not say that there are three opinions about the matter.