(Beraisa): Its fruit and tree have the same taste.

Question: Perhaps this refers to Pilpelin?

R. Meir taught that Pilpelin has this quality.

In addition, we are taught that it is obligated in Orlah, and that the Land is not missing anything.

Answer: Pilpelin are impossible to use since one would not even be noticed, and taking many would violate the singular language of the Pasuk.

(Rebbi): It is like a Dir (Hadar) which has different sizes, shapes and ages of flock, like the Esrog tree.

Question: But most fruit trees have such variety!?

Answer: We mean that the large ones are still on the tree when the small ones come out.

(R. Avahu): It can reside (Dar like Hadar) on its tree from year to year.

(Ben Azai): It is water-based (Hadar alludes to the Greek Hydro) as it requires constant irrigation.

Its Shiur is reduced below the minimum given that it must be burnt.

Question: Why is Orlah Pasul?

Answer: It is a Machlokes R. Chiyah b. Avin and R. Asi.

It may not be eaten (and hence fails on Lachem).

It has no value (and Lachem implies value).

Question: We wanted to assume that the reasons are exclusive but then how can we explain the Pesul of Terumah Temeiah (which has value but no Heter Achilah)?

Answer: Heter Achilah is the minimum requirement, and the other opinion adds value as another requirement.

Question: When will the opinions create a distinction in Halachah?

Answer: In the use of Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim, according to R. Meir (who sees Ma'aser Sheni as Mamon Gavo'ah).

It certainly has Heter Achilah.

It has no value according to R. Meir.

From the Din of R. Meir which R. Asi cited, we should conclude that R. Asi held that it requires value.

In the case of Ma'aser Sheni, R. Meir is cited by R. Asi as disallowing the Esrog while the Chachamim permit it.

This, indeed, establishes the position of R. Asi.

Question (R. Papa): R. Asi cites two other items which R. Meir discounts and the Chachamim include, but Matzah does not fit the pattern!?

Matzah of Ma'aser Sheni regarding the Mitzvah.

A dough of Ma'aser Sheni regarding Chalah.

Dough is associated with Arisoseichem, as Lachem by Esrog, implying that personal ownership is a requirement.

But there is no word by Matzah to imply personal possession!?

Answer: It is connected by the word Lechem to Chalah, (from which a dough of Ma'aser Sheni is Patur) hence it must be yours.

Question: May R. Asi find support in the Beraisa cited regarding a dough of Ma'aser Sheni?

Answer and Question: Is that a question!? That is our very case!!

Answer: Our question was whether the Machlokes regarding a dough would also apply to Esrog, or whether a dough has two references to possession and thus may not generalize to Esrog.

It lacks a Heter Achilah.

The reason is a Machlokes R. Ami and R. Asi.

Its use would likely make it Muchshar to receive Tum'ah.

Its use would likely cause its deterioration, as the skin wears down from handling.

Question: When will the opinions create a distinction in Halachah?

Answer: If he excluded the skin when making it Terumah (it still could be exposed to Tum'ah, but it would not be affected by the handling).

It satisfies both opinions (Heter Achilah and value).

Question: Why does Beis Hillel permit Demai?

Answer: Since the owner could make himself an Ani and be entitled to use Demai, we view him as such, even now (as the Mishnah permits feeding Demai to the poor).

Question: Why do Beis Shamai prohibit Demai?

Answer: They hold that a poor man may not eat Demai (as R. Huna taught that the matter is subject to Machlokes).

It could both become Muchshar, as well as deteriorate.

If the requirement is Heter Achilah, then the Din is the opinion of both R. Meir and Chachamim.

If the requirement is also value, then the opinion is only the Chachamim (since, according to R. Meir, Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Gavo'ah).

(R. Chisda, reverently citing Rav): It is Pasul only if the Chazazis is found in one place, but not if it is found in two or three places.

Question (Rava): But surely two or three places is worse, rendering it Menumar (leopard-like)!?

Answer: Rather, the statement of Rav should be applied to the Seifah, where a minority of Chazazis is Kosher, only if it appears in one place, not if it appears in two or three places, where it makes it Menumar.

(Rava): Even a tiny Chazazis on the Chotam (where it begins to become slimmer) is Pasul.

The word used by R. Yitzchak b. Elazar is Bochan (see Rashi).

(Rava): A skinned Esrog which turned ruddy is Kosher.

Question: But the Mishnah taught that Niklaf is Pasul!?

Answer: If it is entirely skinned it is Kosher; partially skinned (creating multiple colors) is Pasul.