1)

(a)We know that "Pri Etz Hadar" refers to the Esrog, which the Beraisa explains as - the fruit of a tree whose wood tastes like its fruit.

(b)Rebbi Meir in another Beraisa, discusses the Pasuk in Kedoshim (in connection with Orlah) "u'Neta'tem Kol Etz Ma'achal". Seeing as the Pasuk there writes "Lo Ye'achel", we already know that it refers exclusively to fruit-trees. He explains that the Torah inserts the words "Etz Ma'achal" - to include the fruit of a tree whose wood tastes like its fruit (which it cites as a peppercorn tree (whose bark tastes like its fruit), to teach us that the peppercorn tree is subject to Orlah ...

(c)... to teach us in turn, that Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing (it even has peppercorn trees).

(d)In spite of the second Beraisa however, the Tana in the first Beraisa know that "Pri Etz Hadar" cannot refer to the peppercorn tree - since if one takes only one, it is not noticeable ...

(e)... whereas if one were to take two or three - because the Torah writes "Pri Etz Hadar", implying one fruit, as we have already explained.

2)

(a)Rebbi interprets "Hadar" to mean "ha'Dir" - which means 'like a sheep-pen' (which contains all different kinds of animals, big ones and small ones, healthy ones and blemished ones), so too, does the tree of which we are speaking have on it all different sizes of fruit (implying an Esrog- tree).

(b)True, all fruit-trees produce a variety of sizes and qualities of fruit, large and small, good and bad. But what Rebbi means is - that the Esrog-tree, like a sheep-pen, produces new fruit even whilst some fruit from last year's crop are still on the tree (which no other tree does).

(c)Rebbi Avahu explains the word "ha'Dar" - to mean a fruit that remains on the tree from year to year (to conform with Rebbi's explanation).

(d)Ben Azai has a third interpretation of "Hadar", which is based on the Greek word for water, which is 'Hidur' (hydro) - because the Esrog-tree grows completely on water.

3)

(a)Rebbi Chiya bar Avin and Rebbi Asi argue as to why one cannot be Yotzei with an Esrog of Orlah: one says because it cannot be eaten - the other, because it does not have a Din Mamon (i.e. ownership), which does therefore not conform with "Lachem").

(b)The problem with the second explanation is the fact that our Mishnah invalidates an Esrog of Terumah Temei'ah - which the Kohen owns, and which he is permitted to use as fuel.

(c)To answer this question, we therefore emend the Machlokes to whether it also needs to have a Din Mamon, besides being fit to eat, which everyone agrees is necessary.

4)

(a)According to one opinion then, the Esrog needs to have a Din Mamon, despite the fact that it is edible - to preclude an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim ...

(b)... according to Rebbi Meir, who holds that Ma'aser Sheni is Kodesh. Consequently, although the 'owner' may eat it, it does not belong to him; whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah, an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni which is Chulin, belongs to the owner.

(c)According to the opinion that requires ownership, the author of our Mishnah that validates an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim - must therefore be Rebbi Yehudah.

5)

(a)Rebbi Asi rules that one is ...

1. ... not Yotzei on Sukos with an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni, according to R. Meir, but that one is Yotzei, according to ...

2. ... R. Yehudah.

(b)The sources for these two rulings are 1. "u'Lekachtem Lachem" (Parshas Emor), and 2. "Reishis Arisoseichem" (Parshas Shelach-Lecha).

(c)This statement of Rebbi Asi proves - that he is the one who requires Mamon, as well as Heter Achilah.

6)

(a)According to Rebbi Asi, Rebbi Meir learns from Arisoseichem" - that one is only Chayav the Mitzvah of Chalah on one's own Chalah, but not on somebody else's.

(b)The other area where Rebbi Meir requires ownership in order to be Yotzei (according to Rebbi Asi) is - that of Matzah.

(c)Despite the fact that the Torah does not write "Matzaschem" in connection with Matzah, Rebbi Meir learns that one is not Yotzei with somebody else's Matzah - from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lechem" "Lechem", from Chalah.

7)

(a)In a Beraisa, Rebbi Meir specifically exempts a dough of Ma'aser Sheni from Chalah. The Chachamim hold - that it is Chayav.

(b)There no proof from here that he will issue the same ruling by Esrog (like Rebbi Asi maintains) - because his source may well be (not the fact that the Torah writes "Arisoseichem" once, but) that it writes it twice (whereas "Lachem" is only written once [see Tosfos DH 'di'Chesiv']).

8)

(a)Our Mishnah forbids using an Esrog of Tahor Terumah l'Chatchilah. Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi argue over the reason. One says because one renders it 'Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah' - by holding it together with the Lulav that has just been taken out of water (where it is Mitzvah to keep it).

(b)The other one says - because through constant handling, the Esrog becomes spoilt (thereby contravening the Mitzvah of "Mishmeres Terumosai" - the obligation to protect Terumah).

(c)The difference between the two opinions will be - in a case where the owner declared only the inside of the Esrog, Terumah, but not the skin, in which case, the second reason will no longer apply.

9)

(a)If a Kohen did use an Esrog of Terumah Tehorah, he is Yotzei - because it is both edible and he owns it (Din Mamon).

(b)Terumah Tehorah - cannot be redeemed.

(c)Nevertheless, a Yisrael who uses a Terumah Esrog will also be Yotzei - because he can purchase it from a Kohen and give it to his grandson who is a Kohen (or to any other Kohen) to eat, betroth the daughter of a Kohen or sell it to a Kohen (though it is unclear as to why this is called "Lachem, seeing as he is forbidden to eat it).

10)

(a)Beis Hillel permit the use of an Esrog of Demai - because of 'Migo' ('since' one is able to declare one's property Hefker, and Chazal permit feeding a poor man Demai).

(b)Beis Shamai forbid it - because they also forbid feeding a poor man Demai.

(c)They also argue over whether one may feed Demai to 'Achsanya' - the soldiers in the king's army, whom the citizens are obligated to feed.

(d)Chazal were so lenient with regard to Demai - because, due to the fact that the majority of Amei ha'Aretz separated all the Ma'asros, the entire institution of Demai is no more than a Chumra d'Rabanan (instituted by Yochanan Kohen Gadol).

11)

(a)Our Mishnah declares Yotzei someone who used an Esrog of Ma'aser Sheni in Yerushalayim is Yotzei'. Our Mishnah ...

1. ... according to Rebbi Chiya bar Avin (who requires only a Heter Achilah) - is unanimous (i.e. both Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim).

2. ... according to Rebbi Asi (who requires in addition, a Din Mamon) - must be the Chachamim.

12)

(a)Rav Chisda quoting Rabeinu ha'Gadol, restricts the Pesul of spots on an Esrog, to when they only appear in one location, but not if they are in two or three places. On the contrary, asks Rava - surely if the spots appear in a few places, that is even worse, because then the Esrog appears like a spotted one and should certainly be Pasul.

(b)So we switch Rav Chisda's statement to the Seifa of the Mishnah: ('If the spots only cover the minority of the Esrog, the Esrog is Kasher'). And what Rav Chisda now quotes Rav as saying is - that if this were to occur in a few places, then the Esrog would be Pasul.

(c)Rava also teaches that - on the nose of the Esrog, even the smallest spot is Pasul.

13)

(a)Rav Yitzchak ben Elazar quotes a Beraisa, which exchanges 'Nitlah Pitmaso' for 'Nitlah Buchnaso'. The Tana calls a Pitum, a 'Buchna' - because it is shaped like a pestle.

(b)We reject the interpretation of 'Nitla Buchnaso' as the Ukatz being removed, because we never find the Ukatz referred to as 'Pitum'.

14)

(a)Rava declares an Esrog that has been peeled like a red date, Kasher, referring to a peeled Esrog as a red date - because peeled fruit tends to turn a reddish color (i.e. a light brown that resembles the color of a date).

(b)And he reconciles his ruling with our Mishnah, which invalidates a peeled Esrog - by establishing the latter where it has been completely peeled; whereas Rava speaks when it is only partially peeled, when it is Pasul because it is marked (see also Tosfos DH 'Ha b'Kula').