1)

(a)Ula bar Chinena quotes a Beraisa that qualifies 'Nikav v'Lo Chaser Kol Shehu, Kasher' of our Mishnah. An Esrog is Pasul even ...

1. ... with the tiniest hole - if it goes right through the Esrog (or to the center of the Esrog, according to some commentaries).

2. ... when nothing from the Esrog is missing - if it is the size of an Isar (a coin).

2)

(a)An Esrog that is peeled, split or that has a hole, which our Mishnah has already declared Pasul, are all similar to equivalent Treifos of an animal. When Rava asks whether a sign of Treifus invalidates an Esrog - he is referring to an Esrog whose inside has melted, though the seed chambers are still intact (which is similar to a lung whose inside has disintegrated, but whose blood-vessels are still intact).

(b)The equivalent animal is Tereifah only if the blood vessels have disintegrated, too.

(c)Rava's She'eilah by Esrog applies when the seed chambers are still intact, in which case the Esrog may well be Pasul, even though the animal in the equivalent case is not Tereifah - because, whereas by an animal, the lung is covered, an Esrog is open to the air, and is therefore liable to go bad quicker.

3)

(a)The Beraisa rules that an Esrog that is ...

1. ... swollen or smelly, pickled or well-cooked, black, white or dotted ...

2. ... round, a twin (according to Yesh Omrim) or one that is as small as a white bean (Esrog ha'Boser [according to Rebbi Akiva]) - are all Pasul.

(b)The Chachamim declare the latter - Kasher.

(c)The Tana invalidate an Esrog that has been grown inside a form - if it changes its natural shape.

4)

(a)We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah (regarding an Esrog whose inside has melted) from the first two cases in the Beraisa ('an Esrog that is swollen or smelly') - by explaining 'swollen' to mean on the outside, and 'smelly', on the inside (Rava's She'eilah).

(b)But we conclude that the Beraisa may well validate an Esrog that is only bad inside, and that both 'swollen' and 'smelly' refer to an Esrog that has even turned bad on the outside too; it is either - 'swollen' but not smelly, or 'smelly' (i.e. rotten) but not swollen; alternatively, 'swollen' means rotten, and 'smelly', from the worms that have eaten it.

5)

(a)The Beraisa validates an Esrog ha'Kushi, but invalidates one that is 'Domeh l'Kushi'. An Esrog ...

1. ... ha'Kushi - is one that grew in Ethiopia.

2. ... ha'Domeh l'Kushi - that grew elsewhere, but is black like an Ethiopian Esrog.

(b)Abaye establishes our Mishnah (which invalidates an Esrog ha'Kushi), by a Domeh l'Kushi. Rava establishes it by a Kushi - which is Kasher for Jews living in Ethiopia, but Pasul for Jews living elsewhere, because we are afraid that they will go on to permit even a black Esrog that grew in their own country (see Rashash).

6)

(a)The Chachamim validate a small Esrog the size of a white bean - because it is not a fruit (and the Torah writes "Pri Etz Hadar").

(b)Rabah equates Rebbi Akiva opinion with that of his disciple, Rebbi Shimon, who says - that a small Esrog of that size is Patur from Ma'asros.

(c)Abaye disagrees. In his opinion ...

1. ... Rebbi Akiva might well declare such a small Esrog, Pasul - because it is not Hadar (but agree with the Rabanan of Rebbi Shimon that it is Chayav Ma'asros).

2. ... Rebbi Shimon might well exempt such a small Esrog from Ma'asros - because of the Pasuk in Re'eh "Aser Te'aser es Kol Tevu'as Zar'echa" (implying that they are fit to sow), and such a small Esrog will not grow if sown.

(d)Abaye concludes his contention with the words 've'Su Lo Midi' - meaning that this is conclusive (Rebbi Akiva's reason is because of Hadar, and Rebbi Shimon's, because regarding Ma'asros, it must be fit to sow - and neither one holds of the other).

7)

(a)Rava permits an Esrog that grew in a form in the shape of an Esrog. But is this not obvious, asks the Gemara, since the Beraisa explicitly establishes our Mishnah by a shape that is different than an Esrog!?

(b)Rava, answers the Gemara, is speaking - when he grows it in the shape of slightly rounded planks resembling a water-wheel, which is somewhat irregular, but still resembles an Esrog.

8)

(a)Rav (in the first Lashon) disqualifies an Esrog which has been mouse-eaten and contains holes - because it is not 'Hadar'.

(b)The Pesul of 'Hadar' lasts all seven days.

9)

(a)Rebbi Chanina used to eat part of his Esrog on the first day, and hen continued to use it on the second day. To reconcile this with Our Mishnah, which disqualifies an Esrog with a hole if some of the Esrog is missing - he establishes the Mishnah on the first day only.

(b)Rav (who disqualifies a mouse-eaten Esrog because it is not Hadar) may well agree with Rav Chanina and permit an Esrog that has been eaten on the second day - because mouse-eaten Esrog - because a mouse-eaten Esrog is disgusting, and is therefore not 'Hadar'.

(c)In the second Lashon - Rav makes no distinction between an Esrog that was eaten by humans or by mice. Consequently, he proves from Rebbi Chanina that an Esrog that has been partially eaten is still 'Hadar', and is therefore Kasher from the second day and onwards.

10)

(a)Rebbi Meir validates an Esrog the size of a nut; whereas Rebbi Yehudah requires the minimum size of an egg. They have the same dispute with regard to the three sharp stones which Chazal permitted to take (less than four Amos) into a bathroom in a field on Shabbos (even though they would normally be Muktzah) because of 'Kavod ha'Beriyos' - Rebbi Meir permits stones the size of a nut (but not larger), whereas Rebbi Yehudah permits even stones the size of an egg (see Aruch la'Ner).

(b)Rebbi Yosi supports his ruling (permitting an Esrog so large that it must be held in both hands) with a story concerning Rebbi Akiva - who once came into Shul with a huge Esrog on his shoulders.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah refutes Rebbi Yosi's proof - by pointing out that the Rabanan actually told Rebbi Akiva that his Esrog was not 'Hadar'.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah's reason is not because it is not 'Hadar' - but because the Esrog may fall and break (as we explained above).

(e)He only quoted the Rabanan of Rebbi Akiva in order to counter Rebbi Yosi. It seems strange however, for Rebbi Yehudah to invalidate the Esrog only because it might fall (a Pesul d'Rabanan), when the Rabanan from whom he proves his point, invalidate it because of Hadar (which is d'Oraisa).

11)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, the three species of the Lulav must be bound with the same kind. Rebbi Meir permits even a piece of string.

(b)Rebbi Meir proves his point from the men of Yerushalayim, who used to bind their Lulav with gold threads. Rebbi Yehudah counters however - that they first bound it underneath with the same kind.

(c)According to Rava, Rebbi Yehudah permits tying the Lulav even with the creeper or with thin strips of bark cut from a palm-tree - not to beautify the Lulav, but because, in his opinion, the Lulav must be bound. Consequently, it is necessary to use the same kind, in order to avoid 'Bal Tosif' (adding other species).

12)

(a)Rava proves his point from a Beraisa, where Rebbi Meir learns from "Chag ha'Sukos Ta'aseh L'cha" that the Sechach of a Sukah is Kasher, irrespective of what it is made out of. Rebbi Yehudah - specifically requires the four species.

(b)He learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the four species, which are only Kasher by day, 'Kal va'Chomer' Sukah, which is Kasher by night too.

(c)Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan counter this 'Kal va'Chomer' - with the principle that whatever begins with a Chumra and ends with a Kula (i.e. that if one does not find the four species to cover one's Sukah, one will simply not fulfill the Mitzvah of Sukah) is not a valid 'Kal va'Chomer'.

13)

(a)Ezra instructed Yisrael to bring from the mountain-side branches of olive-trees oil-wood, Hadas, date-palms, and Alei Etz Avos - for their Sukos.

(b)Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan try to prove from there - that even kinds other than the four species (e.g. olive-tree branches) are Kasher for Sechach.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah refutes their proof however - by splitting the list into two groups, the Hadas, date-palm and Alei Etz Avos for Sechach, and the rest for the walls.

(d)Based on what Rebbi Yehudah just said, Rava goes on to prove from the Mishnah in the first Perek, where Rebbi Yehudah permits using planks for Sechach (which are made from the trunk and not from the branches and leaves) - that the creepers and the trunk of the date-palm are considered the species of Lulav (with regard to binding the Lulav, according to Rebbi Yehudah).