Explanation #2: And in the name of his Rebe, Rabeinu Yitzchak ha'Levi, Rashi explains that both the Pitum and the Ukatz are situated at the bottom (of the Esrog) ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'Uktzo' - if the wood that protrudes outside the hole of the Esrog, it is Kasher, 'Pitmaso' - where the Ukatz has been removed from inside the Esrog, rendering it Chaser, it is Pasul.

Explanation #2 (concl.): And that is what Rabeinu Yitzchak is referring to when he explains 'Nitlah Pitmaso' - 'That enters into the Esrog, like a pestle that goes into the mortar and bangs it'.

Question: Rashi queries this in that we we never find the Pitum and the Ukatz in the same location?

Answer: Rabein u Tam however, points out that we do find them in one place at the end of Perek Yotzei Dofen (Nidah, Daf 47a & 47b) in connection with the Simanim of a Bogeres ...

Answer (cont.): Where the Mishnah, citing ben Azai, states 'When the Pitom turns black', and Rebbi Yossi says 'When one places a hand on the Ukatz and it sinks into the skin where it remains a little before before returning' ...

Answer (cont.): The 'Ukatz' is the point of the breast (the nipple) which the baby takes into its mouth, and the 'Pitma' is the skin that surrounds it that turns black.

Support : The fact that the Gemara mentions the three - 'Pitmaso, Uktzo and Chotmo' both here in connection with Esrog and there in connection with a woman's breasts suggests that all three are in the same location at the top of the Esrog.

Definition: - The 'Ukatz': Sometimes there grows at the tip of the stalk a sort of a thorn that protrudes and is as hard as wood, which is why it is called 'Ukatz'.

Definition (cont.): And 'Nitlah Pitmaso' refers to its 'pestle', meaning that it has been removed from where it is joined (to the Esrog), leaving a sort of hole at the top of the Esrog.

Definition (cont.): In Perek Yotzei Dofen (Ibid.) Rashi explains that 'Chotmo' is a Safek (i.e. he is not sure exactly what it is) ...

Definition (concl.): Whereas here (35b DH 'u've'Chotmo'), he explains "On its nose' - 'on its highest point, from where it slopes towards its top'.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi explains 'Nitlah Pitmaso' - 'There they said "Its flower" ' - implying that it is a sort blossom of a flower towards the top of the Esrog.

Aruch: The Aruch in the name of Rabeinu Chananel explains 'Nitlah Pitmaso' - 'It seems that it is the nipple of its nose, that resembles the Pitom of a breast, as we learned in Uktzin (2:3) "The Pitom of a pomegranate" '.

Aruch (cont.): But when Rebbi Yitzchak says 'Nitlah Buchnaso' - he is referring to the end of the wood that is placed in the Esrog (at the bottom) ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Shechitas Chulin (Daf 42b) "That Buka (Buchna - Rashi & Aruch) of the flank that moved from its place (became dislocated), is T'reifah" '.

Clarification: From his explanation it appears that 'Pitmaso' and 'Buchnaso' are two different things, one at the bottom of the Esrog and one at the top ...

Clarification (cont.): In which case Rebi Yitzchak bar Elazar is not coming to explain (the Mishnah), but rather to add to it.

Rabeinu Gershom: Whereas Rabeinu Gershom Me'or ha'Golah, cited in the Aruch, explains learns like Rabeinu Yitzchak bar Yehudah ha'Levi.

Opinion #1: Rashi explains that 'Part of it' - it is Pasul, since it looks blotched.

Opinion #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, learns the opposite - that 'All of it' - it is Pasul ...

Reason: Since the Gemara compares it to Treifus, and regarding Treifus, the Gemara says in Perek Eilu T'reifos (Chulin, Daf 55b) 'A G'ludah (an animal that is skinned) is T'reifah;But if the size of a Sela remains, it is Kasher, since it will subsequently heal'.

Proof: And this is evident, from the Gemara's question 'If it is peeled, we learned it in the Mishnah?' - meaning that if the sign of T'reifah that is referred to is that of 'G'ludah', we already learned in the Mishnah that it is Pasul by an Esrog ...

Proof (cont.): This clearly implies that it is Pasul if it resembles a T'reifah.

Clarification: That it is similar to the T'reifus of the wind-pipe that is completely split, that not a single vertebra at either end remains intact (Chulin 45a) ...

Nisdak: 'Tenina' - in our Mishnah 'Nisdak Pasul' - in the same way, in that it has split along the entire length ...

Nikav: And if Rava's She'eilah concerns 'Nikav', which is also a Siman of T'reifus - such as where the membrane of the brain is holed (Ibid. 42a).

Implied Question: In which case the Gemara's Kashya 'Tenina' is not like all the other cases, but 'We have learned' - that it is Kasher by Esrog, as the Mishnah states 'Nikav ve'Lo Chaser, Kasher' - in any case, even though regarding T'reifus it is forbidden ...

Answer: That is because the membrane is a separate entity, whereas here the entire Esrog is joined, and it is therefore comparable to a hole in the heart that has not pierced through to the heart's cavity.

Alternative Explanation: It may also will be that by Esrog too, if it is holed through to the chambers of the seeds, in which the pits are housed, it is Pasul even if the Esrog is not Chaser ...

Implied Question: And when the Gemara earlier required a hole all the way through (Mefulash) ...

Answer #1: It is referring to a location that does not correspond to those chambers ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But if the hole penetrates as far as them, it is included in 'Mefulash' - since those chambers are equivalent to the Simponos (air-tubes) of the lungs.

Proof: As is evident in our Sugya - where it wants to declare Pasul an Esrog 'that pours like a jar', since its Simponos are no longer intact'.

Answer #2: Now if we were to explain the Mishnah, which states 'Nikav ve'Chaser Kol Shehu, Pasul' as two independent rulings, it would be preferable ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because then 'Tenina' would be equivalent to the other cases ...

Answer #2 (concl.): In that it would then be saying that If it became holed either all the way through or to the Simponos or if it was Chaser even a Kol Shehu without being Mefulash.

Refutation: However it is not possible to learn like that, because it implies that it is all one case ...

Proof: Since the Seifa states 'Nikav ve'Lo Chaser ... Kasher'.

Definition: Meaning that it graws in the shape of a ball with which girls tend to play with ...

Source: As the Pesikta Rabasi (Perek 2; See also Mesores ha'Shas) Darshens on the Pasuk "Divrei Chachamim ke'Dorbanos" - like a Kadur (a ball) that girls throw to one another - So too, are the words of Torah 'thrown from one mouth to another' - ('P'luto' in old French).

Precedent: Like the case cited at the end of 'Arba Misos' (Sanhedrin, Daf 68a & 68b) - 'ha'Kadur ve'ha'Eimum (the leather shoe-form)'

Alternative text: Some texts read 'Kadud' with a 'Daled' ...

Clarification: Which means that it is shaped like a round pot (See also Tosfos, Sanhedrin 26a DH 'Kadur' & Tosfos, Chulin 64a, D.H. 'Koderes'.)

Clarification: Rashi explains 'Small as a white bean'.

Refutation: But this is not correct, as Tosfos explained at the beginning of the Perek (Daf 31b DH 'Shi'ur'), in connection with the 'Shi'ur of an Esrog' that is discussed in the Sugya there.

Explanation #1: Rashi translates Mekurzalos as 'becudes' - sharp, and good for cleaning oneself'.

Introduction to Refutation: This is not implied however, in Perek Eilu Ovrin (Pesachim, Daf 47a), in connection with 'It is possible to plow one furrow ... ', where, in answer to the Gemara's Kashya 'If we hold of "Ho'il", he ought not to be Chayav for plowing, seeing as it is fit to cover a bird's blood?', the Gemara replies that it speaking about Avanim Mekurzalos.

Refutation: Now what is the point of mentioning sharp stones there?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore translates 'Mekurzalos' as 'soft (stones)', which are fit for plowing and planting.

Support: And this is borne out by the Piyut 'Ashishas Sheluchaso be'Ketev Talah, Ashishos Lehanitz be'Tichu'ach Kirzulah'.

Rashi: Within four Amos. The 'bathroom' is in the open field is not surrounded by walls, so that it is only a matter of carrying mi'de'Rabanan (Muktzah) - on which they did not decree, on account of Kavod ha'Beriyos (Rashi).

Refutation #1 & #2: Since the Tana says 'Lehachnis' however, it implies that there are walls; moreover the Lashon 'Beis ha'Kisei' suggests that too.

Refutation #3: And so it is implied in the first Perek of Tamid (Daf 27b) which cites the episode where 'Rav Safra was sitting in the bathroom, and Rebbi Aba came and coughed' ...

Refutation #4: And also in Perek Kohen Gadol (Sanhedrin, Daf 19a) - 'That women should talk in the Beis ha'Kisei' to avoid Yichud' (with men) - it implies that it was a sheltered location, surrounded by walls, from which one could not see people standing outside ...

Conclusion: Yet they permitted bringing the stones inside, even though it meant carrying from a Karm'lis into a R'shus ha'Yachid.

Proof: And as proof, the Isur of Muktzah is more stringent than that of Karm'lis ...

Proof (cont.): Since although they did not permit Muktzah by a Meis, via a loaf of bread or a baby, as is evident in Perek Bameh Malikin (Shabbos, Daf 30b) and in Perek Noteil (Ibid., Daf 142b) ...

Proof (concl.): We see that they did permit Karm'lis by a Meis - in Perek ha'Matzni'a (Ibid., Daf 94b) in the case of the Meis, which Rav Nachman permitted to carry into a Karm'lis due to Kavod ha'Beriyos.

Conclusion: Consequently, with regard to the Beis ha'Kisei, if they permitted moving stones due to Kavod ha'Beriyos, how much more so will they permit four Amos in a Karm'lis, or bringing from a Karm'lis into a R'shus ha'Yachid or vice-versa.

Nowadays: Regarding ourselves however, it is Asur, since we have designateed bathrooms in the house ...

Source: As is evident in Perek ha'Motzi Yayin (Ibid., Daf 81b & 82a), where Rav Chisda permitted bringing up to the roof; and, in answer to Ravina's query from the Isur mentioned earlier (See ha'Gahos ve'Tziyunim) for someone to take a splinter lying in front of him, to pick his teeth ...

Source (concl.): The Gemara answers that, whereas a person designates a location for his Se'udah, he does not designate a location for a bathroom ...

Source (concl.): Implying that where he designates a location, it is Asur.

Question: And even though Rashi there attributes the Gemara's attempt to forbid 'on the roof' to the excessive Tircha (bother) involved in carrying the stones up to the roof ...

Answer: This does not seem to be the reason ...

Proof: Because, if it was, when Ravina asks from the fact that the Gemara forbids taking a splinter to pick his teeth, he should have queried the entire Sugya there, which permits moving Avanim Mekurzalos?

Source (cont.): But it is because he could have brought them up to the roof on Erev Shabbos that the Gemara wanted to forbid it, since it was possible to prepare them beforehand.

Source (concl.): And the Gemara concludes that 'It is permitted because one does not tend to designate a location'.

Implied Question: And when Rebbi Yanai there says that 'If one has a fixed location for a bathroom, the Shi'ur is one handful' ...

Answer: That speaks in a field, which is far away and it is a big Tircha to prepare them on Erev Shabbos ...

Answer (cont.): But for us, ,who have a designated place in the house, it is forbidden, unless one prepares them in advance.

Alternatively: It is also possible that, since one has a large family, who take the stones, it is not possible to prepare them, and it is therefore permitted anyway.

Introduction to Question: This poses a Kashya on Rashi in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 39a), which includes 'Charchevina' among the species with which one can be Yotzei Maror on Pesach ...

Introduction to Question: The Gemara defines this as 'Atzvasa de'Dikla' - which Rashi translates as 'The Siv (bast) of the palm-tree that grows round it' ...

Question: Which the Sugya here implies is a kind of tree, whereas the Gemara there specifically states 'Just as Matzah is a species of seed, so too is Maror a species of seed'?

Clarification: He does not hold of the D'rashah cited in the first Perek (Daf 12a) that "be'Osp'cha mi'Gorn'cha u'mi'Yikvecha" is referring to the waste of the granary and the barn'.

Clarification (cont.): Nevertheless, he concedes that one cannot make S'chach from something that is subject to Tum'ah, even if it is from the four species ...

The Case: Where he manufactured a vessel out of them, or if they comprised dates of a palm-tree.

Source: Because it needs to be akin to a vapor - according to the opinion that 'The Succos were Clouds of Glory' ...

Source (cont.): Whereas according to the opinion that they made themselves actual huts', we learn it from the Torah's comparison of a Succah to Chagigah ...

Refuted Question: And one cannot ask on this that 'Chagigah consists of creatures that have life?' ...

Refutation: Since Rebbi Yehudah only permits the four species.

Introduction to Question: And when in the first Perek (Daf 14b) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over planks that are less than four Tefachim wide, and where the Tana says 'Rebbi Meir concedes that if there is the width of a plank space between one plank and the other , one fills the space with 'Pesel' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Which appears to mean the waste (Pesoles) of the barn, as Rashi explains there ...

Question: And the Tana says that he (Rebbi Meir) concedes to Rebbi Yehudah? ...

Answer #1: It does not mean that Rebbi Yehudah permits the Pesoles of the barn and the wine-press.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he calls 'Pesel' what one cuts off from the tree.

Precedent: In similar vein they argue in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 27b & 28a), where Rebbi Yehudah says that Biy'ur Chametz is confined to burning - Kal va'Chomer from Nosar, which is not subject to 'Bal Yera'eh' ...

Precedent (cont.): To which the Rabanan respond that this is a Din which is 'Initially a Chumrah but will end up being a Kula' - in the event that one cannot find wood with which to burn the Chametz.

Halachah: In that case, the Halachah is like Rebbi Yehudah, since the S'tam Mishnah in Temurah (Daf 33b) that Paskens that 'Chametz must be burned'

Conclusion: So we see that we consider it a Kal va'Chomer even though it will end up being a Kula ...