Precedent: The Gemara issues a similar ruling regarding Megilah, in Perek ha'Korei es ha'Megilah Omeid (Megilah, Daf 21b).

Introduction to Question: And when the Mishnah in Perek Ba Siman (Nidah, Daf 51b) states that 'Some things require a B'rachah beforehand but not afterwards', and the Gemara explains that 'It comes to include smell' ...

Implied Question #1: The Gemara could have said 'to include Hallel,and Megilah, there where the Minhag is not to recite a B'rachah after them ...

Answer: Only 'smell' is clear-cut.

Implied Question #2: It could also have said many Mitzvos, such as Tzitzis, Shofar, Sukah and Lulav ...

Source: According to Rabeinu Tam, who maintains that one recites the B'rachah 'Lish'mor Chukav' exclusively after Tefilin ...

Source (cont.): Specifically when one takes them off due to nightfall, according to the opinion that holds 'night-time is not the time of Tefilin'.

Explanation #1: Consequently, one needs to recite the B'rachah before picking it up, because once one picks it up, one has already fulfilled the Mitzvah, as the Gemara will say at the end of the Perek (Daf 42a).

Refutation: This is not logical however, since how can recite the B'rachah whilst the Lulav is still lying in the K'li? ...

Source: Seeing as the Gemara says in 'ha'Kometz Rabah' (Menachos, Daf 38b & 39a) 'When does one recite the B'rachah over Tefilin? From the time that one puts them on till one has tied them'.

Refutation (cont.): So as long as the object of Mitzvah in one's hand ready to perform it, it is not logical to recite the B'rachah over it.

Explanation #2: Perhaps one recites the B'rachah from when one starts to pick up the Lulav before one has taken the Esrog

Reason: Which is 'Over la'Asiyasan' - since they hold each other back from being Yotzei. (Menachos, Daf 27a).

Explanation #3: Alternatively, after he has picked both of them up - only he holds one of them upside down ...

Source: As the Gemara will say at the end of the Perek (Daf 42a) 'It speaks where he turned it upside down'.

Reason: Since 'One can only be Yotzei the Mitzvos the way they grow' ...

Reason: As the Gemara Darshens in Perek Lulav va'Aravah (later, Daf 45b), from the Pasuk "Atzei Shitim Omdim".

Explanation #4: And even if one holds them the right way up, it is possible to have in mind not to be Yotzei until after the B'rachah.

Implied Question: Because, even though the Gemara says at the end of 'Ra'uhu Beis-Din' (Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 28b) that 'Mitzvos do not require Kavanah' ...

Answer: Nevertheless, against one's will one is not Yotzei.

Implied Question: And the reason that the Gemara does not give this answer at the end of the Perek (Daf 42a), is ...

Answer: Because it speaks there about someone who is not conversant with the Mitzvah, who is on his way to learn from an expert.

Explanation #5: Another answer (to the original question) is that the Mitzvah is not conpleted until after one has shaken the Lulav ...

Precedence: And for the same reason one recites the B'rachah over washing one's hands after one has actually washed them - since the Mitzvah is not completed until one has dried them ...

Source: As the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Sotah (Daf 4b) - that it is forbidden to eat before having dried one's hands.

Refutation: The comparison is not fully justifiable however - since shaking the Lulav is merely the 'leftovers' of the Mitzvah and is not crucial ...

Source: As the Gemara at the end of the Perek, 42a) in answer to the question 'As soon as he picks it up he is Yotzei?' , establishes it where he turned it upside down, and not where he has not yet performed the Ni'nu'in.

Conclusion: In fact though, one recites the B'rachah after one has been Yotzei ...

Source #1: As is evident in the first Perek of Pesachim (Daf 7b & 8a) where they argue over 'Al Biy'ur Chametz' - where one hold that it implies more the past, whilst the other holds that it also implies the future ...

Source #1 (cont.): And it asks from 'Someone who prepares the Lulav for himself, where the Tana says that if he picked it up to be Yotzei, he recites the B'rachah 'Al Netilas Lulav' - a problem with the opinion that holds 'Leva'er'

Source #1 (cont.): And it answers 'That it is different there, since the moment he picks it up he is Yotzei' ...

Source #1 (concl.): And in answer to the Kashya 'In that case, it ought to have said, not 'la'Tzeis', but 'Yatza bo'? , it answers that the Reisha says 'Latzeis' - in order to balance the Seifa which says 'Leishev bah'.

Reason: We are therefore forced to say that since one still needs to make Ni'nu'in, and the Mitzvah is not yet completed, one recites the B'rachah at that point.

Source #2: Moreover, like the Gemara at the end of the Perek (Daf 41b) cites the Minhag of the men of Yerushalayim - who would leave the house Lulav in hand; enter Shul Lulav in hand; read the Sh'ma Lulav in hand ...

Implied Question: Even though all of these are not crucial ...

Answer: Nevertheless since it involves performing the Mitzvah in an ideal fashion, it is considered 'Over la'Asiyasan'.

Support: Indeed the Yerushalmi expressly rules in Perek ha'Ro'eh (B'rachos, Halachah 3) in connection with Tzitzis - 'Someone who makes Tzitzis for himself, recites the B'rachah "Baruch ... ha'Oseh Tzitzis", and when he has wrapped them around himself, he says "Baruch ... le'His'atef be'Tzitzis" ...

Reason: This is because the Mitzvah extends to as long as he is still wrapped in them.

Doubt: Nevertheless, it is not entirely comparable to Lulav, where the B'rachah is 'Al Netilas Lulav, and the moment he picks it up, the basic Mitzvah is already over.

Machlokes: And there in the Yerushalmi they argue over when one recites the B'rachah over a Mitzvah - 'Rebbi Yochanan says 'Over la'Asiyasan; whereas Rav Huna says whilst one is performing it'.

Refuted Explanation: Rashi explains that the Gemara establishes it by an Am ha'Aretz, and a Chaver does not refer to an Am ha'Aretz as 'his friend'.

Refutation: There is no source for this however, since we find many occasions where he does ...

Source #1: The Mishnah in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin, Daf 61a & 61b) - 'A woman may lend her friend who is suspect on Sh'mitah ... '.

Source #2: In Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 32a & 32b) - 'Someone who says to his friend "Go and pick yourself figs from my fig-tree", may eat from them Arai (casually) but must Ma'aser them Vadai' ...

Source #2 (cont.): And the Seifa establishes that by an Am ha'Aretz.

Source #3: And in Perek ha'Sho'el (Shabbos, Daf 150a) - 'A man may not say to his friend "Hire laborers for me" ', an the Gemara there establishes it by his friend who is a Nochri.

Clarification: On what grounds is one not permitted to purchase it?

Clarification (cont.): If it is because it is forbidden to do business with the fruit of Sh'mitah, it is only considered 'business' if it resembles the case discussed in Maseches Shevi'is (7:3) ...

Clarification (cont.): 'One may not pick (Loke'ach) vegetables that grew in a field and sell them in the market'; but he is permited to pick fruit and for his son to sell next to him; If he picked it for himself and left over, he is permitted to sell.

Clarification (concl.): 'Loke'ach' in this case is synonymous with 'Lokeit' (pick), as the Seifa states 'but he is permitted to pick fruit' (Lokeit).

Proof: And the Tosefta specifically writes that 'He is not permitted to pick to sell in the market, because when the same person who sells it is the person who licked it, it is forbidden ...

Reason: Because the Torah permits picking it in order to eat it, but not to do business with it.

Proof (cont.): But where he picks and his son sells next to him, it is not considered business, since he (his son) did not pick them.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi states 'Brothers may pick them and one of them sells on the spot' ...

Reason: Because via 'absorption' one is permitted to sell both one's own and that of one's friend.

Yerushalmi (cont.): 'Provided', said Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Bun, 'they don't make him a shop-keeper' - in other words, he should not sell there on an ongoing basis.

Clarification: And 'The merchants of Sh'mitah produce' which the 'Mishnah in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 22a & 22b) & in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin, Daf 24a) refers to is speaking about such a case.

Clarification (cont.): Though it is possible that someone who buys from his friend with the intention of selling at a profit also falls under the heading of 'business'.

Proof: An in the seventh Perek of Shevi'is (Mishnah 3), when the Mishnah forbids doing business with the fruit of Sh'mitah, firstborn animals, T'rumos, Neveilos, T'reifos, Shekatzim and Remasim (various kinds of rodents)' ...

Proof (cont.): It is only in such a case that 'business pertains equally to all of them.

Reason: Since the Torah explicitly permits selling them, when it writes (in Devarim 14) "Or sell it (Neveilah or T'reifah) to a Nochri" (See also Mesores ha'Shas).

Explanation #1: Rashi attributes it to the fact that the Torah writes "le'Ochlah", 've'Lo li'Sechorah', that all the fruit of Sh'mitah is subject to Biy'ur (must be destroyed/used up) in the Sh'mitah, both they and their proceeds ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And on is therefore not permitted to do business with them, to put away for after the Sh'mitah and to become rich.

Question: In that case, all those which the Mishnah in Shevi'is (7:5) lists as being subject to Sh'mitah but not to Biy'ur ought to be permitted ...

Question (cont.): Whereas the Gemara asks shortly 'In that case, Lulav too (should be forbidden)? - and Lulav, which remains on the tree, is not subject to Biy'ur, yet it wants to forbid giving its proceeds to an Am ha'Aretz?

Explanation #2: But the reason for the prohibition is - because of the numerous Isurim that an Am ha'Aretz is not careful about, since it is forbidden to purchase with the proceeds a non-Kasher animal (See Mesores ha'Shas for sources), Avadim & Karka'os, a shirt, a cloak and shoes ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Nor may one use them to pay a well-digger, a bath-attendant, a sailor or a barber ...

Reason: Because Shevi'is is meant for eating, drinking and anointing, but not for any other purpose.

Explanation #2 (cont.): It is also forbidden to pay off one's debt with them, and there is no end to the number of Dinim and prohibitions that pertain to the fruit of Sh'mitah that require that one treat them with Kedushas Shevi'is.

Inference: This implies that that the cost of an Esrog is sufficient to purchase more than three meals.

Implied Question: And when the Mishnah says in the sixth Perek of Me'ilah (Daf 21a) 'He gave him two P'rutos and told him to buy an Esrog with one, and a pomegranate with the other ...

Answer: It is speaking about a Pasul Esrog that intends to eat, whereas here a Kasher and good-quality one that one wants for a B'rachah is expensive.

Clarification: It is a Machlokes in the Sugya of 'Tzenu'in' in 'Merubeh' (Bava Kama, Daf 68b; See Tosfos DH 'Hu') in connection with 'A vineyard of R'vai', as to whether one can redeem something that is curently in the possession of one's friend.

Question: According to the one who maintains that it is forbidden, on what grounds is it valid here?

Answer: Here it is merely a K'nas.

Precedent: And we find the equivalent ruling in Perek ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 55b & 56a) where on the Mishnah 'One may not purchase a Tamei animal, Avadim or Karka'os with Ma'aser Sheini money; and if one did, he must eat (from Chulin) a corresponding amount' ...

Precedent (cont.): The Gemara comments that it is a K'nas.

Explanation #1: That one may at least hand over enough for three meals, 'when he purchases from Hefker' - where the Chaver saw that the fruit was picked in a field that is Hefker, that the Am ha'Aretz in question did not guard it ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And since we did not see that he is Chashud, it is permitted to hand him a little, but not a large amount, so that he should not be miserly and hide it ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): But where he purchases from what has been guarded - where the field is guarded by a wall an the gate is locked, he is suspecte of not declaring it Hefker, and the Torah writes "You shall leave it untended and unharvested, and the poor among your people shall eat it", and the fact that he sells it on the bit by bit is deceitful (Rashi).

Question: However, this explanation does not hold according to Tosfos citing Rabeinu Tam's explanation in the second Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 24a & 24b) in connection with the case of 'Mine is Chadash and my friend's is Yashan!' ...

Question (cont.): That S'tam an Am ha'Aretz is not Chashud, unless we know for a fact that he is.

Refuted Answer: Because if it speaks here where he is definitely Chashud ...

Refutation: Then 'ha'Pigam and all the cases mentioned there in the Mishnah, should be Asur even if they are Hefker?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu therefore explains that fruit from a guarded field is forbidden ...

Source: As the Toras Kohanim Darshens "And the grapes that you have set aside (Nezirecha) you shall not pick", 'From what is Hefker you may pick but not what is guarded" - since "Nezirecha" implies grapes from which one kept people away.

Sugya in Yevamos: And this is how Rashi himself explained at the end of Yevamos (Daf 122a) in the name of his Rebbes in connection with 'A Nochri who was selling fruit in the market, and who said "This fruit is fruit of Orlah, of Neta R'vai or of Azeikah", has said nothing ...

Reason: Since he is merely praising his goods.

Explanation #1: 'Shel Azeikah' - means an orchard that is protected and is surrounded by a wall in the Shmitah.

Question: However Rashi there queries their explanation in that 'What Isur is there here? If the time of Biy'ur has passed, then it is Asur, irrespective as to whether it is guarded or whether it is Hefker; whereas prior to that, they are both permitted?

Explanation #2: So he explains there that 'Azeikah' is the name of a town in Eretz Yisrael whose fruits are of high quality ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): If the Nochri was in Chutz la'Aretz and he were to praise them and say They are from Azeikah' we would take no notice with regard to Sh'mitah, which does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz ...

Reason: Since the Gemara says (in Chagigah, 3b) 'Amon and Mo'av are subject to Ma'aser Ani in the Sh'mitah ...

Reason (cont.): And regarding not Ma'asering on them from fruit of Chutz la'Aretz, because of (the prohibition of) not taking Ma'aser from what is Patur on what is Chayav'.

Rabeinu Tam: Rabeinu Tam however, opts for the former explanation - since what has been guarded is Asur, as Tosfos explained; and 'Azeikah' is as in the Pasuk in Yeshayah (chapter 5) "va'Ye'azkeihu va'Yesakleihu (he surrounded it with a fence and cleared it of stones)" ...

Rabeinu Tam (cont.): Like the Mishnah in the second Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 23b) 'It was called 'Beis Ya'azek'.

Rabeinu Tam (concl.): And he says all this in order to praise his goods - since fruit of a young tree and better than fruit of an old tree, fruit of a guarded orchard, better than one that is Hefker, which everyone handles - and handling is harmful to the fruit as well as the fact that one tends to pick it before it is ripe.

Clarification (here): When it says here 'Even as little as half an Isar is forbidden', it is with regard to the Isur of eating ...

Clarification (Bava Metzi'a): Whereas 'The guards of the wild seeds of Shevi'is', in Perek ha'Bayis ve'ha'Aliyah (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 118a), are not guarding the field against eating ...

Reason: Since, would not be necessary to guard against people - who would automatically distance themselves once they discovered that the fruit was needed for the Omer, so they would not need to guard it ...

Clarification (Bava Metzi'a [cont.]): But it was from wild animals and birds that they were guarding it.

Question #1: There is a Kashya on Rabeinu Tam however, in that the Toras Kohanim only declares Asur what is guarded if is has been picked in the regular way, but if it has been picked with a Shinuy, it is permitted? ...

Source: As it states in the Seifa 'One may not harvest a fig-tree in the Sh'mitah with a knife used for cutting figs, only a regular knife ...

Source: One may not press grapes in a winepress, only in a large dish; One may not prepare olives in a regular or medium-size olive-press, but one may pound them first and place them inside a small press ...

Source (concl.): And this refers to 'From what has been guarded'.

Question #2: Furthermore, from the current Sugya it implies that 'even half an Isar' from what has been guarded is only forbidden because one handed the payment of Sh'mitah to someone who is suspect on Sh'mitah, but that the fruit may be eaten?

Question #2: Because, if it would be forbidden, since when does one purchase something that is forbidden?

Question #3: This itself poses a Kashya however, since the Toras Kohanim there Darshens the beginning of the Pasuk with regard to the prohibition of eating ..

Source: When, commenting on the Pasuk "The Sefi'ach (wild seeds) of your harvest you shall not cut", it says in the Reisha - 'From here we learn that 'Sefichim are forbidden'?

Question #4: Furthermore, the entire Seifa 'A fig-tree of Sh'mitah' ... is a S'tam Mishnah in the eighth Perek (Mishnah 6), which implies that it refers to S'tam Shevi'is, which people generally declares Hefker? ...

Question #4: Even though the Yerushalmi cites the entire Drashah of the Toras Kohanim.

Clarification: This Mishnah goes according to the opinion in Perek Keitzad Mevorcchin (Daf 35a) that holds 'Neta R'vai'.

Implied Question: Vegetables are also subject to Shevi'is ...

Answer: The Yerushalmi, in the second Perek of Bikurim therefore establishes it - by a sixth-year Esrog that entered the seventh year, which is to the owner like a tree, that goes after the Chanatah (the ripening of the fruit) and which is therefore Patur from Ma'aser, and not like a vegetable that goes after the Lekitah.

Implied Question #1: And the reason that the Tana does not mention that 'It is equal to a tree regarding Kil'ayim, in that it is not K'lai ha'Kerem, which would not be the case by a vegetable ...

Implied Question #2: And regarding its Rosh ha'Shanah being Sh'vat - like a tree, since even though regarding Ma'aser it is considered a vegetable, its Rosh ha'Shanah is Sh'vat like a tree, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 14b & 15a) is ...

Answer: Because it the Tana only mentions those cases that in one respect one goes after the Chanatah and in another, after the Lekitah.

Question: Why do we not go by an Esrog, after the time it is picked in all regards, seeing as it grows entirely 'on water' like a vegetable? ...

Source: For so is implied in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Ibid.), where it says "be'Asp'cha mi'Gorn'cha u'mi'Yikvecha" - 'Goren ve'Yekev grow mainly 'on water', and are therefore Ma'asered after the previous year, to preclude vegetables which grow entirely 'on water', and which are therefore Ma'asered after the coming year'.

Reservation: And even though Ma'aser Yerek is only de'Rabanan ...

Question (cont.): Nevertheless with regard to Shevi'is which is d'Oraysa, the D'rashah is authentic?

Answer: Because the Gemara Darshens in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 10a) in connection with Orlah - Sometimes it is in the fourth year and they are still Asur because of Orlah' (See Mesores ha'Shas & Maharam).

Question: It implies here that regarding vegetables we go after the Lekitah with regard to Sh'mitah, and in Maseches Shevi'is (9:1) the Mishnah states that all S'fichim are permitted except for those of cabbages' ...

Clarification: The Rash according to the Yerushalmi explains there that it is speaking about the S'fichim of the sixth year that goes into the seventh ...

Clarification (cont.): And with that he answers the Gemara in Perek Makom she'Nahagu (Pesachim, Daf 51b & 52a) where the Beraisa says the opposite - 'They are all Asur except those of cabbages'.

Answer: It therefore seems that we only go by vegetables after the Lekitah when they have not fully grown in the sixth year ...

Answer (cont.): But when they have, they are permitted, both according to Rebbi Akiva - who learns 'Because they grow mainly on water', and according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili - who learns that they grow entirely on the water of the previous year' (the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah, Daf 14a) ...

Precedent: As is the Din by small onions mentioned there, from which one withheld water thirty days before Rosh ha'Shanah ...

Conclusion: And even those who disagree there will agree here ...

Reason: Because according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, since they have fully grown, it transpires that they grew entirely on the water of the previous year, and they will not grow any more on the water of the coming year

Reason (cont.): And according to Rebbi Akiva too, seeing as they are no longer growing 'on all water', they have left the realm of vegetables that grow 'on all water' ...

Support: As the Yerushalmi, citing Rebbi Mana, explains in the second Perek of Shevi'is, in connection with small onions - 'Since he withheld water from them thirty days before Rosh ha'Shanah, they have become a field that is not watered, which suffices with rain-water, and is Ma'asered retroactively.

Precedent: And so it appears with regard to rice and millet, in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 13b), to which Shmuel applies the Din of vegetables, which go after the Lekitah ...

Precedent (cont.): Yet the Gemara says that 'Everything goes after when the fruit is completed - so we see that the chief criterion is the completion of the fruit.

Precedent (cont.): And the Gemara always gives the criterion as 'after the Lekitah' because one normally picks the fruit when it is fully grown.

Precedent (concl.): And they (rice and millet) all finish growing at the same time, but they do not dry out at the same time ...

Source: As the Gemara says there - 'They are picked a bit at a time'.

Question: There is a Kashya on this from Esrog however, from the Gemara in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 14b), which establishes the case there by an Esrog-tree whose fruit formed before the previous fifteenth of Sh'vat Implying that Rebbi Akiva took two Ma'asros because he had a Safek as to whether by Esrog we go after the Chanatah, like Rebbi Eliezer,