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 ...

Question (cont.): 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, or after the Lekitah, like Raban Gamliel.

Question (concl.): So we see, that those who go after the Lekitah, do so even after the fruit has fully grown ...

Reason: Seeing as the fruit formed in the Sh'vat of the previous year but was not picked until the following Sh'vat?

Introduction to Answer: Perhaps an Esrog is different than other fruit - since it tends to remain on the tree for another two or three years ...

Answer #1: And as long as it remains on the tree it continues to grow each year.

Answer #2: Alternatively, even though it formed in the Sh'vat of the previous year, sometimes its growth is not completed until the following Sh'vat.

Comment: And that explains why, in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 15b), Rebbi Yochanan, in connection with Esrog, says 'Even a K'Zayis which became the size of a loaf' - meaning that it would grow on account of the rain of the coming year.

Explanation #1: One dos not however require a K'Zayis, seeing as Rebbi Yochanan goes after the budding ...

Explanation #2: Unless less than a K'Zayis is not considered Chanatah by an Esrog.

Refuted Text: There are some who have the text in Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 15b) 'Esrog goes after the Chanatah as regards both Ma'aser and Shevi'is, and they hold like Rebbi Eliezer mentioned earlier.

Refutation: It is impossible to say this however, as is evident in the current Sugya, which has the text 'After the Lekitah' ...

Conclusion: And there are three opinions in the matter.

Explanation #1: One can explain this Davka ...

Explanation #2: And one can explain it La'av Davka.

Clarification: If they (the leaves of canes and vines) were S'tam for firewood, designating them for food would not be effective ...

Proof: Like pinewood that one gathered for lighting, according to Rava who holds 'S'tam wood is for firewood'.

Conclusion: Perhaps S'tam they are meant for both, which is why designation helps.

Clarification: Whether Sh'mitah applies to them or not.

Opinion #1: Since there is a Tana who Darshens "Lachem", 'similar to for eating' - to preclude wherever the Hana'ah follows the burning up, such as wood that is for burning ...

Opinion #2: Whilst others preclude only something where the Hana'ah is not shared by everybody.

Text #2: Rashi's Rebbes had the text ' "Whether S'tam wood is for burning" is a Machlokes Tana'im'.

Baffled: Rashi states that he tried hard to explain it, but he did not succeed.

Rashi in Bava Kama: In 'ha'Gozel Basra' (Bava Basra, Daf 102a) however, he explained - 'It is a Machlokes Tana'im - One opinion holds that S'tam wood is meant for burning, in which case Sh'mitah does not take effect even on pine-wood ...

Rashi in Bava Kama (cont.): Whereas others maintain that it does take effect at least on pine-wood' (See Maharam).

Rabanan: And the Machlokes Tana'im is as follows (See Maharam): The Rabanan hold that 'S'tam fruit is for eating', and Kedushas Shevi'is takes effect on it, as the Gemara explained, that it takes effect on wherever the Hana'ah is simultaneous with the 'burning up' ...

Rabanan (cont.): Consequently, even if one picks it to soak or to wash clothes, Machshavah does not help to make it like leaves of canes that one collects for firewood. and which are permitted, since S'tam they stand to be used for both ...

Rabanan (cont.): But S'tam fruit is meant for eating, and from the time thaat it is formed, Kedushah takes effect on it, following which Machshavah does not help to move it to the status of soaking or washing clothes, which are not subject to Kedushas Shevi'is.

Rabanan (concl.): Regarding wood too, 'S'tam wood is for burning', and Kedushah therefore, does not take effect even on pine-wood.

Rebbi Yossi: Whereas Rebbi Yossi holds that we do not say 'S'tam fruit is for eating', and Machshavah is therefore effective, like leaves of canes and vines.

Rebbi Yossi (cont.): And if one picked it for soaking, it is something whose Hana'ah comes only after it has been burned up, and it is not subject to Shevi'is.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that, since from the time that one soaked the flax or the clothes in wine even for an hour, it is burned up and lost, whereas there is no benefit until one wears them.

Question: In 'ha'Gozel Kama (Bava Kama, Daf 101b & 102a) the Gemara categorizes dyed things as 'the Hana'ah and the burning up are equal' ...

Question (cont.): Whereas according to Rashi's above reason, it ought to have categorized it as 'The Hana'ah comes after the burning' - seeing as the burning occurs whilst it is dyeing and one only wears it afterwards.

Answer: According to what the Gemara wants to say there that 'The value of the due is contained in the wool', the question is answered, since this S'vara does not apply by 'soaking' or 'washing clothes'.

Explanation #2: Rashi there explains that various kinds of dye the root dissolves and the color catches on to the garment - in which case 'The burning and the Hana'ah come about simultaneously' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas in the case of 'Soaking' and 'Washing clothes', from the moment one places the flax or the garment into the wine, it becomes spoilt and 'burned up', and the Hana'ah only comes after three or four days, when the flax has soaked.

Implied Question: When the Beraisa said earlier (on Daf 30b) that 'If he handed it over, he must say "This money is redeemed on to the fruit that I have at home" ' ...

Answer: It is merely a K'nas, as Tosfos explaind there (DH 'Ma'os').

Clarification: The chief Isur is working on the land - plowing and sowing; buying selling is only an Asei - "For eating", 'and not for business' ...

Clarification (cont.): And this punishment is explained in the first Perek of Kidushin (Daf 20) - 'In the end, he will sell his Metalt'lin, his house and himself, for the sin of doing business (with Sh'mitah produce), measure for measure.

Clarification: It is speaking about Ma'aser Sheini outside Yerushalayim. In Yerushalayim it is permitted to use it even to purchase animals to bring as Shelamim ...

Proof #1: As is evident in the first Perek of Ma'aser Sheini.

Proof #2: Moreover, since the Gemara shortly comments - 'Because if one would not say that, is "Ma'aser", really Ma'aser", but does the Torah not write "And you shall wrap the money in your hand"? ...

Proof #2 (cont.): Meaning How can the Ma'aser be transferred on to an animal, a beast or a bird? 'What must "Ma'aser" therefore mean? the money of Ma'aser'.

Proof #2 (concl.): This implies that it is speaking outside Yerushalayim - since it cites the Pasuk "And you shall wrap the money"

Source: As the Tosefta in Shevi'is (7:5) states quoting Rebbi Meir - 'One may redeem (Mechal'lin) both Shevi'is and Ma'aser Sheini on a blemished beast, animal or bird; whereas the Chachamim maintain that they only permitted animals that are already Shechted.

Source (cont.): 'Mechal'lin implies Lechatchilah.

Implied Question: And the reason that it says here 'Mischal'lin', implying Bedi'eved ...

Source: As it says at the beginning of 'ha'Zahav' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 45a) It ought to have said 'Mischal'lin' and 'Ein Mischal'lin' ...

Answer: Is because it is a Chidush according to the Rabanan, that even Bedi'eved, it cannot be redeemed on live animals.

Question: At the beginning of 'ha'Zahav (Ibid, Daf 44b) it implies that, according to both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, one may not transfer coins on to fruit - by the Machlokes concerning 'A msan is forbidden to exchange Sela'aim for golden Dinrim'?

Answer: It speaks here where he exchanged it with the intention of taking it to Yerushalayim and eating it there.

Alternative Explanation: And it is a Machlokes in the Yerushalmi (in the first Perek of Ma'aser Sheini) - Some forbid it even on that condition, and they establish the Machlokes Rebbi Meir and the Rabanan here by D'mai.

Question: On the basis of a Gezeirah mi'de'Rabanan that 'Perhaps he will raise flocks', we should not have forbidden redeeming Ma'aser Sheini even Bedi'eved?

Source: As is implied at the beginning of 'ha'Zahav' (Daf 45b), by the Machlokes concerning 'Not exchanging Sela'im for golden Dinrim' - where the Gemara asks 'That is fine according to the Lashon where you said that mi'd'Oraysa it is permitted, that is why it says "Ya'aseh" and "Lo Ya'aseh" ...

Source (cont.): But according to the Lashon where you said that they argue mi'd'Oraysa , it ought to have said "Mischal'lin " and "Lo Mischal'lin"? ...

Source (concl.): Indicating that in connection with a Gezeirah mi'de'Rababan, one does not say 'Ein Mischal'lin' even Bedi'eved?

Answer: 'Ein Mischal'lin' here means that the money must be returned ...

Precedent: Similar to what the Gemara says in Perek ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 56a).

Rashi: On the Beraisa in Perek ha'Ish Mekadesh (Kidushin, Daf 55b) states 'One may not purchase an animal with the money of Ma'aser Sheini', Rashi explains 'in case the animal becomes weak (as a result of the journey)' ...

Refutation: He should not have said that however, but rather 'In case he raises flocks' as the Gemara explains here ...

Refutation (cont.): And even Rebbi Meir only argues by males, but not by females, as the Gemara explains here.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi (in Ma'aser Sheini, Perek 1. end of Halachah 2) confines the Machlokes to males - whether we decree males on account of females (See Maharsha).

Question: The Rabanan there, who say that 'If one made the purchase be'Shogeg, he (the seller) must return the money; be'Meizid, he (the owner), takes it to Yerushalayim and spends it there'? (See Maharam).

Answer: It speaks where he initially had the intention of buying it for a Shelamim (Hagahos ne'ha'Rav Renchberg), as Rebbi Yehudah explains there ...

Answer (cont.): Because then we do not decree that 'Hee might raise flocks'.

Answer (cont.): And 'He bought it for a Shelamim' is La'av Davka, because even if he bought it S'tam - since it is without a blemish.

Reason: Since he (Rebbi Yehudah) only precludes where he deliberately spend the Ma'aser Sheini money on Chulin.

Answer (concl.): Where the animals are blemished however, Rebbi Yehudah states in the Seifa of the Tosefta (Ma'aser Sheini 1:15), that 'The money must be returned, irrespective of whether he purchased it be'Shogeg or be'Meizid'.

Conclusion: And the entire Beraisa in Kidushin goes according to Rebbi Yehudah.

Implied Question: Because even according to the opinion in Perek Zeh Borer (Sanhedrin, Daf 25a & 25b) that when Rebbi Yehudah says 'Eimasai' it is to explain; 'Ba'meh', it is to argue (and the Tana there cites Rebbi Yehudah with the Lashon 'Ba'meh ... ') ... (taken from the next page).

Answer: That is only that 'Ba'meh' sometimes means that he argues, but there are also times when it comes to explain.