(Ula b. Chanina): If the hole runs through the Esrog, the Esrog is Pasul with the loss of a Mashehu; if the hole does not go completely through the Esrog, then it is Pasul only if it is at least as large as an Isar.

Question (Rava): What is the Din if the Esrog develops symptoms akin to the Tereifos of an animal?

Question: Anything to which Rava might be referring has already been taught (as Kosher or Pasul) in a Mishnah!?

Answer: Rava is asking about the application of the Din of Ula citing R. Yochanan regarding the liquified flesh around the lung.

R. Yochanan ruled the animal still Kosher.

Rava qualified this ruling as applying only when their are still intact Symponin.

In the parallel case of Esrog, the flesh is liquefied but the seeds (equivalent to the blood vessels in the lungs) are still intact.

Rava's question is whether we view the fact that the Esrog is exposed to air (unlike the lung cavity) as rendering it already rotten, or does it not make a difference.

Answer: We learn in the Beraisa that a Tafuach and Saruach are among the listed Pesulim of the Esrog.

Surely the Saruach is our case where the skin (and area around the seeds) is intact but the flesh is rotten.

We see, then, that Rava's case is Pasul!

No indication may be drawn from that Beraisa since both Tafuach and Saruach may refer to external features which may exist exclusively of one another.

Among the listed Pesulim (in 1.c. above) is the Esrog Kushi.

Question: But our Mishnah taught that it is Kosher, while one which is similar to a Kushi is Pasul!?

Answer (Abaye): The Mishnah means to invalidate an Esrog similar to a Kushi (ie. a black Esrog found outside of Kush, where black is not normal, is Pasul).

Answer (Rava): We are speaking of an actual Esrog from Kush which would be Kosher in Babel (its proximity to Kush makes a Kush Esrog common there) while in Eretz Yisrael it would be Pasul.

In the above-cited Beraisa there is a Machlokes whether an Esrog ha'Boser is Pasul (R. Akiva) or Kosher (Chachamim).

(Rabah): R. Akiva and R. Shimon are of one opinion.

R. Akiva as cited.

R. Shimon exempts tiny Esrogim from Ma'aser (presumably for the same reason as R. Akiva, that they are not considered a fruit and lack Hadar).

(Abaye): R. Akiva may not be of one mind with R. Shimon.

R. Akiva may invalidate the unripe Esrog because of its lack of Hadar, but may agree with Chachamim regarding its qualification for Ma'aser (since it may, after all, be eaten)!

Alternately, R. Shimon may have exempted it from Ma'aser inferring this from the Pasuk (that to be obligated the fruit must be fit for use as a seed) but hold like Chachamim regarding Esrog.

Thus the opinions of R. Akiva and R. Shimon may not be equated.

The Beraisa above invalidates an Esrog which was shaped by the form placed around it during its growth.

(Rava): This holds only if the mold forces it into a new shape, not if it is in the shape of an Esrog.

Question: That is obvious, the Beraisa itself mentions the new shape as the source of invalidation!?

Answer: We need Rava's Din to permit the case where the form made the Esrog look like a series of slats connected in the shape of an Esrog.

(Rav): An Esrog which was bitten by mice lacks Hadar.

Question: But R. Chanina would eat some of his Esrog and then use it for the Mitzvah!?

Question: How will R. Chanina understand the Mishnah which invalidates a Chaser?

Answer: R. Chanina was speaking on Yom Tov Sheni.

Answer: Mice make a worse Hadar problem than simple Chaser (and would be Pasul even on the second day).

Alternate rendition of the above:

(Rav): An Esrog bitten by mice is still Hadar, as supported by R. Chanina's practice.

Question: How will R. Chanina understand the Mishnah?

Answer: He permits the Chaser on Yom Tov Sheni.

(Rafram b. Papa): The Machlokes regarding Esrog is the same as the one regarding the size of stones used for sanitary purposes.

There, too, R. Meir allows the carrying of stones up to the size of an Egoz and R. Yehudah allows until an egg.

R. Yosi supported his allowing a very large Esrog by reporting the incident wherein R. Akiva arrived with his huge Esrog slung on his shoulder.

(R. Yehudah): That is not a support since the Rabbis corrected R. Akiva there (pointing out that it is not Hadar)!

(R. Yehudah): The Minim must be bound with the Minim themselves.

(R. Meir): Any string is adequate, as supported by the people of Yerushalayim who would use gold thread.

(R. Yehudah): They would tie them with Minim underneath the adornment.

(Rava): Any material from the Minim, even the least significant (such as Siv), is adequate for R. Yehudah, who does not require Hadar.

(Rava): The rationale of R. Yehudah is his requirement that the Minim be bound, thus lending significance to the binding material which, if another material is used, would introduce a fifth Min.

(Rava): I learn the inclusion of Siv as a type of Lulav material from the implication of this Beraisa:

(R. Meir): Any vegetation may be used (as derived from the Pasuk).

(R. Yehudah): The Sechach must be made only of the leaves of the Minim, (from a Kal va'Chomer).

(Chachamim): Any Kal va'Chomer which results in a Kulah (since one who cannot find Sechach of the Minim would be without a Sukah) may not be learned.

Rather, any vegetation may be used, as seen clearly from the Pasuk in Nechemiah wherein Ezra tells the People to bring various leaves in addition to the Minim.

(R. Yehudah): The other vegetation were meant for the walls, and the leaves of the Minim were meant for the Sechach.

Now we know from the Mishnah that R. Yehudah permits planks as Sechach, which must be the planks of wood from the trees of the Minim.

Hence we know that even Siv (which is part of the palm tree) is Kosher!