Explanation #1: That one shouldn't think that it is a kind of vegetable, since it is a small tree- like a shrub which is not tall (Rashi).

Question: That is not the criterion of a tree, as there are many small trees which have the Din of a tree?

Explanation #2: But the reason is because of the Gemara in the last Perek of Yoma (Daf 81b & 82a) which declares Patur someone who chews peppers on Yom Kipur; and in reply to the query from the Beraisa that renders them subject to Orlah, it draws a distinction between one that is moist and one that has dried ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): We might therefore have thought that since it stands to dry up, even one that is moist is Patur.

Question: What makes the Gemara think that the Pasuk is referring to peppers? Perhaps it is referring to an Esrog, or to fenugreek? ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as the Esrog-tree tasted like its fruit, as the Gemara says here, and so does the fenugreek-tree, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Beitzah (Daf 13a)?

Answer: It would not be a Chidush to teach us that an Esrog-tree is subject to Orlah, whereas fenugreek is a vegetable, seeing as it is considered Kil'ayim in a vineyard ...

Source: As the Mishnah in Orlah (3:6), cited at the beginning of Beitzah (3a) and in 'ha'Areil' (Yevamos, Daf 81a & 81b) states 'Someone who has bundles of fenugreek of K'lai ha'Kerem'.

Clarification: And the Torah writes "Lachem", implying that it is something from which can derive benefit from in all the regular areas of Hana'ah ...

Implied Question: Even though regarding T'rumah Teme'ah, the Gemara in 'Bameh Madlikin' (Shabbos, Daf 25a) Darshens from the fact that the Torah writes "L'cha" - that it is yours to burn underneath your pot' ...

Answer: Since it is Tamei and the Torah forbade it (to be eaten), it is possible to Darshen "L'cha" there regarding other types of benefit ...

Precedent: Like "Lachem" by Lulav, where eating is not applicable.

Question: With regard to the Lulav of an Asheirah and of an Ir ha'Nidachas (above, 31b), why does the Gemara need to come on to the reason of 'Michtas Shi'ureih? Why not because 'We need a Din Mamon' ...

Question (cont.): Since even the opinion that is not concerned with Din Mamon here regarding Esrog, that is only because an Esrog is mainly for eating ...

Question (concl.): But "Lachem" that is written by Lulav, which is not eaten is written with regard to the Din Mamon?

Answer: It mentions 'Michtas Shi'ureih' in order to render it Pasul even on the second day Yom-Tov.

Question: Why does Gemara not give the reason by an Esrog of Orlah because of 'Michtas Shi'ureih', since it is a Mitzvah to burn it ...

Source: Since the Gemara in the last Perek of Temurah (Daf 33b) lists it together with the things that must be burned ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara says there that 'Things that are subject to burning may not be buried?

Question (cont.): In fact, it may well be that Orlah is subject to burning mi'd'Oraysa ...

Source: Because we learn it from K'lai ha'Kerem, where the Torah writes "Pen Tukdash", and the Gemara Darshens in Chulin (Daf 115a) 'Pen Tukad Eish'.

Precedent: And it is for that reason, because it is a Mitzvah to burn it, that an Esrog of T'rumah Teme'ah is Pasul ...

Question (concl.): So why do we need the reason of 'Heter Achilah'?

Answer: Granted, it is not necessary, an they only argue over these reasons regarding Orlah because of the ramifications regarding Ma'aser Sheini, as the Gemara concludes.

Clarification: And the one who declares it Pasul, does so only mi'de'Rabanan.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have said 'Ma'aser Sheini outside Yerushalayim, according to both opinions ...

Source: Which is Mamon Gavohah, as is evident at the end of 'Cheilek' (Sanhedrin, Daf 112b [See Mesores ha'Shas])

Introduction to Question: The Gemara in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 35b), which explains that 'One cannot be Yotzei with Matzah of Tevel (on Pesach) because the Torah writes "Lo Sochal alav Chamev, Shiv'as Yamim Tochal alav Matzos" - to preclude Matzah which is Asur due to the prohibition of eating Tevel' ...

Question: Why does it not attribute it to the fact that Matzah must be 'Lachem', which Tevel is not? ...

Source: As is evident here regarding Esrog - since Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel only argue over D'mai, which one declare Hefker and which is then fit for him to eat ...

Question (cont.): But definite Tevel they will both agree?

Answer: It (Matzah of Tevel) is not comparable, since the reason that one cannot be Yotzei with an Esrog of Tevel is because it is like an Esog belonging to partners, in which the Kohen and the Levi have a share ...

Precedent: Which is akin to brothers who acquired an Esrog from the kitty, at the end of 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 137b & 138a) ...

Answer cont.): Whereas in the case of Matzah, if one eats a number of k'Zeisim, as long as one k'Zayis belongs to him, he is Yotzei.

Precedent: And by the same token, we can explain the ruling that 'A dough of Tevel is subject to Chalah'

Source: As is evident in a Beraisa in the fifth Perek of the Yerushalmi in D'mai, which states 'Someone who wants to separate Trumah, T'rumas Ma'aser and Chalah simultaneously ... '.

Precedent (cont.): Which must be speaking about Vaday Tevel, since it mentions T'rumah Gedolah'.

Precedent (concl.): And we do not declare him Patur, since the Torah writes "Arisosei*chem*", since it is speaking there where there are five Reva'im of flour besides the what belongs to the Kohen ...

Source: Because the Gemara in Perek Reishis ha'Gez (Chulin, Daf 135b) learns that a dough belonging to partners is subject to Chalah.

Implied Question #1: Even though the Gemara in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Menachos, Daf 67a) Darshens both of them - to preclude a. the dough of a Nochri, b. a dough belonging to Hekdesh?

Implied Question #2: Moreover, the Gemara in 'Reishis ha'Gez' (Chulin, Daf 135b) Darshens 'the amount of your doughs - i.e. the Shi'ur of the dough in the Desert (the Manna).

Implied Question #2: Here it is merely a Dichuy (not a solid answer).

Clarification: Since the Lulav together with its binding, is placed in water to prevent it ffrom withering, as we learned in the Mishnah in this Perek (Daf 42a) 'and he puts it back into water' ...

Clarification (cont.): And when he subsequently takes it again, water drips from it on to the Esrog.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have then explained that 'the difference (between the two opinions) will be there where the Esrog is already Muchshar'.

A More Basic Reason: It was unnecessary to give this reason - only 'because the poor are permitted to eat it ...

Source: Just as a Yisrael can be Yotzei with an Esrog of T'rumah because it is fit for a Kohen.

Precedent: Likewise in Perek Mefanin (Shabbos, Daf 127b & 128a) regarding T'rumah and D'mai (in connection with clearing out a store house on Shabbos) ...

Precedent: Where, in answer to the question that 'D'mai' is not fit for the owner to eat, answers that 'Since, if he wanted, he could declare his property Hefker' ...

Repeat Observation: There too, the Gemara could have said 'Since it is fit for the poor', just as it permits there the T'rumah that the Yisrael owns - because it is fit for a Kohen.

Repeat Question: But in the case cited in Perek ba'Kol Me'arvin (Eruvin, Daf 31a) where the Mishnah states 'Me'arvin bi'D'mai, and which the Gemara attributes to the fact that he could have declared his property Hefker, it is in order ...

Answer: Because the Gemara needs thto say that to explain the Mishnah even according to Sumchus, who argues there by 'Yisrael with T'rumah', but who agrees with 'Yisrael bi'Demai'.

Source: This is a Mishnah in the third Perek of D'mai.

Machlokes: There is a Machlokes in the Yerushalmi (Halachah 1), where ...

Opinion #1: Rebbi Yonah interprets 'Aniyim' as 'Talmidei-Chachamim', and 'Achsena'im' like Rebbi Yehoshua, who explains there that they are 'Yisrael'

Opinion #2: Whereas, according to Rebbi Yossi, 'Aniyim' means (even) Amei-ha'Aretz and 'Achsena'im', 'Nochri'.

Halachah: A S'tam Mishnah in D'mai rules 'Ma'achilin'.

Question: What is Rav Huna coming to teach us when he says that Beis Shamai argues?

Answer: One can give the same answer here as the Gemara gives in the last Perek of Yevamos (Daf 122a), on the Mishnah that permits getting married on the basis of a Bas Kol ...

Answer (cont.): On which Rabah bar Shmuel in the Gemara comments 'Beis Shamai says "Ein Masi'in", and Beis HIllel' "Masi'in" ' ...

Answer (concl.): And in answer to the Kashya 'What is he coming to teach us, the Gemara answers 'If one discovers a S'tam Beraisa that states 'Ein Masi'in', it is the opinion of Beis Shamai, and one cannot rely on it'.

Halachah: In the Yerushalmi (Halachah 6), there is a slight indication that it is only Pasul on the first day Yom-Tov, as Tosfos explained at the beginning of the Perek (Daf 29a, DH 'Kapasik').

Explanation #1: Rashi in the Mishnah, on 'Nitlah Pitmaso', citing R. Ya'akov ha'Zaken, explains 'The top of the Esrog; It is like the Pitma of a pomegranate (See Maharsha).

Explanation #2: And here he says that R. Yitzchak ben Elazar in his Beraisa, explains 'Pitmaso' - 'Buchnaso', because it is sharp and resembles a pestle.