Daf 29

1) A stolen Luluv is Pasul on the first day according to everyone since you need the Luluv to be yours. R' Yochanan quotes R' Shimon b. Yochai that it's Pasul even on the second day because it's a Mitzvah that comes through a sin. [Tosfos explains: this is only if the sin causes the Mitzvah to be done, like here where he can't take the Luluv if he didn't steal it. However, we say later that the only reason why you can't take a Luluv that was worshipped is because it needs to be burned, and we consider it as if it was burned and it doesn't have the Shiur, and we allow it if it's a non-Jew's since you can get a non-Jew to cancel the deity, but we don't say it's because the Mitzvah came from a sin; since the sin doesn't cause the Mitzvah. (However, Tosfos concludes with a question: why does the Gemara in Pesachim need a Drasha to say you're not Yoitza with Matzah of Tevel if it's anyhow a Mitzvah that comes from a sin?] This is like the Halacha that, if you stole an animal and you make it Kodesh, you can't bring it as a Korban because it's a Mitzvah that came through a sin, even though you acquire the animal through Yiyush (i.e., the owner giving up hope of retrieving it). [Tosfos adds: combined with changing the name of the object (from being Chulin to being Kodesh). However, the Gemara in Bava Kama seems to say that, according to the opinion that Yiyush acquires it by itself, you can bring it as a Korban since you acquired it before the Hekdesh. Although we see that you can't take Challah from stolen grain, despite acquiring it through changing the grain by the grinding before it's obligated in Challah, which is when you make it into dough; that's because you're making a Bracha over it, and it's not nice to mention Hashem's name over the stolen object.]

Daf 30

2) However, Shmuel says that you're Yoitza with a stolen Luluv on the second day and you don't need to worry about a Mitzvah that comes through a sin [Tosfos qualifies: by a rabbinical Mitzvah.]

3) [Tosfos explains: we find many Halachos of Luluv that the Rabanan say that you only need the first day, like that you should own the Luluv, and you should take them whole (without missing part of the Luluv or Esrog), and yet, other Halachos we need to keep the other days too, like that you need to take all four species and they need to be beautiful specimens. We must explain: we only care for the main form of the Mitzvah, like to have the four species, or to have beautiful specimens, since there is a general requirement to beautify the Mitzvah. However, they didn't require side Halachos like that they should be whole, or that they should be yours, and there is an argument whether it could be stolen.]

4) If you buy Hadasim from a non-Jew, since they're assumed to have stolen land, you have a problem taking it yourself since land can't be stolen (and can't have Yiyush; so, by detaching it, you're stealing from the original owner). [Tosfos explains this is even after Yiyush. However, the Yerushalmi says: if the name of the original owner is forgotten from the field, the robber acquires it. This is even without Yiyush, and even if he's screaming that it's his, it's as if he's screaming about a ship of his that's sinking in the sea, and it doesn't save it for him. Also, the Yerushalmi says that, the robber acquires it rabbinically inasmuch after Yiyush that, if he plants Klayim in the field, the produce become forbidden, and we don't apply the rule that someone can't forbid something that's not his.] Therefore, he can't cut it down himself, but have the non-Jew cut it down, so it will be stolen then (when it becomes a moveable object), and Yiyush comes into effect [Tosfos explains: although the owner is not aware that you cut it off, we don't say Yiyush can't take effect until the owner knows about it (and can't be assumed that he would have Yiyush if he knows about it. After all, he knows that it was stolen from him, but it just can't take effect until it's detached, so he doesn't need to know of the detachment for the Yiyush to take effect.] Then, when the Hadasim comes into your hands, you acquire it by it by changing possessions.

5) However, you can't say you'll acquire it anyhow when you bind it because it was changed, since we Paskin that it doesn't need to be bound. Even if you held that it must be bound, you don't acquire it since the change is reversible, which is not considered as a change to acquire. [Tosfos explains: even though it acquires rabbinically; still, since it doesn't acquire from the Torah, and since it's easily reversible by untying, he doesn't acquire it to be Yoitza. (However, we see later that, if it would be hard to reverse it, then they decreed for him to acquire it to be Yoitza with it, like we say later by a Sukka. This is the decree that the rabbis didn't require someone to break down his building to return a stolen beam.]

6) [Tosfos adds: we don't considered the very fact that it's now detached that it's enough of a change, as we see that he doesn't acquire a chopped down palm tree, since it's still considered as a palm tree after it's detached. This is a weaker change than an animal that became irreversibly weak, or old, (or wood that was sanded down) that the robber acquires it (and only needs to pay the worth it was at the time of the robbery), despite that it doesn't either change the name of the object.]

7) You can't say that you acquire it by a change of name, that it's now, when it's bound with the Lulav, called a Hoshana. [Tosfos says: although you can reverse the change, but "changing the name" acquires even if it's reversible with Yiyush. Only when you "change its form" do we say that it's not acquired when reversible even with Yiyush. (However, rabbinically, it's acquired with Yiyush when it's impractical to reverse it, like breaking a beam from a building, in order to help people to do Teshuva.)] After all, even before it's bound, and it's a regular Hadas, it's called a 'Hoshana.'

Daf 31

8) If someone stole a Sukka, or if he made a Sukka in public property; R' Eliezer holds he's not Yoitza. After all, [Tosfos: we see that he holds that you can steal land. Also], he holds that you're only Yoitza with a Sukka that belongs to you. However, the Chachumim hold he's Yoitza since they hold that land can't be stolen, and you're Yoitza with using someone else's Sukka.

9) This is only referring to a case where you kicked someone out of his Sukka. However, if you steal wood and put it in your Sukka, everyone holds he's Yoitza since he acquires the wood for the seven days, like by building a beam in a house, and the wood's original owner is only entitled to be paid the worth of the wood. However, after seven days, he must return the wood unless it was cemented down. In that case, he can keep the wood and he only pays for the wood's worth.

10) [Rashi says: therefore, that, which the Rabanan have a Drasha to Pasul a stolen Sukka, that's only if someone built a Sukka on top of a boat or wagon, and the whole Sukka was stolen as one entity, so you didn't make any changes to it, so it must be returned whole. Tosfos says: it's not a question to begin with, since the Drasha is from the Torah, and from the Torah, you would need to return the wood that's put into a Sukka, since it's only a rabbinical decree that you don't need to return it. Also, even in the rabbinical realm we find a simple case; where Shimon allowed Reuvein to build a Sukka on his property, and then Shimon kicked Reuvein out and used it for himself. You can't say it's not stealing since you can't steal land, since the land belongs to Shimon in the first place.]

11) A dried out Luluv is Pasul, since it has a Hekish to Esrog that is called 'beautiful.' [Tosfos says: and not how Rashi says in the Mishna that the Pasul is because it's not fulfilling "this is my Hashem and I'll beautify Him," since we usually say that it doesn't prevent one to be Yoitza if the Mitzvah is not made beautifully. Just like we say, according to the Rabanan, you should bind the Luluv to beautify it, but if it's not bound, you're Yoitza. Also, it seems that the amount it needs to be dried to be Pasul is that you can crumble it when scraping it with your fingernail, just like the Shiur of a Bechor to be considered blemished; if its ear can be crumbled when scraped with a fingernail.] However, R' Yehuda holds that a dried Luluv is Kosher since he even holds that a dried Esrog is Kosher, and you don't need it to be beautiful at all. (When the Pasuk calls the Esrog 'Hadar,' it only means to describe an Esrog as 'Hador,' that lives on the tree from year to year.)

12) Although R' Yehuda requires binding a Luluv that's spreading apart, it's not because it needs to be beautiful, but because the Pasuk says it must be Kapos, bound together. The reason why you need to bind it with its own type of material, it's not because it needs to be beautiful. After all, you may bind it with a vine-like growth that surrounds the palm tree, or with its bark. [Tosfos adds: also, it's Pasul if bound with gold.] Rather, since the Torah requires the binding, if you would bind it with another specie, it's considered being a binding of five species and you'll transgress Baal Tosef (i.e., adding on to Mitzvos).

13) Although R' Yehuda Pasuls an Esrog that's green like leek and that hasn't grown to the size of an egg [Tosfos: even if it won't grow any larger]; it's not because it's not beautiful otherwise, but because it's not a completed fruit.

14) Although R' Yehuda Pasuls an Esrog if it's too big that you can't hold two of them in one hand, it's not because it's not beautiful. Rather, since you need the Luluv in your right hand, and Esrog in your left hand and sometimes it ends up in the wrong hands and you need to switch them, and if it's too big, when you change hands, the Esrog might fall down and become Pasul.

15) In a time of need, when you don't have any other Luluv, the Rabanan agree that you may take a dried out Luluv. However, if you don't have an Esrog, you can't bring a different fruit in its stead, like a quince or pomegranate, to be some kind of rememberance of the Esrog, since it might lead to something bad (that you may eventually take it even when you do have an Esrog). [Tosfos says: the implication is that, if you have a Pasul Esrog, you should take it. There's a way to reject this implication, still, it seems to be no worse than the dried out Luluv.]

16) They're only Pasul when they're dried out, but they're Kosher if they're only withering.

17) Even according to R' Yehuda who holds that a Luluv needs to be bound, you can't bring another specie outside the bind, even though we might say that it's not really adding onto the Mitzvah since it stands by itself outside the bind; so we taught otherwise, that it is problematic. [Tosfos explains: although, earlier, we said by what you bind the Luluv, it's a problem of Baal Tosef only according to R' Yehuda and not to the Rabanan, and here we're saying it's easier to transgress Baal Tosef according to the Rabanan more than to R' Yehuda; we only say it's a problem to have the bind from a different specie to R' Yehuda since he requires such a bind. However, according to the Rabanan, since the bind is not required, it's not considered as part of this taking since it's not being held the way it grows, like the way you must hold all of the four species. However, regarding adding another specie outside the bind, it's less of a problem to R' Yehuda since the bind separates it from the other species, but the Rabanan would hold it's simple that it's part of the group since the bind is of no consequence.]

18) You're not Yoitza with a Luluv that's from a worshipped tree from the days of Moshe that needs to be burned, and, therefore, we view it as if it's already burnt and it's as if it doesn't have the proper Shiur. However, you may take one worshipped by a non-Jew, which you're not obligated to burn. [Tosfos' first explanation: even before you get a non-Jew to cancel it's deity, although you can't have pleasure from it yet, still, it's not considered destroyed since it's possible to survive by having a non-Jew to Mevatel it. However, this is only during the other days that you don't need it to belong to you, so you can take it without acquiring it. However, if it's for the first day, you can't be Yoitza, since you need to acquire it, and if you do, then it becomes an idol that belongs to the Jew that can no longer be Batul by a non-Jew and must be burned.

However, R' Tam says that you're only Yoitza after the non-Jew was Mevatel it, but not before. Even so, we say that you're only Yoitza B'dieved since it's disgusting. (This is even if you say that you can cover blood L'chatchila with the dirt of an Ir Hanedachas, we must say that it's not similar to Luluv.)

However, we have an inquiry in Mesachta Avoda Zara if you can use a Luluv that a non-Jew bowed down to the tree; do we say that since it was pushed away from being fit for a Mitzvah for sometime that it's considered completely pushed away and it can't be used even after it becomes fit when it's a stringency? Therefore, it makes sense according to R' Tam since we can say that the case is that the non-Jew was Mevatel it during Yom Tov, so it started the day as unfit for the Mitzvah. Our Gemara that permits it refers to the case where the non-Jew was Mevatel it before Yom Tov. This is not similar to what we allow a Hadas that its berries were picked on Yom Tov (and we don't say that it was pushed off from use) since it's in your hands to pick them off at any time (although it's prohibited to do so), but it's not in your hands to make a non-Jew Mevatel the Luluv from being an idol. However, it's difficult to the first explanation.

However, we can explain that our Gemara that says that the one's of Moshe are forbidden, it's only coming to exclude one's that were planted without intent to worship, and it was worshipped later, and it's like the Rabanan who say that it doesn't forbid the wood in that case. The case in Avodah Zara refers to a non-Jew planting the tree to be an idol, so it becomes forbidden, and if he's Mevatel it on Yom Tov, we can inquire if it's Pasul since it's pushed off for some of Yom Tov.]

19) If it's top is cut off, it's Pasul. [Tosfos explains: it seems that we're referring to the two middle leaves. That, which we need R' Yehoshua b. Levi to Pasul taking out the middle leaf, even though it's Pasul even if it's only cut off; since I might have thought that if it was cleanly removed it's more beautiful, so I might say it's Kosher despite being Pasul if cut off. Alternatively, our Gemara is not only referring to the middle leaves, but most of the leaves on the Luluv. Alternatively, when it's cut off, it's only Pasul if both middle leaves are cut, but it's Pasul even with one leaf removed.]

20) However, if the leaves are only cracked, it's only Pasul if the leaves spread apart like a compass.

21) A Luluv is Pasul if it's head is bent over, or if it [Rashi: has thorns; Tosfos quoting Aruch: if it is shriveled.]

Daf 32

22) If a Lulav is arched; it's Kosher if it's arched towards its back, since it's the way it grows. It's Pasul if it's arched to its front. It's an inquiry if it's arched to the side, if it's like arching to the back, or to the front?

Also, if the Luluv completely hardens like wood, it's Pasul. However, if it's just starting to harden, but it's not like wood, it's still Kosher.

23) If all the leaves of the Luluv are on one side of the spine, it's blemished and is Pasul.

24) If the leaves are broken, it's Pasul. [Rashi says that the leaves are off the spine completely, and you need to bind them together. Tosfos disagrees since it's not like how the Gemara describes it as a broom. Rather, that the back of the leaves that hold the two-halves of the leaf together breaks open, and it separates to two separate leaves. The Tosefta says that it's only Pasul if it happened to most of the leaves.] However, if the leaves only spread out, it's Kosher.

25) R' Yehoshua b. Levi Pasuls when the middle leave is removed, and there are two versions if he holds the same by if the middle leaf is split. [Rashi explains: the leaf splits until it splits the spine, by the bottom leaves. Tosfos explains: however, if it doesn't split into the spine, you don't need to worry that the leaves on top aren' attached since there is no Luluv that's attached on top. However, the Bahag explains the inquiry: if the top did grow attached, and then they were separated, are they Kosher? are they like the leaves that are broken off, or are they like the leaves just spread apart?]

26) R' Yehuda holds: even if the leaves just spread apart, you need to bind them together.

27) If you have a Luluv with small leaves, it's Kosher if each bottom leaf reaches the root of the leaf on top of it. Otherwise, it's Pasul

28) The Shiur of the Hadas and Arava is three Tefachim. The Shiur of a Luluv is four Tefachim. Shmuel says that it includes the leaves on top so that the rest of the Luluv sticks out a Tefach above the Hadasim, and R' Yochanan says that it's only the Shiur of the spine, so that the spine will stick out an extra Tefach above the Hadasim.

29) R' Tarfon says that the Shiur of the Hadas and the Arava is two and a half Tefachim, and the Luluv is three Tefachim and a third. Shmuel Paskins like R' Tarfon.

30) R' Yehuda requires Hadasim to have three leaves in one Kina [Rashi explains: coming out of one stem. Tosfos says that this is a major stringency that's not at all common. Rather, they're all next to each other in the same row, albeit, each one coming out of its own stem.] R' Kahana allows two coming out of one Kina ,and a third in another Kana. However, Ameimar referred to such Hadasim as "an insane Hadas."

31) A Hadas Mitzra (i.e., from the boundaries, or from Egypt) has seven leaves a piece. They're Kosher and we don't say that they should be Pasul since they have a specific name attached to the Hadas, and it's not the plain Hadas. [Tosfos asks: since it doesn't use the word 'Hadas' in the Torah, why would we think that a specific name would Pasul it?] Even if most of the leaves fell off, they're still Kosher, since it's still considered 'chain-like' since they still have three leaves in each row.

Daf 33

32) Even if most of its leaves dry out, as long as there are three branches [Rashi with three fresh leaves] on the top of them, they're Kosher.

33) If it's top is cut up, it's Pasul. However, if a date-like growth forms on the place where it's cut, it's Kosher.

34) The Gemara inquires: if this growth didn't come up before Yom Tov, but during Yom Tov, is it Kosher? Do we say that Mitzvos can be pushed off and can never become fit again, or not? [Tosfos says: we know that Kodshim gets pushed off forever, and the inquiry is only by Mitzvos.] Even though we see R' Papa says: if the wind covers the blood with dirt, and then uncovers it again, you need to cover the blood yourself and we don't say it was pushed off by the wind covering it forever; perhaps that's only if it's a stringency, to obligate in a covering, but not here where it's a leniency, that you can rely on this Hadas to be Yoitza your Mitzvah.

35) [Tosfos says: even though we said before, regarding picking off the berries from the Hadas on Yom Tov, that it's Kosher; that's because it's in your ability to pluck them off. Although it's in your ability to uncover the blood, since you have no obligation to do so, and you have no obligation to cover the blood as long as it's covered, it's considered as pushed off.]

36) It's not necessarily dependant on the following Tannaic argument: if you pick off the berries on Yom Tov; the Rabanan say it's Kosher, and R' Elazar b. Tzadok says it's Pasul. (I.e., that the Rabanan say it's not pushed off, and R' Elazar says it is pushed off. After all, we can say everyone holds it's not pushed off.) [Tosfos adds: we can say it's anyhow different since you have the ability to pluck them off, as we said.] Since it was already bound with the Luluv, and making it Kosher there makes it now ready-made; they argue whether we extrapolate a Luluv from Sukka that it needs to be made, and not ready-made, or not. Alternatively, everyone agrees that, if the Luluv needs to be bound, we would extrapolate Luluv from Sukka. However, they argue whether it needs to be bound like R' Yehuda's opinion, or it doesn't need to be bound like his Rabanan's opinion. (However, even the Rabanan agree that there is a Mitzvah to bind it since it beautifies the Mitzvah.)

37) If the Hadas has more berries than leaves, it's Pasul. This is even if it's in two or three places, since it looks spotted. [Tosfos infers from here: that it's not Pasul if the berries are less than the leaves, even if it's in two or three places.] If the berries are green, they're Kosher since they're the same type as the Hadas (and doesn't look like it's spotted). The berries only Pasul if they're black, or even red (since red is like black, as we see that black blood makes a woman a Nida since it was red, but was smitten and turned black).

38) You may remove some of the berries even after it's bound with the Luluv. [Tosfos explains; this is only according to the opinion that a Luluv doesn't need to be bound. However, according to those who need it bound, since it was Pasul when it was bound, and by plucking the berries off and becoming Kosher, at that point when it becomes Kosher, it's ready-made (if you learn Luluv from Sukka that it needs to be made, and not to be ready-made).] Since binding is only a preparation for the Luluv, and not the making of the Luluv, so it was not even considered as originally being Pasul until it still has the berries at the beginning of Yom Tov.

39) You're not allowed to pluck them off on Yom Tov. If you transgressed and plucked them off on Yom Tov, it's Kosher if the berries were black before Yom Tov. However, if they were green at the start of Yom Tov and, then, turned black, it's a question of something that was originally fit, became pushed off, and became fit again, which is an unresolved inquiry if it's Kosher.

40) R' Elazar b. Shimon permits plucking off the berries on Yom Tov if your intent is to eat them. It's because he agrees with his father that an unintended Melacha is permitted. However, it's only if he has other Hadasim, but if he needs this one, although his only intent to pluck them off is to eat the berries, but it's a Psik Reisha that he'll create a Kosher Hadas and it's prohibited. [Rashi says: (although he's definitely making a Kosher Hadas), but if he doesn't need it as a Hadas, it's not considered as if he made a utensil. Tosfos explains: because it's a Melacha that you don't need for itself (Shein Tzricha L'gufo). Although that's usually rabinically forbidden, but they permitted it for a Mitzvah.]

41) There is a Braisa that says: if the binding of the Luluv becomes undone on Yom Tov, you need to wrap it like you would wrap a bundle of vegetables, i.e., wrap the string around a few times and tuck the string underneath. The reason that the Braisa doesn't allow you to make a slip-knot since the author holds like R' Yehuda that it's like a real knot and you're Chayiv. However, he disagrees with R' Yehuda in the aspect that a Luluv needs a binding, since R' Yehuda wouldn't hold it's Kosher if it wasn't bound by a proper knot.

42) If the leaves of the Arava broke off, or its top was cut off, it's Pasul.

43) The Tanna Kama allows using Aravos that didn't grow by a stream, since it says 'Aravei' in the plural, to include even those that don't grow by the stream. [However, Tosfos says: we don't Paskin like this, since we hold like the opinion that the plural tells us that we need two Arovos. (Thus, we must say that this Tanna Kama holds like R' Akiva who only needs one Aravah.) Therefore, we don't have a source to allow those that didn't grow by the stream, so you need to be careful only to get Aravos for the Luluv that grew by the stream.]

Daf 34

44) A Tzaftzifa is Pasul. The signs to tell the difference: Aravos have a red branch and long leaves that have smooth sides. However, the Tzaftzifa has a white branch, and the leaves are round and has sides that have sickle shaped holes. [Tosfos says: the reason that the Gemara needs to explain the signs of a Tzaftzifa after it described the signs of an Aravah, to teach us that it's not Pasul until you have all three signs of a Tzaftzifa, and not if any sign is missing, like we say later by the Chilfa Galya.]

45) A Chilfa Galya is Kosher since its leaves side's holes are really like sickles (that there is only a bump on one side of the hole). it's only Pasul if the holes are similar to those of a saw, (where there are two bumps, one on each side of the hole).

46) If you find a needle in a cow's second stomach called the "Beis Hakosos," which has a double wall; it's only makes it a Treifa if it punctures both walls, but not if it only punctures one wall. [Rashi explains: but the third stomach, the 'Hemsas,' has one thin layer wall, and is Treifa even if its wall wasn't completely punctured. Alternatively, even if you say that, logically, it can only be a Treifa if it punctures all the way through, however, even if we see that it's not punctured on the other side, we need to worry that it was really punctured, and it grew back. This is similar to what we forbid when we find a thorn stuck in its gullet. Tosfos asks: but the Mishna says that a Beis Hakosos and Hemsas are Treifa when it's punctured to the outside, implying that it was completely punctured. Tosfos answers: it means that it was punctured in the direction of the outside. This excludes if it was punctured from one stomach to another.

However, R' Tam held that it's not probable to say that the Hemsas is Treif if it didn't puncture all the way through. Rather, it's simple that the Hemsas is not Treif until it punctures all the way through. However, the Chiddush is by the Beis Hakosos that it needs to puncture all the way through. After all, I might think that it's Treif if one whole layer of skin was punctured, even if the second one is intact; so we're taught otherwise, that it needs to puncture all the way through, through both skins. Alternatively, the Chiddush is that we shouldn't say it's Kosher even if it's totally punctured since the hole is blocked off with other parts of the body.]

47) R' Yishmael says that: you need one whole Hadas, and two other Hadasim even if their tops are cut off. (The Gemara's conclusion is that he reversed his decision of having three Hadasim, and holds you need only one Hadas. After all, if he needs one to be whole, he would need all the Hadasim to be whole too.) R' Tarfon says that all three Hadasim may have ther tops cut off. Shmuel Paskins like him. [Tosfos says: however, it beautifies the Mitzvah if the Hadasim's tops weren't cut off.]

48) The Tanna Kama holds that you have one Luluv, one Esrog, three Hadasim and two Aravos. [Tosfos holds: you can add on as many Hadasim and Aravos as you want, and it's not considered as transgressing adding on to a Mitvzah unless you add another specie.] R' Akiva says that, besides one Luluv and one Esrog, you also only need one Hadas and one Aravah.

49) A lack of having all four species prevents you from being Yoitza the Mitzvah. [Tosfos quotes Bahag: the Gemara in Menachos says that you're only not Yoitza if you're missing one specie, but if you have all four, you're Yoitza even if you lift them one at a time. Tosfos asks: since they're all one Mitzvah, what does it help to take it one after the other? However, R' Tam changes the text that you need to take them all together, but you're Yoitza without tying them together. After all, since they're all there, it's considered as a "complete taking." However, according to R' Yehuda who needs it bound, it's not considered as if it's completely 'taken' without binding it.]

Daf 35

50) You don't bind the Esrog with the other species.

51) Arlah is applicable to peppers. [Rashi explains: and we don't say that it grows too low down to qualify for a tree. Tosfos disagrees since there are many small bushes that has the status of a tree. Rather, I might think that since it's designated to dry out (and would no longer have the status of food), we shouldn't say it has the status of Arlah even when it's fresh (and edible), so we're taught otherwise.]

52) You can't take an Esrog that's Arlah since it needs to be yours. R' Assi explains: it needs to be yours that you own it and that you can eat it. R' Chiya b. Avin says that it only needs to be yours that you can eat it. (However, everyone must hold that it must be edible, and it can't be yours by just owning it since we Pasul an Esrog that's Tamai Trumah even though you own it that you can burn it under your pot.) The practical difference between the two reasons: if you can take a Maasar Sheini Esrog according to R' Meir who holds that Maasar Sheini belongs to Hashem. [Tosfos adds: or take it outside Yerushalyim, since even R' Yehuda admits that it belongs to Hashem at that point.] After all, it doesn't belong to you, but you're allowed to eat it.

53) [Tosfos says: we need the reason that a Luluv that was worshipped as an idol is Pasul since it's considered burned and doesn't have a Shiur, and it's not Pasul anyhow since you can't eat it; it's to Pasul it during Chol Hamoed when the Esrog doesn't need to be yours.]

54) [Tosfos explains: really, we don't need the reason of it not being yours to Pasul Arlah, since it's anyhow Pasul since it needs to be burnt and it's not considered as if it has the Shiur. Rather, that reason was only presented in order to show the Halacha regarding Maasar Sheini according to R' Meir.]

55) We also see that R' Assi says that you're not Yoitza taking an Esrog of Maasar Sheini according to R' Meir, nor could you eat Maasar Sheini Matza on Pesach, nor do you need to separate Challah from such a dough; since you need to own the item for all these Mitzvos. [Tosfos explains: that, which you need another Drasha to Pasul Matza made from Tevel, and we don't say you're not Yoitza since you don't own the Tevel completely (since you must give some of it out); to say that you're not even Yoitza if you ate enough Matzah that you'll have a Kazayis of Matzah that you would own after you give the Trumah and Maasar away. Therefore, when we say a dough of Tevel is Chayiv in Challah; it means that it must have a Shiur for Challah of what you can keep of it.]

56) We have a Braisa that R' Meir exempts a dough of Maasar Sheini from Challah. The Gemara inquires if this would also prove his position regarding Esrog or Matzah, or is Challah different since it says twice "your dough." [Tosfos explains: it's just pushing off the proof, but we see that we would Darshen that with only one of the Pesukim, since we need the second Pasuk of "your dough" to excludes a non-Jew's dough, or Hekdesh's dough, and that you need to have enough dough as they had Mon in the wilderness.]

57) You shouldn't take a Trumah Esrog L'chatchila. It's either because you'll come to make it Muchshur for Tumah, since there will be drops of water on the Luluv (because it was kept in water to keep it fresh). (So, it would be considered as if you caused Tumah to the Trumah, since you'll make it susceptible to the Tumah.) Or, because you'll be ruining the peel of this Trumah by handling it. The practical difference between the reasons: if you make it Trumah except for the peel. You don't need to worry about ruining Trumah (since the handled peel is not Trumah), but you need to worry that you'll make it Muchshur for Tumah. [Tosfos says: another practical difference; if the Esrog was already Muchshur for Tumah.]

58) However, if you take the Trumah Esrog, you're Yoitza since it belongs to the Kohein and he has the right to eat it.

59) Beis Shammai says that you're not Yoitza with an Esrog of Damai, and Beis Hillel says that you're Yoitza. They're consistent to their opinion if you can feed Damai to the poor and the army. [Tosfos quotes the Yerushalmi: R' Yehoshua says you can even feed poor Chaveirim, and Jewish soldiers. R' Yossi says you only feed poor Am Haratzim and non-Jewish soldiers.] Therefore, Beis Hillel holds that you're fit to eat Damai since you have the ability to make all your property Hefker and you would be able to eat Damai. [Tosfos explains: this is brought as an extra reason, but you don't need to personally be able to eat it as long as someone can eat it. After all, a non-Kohein can be Yoitza with a Trumah Esrog.]

60) You can't L'chatchila take a Maasar Sheini Esrog in Yerushalayim for the same reasons that you can't take Trumah. However, if you did take it, according to the opinion that you just need to have the right to eat it, you're Yoitza according to all Tannaim. However, according to the opinion that you need to actually own it, you're not Yoitza according to R' Meir, but only according to the Rabanan who argue with him.

61) If a wart covers most of the Esrog, it's Pasul, but it's Kosher if it's only on the minority of the Esrog, unless it's in two or three places, which makes it speckled. However, even the slightest amount Pasuls it if it's on the top of the Esrog. [Tosfos says: it's somewhat implied in the Yerushalmi that it's only Pasul on the first day of Yom Tov, but not on the following days.]

62) If the Okeitz is removed, it's Kosher, but if the Pitma, (i.e., the pestle like part), is removed, it's Pasul. [Rashi explains the Okeitz as its stem, and the Pitma as the head of the Esrog. His Rebbi, R' Yitzchok, explains: they're both on the bottom, as the Okeitz is the part outside the Esrog, and the Pitma is the part stuck into the Esrog. However, Rashi disagrees since we never find them in the same place. However, Tosfos says that we do find them in the same area. As the Gemara in Nida explains the signs of Bogeres, and refers to Pitma as the Okeitz as the top of the nipple and the Pitma as the area below. Rather, he explains that they both refer to the area above the Esrog, where there is a wood stem-like protrusion. The Okeitz is the part that's outside the Esrog, and the Pitma is the part where it's attached to the Esrog, and leaves a hole when it's detached. The Yerushalmi explains the Pitum as the Shoshanta (that's a little wooden circle on top of the wooden protrusion). R' Chananel says that Pitum and pestle are two different things (and pestle is not just an explanation of Pitum like the other explanations are). They're both wood that sticks inside the Esrog, but 'pestle' is the bottom stem,and Pitma is on top of the Esrog.]

63) There's a contradiction whether a peeled Esrog is Pasul or Kosher. The Gemara reconciles that there's a difference whether it's completely peeled, or just partially peeled. [Rashi explains: it's Pasul if it's partially peeled since it's like it's speckled. Tosfos disagrees, since we see that we compare the Pasulim by an Esrog to Treifos. Therefore, just like an animal that's completely skinned is a Treifa, but it's only Kosher if enough skin remains that's the size of the Selah coin, so too by an Esrog.]

Daf 26

64) If there's a hole in the Esrog; if it's from one side to another, then it's Pasul if it's even missing the smallest amount. However, if it doesn't go all the way through, the Esrog would need to be missing the amount of the size of an Issur coin. However, it's Kosher if nothing is missing. [Tosfos says: that, which we compare the Esrog to Treifos, just like a hole in the heart needs to puncture the whole side of the heart until the cavity, here too, you need the hole to go all the way through. However, it might be Pasul if it punctures into the fruit (lit. "the chamber of the seeds") since that might be compared to the cavity. After all, we compare it later to a pipe in the lung that's Treif if punctured. Therefore, that, which we need the hole to go through the whole Esrog to Pasul it, it must be referring to an area that doesn't go through the fruit.]

65) If the Esrog gets split, it's Pasul. [Tosfos explains: as we compare Esrog to Treifos, that if the windpipe gets split, it's only Kosher if some of it remains unsplit from the top and bottom, but it's Treif if it's completely split.]

66) We have an unresolved inquiry if the inside starts to dissolve, but the inner fruit remains intact, if it's Kosher. After all, as we compare an Esrog to a Treifa, we should compare it to the lung that its inside dissolves that's Kosher as long as the pipes are intact. Or do we say that the lung is different since it's protected by the body from the air that will affect it, but the inside Esrog is not too protected and could be affected from the outside air.

67) Although we have a Braisa that says that Pasuls if it was bloating and rotting, we don't need to explain that they refer to bloating from the outside and rotting from the inside. Rather, we can say that they both refer to the outside, since it could bloat without rotting and rot without bloating. [Rashi's second explanation: that rotting is a bad smell that's caused by worms.]

68) A cooked, pickled, white or speckled Esrog is Pasul. Also, if it grows like a ball, it's Pasul. Others say that it's Pasul if it's a twin Esrog.

69) A Kusi Esrog (i.e., that grew in India) is Kosher (although it's black), but if it's just similar to Kusi (i.e., it's black, but it grew in Bavel), it's Pasul. Rava says that even a Kusi Esrog is only Kosher in Bavel since they're close to India and are used to their produce. However, it's Pasul in Eretz Yisrael, since they're far from India, they're not used to their produce.

70) An underdeveloped Esrog; R' Akiva says that it's Pasul, and the Chachumim say that it's Kosher. [Rashi defines it: that it hasn't grown to the size of a white bean, just like the Shiur that a grape is considered underdeveloped. However, Tosfos says that, since an Esrog is a larger fruit than a grape, it's still underdeveloped if it grows larger than a bean, as long as it's not as big as an egg.] The Gemara concludes that this argument does not necessarily depends on the following argument: R' Shimon exempts the underdeveloped Esrog from Maasar, and the Chachumim say that it's obligated. (I.e., we don't need to say that both arguments depend on whether we classify it as a fruit at this point.) After all, we can say the reason R' Akiva Pasuls for the Mitzvah since it's not considered to have the necessary beauty. However, the reason for R' Shimon to exempt from Maasar since it says "all the produce of your seeds," that its seeds need to be mature enough to be able to plant.

71) If an Esrog grows in a mold; if it changes its shape dramatically, then it's Pasul. However, if it's similar to its normal shape, even if it's a little off, like its sides were made like a few straight boards that resembles the octagon on the water mill, it's Kosher.

72) On the first day of Yom Tov, you can't be Yoitza with an Esrog that's missing some of it, but you're Yoitza on the other days. There are two versions of what Rav holds by an Esrog that a mouse took a bite out of. One version held it's Kosher on the other days like any other Esrog that's missing, and the other version says that this is worse and is Pasul since it's disgusting.

73) R' Meir says the Shiur of the smallest Esrog is a Kezayis, and R' Yehuda held it's an egg's worth. Coincidentally, they also argue with these same amounts regarding how big the three rocks can be that may be carried to the bathroom on Shabbos to wipe yourself. [Rashi says: they only allowed moving them despite being Muktza, but they don't allow carrying it four Amos in a Karmulas. Tosfos disagrees and permits even rabbinical carrying prohibitions. After all, we see from many places that their bathrooms had walls around it, so you would need to carry the rocks from a Karmulas to a Reshus Hayachid. Also, we see that Muktza is more stringent than carrying to a Karmulas. As we allow to move a corpse on Shabbos (from a place that it will decompose) with carrying a child or loaf of bread on it so it shouldn't look as you're exclusively carrying Muktza, but we allow carrying it out to a Karmulas without any change at all. Therefore, if we allow Muktza for human dignity to wipe yourself, we should also allow carrying four Amos in a Karmulas and carrying from a Karmulas to a Reshus Hayachid.

However, Tosfos says: this Heter was only said in the olden days when they didn't have a specific place for them to relive themselves, and that's how the Gemara contrast this Heter to what they don't permit taking a wood chip as a toothpick, since you have a set place to eat, you should have prepared your wood chips before Shabbos. Although we find that R' Yanai allows carrying a handful to an established bathroom even though you know where it would be; that's because their bathrooms were out in the fields, so it was a big bother to prepare them before Shabbos. However, this wouldn't apply to our bathrooms that are on our roof. However, Tosfos concludes: if you have many household members who will use your prepared rocks, perhaps it would be permitted to take more stones as needed on Shabbos.]

74) The Shiur of the biggest Esrog: R' Yehuda holds that you should be able to hold two of them in one hand, and R' Yossi says: even if you need two hands to hold one. After all, R' Akiva came in with holding an Esrog on his shoulder. However, R' Yehuda rejects the proof since, he claims, the Rabanan told R' Akiva that it wasn't a beautiful Esrog.

75) R' Yehuda says that you need to bind a Luluv. Therefore, since it's an integral part of the Luluv, it must be made with the same type of the Luluv, or else he would transgress "Baal Tosef." However, you may use the bark of the palm tree, or the vines that grow around it. As we see by R' Yehuda's other opinion that you need to use the four species of the Luluv for Schach from a Kal V'chomer. If you can only use these species for a Luluv that's only a Mitzvah by day, of course you need them for Sukka that's a Mitzvah by day and night. (However, the Chachumim say that you can't make such a Kal V'chomer since it's a stringency that will lead to a leniency. After all, if you don't have from the four species to make Schach, you wouldn't be doing the Mitzvah.) However, R' Yehuda held that you can have boards from Schach, and you can't make boards from the actual Luluv, Esrog, Hadasim and Arovos. So we must say that you're using boards made out of the bark of palm trees, which is considered as the same specie as a Luluv.

76) [Tosfos says: we don't Paskin like R' Yehuda by Schach, even though we Paskin like him that you need to burn Chametz to get rid of them from a similar Kal V'chomer from Nosar, as you need to get rid of Nosar by burning. The Rabanan there disposed of the Kal V'chomer the same way, since it will lead to a leniency if you don't have wood to burn the Chametz, you would not be doing the Mitzvah. However, we can say that we don't conclude there that the reason to burn is from this Kal V'chomer, but rather from a Mah Metzinu from Nosar.]

Daf 37

77) Rabbah says: when you make a bind for the Luluv, you need to make sure that you leave an empty space on the Luluv to hold, because, if you would hold it by the binding, it would be a Chatzitza. However, Rava says it's not necessary since anything made to beautify is not a Chatzitza.

78) Rabbah says: you can't take a Luluv in a handkerchief since you need a "complete taking," which you don't have. [Tosfos explains: we're referring to a case where he didn't hold onto the Luluv itself, or else he's not Yoitza anyhow because the handkerchief is a Chatzitza. Rather, he makes the handkerchief as a handle for the Luluv and lifts it by this handle.] However, Rava allows it since he holds taking an object via a different item is a complete taking. [Tosfos says: although we Pasul at the end of the Perek when you carry the Luluv out in a utensil, there, it must refer to a case where you hold onto the bottom or the handle of the utensil, and not like here where you're carrying it by the side of the utensil.]

79) A proof that "taking through another object" is considered a complete taking: we say that the person taking the ashes of the Para Aduma can take it with a pipe despite the Torah saying "he takes it." This proves that taking through another object is considered 'taking.'

80) However, there is no proof from the fact that you can dip the hyssop into the Para water by being tied to a rope, despite that the Torah requires him to "take it." After all, since the hyssop is tied to the rope, we consider it as one entity and it's no proof to something that's totally detached.

81) Rabbah says; you can't stick the Luluv into the bind since it might make some of the Hadasim and Aravos leaves to fall off and they'll be stuck in the bind and it will be a Chatzitza when you take it. However, Rava says that it's not a problem since there is no Chatzitza if it's from the same species. [Tosfos says: Rabbah only disagrees with Rava here since it's not normal for the leaves to be in the binding, but we say that a twin doesn't make a Chatzitza between the womb and the Bechor to exempt it from being the Bechor since they're the same species and it's normal for them to come out this way. However, everyone holds that if it's not at all normal, it's a Chatzitza like a Kohein's foot standing on his friend's foot, which is a Chatzitza to the Mikdash's floor. Also, we have an inquiry in Yuma if you could put one utensil into another to catch the blood, although they're the same type, if it's a Chatzitza.]

82) Similarly, Rabbah says that you can't cut the Luluv on the bottom after its in the bind since many leaves would be cut off and would remain in the bind and it would be a Chatzitza. However, Rava says it's not a Chatzitza since they're from the same species.

83) You can't smell the Hadasim used for the Mitzvah. After all, since it's designated to be smelled, when you set it aside for the Mitzvah and made it Muktza from its regular use, you made it Muktza from smelling. However, since the Esrog is mostly designated to eat, when you set aside for the Mitzvah, you only made it Muktza from eating, but you're allowed to smell it.

84) You're allowed to smell an attached myrtle on Shabbos since we're not afraid that you'll detach it since you can continue smelling it while it's attached. However, an Esrog that's designated to eat, you can't smell it when it's attached since you might come to detach it to eat.

85) You hold the Luluv in your right hand and the Esrog in your left hand, since the Luluv incorporates three species, and the Esrog is only one specie. you only mention Luluv in the Bracha since it's the tallest of all the types. [Tosfos asks: why not say since it's Shiur is larger than the others.}

86) You need to shake the Luluv at Hodu LaHashem in the beginning of that Parsha in Hallel, and at the end of Hallel. Beis Hillel says to shake by "Ana Hashem Hoshiya Na.' Beis Shammai adds to also shake it by "Hatzlicha Na." [Tosfos explains the reason for Beis Hillel; since the Pasuk says "the trees of the forest sing to you etc. Hodu LaHashem etc. Hosheinu Elokei Yisheinu." Today, when we're accustomed for the congregation to say Hodu LaHashem after the Chazan says 'Yomar' and 'Yomru,' they shake by each time they say Hodu, but the Chazan doesn't shake then. Others say that the Chazan shakes when the congregation shakes. The Gemara implies that you need to also shake right after the Bracha. After all, it says that a minor is Chayiv in training for this Mitzvah when he can shake the Luluv, even though he can't say Hallel. Also, we see in Brachos that, if you need to go on the way early morning, you take a Megila and read it, you take the Luluv and shake it, and you take a Shofar and blow it.]

87) When you wave the two loaves on Shvuos, you wave it up and down and to the four directions. R' Yochanan explains: it symbolizing waving to the One who the heaven and earth and the four directions belong to Him. R' Yossi b. Chanina says: to prevent bad rains, dews and winds from harming us. We shake the Luluv the same way. [Tosfos says: perhaps, we don't shake this way whenever the Torah obligates waiving, rather, only on Shvuos, when we're judged on our fruit, and on Sukkos, when we're judged on our water. The Aruch quotes the Yerushalmi: you need to shake it thrice by each time, and they have an inquiry whether we count bringing it forward as one, and bringing it back as two; or do we say that we count it as one for bringing it back and forth. We should be stringent and count them both as one.]

Daf 38

88) You shouldn't say, when you shake the Luluv, that it should be like an arrow in the eyes of the Satan since it will bring him to incite you.

89) If someone didn't take the Luluv during Chol Hamoed, where it's only rabbinically obligated, and he's in middle of a meal, he doesn't need to stop the meal to take a Luluv unless the meal will stretch pass the time that you can take the Luluv. After all, it's similar to the obligation of Mincha which is also rabbinical. [Tosfos says: although there is a reason to be more strict by Luluv since it has a bigger window to be able to take it, and we should be more worried about neglecting to take it since you think you have so much time to take it. As we see that we would be strict by Maariv, that you would need to stop your meal to Daven if it wasn't a voluntary prayer. After all, this is only a worry by Tefila that takes time to do, and not by Luluv that you're Yoitza by just lifting it.]

90) [Tosfos says: even though Kiddush is from the Torah, we Paskin like R' Yossi that you don't need to stop a meal when you didn't make Kiddush. That's because you have the whole next day to be Yoitza, so we're not worried that you'll push it off that long. Also, since you're eating the Shabbos meal, (which Kiddush is apart of), we don't need to worry that you'll be too lazy to say Kiddush. (See Rash Toibish that asks that the meal that you didn't made Kiddush started earlier before the time of Kiddush, which is not comparable to here when you started eating at the time you needed to take the Luluv.)]

91) You can have a slave, woman, or minor reading the Hallel for you [Tosfos: however, to be Yoitza, you need to repeat after them. You're not Yoitza by hearing them since they're not obligated themselves. This implies that a woman is exempt from Hallel on Sukkos an Shvuos. Granted they're obligated in the four cups Pesach night, and that was enacted because of the Aggada and Hallel; that's because that Hallel was enacted for the miracle that they were apart of. However, we don't say Hallel during Sukkos over a miracle.] However, a curse comes to those who do this. [Tosfos says: since he never learned to read, and need those who are exempt from the Mitzvah to read it for him.]

92) Similarly, someone can be Yoitza Bentching listening from his minor son, his slave or his wife. [Tosfos explains; it's only if he ate a rabbinical Shiur to obligate Bentching, but not if he ate the Shiur that obligates from the Torah. After all, his minor son is not obligated from the Torah, so the son can't Moitzie him who is obligated from the Torah. The same applies by his wife where there's an inquiry whether women are obligated in Bentching from the Torah, or not. Although we have a Tosefta that says that they can't be Moitzie the public, we must say that it refers to a case where the public ate a Shiur to obligate them from the Torah. (However, you can't bring a proof from here that a woman is exempt from the Torah to Bentch, for, perhaps it's just saying that she can't be Moitzie the public, as we see we don't combine them to a Ziman. We only allow a man to be Moitzie the public since he's Chashuv, and also, it's a disgrace to have a woman be Moitzie them, like we say by Megilla. As the Bahag says that a woman can't be Moitzie the public reading of the Megilla.)] However, a curse comes to those who do this. [Tosfos says: since you made these lesser people of status as an agent to be Moitzie you.]

93) If an adult male reads for him, he's Yoitza, and he should say "Halilukah" after the reading as a response.

94) We can learn many Halachos from the custom of how they read Hallel in Rava's city. [Tosfos points out that we don't do this nowadays. After all, it's only a custom, and not everyone had the same custom.] That the Shatz says "Halilukah," and then the congregation says "Halilukah;" shows that it's a MItzvah to respond by the word "Halilukah." [Tosfos says: although the congregation said the Bracha, and they waited a little after the Bracha and before they started saying Halilukah; we don't need to worry for such a a small break between the Bracha and the Mitzvah.]

95) The Shatz said "Hallilu Avdei etc." and the congregation follow with a "Haliluka," shows that, if someone is reading for you Hallel and being Moitzie you, you repeat Halilukah after him. [Tosfos explains: although they were all experts and knew how to say Hallel, they did this to teach the Halacha.]

96) The Shatz says "Hodu LaHashem" and the congregation repeats "Hodu LaHashem," it shows that it's a Mitzvah to repeat the beginning of the Perek. [Rashi implies that you only repeat it at the beginning of the Perek, but you respond to the rest of the Perek with Halilukah. However, Tosfos says it's not the implications in Sotah, but that you respond with the beginning of the Perek throughout the Perek. Thus, you would respond "B'tzeis Yisrael' in the second Perek etc. However, it's possible that we consider the whole Hallel until Hodu as one Perek and only respond 'Halilukah' until that point.]

97) The Shatz says "Anah Hashem Hashiya Na" and the the congregation repeats it; this shows that if someone (who is not obligated) reads the Hallel for you, you need to repeat after him. The Shatz says "Ana Hashem Hatzlicha Na" and the congregation repeats it, this shows that you can repeat the last verses in Hallel (just as the congregation says the words though they were Yoitza with the Shatz saying it the first time.) [Tosfos explains: although you can't break a Pasuk in half except to teach little children, (and here it's like they heard half a Pasuk at a time from the Shatz, and repeated that half of Pasuk before finishing the Pasuk); we must say it's not a problem since it was said by two people.]

98) The Shatz says "Baruch Habah," and the congregations say "B'sheim Hashem;" this teaches us that if you hear it read to you, it's as if you said it.

99) If you heard something read to you, but you didn't respond (with an Amein or Halilukah), you're Yoitza. [Rashi says: therefore, if you're in Shmona Esrei and you hear Kadish and Kedusha, you should stop to listen to be Yoitza. Tosfos asks: if so, why shouldn't someone start Shmona Esrei if he wouldn't be able to finish before Kadish if he can anyhow listen and be Yoitza in the middle? So, we must say that it's considered a Hefsik in your Tefila. However, Tosfos answers his question: perhaps, it's a greater Mitzvah to answer it yourself than to hear it from someone else.]

100) Rava says: someone shouldn't start "Baruch Habah," stop a moment and finish "B'sheim Hashem;" nor should he say "Yehei Shmei Rabbah," stop a moment and finish "Mevaroch;" Rather, he should say both phrases at one time. However, R' Safra says that he doesn't have to. After all, he's finishing off what he was saying and that small pause isn't problematic. [Tosfos brings the Gemara in Yevamos that Rava reversed his opinion to that of R' Safra.]

Daf 39

101) The place where the custom is to repeat the last verses, you repeat them. Rebbi repeated them from Anah Hashem and on. R' Elazar b. Pratya repeated it from Oidicha and on. [Rashi: as, from before that Pasuk, the Psukim anyhow repeat their thoughts in a second Pasuk.]

102) In a place where the custom is to make a Bracha after Hallel, you make a Bracha. However, everyone holds that you make a Bracha before Hallel, like there is a Mitzvah to make a Bracha on all Mitzvos right before you do it. [Tosfos says: therefore, you need to make a Bracha on the Luluv before you're Yoitza, and since you're Yoitza when you just pick it up, you have a problem when to do it. After all, you can't make the Bracha before you pick it up since it's too much in advance, as we say that you make the Bracha on Tefilin between placing it upon you and tightening it for this reason. Rather, you must make the Bracha between taking the Luluv and picking up the Esrog. Alternatively, you pick up one of the species upside down since you're only Yoitza when holding it the way it grows. Alternatively, you have in mind not to be Yoitza until you finish the Bracha. This works even according to the opinion that you don't need intent to be Yoitza a Mitzvah, since you don't want to be Yoitza, you can't be Yoitza against your will. Alternatively, you can make the Bracha after you picked it up since you still have the Luluv shaking to do. This is similar to making the Bracha after the Netila since you still hae the obligation to dry your hands, and you make a Bracha even after you put on Tzitzis. However, they're not so similar since the lack of drying prevents the Netila from being Kosher, and the Mitzvah of Tzitzis extends as long as you wear it. However, it does imply in Pesachim that you're Yoitza before the Bracha, and that's why you make "Al Netilas Luluv," and not "Lital Luluv."]

103) If you buy a Luluv from an Am Ha'aretz on Shvious, you should have him throw in the Esrog for free. If he doesn't want to give it to you as a gift, you need to have him charge extra for the Luluv for the price of an Esrog, and have the Esrog be thrown in for free. [Tosfos explains: you can't say that the problem here is that, if he sells the Esrog, he's doing business with Shvious produce. After all, it's not a problem if the seller did not pick the fruit, or if he picked it for himself and he had leftovers. Also, we even see that the Yerushalmi allows brothers to pick the fruit, and have one of them sell, and even his share is permitted since it's mixed into the other one's share, as long as he doesn't sell constantly in that city. However, if they buy fruit to sell for profit, it's forbidden since it's included in doing business.] Rather, the problem is that you can't give to an Am Ha'aretz money of Shvious more than the worth of three meals. [Rashi explains: since he might store the money and would need to do Biur on it. Tosfos disagrees. After all, then it would be permitted for produce that doesn't have Biur, like a Luluv of Shvious, which the Gemara later implies that it's forbidden. Rather, since there are many Halachos pertaining to the money of Shvious that the Am Ha'aretz may not keep, like to make sure you only buy food with it, and you can't pay your debts with them. Also, there are many things you need to worry about the food you buy with them to keep it with Kedushas Shvious.]

104) If you gave over Shvious produce to an Am Ha'aretz; you need to take your own money and redeem the Shvious on it and keep it like Shvious. [Tosfos explains; even according to the opinion that you can't redeem what's in your friend's hand, but the rabbis fined you to do so anyways, as the Gemara in Kiddushin says.]

105) However, this is only by acquiring fruits that were made Hefker, but if it was guarded, then you can't even buy it for a half of an Issur coin. [Rashi explains: since he guards the fruit, he's suspected to transgress Shvious. Therefore, we must suspect that he's really selling great quantities of them, but he's just selling a little at a time as a trick that people should think it's permitted to buy from him. R' Tam disagrees. After all, regularly, we say that an Am Ha'aretz is not suspected to transgress Shvious. If you want to say that the very fact that he has guarded some produce tells us that he's suspected even of the ones that are not guarded (i.e., the ones that are so cheap that we usually don't suspect anyone to guard); if so, how come the Gemara allows buying them? Rather, Tosfos says: when Shvious fruit is guarded, it forbids the fruit. this is the implications of the Toras Kohanim and the Mishna in the eighth Perek of Shvious. Although they had a guard to watch the grain for the Omer, it doesn't become forbidden since it's only guarded from animals,but humans just refrain from it by saying that it's for the Omer. However, Tosfos concludes: the Toras Kohanim actually seems to only forbid harvesting them regularly, and our Sugya also only seems to forbid the buying, but not the fruit.]

106) The reason you're permitted to buy the Luluv and it's not a problem of buying Shvious, since the Luluv started growing during the sixth year, so it doesn't have the Kedusha of Shvious. The Tanna holds like the rabbis of Usha who said that an Esrog follows the year that it was harvested, so, even though it started growing on the sixth year, it gets the status of Shvious. This is not like R' Gamliel who says that Esrog follows the year it was formed regarding Arlah, Revai, [Tosfos: according to those who hold that it applies to all trees, and not only vines], and Shvious, and we only follow the year it was harvested regarding Maasar, and it's definitely not like R' Eliezer who says that you follow the year it was formed in all aspects.

107) [Tosfos says: we say that vegetables follow the year they're picked regarding Shvious. However, that's only if they didn't stop growing before that year. However, if they stopped growing the year before, they get the status of the earlier year, (since they're no longer considered as growing on all waters, i.e., rain and irrigation, (which is the requisite to follow the year it's harvested), since it's no longer growing.)]

Daf 40

108) There is a Kedusha Shvious on Luluv despite that most wood doesn't have a Kedusha of Shvious. As we see; when you gather vine leaves and reed leaves for storage [Tosfos: either this only applies when storing it, or it's not exact, but it only gave the most usual case]; if it's gathered for fodder; it has Kedushas Shvious, if it's gathered to use as fuel, it doesn't have Kedushas Shvious. [Tosfos says: we must say that they're usually gathered for both purposes, so its status follows what you decided it to be. However, if it's mainly for one use, then it doesn't help to specify it for a different use, as we'll say later of wood that's made into a torch.] After all, we only say that regular wood doesn't have Kedushas Shvious since the rule is that you need an item that its destruction and pleasure happen simultaneously, and the wood is first burnt and made into coals before you bake over them. However, a Luluv is usually made to be a broom, and it gets worn out as you get the pleasure of sweeping.

109) Even if you make a piece of wood, dip it in oil, and use it as a torch, it doesn't have Kedushas Shvious since, usually, wood is used as fuel for an oven.

110) The idea that wood for fuel doesn't have Kedushas Shvious is dependent on the following Tannaic argument. We have a contradiction in P'sukim. One says that the produce of Shvious is for you, implying for all your needs, and the other Pasuk says that it's to eat, implying, but not for any other pleasure. The Tanna Kama reconciles that you can have it for any pleasure that's similar to eating, that you have pleasure from it when its destroyed, excluding using it as a laundry detergent or to soak flax. [Rashi explains: they're destroyed immediately after use, but you don't have pleasure until you wear the clothes. Tosfos asks: if so, then dyes wouldn't have the Kedusha of Shvious since they are destroyed in the vat, and you don't get pleasure until you wear it. (However, if you say that the dye is considered as if it still exists on the clothes, then you have the destruction of the dye as you wear it, and it's simultaneous. However, this is not applicable to laundering and soaking flax.) However, Rashi in Bava Kama says: it gets destroyed and ruined as soon as you place the clothes and flax in the solution, and it doesn't improve the item until after a few days when the flax becomes completely soaked.]

However, R' Yossi says: you may even use it for detergent and to soak flax, and we don't exclude from the word 'to eat' that you can't make a medicine from it, or use it to drip on the dirt floor to deodorize and keep down the dust, nor can you make a concoction from it that induces vomiting. After all, these things are not similar to eating which is appreciated by all people. (Therefore, we see that only the Tanna Kama holds of the idea that the destruction and pleasure comes simultaneously during Shvious, but not R' Yossi.)

111) [Tosfos says: there are some who have the text that "whether we say that, 'regularly, wood is made for burning' is a Tannaic argument." Thus, Rashi explains in Bava Kama; the Tanna Kama holds that we don't say that the intention to use the produce for detergent and soaking flax takes it out of the status of what it's mainly used for, i.e., to eat, in order to remove the Kedusha of Shvious on it, therefore, we also don't say that making wood into torches changes its status of what it's usually used for, to burn to make into coals, and make it have Kedushas Shvious on it. However, R' Yossi holds the opposite, that the intention to use the produce for detergent and soaking flax takes it out of the status of what it's mainly used for, i.e., to eat, in order to remove the Kedusha of Shvious on it, (as we say by the vine leaves and reed leaves, that it all depends on your intentions on how to use them); we also say that making wood into torches changes its status of what it's usually used for, to burn to make into coals, and make it have Kedushas Shvious on it.]

112) R' Elazar says that you can only redeem Shvious through selling the produce, and not just by redeeming it over your own money. After all, there's a Hekish between Yovel and selling. R' Yochanan says that you can also redeem it over your own money since it's called 'Kodesh,' and you can redeem Kodesh on your own money. We have a Braisa to support each opinion. R' Ashi says that the argument is only on produce that received its Kedushas Shvious by being traded for Shvious, but everyone agrees that you can't redeem the actual fruit of Shvious on your own money, but can only transport Kedusha on money through selling.

113) When you sell original Shvious fruit, the Kedusha falls on the money, but the original fruit remains with its Kedusha too. However, when you trade something for this item that received Kedushas Shvious from a previous trade, that item becomes Chulin, and what you traded it for takes over the Kedusha of Shvious.

114) R' Meir holds that you can redeem Shvious and Maasar Sheini on live animals, and the Chachumim forbid since you might leave them without bringing them to eat in Yerushalayim to have children (and would lead to eventually stumble on their Kedusha. [Tosfos says: you need to return the money and take back the animal to remove the Kedusha from it, but you can't say that the rabbis enacted for the Kedusha never to take effect on the animal, since the Torah says that it takes effect.]) Rava says that they only argue by males, who aren't needed to raise more children [Tosfos; and they argue whether to forbid males since you might come to permit females too], but all agree that you can't buy females since you might use them to raise children.

115) [Tosfos says: if you purposely bought an unblemished animal that's fit for a Korban with Maasar Sheini money, you bring it to Yerushalayim as a Korban. However, if you bought a blemished animal, then you return the animal and get your money returned. However, in Bavel, where you can't bring the money to Yerushalayim since it's not a currency that's used, you can L'chatchila buy an unblemished animal with it and bring it to Yerushalayim.]

116) [Tosfos says: R' Meir permits here to redeem Maasar Sheini money on fruit outside Yerushalayim. Although regularly it's forbidden, the Yerushalmi brings an argument to the Heter. One says that you may redeem it on fruit if you'll bring up that fruit to Yerushalayim to eat it, and another one says that this is also forbidden, and R' Meir allows this only by Damai.]

Daf 41

117) Originally, they took the Luluv for seven days in the Mikdash, and only one day outside the Mikdash. However, after the Mikdash's destruction, they enacted to take it for seven days outside the Mikdash as a rememberance to what they did in the Mikdash.

118) They also enacted to forbid Chodosh the whole sixteenth of Nissan. Although, when the Mikdash is not around and there is no Omer to bring, you could eat by daybreak on the sixteenth, but they enacted to forbid since the Mikdash will be built and people will think it's still permitted by daybreak like the year before. [Tosfos says: the Omer can't be brought even according to R' Yehoshua who holds that you can bring Korbanos without a Mikdash, still, you need a Mizbeach. After all, even by the Mizbeach being damaged, it Pasuls all Kodshim Shechted beforehand.]

119) Although, for that decree, we should allow eating the Chodosh by noon, since we have a Chazaka that the Beis Din makes sure it's done by then; however, we need to worry that, perhaps, the Mikdash will be built on the fifteenth before sunset, or at the night of the sixteenth, and they couldn't prepare all that was necessary to bring the Omer in advance. [Rashi says: although you can't build the Mikdash at night (Tosfos: nor on Yom Tov); but the third Mikdash won't be built by man, but Hashem will bring it down from heaven.]

120) Alternatively, the reason it's forbidden the whole sixteenth since he holds like R' Yehuda that, without a Mikdash, the Torah forbids the Omer until after the sixteenth. When we said that they enacted this, inferring that it's only a rabbinical enactment; it only means that they enacted to Darshen the Pasuk like R' Yehuda.

121) A person is not Yoitza on the first day of Yom Tov with his friend's Luluv, since you need it to be yours, unless he gifts it to you. [Tosfos says: you're not Yoitza even if you're partners in it. Although, nowadays, the whole congregation buys one set for everyone; we must teach them to gift over their share to all who take it on condition for them to return it. Alternatively, since you bought it together in order to be Yoitza, it's as if you expressed that you're gifting it to all, even if you don't say it explicitly.]

122) You're Yoitza with receiving a gift on condition that you return it, since it's a valid gift. [Tosfos says: you must make sure that you fulfil all the Halachos of conditions, like you should say the condition before you say the transaction, you need to express the flip side of the condition too, and you should express the positive side of the condition before the negative side of the condition.

The Gemara in Bava Basra says that you can't make this conditioned gift Hekdesh since you need to return to him something he can use. Although we see that it's only a gift if the receiver can make it Hekdesh, as if you need to give food to someone who you made an oath to forbid your property to, you can't gift it to a third party to give it to him since it's not considered a real gift since the third party can't make it Hekdesh and it's only like a trick; however, over here you can make it Kodesh, and it remains Kodesh until you need to return it to the original owner. Alternatively, only there it's not a gift since the receiver doesn't get any pleasure from it, but it's only a ploy to get the food over to the one you made an oath on. However, a regular gift on condition that you return it is a real gift since the receiver gets pleasure from it. Alternatively, they were stricter by an oath since it even forbids items that you usually don't care if other people use without your permission. Therefore, when we said that any gift that can't be made Hekdesh is not a gift, it wasn't exact.]

123) Ameimar Davened while holding the Luluv and Esrog. Although we say that you can't hold Tefilin or a Sefer Torah when you're Davening, and not only that, but not even a knife, plate, loaf of bread and money [Tosfos: even though there is no disgrace if it falls like there is by the first group; still, there's a bother making sure it doesn't fall]; here is different since it's a Mitzvah Min Hamuvchar to hold the Luluv all day (like we say by the people of Yerushalayim who held it until they entered the Beis Medrish, where they put it down since it might fall when you're preoccupied thinking in Torah). Therefore, when you're doing a Mitzva, it's not considered as such a burden to hold it and guard it that it won't fall, so it won't make him lose concentration.

124) R' Yossi holds: if the first day of Sukkos falls on Shabbos, and you forgot and carried out the Luluv to the Reshus Harabim, you're exempt from a Chatos since the burden of the Mitzvah caused you to carry it out. However, this is only if you weren't Yoitza yet, but if you were Yoitza, you're Chayiv since you didn't have any Mitzvah anymore. Although someone is anyhow Yoitza as soon as he lifts the Luluv [Tosfos: we must say that this question is based if Mitzvos don't need intent]; Abaya answers: you picked it upside down, and you're only Yoitza when you pick it up the way it grows. Rava answers: you carried it out in a utensil. Although he generally holds that if you pick it up through another object is a Halachically valid way for a taking; but that's only if done in an honorable way, but not in a disgraceful way like in a utensil.

125) If you thought that a bird Olah was really a Chatos, and you ate it, you're exempt since you had the burden of a Mitzvah. [Tosfos says: even according to the Gemara in Pesachim that R' Yehoshua only exempts when time's running out on the Mitzvah which causes him to panic to do it; time was running out here since he doesn't want it to become Nossar.] This is true even if he didn't end up doing the Mitzvah. [Tosfos explains: this is an argument in Pesachim if he's only exempt if he ended up doing a Mitzvah. Others have the text here that he's exempt "even though it's not upon him personally to eat it" in the same way that the obligation is upon him to take a Luluv.]

Daf 42

126) Although we see R' Yossi held that, if someone Shechts a Tamid from a lamb that wasn't inspected for blemishes on Shabbos [Tosfos: which is Pasul even if it's found to be unblemished from a Gezeiras Hakasuv]; he's Chayiv; we must establish it that he took it from a storage area that wasn't inspected at all. (Therefore, he wasn't burdened to bring Korbanos from that storage area. Even though he was burdened on bringing the Tamid, but taking from that storage area is a mistake that's so negligent that it's close to being considered as if he did it on purpose.)

127) A woman can take the Luluv from her husband's, or her son's, hands and return the Luluv to the water, even though she's not obligated in Luluv and we don't say it's Muktza to her. [Rashi says: since it's fit for the men to take, it becomes like a utensil that everyone can move.]

128) R' Yehuda says: on Shabbos, you can only return the Luluv to its water. On Yom Tov, you can even add fresh water to its original water. During Chol Hamoed, you may even change the water.

129) A minor who knows how to shake a Luluv, the father is obligated to train him to take a Luluv. If he knows how to wrap himself in clothing, his father must train him in Tzitzis. If he knows how to guard Tefilin, his father buys him Tefilin. When he knows how to speak, his father teaches him Torah, i.e., starting with the Pasuk "Torah Tziva etc.' and with the first Pasuk of Shma.

130) If the minor knows how to guard his body from touching Tumah, then you can eat Taharos that touched his body. If he can guard his hands after Netila, you can eat Taharos that touched his hands.

131) If the minor knows how to answer the question if he touched Tumah, then any Safeik Tumah in a Reshus Harabim is Tahor, and in a Reshus Hayachid is Tamai. [Tosfos says: but if he can't answer, he's Tahor even in a Reshus Hayachid,]

132) If a Kohein knows how to spread his hands (to make Birkas Kohanim); you may give him Trumah at the granary [Rashi says that you don't give minors Trumah at the granary even if they're experts to guard them to remain Tahor since people don't know if he's an expert or not. Therefore, the Gemara in Yevamos says, if a minor knows how to guard the Trumah, you send it discreetly to his house. Therefore, you need to wait until they say Birkas Kohanim since we know they must have became an adult (by growing the two pubic hairs) since minors are not allowed to go up to say Birkas Kohanim. Tosfos disagrees. After all, our Gemara refers to minors. Rather, the Gemara in Yevamos only refers to minors that can't spread their arms to say Birkas Kohanim yet. Although we say in general that minors can't say Birkas Kohanim, that means by themselves, but they can join adults. Although we have another Gemara that requires a Kohain to have a full beard to do Birkas Kohanim, that means he may do it by himself. Alternatively, it means that he can do it on a permanent basis. After all, we see this distinction by being a Shatz, that any adult can lead the Tefila, but you can't make him a permanent Chazan, or to have him Daven during the Yomim Noraim, public fasts and Maamadim where they have a lot of Davening unless he has a full beard.]

133) If a minor knows how to Shecht [Tosfos: i.e., he knows the skill, even if he doesn't know the Halachos], his Shechita is permitted as long as he's watched by an adult. [Tosfos infers from here that it's not Kosher if he doesn't know the skill even when an adult watches the Shechita.]

134) If a minor can eat a Kezayis of grain product in the time it takes to eat a Pras, you need to distance yourself from his dung an urine four Amos to say any Torah or Tefila (since the food makes it smelly).

135) An adult, even if he can't eat that much, you need to distance yourself from his waste since extra knowledge adds rotting to his waste.

136) If the minor can eat a Kezayis of roasted meat, you may count him onto a Korban Pesach. [Tosfos points out: we measure it with roasted meat, even though it's easier to eat cooked meat, since the Pesach was only roasted.] R' Yehuda says that he needs to be able to pick out good food (from bad). That if he receives a pebble, he throws it away. If he receives a nut, he takes it.