Rav Shach says that the fruit of the seventh year is not automatically הפקר [abandoned].

He is weaving together a complicated picture in order to solve a difficult Rambam. This Rambam is in the Laws of Maasar Sheni I: 5-6
For the general audience here let me just preface my remarks with the fact that years 1,2, 4,6 of the sabbatical cycle one gives the second Maasar. That is you give Truma to the priest every year. Then you take a tenth of your crop and give it to a Levi. Then you take another tenth and bring it to Jerusalem to the Temple. You give a basket there and the rest you eat in Jerusalem.  But in years 3 and 6 instead of the second tenth you give a tenth to the poor.

The Etrog [a  kind of fruit] you count the year by the time of picking. But still the Rambam says if it ripened in the 6th year you give truma and the tenth.

The Beit Yoseph says the Rambam is doubtful and so goes both ways to be strict. This is nonsense. The Rambam would have said so if he was doubtful. And also what about other years besides the seventh? Why not bring two tenths in the fourth year if he was doubtful?
The Gra says he is going by R. Yochanan that even though we go by the time of picking still in terms of the seventh year, if it ripened in the 6th we give truma.

The picture Rav Shach is painting  is built of several components. One is the question the Minchas Chinuch brings if the Torah makes the fruit abandoned of if one is required to abandon it. The other is the point the Or Sameach brings up of the fruit is the fruit of the seventh year even while attached or only after it is picked. The other is the point I started with that the Torah does not say it is abandoned rather the Torah gives it to all Israel.
 But I am still fumbling around trying to figure out how these points can answer the Rambam.
I mean if the fruit is not הפקר  then truma could apply. But why should it? We still have a verse that fruit of the seventh year is not obligated in Truma.

e17 edited

e63 edited  [e63 in midi]

e62 edited ''e62 in mdi format

e61   [e61 in midi format]   e61 nwc

In terms of Trump, let me just say that not all menstrual blood is unclean.
First of all  there are five shades of red that are unclean and five that are clean.--And in spite of what you may think--these are possible to verify. And that is strict דין תורה--the law of the Bible.
When the question of blood comes up nowadays, what happens id  that any shade of red or black is considered unclean. But that is not because of the Torah. That is because people are too lazy to find out example what wavelengths constitute unclean and which ones constitute clean blood.

Another astounding fact is that nowadays there is almost never any kind of הרגשה [feeling] that the Talmud considers a problem. [Unless there is feeling there is nothing unclean.] I have not made a big deal about this because the Noda BeYehuda did in fact say that the feeling of some liquid moving inside is considered "feeling." So even if the Chatam Sofer and Natan Adler disagreed still I would rather not be the one be lenient in this matter.

In any case the comment of Trump was in no way demeaning unless people specifically want to take it that way. And then they are just being immature.

Normally I would not say anything unless I had something new to add. But I thought that Rav Shach has such an important point that it is worth mentioning. Laws of the Seventh Year and the Jubilee. 4:24.

I have not actually seen it inside but I think I know what he is getting at.

Just for a general introduction let me say a few basic points: (1) that the fruit called an Estrog can be on a tree for many years. (2) Vegetables you count by when they are picked. (3) Fruit goes by when they get ripe. (4) The Etrog goes by when it is picked.
That means for example you have an Estrog that is picked on the forth year of the seven year cycle before the 15th of the month Shevat, then you give tithes to the poor. If it is picked after the 15th of Shevat then you give the second tithe--which means  it has to be taken to Jerusalem.
This is all clear. But then the Rambam says something that seems at first glance very hard to understand. He says an Esrog [or Etrog in modern Hebrew] that grew to the size of an olive on the sixth year even though it is picked on the seventh year if obligated in Trumah and Maasar.
[The Beit Yoseph gives what can only be called a very flaky answer here.  And that is not unusual for him as that Shach and Taz have noticed. He says the Rambam is going like both ways in order to be strict. -both by the time of ripening and of picking.]
Now Rav Shach brings a question from the Minchas Chinuch if the fruit of the seventh year one must let go of and abandon (and if one did not an someone takes it it is stealing) or if we say the Torah has already declared it abandoned by law.

The Minchas Chinuch brings as a possible solution the Mishna where you have five women with a basket of fruit of the seventh year and someone walks up and takes  a fruit and gives it back to them and says you all are married to me by this fruit, they are married. [Obviously they have to agree to this, but we know women are so desperate to be married so things like this happen  every day.]

Without seeing  the details what I think Rav Elazar Menachem Shach is getting at is that the law of the seventh year requires a person to abandon his fruit but not that it is automatically abandoned.Therefore the Etrog that grew slightly in the sixth year but picked on the seventh year is in fact fruit of the seventh year but it is not abandoned until it is picked and so it is obligated in Trumah and Maasar.

The way to understand this is thus: When do the fruits become abandoned for all? When they grow or when they are picked? Well that is to some degree the whole idea when we say by normal fruit you go by when it is ripened and by the etrog when it is picked. So when it is picked it becomes a fruit of the seventh year. But that does mean it is abandoned. It still requires an act of abandonment. lacking that it is like what Rav Shach said about halacha 26 that fruits of areas of עולי מצרים  are obligated in the seventh year and maasar of the poor all at the same time.

Which makes me think that RaV Shach wrote his book in such a  way that the themes interconnect.