Alternative text: Some texts say "a Mishnah taught this", and it is a difficulty.

Explanation: We establish this regarding one who comes to ask. We instruct him to redeem for a Seh worth three Zuz, close to this (a Sela, i.e. four Zuz) and to this (a Shekel, i.e. two Zuz). However, [if he gave] by himself, even a lean Seh worth a Danka (a sixth of a Zuz, we do not tell him to give more).

If he does not have a Seh to redeem it, he redeems it for its value, even with cooked vegetables.

Pesak: When he redeems it, he blesses "Al Pidyon Peter Chamor", and not at the time he gives it to the Kohen, for from the time he separates [the Seh] it belongs to the Kohen, like it says below in our Sugya.

The Seh can be a sheep or goat, male or female, big or small, like our Mishnah teaches.

Implied question: This is like one who makes his own Peros Terumah on (to exempt) his friend's. We asked (Nedarim 36b) whether or not he needs [his friend's] consent!

Answer: There [is different,] for it is written "Gam Atem" to include your Shali'ach [to tithe]. We require that just like you [tithe] with your consent, also your Shali'ach is with your consent;

However, here the owner is not written (it never says Peter Chamorcha. Cheshek Shlomo asks that regarding Pidyon ha'Ben it says Bechorcha, and we do not require the owner's consent! Har Tzvi answers that there it is through Shelichus, and it may not be done [at least l'Chatchilah] against the father's will. Here it is not Shelichus, and l'Chatchilah one may redeem against the owner's will.)

Implied question: This Drashah is brought in Bava Kama (62b). It is not precise [what it expounds here from ha'Ish, for really,] we learn from "Re'ehu", and not Hekdesh!

I explained (63a DH Re'ehu) that [the Gemara] does not expound from the extra word "Ish", for also the Gizbar is called an Ish! We do not hear at all from Ish to exclude Hekdesh;

The word "Ish" applies to everything masculine, and Ishah to everything feminine, e.g. "Ishah El Achosah" [regarding the curtains above the Mishkan].

Answer: It says here mi'Beis ha'Ish and not mi'Beis Hekdesh. It means "from the house of the man, to whom Re'ehu (his colleague) applies." Because this verse "v'Gunav" discusses payment, it is brought.

Question #1: According to R. Tam, who explains above "he redeems, and again [redeems with the same Seh]", even many times, refers to Sefekos, it is difficult. Why does he need 10 Seiyin? One Seh suffices!

However, according to Rashi, who says that he returns and redeems [with the same Seh] only if he gave it to the Kohen and returns and takes it, it is fine.

Question #2: Also according to [Rashi] it is difficult what it says below "if a Yisrael had 10 Vadai Pitrei Chamorim in his house that he inherited from his mother's father, who was a Kohen, and that Kohen's grandfather inherited [them] from his mother's father, a Yisrael, he separates 10 Seiyin, tithes them, and they are his;

There, why does he need [to separate] 10? One suffices, for they truly belong to him, even though they are Vadai. If so, each time it is considered as if he gave to the Kohen and returned to take it, since he inherits due to the rights of his grandfather the Kohen!

Answer (to both questions): In all these cases it mentions 10 for a Chidush (even though one would suffice). Even though all are Pidyon Peter Chamor, they all enter the pen for Ma'aser.

Observation: According to the opinion that expounds in Menachos (67a) '"Deganecha", and not grain of Nochrim', he asks properly why he tithes it. This grain grew and had Miru'ach in the Nochri's Reshus!

Question: What was the difficulty here? Perhaps [R. Shmuel bar Noson] holds like the opinion that Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt, and "Deganecha" excludes Miru'ach of Hekdesh!

Suggestion: [Tana'im] argue about Miru'ach Nochri, i.e. when it grew in the Yisrael's Reshus, but what grew in the Nochri's Reshus, and the Nochri did Miru'ach, all hold that it is exempt.

Question: Still, what was difficult? Perhaps here it grew in the Yisrael's Reshus!

Answer: We can say that it connotes to [the Makshan] that [R. Shmuel] discusses what grew in the Nochri's Reshus.

Rejection: The Sugya in Menachos (66b) proves that they argue even about what grew in the Nochri's Reshus!

Answer #1: [The Makshan] prefers to answer [R. Shmuel] here according to everyone. (Shitah Mekubetzes calls it a Beraisa. Perhaps in his text, R. Shmuel cited a Beraisa.)

Question: Still, it is difficult! Even if he holds that Miru'ach Nochri exempts, even so he must tithe mid'Rabanan. This is a decree due to rich people (lest they buy from a Nochri who did Miru'ach, and people will come to exempt what they buy from a Yisrael. Alternatively, it is lest Ashirim give their Peros to a Nochri to do Miru'ach, to exempt them from Ma'aser.)

Answer: It connotes to [the Makshan] that since [R. Shmuel] said "and [the tithes] are his", he argues about the decree due to rich people, for if [he agreed], he would obligate giving [the tithes] to a Kohen. Why does he tithe them, and they are his?

Answer #2 (to Question (b)): [The Makshan] infers that [R. Shmuel] holds that Miru'ach of a Nochri exempts, since he said "and they are his." If he did not exempt, why does he tithe them and they are his? He should give [the tithes] to a Kohen!

Question: It should answer that even though [Miru'ach Nochri] does not exempt, he need not give them to a Kohen, for [the Yisrael] says [to the Kohen] "I come [received the Peros] from someone that you had no case against him (to force him to give tithes)";

And also according to the one who holds that there is a decree due to rich people, i.e. the one who holds that [Miru'ach Nochri] exempts, it is unreasonable to obligate to give to a Kohen more than according to the one who holds that it does not exempt!

And the Sugya below connotes that if [the Nochri] Vadai switched [the Peros, the Yisrael] must give to the Kohen. It says that [if one deposits] with a Nochri, [what he takes back] is like the Nochri's Peros, and it connotes that if he surely switched it, all obligate [the Yisrael] to give [the tithes] to the Kohen!

Answer: That is surely according to the conclusion here - this refers to Terumah Gedolah (he gives it to the Kohen), and this refers to Terumas Ma'aser (he keeps it).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Yisrael is the Nochri's sharecropper.

Question: His Perush is difficult. If [this refers to] the Nochri's share [of the Peros], this is Miru'ach of a Nochri! If it is the Yisrael's share, this is not buying Tevel!

Explanation #2: It seems that "the Yisrael did Miru'ach from the Nochri's Reshus", i.e. after the Yisrael bought them, he did Miru'ach;

It means "one who buys Tevel from a Nochri, and now Miru'ach was done."

Question: Even if Yesh Kinyan, he should be obligated to tithe mid'Rabanan, like is proven in Menachos (31a) in the Sugya of R. Shimon Shezuri, regarding "go buy from a Nochri and tithe it"! (Tevel became mixed with Rov Chulin. R. Tarfon told R. Shimon Shezuri to go buy Demai, and tithe from it also on the mixture, for both are obligated only mid'Rabanan. The Gemara asked why he didn't tell him to buy from a Nochri. In another version, he told him to buy from a Nochri, and the Gemara asked why he didn't tell him to buy Demai.)

Suggestion: [He says that Ein Kinyan,] for he wants to find a Chiyuv mid'Oraisa for a bigger Chidush, that even so they are his, even though he is obligated to tithe mid'Oraisa.

Rejection: No matter what you will say [about Yesh Kinyan or Ein Kinyan], what is bought is exempt mid'Oraisa, like is proven in Bava Metzi'a (88b)!

Answer #1 (and defense of Suggestion): According to R. Tam, who explains that [in Bava Metzi'a we exempt mid'Oraisa] only one who bought after Miru'ach, but one who bought before Miru'ach and did Miru'ach is obligated [mid'Oraisa], it is fine.

Answer #2: Even if one who bought before Miru'ach is exempt mid'Oraisa, in any case it is a bigger Chidush that [the tithes] are his, even though Ein Kinyan, and there is no reason to exempt due to Kedushas ha'Aretz that was uprooted, that the Isur is more stringent (when there is Kedushas ha'Aretz).

Proof: This is proven in Menachos (31a), from the question 'he should tell him "go buy from a Nochri!"', and it answers "he holds that Ein Kinyan, and this is like tithing what is obligated on what is exempt", even though what is bought is mid'Rabanan.

Inference: A Stam Am ha'Aretz is suspected about Shevi'is.

Support #1: Also in Sukah (39a) it says that one may not give Demei (money with Kedushas) Shevi'is to an Am ha'Aretz.

Support #2: In Chulin (6a) it says that if one told her neighbor "make for me [bread from this dough] from your [Se'or (sourdough) and spices]", he must be concerned about the Se'or and spices due to Ma'aser and Shevi'is.

Question: It is difficult, for a Mishnah in Gitin (61a) teaches, regarding a Chaver's wife may lend to an Am ha'Aretz' wife, "a woman may lend to her friend who is suspected about Shemitah..." This implies that Stam, [Amei ha'Aretz] are not suspected!

Reference: In Kesuvos (24a DH Sheli) I explained [that a Stam Am ha'Aretz is not suspected about Shevi'is. The sources that say that he is, they discuss one who is known be suspected. Tosfos says so below (30a DH Masnisin).

Implied question: We know that R. Shimon holds that Miru'ach of a Nochri exempts!

Answer: In any case he is obligated, due to a decree due to rich people, like I explained above (DH Deganecha).

Inference: Here it connotes that the buyer is obligated mid'Oraisa, since a verse is needed to exempt Terumas Ma'aser.

Question (R. Tam): We say in Bava Metzi'a (88b, that the Chiyuv to tithe is only for "Tevu'as Zar'echa", but not for what you buy!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): One who buys before Miru'ach is obligated mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: It says in Menachos (66b) that we take Terumah from [Peros] Nochrim on those of Nochrim, and from Nochrim on of anyone, for Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt!

Answer: It does not discuss one who buys from a Nochri, for one who buys after Miru'ach, even from a Yisrael, is exempt mid'Oraisa;

Rather, it discusses a Nochri who takes Terumah from his own on a Yisrael's, like the Mishnah (Terumos 3:9) "a Nochri or Kusi who took Terumah, his Terumah is Terumah."

Implied question: In Eruvin (37b), regarding one who buys wine from Kusim, it says that [R. Shimon does not allow tithing via Bereirah, for] he holds that Ein Bereirah for Torah laws!

Answer: Terumah of grain, wine and oil it calls mid'Oraisa.

Answer #2: And even if every buyer is exempt [mid'Oraisa, even before Miru'ach], our Sugya is fine. One who buys Tevel from a Nochri discusses a Nochri who tithes his Peros and gives to a Levi;

The Levi is not obligated to give Terumas Ma'aser to a Kohen, and it is Ma'aser mid'Oraisa, if Ein Kinyan and Miru'ach Nochri does not exempt.

And even according to the opinion that Miru'ach Nochri exempts, it is possible that he was early [to buy before Miru'ach, while it was still] sheaves;

This properly fulfills the reason above, that he tells [the Kohen] "I come [received the Peros] from someone that you had no case against him";

I.e. just like the Ma'aser that the Nochri separates and gives to the Levi, the Levi need not give from it Terumah to a Kohen...

So a Levi who buys Tevel from a Nochri, and separated Ma'aser, he need not give from it Terumas Ma'aser to a Kohen. Rather, he separates it, and it is his, for he says "I come..."

If not [for this reason], even though a buyer is exempt mid'Oraisa, in any case he would be obligated to give to a Kohen mid'Rabanan.

Inference: In Menachos (31a) it connotes like R. Tam, for it asks "he should tell him to buy from a Nochri and tithe on it!", and answers he holds that Ein Kinyan, and this would be Chayav (the Nochri's Peros) on Patur (the mixture);

Since it calls [the Nochri's Peros] Chayav, this connotes mid'Oraisa (for the mixture is obligated mid'Rabanan, and it is called Patur)!

Rejection: Compared to something mixed with a majority of Heter, [the Nochri's Peros] are like Chayav on Patur.

Support #1: Also there it says [in the other version] "he should tell him to buy [Demai] from the market and tithe on it!", and answers that he holds that most Amei ha'Aretz do not tithe, and this would be Chayav (Demai) on Patur (the mixture);

Question: What is the reason? Demai is mid'Rabanan, and Tevel mixed with Chulin is mid'Rabanan, if it is mixed with a majority [of Chulin]!