Answer: Rather, when one leans more to be Chayav or Patur than the other, this is called Chayav on Patur.

Support #2: Also, when [the Gemara] answers "he holds that Ein Kinyan", he discusses when he bought after Miru'ach from a Nochri, similar to the case of [buying Demai, about which we say that] most Amei ha'Aretz tithe, which applies only after Miru'ach. (Even according to R. Tam, it is obligated only mid'Rabanan!)

Implied question: According to the Sugya in Menachos, what is the Gemara's source that they argue about whether or not Miru'ach Nochri exempts? Perhaps they argue about Yesh Kinyan or Ein Kinyan!

Answer #1: If so, R. Meir would contradict himself, since he said that we may tithe [Peros of] anyone on of anyone. If so, he holds that Ein Kinyan;

And in Avodah Zarah (21a) it connotes that R. Meir holds that Yesh Kinyan regarding "we do not rent fields [in Eretz Yisrael to Nochrim], for this uproots them from Ma'aser"!

Implied question: The Yerushalmi establishes [that they argue in Menachos] about Yesh Kinyan or Ein Kinyan!

Answer: That is according to the reason that does not explain the reason for the Mishnah in Avodah Zarah to be due to uprooting Ma'aser. (Rather, a field is more prone to be blessed than a house.)

Answer #2 (to Question (c)): Also, we can infer from R. Yehudah [that they do not argue about Yesh Kinyan], for he says in Menachos (66b) that we may tithe from anyone on of anyone....

And in Perek ha'Mekabel (Demai 6:2) he holds that Yesh Kinyan, according to the Ri's Perush, that it discusses one who accepts from a Nochri [to work on] the field [that used to be] of his ancestors;

And we can explain the uprooting [in the Mishnah] in Avodah Zarah differently. (The land does not lose its Kedushah, for Ein Kinyan. However, if the Nochri rents it, Ma'aser will not be separated from the Peros.)

Assertion: The text says R. Elazar, and not R. Eliezer.

Proof: This is proven in Bava Kama (78a). It says [according to] R. Elazar, who permits [redeeming] with Kil'ayim, for what Halachah was it said "Seh is only to exclude Kil'ayim"?

It answers that it is for a Tamei born from a Tahor, and it became pregnant from a Tamei, and unlike R. Yehoshua, for if it is like R. Yehoshua, he learns from "Seh Kevasim v'Seh Izim", and all the more so it is unlike R. Eliezer, who permits above (7a);

Inference: R"E (i.e. the one who permits Kil'ayim here) argues with R. Eliezer, the usual opponent of R. Yehoshua (so we must say that here it is R. Elazar).

Question: Why do we need for Bechor ["Bechor Shor" to exclude Nidmeh, i.e.] that [the mother] must be a Shor (i.e. a cow), and its Bechor an ox? We should learn "Ha'avarah-Ha'avarah" from Ma'aser!

Answer: Since it is written "Ach" to obligate for some Simanim that resemble its mother, therefore it needs to exclude Nidmeh in this verse, that we learn from it what "Ach" refers to (a child that does not totally resemble its mother).

Question: However, according to the Tana who excludes above Nidmeh from the repetition of "Peter Chamor", and [the Torah] revealed about Kedushas Damim and the same applies to Kedushas ha'Guf - according to this reason, it could not expound some Simanim from "Ach"!

Answer: Perhaps he learns from another verse.

Reference: There is another Drashah below (15a) from Tzvi v'Ayal. It exempts [Pesulei ha'Mukdashim] from Matanos, and if not for an exclusion, we would have permitted the Chelev and exempted from Oso v'Es Beno.

Question: How do we make all these Drashos? Below (33a) it says that three times it is written Tzvi v'Ayal, and it brings each for its Drashah, and we do not expound from them these Drashos at all!

Explanation: '"To eat", and not for business' connotes that one may not buy a Tamei animal such as a Peter Chamor with Peros Shemitah.

Question: Even Rabanan forbid in Bava Kama (102a, using Peros Shemitah for) soaking or laundering because we require similar to "for eating", that the Hana'ah and Bi'ur (eradication) come at once. An animal for work, its Hana'ah and Bi'ur come together! (Chidushei Basra - Tosfos holds that becoming weak (through Melachah) is like the beginning of death, like it says in Bava Kama 65a.)

Implied question: One can separate from another dough that is not of Shevi'is on this one, and bring both close!

Answer: In any case, since this is not l'Chatchilah, and one cannot separate from it itself, it is like from Chayav on Patur.

Question (R. Tam): We should learn from the Omer. Ikaro (from the beginning, it is brought so that part) will be burned!

Citation (Menachos 84a): People who guarded Sefichim (things that grew by themselves) in Shemitah (for the sake of the Omer) received wages from Terumas ha'Lishkah (half-Shekalim given to buy Korbanos Tzibur);

The Gemara asks, how can we bring the Omer from Peros Shemitah? Shemitah is for eating, and not for burning (the Eimurim). A Kometz [of the Omer] is burned on the Mizbe'ach! [It answers that] there is different, for it says l'Doroseichem (it is brought every year).

Answer #1: We do not learn Bechor from the Omer because there are too many challenges. The Omer is a Korban Tzibur, and it overrides Shabbos and Tum'ah.

Answer #2: It is possible to fulfill the Omer in Shemitah only from Peros Shemitah, because we require Karmel (the grain is still moist). However, Bechor and Chalah can be fulfilled in Shemitah with other animals and other Peros.

Observation: This wording is not below (49a, in the discussion of Pidyon before 30 days. I.e. this is not taught in the name of Rava. The Bach adds it to the text there. R. Yom Tov Algasi - Tosfos means that it is not taught there at all.)