LENIENCIES OF DEMAI
Answer (Rav Yosef): Even though R. Meir is lenient about redeeming Ma'aser of Demai, he is stringent about eating it;
(Beraisa - R. Meir): Only a wholesaler may sell Demai. A regular person, whether selling a lot or little, must separate Ma'aser first.
Chachamim say, even a regular person may sell or give Demai for a gift.
Question (Ravina - Mishnah - R. Meir): If one buys from a Nachtom (Tosfos ha'Rosh - baker; Rashi - retailer of bread) who is not trustworthy about Ma'aser, he may separate warm bread (i.e. it was baked recently) to be Ma'aser on cold or vice-versa, even from different shapes of bread on each other.
Granted, cold on warm is permitted, like R. Ilai taught;.
(R. Ilai): If one separated bad Peros to be Terumah on good Peros, it takes effect - "v'Lo Sisa Alav Chet..." (you will not bear sin if you separate good Peros).
If it would not become Terumah, why would he bear sin?! We conclude that if bad Peros are separated, it takes effect.
But why may he separate from different shapes of bread on each other? Perhaps he will separate from tithed grain on untithed grain, or vice-versa!
Abaye: R. Elazar asked a good question, and Shmuel's answer is insufficient!
R. Elazar asked about (Terumas Ma'aser of Demai. Even Vadai Terumah is punishable only by) death b'Yedei (through) Shamayim, and Shmuel answered from (Gitin, which permit married women, for which the punishment was) death at the hands of Beis Din;
Perhaps Chachamim are more stringent about death at the hands of Beis Din, since it is more stringent!
Abaye: Rav Sheshes' question was improper. R. Elazar and Shmuel discusses (things punishable by) death, and he asked from (Ma'aser Sheni, which is only) a Lav - "Lo Suchal Le'echol"!
Rav Yosef's answer was proper.
Question (Abaye): Why did Ravina ask from a Nachtom? He should have supported the law from a Palter (wholesaler of bread)!
(Mishnah - R. Meir): One who buys from a Palter must tithe separately bread from each type of mold.
Answer: He did not bring a support from a Palter, for we must say that he buys bread from different bakers, so surely one must tithe separately from each mold.
Rebuttal: If so, we can likewise say that a Nachtom buys all (Rashi - his bread; Tosfos ha'Rosh - his wheat) from one person, so even if his bread is from different molds, we may tithe from one to another! (Therefore, Ravina's question was improper.)
(Rava): Shmuel's answer was proper. Death is essentially the same, whether b'Yedei Shamayim or Beis Din.
ITEMS TO WHICH ONA'AH DOES NOT APPLY
(Mishnah): Ona'ah does not apply to the following: slaves, documents, land, and Hekdesh;
Also, one who steals them does not pay Kefel, four or five. A Shomer Chinam does not swear about them, and a Shomer Sachar does not pay (if they are lost or stolen);
R. Shimon says, Ona'ah applies to Kodshim with Achrayus (if this animal cannot be brought, the owner must bring another), but not to Kodshim without Achrayus.
R. Yehudah says, Ona'ah does not apply to a Sefer Torah, animal or pearl;
Chachamim say, it applies to everything except the above exceptions.
(Gemara) Question: What is the source of the first law?
Answer (Beraisa): The verse forbidding Ona'ah says "v'Chi Simkeru... mi'Yad Amisecha." It refers to something acquired from hand to hand;
This excludes land, which cannot be moved. It excludes slaves, which are equated to land;
It excludes documents, because "v'Chi Simkeru" connotes that the matter itself is sold. Documents are sold for the proof they contain (of a sale or loan).
Therefore, one who sells documents to a perfumer (to cork his bottles), Ona'ah applies to them.
Objection: This is obvious!
Answer: This teaches unlike Rav Kahana's opinion, that Ona'ah does not apply to Perutos (it applies only to at least an Isar). The Tana teaches that it is Ona'ah (presumably, the intrinsic value of documents is only Perutos).
We exclude Hekdesh because the verse says "Achiv".
Question (Rabah bar Mamal): Whenever the Torah says "Yado", does this literally mean 'hand'?!
"Va'Yikach Es Kol Artzo mi'Yado" - we cannot say that Sichon's land was in his hand!
Rather, it means from his possession. Also in the verse of selling, it means from his possession!
Counter-question: You cannot say that 'Yado' never literally means 'hand'! (Each of the coming two Beraisos shows this.)
(Beraisa #1) Question: It says "(if the stolen object will be found) b'Yado." What is the source to include his roof, yard or storage area?
Answer: "Himatzei Simatzei" - the double expression comes to include them.
We expounded this way only because it says "Himatzei Simatzei." If not, we would have said that "Yado" literally means 'his hand'!
(Beraisa #2): "(A husband puts the Get) b'Yadah." What is the source to include her roof, yard or storage area?
Answer: It says "v'Nasan" (and he will give, before it says "her hand"). This suggests that he can put it in other places as well).
We expounded this way only due to "v'Nasan." If not, we would have said that "Yado" always means 'his hand'!
Answer: Really, 'Yado' (almost) always means 'his hand'. We cannot say so regarding Sichon, so it must mean 'his possession'.
Question (R. Zeira): Does Ona'ah apply to rental?
The verse of Ona'ah discusses a sale, but not rental;
Or, perhaps we do not distinguish!
Answer (Abaye): The verse does not specify a permanent sale. Rental is a temporary sale (so Ona'ah applies to it).
ARE PLANTED PEROS LIKE LAND?
Question (Rava): If one planted wheat in the ground, does Ona'ah apply?
If we view it as being in a Kli, it is still Metaltelim, so there is Ona'ah;
Or, since it will stay in the ground, perhaps it is like land (and there is no Ona'ah)!
Question: What is the case?
Suggestion: He says that he planted six measures of wheat, and witnesses say that he only planted five.
Rejection: Rava taught that if one was shortchanged through an error in measure, weight or quantity, he is compensated, even if the error was less than the threshold of Ona'ah;
Answer: Rather, Reuven was told to plant wheat as needed, and he planted too little.
If we view it as being in a Kli, it is still Metaltelim, there is Ona'ah;
Or ,since it will stay in the ground, is it like land?
Question: Does one swear about it?
If it is considered Metaltelim, he swears; if it is land, he does not.
Question: (If the wheat was Chadash (i.e. from this year's harvest)) - is it permitted when the Omer offering is brought?
Question: What is the case? A Mishnah teaches the law if it took root, and if not!
(Mishnah): If it took root before the Omer, the Omer permits it; if not, it is permitted when the Omer is brought the next year.
Answer: The case is, he uprooted it and planted it before the Omer; the Omer passed before it took root. The question is, may he remove it and eat it?
If we view it as being in a Kli, the Omer permits it;
If it is considered as part of the ground, the Omer does not permit it.
These questions are unsettled.