1)

(a)According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, it is a Sitton (Chaver) exclusively who is permitted to sell to Chaverim without separating Ma'asros first. A Sitton is a wholesaler who buys from many producers, and sells to the stores in large quantities ('be'Midah Gasah').

(b)Rebbi Meir allows him this concession because everyone knows that whatever he sells he bought from Amei ha'Aretz.

(c)He distinguishes between a Sitton and a Balabos who purchases from Amei ha'Aretz and sells wholesale because since he is not known to be a Sitton, people will think that he is selling his own crops, and because he is a Chaver, they will assume that it is all Ma'asered.

(d)The Chachamim permit anyone who sells large quantities like a Sitton to sell without Ma'asering first (on the assumption that, whoever sells in such large quantities, has not Ma'asered).

2)

(a)The Shiur of 'Midah Gasah', that defines Sittoni'us is three Kabin (half a Sa'ah) of dry produce (twenty-four egg-volumes) and a Dinar (192 Perutos)'s worth of wine.

(b)We have proved from this Beraisa that when it comes to eating Ma'aser Sheini of Demai, Rebbi Meir is more stringent than the Rabbanan.

3)

(a)Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa that someone who purchases hot loaves and loaves that already cooled down from a baker can Ma'aser the former to cover the latter and vice-versa ...

(b)... and he adds that this even applies if they are of various shapes.

(c)There is no problem with Ma'asering a cold loaf on hot ones, due to a statement of Rebbi Ila'i, who learns from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Lo Sis'u Alav Chet, be'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" that someone who takes Terumah from inferior produce to cover superior produce, is Yotze (because if he wasn't, what sin would he have performed?).

(d)Ravina has a problem with Rebbi Meir permitting the Ma'asering of one shape loaf to cover another, because maybe the Nachtom (the retail bakery) purchased his wares from different bakers, some of whom Ma'asered, and some of whom did not. If he then separates ...

1. ... min ha'Chiyuv al ha'Petur he will be giving the Kohen Tevel.

2. ... min ha'Petur al ha'Chiyuv he will subsequently be eating Tevel.

4)

(a)Abaye will deal with Ravina's problem after he has reviewed the entire Sugya. He justifies Rebbi Elazar, who asks how it is that the Chachamim decreed the same stringency on Terumas Ma'aser shel Demai as the Torah decreed on Terumas Ma'aser. The problem he has with ...

1. ... Shmuel, who establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, because we have seen that he is stringent by Gitin is that perhaps Rebbi Meir's stringency is confined to Gitin, whose basic Chiyuv involves Misah bi'Yedei Adam, but not to Terumah, whose basic Chiyuv is only Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim.

2. ... Rav Sheishes, who then asks from Pidyon Ma'aser Sheini, where Rebbi Meir is lenient that perhaps Rebbi Meir is only lenient there, because the basic Chiyuv is a La'av ("Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha"), but not there where the basic Chiyuv is Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim.

(b)And about Rav Yosef, who answered Rav Sheishes Kashya by differentiating between Pidyon and Achilah he concedes that, even though Rav Sheishes' Kashya was not justified, having asked it, the answer Rav Yosef gave is correct.

5)

(a)Concerning Ravina's Kashya from a Nachtom (where Rebbi Meir is lenient), Abaye says that he should rather have cited the Mishnah in Demai concerning a Palter a wholesale bread merchant, who buys from many bakers and sells to the stores (the equivalent of a Sitton regarding wheat) ...

(b)... where Rebbi Meir rules that someone who buys different shape loaves from a Palter, must Ma'aser from each shape that he buys individually.

(c)We will then answer Ravina's Kashya from a Nachtom by differentiating between him and a Paltar, because, whereas the latter buys from many different bakers, the former only buys from one (irrespective of the fact that his loaves come in a variety of shapes).

(d)Rava disagree with Abaye's Kashya on Shmuel. According to him there is no difference between Misas Beis-Din and Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim in this regard; because if they decreed on the one, they also decreed on the other.

6)

(a)The three items, besides Hekdesh, that our Mishnah lists three things that are not subject to Ona'ah are Avadim, Shetaros and Karka'os.

(b)'Hekdesh' either refers to the treasurer of Hekdesh who sold a Tamei or blemished animal, or the owner of a Hekdesh animal that the owner sold after it became blemished.

(c)Besides Tashlumei Kefel of a Ganav, these four things are not subject to -Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah, should the Ganav then sell or Shecht the stolen animal.

(d)Despite the fact that Arba'ah va'Chamishah are confined to an ox and a lamb, the Tana needs to mention that it does apply to these four things on account of Hekdesh.

7)

(a)The Beraisa rules ...

1. ... that a Shomer Chinam is exempt from swearing (that he was not negligent) over the four things listed in the Mishnah, and ...

2. ... that a Shomer Sachar is exempt from paying (should they get stolen or lost).

(b)Rebbi Shimon disagrees with the Tana Kama's statement precluding all Kodshim from Ona'ah because he includes Kodshim she'Chayav be'Achariyusan' (when the owner declared 'Harei Alai', and designated the animal afterwards, in which case he will be responsible to bring another animal, should anything happen to it).

(c)And he concede to the Tana Kama Kodshim she'Eino Chayav ba'Achariyusan (when he declared 'Harei Zu', in which case he will not be responsible to replace it).

(d)Rebbi Yehudah lists three things that are not subject to Ona'ah. One of them is a Seifer-Torah, the other two are an animal and a jewel.

8)

(a)The Tana derives the four things in our Mishnah that are not subject to Ona'ah from the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Chi Simkeru Mimkar la'Amisecha, O Kanoh mi'Yad Amisecha, Lo Sonu ... '. He learns from ...

1. ... "mi'Yad" Karka (which cannot be held in the hand).

2. ... "Mimkar" Sh'taros (which do not have an intrinsic value).

3. ... "Al Tonu Ish es Achiv that Hekdesh is not subject to Ona'ah either.

(b)The Tana learns Avadim from the fact that Avadim are compared to Karka (in Behar, where the Torah writes "ve'Hisnachaltem Osam li'Veneichem ... ").

(c)It is sometimes possible for Sh'taros to be subject to Ona'ah if they are sold as paper (for example, if one sells them to a spice-merchant, who uses them to wrap his powdered spices).

(d)The Chachamim deemed it necessary to teach us this due to the fact that the spice-merchants would only pay P'rutos for them, to preclude from the opinion of Rav Kahana, who holds 'Ein Ona'ah li'P'rutos (as that is all the spice-merchant would usually pay for the used Sh'taros).

9)

(a)Rabah bar Mamal asks from the Pasuk "va'Yikach es Kol Artzo mi'Yado" from which we see that the Torah's use of the word "Yad" is metaphorical (meaning 'possession'), on the previous D'rashah, which precludes Karka from Ona'ah, from the word "mi'Yad".

(b)We counter that by citing two other Pesukim. We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Mishpatim "Im Himatzei Simatzei be'Yado ha'Geneivah" that one even has to pay Kefel for a stolen animal that the Ganav acquired by leading it on to his roof, into his courtyard or into his enclosure.

2. ... in Ki Seitzei "ve'Nasan be'Yadah" that a woman is divorced even if her husband places her Get in her garden, courtyard or enclosure.

(c)We learn from these Pesukim that "Yad" per se means specifically 'hand'.

(d)And we answer Rabah bar Mamal's Kashya by pointing out that in that particular instance (by "va'Yikach es Kol Artzo mi'Yado") only, 'Yad' is not literal, because it is impossible to be, but wherever it can be, it is.

10)

(a)Rebbi Zeira asks whether Sechirus is subject to Ona'ah or not whether "Mimkar" in the Pasuk must be taken literally (to preclude Sechirus, which is not generally referred to as a sale) or not.

(b)Abaye resolves it by interpreting "Mimkar" as an all-embracing word, which incorporates a temporary sale (Sechirus) no less than a permanent one.

11)

(a)Rava asks whether planted wheat is subject to Ona'ah. His She'eilah is whether we consider planted wheat as a separate entity (as if it was placed in a jar), or whether it is Bateil to the ground (and Karka, as we have already learned, is not subject to Ona'ah).

(b)Rava can only be speaking before the seeds have taken root because once they have, it is obvious that they are considered Karka.

(c)The She'eilah cannot pertain to a case where the seller claims to have planted six Sa'ah, whereas witnesses testify that he planted only five, because of another statement of Rava, that 'Kol Davar she'be'Midah, ve'she'be'Mishkal ve'she'be'Minyan Afilu Pachos mi'Chedei Ona'ah, Chozer' (meaning that even though Ona'ah does not apply to things that are measured, weighed or counted, Bitul Mekach does).

(d)Rava's She'eilah therefore pertains to a case where Reuven agrees to sell Shimon a plot of land which is sown in the conventional manner, but in which he had planted only five Sa'ah instead of the conventional six.

(e)Rava also asks whether the Din Shevu'ah applies to planted seeds where Reuven claims that he gave Shimon six Sa'ah to plant and that he only planted five, whereas Shimon counters that he planted five and a half.

12)

(a)And finally, he asks whether the Omer (which was brought on the sixteenth of Nisan) would permit planted seeds or not. He cannot be referring to Gidulin that grew from the seeds, because we know already from the Mishnah in Menachos, that if the seeds took root before the Omer, they are permitted, and if not, they are forbidden.

(b)He must therefore be referring to the seeds themselves, that have neither taken root nor grown into wheat.

(c)The seeds might be ...

1. ... permitted because we consider them as if they were lying in a jar (as we explained earlier).

2. ... forbidden because they are Bateil to the ground, in which case the Omer will not permit them.

(d)The outcome of all the She'eilos is 'Teiku'.