Question: A Mishnah (Ma'aseros 3:5, brought in Nidah 47b) says "which Chatzer is obligated in Ma'aser? A Chatzer Tzuris. What is a Chatzer Tzuris? It is any Chatzer in which Kelim are guarded in it."

Suggestion: R. Yanai holds that it is not obligated in Ma'aser until it sees Pnei (the inside of) ha'Bayis, and "Pnei ha'Chatzer" (i.e. a Chatzer is obligated) means that he enters it through the gate of the Chatzer to the house...

And below, when R. Yanai said that "bi'She'arecha" excludes through the roofs, he could have said that it excludes one who enters into the house not through the gate of the Chatzer!

Rejection: If so, why does it say below that [a fig tree is in a garden, and the foliage extends into a Chatzer], and according to the opinion [that it is liable when it enters] into the house, [it extends into] the house? How is it possible that a worker stands in the house and detaches, and it comes through the gate of the Chatzer?!

Answer #1: We can say that when the fig tree leans into the Chatzer or stands in the Chatzer, it need not see Pnei ha'Chatzer. Only those that are picked outside the Chatzer, one must enter them through the gate of the Chatzer.

Support: A Mishnah (Ma'aseros 3:8) connotes like this. It teaches that if a fig tree stands in the Chatzer, one may eat one by one [without tithing]. If he gathered two, he is obligated [to tithe].

Rejection: We cannot say so, for a Mishnah (Terumos 8:3, brought in Beitzah 35a) says that if one was eating a cluster and entered from the garden to the Chatzer, R. Eliezer says that he may finish eating it [without tithing], and R. Yehoshua says that he may not finish. All forbid to begin eating;

Inference: In the Chatzer it is forbidden even if he did not enter the house, since it mentioned that he entered the Chatzer!

Answer #2: R. Yanai agrees that a Chatzer is Kove'a (forbids eating without tithing) mid'Rabanan. He said "[it is not obligated] until it sees Pnei ha'Bayis", i.e. mid'Oraisa.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, who says that a Chatzer is Kove'a mid'Oraisa, why does R. Eliezer permit to finish eating?

Answer: We discuss a Chatzer in which Kelim are not guarded inside it. It is Kove'a only mid'Rabanan.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A buyer is no better [to obligate tithing] than final processing. If so, even the owner is obligated through final processing in the field!

Question #1: If so, he establishes it when there was not final processing for Ma'aser. If so, what was the question "also the owner is obligated!"?

Since there was not final processing for Ma'aser, [the owner] may eat even in the house, like R. Oshaya taught (Pesachim 9a) that one may scheme about his grain and enter it in the house with its chaff [so it will not become obligated in Ma'aser]!

Question #2: At the end of Beitzah (35a), it connotes that all the Amora'im there hold that a sale is Kove'a only for something that had final processing for Ma'aser!

Explanation #2: We ask "is it not in the field?", i.e. the buyer is obligated because a sale is Kove'a, i.e. for something that had final processing for Ma'aser;

This is difficult for all of them (i.e. R. Yanai and R. Yochanan), who did not distinguish, and even regarding a buyer, they require that it see Pnei ha'Bayis or Pnei ha'Chatzer.

Explanation: This is not precise to say a fig tree, for its Ma'aser is only mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa, only grain, wine and oil are obligated, and here we discuss mid'Oraisa!

Rather, it mentioned a fig tree because they were common among them.

Implied question: Why can't we establish it when he picks in the garden and walks to the house and eats [in the house]?

Answer: A worker eats only at the time of Melachah, like the Mishnah below (91b), that [according to letter of the law, they eat only while working, but] only while walking from row to row, they may eat, for Hashavas Aveidah (to reduce the time that they are idle).

Question: A buyer is liable only if he eats two at a time, but if he eats one at a time, he is exempt!

Source (89b): If he stipulated [with his employer], whether or not he dips, he may eat one at a time, but he may not (gather and) eat two at a time;

Regarding two, since it leans to the Chatzer, even the owner is forbidden, like the Mishnah in Ma'aseros (3:8) regarding a fig tree standing in a Chatzer. He may eat one by one [without tithing]. If he gathered two, he is obligated [to tithe];

Answer: There we discuss when he does not want to gather more now, only what he ate. Therefore he is obligated for [gathering] two together, even the owner, just like a buyer;

There we cannot say "his eyes are on (his concern is for) his tree" (it is not considered final processing until he harvests all of it), for his eyes are only on what he eats. Therefore, it is considered final processing when he gathers two;

However, in our Sugya, he hired a worker to pick all that is proper to pick. It is appropriate to say "his eyes are on his tree", and it is not considered granary and final processing until he picks all of it, or the majority;

Implied question: When we establish that it stands in a garden, and the foliage leans into a Chatzer, we similarly could have established it to stand in the Chatzer!

Answer #1: We discuss a more common case.

Answer #2: Regarding a house, we must say that it leans to the house, for it is not common at all to stand in the house. Therefore, we discuss such a case also regarding a Chatzer.

Explanation (Rashi): "His eyes are on his tree", i.e. the trunk is outside the Chatzer.

Inference: If it were entirely in the Chatzer, also the owner would be obligated.

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): "Seeing Pnei ha'Chatzer" does not apply at all to what is attached, even if the entire fig tree were in the Chatzer.

Rebuttal #2 (Ri): According to the opinion that a sale is Kove'a, it is Kove'a even in the field after final processing, like he says in Beitzah (35b);

Below (93a), regarding gourds from which the flower fell off, it connotes that even in the field a worker does not eat, because the Melachah was finished, even though they did not see the house or Chatzer;

Question: According to this opinion, how do we find that a buyer is obligated in Ma'aser, and a worker is exempt?

If it is in a matter that did not have final processing, also a buyer is exempt. If it is in a matter that had final processing, a worker may not eat!

Answer: You are forced to say that we find only that a buyer may not eat two [at a time] even if he did not dip, and a worker may eat two at a time if he did not dip.

You are forced to say that the reason is like I explained. A buyer's eyes are on his Mekach, and two are considered the granary and final processing;

However, the owner, his eyes are on his tree, and this is not final processing. A worker is like the owner.

Rashi's explanation ("his eyes are on his tree", i.e. the trunk is outside the Chatzer) does not apply there.

Question: In Bechoros (11b) Shmuel b'Ribi Nasan said that one who buys Tevel on which a Nochri did Miru'ach (final processing), he tithes it, and the tithes are his;

Citation (11b): If a Nochri did Miru'ach [it is exempt, for the Torah obligates] "Deganecha", but not Digun (final processing of a) Nochri! Rather, a Yisrael did Miru'ach.

Explanation: After he bought [the Tevel] from the Nochri, he tithes it, for a Nochri cannot acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to uproot it from [the Kedushah, and the obligation to take] Ma'aser. The tithes are his, for [he can say to the Levi or Oni] "I got it from someone from whom you could not have claimed [that he must tithe]."

Suggestion: Perhaps he tithes them mid'Rabanan!

Rejection: If so, why does it say that a Nochri cannot acquire? Even if he can acquire, he must tithe mid'Rabanan, like is proven in Menachos (31a)!

Citation (31b - Beraisa - R. Shimon Shezuri): Once, Tevel became mixed with my Chulin. I asked R. Tarfon, and he told me to buy [from an Am ha'Aretz, i.e. Demai] from the market [and tithe from it on the mixture of Tevel. Mid'Oraisa, one need not tithe Demai, for most Amei ha'Aretz tithe];"

Citation (cont.): Why didn't he tell him to buy from a Nochri? He holds that a Nochri cannot acquire [land in Eretz Yisrael], so [he would tithe] from what is obligated on what is exempt. (Mid'Oraisa, the Tevel is Batel in the Chulin, and it is exempt.)

Inference: If a Nochri can acquire, he could buy from a Nochri, and he would tithe from what is exempt on what is exempt, for both are obligated [only] mid'Rabanan!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here we discuss one who bought after Miru'ach. One who buys before Miru'ach, like there, this is called Tevu'as Zar'echa [and it is obligated mid'Oraisa].

Question: In Menachos, why didn't [R. Tarfon] tell him "go buy what had final processing"? It is obligated only mid'Rabanan!

Answer: In a case, it is like from what is obligated on what is exempt, since if the seller would buy it back, it would be obligated (mid'Oraisa).

Support: It connotes like this there, that one may not separate from something that resembles what is obligated on what is exempt, for there is an opinion that he told him to buy from a Nochri, and the Gemara asked about why he didn't tell him to buy from the market;

Citation (31b) Answer: He holds that most Amei ha'Aretz tithe, and this is from what is obligated on what is exempt;

Explanation: We cannot say that he holds that it is Vadai obligated, for no one argues that grain of an Am ha'Aretz is Demai! Rather, it is because it looks like from what is obligated on what is exempt.

Question: This requires investigation. When we answer there that he holds that a Nochri cannot acquire [land to uproot its Kedushah], still he could have told him to buy from a Nochri, on which Miru'ach was done;

According to the opinion that a Nochri cannot acquire, still he expounds "Deganecha", but not Digun (final processing of a) Nochri, in Gitin (47a)!

Note: Our Tosfos did not answer this. Tosfos in Menachos answers that buying from a Nochri after Miru'ach is exempt, but it looks like it is obligated.

Question (against R. Tam): Here it connotes that one who buys before Miru'ach is exempt mid'Oraisa, for a worker eats something that did not have final processing for Ma'aser, and his Mekach (rights to eat the produce) begins when he starts working, and then it is not fixed (finished);

Regarding this, [the Gemara] asks "is a buyer obligated mid'Oraisa?!"

Answer: The Mekach does not begin until he eats, and then it is already fixed. (Nothing else will be done to what he eats.)

Question (Rivam, against R. Tam): One who buys grain after Miru'ach from an Am ha'Aretz, it is Demai, for it is a Safek, but if Vadai [the seller] did not tithe them, he must tithe them mid'Oraisa, even though Miru'ach was done!

Answer: This is not difficult. Granted, it is not Demai, but it is not obligated mid'Oraisa. Rather, it is Ma'aser Vadai mid'Rabanan, and he must give it to a Kohen and/or Levi.

Note: Perhaps Tosfos mentions a Kohen regarding Terumah Gedolah, when we know that it was not separated. Alternatively, Ma'aser may be given to a Kohen or Levi, either mid'Oraisa, or after Ezra fined the Leviyim.

Answer #2 (to Question (a)): Rivam explains oppositely to R. Tam. One who buys what did not have Miru'ach is exempt [mid'Oraisa], for it was not yet obligated in the seller's Reshus;

However, one who buys what had Miru'ach, since it was obligated in the seller's Reshus, the name of Tevel does not leave it, just like Hekdesh and Hefker;

If one was Makdish or Mafkir before Miru'ach, he uproots it from Ma'aser. After Miru'ach, he does not uproot it, like Riva explained in Bava Kama (94a DH Mircho);

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi): One who buys from a Nochri is opposite [to one who buys from a Yisrael]. If Miru'ach was in the Nochri's Reshus, [the buyer] is exempt, due to "Deganecha", but not Digun Nochri;

When Miru'ach was not in [the Nochri's] Reshus, [the buyer] is obligated, for a Nochri cannot acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to uproot it from Ma'aser, and it is not called Tevu'as Zar'echa of the seller, rather, Tevu'ah of the one who bought from him, and he is not considered a buyer.

Implied question: Why couldn't we answer that [it is obligated] mid'Rabanan, like is proven in Beitzah (35a)?

Answer: Even mid'Rabanan, final processing is not Kove'a by itself, for after final processing we require [also] Shabbos, [entering] a Chatzer or a sale to be Kove'a.

Question: Rather, than challenging R. Yanai and R. Yochanan [from the Mishnah in Ma'aseros, Mar Zutra] should ask it against the Mishnah in Beitzah (35a), which requires a Chatzer after final processing!

Answer #1: [Indeed, the Gemara] could have said "and according to you (Mar Zutra, who say that it is in the field, how do you resolve the Mishnayos)?"

Answer #2: Perhaps gourds and pumpkins have a granary, like wheat and barley. Therefore, the Mishnah that requires a Chatzer is not difficult, for we can establish it to discuss something without a granary;

He challenges only R. Yanai and R. Yochanan, who say that even wheat and barley require a Chatzer;

At the end, when [the Gemara] answers "alternatively, R. Yanai discusses only olives and grapes", this answers also the question here.

Suggestion: This means after the flowers fell off in the field, and afterwards he entered them into the house.

Rejection #1: The words connote unlike this.

Rejection #2: The Gemara asks "it should say until the flowers fall off!" I.e. this would connote that even if he entered them into the house, he is not obligated in Ma'aser until the flowers fall off.

Conclusion: Rather, the Gemara means from when the flowers fall off in the house.

Question: Since he entered them into the house before they were finished, why are they obligated [when they are finished]?

Why is this unlike one who entered grain into the house with its chaff? R. Oshaya (Pesachim 9a) said that it is exempt from Ma'aser!

Suggestion: R. Oshaya said that his animal may eat and he is exempt from Ma'aser, i.e. before Miru'ach.

Rejection #1: If so, this is not a scheme!

Rejection #2: In Pesachim (9a) we ask "does a Safek not exempt a Vadai?!" A Beraisa teaches that if a Chaver died and left a bin full of produce, even if Miru'ach was done that day, the Chazakah (assumption) is that they are tithed...

There, it was Vadai Tevel, and it is a Safek whether or not he tithed them, and the Safek overturns the Vadai!

The Gemara there answers that it was Safek [Tevel] and a Safek (perhaps he tithed it). Perhaps he did like R. Oshaya (brought it into his house with the chaff...)

If one must tithe it after Miru'ach, why does it say perhaps he did like R. Oshaya? Now that Miru'ach was done [in any case] Ma'aser must be taken! Why is the Chazakah that Ma'aser was taken?

Answer: Surely, wheat and barley, for which it is normal to do Miru'ach in the field and take them into the house after Miru'ach, they are obligated in Ma'aser only if they saw Pnei ha'Bayis after Miru'ach;

However, gourds and pumpkins, it is common to enter them into the house with the flower.

Observation: Also in Sanhedrin (66b) we infer like this. It should say "only if she is a Na'arah"!

Implied question: In Avodah Zarah (56a), R. Akiva said [that wine is Tevel] after Kipuy (the grape skins float to the top and are removed);

He should have said "not until Kipuy", to argue with the first Tana, who says from when it descends to the pit!

Answer #1: There, we cannot err like we could here. (Therefore, R. Akiva did not need to be precise.)

Answer #2: There, he said "after Kipuy" to argue with the opinion in the Beraisa afterwards, from when he scoops it into barrels, and "from when he scoops it into barrels" comes to exclude fermenting wine that is 40 days old.

Answer #3: Since [the first Tana] taught from when it descends to the pit, all taught like this (from when...)

Implied question: It says "Tirosh v'Yitzhar", which is after he pressed them to make wine and oil!

Answer: R. Yanai discusses when he does not intend to press them, rather, to eat them like this. Mid'Oraisa, he must tithe them when they see Pnei ha'Bayis, even though in the verse we find only wine and oil;

However, it is not common to eat grain in sheaves. Therefore, he is not obligated to tithe until Miru'ach.

Explanation: In the conclusion, he expounds that an ox eats [when working with what is attached]. It still did not cross his mind. In any case, this Kal v'Chomer does not remain in the conclusion.

Question: Why does he make a Kal v'Chomer that is not true according to the conclusion? He should have made a Kal v'Chomer "an ox, which you are not commanded to sustain it, it eats...!"

Answer: He prefers to make a Kal v'Chomer from eating at the time of Melachah, which he comes to learn.