Explanation #2: The Ri however, found another Yerushalmi in Maseches Chalah (Perek Sh'tei Nashim), which holds that vegetables in Chutz la'Aretz are subject to neither Ma'aser nor Terumah; other fruits are subject to Terumah Gedolah but not to Ma'aser, whilst corn, wine and oil are subject to both Terumah and Ma'aser.

Source (Part 1): This is what the Yerushalmi says, quoting Rebbi Yochanan: 'Our Rebbes in the Golah used to separate Terumos and Ma'asros until the Rovim came and declared them exempt. And who are the Rovim? The translators (the sons of Rebbi Chiya). Rebbi Zeira, quoting Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel said that one may eat the produce of Chutz la'Aretz, and separate Chalah at the end; whereas according to Rebbi Aba in the name of Rebbi Shmuel "They were only concerned with the Terumah of corn, wine and oil" '.

Source (Part 2): Rebbi Aba it appears, is referring to the earlier ruling of Rebbi Yochanan (that in the Golah they used to separate Terumos and Ma'asros), and he is coming to teach us that this statement was confined to corn, wine and oil (and 'Terumah' is La'av Davka, but incorporates Ma'aser). But other fruits they were not concerned with Ma'aser, only Terumah Gedolah ...

Source (Part 3): ... like Rebbi Shilo in the name of Rebbi Shimon afterwards, who says 'They were only concerned with Terumah Gedolah, but as far as vegetables are concerned, they were not even concerned with that!', as Isi quoting Rebbi Akiva stated in a Beraisa 'Ma'asros regarding vegetables are only mi'de'Rabbanan' (in Eretz Yisrael) - meaning that there is no support from a Pasuk as there is regarding other fruit (which the Rabbanan attached to a Pasuk).

Conclusion: According to this, there is no Kashya whatsoever from our Sugya, where Rebbi Meir ate a leaf of a vegetable, and as for the Sugya in Maseches Avodah-Zarah, where he ate un'Ma'asered fruit, that speaks about 'other fruit', from which Terumah Gedolah had been taken, but not Ma'aser.

Side Explanation: And in B'rachos (quoted earlier) the text does not read 'vegetables (and Tz'laf)', since the Gemara is discussing 'Tz'laf' (the caper-bush), which is not a vegetable. Nor does it read 'Ma'aser' but 'that speaks specifically about Tz'laf', since all 'other fruits' are not subject to Ma'aser, only Terumah.

Ruling: Nowadays, we rely on the statement 'The Rovim came and declared them exempt', since we do not separate Terumos and Ma'asros (in Chutz la'Aretz).

Alternative: Rabeinu Tam explains that our fields are not considered our own , since we pay a tax on them.

Observation: According to that, in those days they would only separate Ma'asros from those fields from which they did not pay taxes, since there were some that did not, as we learned in 'ha'Mekabel' (Bava Metzi'a 110a) 'What will be the Din regarding a field which is not subject to Karga and Taska (two kinds of taxes)?'

Explanation #3: It is also possible that the Chachamim did not institute Ma'asros in lands as far away from Eretz Yisrael as ours.

Explanation #4: Moreover, others, citing a Yerushalmi, explain that when the Gemara says that 'from K'ziv and beyond is exempt from D'mai', this refers not only to D'mai, but to Vaday as well.

Question (Part 1): Why does the Gemara not give the same answer in Perek Bameh Beheimah (Shabbos 56:), where we Darshen from "ve'es ha'Bamos asher al-Pnei Yerushalayim asher Banah Shlomoh" - 'Is it possible that Asa came (and failed to destroy them ... ?' We must therefore say that the Pasuk is comparing the first ones to the last ones, inasmuch as just as the last ones (kings) did not do it, yet the Navi blames them, so too the first ones ... '.

Question (Part 2): ... Why does the Gemara not answer, like it answers here - that 'his fathers left him the opportunity to take credit for doing it?

Answer: One can say that here by the Copper Snake, because it was made by Divine Command, which explains why the early Chachamim erred, thinking that it was forbidden to destroy it ... ; whereas there, to what can one possibly ascribe the mistake of not destroying the Bamos?

Question (Part 1): We learned in Perek Bameh Madlikin (Shabbos 34.) 'During the period of Safek night, one is permitted to Ma'aser D'mai', implying that once it is Vaday night, it is forbidden.

Question (Part 2): Why is that, bearing in mind that it is possible to do so by looking at one side and eating from the other? It ought therefore to be permitted to separate Ma'asros on Shabbos in this way, as is evident in Perek Noteil (Shabbos 141:), where Rebbi Yehudah, in a Mishnah, declares that 'One is also permitted to render Meduma Bateil in a hundred and one'. And in answer to the question that this is surely considered a Tikun, the Gemara there (Daf 142.) states that 'the author is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who permits looking at one side and eating from the other, and that consequently, being Mevatel it is not considered a Tikun (a rectification) on Shabbos.

Answer: Meduma is different, in that it has already been Niskan (rectified); But to rectify Tevel initially because it is possible to look at one side ... is not permitted (See alo Tosfos, Gitin, 31a, Menachos, 55a and Bechoros, 59a DH 'be'Machshavah'.

Explanation #1: Perhaps it was the Angel in charge of the sea (Neptune) who gave him this answer.

Explanation #2: Or perhaps it was Rebbi Pinchas who thought to himself that this was why the sea was refusing to split.

Precedent: ... and that is how we will have to explain the Gemara in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (17.) with regard to Rebbi Elazar ben Durdaya, who asked the Heaven to plead for mercy on his behalf.

Observation: In Maseches Shekalim (8b). in Maseches D'mai in the Yerushalmi and in Bereishis Rabah, P. 60), the Gemara does not give an answer; only he answers them that he was Machmir on himself.

Clarification: They are nevertheless called 'Kedoshim', since they invite their friends to eat by them out of embarrassment.

Clarification: It means 'I am rushing', just as Onkelos translates the word in Yeshayah (59) "And they rushed to spill blood" as 'Vayesarhavun'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he learns it from the fact that he brought him back to life by merely touching him, as the Pasuk writes " ... and he touched him and he came back to life".

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara ask that perhaps it was only in order to effect the B'rachah of Eliyahu? The fact remains that he was greater (after his death) in that he took more trouble to bring him back to life in his lifetime than after his death?

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that he learns it from the fact that during the lifetime of Tzadikim many Resha'im touch them and sit beside them; whereas there he (the Rasha) was not allowed to remain beside Elisha for one moment.