(Baraisa from the House of Rebbi): (If one hired a worker for his olives and the worker stipulated that he should be able to eat the olives, he may eat them in the regular fashion.

Question (R. Yona): What's the case? If he hired him to work with olives, all agree that he may eat in the regular fashion and he is exempt. If he hired him to work on the tree itself (rather than the olives), all agree that he may eat them one by one but not combined...?

Rather, he hired him to ('weed' meaning to) cut off inferior olives (to give more room for the large ones to grow).

The latter statement of the Mishnah indicates this, as it taught that if he hired him to ('weed', meaning) to uproot inferior onions' - he said to him, 'It's on condition to be able to eat the green (onion leaves)', he may pick one leaf at a time and eat, but if he combined them, he is obligated.

Question (R. Chagai to Chevraya): (Discussing our next Mishnah (see later Bechoros 2(a)) - 'If one found detached figs along the road...there's no prohibition of theft and they are exempt from Ma'asros'. Why are they exempt from Ma'asros?

Answer (Chevraya to R. Chagai): Since they weren't brought into the house, he may snack on them.

Rebuttal (R. Chagai): Does the Mishnah need to teach us this? (It was already taught earlier (in the 1st Perek)!) Rather, it's because it is Hefker (ownerless) and it would be exempt even after it would be brought into the house, as the Baraisa taught...

(Tosefta): If he found a basket covered in leaves, they have a prohibition of theft and they are obligated in Ma'asros.

They have a prohibition of theft because they have identifying marks. They are obligated in Ma'asros as until now, the owner's mind was upon them.

How long (must the finder wait to be able to acquire it)? As long as he could still separate Terumah whilst the fruits are still good quality. If he could no longer do so (because the fruits were beginning to become ruined), he should evaluate them and he may then eat them himself (and they become obligated in Ma'asros).

Question (R. Yona): When the finder evaluates them and wishes to snack on them before bringing them into the house, have they become Tevel like an acquisition, or since the owner can still reclaim them from the finder, they aren't yet Tevel...?

Question (R. Mana against R. Yona's question): Think about it - if he already put it in his mouth, isn't it repulsive? Can he now return it to the owner? (Certainly at that point, there is an acquisition.) And if you don't say that evaluating them makes them Tevel, hasn't he retroactively eaten Tevel?! This shows that evaluating them must be like an acquisition (and it makes them obligated).

(Baraisa): If he found a basket (without any identifying marks) in a place where most people bring their fruits to the market (to be sold, meaning that they had already become obligated), he may not snack on them and he must tithe them as Demai.

If it was in a place that most people bring them home, he may snack on them and he tithes them as certain Tevel (when he brings them into his home).

If half (sell them in the market) and half (bring them home), he must tithe them as Demai (if he eats them in the field) and if he brings them home, he must tithe them as certain Tevel.

Question (R. Yona): If a person tithed produce as Demai (meaning that he only separated Maaser and Terumas Maaser, but not Terumah Gedolah, as there is an assumption that an Am HaAretz would have already separated it, and he was then informed that the Am HaAretz had not separated at all; may he now snack on the produce before separating it, or) does the earlier tithing as Demai establish its obligation? If you say that the tithing as Demai does establish its obligation, (this would also apply to the previous case of half and half, that even though he tithed as Demai, he must then separate as certain Tevel (as the separation established its obligation)...? If so), hasn't he transgressed and separated out of order, (since the Maaser and Terumas Maaser were separated before the Terumah Gedolah)?

(R. Yosi bei R. Bun/ R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon ben Yehutzedek): (In the Baraisa's case of half and half, when he separates Demai in the field) he must make a stipulation and say, "If this produce is from those people who bring to the market, my separation is valid and if not, it is nothing.'' - we are concerned that it fell from those who take it home and if he separated it as Demai, it has been established as Tevel and the Terumas Maaser that he separated is obligated in Terumah Gedolah.

In the case of half and half, the Baraisa taught that he separates Demai (in the field), but if he brought it into the house, he separates it as certain Tevel.

Question: There should be concern that it was from those people that bring it into the house and that it wasn't obligated in Terumah Gedolah when he separated it. Consequently, the Terumah Gedolah that he separated is obligated in Terumas Maaser?!

Answer (R. Matanya): The Baraisa requires the Kohen to declare Maaser Rishon and Terumas Maaser in the Terumah Gedolah (and then eat it as Terumah).

(The Baraisa taught that if it was in a place that most people bring them home, he may snack on them and he tithes them as certain Tevel (when he brings them into his home).) He must separate the Terumah Gedolah when it was a basket of fruit (that isn't taken to the threshing floor), but if he found grains, he must separate Terumas Maaser, but not Terumah Gedolah (since the owner would have certainly already done so before he took it from the threshing floor).

Support (Tosefta in Maseches Ma'asros): When he found produce that was smoothed in a pile, if it was collected in a field, (its location is an identifying mark and) it has a prohibition of theft. If it was scattered, it does not have a prohibition of theft. Either way, it is obligated in Ma'asros and exempt from Terumah Gedolah, as it wouldn't have left the threshing floor without having its Terumah Gedolah separated.

Question: From where are Ma'asros usually taken - from the house or from the field?

Answer #1 (Baraisa): If a Chaver died and left behind a storeroom full of produce, even if he had put them there that day, they are assumed to have been tithed. Couldn't it be that the Chaver's mind was confused for a small period of time (before his death and he couldn't ask his family to tithe)? (This proves that Maaser is usually taken on the threshing floor.)

Rebuttal (R. Bun bar Chiya): It's when he died with a clear mind.

Answer #2 (R. Chanina citing R. Pinchas) (Mishnah in Maaser Sheni): (Rabban Gamliel and the Elders were travelling by boat and the time of Biur Ma'asros (removal of Ma'asros from the home) arrived. Rabban Gamliel said) - 'the Maaser that I will measure is given to Akiva ben Yosef to acquire for the poor'. This shows that Maaser is taken in the house (as the produce was located in his house).

Answer #3 (R. Chiya bar Abba) (Mishnah in Terumos): 'If a person's fruits were in a storeroom and he gave a Seah to a Levi (as Maaser Rishon) and a Seah to a poor man (as Maaser Ani)...' - this shows that Maaser is taken in the house.

Answer #4 (R. Abba Mari) (Mishnah in Maaser Sheni): 'The pasuk states (Devarim 26:13), "(I have removed the Holy portion) from the house'' - this refers to Challah that was separated from dough in the house.' The Mishnah's understanding shows that other Maaser is taken in the field.