Explanation: It is a Get, even though he does not hold of the rule that there is no claim of forced circumstances regarding Gitin.

Question: If he gives her three Kav of Dinarim, why wouldn't it be a Get? She was not appeased (and the condition is that if she is not appeased within thirty days the Get is valid)!

Answer: The Ri says that the condition, "if I do not appease her" means "if I will not try to appease her in a tremendous way." If he gives her this amount of money, he has clearly tried to appease her, and has therefore kept his condition even though she was not appeased.

Implied Question: The Mishnah does not state that the case is where they acquire for them either. (Note: Accordingly, why this a question on Rav's explanation anymore than it is a question on Shmuel?)

Answer: It is still better to say that the Mishnah is talking about others acquiring for them, as this can be dealing with all Kohanim (as opposed to exclusive Makirei Kehunah).

The one (Rav) who says that the Mishnah is discussing Makirei Kehunah maintains this because the Mishnah does not say that the case is where others acquired for them. Even though Makirei Kehunah is also not said, the Mishnah implies that one can just separate Terumos for them without actually acquiring for them. (Note: This can only be if the case is dealing with Makirei Kehunah.)

Implied Question: Shmuel ruled in Bava Metzia (12a) like Rebbi Yosi that they made one who did not acquire like one who acquired.

Answer: Even so, he thinks that the Mishnah is likely even according to the opinion of the Rabbanan.

Explanation: This is as the Gemara explains later that even though he did not set with them a value, it is as if he did. There is no prohibition of interest involved, even if he sets the market value at a lot less than the cheap price.

Question: This is also simple, as the Gemara in Bava Metzia (72b) quotes Rebbi Yehudah as stating that he can say, "Give me this or give me my money."

Answer: The case there is where he said this to him when the price was cheap. However, in this case it is even if he was quiet until the price became expensive.

Implied Question: In Bava Metzia (73a), Rav forbade one to buy small grapes even though there is a possibility the grapes will be destroyed. (Note: One would think this should be permitted, as is indeed the opinion of Shmuel (ibid.). Rav forbids this as the seller is actually selling cheap because he needs the money now, and cannot wait for the grapes to mature (similar to Ribis, where a person takes a loan and pays interest). Why isn't the case of our Gemara similar to the case of the orchard, and similarly forbidden?)

Answer: They permitted this here to help the Kohen.

Implied Question: The Rabbanan argue on Rebbi Shimon in Bava Metzia (44a), and do not hold that the person who has the money has the upper hand. (Note: Why, then, would the Rabbanan say the Kohen has the upper hand?)

Answer#1: This case is not worse than a case where if he does not have he does not have to give.

Answer#2: Alternatively, as Rashi explains, he here he does not have to take anything away from him, and therefore he cannot renege on the deal.

Opinion#1: The Ri says that they only established that the Ma'aser should be separated for the poor of the city. (Note: Being that there are no poor in the city, he does not separate at all (Tosfos Ha'Rosh).)

Opinion#2: This is unlike the explanation of Rashi who says that according to the Tana Kama they are people who converted out of fear, and therefore he should not separate for them, but rather for any poor Jews wherever they may be.

Implied Question: Otherwise (if Rashi is correct), there is no difference between them.

Explanation: He can separate for the inheritors. However, if they do not inherit the person he used to separate for he cannot separate for them. This is referring to the second part of the Mishnah, that if he lent him money in front of Beis Din, he does not have to ask permission from the inheritors.

However, Rebbi cannot be referring to the first part of the Mishnah that says that if he died, permission is required from the inheritors. This is because it is certain that if they did not inherit that he would have to ask permission, as they do not have any obligation to pay their father's debt.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kesuvos (91b) states that if they would have said to him that these fifty are the money for the small field, they would have removed him (their creditor).

Answer: This is a Rabbinic decree (that the creditor should be able to collect anyway).

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that after he accepted the money he made it Terumas Ma'aser.

Question: The Ri finds this difficult. After the Levi has already sold it, how can he make it become Terumas Ma'aser? It is not as if the Yisrael who bought it lacked a Kinyan Meshicah, as it is in his possession!

Explanation#2: Rather, it is possible that he did it before he took the money (unlike Rashi's explanation).

The Gemara therefore asks, are we dealing with evildoers who take money and make it into Terumas Ma'aser? The Gemara means that they already made it into Terumas Ma'aser (before taking the money).

Question#1: This is difficult. Why does it say now "take the money?"

Question#2: Additionally, why are they worried at all that his father made this into Terumas Ma'aser? On the contrary, a Chaver (person careful about Terumos and Ma'asros) has a status that he never lets anything leave his hand that has not had the proper Terumos and Ma'asros taken, as we state in Pesachim (9a) regarding a Chaver who died and left a drawer full of fruit.

Answer: We can give a forced answer that he holds that his father would have told him whether or not it was Terumas Ma'aser. If his father did not take the money, his father would make a point of telling him about its status, and he would remember what his father said. If he does not remember, it is considered that it had Terumos and Ma'asros taken off. However, if his father took the value for the purpose of others, his son does not necessarily remember (whether or not his father told him that he made it Terumas Ma'aser, see Tosfos Ha'Rosh).

Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah in Bikurim (2:5) states that Terumas Ma'aser is similar to Bikurim in two ways: It is taken from produce that is pure to exempt produce that is impure, and it can be taken without having all of the produce in the same immediate area.

The Yerushalmi in Terumos (ch. 2) states that the (Pesukim of the) entire Torah teach about themselves and other topics, besides Terumas Ma'aser which teaches about other topics but not about itself. The Pasuk states regarding Terumas Ma'aser "mi'Menu" -- "from it," implying that it must be taken when all of the produce is gathered together in one area. However, this lesson is established to be referring to the regular Terumah, and not Terumas Ma'aser (despite the fact that it is stated by the Pesukim about Terumas Ma'aser).

The Gemara in Bava Metzia (49a) states that if a Yisrael tells a Levi that he is holding a Kur of Ma'aser for him, the Levi can declare that this Kur should become Terumas Ma'aser on other produce/grain that he has in a different place. Yet, the Gemara here asks regarding Terumas Ma'aser, "Are they suspected etc." (Note: It doesn't seem that there is anything wrong with doing so!)

Answer: According to Rabbinic law, even Terumas Ma'aser requires that all the grain should be in one area.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Metzia quoted above (49a) says that a Levi can do so. (Note: Why would it say this if it was not proper according to Rabbinic law?)

Answer: The Gemara was referring to Shabbos and Yom Tov when it is permitted (in special circumstances, see (f) below), as is stated in Yevamos (93a).

Question: The Mishnah in Bava Metzia (38a) states that if someone deposits fruit with his friend, even if they are getting spoiled, he should not touch them. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains in the Gemara that we suspect that perhaps his friend had declared them to be Terumas Ma'aser on fruit in another area. Why should we suspect this? Are people suspected to take off Terumas Ma'aser when everything is not together in one area? (Note: It is Rabbinically prohibited!)

Answer: Rabeinu Tam says that regarding a deposit we have more reason to suspect that he declared it to be Terumas Ma'aser. Even though it is a small suspicion, it is reason enough for us to be stringent that he should not touch it. We suspect that he might have done so on Shabbos or Yom Tov, when it is permitted to declare Terumas Ma'aser that is not all in one area, as stated in Yevamos (93a). However, in other places we do not suspect this, as it is uncommon that he will have fruit in his house and will not have enough for Shabbos unless he declares Terumas Ma'aser from fruit that is in another location.

Opinion: Some explain that only Chaverim are not suspected to take off Terumah from produce in another area. However, in our Gemara we are discussing a Levi who was given Ma'aser, and one should normally only give Ma'aser to a Chaver, as stated in Chulin (130b) that Matanos are not given to a Kohen who is an Am ha'Aretz. However, when someone leaves Ma'aser with someone else (as is the case in Bava Metzia 38a), anyone could be leaving the Ma'aser, even if they are not expert in the laws of only taking off from produce in one area.

Question: How can we say that the Mishnah in Bikurim (2:5), which states that Terumas Ma'aser and Bikurim can be taken off from produce that is not in the immediate area, is only discussing the Torah law? Doesn't the Mishnah there state that the amount taken must be the same as the amount of Terumah taken, and according to Torah law there is no amount, as we know that even one grain of wheat exempts an entire silo from Terumah (according to Torah law)?

Answer: (Note: The Mishnah is indeed discussing Torah law, and means the following.) It does not have a minimum amount, but it does have a maximum amount. One cannot make his entire silo into Terumah, as Terumah is called "the first," implying that whatever it was taken from must be clearly recognizable. A similar explanation is given in the beginning of Pei'ah (1:1) regarding things that do not have an amount (see Chagigah 7a where this explanation is quoted in the Bavli).

Explanation: Rashi explains that perhaps at that time it will not be extant.

Implied Question: This does not seem to be correct. Regular Terumah must be taken off only when everything is in one area according to Torah law. If so, even if both of them are in front of him (he cannot take it off if they are not considered in the same area).

Terumas Ma'aser, which is only required to be in the same area according to Rabbinic law, seems to be a decree lest one come to think he does not have to do so with regular Terumah. However, even if both piles of grain are in front of him, they must be in the same area, just as this is the law regarding regular Terumah. The taking of Chalah, as well, must be when both are considered in the same area, and it is not sufficient that they are merely in front of him.

Question: We later establish that this is according to Aba Elazar ben Gamla, who says that Terumas Ma'aser can be taken using an estimate. If so, even if the exact amount is not known, why don't we suspect that the owner took it off as Terumas Ma'aser using an estimate?

Answer: A person will not take off in an estimated fashion something that is not his, as he does not want to cause a loss to the Kohen or Levi in question.

Question: Even if he has permission to take off Terumah, perhaps he did not bother to take off Terumah from Ma'aser that he was going to give to the Levi. How can we permit this when we are unsure?

Answer: Being that he has the ability, it was in his house for a long time, and it is a Mitzvah for him to do it, he probably took it off.