(Mishnah): Orphans who relied on a Ba'al ha'Bayis [to manage their affairs], or their father appointed a guardian for them, he must tithe their Peros.

A guardian appointed by their father must swear (that he did not benefit from the estate). One appointed by Beis Din need not swear;

Aba Sha'ul says, just the contrary! (One appointed by their father need not swear, but one appointed by Beis Din must swear.)

(Gemara - Beraisa): "Atem" (you will tithe) excludes partners (one may not tithe his partner's share without consent). "Atem" excludes a guardian. "Atem" excludes one who tithes what is not his.

Question: [How can it say] "Atem" excludes partners? A Mishnah says 'partners who tithed... [Chachamim say, the first one's Terumah is Terumah; the second one's Terumah is not Terumah]'!

Answer #1: Here (the Mishnah) discusses Terumah Gedolah. Here (the Beraisa) discusses Terumas Ma'aser (about which "Atem" is written).

Objection: We learned Terumah Gedolah only from Terumas Ma'aser! (Surely the same applies to both of them.)

Answer #2: Here (the Mishnah) discusses l'Halachah (if he tithed, b'Di'eved it is Terumah). Here (the Beraisa) discusses l'Ma'aseh (l'Chatchilah he may not tithe, lest his partner not consent).

Question: [How can it say] "Atem" excludes a guardian? Our Mishnah says 'orphans who relied on a Ba'al ha'Bayis, or their father appointed a garden for them, he is obligated to tithe their Peros'!

Answer #1: Here (our Mishnah) discusses a permanent guardian. Here (the Beraisa) discusses a temporary guardian.

Objection (R. Yosi): If he is a permanent guardian, why was it taught [in a Tosefta on our Mishnah] 'he may sell slaves, but not land'?!

Answer #2: Here (our Mishnah) discusses a [guardian for] an adult orphan. Here (the Beraisa) discusses a [guardian for] a minor orphan.

(R. Yochanan): L'Chatchilah, we do not set up a guardian for orphans [to go to judgment on behalf of them] for their detriment, rather, [only] to benefit them. If they were obligated [in the Din], they were obligated.

(R. Yosi bar Chaninah): Both l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved, we do not set up a guardian for orphans [to go to Din for them] for their benefit or their harm.

Question (against R. Yosi bar Chaninah - Mishnah): We set up a guardian for orphans.

Answer: There is different - [we set up a guardian to guard their] ox, lest it go and damage.

Question: If it damaged, from whose property [is the damage paid]?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): It is from the orphans.

Answer #2 (R. Yosi bar Chaninah): It is from the guardian.

And even if R. Yochanan did not say so explicitly, can we not infer it from what he said - if they were obligated [in the Din], they were obligated.

A guardian appointed by their father must swear, for [the father] is not wont to check (whether or not he is trustworthy). One appointed by Beis Din need not swear, for Beis Din is wont to check.

Aba Sha'ul says, just the contrary! A guardian appointed by Beis Din must swear, for he is like one who is paid (he gets a reputation of being trustworthy. Therefore, he will not refrain, even if he must swear.) One appointed by the orphans' father need not swear, for he can say 'I wanted to do a favor for you' [to be a guardian, but I do not benefit from this; if I must swear, I will refrain].

R. Yochanan holds like Rabanan (R. Yochanan exempts a guardian from paying for the ox' damage, lest he refrain), and R. Yosi bar Chaninah holds like Aba Sha'ul (he will not refrain, for he gets a good reputation).

Rejection - part 1: Must R. Yochanan hold like Rabanan?! He could even hold like Aba Sha'ul! A person wants to pay [if he is negligent] in order to be called trustworthy! (However, one is not called trustworthy due to being appointed to guard animals.)

Rejection - part 2: Must R. Yosi bar Chaninah hold like Aba Sha'ul? Even if he holds like Rabanan, a person flees from a Shevu'ah, but he does not flee from paying.