Question: Are [trees not planted for food] obligated in Ma'aser [if he guards the fruits]?

Answer: R. Ba bar Mamal and R. Heila argued about this;

They argue about one who guards Peros [of a tree planted] for wood. R. Ba bar Mamal said that it is obligated, and R. Heila said that it is exempt.

R. Ba bar Mamal said that it is obligated, due to "u'Va ha'Levi Ki Ein Lo Chelek v'Nachalah Imach'' - what you have, and he does not have, you are obligated to give to him (Ma'aser Rishon from it). This excludes Hefker, which your Yad (rights to acquire it) and his Yad are equal in it.

This [Drashah] applies equally to Hefker, Leket, Shichechah and Pe'ah.

R. Heila citing R. Yosi said that it is exempt, due to [a Mishnah] coriander that was planted for its seed, its Yerek (the plant itself) is exempt.

Rebuttal: Coriander is different, for it has another granary (the seeds are obligated).

Question: What was [R. Heila's] source to say so (that it is exempt)?

Answer (Beraisa): One who guards a patch of cabbage for seed, Batlah Daito (we ignore his intent, since it is unlike that of normal people; the Yerek is obligated in Ma'aseros. If he guards) individual stalks, Lo Batlah Daito (it is exempt);

(R. Yonah): This is if he gathered Yerek, but if he did not gather Yerek (and let it harden for the sake of the seeds), do we say that wood is obligated in Ma'aseros?!

Question: Are [Peros of a tree planted for wood] forbidden due to theft?

Question: (Obviously they are!) Is wood not forbidden due to theft?!

Answer: We ask about berries (they cannot be burned). They are not substantial.

Rimin (like plums) that he intended for Rimin (the fruits), and Bnos Hadas (sycamore) that he intended for Bnos Hadas (these are two of the three species that R. Shimon holds that intent for exemption helps, for the fruits are not important at all) - some teach that they are obligated [in Orlah], and some teach that they are exempt;

(Rav Chisda): The one who teaches that they are obligated, this is in a place where most guard [the Peros]. The one who teaches that they are exempt, this is in a place where most do not guard.

Question (R. Yosi): If in a place where most guard, why does it say that he intended? Even if he did not intend (it is as if he intended)! Do we say that olives and figs (which R. Meir holds are always for food, they are obligated) only if he intended?! (We explained this like GRA.)

Answer #1 (R. Yosi) Correction: Rather, [some teach that they are obligated,] even [in a place where] half guard [the Peros], and half do not guard.

Answer #2 (R. Masya): [It says that he intended] due to the latter [opinion]. In a place where most do not guard, even if he did not intend, he is exempt. (MAHARA FULDA)

(R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon ben Yehotzadak): A vine that arose [by itself] in a forest, it is exempt from Orlah.

Question (Mishnah): What arose by itself is obligated in Orlah.

Answer: There [it arose] in a settled place. Here [it arose] in a forest. (We explained this like GRA.)

(R. Yosi): Even if he planted it [in a forest, it is exempt].

Limitation (R. Liezer): That is when it does not produce Kedei Tipulah (as much as the cost of engaging with the Peros until he brings them to a settled place), but if it produces Kedei Tipulah, it is obligated.