(Mishnah): If an Am HaAretz said to a Chaver, "Buy me a bundle of vegetables from the market" or "Buy me a fine loaf" - if the Chaver buys it without specifying any clear intent (as the Gemara will explain), the Chaver is exempt from tithing.

But if the Chaver said, "This one is for me and that one is for my friend" and they became mixed up, the Chaver must tithe them, even if there are 100 bundles (and only one for himself).

(Gemara) Question: (Note: Until the end of entry (m), a discussion from the earlier Mishnah (Menachos 9-2(b)) about one who sells his produce to Suria, was wrongly inserted here by the printer.) The Mishnah (Peah Perek 8) teaches - the poor are believed for Leket, Shichecha and Peah at their times (even though the produce might be obligated in Maaseros). But here (in the Mishnah about Suria), you say in the latter clause that if it is known that the seller has a field in Suria, the buyer must tithe...?

Answer: There, if he would be silent, the produce would anyway be exempt, as it is assumed that the poor have Leket etc. in their hand; but here (Suria), if he would be silent, he would be obligated - so since we need to rely completely on his words, he is not believed to say that they are tithed (as there is no concept here of 'the mouth that prohibited').

Support (Baraisa): If when he is silent it is exempt, he is believed to exempt; but here, since if he would be silent it would be obligated, he is not believed.

Tosefta (Demai) (Rebbi): If a gentile was shouting, "Come and take for yourselves fruit; it is Orlah" or "it is Neta Revai (fruit from the 4th year of a tree)", he is not believed. If he said that he brought them from a certain gentile, he is believed to be stringent.

(Chachamim): The words of a gentile don't change anything (meaning that he is not believed).

Question (R. Yudan): If he was shouting out innocently (without intent to testify), would he be believed? (The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.)

Question (R. Yudan): Is a Kusi like a gentile?

Answer: It is a dispute - Rebbe says that a Kusi is not like a gentile; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that a Kusi is like a gentile in all matters.

(R. Bun bar Chiya): (The Mishnah taught there that if it is known that he has a field in Suria, the buyer must tithe.) This is only when it is known that most of the produce that he brings to the market comes from his own land.

If a Jew had a sharecropper on his land in Suria, and the sharecropper sent him fruits from Suria and said that they have been tithed, I say that he bought them from the market - and this is as long as that type of produce is found in the market.

And not only if that type isn't growing in his field (do we say that they are tithed), but even if it is, since that type is found in the market, it is permitted.

The Mishnah (that taught that the Chaver can buy without specifying any clear intent and be exempt) follows the view of R. Yosi, as the Baraisa teaches...R. Yehuda says - One who buys without specifying must tithe; R. Yosi says that he does not need to tithe.

What is the case? If the Am HaAretz told him, "Go out and buy for me", he is his messenger. If he said, "Go out and buy for yourself", they belong to the Chaver. Rather, he didn't specify when he sent him. R. Yehuda says that the seller gives over ownership to whoever buys, so the Chaver first owns all of the fruits and he must tithe before he gives the Am HaAretz.

R. Yosi says that the seller only intends to give over ownership to the money owner - therefore, if the seller gave one more fruit than the Am HaAretz requested - R. Yehuda says that it belongs to the actual buyer; R. Yosi says that (the seller intended it for the money owner, so) it goes to both of them.

Question: The opinion of R. Yosi seems to have switched, as he said there that the seller intended it for the money owner; but here you said that it goes to both of them...?

Answer: R. Yosi was doubtful - since it came as a result of the money owner's money and the buyer's actions, he ruled that it must go to both of them.