Explanation #1: This ruling goes even according to those who hold 'Yesh B'reirah', because as long as he has not separated Pe'ah and actually effected the selection, it all belongs to him, and it is all Chayav Ma'aser, in which case it cannot subsequently become Patur.

Question: Why does the Mishnah not add that he is also obligated to take Terumah before giving it to a poor man?

Suggested Answer #1: And if you will suggest that the poor man will anyway separate Terumah, since Pe'ah is subject to Terumah ...

Refutation #1: Firstly, if that was so, he would be guilty of giving Ma'aser before Terumah Gedolah.

Refutation #2: And what's more, we learned in Maseches T'rumos that Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah are not subject to Terumah.

Suggested Answer #2: Some commentaries explain that the Tana declines to mention Terumah because even if one were to declare the crops Hefker after the Miru'ach (flattening the pile of corn - the point when Terumah must be separated), they become Patur from Terumah, as we learned in the Beraisa cited by the Yerushalmi in Maseches Ma'asros 'Fruit (crops) after the Miru'ach in the field - if they are gathered, they are subject to theft; if they are scattered, they are not. Either way, they are Chayav Ma'aser but Patur from Terumah.

Refutation (Part 1): This is however, incorrect, since the Yerushalmi itself attributes the exemption to the principle that it is not feasible for the threshing to be concluded without Terumah having been taken.

Refutation (Part 2): In which case the reason that the finder does not need to take Terumah Gedolah from the crops that he finds is because he can assume that it has already been taken.

Explanation #2: It therefore appears that the Tana did not see fit to mention Terumah because it entails taking only a minimal amount (one wheat-kernel).

Clarification: That is specifically before the writing on the Megilah has been erased in the water; but once it has, the husband may no longer be Mochel.

Clarification: The Gemara is not asking according to Rebbi Meir, according to whom one is not Chayav for Meisis, since it is not subject to Kareis.

Clarification: The Gemara is not concerned with all the D'rashos that the Gemara made earlier from the Pasuk "Ki Yipalei".

Clarification: This implies that were we to hold 'Lulav Tzarich Eged', we would not say 'Hai le'Chudeih Ka'i, ve'Hai le'Chudeih Ka'i'.

Proof: And so the Gemara maintains at the beginning of Lulav ha'Gazul, where Rebbi Yehudah prohibits tying the Lulav with another species; and the Gemara explains that this is because Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Lulav Tzarich Eged', if one were to use a different species, it would be considered five species.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara there states that just as one is forbidden to detract from the four species, so too, is one forbidden to add to them. And on the Kashya P'shita? the Gemara answers that, since Rebbi Yehudah requires the four species to be bound, each species is therefore independent. Therefore it needs to teach us that this is not the case.

Question (Part 2): How can we base the suggestion that each species is independent on the fact the Lulav needs to be bound? On the contrary, that is more of a reason for one to be Chayav, as we just explained?

Answer: One can say that the case there is speaking where the extra species is placed outside the bunch.

Question: What is difficult however, is the fact that the Gemara there seems to conclude that according to Rebbi Yehudah, we do not say that each species is independent, and all the more so according to the Rabbanan; whereas our Sugya seems to hold that the Rabbanan hold that they are?

Answer #1: The Sugya there holds that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Chananel however, with regard to the Gemara in 'Lulav ha'Gazul' does not have in his text the words 'since Rebbi Yehudah said'. And this the text there according to him - 'We would have thought that since the Chachamim said that whether the species are bound or not, they are Kasher, it is therefore not necessary to bind them, in which case the extra species that one adds to the four should be considered independent, and ought not to invalidate the bunch; Therefore it needs to teach us that it does'.

Question: The question remains however, why we cannot find a case of Lulav according to Rebbi Yehudah, where one bound the three species on their own, which is done be'Kashrus, and then adds another species, which adds, and therefore subtracts?

Answer (Part 1): Seeing as it becomes Pasul before he actually picks it up, it is considered as if he had detracted to begin with ('Garu'a ve'Omed'), unlike Tefilin where if he first put on Tefilin comprising four Parshiyos, and then added a fifth one, he is adding, and thereby detracting, since he negates the Mitzvah of Tefilin shel Rosh.

Answer (Part 2): It is not comparable to Lulav, inasmuch as if, after one picks it up and it is still in his hand, bearing in mind that 'The moment one picks up the Lulav, he has fulfilled the Mitzvah', he will not negate the Mitzvah by adding an extra species.