(R. Abahu citing Reish Lakish): (The Tana of the Mishnah who taught (daf 48 (b)) about the Leket that became mixed into a stack) is R. Yosi, of a Mishnah (in Maseches Bechoros). (If there were two ewes, one had never given birth and one had, and each gave birth to a male and they became mixed up, one is kept by the owner and one is given to the Kohen. There is a dispute as to whether the owner must separate the Kohanims' gifts of the foreleg, the cheeks and the stomach, from the animal that he retained.) R. Yosi say that he does not give, as he says that anything whose exchange is in the Kohen's hands does not have gifts separated from it. R. Meir said that they must be given.

(R. Ba): (That is not the reason that R. Yosi exempts. Rather) R. Yosi says that both of the ewes must first be given completely to the Kohen and afterwards, one is returned.

(R. Yosi - the Amora): R. Ba's statement disagrees with Reish Lakish, as the Mishnah taught (daf 48 (c)) that R. Eliezer said - 'rather, the owner should transfer all of the stack to the poor man (on condition that it is returned to him) and tithe one ear and give it to him.' However, the first Tana says that he does not need to transfer all of it and he can give one stalk...

Conclusion of proof: And since R. Ba said that according to R. Yosi, he must give it all to the Kohen, this shows that the first Tana is not like the opinion of R. Yosi.

(R. Mana disagrees): This sugya is based on the fact that the first Tana agrees with R. Yosi and even R. Ba agrees to this. The first Tana does actually require transferring the ear of the Leket to the poor but they disagree as follows -

Explanation #1: The first Tana reasons that he does not need to transfer all of the pile, but rather, only one ear (wherever it might be; which is what R. Ba meant when he said that according to R. Yosi he must transfer to the Kohen both lambs.) R. Eliezer reasons that he must transfer the entire pile to the poor.

Explanation #2: The first Tana reasons that (if he does not transfer the entire pile) it appears as if he is merely transferring from his right hand to his left hand (via the poor man, since it is returned immediately); R. Eliezer reasons that (even though it will be returned to him immediately by the poor man), it does not appear like transferring from right to left (via the poor man).

Question (R. Zeira/ R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer's opinion seems to have switched - in Perek 4 Mishnah 6, R. Eliezer said that if a rich man acquired Leket, Shichechah or Peah for a certain poor man, it is valid; but here he said that the poor man must acquire the pile himself in order to acquire the Leket within it...?

Answer: In our Mishnah, R. Eliezer is speaking according to the Rabbanan's own opinion - 'according to you who say that the rich man cannot acquire on behalf of the poor, how can you say here that he can give another ear in replacement of the Leket ear? How can the poor man switch with the owner something that he did not acquire? Rather, the poor man must acquire the entire pile and he can then switch it with another and the owner then gives Maaser to the poor man etc.'