Tosefta: If a person bought wine to add to Murias (fish oil) (rather than to drink) or to Alintis (a mixture of old wine, water and oil) or he bought legumes to grind, they are obligated in Demai and certainly in definite Tevel. But if he bought these mixtures (Murias/Aluntis/ground legumes), they are exempt from Demai.

What is the latter case? If it is like Rebbi, it will be obligated even in Demai (because Rebbi's view - in a Baraisa in Terumos Perek 11 Mishnah 1 - is that Murias is considered wine); if it is like R. Elazar b'R. Shimon (there, that wine in Murias is considered lost) even if it is definite Tevel it should be exempt...

Rather, it is like Rebbi, and even though when in a mixture it is considered to be present, they did not decree on Demai when it is in a mixture.

If a person bought wine from an Am HaAretz to make an eye ointment or flour to make a bandage, they are obligated if definite and exempt if Demai. If he bought the actual ointment or bandage, even if definitely Tevel, they are exempt.

Question: Concerning the ointment, you said that definite is exempt and about the Murias you said that only Demai is exempt (but not definite)?

Answer: Murias is for eating and even though it is only in a mixture, since his body benefits from it and the Murias tastes of Terumah, it is obligated. But ointment, which is not for eating, as soon as he adds the wine, it is annulled.

Question (Baraisa): It is prohibited to gain benefit from the eye ointment of an idolater...? (This shows that even though it is not for consumption, the wine is not annulled in the mixture.)

Answer: This is because the pasuk states (Devarim 13:18), "And nothing that is doomed to destruction shall cling to your hand''.

Question: How are they different from the sediment of idolaters...it is certainly prohibited to gain benefit from the sediment of idolaters, but if they dried out, they are not prohibited (because the flavor of wine is no longer recognizable. If so, since when idolater's wine is mixed with an ointment, the wine is no longer recognizable, it should be permitted!)? (The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.)

Question: The Mishnah taught (zevachim 81-2(b)) that from Kaziv (at the northern edge of Eretz Yisrael) and beyond is exempt from Demai. What is the law of Kaziv itself?

Answer: A Baraisa taught that Kaziv itself is exempt from Demai.

Tosefta Demai 1:8: If a person bought from a caravan of donkey drivers selling produce in Tzur (north of Kaziv); or from a storehouse in Tzidan (north of Tzur), it is obligated.

The Gemara extrapolates: But produce from a storehouse in Tzur and from a caravan in Tzidan is exempt (because the produce in the storehouses in Tzur is normally grown there and in Tzidan they normally bring from Chutz LaAretz).

The Tosefta continues: From a single donkey driver in Tzur (the produce is exempt).

Question: If a group of donkey drivers entered Tzur via Kaziv (i.e. from the north, is it exempt because he didn't enter Eretz Yisrael at all, or should we be concerned, lest he enter Kaziv from the south, and the produce should be obligated)...?

Answer: Kaziv itself is exempt and we are not concerned that there might be produce there that came from Eretz Yisrael; so would we be concerned about entering Tzur from Kaziv?!

(R. Yochanan): (Our Mishnah (Zevachim 81-2(c)) listed a number of things, such as Challah of an Am HaAretz and Medumah etc. that are exempt from Demai) When they decreed about Demai, they didn't decree about these things (Terumah and Kodshim).

(R. Hoshiya): The Am HaAretz has the fear of Kodshim upon him for these things and he would only give to the Kohen something that has been correctly tithed.

Difference #1: The Challah of an Am HaAretz - according to R. Hoshiya it refers to Challah that he himself separated; but if a Chaver bought dough from an Am HaAretz and separated the Challah himself, it is Demai (since he bought grain (i.e. dough) from an Am HaAretz). According to R. Yochanan - in both cases they did not decree Demai.

Difference #2: Medumah - (see above Zevachim 81-2(c) - according to R. Hoshiya, the Mishnah is discussing produce of an Am HaAretz, but if a Chaver bought produce from an Am HaAretz and it became Medumah (i.e. some Terumah became mixed into it), they are obligated. According to R. Yochanan, there is no difference between these two cases - they did not decree, so they are exempt.

(Difference #3): If a Se'ah of Terumah of an Am HaAretz fell into 100 Se'ah of Chulin (which is enough Chulin to negate the Terumah) - according to R. Yochanan, it is obligated in Demai; according to R. Hoshiya (that an Am HaAretz is exempt because he has fear from Kodshim), it is exempt.

Baraisa: In all the cases of the Mishnah, if parts of them were declared Terumas Maaser or Maaser Sheni, it is valid (and must be given to the relevant recipients).

Question: According to R. Yochanan, it is fine; but according to R. Hoshiya, they are already tithed?!

Answer: Since there might be a person someone who does not fear Kodshim, the Baraisa therefore taught that if parts were declared Terumas Maaser or Maaser Sheni, it is valid.