Question (R. Tam): Are Chaverim (people trustworthy about Ma'aser) suspected to tithe Lo Min ha'Mukaf (when the Ma'aser is not near the Tevel being exempted)?

We say so in Gitin (30b) and in Chulin (7a) about R. Meir, who ate a vegetable leaf. (Surely, he did not tithe it Lo Min ha'Mukaf!)

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Here, regarding a deposit, we attribute to [even] an unlikely concern [to be stringent and] not touch it;

We are concerned lest on Erev Shabbos he tithed Lo Min ha'Mukaf. This is permitted, like it says in Yevamos (93a).

Answer #2: We say in Eruvin (32b) that it is good for a Chaver to do a light Isur, i.e. tithe Lo Min ha'Mukaf [to save an Am ha'Aretz from a severe Isur].

Distinction: In Chulin (7a) and in Gitin (30b) we are not concerned, since it is not a deposit.

Support #1: We say a bigger Chidush in Sanhedrin (30a). If [orphans] had seen their father hide coins in a box, chest or tower, and he said that they are of Ma'aser Sheni, if he said this cunningly (lest they take the money or think that he is rich), we ignore his words.

Inference: We follow the majority of coins, which are Chulin, to be lenient, even though he specified that they are Ma'aser.

Support #2: In Yevamos (115b), regarding one who found a Kli, and the letter Kuf was written on it, this stands for Korban (we assume that the coins inside were Hukdash for a Korban). If Tav was written on it, this stands for Terumah;

Inference: If nothing was written on it, we are not concerned.

Implied question: It says below (49a) that if a Yisrael told a Levi "I have a Kor (30 Sa'im) of Ma'aser of your father", [the Levi] may make it Terumas Ma'aser on [Ma'aser Rishon] that he has elsewhere. (This is Lo Min ha'Mukaf!)

Answer: This is permitted on Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov.

Observation: Also what it says below, "therefore the owner may make it Terumah or Ma'aser on [Tevel] that he has elsewhere" [refers to Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is like [normal loss] of other grain.

Objection #1 (Rivam): Do they argue about Mashehu? Less than normal loss, all agree that he does not sell it!

Objection #2: If so, what is R. Shimon ben Gamliel's reason?!

Explanation #2: They argue in a case when the loss in one or two months is more than the normal loss in this time;

They argue until the loss in one or two months is nine half-Kabim for a Kor, which is the normal loss for a year.

Implied question: We should be concerned lest he make them [Terumah or Ma'aser] after he sells them!

Answer: We are not concerned for this, for losses more than normal are not common. When the owner makes them Terumah or Ma'aser, he does so before the loss exceeds the normal loss.

Explanation: We challenge that also according to Rav Nachman, we should sell them to Kohanim...

We do not challenge from [when they decreased] the normal loss, for we must be concerned lest the owner make them [Terumah or Ma'aser]. Rather, we challenge from [when they decreased] more than the normal loss. We should sell them!

Do not say that indeed (Rav Nachman holds that in such a case, we sell them), for you said that Rav Nachman surely argues!

We answer that according to Rav Nachman, it is common that they decrease more than the normal loss.

Question (Rivam): What forced him to say that Rav Nachman argues? He should say that more than the normal loss, all agree that we sell them! There is no concern lest the owner make them [Terumah or Ma'aser], for this is not common, just like Rav Kahana holds!

Answer (R. Tam): Our Mishnah discusses even flax or tithed Peros. There, what is the reason not to touch them? (There is no concern lest the owner made or will make them Terumah or Ma'aser!)

You must say that [Rav Nachman agrees that] it is due to Rav Kahana's reason, because a person prefers one measure of his own Peros more than nine measures of others' Peros.

If so (Rav Nachman agrees to Rav Kahana's reason), the reason "lest he made it Terumah or Ma'aser on [Peros] elsewhere" does not help, if not to teach that even above the normal loss, we are concerned.

Conclusion: He holds that even above the normal loss is common.

Question: Below (regarding Shmuel's rulings), we bring that R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we establish [a relative over a captive's property]!

Answer: We cannot resolve from here [what R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds about establishing a relative over a captive's property].

Question: What was the proof that there is one reason [for selling a deposit of Peros that are rotting, and establishing a relative over property of a captive] from Shmuel, who holds like R. Shimon ben Gamliel (regarding Peros), and he holds that we establish? (We assumed that the latter is due to the former);

We should prove this from R. Shimon ben Gamliel himself! (Because he holds that we sell a deposit, he holds that we establish!)

Answer: We must say that [the Makshan, who tried to prove from Shmuel that these laws depend on each other] had not heard the Beraisa below [in which R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we establish].

Note: R. Shimon [ben Gamliel] does not explicitly say so in the Beraisa. Pnei Yehoshua explains (unlike Tosfos) that the Makshan held that Shmuel concluded that R. Shimon holds that we establish, because there is one reason. We reject this; Shmuel deduced from R. Shimon's words in the Beraisa, like Tosfos says below (DH ha'Yored).

Suggestion: "When they heard [that he died]" means through two witnesses.

Rejection: If so, obviously we put [relatives on the property. They surely inherited it!]

Explanation: Rather, "they heard" refers to rumors and one witness.

Observation: In Kesuvos (107a) "they heard that he died" regarding allotting food to a married woman, the Sugya there connotes that it is absolute testimony. (We must say that the same words mean differently there.)

Question: Why don't we ask from our Mishnah in Yevamos (116b), which teaches that we find that brothers do not receive their inheritance through her (a woman who says that her husband died? We believe her to let her remarry!)

We could then answer that the Mishnah means that they do not receive their inheritance to sell it!

Answer: It is a stronger question from here, because [presumably] it teaches that [their law is] like that of their wives. It connotes [that they do] not [get permission] at all.

Implied question: [This connotes that l'Chatchilah, we do not establish a relative on a captive's property. Really,] we establish l'Chatchilah, for R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds that we establish for Netushim (abandoned property), and he said that Netushim is like [property of] a captive! (They argue only about Netushim.)

Answer: Since [the first Tana] taught in the Seifa regarding Netushim "we remove him from it", he taught also regarding a captive "we do not remove."

Question: Rav should say that the Halachah follows the first Tana, and Shmuel should say that the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben Gamliel!

Answer #1: They had not heard the Beraisa.

Answer #2: Some switch the opinions [in the Beraisa, so it does not help to say which Tana the Halachah follows].