Explanation: Some commentaries explain that wherever Chazal mention 'ha'Hu Saba', they are referring to Eliyahu ha'Navi.

Refutation: It is impossible to say that however, in Perek Bameh Madlikin in connection with the story of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai.

Medrash: The Midrash relates that this was the Avodas-Kochavim that Ya'akov hid under the oak-tree on a mountain-side in Sh'chem.

Clarification: Since the Pasuk continues "Do not lust for his delicacies".

Inference: This implies that spices are subject to Ma'aser.

Question: The Mishnah in Perek Ba Siman (Nidah 50a) however, states that whatever is subject to Ma'aser is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin. But in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotav (Chulin 117:) the Mishnah rules that Kifah combines to be Metamei Tum'as Ochlin - and the Gemara there defines Kifah as spices, from which we see that spices are only subject to Tum'as Ochlin in conjunction with food (but not on their own) even though they are subject to Ma'aser?

Answer: When the Gemara says here 'not because of Ma'aser' it is not referring to spices but to yeast; whereas 'Shevi'is' refers to spices too, since animal food is also subject to Shevi'is.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the innkeeper is Morah Heter to herself because she claims that she means well - that the Talmid-Chacham should eat fresh food ... (as a statement, and not as a question).

Refutation #1: This is not however, what 'Muryah ... ' implies, but rather that she takes the liberty to keep back some of his food - like 'Muryah ve'Amarah Tura mi'Disheih la'Achil' (which the Gemara will cite shortly).

Refutation #2: Furthermore, we learned in the Mishnah 'He takes Ma'aser from what he gives her and from what he receives from her, since she is suspect of switching. Rebbi Yossi says "we are not responsible for swindlers'.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Menachem therefore explains that the Gemara is presenting, not a statement but a rhetorical question 'Seeing as I went to all that trouble on his behalf; Should the Talmid-Chacham now eat hot food and I, cold?'

Explanation #2 (Part 2): With regard to a neighbor however, we do not suspect that she will switch the food, even though she went to the same trouble on her behalf, seeing as it is the way of neighbors to do that for one another.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that she is grinding the produce of the Am-ha'Aretz, when she, the Chaver's wife, is Tamei, who is unlikely to forget and place produce that is un'Ma'asered in her mouth, seeing as she is Tamei, and is therefore careful not to touch it. In fact, she probably stood at a distance.

Question #1: According to Rashi, this Mishnah, which appears in Taharos, ought to have rather appeared in D'mai?

Question #2: Rashi also explains on the words 'that her friend gives her and she eats' - that she is suspect of stealing from her husband'. But that is not considered theft, since we generally assume that a husband is not particular about such small amounts, as the Mishnah states in Bava Kama (Daf 110.) 'One may accept a small amount for Tzedakah from women'.

Question #3: Furthermore, the distinction that Rashi draws between the wife of a Chaver and the wife of an Am-ha'Aretz is a Dochek - to say that a person will forget and eat what someone gives him, but to give to someone else, unless one is accustomed to stealing, one does not forget.

Question #4 (Part 1): Fourthly, how can the Chaver's wife possibly grind with the Am-ha'Aretz's wife in the first place, seeing as she is helping her to sin?

Source: And it is evident from the end of Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin 61.) that this is forbidden according to Rava there, who establishes the Mishnah which permits the wife of a Chaver to lend the wife of an Am-ha'Aretz a Nafah or a Kevarah (two kinds of sieves), and to select and grind together with her by an Am ha'Aretz of Rebbi Meir, and Tum'ah and Taharah de'Rabbanan, but by a S'tam Am-ha'Aretz not, to prevent her from grinding together with her friend who is suspect on Sh'mitah-produce?

Question #4 (Part 2): And Abaye, who holds that most Amei ha'Aretz separate Ma'asros, permits her to help the Am ha'Aretz's wife in all cases, whereas our Sugya forbids her to do so when she is Tahor?

Refuted Answer: Nor can we establish the case in Gitin specifically when she is Tamei (according to Abaye), and not like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar ...

Refutation: .. seeing as the Tana specifically permits her to select, and selecting entails touching (which would be prohibited if she was Tamei).

Explanation #2 (Part 1): Rabeinu Chananel and Rabeinu Tam therefore explain that we are talking about the produce of the Chaver (and not of the Am ha'Aretz)' ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): .. and 'when she is Tamei' refers (not to the wife of the Chaver, but) to the wife of the Am ha'Aretz, at a time when she considers herself Tamei - since then she is careful not to touch the produce; 'But not when she considers herself Tahor' - since then she is not careful to avoid touching it, and will therefore render it Tamei.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): ... Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'Even when she considers herself Tamei, her friend is forbidden to grind with her, because someone else (the friend's maidservant - Me'iri), assuming she is Tahor, gives her and she eats.

Alternative Version: The version in the Tosefta in Taharos (Perek 8) reads 'even though she does not eat, she hands some produce to others, who eat'.

Conclusion: According to this, the Gemara asks well 'Now that she steals the produce of the Chaver's wife, is it not obvious that she will swap her food for that of the Talmid-Chacham'?

Clarification: This implies that Ma'aser does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz.

Precedent: ... and so it seems in Avodah-Zarah, in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (58b) where it relates how when Resh Lakish came to Batzrah and saw that they were eating fruit that had not been Ma'asered, he forbade them to do so. But when he came before Rebbi Yochanan, he said to him 'Before taking off your coat, go and withdraw your prohibition, since Batzrah is not Betzer (which is in Eretz Yisrael; whereas Batzrah is not), and is therefore not subject to Ma'aser'.

Question: In Perek Ad Kamah (Bechoros 27a) however, the entire Sugya clearly maintains that Terumah does apply in Chutz la'Aretz ...

Refuted Answer: ... and we cannot answer like Rashi explains here - that it is specifically corn, wine and oil, which are min ha'Torah in Eretz Yisrael, are mi'de'Rabbanan in Chutz la'Aretz, but not other species of fruit ...

Refutation #1: ... because in the first Perek of Beitzah (12b) in the case of Rabah bar bar Chanah's inn-keeper who had a bundle of mustard-seeds, the Sugya implies that it was Chayav Ma'aser.

Refutation #2 (Part 1): Also at the beginning of 'Keitzad Mevorchin' (36a) Rebbi Eliezer rules that both the berries and the flowers of the Tz'laf (the caper-bush) are subject to Ma'aser; whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, it is only the berries that are Chayav.

Refutation #2 (Part 2): ... and when Rav Yehudah ruled that regarding Tz'laf of Orlah in Chutz la'Aretz, one may eat the flowers, but must throw out the berries, the Gemara asks why he did not simply rule like Rebbi Akiva, the Gemara replied that we would have then ruled like him even in Eretz Yisrael. So he comes to teach us that we only rule like him in Chutz la'Aretz.

Refutation #2 (Part 3): And in answer to the question why he did not then rule that 'Whoever is lenient in Eretz Yisrael, we follow his opinion in Chutz la'Aretz? we answer that if he had, we would have confined his ruling to the Ma'aser of vegetables and Tz'laf, which even in Eretz Yisrael, are only mi'de'Rabbanan, but not with regard to Orlah, which in Eretz Yisrael, is d'Oraysa.

Conclusion: ... indicating that Ma'aser Yerek and Tz'laf apply even in Chutz la'Aretz.

Answer (Explanation #1): Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that both the Gemara here and the Gemara in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah (58:) are speaking about D'mai, which does not apply in Chutz la'Aretz, as we learned in the Mishnah in Dm'ai (7:3) 'From K'ziv and beyond, is Patur from D'mai'. But Vaday Tevel is Chayav everywhere.

Precedent: And so it seems that the Sugya here is speaking about D'mai, seeing as the Gemara asks later 'Perhaps Rebbi Meir looked at one side and ate from the other?, a concession that is confined to D'mai.

Question (Part 1): In the Yerushalmi in the third Perek of D'mai however, when Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi sent Raban Shimon ben Gamliel an Esrog with the message that he obtained it from Kisrin, the latter claimed that he learned from him three things: 1. That it was Vaday Tevel; 2. That it was Tamei, and 3. That it was the only one that he received.

Question (Part 2): That it was Vaday Tevel - because the fruit of Kisrin were Vaday; That it was Tamei - because there was water on the Esrog, and what he meant was that it was Muchshar Lekabel Tum'ah; That it was the only one that he received - Because had he received another one, he would have Ma'asered from it to cover the one that he send him.

Question (Part 2): Perhaps he had Ma'asered it, and he needed to inform him (that it was from Kisrin) because of Hechsher Tum'ah?

Question (Part 3): Had he meant to inform him of only one thing, he would have told him outright.

Question (Part 4): In answer to the question why Rebbi Yossi did not Ma'aser it from the Esrog itself, the Gemara answers that people do not tend to send their friends things with pieces missing.

Question (Part 5): Then the Gemara asks why this is not synonymous with a Mishnah - 'Rebbi Yossi permits Vaday, provided he informs him? This refers to a Mishnah in the same Perek, where Rebbi Yossi permits sending one's friend Vaday Tevel, provided he informs him that it is not Ma'asered.

Question (Part 6): Perhaps Rebbi Yossi had another Esrog, which he did not Ma'aser because he informed Raban Shimon ben Gamliel that it was Tevel, which he did by telling him that he had received it from Kisrin.

Question (Part 7): He may well argue with the Rabbanan in this point. It does not necessarily follow that he will actually follow his own opinion against theirs.

Question (Part 7): But are these fruits from Kisrin not exempt from Ma'aser, seeing as Rebbi permitted both Kisrin and Beis Sha'n? To which the Gemara answers that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel preceded Rebbi - The concession had not yet been declared.

Conclusion: In any event, this implies that once they were permitted, even Vaday Tevel was permitted?

Answer: We must say that, when the Yerushalmi asks 've'La'av mi Peiros de'Mutarin be'Kisrin Hein?', it is with reference to D'mai ...

Proof: ... Because in the second Perek of D'mai, the Gemara states 'These are the species that are permitted in Beis Sha'n, and these are the species that are permitted in Kisrin' - meaning because of D'mai; since the species that the Gemara goes on to list were regularly imported from Eretz Yisrael. Other species however, that were known not to have been imported from Eretz Yisrael, were permitted because of D'mai, but were subject to Vaday Ma'aser - just as Rabeinu Tam explained.

Explanation ... Question (Part 1): The Yerushalmi asks further 'But is an Esrog not one of the fruits that are permitted, seeing as they were not imported from Eretz Yisrael, but were locally grown (in Kisrin), in which case the Rabbanan will agree that one is permitted to send even Vaday in Chutz la'Aretz, provided one informs the recipient that they have not been Ma'asered (and the Machlokes Tana'im in this matter is confined to Tevel in Eretz Yisrael) ...

Explanation ... Question (Part 2): ... In that case, how do we know that Rebbi Yossi did not have another Esrog? And even if he did, he would have been permitted to send Vaday Tevel in Chutz la'Aretz, even according to the Rabbanan, provided he informed the recipient?

Explanation ... Answer: Kisrin had not yet been declared permitted in the days of Rebbi Yossi, and they treated it as part of Eretz Yisrael.