(R. Zeira citing R. Yochanan/ R. Hila citing R. Elazar): (The Mishnah taught that (earlier Chulin 136(c)) if a person says to his friend, "Take this Issar (coin) and give me five figs for it''; R. Meir says that he should not eat until he tithes. R. Yehuda says that if he was given them one by one, he may eat them and he is exempt; but if he was given several, he is obligated.) They disagree when the seller picks them one by one and gives them to the buyer. But when the buyer himself picks them one by one to eat, all agree that he may eat them one by one and he is exempt. But if the buyer picked several at a time, he is obligated.

(R. Hila citing R. Elazar): Just as they disagree here, so they disagree over a protected courtyard (that establishes the obligation to tithe. According to R. Meir it obligates even with one fruit; according to R. Yehuda, there must be two fruits.) As R. Yochanan said - the obligations established by an acquisition, a courtyard and Shabbos are Rabbinic.

(R. Imi citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): (Disagreeing) The one that is clearest (to be from the Torah) is the protected courtyard.

(Chevraya citing R. Yochanan): R. Yehuda responded to R. Meir - don't you agree that one who picks and gives his son, that he is exempt (since he does not need to give him anymore). What's the difference whether he picks and gives his son or he picks and give someone else?!

Question (R. Yudan): Why say that the Mishnah's dispute (between R. Meir and R. Yehuda) is specifically when the seller picks and gives the buyer? Perhaps they disagree even when the buyer picks and eat them?

(R. Mana): No, as proven by the Mishnah's statement of R. Yehuda, that there was a rose garden (in Yerushalayim, that its figs were begin sold at three or four for an Issar and Terumah or Maaser were never separated from them (since they ate them one by one)). Could you say that there that the buyer was permitted to pick and eat? The seller would prevent him, saying, "You'll ruin my roses!''

Rebuttal of R. Mana (Tosefta): 'If a person says to his friend, "I am selling you a vineyard''; even if it contains no vines, the sale is valid, as he merely sold him a plot of land by that name. Similarly, if he said, "I am selling you an orchard'', even if it contains no trees, the sale is valid, as he merely sold him a plot of land by that name.' Here also, perhaps it was called a rose garden even though there were no roses!