Question (R. Zeira to R. Abahu): (According to Beis Shammai) what's the source that Revai has the law of redemption?

Answer: As the pasuk states (Vayikra 19:24), "...all its fruit shall be holy, a praise" - holy means with redemption; as the Rabbanan didn't refrain from expounding by interchanging the letters 'Hei' and 'Ches'.

(R. Ayvi bar Nagri to R. Ila) (Baraisa of R. Yishmael): The pasuk states (Vayikra 27:31), "And if a man redeems some of his tithe, he shall add its fifth to it." - this excludes Neta Revai from the extra fifth.

(A Second teaching): The word 'redemption' appears twice in that pasuk ('Ga'ol Yig'al) - referring to Maaser Sheni and Neta Revai.

(Mishnah in Maseches Terumah): R. Yehuda says that a gentile's produce does not have the law of Revai. The Chachamim say that it does.

(R. Elazar): R. Yehuda is specifically referring to Suria (but in Eretz Yisrael he agrees that it does have the law of Revai).

(R. Bayvai to R. Zeira citing R. Elazar): R. Yehuda follows the view of Beis Shammai according to Rebbi...

Just as Rebbi says that Beis Shammai exempt Neta Revai from the fifth and from Biur in Sheviis (since those laws of Neta Revai are learned from Maaser Sheni, which doesn't apply in Sheviis); so too R. Yehuda learned Neta Revai from Maaser Sheni - just as there is no Maaser Sheni in Suria, so too there is no Neta Revai in Suria.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Bayvai): Notice that in your understanding, R. Yehuda goes further than Beis Shammai - according to Beis Shammai, there is no Biur or extra fifth of Neta Revai in Sheviis, but all other laws of Sheviis do apply (such as the requirement to bring it to Yerushalayim). According to R. Yehuda, Neta Revai doesn't apply in Suria at all, just as Maaser Sheni does not.

Question (Shmuel bar Abba): According to Rebbi, that Beis Shammai learned Neta Revai from Maaser Sheni for all laws, that just as there is no Maaser Sheni in Sheviis, so too there is no Neta Revai; similarly, just as there is no law of Maaser Sheni in the third and sixth years of the Shemita cycle (as it is replaced with Maaser Ani), so too Neta Revai shouldn't apply in those years...?

Rebuttal (R. Yosi): In the third and sixth years, even though there is no Maaser Sheni, Maaser does apply; but in Sheviis there is no law of tithing at all!

Question (Chaifah): Just as R. Yehuda learns Neta Revai from Maaser Sheni, that just as there is no Maaser Sheni in Suria, there is also no Neta Revai; similarly Terumas Todah (the four of the forty loaves that accompany the Todah offering that are given to the Kohen) that is learned from Terumas Maaser (to be 1/10th); just as Terumas Maaser didn't apply whilst they were still in the desert, so too there should not have been Terumas Todah there?

Answer (R. Yosi): Terumas Todah was learned from Terumas Maaser only for its quantity (of 1/10th).

Baraisa (R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda citing R. Elazar b'R. Shimon): Yisrael only became obligated in Neta Revai after the 14 years of conquering and division of the Land.

(Rav Chisda): R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda follows the view of his father R. Yehuda. R. Yehuda said that we learn Neta Revai from Maaser Sheni, so just as there is no law of Maaser Sheni in Suria, so too there is no Neta Revai in Suria. And R. Yosi bei R. Yehuda also says that we learn Neta Revai from Maaser Sheni, so just as the law of Maaser Sheni only applied after the 14 years, so too the law of Neta Revai.

(R. Yosi): On the contrary - R. Yehuda follows his son's view - the exemption of Neta Revai during the 14 years preceded the exemption in Suria. (So in fact it should be - just as R. Yosi exempted from Revai in the 14 years, as it is learned from Maaser Sheni; so too R. Yehuda exempted Suria from Revai as it is learned from Maaser Sheni.) The pasuk states (Vayikra 19:25), "And in the fifth year, you may it eat its fruit, to increase (its produce) for you...". R. Yosi HaGlili says that since the previous pasuk (24) states, "And in the fourth year, all its fruit shall be holy, a praise to Hash-m" and this pasuk (25) begins with "And in the fifth year" - this compares the fourth year and fifth year fruit - just as fifth year fruits are the property of the owner, so too fourth year fruit.

(R. Zeira citing R. Yasa citing R. Yochanan): R. Yosi HaGlili follows R. Yehuda - just as R. Yehuda says that Maaser Sheni is considered to be the property of its owner; so too R. Yosi HaGlili says this about Neta Revai.

Question (R. Yirmiyah citing R. Zeira): According to that opinion, is Neta Revai obligated in Maaseros?

Answer (R. Zeira to R. Yirmiyah): It's like the statement of R. Yehoshua ben Levi quoted by R. Avin - it's not only here, but any case where the Halacha is doubtful and Beis Din do not know how to resolve it, go and look at the conduct of the people and follow them - and we see that the people do not separate Maaser from Neta Revai.

Rebuttal (R. Mana): (That cannot be used as a proof.) This question was according to Beis Shammai, but is there a community that follow Beis Shammai?

(R. Avin): Neta Revai was learned from Maaser Sheni - just as Maaser Sheni is not obligated in Maaser, so too Neta Revai.

(R. Ba citing R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): A dough of Maaser Sheni (kneaded in Yerushalayim) is obligated in Maaseros. (Note: Most texts of the Gemara do not have this sentence.)

(R. Ba citing R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): Dough of Maaser Sheni in Yerushalayim - according to R. Meir (who says that it belongs to 'Heavenly table' rather than the owner) - is exempt from Challah. According to R. Yehuda, it is obligated in Challah.

Qualification (R. Yehuda): (This that R. Yehuda obligates Maaser Sheni in Challah) is specifically in Yerushalayim but not outside (since when it would have become obligated in Challah, it could not be eaten, since it is Maaser Sheni outside of Yerushalayim).

Question (R. Ba bar Kohen to R. Yosi): According to Beis Shammai, that Neta Revai is not subject to the laws of Peret and Olelos (see Erchin 5 (e)), is a dough of Neta Revai obligated in Challah?

Answer (R. Yosi to R. Ba bar Kohen): R. Yehuda follows Beis Shammai (in all of the laws of our Mishnah). Therefore, if R. Yehuda says that Maaser Sheni dough is obligated in Challah and the same applies to Neta Revai; Beis Shammai must have the same view.