(Mishnah): A baker who made Se'or (sourdough) to divide, he is obligated in Chalah;

Women who gave [doughs] to a baker to make Se'or - if not one of them has a Shi'ur, it is exempt from Chalah.

Isas ha'Kelavim (it is normally fed to dogs) - when shepherds eat from it, it is obligated in Chalah, one may be Me'arev [in the Chatzer] with it and make Shituf [in the Mavuy] with it, we bless [ha'Motzii] on it and make a Zimun on it, one may make it on Yom Tov, and one can be Yotzei [Matzah] with it on Pesach;

When shepherds do not eat from it, it is not obligated in Chalah, one may not be Me'arev with it or make Shituf with it, we do not bless ha'Motzi on it or make a Zimun on it, one may not make it on Yom Tov, and one is not Yotzei with it on Pesach.

In both cases it has Tum'as Ochlim.

(Gemara): One who did Miru'ach on his friend's stack without his Da'as - R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish [argued about this]. R. Yochanan said, it became Tevel (one may not eat it Arai before tithing it), and Reish Lakish said, it did not become Tevel.

Question (Reish Lakish, to R. Yochanan - Mishnah): And so women who gave [doughs] to a baker to make Se'or for them, if not one of them has a Shi'ur, it is exempt from Chalah.

Is there not a Shi'ur amidst all of them [together, and even so, it is exempt because he joined them without their Da'as]?!

Answer (R. Yochanan): There is different, for one who makes a dough with intent to divide it into [smaller] doughs (before baking), it is exempt.

Question (Reish Lakish - Mishnah): If a baker made a dough to divide it, it is obligated in Chalah.

Answer (R. Yochanan): Do not challenge me from a baker, for it does not depend on his intent. It depends on the buyer's intent. Perhaps [the baker] will not find a buyer, and he will return to make [one big] dough!

Question (Reish Lakish - Mishnah): [Grain found in] ant-holes that were overnight next to a stack obligated [in Ma'aseros, i.e. after Miru'ach];

Inference: If they were next to an exempt stack (before Miru'ach), they are exempt! (Ants normally take the grain without the chaff. This Miru'ach does not obligate, because it was without the owner's Da'as!)

Answer #1 (R. Yonah citing R. Yosi citing R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): [It is exempt] due to despair (it becomes Hefker. However, once it was obligated in Ma'aseros, Hefker does not exempt - MAHARA FULDA, GRA).

Answer #2 (Shmuel bar Aba): [It is exempt] when they dragged [whole] sheaves (Miru'ach was not done - R. SHLOMO SIRILIYO, GRA).

Question (R. Yochanan, against Reish Lakish - Mishnah): If one was Makdish [his Peros] before [final processing], and the Gizbar (overseer of Hekdesh) did Miru'ach, and afterwards [the original owner] redeemed them, they are exempt;

The Gizbar is like someone else (it was without the owner's Da'as), and you say that what he did, he did (it is considered Miru'ach to exempt. Likewise, another's Miru'ach is considered Miru'ach to obligate!)

Answer (Reish Lakish): This is like the opinion that the Gizbar is like the owner, and unlike R. Yosi, for R. Yosi says, the Gizbar is like someone else.

Question (R. Chananyah, the colleague of Rabanan): (Our Mishnah said that if women gave to a baker... if not one of them has a Shi'ur of Chalah, it is exempt.) Even if there is a Shi'ur, [since he will divide it], it should be like something without final processing, and it should be exempt from Chalah!

(R. Yosi citing R. Ze'ira, and R. Yonah citing R. Ze'ira citing R. Lazar): [If one took from the winepress in a flask to drink,] even what is in the flask is not Tevel, for he will return [the wine remaining after he drinks] to something without final processing!