Implied question: Amei ha'Aretz are not suspected about Terumah Gedolah, like we say in Sotah (48a, for they know that there is Misah bi'Ydei Shamayim for eating Tevel from which Terumah Gedolah was not separated, and mid'Oraisa it suffices to separate any amount. Therefore, one who buys from them need not separate Terumah Gedolah!)

Answer: Kusim do not separate even Terumah Gedolah.

Implied question: In Brachos (47b) we say that Kusim tithe properly, for they are careful about what is written [in the Torah]!

Answer: This is only for what they themselves eat. They do not tithe what they sell to others, for they expound "v'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol" like the simple meaning (to forbid placing an obstacle in front of a blind person. They allow causing someone to transgress).

Implied question: They are not suspected to steal! (Not separating Terumah Gedolah is like stealing from Kohanim.)

Answer #1: [A Kusi] does not consider this theft, for it is money without a claimant. (No Kohen can say that he was obligated to give the Terumah to him.)

Answer #2: As long as it was not separated, it does not seem like theft, for he was not yet obligated to give to the Kohen or Levi.

Support: Amei ha'Aretz are not suspected about theft, but they are suspected about [not] separating Ma'aseros!

Answer #3: They rely on what we expound in Bava Metzi'a (88b) "Aser Ta'aser v'Achalta", but not (you need not tithe) what you sell.

Observation: "Ten" and "nine" are not precise, for he removed two [Lugim] for Terumah Gedolah, and 98 remain. (Ma'aser Rishon is a 10th of this, i.e. 9.8, and Ma'aser Sheni is a 10th of what remains after removing Ma'aser Rishon, i.e. 8.82.)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He redeems [the Ma'aser Sheni] on coins and drinks immediately, without separation.

Rebuttal: He cannot redeem [without separating]! Only in the Seifa of this Mishnah, regarding Demai, it teaches "he redeems on coins" because he fixed a place [for the Ma'aser Sheni], which is like separating;

It taught there (Demai 7:5) "Ma'aser Sheni is in the north, or in the south." We discuss on Erev Shabbos, like it teaches in the Tosefta "and Shabbos came." Therefore, for Demai, he can fix a place, because when it is Safek dark [on Erev Shabbos] one may tithe Demai (since mid'Oraisa we rely on the majority of Amei ha'Aretz who tithe, and the Chiyuv to tithe is only mid'Rabanan);

However, [what he bought from] Kusim, who Vadai do not tithe, it is Vadai [Tevel], therefore it did not teach regarding Kusim "Ma'aser Sheni is in the north, or in the south" like it taught about Demai (for fixing a place is like separation, which is forbidden for Vadai Tevel Bein ha'Shemashos).

Explanation #2: Also, it did not teach here "he redeems on coins", like it taught about Demai, rather, Meichal, i.e. he begins [to drink].

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): Meichal is like Meihal with a Hei, i.e. he mixes [the wine with water; it was normal to do so], like "Sav'ech Mahul ba'Mayim."

Explanations #2,3 (cont.): After Shabbos, he separates Ma'aser Rishon and Sheni, like it teaches in the Tosefta "the ten that come after them (the two he separated for Terumah Gedolah, and) the nine that come after them;

Since he cannot fix a place [before Shabbos], if he would drink without separation [afterwards], retroactively he drank Tevel.

Inference: R. Meir holds that Yesh Bereirah. Also R. Yehudah, Rabah says in the conclusion that he holds that Yesh Bereirah, and here he forbids lest the flask break (and he will never separate, so retroactively he drank Tevel).

Contradiction: In Bechoros (48a), regarding [a man whose wife had a firstborn boy, and the father died; R. Meir says that if the heirs paid five Shekalim to a Kohen] before dividing, they paid, [but if they divided before paying it, they are exempt. R. Yehudah says that there is a lien on the estate; they must pay.] Rava establishes R. Meir and R. Yehudah like Rav Asi, who considers brothers (who divide an estate) to be half-heirs and half-buyers. This shows that they are unsure [whether Yesh Bereirah to say that each received his proper inheritance, so they are like heirs. Or, perhaps Ein Bereirah, and we cannot say that each received his proper inheritance. They are like buyers, i.e. each "sold" his true inheritance for the share he took]!

Answer: We can distinguish between here, that he clarifies his words and explicitly stipulates "that I will separate", from the case of brothers who divided, in which [each] does not clarify his words at all.

Implied question: In Bava Kama (69b), it asks a contradiction in R. Yochanan. Regarding "whatever [Kerem Revai that] will be picked", he holds that Yesh Bereirah (he can redeem now what others will pick later), but in the case of brothers who divided, we know that he holds that Ein Bereirah;

Due to this question, the Gemara retracted from his opinion [and said that really, he holds that the text says that he redeems what was picked, for holds that Ein Bereirah]. It could have distinguished like I explained (that there he holds that Yesh Bereirah, for he clarified his words and stipulated)!

Answer #1: The Gemara preferred to say that really, [his] text says what was picked, like [our text of] the Mishnah teaches, and it prefers to say that we need not switch (the opinions of R. Yehudah and R. Dosa there), like I explained above (36b DH Lo).

Answer #2: We could not distinguish like this, for R. Yochanan holds that Ein Bereirah even when he clarifies [and says that he writes the Get l'Shem the one of his wives that he will decide], in Gitin (25a).

Inference: R. Yosi holds that Ein Bereirah, and also below, regarding 'Ma'aser Sheni that I have in the house is redeemed on the Sela (coin) that I will take in my hand from the pouch."

Contradiction: We find that R. Yosi holds that Yesh Bereirah in Gitin (73b. If one received a Get 'from today if I die', in the interim she is divorced and not divorced (we treat her like Safek divorced, since we do not know whether he will recover), and when he dies, it is a Get. This shows that Yesh Bereirah, for so we infer in Gitin (25b) according to R. Yehudah!

Rashi explained there that even though it is a Tenai, Bereirah is needed, since it is not b'Yado (in his ability), and at the time of the Tenai it is a Safek, and the Tenai is fulfilled automatically. If not for Bereirah, it would not be a Get;

Support: Also in our Sugya, it is considered Bereirah "if a Chacham [will] come to the east...", even though he stipulates, and similarly in Gitin (25b) 'I have Bi'ah with you [to make Kidushin] on condition that my father agrees.'

Implied question: It says in our Sugya '"'this is Terumah on this if rain will fall' - will you say that it is not Terumah?!" I.e. obviously, it is Terumah! (Since it is not b'Yado, and at the time of the Tenai it is a Safek, and the Tenai is fulfilled automatically, this should depend on Bereirah!)

Answer: This is according to the opinion that Yesh Bereirah.

Answer #1: According to the opinion that distinguishes between Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo and Toleh b'Da'as Acherim, this is fine. (R. Yosi holds that Yesh Bereirah only when he is Toleh b'Da'as Acherim.)

Question: However, according to the opinion that does not distinguish, this is difficult!

Answer: There in Gitin, the matter will Vadai be clarified. Either he will live (recover from the illness) or die. However, here perhaps he will never come to separate, or take a Sela from the pouch.

Question: According to the Havah Amina that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Bereirah, if so, he holds that brothers who divide are buyers, and they return to each other in Yovel (like buyers, and divide again), like R. Yochanan;

If so, we find that one brings Bikurim [and recites the declaration] only [in a bizarre case, i.e.] a lone son, the son of a lone son... back to [his paternal ancestor who entered Eretz Yisrael in the days of] Yehoshua bin Nun, for [if there were ever two sons who divided the inheritance, they are like buyers, and] they have only Kinyan (rights to eat the) Peros [but they do not own the land itself];

R. Yehudah holds in Bava Kama (90a) that Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf, regarding the law of Yom Oh Yomayim (a master is killed for striking his Eved Kena'ani only if the slave died within 24 hours of the blow. If one sold his slave, and stipulated that he will still serve the seller for 30 days, in those 30 days he has Kinyan Peros. R. Yehudah says that Yom Oh Yomayim applies to the buyer, for the seller's Kinyan Peros is not like Kinyan ha'Guf.)

Strengthening of question: Also according to R. Yosi, we do not find [that one brings Bikurim, other than a lone son born to a lone son], for he holds that Ein Bereirah, and regarding Yom Oh Yomayim he is unsure whether or not Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf! The Gemara inferred like this in Gitin (48a).

Answer (Ri): We cannot learn from Yom Oh Yomayim to elsewhere, for there it says "Kaspo" (which connotes his exclusive property) and "Tachtav" (which connotes that he currently serves him.

Support: This is why [the Gemara] does not bring [Yom Oh Yomayim] in Gitin (to show which Tana'im hold that Kinyan Peros is like Kinyan ha'Guf), when it brings the law of Sedei Achuzah [to teach about Kinyan Peros].

Question (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): Here it connotes that if R. Yehudah's reason is lest the flask break, we reject Ayo's Beraisa due to the Mishnah;

In Chulin (14b), regarding "Talmidim thought to say that it is R. Yehudah", they bring Ayo's Beraisa after establishing R. Yehudah's reason to be lest the flask break!

Reference: There (14b DH Hasam) I explained what appears to me. (The Gemara said that R. Yehudah forbids stipulating about Ma'aser, even though he could hold that Yesh Bereirah, lest the flask break. This is a mere rejection. Primarily, we rely on Ayo's Beraisa. We cannot prove from the case of Ma'aser that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Bereirah, until we bring Ayo's Beraisa, for we reject (the proof from Ma'aser) due to the Mishnah in Eruvin. There, R. Yehudah permits stipulating about an Eruv, i.e. for Yesh Bereirah. Therefore, we bring Ayo's Beraisa, for now we reject the Mishnah in Eruvin due to two sources that R. Yehudah holds that Ein Bereirah.)

Observation: We could have answered that there, he is Toleh b'Da'as Acherim!

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This shows that he holds that Yesh Bereirah. If he held that Ein Bereirah, we could say that the Chatas he offered was not hers, rather, of another woman, and a Korban offered for the wrong owner is Pasul.

Rejection (ha'Sar mi'Kutzi): It is proven in Zevachim (2b) that Stam, it is Lishmah. If so, without Bereirah it is possible to offer Stam for [the owner]!

Explanation #2: It is proven, for if Ein Bereirah, we could say that Rachel's entire Kan was offered above, and Leah's entire Kan was offered below, so an Olah (Leah's) was offered below, and a Chatas (Rachel's) was offered above (both of them are Pasul).

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The women stipulated that whatever is offered for a woman will be her [bird].

Question: This is absolute Bereirah! She is Toleh on the Kohen's Da'as, that the one that he offers [for her], it will be clarified that it is hers! Since the Kinim became mixed, it is not possible at all without Bereirah.

Answer #2 (Ri): The women stipulated at the time of buying "this will be mine, and this will be yours." The same applies when they gave the money for their Kinim mixed together, and he gave it to the seller and specified at the time of purchase 'this Ken is for this [woman], and this Ken is for this.' It turns out that the Kinim were not mixed, only the coins [were mixed].

The Gemara asks, what is the Chidush? Since the Kinim were not mixed, obviously it is permitted!

It answers that one might have thought that we decree when they stipulated due to when they did not stipulate. Since they give the money mixed together, they will also buy their Kinim mixed together, and then it is impossible without Bereirah. The Chidush is that we do not decree.

The text says "and like Rav Chisda's law." I.e. it also teaches like Rav Chisda. It teaches two Chidushim;

Since it mentioned two women, and not one woman, this connotes that it comes to teach that we do not decree when they stipulated due to when they did not stipulate;

If it did not come to teach also like Rav Chisda, it should not have taught "the one that he wants, he offers for an Olah, and the one that he wants, he offers for a Chatas";

There was no need to mention Olah and Chatas, only "he offers Leah's for Leah, and Rachel's for Rachel."

Explanation: The Chidush is that we do not decree due to when there are two or three.

Implied question: We could have said that it is R. Yosi regarding a bundle of vegetables, which (their Ma'aser) is mid'Rabanan!

Answer: Perhaps since Ma'aser itself [of other things, i.e. grain, wine and oil] is mid'Oraisa, it is considered mid'Oraisa, like I explained above (32a) regarding "pick figs from my fig tree."

Implied question: Without switching the opinions, we find that a Tana holds that Ein Bereirah [even] for mid'Rabanan laws - Rabanan of R. Shimon (who do not rely on Bereirah for an Eruv)!

Answer: [Rava] wants to explicitly name the Tana. This is why [Rav Yosef] needs to switch the opinions (so R. Shimon will hold that Ein Bereirah for mid'Rabanan laws), and this is why it says "Ela" (for this answers Rava's question. If we switched the opinions merely to resolve a contradiction in R. Shimon, it would not say "Ela".)

Question: According to this, it is difficult what it says below "he holds that the one who holds that Ein Bereirah, there is no difference between mid'Rabanan and mid'Oraisa"! (If Rav Yosef held that there is no difference, he could have brought any Tana who holds that Ein Bereirah. Why did he bring this Beraisa, in which he must switch the opinions?)

Question: Here Rav Yosef concludes that according to R. Shimon Ein Bereirah. In Gitin (25a), he holds that Yesh Bereirah, regarding 'I have Bi'ah with you [to make Kidushin] on condition that my father agrees!'

Answer: Rav Yosef distinguishes between Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo and Toleh b'Da'as Acherim, like Rav Mesharshiya there;

Rava, who does not distinguish, concludes here that according to R. Shimon Yesh Bereirah, and the reason he forbids is because [Terumah] must be "Reishis" whose remnants are recognizable.

Question: We should ask that likewise [neither becomes Terumah] if the reason is because Ein Bereirah!

Answer: If it is due to Ein Bereirah, this is not astounding. Surely, because Ein Bereirah, indeed it is not Terumah;

However, if the reason is because we require "Reishis" whose remnants are recognizable, also regarding two pomegranates, is it not Terumah? This reason is unreasonable regarding two pomegranates! (One is Terumah, and the other is Chulin, just we do not know which is which.)

However, if he said there (stipulating to tithe wine after Shabbos) the reason of "Reishis", we should say it also regarding two pomegranates, for it is unreasonable to distinguish them.

Implied question: What was the question from "Terumah of the stack is inside it - R. Shimon says, this is [valid] designation"? Since he did not know that the outsides [are recognizable remnants], he could have asked this also according to the reason that Ein Bereirah!

Answer (Ri): If R. Shimon's reason is because Ein Bereirah, it is fine. Surely, one would be Terumah, and a Kohen may eat them (i.e. if the other tithes were separated from elsewhere), and even though Ein Bereirah, surely one of them is Terumah;

However, according to the reason of Reishis, he asks properly - will you say that it is not Terumah at all (rather, Tevel), and a Kohen may not eat them?!

Similarly, the case of "Terumah of the stack is inside it - this is [valid] designation", and a Kohen can eat everything in the stack, even though Ein Bereirah.

Observation: he could have said so also according to the reason of Bereirah.