Explanation: Rashi explains that this is because the dough already became impure in the hands of the Am ha'Aretz. The Kohen will rely on the one kneading the dough because he is a Chaver, and will mistakenly think the Chalah is pure.

According to his explanation, if he will separate Chalah from a different place on this dough, his Chalah will be pure (as the dough he is separating from is pure).

Opinion: It appears that this would be forbidden in any case. They only permitted the Chaver to work with the Am ha'Aretz because he needs to support himself, and only permitted this when he gets paid for kneading all of the dough. However, just to receive the small amount of Chalah they did not permit his involvement, as we suspect that the Am ha'Aretz touched the dough (afterwards). (Note: See the Maharsha who explains that Tosfos has another reason to say that this was forbidden.)

Implied Question: It did not give a case of the baskets made of worn out leather jugs (as stated before). (Note: Why not?)

Answer: This is because they have the law of simple wooden vessels, and are not fit for olives.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Sanhedrin (26a) stated that when someone suspected a person of being a Kohen who was digging on Shemitah, the person could say I am merely an Agiston. (Note: What is this valid excuse that our Gemara does not mention?)

Opinion#1: Rashi's explanation, that he is a hired worker for the Nochri, is incorrect.

Implied Question: This is because our Gemara clearly implies this is forbidden, and it is not rational to differentiate between doing so for free or for pay.

Opinion#2: Rather, Rabeinu Tam explains that an Agiston is referring to someone who has to work land that is given to him by the king, in order that he will pay a certain amount of produce to the king every year. This is as stated earlier in the Gemara there (in Sanhedrin ibid.), Rebbi Yanai announced that people should go out and plant for the tax on Shemitah. Perhaps there was danger to people's life if they did not pay the tax (which is why he announced it was permitted).

Alternatively, perhaps he holds that a Nochri has a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael that takes the law of Shevi'is away from the land.

Alternatively, perhaps this was because Shemitah today is only Rabbinic in nature. Even though this would still be forbidden according to Rabbinic law if one was working the land for another private Nochri, they permitted doing so for the king.

Observation: The Yerushalmi says that there is an opinion that this means, "Plow it well, and after Shemitah we will take some from you." To the Jew he says, "You should be straight."

Another opinion says that to the Nochri he says, "You should be straight," and to the Jew he says, "Shalom Aleichem." This implies that according to all opinions, it would be forbidden to say to a Nochri, "Shalom Alecha."

This is unlike our Gemara that only forbids doubling Shalom to a Nochri (done when replying, not greeting him with the word Shalom).

It appears that according to the Yerushalmi, holding the hands (i.e. supporting) of Nochrim who are working the land on Shemitah and asking if they are at peace is the same thing, meaning that one can say to him, "Plow it well." (Note: This is as opposed to the Bavli which explicitly states, "Now that we know we can strengthen them, we can obviously give them Shalom!" See Maharsha.)

Explanation#1: Rashi explains that he did not intend to bless him, but rather intended that this should be for his Rebbi.

Question: This is difficult, as this seems to be Geneivas Da'as (i.e. having someone believe you are wishing him well, when you are not, in order that he should give you good treatment).

Explanation#2: He had no reason to give this (difficult) explanation, as he only said that we do not double Shalom back to a Nochri. (Note: Being that Rav Kahana only greeted him with Shalom once, there is no reason to say he did not intend this greeting for the Nochri.)

Observation: In the Yerushalmi, the chapter "Hiskabel" is stated after "ha'Nizakin," and after "Hiskabel" is ""Mi she'Ochzo."

It seems to Rabeinu Tam that "ha'Nizakin" should indeed be after "ha'Sholei'ach," as it discusses things that are due to "Tikun ha'Olam" (a major subject in "ha'Sholei'ach"). Now ("Hiskabel") it is going back to what it discussed previously (before the topic of Tikun ha'Olam came up) regarding Shelichus (sending Gitin via a messenger).

Being that it is now discussing a case where the husband says to two people to give a Get or to three people to write and give a Get, it states after this chapter "Mi she'Ochzo," which discusses the husband saying to write a Get.

Being that it states a case in "Mi she'Ochzo" where someone is considered "divorced and not divorced" (it is unclear whether or not the divorce was valid), it states after this the chapter of "ha'Zorek," which discusses a case where a Get thrown that landed equally close to the husband and wife is ruled as "divorced and not divorced."

Explanation: The Gemara now thinks that the Mishnah only had to say "Hiskabel" to point out that just as "Hiskabel" is without (her) making him a messenger, so too the case of "Holech" is without (her) making him a messenger.

Explanation: The Gemara is not replacing "Holech" in our Mishnah with "Heilech," but rather is saying that perhaps there is a Tana who says that the Mishnah should read "Heilech." (Note: This is the explanation of the Maharsha in Tosfos. However, from the Tosfos Ha'Rosh it seems that Tosfos means that there is a Tana that says a similar law using the word Heilech, not Holech.)

Explanation: The Gemara's question is based on the fact that a woman cannot make a messenger to give a Get (as she does not give the Get), and a man likewise cannot make a messenger to accept a Get (as he does not accept a Get). This is why the Gemara asks whether a man can be a messenger to accept a Get for a woman, and whether or not a woman can be a messenger to give a Get to a woman.