(Mishnah): Beis Shammai say that one should only sell his olives to a Chaver. Beis Hillel say that he may also sell it to one who is merely trusted for Maaser (even if he's not a Chaver). The Tznuei (the Gemara will explain this term) Beis Hillel would act according to the words of Beis Shammai.

(Gemara) (R. Yochanan): Beis Hillel's reason is that it is the way of people to eat olives from the Maatan (collection vessel, before they have sweated and become able to contract Tumah; so we aren't concerned that the buyer will make them Tameh).

Question: Do people eat olives from there? (Didn't they put them there originally to be pressed?) Rather, they permitted the olives based on only a slight possibility.

Beis Hillel follows his reasoning found in a Mishnah (in Sheviis) - A person should not sell in Sheviis (to one who is suspected of transgressing Sheviis) a cow that is used for plowing. Beis Hillel permits it, since the buyer could slaughter it (instead of plow with it).

Do people slaughter a cow meant for plowing? Rather, it's enough that only a minority of people would do that.

And both (Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai) agree that he may sell him ears of grain for his dough, even if he knows that the buyer doesn't make it in Taharah.

Tosefta (Maaseros): Both (Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai) agree that one may only sell a stack of wheat or a Maatan of grapes or olives (since all have become able to contract Tumah) to a Chaver or to one who he knows makes it in Taharah.

If it is forbidden to sell it in this way, that means that the liquids that come out of the grapes are able, on a Torah level, to cause the grapes to contract Tumah...

Question: Doesn't that disagree with R. Yochanan, who said that just as when the Mishnah (Taharos Chapter 3) taught that if a child was found next to dough with some dough in his hand, the Chachamim declare the (other) dough to be Tamei, lest he touched it, it is (only) Rabbinically Tamei; so too the container of olives is (only) Rabbinically Tamei...?

Answer (R. Chizkiyah citing R. Yona citing R. Yirmiyah): Rather than discussing causing Tumah) R. Yochanan was discussing Chiburin (if Tamei liquids fell on some of the olives in the container, they all contract Tumah - since they are soft and liquid came out of them, the liquid connects all of the olives to make them all Tamei) - elsewhere, if it looks bitten (after separating it) it is considered connected but if it merely looks crushed, it is not connected. But here (olives in the container), even if it is crushed, it is connected. R. Yochanan said that this stringency is Rabbinic; but the case of causing Tumah is from the Torah.

When R. Yona met R. Yirmiyah, he asked him if he agreed with this teaching (that Chiburin here is Rabbinic). R. Yirmiyah said, "Yes, and if you ask me, even causing Tumah is Rabbinic."

Question (Baraisa): They both agree that one may only sell a wheat stack, a container of grapes and a container of olives to a Chaver or someone who he knows produces them in Taharah. Isn't the law of the container of grapes from the Torah? And similarly, the container of olives is from the Torah!

Answer: This Baraisa is like R. Meir, who said that the secretions (of an olive) are considered a liquid. (And R. Yochanan, who said that it is a Rabbinic stringency, follows the Chachamim who say that on a Torah level, secretions are not considered a liquid.)

(R. Zeira): The reason that Beis Shammai didn't say (above (a)) 'one should only sell his olives to a person who is a Chaver and trusted for Maaser' is that it is the way of a Chaver to only sell olives to one who is trusted for Maaser (meaning that a Chaver is normally assumed to be trusted for Maaser, so there was no need to mention it).

Question: What is the meaning of 'Tznuei Beis Hillel'? Those who are particular about Mitzvos.

(Rav Chisda): From here we learn that one who is particular about Mitzvos is called a Tznua.

(Mishnah): If two partners harvested their vineyards (and put the grapes) into one press - if one of them is trusted for Maaseros and one is not, the trusted one should tithe his own and again tithe the other half wherever it might be.

(Gemara) (R. Eliezer): The Mishnah follows R. Meir, who said that they only permitted selling Demai to a wholesaler (who sells in large quantities, and it is the obligation of the buyer to tithe - see earlier Zevachim 93-1(b) - Demai 2:4). He would explain that when the Mishnah taught that 'the trusted one should tithe his own' - it means as definite Tevel; and when it taught, 'and again tithe the other half wherever it might be' - it means as Demai.

Question (R. Yona): (According to R. Eliezer's explanation), the seller's (i.e. the partner's) portion is definite Tevel (as he certainly didn't tithe) and you are tithing it merely as Demai?!

Rather, our Mishnah is not connected to that dispute between R. Meir and the Chachamim. It is actually like the statement of R. Yochanan that our Mishnah is according to all - and when the Mishnah taught, 'the trusted one should tithe his own' - it means as definite Tevel; and when it taught, 'and again tithe as Demai the other half wherever it might be' - it means - half of the portion in his hand belongs to his partner, and that portion needs to be tithed because it's Demai; and perhaps the partner already tithed it. (So according to R. Yochanan, three-quarters of it must be tithed - his half as definite Tevel and half of his partner's as Demai.)