Explanation (Rashi): [R. Meir did not explicitly discuss eating. One could have explained that he discusses to whom we give Ma'aser! The Gemara] infers [that he forbids Ma'aser Rishon to Zarim] because he taught "Ma'aser Rishon is to a Levi", similar to "Terumah is to a Kohen." Eating it (Terumah) is [permitted to Kohanim, just] like giving it [is to Kohanim];

Proof: If not, why did the Mishnah teach about Terumah?

Question: If so, we should say also that the Mishnah is R. Akiva (also he forbids Ma'aser Rishon to Zarim), who taught a similar wording (at the bottom of this Amud)!

Suggestion: [We say only that it is like R. Meir, for] a Stam Mishnah is [assumed to be] R. Meir.

Rejection: We say that all of them (a Stam Mishnah, Tosefta, Sifra or Sifri, each of which is attributed to a Talmid of R. Akiva) are [assumed to be] according to R. Akiva!

Suggestion: We may infer from R. Elazar [ben Azaryah], who discusses Heter in response [to R. Meir]!

Note: Tosfos means that we may infer that R. Meir discusses Heter to eat Ma'aser. The Gemara inferred only that R. Elazar permits giving Ma'aser only to a Kohen, and rejected this. It never suggested that he discusses who may eat it!

Rejection: Perhaps R. Meir discusses Isur v'Heter, i.e. regarding Terumah which is forbidden to a Levi and permitted to a Kohen.

Explanation #2 (Rivan): The text [of the Beraisa] explicitly says that R. Meir forbids Ma'aser Rishon to Zarim. (If not, we could not infer this from his words.)

The text: The text does not say "ben Azaryah", for R. Elazar ben Azaryah was long before R. Meir!

Note: In Shevi'is 3:8 and Mo'ed Katan 12a, R. Meir is in a Mishnah or Beraisa with R. Elazar ben Azaryah. The episode in which R. Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed to be Nasi at the age of 18 began with a question of R. Shimon (Berachos 28a), who was R. Meir's colleague.

Below, in the Beraisa of R. Akiva, the text says R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who was [his colleague and] argues with him.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): When they were not separated, one is Chayav Misah for eating the Tevel, for Misah is written regarding Terumah.

Question #1 (Ri): Also Ma'aser Rishon, Terumas Ma'aser is written regarding it!

Question #2: If this is why Tevel is forbidden (it is as if there is Terumah inside), it should be permitted to a Kohen, since he may eat Terumah!

Explanation #2 (Rivan): We expound in Sanhedrin (83a) "v'Lo Yechalelu Es Kodshei Bnei Yisrael Asher Yarimu" discusses something that will be separated, and we learn from [a Gezeirah Shavah "Chilul-]Chilul from Terumah [that one is Chayav Misah for this].

Implied question: Why don't Rabanan learn an Isur to Zarim? Ein Hekesh l'Mechtzah (when we learn from a Hekesh, we learn everything)!

Answer #1: It is because we cannot totally equate them to forbid even to Leviyim, like Terumah.

Answer #2: It is reasonable to establish the Hekesh for something the Torah forbade elsewhere, e.g. Tevel;

We learn [Tevel] below from "Lo Suchal Le'echol", and there is a Lav. The Hekesh teaches that there is also Misah;

We do not make a Hekesh to establish an Isur that we do not [already] find.

Implied question: [Since we cannot learn Misah from "Lo Suchal Le'echol", rather, only] from the Hekesh, [why do we need the verse]?

Answer #1: We would not learn from a Lav and Misah from the Hekesh, had we not learned a Lav from here (the verse), like I explained (in the previous Tosfos).

Answer #2: We need "Lo Suchal Le'echol" to teach that Ma'aser Oni is Tovel.

Question: What is the source that there is Misah for Tevel to Ma'aser Oni? It is not equated to Terumah!

Answer #1: Perhaps there is no Misah for it.

Answer #2: Since there is no difference between it and other Tevel regarding a Lav, the same applies to Misah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Ocheles" in our Mishnah regarding Ma'aser means that she does not authorize.

Question #1 (R. Yitzchak): The Gemara should have said "Ela Rav Sheshes said...", since he retracted from the first answer.

Question #2: Since "Lo Suchal" means that she cannot authorize, it should have explicitly taught so!

Question #3: It should have taught that even a Bas Levi [Mekudeshes] to a Levi [cannot authorize]!

Question #4: Why does the Mishnah discuss a pregnant woman? This is not relevant to authorizing!

Answer (Ri): Also Rav Sheshes explains the Reisha of the Mishnah like we said. The Mishnah primarily teaches the Isur to eat;

Also in the Seifa, a Bas Levi to a Kohen or a Bas Kohen to a Levi, must teach that she does not eat Terumah;

One might have thought that a Bas Kohen is not disqualified from Terumah, since she still eats Ma'aser, which is forbidden to Zarim.

The Seifa mentioned Ma'aser regarding authorizing. It said "she does not eat" for parallel structure with [what it says about] Terumah.

Implied question: Even a Bas Levi to a Levi, or a Bas Kohen to a Kohen, may not authorize [during Eirusin]!

Answer: Since it mentions a Bas Levi to a Kohen and a Bas Kohen to a Levi regarding eating, it discusses them also regarding authorizing.

Suggestion: It seems that R. Meir and R. Elazar argue like R. Akiva and R. Elazar ben Azaryah; R. Meir

Question: In Bava Basra (81b), it says that one can [separate, from Safek Bikurim, Terumah Gedolah, Ma'aser Sheni and Ma'aser Oni, and] give them to a [poor] Kohen, according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah (who says that one may give Ma'aser Rishon to a Kohen).

That answer was both for R. Meir and Rabanan!

Answer: We must say that according to Rabanan, we establish it like R. Elazar ben Azaryah;

However, according to R. Meir, we establish it after Ezra fined the Leviyim. Then all agree that one may give it to a Kohen.

Even according to the opinion that the fine was to give it to the poor, one may give it to a poor Kohen.

Question: According to R. Meir, who forbids [Ma'aser Rishon] to Zarim, why is Ma'aser Rishon [given] to a Levi, and not to a Kohen?

Suggestion: He expounds like R. Akiva, "one who can eat it anywhere."

Rejection: Based on the reason to forbid to Zarim (it is equated to Terumah), one who is Tamei may not eat it, so one may not eat it in a cemetery!

Answer (and defense of suggestion): Even though it is forbidden to Zarim, the Torah decreed "you will eat it in every place" (even when you are Tamei).

Explanation #1 (Ri): We do not find this explicitly, but we find in Ezra "v'Hayah ha'Kohen Ben Aharon Im ha'Leviyim b'Ma'aser ha'Leviyim";

We can say that it means that when the Leviyim come to divide the Ma'aser in the granaries, the Kohanim will come with them.

Question: According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who says that after the fine Leviyim do not receive at all, only Kohanim receive, we do not learn this from the verse!

Suggestion: The Kohanim will be with the Leviyim to receive the Leviyim's own Ma'aser (from what they grew themselves).

Rejection: There was no fine regarding the Leviyim's own Ma'aser. This is clear from Chulin (131b)!

Answer: According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, the Leviyim did not totally refrain from going to the granaries to receive Ma'aser.

This is clear from Kesuvos (26a), and all the more so in the days of Ezra, when the fine had not yet spread. Therefore it says that the Kohen will go with the Leviyim.

Implied question: According to the opinion that the fine was to give it to the poor, why does [the verse] mention a Kohen with the Leviyim?

Answer: Poor Kohanim were very common, since they do not engage in work, only in Avodas Beis ha'Mikdash. Also, they did not have land.

The same applies to poor Yisre'elim (also they went with the Leviyim), according to the opinion that Ma'aser is permitted to Zarim.

Explanation #2 (R. Yosef): We learn from the verse in Malachi "Havi'u Es Kol ha'Ma'aser El Beis ha'Otzar";

Beis ha'Otzar is the chamber that Ezra enacted to put Terumah of Kohanim, like it says in [Sefer] Ezra. Since he commands to put Ma'aser there, this shows that it belongs to Kohanim.

We hold (Megilah 15a) that Malachi is Ezra.

According to the opinion that the fine was to give it to the poor, he commands to give it to Kohanim, for they were often poor, like I explained.

Explanation: It is only for the poor, but not for rich Kohanim. They argue according to R. Akiva;

According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, even rich Kohanim may receive it mid'Oraisa. Also after the fine, that it is only for Kohanim, but not for Leviyim, like is clear from Chulin (131b) and Kesuvos (26a), also rich Kohanim receive it.

Ezra did not fine them, for they alighted [to build Bayis Sheni].

Suggestion: The fine was to give it to the poor, i.e. to poor Leviyim, but not to poor Yisre'elim and Kohanim.

Rejection #1: If so, the poor Leviyim profited from not alighting!

Rejection #2: It connotes here that if Kohanim when Tamei were considered poor, all agree that they would receive, even though R. Akiva holds that mid'Oraisa, it is for a Levi, and not for a Kohen.

Conclusion: Rather, surely [the one who says that it was for] "the poor" means even poor Yisre'elim and Kohanim.

Distinction: However, according to the opinion that Ma'aser Rishon is forbidden to Zarim, it is unreasonable that they would give it to poor Yisre'elim in order to sell it;

Chachamim would not enact something that will lead to ruin. We must be concerned lest [the Yisrael] come to eat it!

Support: We say like this in Kesuvos (26a).

Assertion: According to R. Akiva, Ezra did not totally uproot the Leviyim's rights, to equate them to Kohanim and Yisre'elim, that only Aniyim may take Ma'aser, but not the rich;

Rather, poor and rich Leviyim always received. Various places connote that Leviyim received due to being Leviyim.

Source #1: in Gitin (30a), it says if one lends money to a Kohen or Levi in order to separate for them [Terumah and Ma'aser, and keep it and deduct its value from the loan].

Source #2: In Gitin (30b), it says "if a Yisrael told a Ben Levi 'I have Ma'aser of your father'..."

Source #3: In Chulin (131a) and Kesuvos (26a), the Gemara asks "Ma'aser Rishon belongs to a Levi"!

Explanation: This is because initially, Ma'aser was only for Leviyim according to R. Akiva. It suffices to fine them to give it also to others with them, according to one opinion the poor, and according to one opinion, Kohanim.

Everywhere, the Stam [Mishnayos and Gemara] is like R. Akiva.

Explanation (cont.): According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, who says that mid'Oraisa it is even for a Kohen, after the fine it is only for Kohanim, like it says there in Kesuvos;

Only according to him, [receiving] Ma'aser Rishon establishes someone to be a Kohen, but not according to R. Akiva.

Proof: According to the opinion that the fine was to give it to the poor, how can it establish someone to be a Kohen?!

Implied question: According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, why did Yochanan [Kohen Gadol] abolish Viduy [Ma'aser, because after the fine people not give it properly - Sotah 47b]? It is proper to give it to Kohanim, just like to Leviyim!

Answer: In any case, since [the Torah] commanded to give it even to Leviyim, for "it is your wages for your Avodah", when we uproot it from the Leviyim to give all of it to Kohanim, this is not like its Mitzvah.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Kidushin (69a) since 10 lineages alighted from Bavel. It counts Leviyim among them!

Strengthening of question: A verse says "va'Yakumu Roshei ha'Avos li'Yhudah u'Vinyamin veha'Kohanim veha'Leviyim..." This shows that they alighted!

Answer (Rashi in Kidushin): The Leviyim who came with Ezra, their thumbs were cut off;

When Nevuchadnetzar said "sing for us a song of the Mikdash", they cut off their thumbs and said "how can we sing a song of the Mikdash?!" (We cannot play the lyre without our thumbs.)

Because Ezra did not find [any Leviyim] proper for Shir, he fined them.

Implied question: How can we explain according to the opinion that the primary Shir is vocal? (They were qualified for this!)

Answer: Even so, [Ezra] was upset because there is a Mitzvah also with instruments.