(R. Yehoshua ben Kavsoi): All my life, I read the pasuk (Bamidbar 19:19), "And the Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei'' - one Tahor person may sprinkle on one Tamei person; until I learned that one person may sprinkle on several, from the Mishnah that discusses the storehouse of Yavneh.

(Mishnah in Machshirin Perek 2): "(If both gentiles and Jews store their produce in a certain storehouse - there's a dispute between R. Meir and the Chachamim. R. Meir says that if the majority of users were gentiles or if it was half gentiles, half Jews, it's definite Tevel. If it was majority Jews, it is Demai.) The Chachamim said that even if the users were entirely made up of gentiles except for one that was a Jew, it's considered Demai. This shows that even a small amount of Jewish produce prevents it from being definite Tevel.

Question: But our Mishnah taught - One who deposits produce with a gentile, it becomes like the gentile's produce (i.e. definite Tevel). (Why not say that the Jew's produce should turn the gentile's produce from definite into Demai?)

Answer (R. Elazar): The Chachamim follow the opinion of R. Shimon (in the Mishnah - Zevachim daf 101 (b)), who said that such produce is Demai).

Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): They can actually follow the Chachamim (who disagree with R. Shimon in the Mishnah - they reason that a gentile's acquisition of land in Eretz Yisrael doesn't remove its obligation of Maaseros).

Question (Students to R. Yochanan): What's the reason for your teaching?

Answer (R. Yochanan): I'll tell you when you are old.

What should he have said to them? That the law of Maaseros is Mi'D'Rabbanan...

Question (Shmuel bar Abba): It's understandable that he didn't reveal to them the reason in Taharos (Red Heifer) and in Kodshim, because it might lead to them being overly lenient; but what would have been the danger in revealing the reason in Maaseros?

Answer: What reason would he have given them? That they were lenient in Maaseros because it is Mi'D'Rabbanan; they would come to treat Maaseros with disgrace.

(R. Yirmiyah/ R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): R. Shimon (who disagreed with the Chachamim in our Mishnah when they said that if deposited with a gentile, it is like his fruit (whereas R. Shimon reasoned that it is Demai); he agrees that he must separate its Maaseros.

Question: If both R. Shimon and Rabbanan require tithing, what's the difference between them?

Answer: R. Shimon says that he separates but he keeps the money that is intended for the Leviim (as they cannot prove that it belongs to them, since it's Demai); Rabbanan say that he must give the Maaser to them.

Question: According to the Rabbanan, how could it be that he doesn't keep the money - since a gentile's fruits are only obligated Mi'D'Rabbanan, they should be like the fruits of Chutz LaAretz, would you say that the owner doesn't takes the money from his tribe? (Here also the owner should take the money from his tribe!)

Answer: Really, according to the Rabbanan, he separates and keeps the money instead of the tribe; R. Shimon disagrees and says that he does not need to separate (so he can keep the Maaser Rishon). And when R. Yirmiyah said that R. Shimon agrees that he should separate, he was referring to another Mishnah that discusses the produce of a gentile; as it taught - R. Yehuda and R. Shimon say that a gentile can acquire land in Eretz Yisrael to exempt it from Maaser.