(Mishnah): If a person was passing in the market place and he said, "Take for yourselves figs'', the people may take and eat them without tithing. Therefore, if they brought them into their homes, they must tithe them as certain Tevel.

If he said, "Take and bring them home with you'' (as if to say that he has already tithed them), they may not snack on them. Therefore, if they brought them home, they tithe them as Demai.

If they were sitting in a doorway or a store and he said to them, "Take for yourselves figs'', they may eat them without tithing and the doorway and store owners are obligated.

R. Yehuda exempts him, unless he turns his face or changes his seat.

(Gemara): "If a person was passing in the marketplace etc.'' Shmuel said that the Mishnah's author is R. Meir, who said that a gift is not like a sale (so a gift does not establish an obligation to tithe).

(R. Yosi): The Mishnah follows all opinions (as will be explained).

I asked the students of the House of Yannai and they said, "We would exchange gifts in the field before it was brought into the house and we ate without tithing'' (since they weren't obligated through giving as a gift).

Why is this? They followed the opinion that nowadays, Terumos and Ma'asros are Rabbinic obligations (and the Rabbis did not view a gift as a sale).

(When the Mishnah taught that if he said "Take for yourselves figs'', the people may eat them without tithing), that was in a place that most people bring the produce into the house, but where most people bring it to the market to sell (so it already became obligated in the field and there is a concern that the Am HaAretz owner hasn't tithed), it's treated as Demai.

Question: If the Mishnah is in a case when most people bring it into the house, why did it teach that if he said, "Take and bring them home with you'', they may not snack on them? (Since this person was still on his way home, the produce didn't yet become obligated, so why may they not snack on them?)

Answer: Since he said, "Take and bring them home with you'', it's as if he said to them that they are permitted to bring them home and eat them, since he has already taken them home and tithed them. (In such a case, he is believed that they became obligated but not believe to say that he tithed them.)

When most people sell in the market, he is not believed to say that he tithed them (so those that receive them from him may not eat).

Similarly, he isn't believed to say that he is amongst the minority who bring it home and that it isn't yet obligated.

If he gave him a large amount, even if he told him, "Take and eat'', it's as if he said, "Take and bring it home''.

If he gave him something that is not eaten raw, even if he told him to take and eat it, it's as if he told him to take it and bring it home (and he cannot snack on it).

If he is an important person who does not usually eat in the market, and he told him to take and eat, it's as if he told him to take it and bring it home.

If there were two people and he told one of them to take and eat and he told the other one to take and bring it home - the one he told to eat is exempt and the one he told to bring it home is obligated.

Question (R. Yosi): Isn't it explicit in the Mishnah (above (b)) - '...they may eat them without tithing and the doorway and store owners are obligated'?

Answer (R. Yona): The cases are different. In the Gemara's case, when he told him to take it and bring it home, it should be separated as Demai. When the Mishnah said that they are obligated, it meant that it must be separated as certain Maaser.