I believe it is supposed to be emo, "I buy".
This would make sense in the context.
I don't know whether it was a typing error or whether the author mistook emere for an irregular verb of some kind.
There is also a verb emeare (from e and meare), but it seems inappropriate here.
An excellent tool for analyzing passages like this, when they are correctly spelled, is this word study tool that gives you (simplified) Lewis & Short entries for each word.
Just copy your little story into the box and click "Search".
The rest is more of a personal opinion on the exercise, and is to be taken with a grain of salt.
The Latin text feels unnatural to me, making me suspicious of the quality of the WikiBook.
There is a banner saying "This page may need to be reviewed for quality." at the top of the page, and such a review is in order.
A couple of things stick out:
- The word order is unusual.
- Misspelled emo as emeo.
- The last word should presumably be di(ve)s (rich), not divinitas (divinity).
- The second sentence feels weird: In tabernā sunt trēs rēs quārum amō duas sōleās et unam mensam. I would recommend against phrasing "there are three things" as sunt tres res. The word res is not exactly like the English "thing". In this context, I would replace it with merx (merchandise). Also quārum amō sounds suspicious; I would much rather say something like ex quibus mea intersunt or ex quibus cupio or something. I'm not sure if the partitive genitive can be used this way. (This would not be the first time my intuition fails me.)
- Although solum can be used as an adverb, I would rather have it agree with mensam here (solam).