ובמחשבה מה תרומה גדולה בעין יפה אף תרומת מעשר בעין יפה and by thought. And this comparison also teaches that just as in the case of standard teruma one should give generously, so too, with regard to teruma of the tithe one should give generously. Therefore, one who separates teruma of the tithe from fresh figs for dried figs should do so generously, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried ones, as though the volume of the dried figs was as large as that of fresh ones.
ומינה א"ר אלעזר בר רבי יוסי אבא היה נוטל עשר גרוגרות שבמקצוע על תשעים שבכלכלה אי אמרת בשלמא לכמות שהן אמרינן שפיר אלא אי אמרת כמות שהן בציר להו The Gemara suggests: And from this statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, one can cite a proof for the opinion that food is to be measured in accordance with its initial size. As Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Father would set aside ten dried figs that were in a vessel for ninety fresh figs that were in a basket. Granted, if you say that we say one measures food items as they were initially, it is well, as Rabbi Yosei apparently considers the dried figs set aside as tithes as though they were still fresh figs. But if you say that one measures foods as they are in their current state, then in a case where one separates ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs they are less than the requisite amount, as the volume of ten dried figs is less than the volume of ten fresh figs. This indicates that the measure of the food is determined according to its initial state.
כי אתא רב דימי א"ר אלעזר שאני גרוגרות הואיל ויכול לשולקן ולהחזירן לכמות שהן The Gemara answers that one cannot extrapolate from the example of dried figs to other cases. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says the following reason for that particular halakha: Dried figs are different, since one can boil dried figs in water and return them to their previous state; in other words, as they were when they were fresh. Consequently, one may separate them for fresh figs as though they too were fresh. One cannot extrapolate from here a principle with regard to other items.
תנו רבנן תורמין תאנים על הגרוגרות במקום שרגילין לעשות תאנים גרוגרות ולא גרוגרות על תאנים ואפילו במקום שרגילין לעשות תאנים גרוגרות § The Gemara discusses the possibility of separating fresh figs as teruma for dried ones. The Sages taught in a baraita: One may separate teruma from fresh figs for dried figs by number, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried ones, in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs, and therefore the fresh figs can be preserved by processing them into dried figs. But one may not set aside teruma from dried figs for fresh figs even in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs.
אמר מר תורמין תאנים על הגרוגרות במקום שרגילין לעשות תאנים גרוגרות במקום שרגילין אין במקום שאין רגילין לא The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said: One may separate teruma from fresh figs for dried figs in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs. This indicates that in a place where they are accustomed to make dried figs, yes, one may set aside teruma in this manner. But in a place where they are not accustomed to make dried figs, one may not separate from fresh figs for dried ones, as the fresh figs are liable to spoil before they can be used.
היכי דמי אי דאיכא כהן מקום שאינו רגיל אמאי לא והתנן מקום שיש כהן תורם מן היפה The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a situation where there is a priest present, and the owner of the produce can give him the teruma without delay, then even in a place where he is not accustomed to make dried figs, why may he not set aside fresh figs for dried ones? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 2:4): In a place where there is a priest present, the owner of the produce separates teruma from the best-quality produce? In this case, the fresh figs are superior in quality to the dried ones, despite the fact that dried figs last longer.
אלא פשיטא דליכא כהן אימא סיפא ולא גרוגרות על התאנים ואפילו במקום שרגיל לעשות תאנים גרוגרות ואי דליכא כהן אמאי לא והתנן מקום שאין כהן תורם מן המתקיים אלא פשיטא דאיכא כהן Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a situation where there is no priest present, and by the time a priest is found the fresh figs might spoil. If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: But one may not set aside teruma from dried figs for fresh figs even in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs. And if this is referring to a situation where there is no priest present, why may one not set aside dried figs, which can be preserved for a lengthy period, for fresh ones? But didn’t we learn in the same mishna (Terumot 2:4): In a place where there is no priest present, the owner of the produce separates teruma from that which will endure, not from the best-quality produce? Rather, it is obvious that this clause is referring to a situation where there is a priest present.
רישא דליכא כהן סיפא דאיכא כהן אין רישא דליכא כהן סיפא דאיכא כהן The Gemara challenges: If so, the first clause of the baraita addresses a case where there is no priest present, whereas the latter clause addresses a case where there is a priest present. The Gemara explains: Yes, the first clause of the baraita addresses a case where there is no priest present, and the latter clause addresses a case where there is a priest present.
אמר רב פפא שמע מינה דחקינן ומוקמינן מתניתין בתרי טעמי ולא מוקמינן בתרי תנאי Rav Pappa said: Learn from this discussion that we exert ourselves and interpret the mishna according to two reasons, i.e., two different situations in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, but we do not interpret it as being in accordance with the opinions of two tanna’im. An interpretation that maintains a single authorship of a mishna is preferable even if it requires explaining the mishna as discussing two different situations.
מתני׳ כל המנחות נילושות בפושרין ומשמרן שלא יחמיצו ואם החמיצו שיריה עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר (ויקרא ב, יא) כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ וחייב על לישתה ועל עריכתה ועל אפייתה MISHNA: All the meal-offerings that come as matza are to be kneaded with lukewarm water so that the dough will bake well, as only a small amount of oil is added. And one must watch over them to ensure that they do not become leaven while kneading and shaping them, and if a meal offering or even only its remainder becomes leaven, one violates a prohibition, as it is stated: “No meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as an offering made by fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). And one is liable to be flogged for kneading the meal offering, and for shaping it, and for baking it, if the meal offering becomes leaven.
גמ׳ מנא הני מילי אמר ריש לקיש דאמר קרא (ויקרא ו, י) לא תאפה חמץ חלקם אפילו חלקם לא תאפה חמץ GEMARA: The mishna states that one who allows the remainder of a meal offering to become leavened violates a prohibition. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said: The verse states: “It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire” (Leviticus 6:10). This section of the verse can be read as a single sentence, to indicate: Even their portion of meal offerings, i.e., the remainder eaten by priests after the removal of the handful to be burned on the altar, shall not be baked with leaven.
והאי להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא לא The Gemara asks: And does this verse come for this purpose? It cannot, as it is necessary as the source for a different halakha, for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “It shall not