Menachot 55a — the Talmud in English

and by intention,

that he does not need to separate with his hands, but directs his eyes to this side and eats from the other side,

so terumat maaser is taken by estimation and by intention [

and this is not a derivation of terumat maaser from terumah gedolah, but both are learned together, since it is written concerning both of them: “And it shall be reckoned for you”].

And likewise we learn:

just as terumah gedolah

its mitzva is to give

with a generous eye, so too terumat maaser is with a generous eye.

And therefore, when he comes to tithe from figs for dried figs, he tithes ten figs for ninety dried figs with a generous eye, as though the volume of the dried figs were now like the volume of the figs.

But now we challenge from the opposite side:

and from it,

from the words of Rabbi Elazar himself in this beraita you can prove the opposite. For

Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Yosei said: My father would take ten dried figs that were in the corner of the field for ninety

fresh

figs that were in the basket.

If you say that according to their former quantity

they

would estimate, it is well,

they reckon the dried figs as though they had the volume of figs, as they had been in the past before they dried.

But if you say that they estimate according to their present quantity,

then when he separates ten shrunken dried figs for ninety full fresh figs,

their measure is diminished

for if he had measured them by volume, he would have needed to separate more dried figs!?

And we answer:

when

when

Rav Dimi

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Elazar: Dried figs are different,

for with them one estimates according to their present quantity,

since he can boil them

in water

and return them to their former quantity

as they had been in the past. This is not so with calf meat that swelled and the meat of an old animal that became crushed, which cannot be returned to the quantity they had been; and it is concerning these that they disputed there whether one estimates according to their present quantity or according to the quantity they had been.

The Sages taught: One may separate figs for dried figs

by a count of ten figs for ninety dried figs

in a place where they are accustomed to make

the

figs into dried figs. But one may not

separate

dried figs for figs

by a count,

even in a place where they are accustomed to make figs into dried figs!

And it proceeds to explain this.

The Master said: One may separate figs for dried figs in a place where they are accustomed to make figs into dried figs.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

In a place where they are accustomed—

yes,

he may separate figs, and make them into dried figs, and they will be preserved; but

in a place where they are not accustomed—

no,

because he must separate something that endures, and if they are not accustomed to make dried figs from the figs, they will spoil before he finds a koen to give them to.

What are the circumstances? If there is a koen

and he can give them to him immediately, then it is difficult:

in a place where they are not accustomed

to make figs into dried figs,

why not

separate from the figs?

For we learned: In a place where there is a koen, one separates from the choicest,

from the figs, which are better than the shrunken dried figs, and one should prefer the fine figs, despite the fact that they do not endure for a long time, over the dried figs, which are not fine, even though the dried figs endure for a long time, since the koen can eat them immediately, before they rot. If so, why, in a place where they are not accustomed to make dried figs from the figs, should he not separate from the figs!?

Rather, it is obvious

that it is speaking

where there is no koen,

and therefore, in a place where they are not accustomed to make dried figs from the figs, he should not separate from the figs, so that they should not spoil before they reach the koen’s hand.

And if so, it is difficult:

say the latter clause—

and he may not

separate

dried figs for the figs

by a count,

even in a place where they are accustomed to make figs into dried figs.

And we do not say that there is no loss to the koen, since he too is destined to make dried figs, but rather we follow the present situation: when he separates dried figs for figs by a count, he diminishes his separation.

And if

it is speaking

where there is no koen, why not

separate from the dried figs?

For we learned: In a place where there is no koen—

one separates from that which endures

and not from the choicest!?

Rather, it is obvious

that it is speaking

where there is a koen,

and if so, the difficulty is this: shall we say that the

first clause

of the beraita, which says that one separates figs for dried figs only in a place where they are accustomed to make dried figs and not in a place where they are not accustomed to make figs into dried figs, is speaking where

there is no koen,

whereas the latter clause, which says that one does not separate dried figs for figs even in a place where they are accustomed to make figs into dried figs, is speaking where

there is a koen,

and we should not establish the first clause and the latter clause as dealing with the same matter!?

And we answer:

yes, the first clause—

where there is no koen; the latter clause—

where there is a koen.

Rav Pappa said: Learn from it

from the fact that we establish the first clause and the latter clause of the beraita with different interpretations, and do not answer that it is speaking where there is no koen, and that the first clause follows the Rabbis while the latter clause follows Rabbi Yehuda, who disputes the Rabbis and holds that one always separates from the choicest and not from that which endures, even in a place where they are accustomed to make dried figs, that

we force ourselves and establish a baraita according to two reasons [

with two different interpretations, as here, where we establish the first clause as referring to a place where there is no koen and the latter clause as referring to a place where there is a koen]

and do not establish

the beraita

according to two Tannaim.

Mishna:

All the meal-offerings are kneaded with

water

that is lukewarm,

since their oil is scant, and it is impossible to bake them without kneading them with water.

And he guards them

for the sake of the mitzva of unleavened bread

so that they should not become leavened

at the time of kneading and shaping.

And if it became leavened

even

its remainder

of the meal-offering, after it was scooped, which is destined to be eaten by the kohanim—

he violates a prohibition,

as will be explained in the Gemara.

And the Mishna brings the source for the obligation of guarding during the procedures of the meal-offering:

As it is stated

concerning the meal-offering, before it was scooped: “

Any meal-offering that you offer to Hashem, you shall not make leavened.”

And he is liable for the leavening of the meal-offering both at the time of

its kneading, and

both

for its shaping

through leavening,

and

both

for its baking

through leavening.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that even for the leavening of the remainder of the meal-offering one violates a prohibition.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

From where are these matters

that also for the leavening of the remainder one violates a prohibition? For in the verse brought in the Mishna, the prohibition of leavening is stated only when the handful, which is burned for the Most High, is found within it.

Reish Lakish said: For the verse says

in the portion of Tzav: “

It shall not

be baked leavened—it is their portion,”

even the remainder of the meal-offering, which is

their portion

of the kohanim, also

shall not be baked leavened!

And we are astonished:

and

if

this

verse

is it for this that it came?