Question (Mishnah in Maseches Bava Basra): When selling oil, if the seller tipped and drained the vessel (after the 3 drops were poured out), the remaining oil still belongs to the seller. So why did our Mishnah teach (Chulin 117-2(g)) that if he tips the jug on its side and there is still liquid that collects, it is still considered Terumah?

Answer (R. Yochanan): The correct text of the Mishnah there is that it belongs to the buyer.

Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak ben Elazar): The reason there is because the buyer isn't interested in the last remnants.

Question: Does the Mishnah's law about emptying Terumah apply to Kodesh (that after the 3 drops, one may put Chulin there)?

Answer (R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan): Yes.

(R. Hoshiya): This applies to Kodshim that were left for the Kohanim and become permitted after their Mitzvah was done (such as Menachos that had their Kometz burned on the Mizbeach). However, Kodshim that do not become permitted (as they are entirely sacrificed, such as wine libations), even a small quantity must be returned (and used for its Mitzvah).

Question (R. Bun bar Chiya): Does the Log of oil of a Metzora (that is sprinkled seven times and the rest is given to the Kohanim; before it is sprinkled does it) need to be returned? (Since the Torah requires a certain amount, should it be returned; or perhaps since the remainder will go to the Kohanim, the Torah is not particular to retain every drop?)

If you say that it must be returned and he didn't, he would transgress for having too little. If it does not need be returned and he returned it, he would transgress for having too much.

R. Chinana certainly doesn't require every drop to be taken. But R. Hoshiya said that three drops is enough specifically for Kodshim that are permitted after their Mitzvah was done, but as for those that are completely burned, even a small amount must be returned. The Log of oil of the Metzorah is in the first category and therefore certainly the three drops is sufficient.

From the question it is clear that if it needs to be returned and it was not, he transgresses because the required quantity is lacking.

Baraisa (R. Chalafta ben Shaul): If an earthenware pot was used to cook Terumah, it must be immersed in boiling water three times (and it can then be used for Chulin).

(R. Ba): One cannot learn this leniency from Terumah to other prohibitions (such as if Neveilah was cooked in the pot).

Question (R. Yosi to R. Abba): If they were lenient for Terumah which is punishable by death (for non-Kohanim), certainly they can be lenient for Neveilah which is a 'mere' negative prohibition?

Answer (R. Abba): They were lenient with Terumah specifically nowadays that (the obligation to separate is Rabbinic as at the time of Ezra) the nation voluntarily accepted to keep it.

Question (R. Yustai bar Shunam to R. Mana): If the Mishnah is stringent that even that which was tipped and drained from the walls of the vessel is Terumah, why are you being lenient allow an earthenware pot to be immersed in boiling water three times?

Answer (R. Mana): The heat of the fire spits out the Terumah.

(Tosefta): If water was added to sediment of Terumah wine - the water drained from it the first and second time is prohibited (as Terumah); the third is permitted. When is the third permitted? When specifically water was added; but if Chulin wine was added, it is prohibited (as the sediment flavor makes the wine more potent).

If water was added to sediment of Maaser Sheni wine - the first water drained is prohibited, but the second is permitted. R. Meir says that even the second water is prohibited if the flavor (of the sediment) can be tasted.

(R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon ben Yutzedek): Kodesh is prohibited no matter how many times (water is added).

(Tosefta): A bedpan of a Zav (whose urine is an Av HaTumah) - the first and second water added is Tamei; the third is Tahor. When is this the case? When he added water, but if not (meaning that other urine was put in it), even if used 10 times, it is Tamei.

(R. Yudan, the nephew of R. Yosi bar Chanina, citing R. Yosi bar Chanina): (The Mishnah taught - how much Terumas Maaser of Demai must there be to require him to take it to the Kohen? 1/64th of a Log.) However, less than that amount can be burned in his candle.

(R. Yannai citing R. Yudan): (Also) the Mishnah was referring to liquids, but for food, if there is an egg's amount, he must take it to the Kohen.

This law that for less than an egg's amount, he does not need to take it to the Kohen applies to Tamei Demai, but if it is Tahor, he must take any amount. And this differentiation only applies to Demai, but for certain Terumah, whether it is Tahor or Tamei he must take any amount.