Observation: However, one should not compare Terumas Ma'aser to regular Terumah and say that one kernel of wheat can intentionally exempt an entire silo of wheat from Terumas Ma'aser (as it can by regular Terumah). This is because the Torah says that Terumas Ma'aser is "Ma'aser" (implying one out of ten).

However, if he intentionally adds on to Terumas Ma'aser, it would seem to work. In this aspect we do compare it to regular Terumah. This is apparent from the Gemara in Menachos (55a), where it says one can take Terumah (Rashi there says this actually means Ma'aser) from fresh figs to exempt dried figs, if he does so in numbers (ten fresh figs as Ma'aser, ninety dried figs are left). The Gemara asks, this is making too much Ma'aser! The Gemara is dealing with Terumas Ma'aser, as is apparent in the second part of that Beraisa quoted there. The first part of the Beraisa is established as being in accordance with the opinion of Elazar ben Gamla, and is discussing when a person intentionally gives more.

Observation: Aba Elazar ben Gamla does not hold at all that there is a principle that someone who adds a lot of Ma'asros essentially has ruined his Ma'asros.

This is because Ma'aser Rishon may also be done in an estimated fashion. This is evident from the Gemara at the end of Bechoros (possibly referring to 60a) that says that one might have thought that if someone had one hundred sheep and he took ten, or he had ten and he took one, that his sheep are considered to have had Ma'aser taken off. This is why the verse states, "the tenth." This (or these) are not the tenth. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that these sheep are considered to have had Ma'aser taken.

It is explained there (see Tosfos in Bechoros 59a, DH "Af Terumas") that Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning is that he holds like Aba Elazar ben Gamla. The Torah calls Ma'aser by the name Terumah. This is clear from the verse, "For the Ma'aser of Bnei Yisrael that they will take off for Hash-m as Terumah" (Bamidbar 18:24). Additionally, Ma'aser of animals is compared to Ma'aser of grain, as the Gemara says in the beginning of the chapter there. The Gemara states that just as Ma'aser of grain is taken in an estimated fashion and can be taken by thought alone etc... The Ma'aser discussed there is Ma'aser Rishon, as it says at the end of the verse, "I gave to the Levites as an inheritance" (ibid.).

Question: Why do we have to say there that Rebbi Yosi holds like Aba Elazar? We only had to say that Ma'aser of animals is compared to Ma'aser of grain, in that just as Ma'aser of grain is taking one from ten, so too Ma'aser of animals is taking one from ten, even without passing the staff over them (and having the tenth animal that comes out proclaimed as Ma'aser of animals).

Answer: Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah understands that taking one out of ten is Ma'aser, even if they are not equal. This is similar to bringing them into a pen to take off Ma'aser, as the normal way of animals is not to be equal to each other. Therefore, we have to say that he holds like Aba Elazar ben Gamla. If it wasn't Aba Elazar, I would think that when taking one from ten they have to be equal, just like Ma'aser from grain, even though when he puts them into the pen they do not have to be equal.

Question: This is difficult. Being that it is permitted to give Ma'aser in an estimated fashion, why does the Gemara in Menachos have to establish that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi is discussing Terumas Ma'aser when he says that his father used to take ten dried figs from their container as Ma'aser on ninety fresh figs that were in their container? Why don't we say that it is talking about Ma'aser itself?

Answer: Although Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah holds that even Ma'aser can be taken in an estimated fashion, perhaps Aba Elazar does not hold that this is correct.

Answer#2: Additionally, it is better to say it is referring to Terumas Ma'aser, as in the first part of the Beraisa it states, "We take off Terumah" (which is a term we would use for Terumas Ma'aser, and almost certainly not for Ma'aser).

Explanation: It is actually a Mitzvah to take off Terumah in an estimated fashion. Being that a person is scared to take off too little, he takes generously. This is evident from the Mishnah in Terumos (1:7) that states that one should not take Terumah by measure, weight, or numbers. The same applies to Terumas Ma'aser. We have the text in the Tosefta that just like Terumah is only taken estimated and can be taken with thought, so too Terumas Ma'aser should only be taken estimated etc...

Question: In the first chapter of Terumos, the Mishnah states that someone who counts out or measures his Terumah is praised, and someone who weighs it is more praised than any of them. (Note: This is unlike our previous statement that it is good to give an estimate.)

Answer: The Yerushalmi in the first chapter of Terumos asks the question and answers that one is referring to Terumah and one to Terumas Ma'aser. This is as the Beraisa states that Elazar ben Gamla asks, how do we know that one should not take off Terumah by measure, weight, or numbers? The Pasuk states, "And it will be counted for you your Terumah," implying that you can take off Terumah using thought alone, but you should not take off Terumah by measuring, weighing, or counting.

This means that the Mishnah in Terumos was referring to regular Terumah, that according to everyone it is preferable to separate it in an estimated fashion. The Mishnah saying that it is praised to measure is talking about Terumas Ma'aser, and is according to the Rabbanan. The reason that the Gemara quotes the Beraisa regarding Aba Elazar ben Gamla is to tell us that they argue regarding Terumas Ma'aser.

Question: In the Yerushalmi, the Gemara asks regarding the Mishnah's statement that giving in measure is praised, how do we know that this is praised? Rav Huna says that this is known from the previous law that states that one can give Terumah in an estimated fashion. This implies that while it is valid, it is better to be precise.

The Gemara continues there that Rebbi Hillel says that our Mishnah indeed says that one who weighs his Terumah is better than doing the other three methods. The Gemara asks that this implies that there is a third method besides weighing. After this question, Rebbi Chanina says it means "the best of the three methods," and there is nothing else to learn from this.

According to the Rabbanan, they do not hold that one can do Terumas Ma'aser in an estimated fashion. According to Aba Elazar ben Gamla, it is a Mitzvah to do this in an estimated fashion (see (c) i. above). This is as the Tosefta states, that even Terumas Ma'aser is only taken in an estimated fashion and can be taken with thought.

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Rabbanan admit that if someone takes off Terumas Ma'aser in an estimated fashion, it is valid. However, there is no Mitzvah to take off an estimated amount. It is not considered as if someone took off too much Ma'aser (which according to the Rabbanan is a negative thing, see Menachos 55a) if he intended to estimate in a generous fashion (ensuring beyond a doubt that all of the grain had Ma'aser taken). He is only considered to take off too much if he intends to give a lot, and intentionally added on (more than possible Ma'aser).

Implied Question: The Gemara in Bechoros (59a, see previous Tosfos) establishes that Rebbi Yosi is according to the opinion of Aba Elazar ben Gamla, and not like the Rabbanan. (Note: Why? If the Rabbanan agree that one can take off Ma'aser in an estimated fashion, why can't Rebbi Yosi fit with the opinion of the Rabbanan?)

Answer: Perhaps the case there is when the person is intentionally adding on.

Explanation: Rashi explains that this teaching is regarding taking off in an estimated fashion. However, the source that one can take off with thought alone is from the Pasuk of "v'Nechshav" -- "and it will be considered."

Alternatively, taking off through thought also needs to be derived from this comparison, even though it is stated in the Pasuk. This is because the Pasuk says "like grain from the silo," which refers to Terumah, the first grain that a Jew separates from his silo. The Pasuk itself compares it to Terumah regarding thought (but it is not directly derived).

Observation: The Rabbanan only argue on Aba Elazar ben Gamla regarding taking off in an estimated fashion. However, regarding taking off with thought they do not argue, as this is stated in the Pasuk.

Proof: In the beginning of Kidushin (41b) the Gemara also asks that Terumah (is different and cannot be derived from as it) is taken with thought. This implies that the question is according to everyone. The Pasuk there is clearly referring to Terumas Ma'aser, as the Pasuk "you," from which we derive "also you" (see the Gemara there) is stated regarding Terumas Ma'aser.

Implied Question: This is unlike Rashi's explanation. Rashi explained in Bechoros that because of the mention of taking off through thought, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah realized that the Beraisa must be according to Aba Elazar ben Gamla. The basic explanation of the Gemara does not sit well with this explanation, as why should we mention thought in connection with the words of Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah.

Explanation: Rashi explains that he looks at one side (of the grain) with intent that it should be Terumah, and eats from the other side, even if he did not physically separate it. This implies that the Pasuk of "v'Nechshav" teaches that one can eat even without physical separation and without verbalizing the taking of Terumah, but merely looking at it. All of this is derived from "v'Nechshav."

Proof#1: Additionally, it is clear that without speaking it is also Terumah. This is apparent from the Mishnah in Terumos (1:6) that five people should not take off Terumah, but if they do it is valid. One of these is a mute. The Yerushalmi explains that the reason that he should not take off Terumah Lechatchilah is because he cannot say the Berachah. (Note: This implies that his not being able to verbalize the separation is not even a problem Lechatchilah.)

Proof#2: The Gemara in Shevuos (26b) states regarding the Pasuk "All (people of) generous hearts," that Terumah and Kodshim are two Pesukim that have the same lesson taught by them. This is regarding someone who decides something in thought, even though he did not say it explicitly. Therefore, the Gemara does not learn that an oath is similar to them.

Regarding eating without physical separation, everyone agrees that this is not a problem, and even with all Ma'asros that do not have the Pasuk of "v'Nechshav" written about them. They are permitted in every place, even though now he is not physically separating anything. This is apparent from the Beraisa regarding one who buys wine from Kusim (25a, and takes off Terumos and Ma'asros verbally, but not physically). Everyone says this is permitted, if it were not be for Breirah or the suspicion that the container might break.

This is permitted regarding Ma'aser Sheini as well, as long as he says it is "in the north or "in the south."

Question: Being that it is permitted to take Terumah when he merely looks in its direction, why can't we take off Terumah on Shabbos? The Mishnah in Shabbos (141b) states that Rebbi Yehudah says that we can even make a mixture (of Chulin and Terumah) permitted with a one-to-one hundred and one ratio. The Gemara asks, how is this permitted? Isn't this fixing the food (as it now can be eaten by regular Jews)? The Gemara answers that he holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar who says that one can look at one side of the grain and eat from the other side. This is why it is not considered fixing on Shabbos when he fixes it, because it is possible to do so by thought. Here, too, it should be possible (i.e. permitted) through thought.

Answer: The mixture mentioned in the Mishnah in Shabbos (141b) is different, as it (the Chulin and Terumah) is already fixed (from being Tevel). However, the first stages of fixing Tevel (untithed grain) are not permitted just because it can be done through thought. It is even forbidden to fix Dmai on Shabbos, as is evident from the Mishnah in Shabbos (34a). This is despite the fact that it is permitted to look at one side and eat from another side, as we said in Chulin (6b) regarding Rebbi Meir who ate a leaf of a vegetable.

Explanation: This is talking about Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom Tov, when it is permitted to take Terumos and Ma'asros even though all of the grain is not in one immediate area.

Observation: In Nidah (4b), the Gemara inquired into why the Rabbanan gave the amount of time by Nidah of mei'Eis l'Eis.

Question: Why did they institute mei'Eis l'Eis here? (Note: In other words, why didn't they similarly ask this question on our Mishnah?)

Answer: This was particularly a question in Nidah (ibid.), as a woman can feel this (her period) herself. It would therefore seem to make sense that we should rule like Shamai, who says that it is enough that she is considered impure from the time that she sees. If the Rabbanan want to give a fine, it is understandable that they would rule she is impure from the time of the last checking, as is the opinion of Hillel. (Note: Why would they rule that she should be considered impure mei'Eis l'Eis? This is what the Gemara inquired into in Nidah (ibid.).)

Explanation: The Ri understands that the correct explanation is the first explanation of Rashi, that when wetness goes into the grape and it can contain some of it, this is the entering of water. This is apparent from the Mishnah in Shevi'is (4:8) which states that when a young grape brings in water, he can eat his bread with it in the field. If they start ripening, he brings it into his house.

Opinion#1: Some people are not careful that a Nochri refrain from touching it at this stage, as it is not called wine but rather water.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Tam says that people should not use this leniency, as we are unsure until what stage this is called water and not wine.

Rabeinu Tam writes that one year the grapes did not ripen well and they remained young grapes. That year, he asks, should the people not abide by the laws of Nochrim touching wine?! (See Tosfos in Avodah Zarah 29b, DH "Ee.")

Explanation: This is referring to (the wind of) Tekufas Tishrei. However, if Tekufas Tamuz was extended until after Sukos, it does not qualify.

Question: It is impossible that it should extend as far as after Sukos, as we say in Sanhedrin (13a) that it is required to have some of Sukos in the new Tekufah (of Tishrei).

Answer: The Gemara there states that we do not make a leap year solely because the Tekufah will extend.

Question: This is all one time, as there is no separation between before planting and during planting.

Answer: During planting refers to the end of planting, as they already planted whatever they had, and they are lacking, as they did not have everything they needed.

Explanation: Rabeinu Chananel and Rabeinu Tam say that this is like the Gemara in Bava Metzia (105a) that two people were partners in a business deal and made a profit. One said to the other, let us split our earnings. The other replied, let us continue and make more money. (Note: The first suggested that they pay back the capital that they started off with and split the profits, as they still had more time before they had to return the capital to the original investor. The second wanted to give back the money and split the profits.) The first person is permitted to hold onto the capital (until the time it must be given back).

Our Gemara similarly means that until this time each partner can prevent the other from selling (the grain or wine) until these normal times to sell, at which point they sell and split the money. Everything (seasonal) has a similar time (where one partner can insist they not sell or divide until it is time to sell).

Explanation: This Pasuk is connected to the previous Pasuk (quoted in the Gemara), and showing that the previous Pasuk is not coming to state the mightiness of the wind that it made furrows in the sea, but rather to show that it made the other winds quiet and the world therefore became hot.

However, it is true that it was a very strong wind, as the Pasuk says, "With a strong eastern wind the whole night," (Shemos 14:21) and "And with the eastern wind You will break the ships of Tarshish" (Tehilim 48:8). Hash-m sometimes sends this (eastern) wind to the world as a strong and harsh wind.

Explanation: Rashi explains that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was the son-in-law of the Nasi, as stated in Chulin (124a). According to him, whenever the Gemara says Rav Nachman it means Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. In Chulin (ibid.), the Gemara implies that Rav Nachman refers to the son-in-law of the Reish Galusa (Nasi).

Question: This does not seem to be correct. In Eiruvin (43b), we say that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak sat behind Rava, and Rava sat before Rav Nachman (implying clearly this is a different Rav Nachman). Similarly, when the Gemara there (18b) discusses whether or not Manoach was an ignoramus, it implies that Rav Nachman does not mean Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Similarly, the Gemara later in Gitin (39b) states that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak found Rabah bar Shilas by the doorway of the shul (and Rabah bar Shilas quoted Rav Nachman), and there are many similar proofs.

Opinion: Rav Nachman refers to Rav Nachman bar Yaakov.

This is evident from the fact that Rav Nachman is known as the friend of Rav Sheshes, and it is clear from the Yerushalmi in many places that Rav Nachman bar Yaakov was the friend of Rav Sheshes.

Additionally, Rav Nachman bar Yaakov is never mentioned unless another Rav Nachman, such as Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak or Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda, is mentioned.

Implied Question: The Gemara here says that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak did not need them. (Note: If he was not the son-in-law of the Reish Galusa, why didn't he need them?)

Answer: He didn't need them because he was independently wealthy.

Explanation: This is referring to the eastern wind, as is apparent in our Gemara. It does not mean that its name was Shadya, but rather because it was difficult he called it this (a demon).

The southern wind is indeed called a Shadya, as stated in the Aruch under the heading "Istana." This is the Aruch's statement: "The four winds have names. The eastern wind is called Shuta, the western wind is called Urya, the northern wind is called Istana, and the southern wind is called Shadya.