Menachot

and by intention; and just as the ‘great terumah’ should be given generously so the terumah of the tithe should be given generously.1 But [there is yet a difficulty] from here, for R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said, My father used to take ten pressed figs from the cake in respect of the ninety [fresh figs] in the basket. Now if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it was before, it is well; but if you hold that we measure in the condition in which it is now, then too little is given [as tithe]!2 When R. Dimi came [from Palestine] he reported in the name of R. Eleazar that the case of the pressed figs is different since they can be boiled and so restored to their former condition. Our Rabbis taught: One may give fresh figs3 as terumah in respect of pressed figs in that place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed; but one may not give pressed figs as terumah in respect of fresh figs even in the place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed. The Master stated: ‘One may give fresh figs as terumah in respect of pressed figs in that place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed’. This is so, then, only where there is this custom, but not where there is no such custom. But what are the facts of the case? If there is a priest present, then why is this not allowed even where there is no such custom? Have we not learnt that wherever there is a priest present one must give the terumah from the choicest kind?4 Obviously then there is no priest present.5 Now read the next clause: ‘But one may not give pressed figs as terumah in respect of fresh figs even in the place where it is the custom for figs to be pressed’. But if there is no priest present why is one not allowed to do so? Have we not learnt that where there is no priest one must give the terumah from that which is most durable?6 Obviously then there is a priest present.7 Must we then say that in the case of the first clause there is no priest present whilst in the case of the second clause there is a priest present? — Yes. In the case of the first clause there is no priest present but in the case of the second clause there is a priest present. Said R. Papa, You may infer from this that we endeavour to interpret [two clauses of] a passage by suggesting two sets of facts rather than suggest that they represent the views of two Tannaim.8 MISHNAH. ALL MEAL-OFFERINGS MUST BE KNEADED WITH LUKEWARM WATER AND MUST BE WATCHED LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED. IF ONE ALLOWED THE REMAINDER9 TO BECOME LEAVENED ONE TRANSGRESSES A PROHIBITION, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, NO MEAL-OFFERING WHICH YE SHALL BRING UNTO THE LORD SHALL BE MADE LEAVENED.10 ONE IS LIABLE FOR THE KNEADING AS WELL AS FOR THE SHAPING AND FOR THE BAKING. GEMARA. Whence is this derived?11 — Resh Lakish said, It is written, It shall not be baked leavened: their position,12 that is, even their portion must not be baked leavened. And is this verse required for this purpose? But it is required for the following which was taught: Wherefore does the text say, It shall not later on, for it is the custom to do so. not allowed to set aside dried figs is that the Tanna of this Baraitha is of the opinion that in every case the best must be given as terumah, even in the absence of a priest. This indeed is the opinion of R. Judah; v. Ter. loc. cit handful. That the remainder must not be leavened is derived from another verse; v. Gemara, infra.