Related for Eruvin 74:18
שאני התם דאיכא סביביו
for the other and if no rain will fall to-day the other shall be terumah for the first', would his assertion here also, whether there was rain that day or not, be will and void?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the same reason (v. previous note) that at the time the terumah was named the one pomegranate which was to be terumah was indistinguishable from the other which was to be the remainder?');"><sup>54</sup></span> And should you reply [that the law is] so indeed [it can be retorted:] Have we not in fact learnt: '[If man said,] "The terumah of this heap<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of tebel.');"><sup>55</sup></span> and its tithes shall be in the middle thereof" or "The terumah of this [first] tithe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is given to the Levite who sets aside a portion of it for the priest as terumah.');"><sup>56</sup></span> shall be In the middle thereof", R'Simeon ruled: He has thereby given it a valid name? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. III, 5; and all the produce in the heap spoken of in the first case is forbidden to an Israelite as terumah; it must not, as second tithe, be eaten outside Jerusalem; and if it contracted uncleanness, the guilt of eating unclean terumah is incurred by the man who eats it. In the second case the entire heap is subject to the restrictions of terumah of the tithe. Now, the dues and the remainder of the heap are obviously indistinguishable from one another, and yet, according to R. Simeon, the nailing of the dues is valid; but if Raba's submission in the case of the pomegranates is to be accepted the difficulty would arise why is the naming valid?');"><sup>57</sup></span>