Nedarim 24

But the <i>terumah</i> of the thanksgiving loaves is [forbidden] only after the sprinkling of the blood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This itself is disputed. The view of R. Eliezer b. Simon is adopted here. Since, by deduction, this vow is binding, we evidently regard the reference as being to the present state. ');">¹</span>

— [No.] Infer thus: [If he vows,] 'as the <i>terumah</i> of the <i>shekel</i>-chamber,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to a special fund kept in the Temple for various purposes. mainly congregational sacrifices; Shek. III, 2: IV, 1. — This is the deduction to be made, not the previous one. ');">²</span>

he is forbidden. But what if [he said,] 'as the <i>terumah</i> of the thanksgiving loaves,' he is permitted? Then let him [the Tanna] state the <i>terumah</i> of the thanksgiving loaves, then how much more so 'his terumah'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a vow referring to the terumah of the loaves of a thanks-offering is invalid, though in their origin their own prohibition is due to a vow, how much more will a vow referring to other terumah, which is Divinely forbidden, be valid. Also, it is a general rule that there is a preference for teaching the less likely, so that the more likely may be deduced therefrom a minori. ');">³</span>

— He teaches us this: The <i>terumah</i> of the thanksgiving loaves is 'his terumah'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the word 'terumah' embraces all forms of terumah. ');">⁴</span>

Alternatively, the <i>terumah</i> of the thanksgiving loaves may also mean before the sprinkling of the blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is even then forbidden to a star, v. Glos. ');">⁵</span>

e.g., if it was separated during the kneading [of the dough].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the loaves become sanctified only by the sprinkling of the blood, according to our premise, yet if the terumah was separated in the dough, it is consecrated. ');">⁶</span>

Even as R. Tobi b. Kisna said in Samuel's name: If the thanksgiving loaves are baked as four loaves [instead of forty], it suffices. But does not the Writ state forty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not actually. But since the Writ speaks of four species, and terumah (I.e., one in ten) was to be given from each, it follows that forty had to be made. ');">⁷</span>

— As a meritorious deed. But <i>terumah</i> has to be taken therefrom?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One from each ten. ');">⁸</span>

And should you answer that one loaf is taken for all, — but we learnt: [And of it he shall offer] one out of each oblation:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 14. ');">⁹</span> 'one' teaches that <i>terumah</i> is not to be taken from one oblation for another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each kind of loaf is here referred to as an oblation. ');">¹⁰</span> And should you say that a piece is taken from each, — but we learnt: 'One' teaches that a piece is not to be taken? But it must be that he separates it during kneading, taking one [part] of the leaven, one of the unleavened cakes, one of the unleavened wafer, and one of the fried cake;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VII, 12. ');">¹¹</span> [so here too]. Shall we say that this is dependent on Tannaim? [For it was taught: If one says,] 'This be unto me as a firstling,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Num. XVIII, 15. ');">¹²</span> R. Jacob forbids it, while R. Jose permits it. Now, how is this meant? If we say, before the sprinkling of the blood:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the firstling, when it is definitely forbidden. ');">¹³</span> what is the reason of him who permits it? If after, on what grounds does the other forbid it? But it surely [means]