Implied question: Before the time he can tithe and slaughter and sell! (Perhaps people will not wait, and there will not be animals available for the festival!)

Answer: Since Chachamim fixed a time, it is normal to wait more and tithe everything together.

Question: We should already know [that one may not tithe on Yom Tov] because one may not be Makdish on Yom Tov!

Answer #1: [If the Isur were only due to this,] I would not forbid to offer it lest he come to be Makdish it, for this is a decree for a decree, for the Isur to be Makdish is only mid'Rabanan;

Source: We say there (Beitzah 36b) that one may not ride on an animal [on Shabbos], and it explains the reason lest it go outside the Techum, and it says that this shows that Techumim is mid'Oraisa (for if it were mid'Rabanan, we would not decree due to it. The Gemara rejects) no, it is a decree lest one detach a branch [to hit the animal].

Answer #2: He could be Makdish it even on Yom Tov [if not for dyeing] for the need of Shelamim for Simchah, like it says in Shabbos (148b) that one may be Makdish his Pesach on Shabbos and his Chagigah on [Yom Tov of] the festival.

Implied question: It says there and in Pesachim (66b) that this is only for obligations with a fixed time (like Pesach and Chagigah), but if there is no fixed time (e.g. Ma'aser), one may not be Makdish it [on Yom Tov]!

Implied suggestion: Perhaps Ma'aser is like an obligation with a fixed time when he needs it for Shalmei Simchah (to eat Kodesh meat during the festival).

Rejection #1: If so, also Nedarim and Nedavos should be permitted [to be Makdish on Yom Tov], for one fulfills Shalmei Simchah through Nedarim and Nedavos, like it says in Chagigah (7b)!

Rejection #2: In our Sugya, these answers do not apply, for we discuss Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah! (The Mitzvah of Simchah is only during the festivals.)

Answer: Since the 10th [to leave] is Kadosh automatically, even if he did not call it Asiri, it is not applicable to forbid being Makdish in a case like this on Yom Tov.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This refers to R. Akiva, and R. Yehoshua ben Korchah was R. Akiva's son.

Objection #1: Why didn't he mention R. Akiva by name, that [rather] he mentions him in a derogatory way?

[This is derogatory,] like it says "Alei Kere'ach", and in Shabbos (152a, a Tzeduki asked R. Yehoshua ben Korchah) "how far is it from here to Karchina'ah?", and he intended for disgrace.

Objection #2: In Megilah (28a), Rebbi asked about R. Yehoshua ben Korchah "how did you merit to live so long?"... Rebbi requested a Brachah, and (R. Yehoshua) said "may it be His will that you reach half my years";

When R. Akiva married the daughter of Kalba Savu'a, he was 40 years old, and he accepted to learn Torah. He engaged in Torah for 40 year, and was the leader of Yisrael for 40 years, and in the Sifri (Parshas Zos ha'Brachah) it says that there are four who lived for 120 years - Moshe, Hillel, R. Yochanan ben Zakai and R. Akiva;

On the day that R. Akiva died, Rebbi was born. And even if R. Yehoshua was born in the first year that [R. Akiva] married Bas Kalba Savu'a, he would be only 80 when Rebbi was born, and R. Yehoshua was at least 140 years old when he blessed Rebbi;

Source: He would not bless him to live less than 70 years, which is the lifespan of a Stam person, for it says "Yemei Shenoseinu Shiv'im";

Summation of Objection #2: Then Rebbi was 60. It turns out that when he blessed him to reach half of [R. Yehoshua's] years, he blessed him to live only 10 [more] years. What kind of Brachah is this?!

Objection #3: It seems that presumably, [R. Yehoshua] was not born until R. Akiva learned for 12 and another 12 years. It turns out when R. Yehoshua ben Korchah was 140, Rebbi was more than half the age [of R. Yehoshua. If so, he did not bless him at all!]

Explanation #2 (Rabbeinu Nisim): "Korchah" refers to R. Elazar ben Azaryah. It says in the Yerushalmi that he was bald. (Tzon Kodashim - it is praiseworthy to be such a Chacham while still bald, i.e. beardless, before he became Nasi at the age of 18. In Shabbos, the Tzeduki asked R. Elazar ben Azaryah "how far is it) from here to Karchina'ah?"

Explanation #3 (R. Tam): [Korchah] is a person's name [like Korach].

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Since it was prophecy, it is like a Halachah without a reason. One cannot understand it through reasoning, which is primary.

Objection (and Explanation #2): He should not have mentioned prophecy, for a Navi may not teach a new law from now [after Moshe]. Rather, he should have said that it is a tradition [from Moshe from Sinai].

Observation: In Nazir (53a), regarding [Tum'as Ohel of] a quarter Kav of bones and a half-Log of blood, also [the Gemara] said that he said through tradition, from Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi.

Question: Still it is difficult here, for in Rosh Hashanah (8a) we expound that "Aser Ta'aser" equates Ma'aser Behemah to Ma'aser of grain. R. Meir holds that it is on Elul 1. Just like Ma'aser of grain, one tithes it close to when it is finished...

R. Elazar and R. Shimon hold that just like Ma'aser of grain, its Rosh Hashanah is Tishrei... (They argue about how to expound. Ben Azai should have decided which is correct!)

Answer: Even so, since these Drashos were a tradition from Chagai, Zecharyah and Malachi, [Ben Azai] could not clarify which is primary.

Assertion: It is not applicable to forbid here due to "Lo Yevaker", like we forbid to cause a Ba'al Mum to leave 10th, above (53b, for here he is not concerned for whether or not it has a Mum, only that it is Vadai obligated to be tithed).

Implied question: Mid'Oraisa, estimation does not apply, for one wheat kernel exempts the entire stack. The Torah did not give a Shi'ur, for it says "Reishis Deganecha"!

Answer: Estimation applies to Terumas Ma'aser. Its Shi'ur is written - "Ma'aser Min ha'Ma'aser";

Also Terumah Gedolah, Chachamim enacted a Shi'ur for it, so estimation applies.

Implied suggestion: We should equate Terumas Ma'aser to Terumah Gedolah, that it helps if he intends that one wheat kernel [exempts the entire stack]!

Rejection: It is written "Ma'aser Min ha'Ma'aser."

Distinction: However, if he intends to add [to the Shi'ur], seemingly it helps, since for this it is equated to Terumah Gedolah, that it is taken through estimation l'Chatchilah, in order that he will tithe b'Ayin Yafeh (generously). Since he fears lest he take too little, he takes generously;

Source (Terumos 1:7): We do not separate Terumah through measuring, weighing or counting.

The text in the Tosefta is "just like Terumah Gedolah is separated only through estimation and intent [also Terumas Ma'aser]", and so is R. Tam's text.

Regarding this, in the Yerushalmi, a Beraisa says "R. Elazar ben Gomel says, not through measure..."

In Menachos (55a), it concludes with the Beraisa of our Sugya. Just like Terumah Gedolah is [taken] generously...

And it says there that according to R. Elazar ben Gomel, we take [fresh] figs to be Terumas Ma'aser on dried figs according to number, and dried figs on figs according to volume, due to Ayin Yafeh;

He mentioned "it is taken only" not due to intent, rather, due to estimation, so it will be taken generously!

Question: In Gitin (30b), Rav Ashi explains that a Yisrael who told a Levi "my father told me that he has Ma'aser for you, or Ma'aser for your father", we are concerned for Terumas Ma'aser in it. Since it is not quantified (how much there is), the Ba'al ha'Bayis (Yisrael) would not fix it (separate Terumas Ma'aser);

[If he said "my father told me that] he has a Kor (30 Sa'im) of Ma'aser for your father, or a Kor of Ma'aser for you", we are not concerned for Terumas Ma'aser in it. Since it is quantified, [the Yisrael's father] fixed it;

We establish it like Aba Elazar ben Gomel, who equates Terumas Ma'aser to Terumah Gedolah. Just like a Ba'al ha'Bayis may separate Terumah Gedolah, he may separate Terumas Ma'aser.

Summation of question: Since it is possible through estimation, even if it is not quantified, why are we concerned for Terumas Ma'aser (we assume that Vadai, it was not separated)? Perhaps he fixed it through estimation!

Answer: Granted, it is a Mitzvah for the Levi to make [Terumas Ma'aser], so he will do so b'Ayin Yafeh. However, the [Yisrael] should not be generous with others' property;

And even if he has permission to do so, he is not wont to do so, to avoid complaints of the Kohen and Levi, lest they complain about him, if he errs in his estimation.

Question: In Terumos (4:6), a Mishnah teaches that one who counts is praiseworthy, and one who measures is better, and one who weighs is best of all three!

The Yerushalmi in Terumos asks this, and answers that this refers to Terumah Gedolah, and this refers to Terumas Ma'aser;

R. Elazar ben Gomel taught, what is the source that we do not separate Terumah through measure, count or weight? It says "v'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem." "Va'Hareimosem" - you tithe through intent. You do not tithe through weight, measure, or count.

Explanation: "We do not tithe [through measure...]" refers to Terumah Gedolah. All agree that the Mitzvah is through estimation. "One who counts is praiseworthy..." refers to Terumas Ma'aser, and like Rabanan;

It brings the Beraisa of Aba Elazar ben Gomel to teach that they argue about Terumas Ma'aser.

Question: The Yerushalmi says about [the Mishnah of] one who counts is praiseworthy, what is it better than? Rav Huna said, it is better than one who tithes through estimation. This implies that through estimation is Terumah, just one who counts is better;

Also R. Hillel said there that our Mishnah says so! One who weighs is better than all three. This implies that there are three ways other than weighing! R. Chanina said, the text can say "of all three", and you cannot learn anything from it [about whether or not it is permitted through estimation].

If it is according to Rabanan, they hold that Terumas Ma'aser may not be through estimation. If it is like R. Elazar ben Gomel, he says that the Mitzvah is through estimation!

Answer #1: It seems that also according to R. Elazar ben Gomel, we learn only that it works through estimation, but not that the Mitzvah is through estimation!

Consequence: The answer "this refers to Terumah Gedolah, and this refers to Terumas Ma'aser", this is like R. Elazar ben Gomel.

Support: Now it is fine that it brings on [this Mishnah] the Beraisa of R. Elazar ben Gomel.

Answer #2: Rabanan agree to Aba Elazar ben Gomel that through estimation is Terumah, but it is not a Mitzvah to do through estimation.

Question: How can Rabanan permit through estimation? If so, [perhaps] he takes extra Ma'aser! (If so, his Ma'aser is messed up (Eruvin 50a). I.e. not all is Ma'aser. Perhaps one will declare from the excess to be Terumas Ma'aser, and it will be invalid, and the Ma'aser is Tevel to Terumas Ma'aser!)

Answer: That is when he intentionally takes extra, but when he intends to estimate properly, this is not considered taking extra.

Question: However, something that is permitted through estimation, it connotes in Menachos (54b) that we are not concerned if he takes extra, even intentionally!

Source: It was taught that we tithe figs on dried figs according to number, and [the Gemara] asks that he takes extra Ma'aser, and it discusses Terumas Ma'aser, like the Seifa proves;

It answers that it is Aba Elazar ben Gomel, and due to Ayin Yafeh. There, he intends to take extra. It connotes that whatever he wants to increase is considered Ayin Yafeh!

Answer: Aba Elazar ben Gomel does not hold that one who takes extra Ma'aser, his Ma'aser is messed up, for also Ma'aser Rishon he permits through estimation;

This is proven in our Sugya, like it says 'the Torah called Ma'aser Terumah, for it says "Es Ma'aser Bnei Yisrael Asher Yarimu la'Shem Terumah";

It discusses Ma'aser Rishon, for the end of the verse says "Nasati la'Leviyim l'Nachalah."

Question: In our Sugya, why do we establish so, that R. Elazar ben Gomel and R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah hold like each other?