Summation of question: We should say that Ma'aser Behemah is equated to Ma'aser of grain. Just like Ma'aser of grain is one from 10, also Ma'aser Behemah is one from 10, without passing under the staff. Rather, there are 10 in front of him, and he takes one of them!

Answer #1: It brings Aba Elazar to say that we learn Terumas Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah regarding estimation, even though it is illogical to learn one from the other for this;

Terumah Gedolah has no Shi'ur, and Terumas Ma'aser has a Shi'ur, and we equate them to each other, even though it is like possible from impossible;

Similarly, we learn Ma'aser Behemah from Ma'aser of grain, even though we uproot the verse from it simple meaning, that it says "Kol Asher Ya'avor."

Rebuttal: The heart cannot accept this Perush.

Answer #2: According to R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah, when he took one from 10 it is Ma'aser even though they are not equal, just like when he enters them in the pen to be tithed, for presumably, they are not normally equal;

Therefore, we need to establish it like Aba Elazar ben Gomel, who permits through estimation, and he is not concerned for extra Ma'aser, like I explained, or at least he permits [tithing] generously, like it says explicitly in Menachos (54b);

If not for Aba Elazar, one might have thought that even though when he passes [under the staff], we are not concerned [that they be] equal, in such a case that he takes one from 10, which we learn from Ma'aser of grain, we require that they are equal.

Question: Since Aba Elazar permits even for Ma'aser [Rishon], why did the Gemara in Menachos (54b) need to establish R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi's teaching "father used to take 10 [dry] figs in a Kli to exempt 90 [moist] figs in the basket" to discuss Terumas Ma'aser? It could establish it to discuss Ma'aser [Rishon] itself!

Answer #1: Granted, R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah holds that Ma'aser [Rishon] is the same [as Ma'aser Sheni for this]. Perhaps Aba Elazar ben Gomel does not hold like this!

Answer #2: The Gemara wants to establish it to discuss Terumas Ma'aser, for the Reisha proves that it discusses Terumah, since it taught "Tormin" (we take Terumah).

Question: The primary intent is written regarding Terumas Ma'aser! It says "v'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem" - this verse is written about Leviyim!

Answer #1: It is written "k'Degen Min ha'Goren", i.e. Terumah Gedolah, for it connotes the first grain that a Yisrael separates from his granary;

Inference: It is more obvious to him for Terumah Gedolah.

Answer #2 (Rashi in Gitin (31a): We learn Terumas Ma'aser from Terumah Gedolah regarding estimation, but intent, we learn both of them from "v'Nechshav".

Assertion: Rabanan do not argue with Aba Elazar about intent, only about estimation.

And even if you will say that they argue, perhaps there is some reason why we do not establish [intent for] Terumas Ma'aser, even though it is written about it, like we find regarding Mukaf (the Chiyuv to take Terumah near the Peros that it exempts);

This is like it says in the Yerushalmi in Terumos. The entire Torah, [a matter is learned [from its verse] and teaches [to elsewhere], except for Terumas Ma'aser, which teaches and is not learned;

Regarding Terumas Ma'aser it is written "Mimenu", to teach that we require Mukaf, and we establish it for Terumah Gedolah, and not for Terumas Ma'aser.

In Bikurim (2:5) a Mishnah teaches that Terumas Ma'aser is like Bikurim in two ways. One may take it from Tahor on Tamei, and Lo Min ha'Mukaf, like Bikurim.

Implied question: In Gitin (30b), it asks about Terumas Ma'aser "are Chaverim suspected to tithe Lo Min ha'Mukaf?!"

Answer (R. Tam): That is mid'Rabanan. Mid'Oraisa it does not require Mukaf.

Support (of Assertion): It seems that they do not argue about intent.

Source: Since it asks in Kidushin (41b) regarding this that we learn Shelichus from Terumah, you cannot learn from Terumah, for it is taken through intent. It implies that it asks according to everyone. And it refers to Terumas Ma'aser, about which it is written [not just] "Atem", [rather,] "Gam Atem."

Rebuttal (of support): However, according to what Rashi explained, it connotes that they argue about intent, for he explained that due to intent, we establish R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah in our Sugya like Aba Elazar ben Gamla;

His Perush connotes also that even for Terumah Gedolah, they do not hold that intent [works], for if they held that intent [works], we would not need to say that he holds like Aba Elazar ben Gamla, for even Rabanan could learn intent for Ma'aser, since the Torah called it Terumah.

Defense (of support): However, we can say that the Torah called it Terumah due to Terumas Ma'aser in it.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He puts his eyes on this side l'Shem Terumah, and eats from the other side, even though he did not [physically] separate.

Inference: Because it is written "v'Nechshav", it is permitted to eat without separating. We permit also in silence, through putting his eyes on this side and eating from the other side. We learn all this from "v'Nechshav".

Explanation #2 (Rashi): "B'Machshavah" means that he thinks and says "two Lugim that I will separate [will be Terumah]", even though now he does not separate anything.

Inference: He means that speech is needed. This that we permit without separating is called "Machshavah".

Support: We find also [elsewhere] that speech is called "Machshavah", e.g. "Al Kol Devar Pesha." It says that this obligates for intent [to make unauthorized use of a deposit] like for an action.

Decision: It seems that also without speech it is Terumah, like a Mishnah in Terumos (1:6) "there are five who may not take Terumah, and if they took, it is Terumah", and it lists a mute, and the Yerushalmi explains the reason [why he may not take l'Chatchilah] due to the Brachah (he cannot say it).

In Shevuos (26b) it explicitly connotes that it is permitted when he resolved in his heart, even though he did not say with his lips, for it says "Kol Nediv Lev Olos", and it says that Terumah and Kodshim are Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad (two verses, one of which teaches something that we could have learned from the other verse); we do not learn Shevu'ah from them.

We are not concerned that he eats without separating. Everyone permits this everywhere, even though he does not separate now, like is proven in the case of one who buys wine from Kusim. All agree that he is allowed, if not due to [Ein] Bereirah or concern lest the flask break (and he will never separate).

And there are places where we permit when he says "Ma'aser Sheni is in the north."

Question: Since we permit through putting his eyes on this side and eating from the other side, why may we not separate Terumah or Ma'aser on Yom Tov?

A Mishnah (Shabbos 142a) teaches that we permit Meduma (a mixture of Terumah) if there are 101 times [as much Chulin as Terumah. He separates the amount of Terumah that became mixed, and the rest is permitted to Zarim];

[The Gemara] asks that he fixes it, and answers that it is like R. Elazar b'Ribi Shimon, who says that he puts his eyes on this side and eats from the other side. Therefore it is not considered fixing, since it is possible through intent. (Also Tevel is permitted through intent!)

Answer: Meduma is different, for it was already fixed. However, the reason that it is possible through intent does not permit initial fixing;

Even Demai (Peros bought from an Am ha'Aretz. Most of them tithe, so mid'Oraisa it is permitted, but Chachamim obligated to tithe it) one may not fix on Shabbos, even though he may put his eyes on this side and eat from the other side, like is proven in Chulin (6b) regarding R. Meir, who ate a leaf of Yerek in Beis She'an!

Explanation (Rashi): It says "Aser Ta'aser", like we said above (53b).

Consequence: [R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah] does not hold like Rava said, that it is equated for [tithing within] the year, and not for anything else.

Implied question: Also, above (53a) we expound another Hekesh "v'Haveisem Shamah... Ma'aseroseichem [...u'Vchoros Bekarchem v'Tzonchem]" according to R. Akiva!

Answer #1: Perhaps they are equated only for bringing [them to Yerushalayim].

Question #1: It is difficult for Rava. How will he explain R. Yosi b'Ribi Yehudah's reason?

Question #2: Also in Zevachim (45a) we expound that Kodshei Nochrim do not make Temurah, because Temurah is equated to Ma'aser Behemah, and Ma'aser Behemah is equated to Ma'aser of grain, and it says about Ma'aser of grain "Bnei Yisrael", and not Nochrim. (The Hekesh is not limited to the year!)

Answer #2: Regarding tithing from one on another, e.g. Min on Eino Mino, this is like new on old. Specifically for matters like this, we say that they are equated for the year [and similar matters], but not for anything else.