(Mishnah): One who partially separated Terumah and Ma'asros (i.e. less than the required amount); he should remove the rest of it from the same pile, but he may not separate from it for a pile elsewhere.

(R. Meir): He may even separate from it for a pile elsewhere.

(Gemara): 'One who partially separated Terumah and Ma'asros...' The Mishnah is discussing when he separated with intent to further separate.

(R. Shmuel citing R. Zeira): The Mishnah's case is even when he didn't have that intent.

(R. Mana to R. Yudan): Is R. Shmuel disagreeing with the Gemara's previous statement?

(R. Yudan to R. Mana): R. Shmuel reasons that even if he didn't have specific intent, it is as if he did.

Question: What's the difference whether he separates from it for itself or for elsewhere?

Answer: When he separates from it for itself, we assume that all of the produce that came to his hand was from the Tevel (since it's viewed as a continuation of his earlier separation). But when he separates for elsewhere, he is assumed to have taken both Tevel and Chulin (since the earlier separation was already completed).

Rebuttal: When he took it in his hand to add to his earlier separation, we assume that he only took out Tevel. But if, when it was now in his hand, he instead decided to use it as Terumah for elsewhere, should we be concerned that he has both Tevel and Chulin in his hand? And when he took it to separate for elsewhere (and we are concerned that he has a mixture of Tevel and Chulin), but then he decided to use it for itself, should we now say that he only has Tevel in his hand?

And if, when he separated the first time, he gave less than he usually gives and he then came a second time to complete his separation, we say that he took only the Tevel in his hand; but when he separated the second time and ultimately gave more than he usually gives, do we also say that he has Chulin in his hand?

Question: If he mistakenly thought that he needed to add another two Se'ah of Terumah but he only needed to add one, do we also say that since he intended the second Se'ah to also be Terumah, he would have taken from the Tevel and he can now use it for elsewhere?

(R. Imi citing Reish Lakish): That Se'ah could be used Terumah for elsewhere.

Question: But the Mishnah taught, 'but not for elsewhere'?

Answer: That is referring to adding on more Terumah than he usually gives.

Question: This is understandable for Terumah, but (one is not permitted to add extra) Maaser?! Doesn't Reish Lakish agree that Mishnah's text includes the case of Ma'asros?

Rather, Reish Lakish reasons that when we say that only Tevel came to his hand, it makes no difference whether he separates from it for itself or for elsewhere.

Question: Then how do you explain the Mishnah's words 'but not for elsewhere'?

Answer: Originally he separated from most of the pile (which on a Torah level means that the minority of Tevel becomes annulled in the majority of Chulin). However, the Rabbis decreed that it is not annulled, but permitted separating from the same pile, but not for other produce that has a Torah obligation.

There is a dispute between Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan...

(Reish Lakish citing Chizkiyah): (On a Torah level) Tevel is annulled in the majority.

(R. Yochanan): It's not annulled - since he could separate Terumah from the Tevel part to also make it Chulin, it is as if he is able to identify each wheat kernel of Tevel.

Some (wish to differentiate between when he separated for most of the pile and when he did it for less than half) by explaining like the teaching of R. Eliezer ben Yaakov (who disagreed with our Mishnah) - he said that if one partially separated Terumos and Ma'asros, he may not separate from it, whether for itself or for another pile. (We are concerned that when he takes some of the pile to separate for the rest or for elsewhere, he might take from produce that is already Chulin.)

Question: Perhaps R. Eliezer ben Yaakov was only discussing one who didn't yet separate for most of the pile (since on a Torah level he must still separate), but if he did (so the obligation is now only Rabbinic), perhaps he would not have said it...

Answer: Learn from this question - if a person had two piles in front of him and from each one he partially separated Terumos and Ma'asros, may he now separate from one for the other?

The students of R. Chiya asked him this question and he answered with the pasuk (Koheles 4:5), "The fool folds his arms and eats his flesh''.(He ruled like R. Eliezer ben Yaakov and he does not differentiate between having separated for the majority or the minority of the pile.)

(R. Elazar citing R. Chiya the Great): It's only for the second pile that he may not separate from the first pile, but he may separate for it itself (as he follows the first Tana).