In Beitza 13a, at the bottom, it says that Ravah says that the reason a Levi has to grind the trumat ma'aser he's going to give to the Kohen (instead of just giving it to him in raw form 'the way HE got it') is because it's a knas for having taken his ma'aser before Terumah gedolah was taken from the original produce; he therefore needs to be penalized for that.
It then brings up a brayta to help support that idea which goes on to say that the reason a Levi has to grind before delivery to the kohen is because just like Terumah Gedolah is only separated once it's ground, so too, trumat Ma'aser is only separated once it's ground.
BUT, Ravah said it was a knas, not a rule based on Terumah Gedolah!! This Brayta is specifically NOT a support to Ravah's idea!
Jonathan Bailey, Modiin, Israel
(a) The MAHARAM SHIF and RASHASH both ask your excellent question. (The Maharam Shif offers an answer, but it is rather forced; see the Bi'ur there.) But the MISHNEH LA'MELECH already beat them to it (Hilchos Terumos u'Ma'asros 3:13).
(b) The first answer that comes to mind is the the "Shin" (of she'Keshem) is like a Vav, as in Beitzah 8a. The reason will still be because of the Kenas.
Even without the exchange of letters, the Beraisa may be understood in such a manner. It is not giving a reason for the Halachah, but rather stating a fact. The KEREN ORAH in fact offers such a solution.
One may wonder why the Gemara didn't learn the Beraisa literally - i.e. why didn't Rava indeed suggest that it was learned from a Hekesh. The answer is exactly what the Gemara states: If this is the way the Levi received it, it is not logical that the Torah would make him advance the produce to a further stage of preparation (grinding) for the advantage of the Kohen. He is not the owner and grower, so the Torah would not obligate him to do such a thing.
(c) But the SHITAH MEKUBETZES (actually RITVA, but that is another subject) was apparently bothered by this question when he suggested that the Kenas is not because the Levi transgressed the Isur. It is because he deprived the Kohen of Terumah. (Since Ma'aser was taken from Shibalim, only Terumas Ma'aser, and not Terumah, will be separated from it.) If that is the case, this is exactly what the Beraisa means: Terumah must normally be given to the Kohen before Ma'aser, and it must be given fully ground. Therefore, even when the Levi takes his Ma'aser b'Shibalim, he must at least grind the Terumas Ma'aser before giving it to the Kohen, so as to minimize the loss to the Kohen. That is the "k'Shem."
Rashi may learn the Beraisa in a similar fashion. The Beraisa is explaining why the Kenas was to grind the Terumas Ma'aser. Maybe the Kenas should be to bake it into a cake.... The answer is that the Rabanan instituted to give the Terumas Ma'aser at least the way that Terumah is normally given, fully ground.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
(a) To add to what I wrote in the last message - the MISHNEH LA'MELECH is the first one I found to ask the question (Terumos 3:13). And the KEREN ORAH offers the solution I suggested in (b).
(b) I found three Gedolei Torah who all offered answers to your question following the same line of thought: The Pri Megadim (in ROSH YOSEF), the OR SAME'ACH (Terumos 5:4) and the BRISKER RAV (Chidushei Maran Riz, Terumos p. 30) answer that indeed, the source that teaches that the Levi must grind the Terumas Ma'aser is a Hekesh to Terumah, as the Beraisa says. However, there are times that the Hekesh will not apply. In such cases, the Levi must still grind because of the Kenas of Rava.
The cases in which the Hekesh will not apply are either when the Levi already separated the Terumas Ma'aser from unground produce (Rosh Yosef), or by unground Kitniyos, as opposed to unwinnowed wheat (Or Same'ach), or if the Levi intends to eat all the Kitniyos as is, without grinding it for himself (Griz - you must see each one inside to further understand their logic).
According to all of these approaches, though, it is not clear what the Gemara means by "Tanya Nami Hachi." Those words imply that the Beraisa is teaching the same Halachah as Rava's Kenas, not a different Halachah. The only one who discusses this question is the Griz, who offers the (somewhat forced) answer that had there not been an Torah obligation for the Levi to grind the Terumas Ma'aser under certain conditions, the Rabanan would not have created a Kenas for him to do so under other conditions.
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
I had another thought. What if we read the Brayta in the following way:
"Because just like Terumah Gedola is only taken after it's ground [i.e. normally, the way TG would have been taken is only after it was ground], so too [i.e. if the TG had been taken normally, i.e. after grinding, also] Trumat Maaser is [therefore] only taken once it has been ground [because that's the condition in which he would have normally received it from the Yisrael].
And if we say this is explaining the Kevas of Rava("Tanya Nami Hachi"), we'd say that this kenas, as explained to the Brayta, therefore would serve as a heker for the Levi, that when he is forced to grind it before he delivers the Trumat Maaser, it demonstrates to him that this is the way it should have been, so even though you got it early, still , you need to create it into the way it would have been, if you had received it properly as a heker for his mis-taking.
Does that work?
Jonathan Bailey, Modiin, Israel
That is a nice addition to the answer I wrote in (b) - i.e. the Keren Orah. The k'Shem is not just telling that the Halachos of Terumah Gedolah and Terumas Ma'aser are similar, but it is giving a reason for the Kenas of Rava. The Kenas is given in order that the Levi should not be a "Chotei Niskar," and the Kohen should get his Terumas Ma'aser all ground up. (This is similar to the answer I gave at the end of (c).)
Yasher Ko'ach!
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
According to the standard pshat that the keshem is the basis for the knas, the tanya nami hochi is from the actual case of the breissa which is mechayav the levi to make the wine etc. even if wanted to eat grapes etc.
Moshe