(Mishnah): If one says, "The Terumah, the Maaser and the Terumas Maaser of this pile are within it''...

(R. Shimon): They have been declared (as Terumos and Ma'asros).

(Chachamim): They have not been declared until he says "on its north side'' or "on its south side''.

(R. Elazar Chasma): If one says, "The Terumah of the pile, from it, is upon it'', it has been declared.

(R. Elazar ben Yaakov): One who says, "One tenth of this Maaser is Terumas Maaser upon it'', it has been declared.

If one separates Terumah before Bikurim, Maaser Rishon before Terumah or Maaser Sheni before Maaser Rishon, even though he has transgressed a negative prohibition, the declarations are valid, as the pasuk states (Shemos 22:28), "Your fullness offering (Bikurim) and your heave offering (Terumah) you shall not delay...''.

From where is it known that Bikurim precede Terumah since both are referred to as Terumah and Reishis (first)? Bikurim should precede Terumah because they are the first of everything (as the word Bikurim implies); Terumah should precede Maaser Rishon as it is called 'first'; Maaser Rishon should precede Maaser Sheni as it is called 'first' (since it contains Terumas Maaser).

(R. Yosi bar Bun citing R. Yochanan): R. Shimon follows Beis Shammai. (Earlier in Perek 1 Mishnah 2 - One may not separate from olives for oil or from grapes for wine. If he did, Beis Shammai say that they contain their own Terumah). Just as Beis Shammai say that the Terumah there is in a state of Dimua (mixed together with the rest of the produce), so too R. Shimon here says the same.

Question: In our Mishnah he uses the words 'within it' (implying in a specific place); but what if he said 'in it'(which doesn't specify a place)?

Answer (Tosefta in Maaser Sheni): If a person said, "The Maaser Sheni of this item should be transferred onto this money'' and he didn't specify a place - R. Shimon says that it is valid and the Chachamim say that it's invalid unless he specifies that it should be on the northern or southern side. This shows that R. Shimon disagrees even if he didn't say 'within it'.

(R. Zeira citing R. Avdumi of Haifa citing R. Shimon ben Lakish): The source of the Chachamim is the pasuk that states (Bamidbar 18:27), "And your Terumah shall be considered for you'' - just as when one physically separates Terumah, he takes a specific part; so too when one separates in his mind, he must have in mind a specific part.

If a person had said 'the Terumah of this pile is on its northern or southern side'' and he then said that the Terumah of this (second) pile should also be in that (first) pile (without specifying where); what is the law?

Answer (R. Yochanan): The place where the first Terumah ends is where the second Terumah ends (meaning that the second Terumah can be assumed to be next to the first).

Question (R. Yitzchak b'R. Elazar): If a Se'ah of Terumah fell into a Tevel pile and he said, "The Terumah of this pile should be within it'' (without specifying a place), do we also say that he means that it should be next to where the first Terumah fell?

(Rebbi): If a person said, "The Terumah of this pile should be on its north'', from the half way point towards the north is considered a mixture of Terumah and Chulin and the Kohen takes the northern half of the pile and pays for it except the value of the Terumah.

(Chachamim): He makes a 'C' shape, taking one quarter. (He divides the pile into two, then in the northern half he takes the outer semi-circle to be the Terumah.)

(Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel): He takes the northern half of that only, ultimately taking 1/8th of the original pile.

Question: If there were two piles and he said that the Terumah of both should be in one of them (without mentioning a particular place) what's the law?

Answer (R. Yochanan): The Terumah takes effect in the mixture and is in a state of Dimua.

(R. Shimon ben Lakish): It does not take effect.

(R. Hoshiya b'R. Shammai): If a person had two Se'ah and one pile in front of him, and he said, "One of these Se'os should be the Terumah of this pile'', it is valid, but he does not know which one is the Terumah. If he had two piles and one Se'ah and he said, "This (Se'ah) is Terumah for one of the piles'', it is valid, but he doesn't know which pile he has fixed.

(R. Chama bar R. Ukva citing R. Yosi b'R. Chanina): From the fact that he transgresses by changing the order of the tithes, this shows that the separations took effect.

(R. Chama bar Ukva citing R. Yosi b'R. Chanina): He incurs lashes.

(R. Zeira): They asked R. Yochanan whether a person who transgresses incurs lashes and he was silent.

(R. Yaakov bar Acha citing R. Yochanan): He does not incur lashes.

How does R. Yochanan understand pasuk (Shemos 22:28), "Your fullness offering...don't delay''? He says it's referring to a prohibition to delay when the time of Biur arrives.

Question: (When a person separates Terumah before Bikurim) when does he transgress?

Answer: R. Chiya bar Ba said at the beginning (before he separated the Bikurim). R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said at the end.

Where would that make a difference? If the pile was consumed by fire (before he separated the Bikurim). According to R. Chiya bar [Vava] {Ba} he transgressed; according to R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak he did not transgress.

Question (R. Shmuel bar Abba): If Maaser Rishon was separated (before Terumah) whilst the produce was still in ears (and the obligation to separate Terumah hadn't yet come), has he transgressed or does he only transgress when all of the obligations are already in place? (The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.)

A Baraisa was said in front of R. Abahu - Bikurim do not prevent Terumah (from being separated). (This is unlike our Mishnah that prohibits it.)

R. Abahu said to them - that follows the opinion of Abba Penimon.

Question (R. Yosi): What was his teaching?

Answer (R. Mana to R. Yosi): I heard from my father (R. Yona) that Abba Penimon permitted separating Bikurim with one's right hand and Terumah in one's left hand at the same time (as the order is not crucial).

One Tana says that one who separates Terumah before Bikurim has transgressed a negative prohibition and another Tana says that he has not. The first Tana is the opinion of the Rabbanan (of our Mishnah) and the second Tana is Abba Penimon.