EXTRA EFFORT FOR THE KOHEN (Yerushalmi Terumos Perek 1 Halachah 2 Daf 5b)
[ãó ä òîåã á] çáøééà áùí ø' éåçðï åàôéìå òì àúø
(Chevraya citing R. Yochanan): (According to R. Yochanan's earlier reason that one shouldn't cause extra effort to be done by the Kohanim) even if the owner actually crushed the olives before he gave them to the Kohen, it is still invalid Terumah.
ø' çððéà øáé àéîé áùí ø' éåçðï ãáøé á''ù ðòùä ëàåîø äøé æå úøåîä òìéä åòì ùìîèï
(R. Chananya/ R. Imi citing R. Yochanan): (Disagreeing with the Chevraya) Beis Shammai hold that when he makes his olives Terumah, it's as if he said that it should be Terumah for it (the olives in the press) and for that which is under it (i.e. the oil that drained out of it when it was crushed).
[ãó é òîåã á (òåæ åäãø)] ø' çððéà ñáø îéîø áîéðå
R. Chananya suggested that this applies only to its own species.
à''ì ø' æòéøà ìà ú÷áì òìéê ëï îëéåï ùàîø äøé æå ðôèø îä ùáéãå åäùàø çåìéï åçåìéï ôåèøéï àú äèáì
(R. Zeira to R. Chananya): Don't accept that view (of R. Yochanan that 'it's as if he said') - (it in fact applies even to other species) - once he said, "This is...'', it exempts that which is in his hand and the rest is Chulin, and how can Chulin exempt Tevel?!
àîø ø' çððéà áøéä ãøáé äìì ëàçú îëéåï ùàîø äøé æå ðôèø îä ùáéãå åðôèø îä ùìîèï
(R. Chananya son of R. Hillel): He exempts at the same time both that which is in his hand and the rest of it.
à''ø çðéðà ðøàéï äãáøéí áúøåîä âãåìä ùäéà öøéëä ìúøåí îï äîå÷ó àáì áúøåîú îòùø öøéëä ùúäà îöåîöîú áîéãä áîù÷ì åáîðéï.
(R. Chanina): This appears correct for Terumah Gedolah, for which he must separate from that which is in close proximity, but Terumas Maaser must be separated according to measure, weight or number.
úîï úðéðï àéï úåøîéï îï äèîà òì äèäåø
(Mishnah in 2nd Perek): One may not separate from Tamei for Tahor.
úðé áùí øáé éåñé åàí úøí îï äèîà òì äèäåø áéï áùåââ áéï áîæéã îä ùòùä òùåé
(Baraisa citing R. Yosi): If one separated from Tamei for Tahor, whether inadvertently or intentionally, it is valid Terumah.
îä à''ø éåñé äëà åîä àéï úîï ùëåìå äôñã ìëäðéí àú àîø îä ùòùä òùåé äëà ãàéï ëåìå äôñã [ãó éà òîåã à (òåæ åäãø)] ìëäðéí ìà ëì ùëï
What does R. Yosi reason? If over there, when he separated Tamei Terumah, it is completely prohibited to the Kohen, and nevertheless what he did was valid; here, when he intentionally separated from the olives for the oil, where it is not completely lost to the Kohen (and it merely involves extra effort by the Kohen), certainly it should be valid!
àùëç úðé áùí øáé éåñé àéï úåøîéï æéúéí òì ùîï åìà òðáéí òì ééï åàí úøí á''ù àåîøéí úøåîú òöîï áäï åá''ä àåîøéí àéï úøåîúï úøåîä
A later Mishnah (Terumos 1:4) in the name of R. Yosi was found - One may not separate Terumah from olives for oil or from grapes for wine, but if he did, Beis Shammai say that it's valid Terumah only for them (i.e. the olives or grapes) themselves. Beis Hillel say that it is not Terumah at all.
îçìôä ùéèúéä ãøáé éåñé úîï äåà àîø îä ùòùä òùåé åëà äåà àîø àéï úøåîúï úøåîä
Question: The opinion of R. Yosi seems to have switched - There he said that if he did it, it is valid Terumah; here he said that it is not Terumah...?
úîï èåîàä àéðä îöåéä åàéï áðé àãí èåòéï ìåîø ùúåøîéï åîòùøéï îæä òì æä àáì æéúéí òì äùîï åòðáéí òì äééï îöåééï äï åàí àîø àú ëï àó äåà ñáø îéîø ùîåúø ìúøåí æéúéí òì ùîï åòðáéí òì äééï:
Answer: There, it is uncommon that (a person would separate Terumah from Tamei for Tahor) and people don't mistakenly think that one may tithe from one for the other; but separating from olives for oil and grapes for wine is common and if we say that the separation was valid, one might come to think that it is permitted to separate olives for oil and grapes for wine.