Having made this inference, Ravina comments: But the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering is designated only after the sprinkling of the blood. Consequently, the individual must have made his vow after the sprinkling of the blood, when these loaves are permitted to priests. If the vow nevertheless takes effect, it must be because the individual is referring to the original forbidden status of the loaves before the sprinkling of the blood. This indicates that one has in mind the original status of the item rather than its current status.

The Gemara refutes this: Say that when the mishna specifies that if one said the food should be like the teruma of Aaron it remains permitted it thereby indicates that if he said it should be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber, which is also called a teruma and is always forbidden, the food becomes forbidden. However, one cannot infer from the mishna that if one declares the food to be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering the food becomes forbidden.

The Gemara asks: But according to this, if one said the food should be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, what, does the food remain permitted? If so, let it teach in the mishna that if one said the food should be like the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering it remains permitted even though the thanks-offering is forbidden by means of a vow, and one would know on his own that if he says the food should be like the teruma of Aaron, all the more so the food remains permitted. The Gemara responds: It teaches us this: Teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering is also referred to as his teruma and is therefore included in the mishna.

The Gemara offers an alternative response to Ravina’s attempted proof from the case of the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering, that one has in mind the original status of an item when one expresses a vow. And if you wish, say that the teruma of the loaves of the thanks-offering can also be designated before the sprinkling of the blood, for example, when he separated the teruma during the kneading of the dough. Consequently, the case may be where one makes the vow before the sprinkling of the blood, when the loaves are forbidden to all, and that is the reason the vow takes effect.

And this is in accordance with that which Rav Tovi bar Kisna said that Shmuel said: If one baked the loaves of the thanks-offering as four loaves rather than the forty loaves that should ideally be baked, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written that forty loaves must be brought with the thanks-offering, ten loaves of each of the four different types? The Gemara answers: One must bake forty loaves in order to fulfill the mitzva in the optimal fashion, but he has nevertheless fulfilled his obligation with four loaves, one of each type.

The Gemara asks: But he is required to take teruma, i.e., designate one loaf of each type to be given to the priests. And if you would say that he takes one loaf of bread of the four as teruma for all the others, but didn’t we learn in a mishna (Menaḥot 77b) with regard to the verse “And of it he shall present one out of each offering for a gift to the Lord; it shall be the priest’s” (Leviticus 7:14), that it indicates that he should not take from one offering, i.e., one type of loaf, for another? And if you would say that he takes a slice from each one of the four loaves and gives them to the priest, but didn’t we learn in that mishna that the word one in the verse indicates that he may not take a slice but rather a complete loaf?

Rather, it must be that he separated the teruma during the time of kneading. He took one piece of dough from the leavened bread, one from the loaves, one from the wafers, and one from the flour mixed with water and oil. After separating one tenth of each type of dough for the priest, he then baked the remainder into four loaves. Since it is possible to separate the teruma at the time of the kneading, before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering, it is possible that the case is one where he expressed the vow at this time. Consequently, there is no proof that one has in mind the original status of an offering rather than its current status when one expresses a vow after the sprinkling of the blood.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this question, whether one intends to extend the original or current status of an offering, is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. If one says: This meat is prohibited to me like the meat of a firstborn, Rabbi Ya’akov renders the meat forbidden and Rabbi Yehuda renders it permitted.

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this case? If we say that he associates the object of his vow with the status of a firstborn animal before the sprinkling of the blood, when it is forbidden as a consecrated item, what is the rationale of the one who renders it permitted? And if he associates the object of his vow with the status of a firstborn animal after the sprinkling of the blood, when it belongs to the priest and is permitted to be eaten, what is the rationale of the one who renders it forbidden? Rather, is it not