neither due to non-priesthood, if a non-priest performs one of those rites in the Temple, he is not liable to receive the death penalty; nor due to the performance of any of these rites in a state of ritual impurity; nor due to the performance of any of these rites as a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments; nor due to the performance of any of these services without the washing of his hands and feet. The reason for the lack of liability is that in all these cases, additional rites must be performed in order to complete the service. One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service.

From the baraita, one may infer: But one who burns the offering on the altar in one of these circumstances, including in a state of ritual impurity, is liable. What, is it not teaching that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and there is proof from the baraita to resolve Rav Aḥa bar Huna’s dilemma? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, he is liable for violating a prohibition, without the punishment of death.

The Gemara asks: But according to that understanding, as for the non-priest who is mentioned in the baraita together with the priest who performs the Temple service in a state of impurity, is he too liable for violating a prohibition, and not death, if he burns the offering on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And the non-priest who approaches shall be put to death” (Numbers 18:7)? The Gemara answers: Do not extrapolate the liability of a non-priest from the liability of a ritually impure priest, as this case of ritual impurity is as it is, and that case of a non-priest is as it is; each situation is discussed independently.

The Gemara asks: Is that to say, by inference, that a priest who pours oil onto a meal-offering and one who mixes the oil into the meal-offering, in a state of ritual impurity, does not violate even a prohibition? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is a prohibition against pouring oil and against mixing oil in a state of ritual impurity derived? It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “They shall be sacred to their God and they shall not profane the name of their God; for the fire offerings of the Lord, the bread of their God, they offer” (Leviticus 21:6). The Gemara answers: No proof may be cited from that verse, as the prohibition against performing Temple rites that do not complete the service in a state of impurity is by rabbinic law, and the verse is a mere support, not a Torah prohibition.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Zevaḥim 12:17): And these are they who are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven: Among those enumerated is an impure individual who performed the Temple service. The Gemara concludes: This is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Sheshet, and proof that an impure individual who performs the Temple service is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and young priests and zealots may kill only one who is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

§ In order to discuss the matter itself, the Gemara cites the Tosefta: And these are they who are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven: One who partakes of untithed produce, and a ritually impure priest who partook of ritually pure teruma, and a non-priest who partook of teruma, and a non-priest who performed the Temple service, and a ritually impure priest who performed the Temple service, and a priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, who performed the Temple service, and a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments, and a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete his purification process as a leper or zav, and a priest who did not wash his hands and feet before beginning the Temple service; and priests who performed the Temple service while intoxicated with wine, and priests who performed the Temple service with overgrown hair on their heads.

The baraita continues: But a priest who performs the Temple service while uncircumcised or as an acute mourner on the day that one of his close relatives dies, or a priest who performs the Temple service while seated, are not punished with death at the hand of Heaven; rather, they are liable for violating a prohibition. With regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition.

As the Torah states the halakha only in the case of one who misuses consecrated property unwittingly, there is a dispute with regard to one who intentionally performed an action of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition.

The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in the baraita that one who partakes of untithed produce is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: As Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: From where is it derived that one who partakes of untithed produce is punished with death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “They shall not desecrate the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). From the fact that it is formulated in the future tense: “Which they will set apart,” it is clear that the verse is speaking about items that are destined to be separated in the future, i.e. untithed produce from which teruma and tithes will be separated.

And the tanna derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The term of desecration written with regard to untithed produce is derived from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to untithed produce, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the term of desecration written with regard to untithed produce from the term of desecration written with regard to meat leftover from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar] (see Leviticus 19:6, 8). Just as there, with regard to notar, he is punished with karet, so too here, with regard to untithed produce, he is punished with karet.

The Gemara answers: It is reasonable to say that he should have derived the punishment for partaking of untithed produce from teruma, as there are many elements common to teruma and untithed produce. Unlike notar, they are germane to the halakhot of teruma; they are not in effect outside of Eretz Yisrael; both of them can become permitted, as an impure priest can immerse and partake of teruma, and untithed produce can become permitted by taking teruma and tithes; in both cases, the term of desecration is formulated in the plural, while with regard to notar it is formulated in the singular; both apply to produce; and neither the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], nor the halakha of notar, apply in either case.

The Gemara rejects that conclusion: On the contrary, he should have derived the punishment for the partaking of untithed produce from notar, as there are elements common to notar and untithed produce. Both cases relate to the unfitness of the food, while in the case of an impure individual partaking of teruma, it is the person who is unfit; and in both cases there is no permission granted by means of immersion in the ritual bath, while in the case of an impure individual partaking of teruma, immersion is effective. The Gemara answers: Those elements common to teruma and untithed produce are more numerous, therefore that is the preferred derivation. Ravina says: There is no need for a tally of common elements, as deriving desecration in the plural by means of a verbal analogy from desecration in the plural is preferable.

The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita. From where do we derive that an impure priest who partook of pure teruma is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived as Shmuel says: From where is it derived with regard to an impure priest who partakes of pure teruma that he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to a priest who partakes of teruma: “And they shall keep my charge lest they bear a sin for it and die therein if they desecrate it: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:9).

The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that for partaking of ritually pure teruma, yes, the impure priest is liable, but for partaking of impure teruma, no, the priest is not liable? It is derived as Shmuel says that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that an impure priest who partakes of impure teruma is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated in that verse: “And die therein if they desecrate it,”