and one who eats them when they themselves, the second tithe and first fruits, are ritually impure is flogged, even though he himself is ritually pure, which is not the case with regard to teruma; and these differences the tanna does not teach. Apparently, the tanna of the mishna taught certain differences between the cases and omitted others. Therefore, the omission of the halakha governing an uncircumcised man does not prove that it is permitted for him to eat second tithe.

§ Having cited the mishna, the Gemara proceeds to discuss it. It was taught in the baraita that second tithe and first fruits are forbidden to an acute mourner; and Rabbi Shimon permits an acute mourner to partake of first fruits. The Gemara asks: From where do the Rabbis derive that first fruits are forbidden to one who is in acute mourning? As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil…nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and the Master said: “The offering [teruma] of your hand,” these are the first fruits. And first fruits are juxtaposed in this verse to second tithe: Just as the second tithe is forbidden to an acute mourner, so too, first fruits are forbidden to an acute mourner.

And Rabbi Shimon counters that since the Merciful One calls first fruits “teruma,” the halakha governing them is similar to that which governs teruma: Just as teruma is permitted to an acute mourner, so too, first fruits are permitted to an acute mourner.

The baraita continues: And both second tithe and first fruits require eradication before Passover in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical cycle; and Rabbi Shimon exempts first fruits from the obligation of eradication. One Sage, the Rabbis, juxtaposes first fruits to second tithe: Just as second tithe is subject to eradication, so too are first fruits. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, does not juxtapose the two halakhot and derive one from the other.

It was stated above that it is prohibited to burn second tithe and first fruits even when they are in a state of ritual impurity, and that one who eats them when they themselves, the second tithe and first fruits, are ritually impure is flogged, even though he himself is ritually pure. From where do we derive these halakhot? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: The verse with regard to the confession of tithes states: “I did not consume of it while impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14), a general statement that means whether I, the one who ate it, was ritually impure, and the tithe was ritually pure, or whether I was ritually pure and the tithe was ritually impure. Regardless, the tithe may not be consumed through burning or eating in a state of impurity.

The tanna adds: And where one is actually warned against eating second tithe in a state of impurity, this I do not know. Although it is obvious from the verse that this is prohibited, the source for the prohibition is unclear. The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: The prohibition against eating second tithe when one is in a state of ritual impurity of the body is explicitly written, as it is stated with regard to the ritual impurity imparted by a creeping animal: “The soul that touches it shall be impure until the evening, and he shall not eat from the holy things unless he has washed his flesh in water” (Leviticus 22:6). This is referring to second tithe, as will be explained later (74b).

The Gemara explains: Rather, this is the dilemma he is raising: From where is it derived that one may not eat it when the tithe itself is in a state of ritual impurity? The verse states: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later it states with regard to offerings that have been disqualified: “You shall eat it within your gates, the impure and the pure alike, as the gazelle and as the hart” (Deuteronomy 15:22). And a Sage of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Even a ritually impure and a ritually pure person may eat together on one table and out of one bowl without concern. And the Merciful One states: That which I said to you there, with regard to disqualified offerings: “You shall eat it within your gates,” means regardless of whether it is the individual or the meat that is impure; but here, with regard to second tithe, you may not eat it in that state. From here it is derived that one may not eat second tithe when the tithe itself is ritually impure.

It was stated above that one is prohibited from burning second tithe and first fruits even when they are ritually impure, which is not the case with regard to teruma. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that this halakha does not apply to teruma? Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: As the verse with regard to the declaration of tithes states: “I did not consume of it while impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14), and the words “of it” teach that of it, i.e., tithe, you may not burn when it is impure, but you may burn and derive benefit from the oil of teruma that has become ritually impure.

The Gemara asks: But say perhaps as follows: Of it you may not burn, but you may burn and derive benefit from consecrated oil that became ritually impure. The Gemara refutes this suggestion: That possibility is unacceptable. Is it not an a fortiori inference? If with regard to the tithe, which is lenient, the Torah said: “I did not burn of it while impure,” then with regard to consecrated oil, which is more stringent, is it not all the more so prohibited to burn them while ritually impure?

The Gemara retorts: If so, then with regard to teruma as well, say that it is an a fortiori inference, as teruma is certainly more sacred than tithes. If it is prohibited to benefit from second tithe while it is burning, all the more so would it be prohibited to benefit from teruma while it is burning. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written “of it”? From there it is derived that there is an item excluded from the prohibition against burning in a state of ritual impurity.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to conclude that “of it” comes to exclude teruma? Perhaps it comes to exclude consecrated items. The Gemara replies: It is reasonable that I do not exclude consecrated items from the prohibition against benefiting from their burning, as with regard to consecrated items there are many stringent elements. Their Hebrew acronym is peh, nun, kuf, ayin, kaf, samekh, which is a mnemonic for the following stringencies that apply to consecrated items and not to teruma:

Piggul: If, during one of the rites involved in the sacrifice of an offering, i.e., slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, or sprinkling it on the altar, the priest or the one bringing the offering entertains the thought of eating the offering at a time that is unfit for eating, the offering is thereby invalidated. Notar: Meat of an offering that remained beyond its allotted time may not be eaten and must be burned. Offering [korban]: It is an offering to God. Misuse of consecrated objects [me’ila]: One who unwittingly derives benefit from consecrated items is required to bring a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated objects. Karet: The punishment of one who eats consecrated items while ritually impure is karet. Forbidden to an acute mourner [asur le’onen]: An acute mourner is prohibited from eating consecrated items. None of these halakhot apply to teruma. Therefore, consecrated items are more stringent than teruma, and accordingly they are not excluded from the prohibition against deriving benefit while ritually impure.

The Gemara rejects this argument. On the contrary, it is teruma that I would not exclude from the prohibition, as with regard to teruma there are many stringent elements, represented by the acronym mem, ḥet, peh, zayin, which is a mnemonic for the following: Death [mita]: One who is prohibited from eating teruma but ate it intentionally is liable to the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven. One-fifth [ḥomesh]: A non-priest, to whom teruma is forbidden, who unwittingly ate teruma is obligated to pay its value to the priest plus one-fifth of the sum. And teruma does not have the possibility of redemption [pidyon]: Once it is sanctified, teruma may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. And it is forbidden to non-priests [zarim]. These stringencies do not apply to consecrated items.

The Gemara answers: Those stringencies that apply to consecrated items are more numerous than those that apply to teruma. Therefore, it is appropriate to be more stringent with consecrated items and exclude impure teruma from the prohibition against deriving benefit from it while it is burned. And if you wish, say instead a different reason, without counting the number of stringencies: Consecrated items are more stringent because one who eats them while ritually impure is liable to receive karet, which is more severe than death at the hand of Heaven, the punishment in the case of teruma.

It was further stated above that one who eats second tithe and first fruits when they themselves, the second tithe and first fruits, are ritually impure is flogged, which is not the case with regard to teruma. The Gemara infers from this that it is lashes that he does not receive when he eats teruma that is ritually impure; however, the transgression of a prohibition is involved. From where do we derive that this is prohibited? The verse referring to offerings that have been disqualified states: “You shall eat it within your gates” (Deuteronomy 15:22). The word “it” indicates that it is only this, disqualified offerings, that may be eaten in a state of impurity, but not another type of consecrated food. This is a prohibition that is derived by inference from a positive mitzva, i.e., it is not stated in the Torah in the form of a prohibition. And there is a principle that a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is classified as a positive mitzva, for which no lashes are administered.

The Gemara demonstrated earlier that no proof can be adduced from the mishna cited by Rav Sheshet, as the tanna of that mishna taught only some of the differences between second tithe and teruma. Rav Ashi said: From the first part of the mishna as well, you can conclude that he taught certain differences and omitted others, from the fact that he does not teach the following additional difference: