The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: In determining whether a derivation involves consecrated matters or whether it involves non-sacred matters, we follow the matter that is derived from a matter derived from juxtaposition. Since in this case the matter derived is second-tithe produce, which for these purposes is non-sacred, its halakhic status may be derived from juxtaposition with the halakhot of sacrificial matters. But according to the one who says: We follow the matter that teaches, i.e., from which the halakha is derived, what is there to say? The status of second-tithe produce may not be derived by means of juxtaposition from the status of the firstborn offering, which itself was derived from the blood of the offering, because the firstborn offering is a sacrificial matter.

The Gemara answers: This is not a matter derived from a matter derived from a juxtaposition, as the status of the firstborn offering is not derived from the status of blood; blood and flesh are one matter. There is only one derivation in this case, which is that the status of second-tithe produce is derived from the status of the blood and the flesh of the firstborn.

§ The mishna teaches that one who ate offerings of the most sacred order outside the Temple courtyard and one who ate second-tithe produce outside the wall of Jerusalem is flogged with forty lashes. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we already learn this one time in the previous mishna (13a), that one who ate second-tithe produce or sacrificial food that was not redeemed is flogged? Why does the tanna repeat the halakha of second-tithe produce in this mishna? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: These are different cases; the latter clause, this mishna, is in the case of ritually pure second-tithe produce and a ritually pure person who eats it outside the wall of Jerusalem. The first clause, the previous mishna, is in the case of ritually impure second-tithe produce and a ritually impure person who eats it within Jerusalem.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that one is liable to receive lashes due to impurity? It is derived as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says that the verse in the portion of the declaration of tithes: “I have not put any of it away when impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14), is a general formulation that is interpreted to mean: Whether I am impure and the second-tithe produce is ritually pure, or whether I am ritually pure and the second-tithe produce is impure. Rabbi Shimon adds: And I do not know where it is that one is warned, i.e., where is there a prohibition, with regard to eating. Although it is clear from the verse cited that it is prohibited for one to partake of second-tithe produce while impure, the source for this prohibition is unclear.

Before citing the source of the prohibition, the Gemara asks: With regard to one with impurity of the body who partakes of second-tithe produce, it is explicitly written: “A soul that touches it shall be impure until the evening and shall not eat of the consecrated food” (Leviticus 22:6), which the Sages interpret to include second-tithe produce. This is a prohibition with regard to a ritually impure person partaking of second-tithe produce. But when Rabbi Shimon says: I do not know where it is that one is warned with regard to eating, he is stating: With regard to the impurity of the second-tithe produce itself, from where is the warning derived?

The Gemara answers: It is derived as it is written with regard to second-tithe produce: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and later, with regard to a blemished firstborn animal, the verse states: “Within your gates you may eat it, the impure and the pure may eat it alike” (Deuteronomy 15:22).

And it is taught in a baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Even a ritually pure person and a ritually impure person may eat the flesh of a blemished firstborn animal in one dish and need not be concerned, as there is no prohibition for one to eat it while he is impure or while it is impure. And the Merciful One says: It is that impure flesh of the blemished firstborn that is permitted for you to eat with a ritually pure person within your gates there, whereas here, in the case of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem, you may not eat it within your gates in the manner that one eats the flesh of the firstborn.

The Gemara stated that the case of second-tithe produce that was not redeemed, cited in the previous mishna, is referring to second-tithe produce that is impure. This indicates that impure second-tithe produce can be redeemed. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that impure second-tithe produce is subject to redemption?

It is as Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived with regard to second-tithe produce that became impure that one may redeem it even in Jerusalem? It is derived as the verse states: “Because you are unable to carry it [se’eto], as the place is too far from you…and you shall turn it into money” (Deuteronomy 14:24–25). And se’et means nothing other than eating, as it is stated: “And portions [masot] were taken to them from before him” (Genesis 43:34), referring to gifts of food. Therefore, the phrase: You are unable se’eto, means: You cannot eat it, referring to a case where it is impure. The Torah states that in that case one may redeem the produce even if it is in Jerusalem, not at a distance.

The Gemara cites another, related interpretation. Rav Beivai says that Rav Asi says: From where is it derived with regard to ritually pure second-tithe produce that one may redeem it even if it is one stride outside the wall of Jerusalem, contrary to the plain understanding of the verse: “As the place is too far from you”? It is derived as it is stated: “Because you are unable to carry it [se’eto],” indicating that if there is any reason that one is unable to carry the produce and bring it into Jerusalem, he may redeem it regardless of its distance from Jerusalem. The Gemara objects: That verse is necessary to derive the halakha of Rabbi Elazar that one may redeem impure second-tithe produce even in Jerusalem.

The Gemara answers: If so, that the verse is required to derive only the halakha of Rabbi Elazar, then let the verse state explicitly: You are unable to eat it. What is the reason that the verse employs the term “se’eto”? The Gemara objects: And say that the term comes entirely for this purpose, to teach that one may redeem the produce even if it is not far from the city, and nothing is derived with regard to impure produce. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: You are unable to take it. Why does the verse employ the term “se’eto”? Conclude two conclusions from it: One may redeem ritually pure second-tithe produce even if it is just outside the walls of Jerusalem, and one may redeem ritually impure second-tithe produce even in Jerusalem.

In connection to the discussion of where one may redeem second-tithe produce, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥanina and Rav Hoshaya sat, and a dilemma was raised before them: If the second-tithe produce is at the entrance of Jerusalem, what is the halakha; can one redeem it there? The Gemara elaborates: It is obvious in a case where one is outside Jerusalem and his burden of second-tithe produce is inside Jerusalem; the tithe is admitted by the walls of Jerusalem and its status is that of produce that entered the city. But in a case where one is inside Jerusalem and his burden of second-tithe produce is outside Jerusalem, what is the halakha?

A certain elder taught them a baraita of the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. It is written: “As the place is too far from you [mimmekha]” (Deuteronomy 14:24); and the term “mimmekha” is interpreted as: From your fullness [mimmilluakha], indicating the person and all his appurtenances, including the burden he bears. If any part of him or his appurtenances is inside the city, it is as though he is entirely inside the city, and therefore he may not redeem the second-tithe produce.

Rav Pappa raises a related dilemma: If one is holding the second-tithe produce on a reed, and it is suspended behind him, what is the halakha? Since he is carrying the burden, does it fall into the category of his fullness, and it is no different from a burden that he bears on his person, or does its status differ because it is not actually resting on his body? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

§ Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to second-tithe produce, from when is one liable to receive lashes for eating it outside the walls of Jerusalem? It is from when the produce entered within the wall of Jerusalem. What is the reason for this? It is derived as the verse states with regard to second-tithe produce: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it” (Deuteronomy 12:18), and it is written in the previous verse: “You may not eat within your gates” (Deuteronomy 12:17), from which it is derived: Anywhere that we read concerning it: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it,” we read concerning it the prohibition: “You may not eat within your gates,” i.e., it may not be eaten outside the walls of Jerusalem; and anywhere that we do not read concerning it: “Before the Lord your God you shall eat it,” as the produce remained outside the walls, we do not read concerning it the prohibition: “You may not eat within your gates.”

The Gemara raises an objection from that which Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to a priest that a fig of untithed produce came into his possession, and he seeks to separate terumot and tithes from it, he says: This fig, I designate its teruma at its stem, I designate its first tithe at its north side, and I designate its second tithe at its south side; and it is a year when second tithe is separated, i.e., the first, second, fourth, or fifth years of the Sabbatical Year cycle, and he is in Jerusalem, when he recites this formula. Or he says that poor man’s tithe shall be designated at its south side if it is a year of poor man’s tithe, i.e., the third or sixth years of the Sabbatical Year cycle, and he is located anywhere in the outlying areas, not in Jerusalem. In those cases, if he ate the fig,