Teruma is for a priest and the first tithe is for a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permits it, i.e., the first tithe, to a priest, as he too is from the tribe of Levi. The Gemara is puzzled by this last statement: It says: Permits it. Does this prove by inference that there is one tanna that prohibits a priest from partaking of tithes? But a priest is also a Levite and cannot be considered a foreigner. Rather, say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya meant that one may give it even to a priest. The tithe does not have to be handed to a Levite; one may choose to give it to a priest instead.

The Gemara inquires: What is the reason for Rabbi Meir’s opinion? Rav Aḥa, son of Rabba, said in the name of tradition that the verse states: “For the tithe of the children of Israel that they set apart as a teruma to the Lord, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance” (Numbers 18:24). From the fact that this verse calls the tithe “teruma,” we learn: Just as teruma is forbidden to foreigners, so too is the first tithe forbidden to foreigners, i.e., non-Levites. The Gemara asks: If so, is it true that just as with teruma, a foreigner who eats it is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven and to pay the additional fifth for it, so too, with regard to tithes, a foreigner who eats it should be liable for it to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven and to pay the additional fifth?

The Gemara answers that the verse states: “They will die through it if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9), and a different verse states: “Then he shall add the fifth part thereof unto it” (Leviticus 22:14). A close reading of these verses shows that the Torah is emphasizing that the death penalty comes through it, teruma, and not through tithes, and that a fifth must be added to it, but not to tithes. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Meir, how do they account for the comparison in the above verse? The Gemara answers: They would say it teaches that just as the requirement to separate teruma produces the status of forbidden untithed produce, so too the requirement to separate the first tithe also produces the status of forbidden untithed produce.

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: One might have thought a person should be liable only for untithed produce from which no terumot or tithes have been separated at all, but if the great teruma has been separated from it and the first tithe has not been separated from it; or if the first tithe has been separated from it and the second tithe has not; or even if the poor man’s tithe, which is merely given to the poor and has no sanctity, has not been separated, from where is it derived that such produce also has the status of untithed produce?

The verse states: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and below, with regard to the poor man’s tithe, it states: “That they may eat within your gates and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as “your gates” stated below is referring to the poor man’s tithe, so too “your gates” stated here is referring to the poor man’s tithe, and the Merciful One states in the Torah “you may not eat,” implying that it may be eaten only after separation.

And if we had learned it only from there, I would say that it merely teaches a prohibition against partaking of untithed produce of this type, but the death penalty is not warranted. The comparison to teruma consequently teaches us that eating this type of untithed produce is also punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

A different version of this discussion presents it in the form of a question: Isn’t it the case that the halakha that failure to separate the first tithe creates the status of untithed produce is derived from the halakha that Rabbi Yosei taught? If so, there is no need for the exposition of the verse referring to tithes as teruma. The Gemara answers: If the proof was from that source alone, I would say that it is only prohibited by a prohibition but the death penalty is not warranted. He therefore teaches us that all the stringencies of untithed produce are in force.

§ The Gemara asks: In what manner did you establish the mishna? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But if so, say the latter clause: The daughter of a Levite betrothed to a priest and the daughter of a priest betrothed to a Levite may eat neither teruma nor tithe. Here, what foreignness is there that prohibits her from partaking of the tithe? Even according to the opinion that prohibits the first tithe to foreigners, this woman is a Levite on both sides. Rav Sheshet said: What is the meaning of: She may not eat, that the mishna teaches? It means that she may not give permission to others to separate the teruma from the tithe. As long as she is merely betrothed to a Levite, she may not appoint a messenger to set aside the teruma from the tithe on behalf of the Levite, as she is not yet his wife.

The Gemara asks: Is it to be concluded by inference that a married woman may give permission to separate teruma from the tithe? The Gemara answers: Yes, and isn’t it taught: “And you may eat it in any place, you and your households” (Numbers 18:31)? This teaches that an Israelite woman married to a Levite may give permission to another to separate teruma from the Levite’s tithe.

The baraita continues to discuss this halakha: Do you say she may give permission to separate teruma from the tithe, or perhaps it is only referring to eating? Say in response: If an Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of teruma, which is stringent, is it not all the more so true for tithe, which is lenient? Consequently, there is no need to teach us this halakha. Rather, the verse teaches that an Israelite woman married to a Levite may give permission to another to separate teruma from the tithe.

Mar, son of Rabbana, said: The mishna is not teaching that the daughter of a Levite who was betrothed to a priest may not partake of tithe, but rather it is coming to say that we do not distribute tithe to her in the granary. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the reason for the decree against distributing teruma to a woman in the granary is due to the prohibition (Yevamot 100a) against a woman being alone with a strange man in the granary, which is a secluded place, as this concern applies equally to the case here. But according to the one who says that the Sages prohibited this practice due to concern that the woman might be a divorcée, who is no longer entitled to teruma, this concern should not apply to the daughter of a Levite. Does she not partake of tithe on her own account, even after she is divorced?

The Gemara refutes this argument: And according to your reasoning that rejects the explanation of Mar, son of Rabbana, with regard to the daughter of a Levite, does a divorcée who is the daughter of a priest not partake of teruma? Why should the daughter of a priest married to a priest not receive teruma in a granary? Rather, this is a rabbinic decree that was enacted primarily due to a priest’s divorcée who is the daughter of a non-priest, as she may no longer partake of teruma after her divorce. They also applied this decree to the daughter of a priest divorced from a priest. For this reason, they also decreed against a Levite woman receiving a portion in the granary.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why specifically one who was betrothed; the same would hold true even for a married woman as well. The Gemara answers: There is no difference between them in this regard, but since the tanna taught in the first clause of the mishna: Betrothed, he also taught in the latter clause: Betrothed, although the halakha in the latter clause does not apply exclusively to a betrothed woman.

§ The Sages taught: Teruma is given to a priest, and the first tithe is given only to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: