Teruma and first fruits apply in all the years of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, including the third and the sixth years, and they do not have the possibility of redemption, as once they are sanctified they may not be redeemed and rendered non-sacred. This is not the case with regard to second tithe, which applies only in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of the cycle and which can be redeemed. The Gemara concludes: Learn from here that the tanna did not list all of the differences between second tithe and teruma.

The Gemara resumes its discussion of whether or not an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe. Come and hear a proof with regard to this question from the following baraita: If shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision remain after the foreskin was removed, one may not eat teruma, nor the Paschal lamb, nor sacrificial food, nor tithe. What, is it not referring to tithe of produce, and so the dilemma is resolved? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: No, the tithe mentioned in this baraita is animal tithe. The baraita teaches that the meat of the animal tithe was forbidden to one who is uncircumcised.

The Gemara expresses surprise: Animal tithe is the same as sacrificial food, as it too is an offering the meat of which is eaten by the animal’s owner; why would the tanna single it out? The Gemara counters: And according to your reasoning that the baraita would not have singled out specific offerings, didn’t we learn in the baraita that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb, and yet it also teaches that the same halakha applies to sacrificial food?

The Gemara rejects this argument: Granted, it is necessary to mention both the Paschal lamb and sacrificial food. As, if the baraita had taught only the halakha in the case of the Paschal lamb, one might have said that an uncircumcised man may not eat the Paschal lamb because the disqualification resulting from lack of circumcision is written explicitly with regard to the Paschal lamb, but with regard to other sacrificial food, concerning which the Bible says nothing about circumcision, one might say that there is no such prohibition. And conversely, if the baraita had taught only the halakha with respect to sacrificial food, I would say: What is meant here by sacrificial food? This is referring specifically to the Paschal lamb, concerning which the prohibition with regard to an uncircumcised man is stated explicitly, but other sacrificial food is permitted to him. But why do I need animal tithe to be mentioned at all? It is no different than any other sacrificial food. In that case, the tithe mentioned in the baraita is referring to second tithe.

The Gemara suggests a different refutation of this proof: Rather, the tithe mentioned in the baraita is referring to first tithe, the one-tenth of the produce that is given to the Levites, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that first tithe is forbidden to common Israelites. Since first tithe is forbidden to an ordinary Israelite, it may similarly be forbidden to an uncircumcised man. However, there is no proof from here that second tithe is forbidden to one who is uncircumcised, as second tithe is permitted even to ordinary Israelites.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a different proof from that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught in the following baraita: An uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating of two different tithes. What, is it not that one is the tithe of produce and one is animal tithe? The Gemara refutes this argument: Here, too, the baraita is referring to first tithe, and the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

Come and hear a proof from yet another baraita: It is prohibited for an acute mourner to eat second tithe, but it is permitted for him to eat teruma and to participate in the preparation of the red heifer. It is prohibited for one who immersed himself that day but does not become completely purified until nightfall to eat teruma, but it is permitted for him to participate in the preparation of the red heifer and to eat second tithe. It is prohibited for one who lacks atonement, e.g., a zav or leper who immersed at the conclusion of his period of impurity but has not yet brought an offering for his atonement, to participate in the preparation of the red heifer, but it is permitted for him to eat teruma and second tithe. And if it is so that an uncircumcised man may eat second tithe, let the baraita also teach: It is prohibited for an uncircumcised man to eat teruma, but it is permitted for him to participate in the preparation of the red heifer and to eat second tithe. The fact that the baraita omits this ruling proves that an uncircumcised man is in fact prohibited from eating second tithe.

The Gemara rejects this argument: No proof can be adduced from here, as this baraita was taught by a tanna from the school of Rabbi Akiva, who includes an uncircumcised man in the same halakha as that which governs one who is ritually impure. As it is taught in a baraita, Rabbi Akiva says: The words “any man” in the verse “Any man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4) come to include one who is uncircumcised; he, too, is prohibited from partaking of consecrated food or participating in the preparation of the red heifer.

With regard to the issue itself, the Gemara inquires: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Akiva? It is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian. As it is taught in a baraita: The burning of the red heifer by an acute mourner or by one who lacks atonement is valid. Rabbi Yosef the Babylonian says: If the burning is performed by an acute mourner, it is valid; but if it is performed by one who lacks atonement, it is invalid. The anonymous first tanna clearly disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as the previous baraita, which was attributed to Rabbi Akiva, states that one who lacks atonement is prohibited from participating in the preparation of the red heifer. It may be presumed that this tanna disagrees with Rabbi Akiva with respect to one who is uncircumcised as well.

The Gemara further comments on this issue. And Rabbi Yitzḥak, too, maintains that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating second tithe? It is stated: “And I did not consume of it while impure” (Deuteronomy 26:14) with regard to second tithe, and it is stated: “Do not eat of it raw” (Exodus 12:9) with regard to the Paschal lamb. Just as in the case of the Paschal lamb, with regard to which “of it” is stated, an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it, so too, in the case of second tithe, with regard to which “of it” is stated, an uncircumcised man is prohibited from eating it.

With regard to this verbal analogy, the Gemara comments: It must be that this phrase “of it” is available, i.e., it is superfluous in its own context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. As, if it is not available, the verbal analogy can be refuted logically, as it is possible to say: What is unique to the Paschal lamb? It is that one is liable to receive karet for eating it due to it being piggul or notar, or due to him being ritually impure. It could therefore be argued that it is owing to the Paschal lamb’s special sanctity and severity that an uncircumcised man may not partake of it. But from where is it derived that an uncircumcised man may not eat second tithe? The Gemara concludes: This is not so, as the phrase “of it” is indeed available for establishing the verbal analogy.

The Gemara asks: Which of the phrases “of it” is not needed in its own context and is therefore available for establishing a verbal analogy? Rava said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “Of it” is written three times with regard to the Paschal lamb: “Do not eat of it raw… And you shall not leave any of it until morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:9–10). The three instances of “of it” are expounded as follows: One for itself, to teach that the prohibition relates to the Paschal lamb; and one for the verbal analogy; and one for another purpose.

According to the one who says that the verse comes to provide you with a positive mitzva to burn that which is left over after it has taught the prohibition against leaving it over until the morning, to teach that one is not flogged for violating the prohibition, because any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes; since “that which remains [notar]” is written, “of it” is also written. And according to the one who says that the verse comes to provide him with the second morning for burning, i.e., to teach that the leftover meat of the Paschal lamb is not burned on the following morning, which is a Festival, but rather on the following morning, the first of the intermediate days of the Festival; since “until morning” is written, “of it” is also written.

Similarly, “of it” is written three times with regard to second tithe: “I did not eat of it in my mourning, and I did not consume of it while impure, and I did not give of it for the dead” (Deuteronomy 26:14). The three instances of “of it” are expounded as follows: One for itself; and one for that which Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that the verse comes to permit a priest to burn impure teruma oil and derive benefit from its light; and one for the following teaching of Reish Lakish.

As Reish Lakish said that Rabbi Samya said: From where is it derived that if the second tithe became ritually impure, it is permitted for one to anoint one’s body with it? As it is stated: “Nor did I give of it for the dead.” It is for the dead that I did not give of it, but for the living in a manner similar to the way it is given for the dead, I gave of it. Now, what usage of tithe is the same for the living and the dead? You must say it is anointing.

Mar Zutra strongly objects to this: But say that the verse is referring not to anointing but to purchasing a coffin and shrouds for one who is deceased with money received in exchange for the second tithe; this is prohibited, but buying clothing and the like for one who is living is permitted. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: “Of it” indicates benefit derived from the tithe itself and not from the money acquired in exchange for the tithe. Rav Ashi said a different answer: “I did not give” must be similar to “I did not eat”; just as there, eating is from the tithe itself, so too here, giving is from the tithe itself. In any event, the three instances of “of it” written with regard to second tithe are required for different expositions.

The Gemara asks: And yet there is still a difficulty, as the verbal analogy is available only from one side, since only the verse with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its own context. Granted, this works out well according to the one who says that one can derive from a verbal analogy that is available only from one side and one cannot refute it logically, even if there are valid counterarguments. But according to the one who said that one can derive from such an analogy and one can also refute it logically, if there are grounds to distinguish between the two cases, what can be said? As explained above, the analogy between the Paschal lamb and second tithe can be refuted.

The Gemara answers: This halakha of Rabbi Abbahu with regard to the burning of impure teruma oil is derived from what Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said. As Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I, behold, I have given you the charge of My terumot” (Numbers 18:8)? From the amplification of the plural “My terumot,” it is derived that the verse is speaking of two terumot, one teruma that is ritually pure and one teruma that is ritually impure. And the Merciful One states: “I have given you,” i.e., it shall be yours, and you may derive benefit from it. Since there is a stringent prohibition against eating impure teruma, the benefit that is permitted is to burn it beneath your cooked dish. As the allowance to benefit from the burning of impure teruma is derived from here, the phrase “of it” is available on both sides.

§ It is taught in the mishna that all those who are ritually impure with any type of ritual impurity may not eat teruma. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: “Any man from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a zav shall not eat of the holy things until he be pure” (Leviticus 22:4). Now, what matter is the same