Question (Kahana, to Rav): If a Zar ate Terumah [what is the law]?

Answer (Rav): This is an Aveirah of Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim].

Retraction: After [Rav] prayed, he told him "Ani Hashem'' interrupts [between Misah, which was said for a Kohen who eats it b'Tum'ah, and the Isur of a Zar who eats it.]A Kohen who eats Terumah b'Tum'ah is Chayav Misah, but a Zar who eats Terumah is not Chayav Misah.

(R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan): If a Zar ate Terumah, this is an Aveirah of Misah.

Support (for R. Yochanan - Beraisa): Zarim who eat Terumah - if a Tahor ate Tahor [Terumah], or a Tamei ate Tamei, or a Tahor ate Tamei, or a Tamei ate Tamei, this is an Aveirah of Misah;

Kohanim who eat Terumah b'Mezid - if a Tahor ate Tahor, this is its Mitzvah. If a Tahor ate Tamei, this is an [Isur] Aseh. If a Tamei ate Tahor, he is Chayav Misah. If a Tamei ate Tamei, this is a Lo Sa'aseh. (We explained this like GRA)

Question: Why do you say that if a Tahor ate Tamei, this is an Aseh?

Answer (R. Ba bar Mamal): "V'Achar Yochal Min ha'Kodoshim'' - [when he is Tahor,] he will eat Tahor [Kodshim, i.e. Terumah], and not Tamei. Any Lav derived from an Aseh is [like] an Aseh.

(R. Avina) Question: Since it says "Kol Asher Lo Senapir v'Kaskeses Tochelu'', do we not know that "v'Chol Asher Ein Lo Senapir v'Kaskeses... Lo Sochelu''?! (Why are both verses needed?)

Answer: This puts an [Isur] Aseh and a Lo Sa'aseh for [eating] Tamei [species of fish].

Inference: This is because [a Lav was explicitly] written, but if it were not written, it would be [only] an Aseh.

Conclusion: Any Lav derived from an Aseh is an Aseh.

R. Yosa learned [the Aseh forbidding a Tahor to eat Tamei] from "ha'Tahor veha'Tamei Yachdav Yochlenu'' - here (blemished Kodshim), a Tahor and Tamei may eat from one bowl (even though the Tamei is Metamei the bowl, and it is Metamei the meat), but Terumah, a Tahor and Tamei may not eat from one bowl.

Question: Perhaps [we should infer that] a Tahor and Tamei may not eat from one bowl for Kodshim (but it is permitted for Terumah)!

Answer (R. Yochanan bar Mari): If it is [to teach about] Kodshim (this cannot be, for) it already says "veha'Basar Asher Yiga b'Chol Tamei Lo Ye'achel.'' (If we can expound a new law, we do not say that the verse comes to add another Isur, in this case an Aseh. - PF)

Question (against Rav - Mishnah): Terumah and Bikurim, [a Zar] is Chayav Misah for them.

Answer: He explains that it discusses Kohanim [who ate them b'Tum'as ha'Guf].

Question: The Mishnah also teaches [the fine of] a Chomesh. Is there a Chomesh for Kohanim?!

Answer: He explains li'Tzedadin (different clauses discuss different cases). The Reisha discusses Kohanim, and the Seifa discusses Yisrael.

Question (against R. Yochanan - Mishnah): They are forbidden to Zarim. (If the Reisha taught that a Zar is Chayav Misah for Terumah, the Seifa need not teach that he is forbidden!)

Answer: He explains that it forbids less than a Shi'ur (of a k'Zayis, for which there is Misah).

(Mishnah): They are the property of the Kohen;

(R. Ba bar Chiyah citing R. Yochanan): "Lecha Nesatim l'Mashchah'' - l'Mashchah is for grandeur (the way kings eat). L'Mashchah - for anointing [what is normal, i.e. oil]. L'Mashchah - for lighting [lamps].

Suggestion: Perhaps [one may light with it] whether it is Tamei or Tahor!

Rejection (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): "Lo Vi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei'' (you may not burn Tamei Ma'aser), but you may burn Tamei Terumah. (This implies that it is permitted only if it is Tamei.)

(R. Ze'ira citing R. Lazar): What is the source for Bikurim that became Tamei, that you may not light with them? "Lo Vi'arti Mimenu b'Tamei.''

Question: (The verse discusses Ma'aser Sheni.) One may redeem it [if it is Tamei, and eat it], and you say so (that the verse needs to forbid burning it)?!

Answer: Either [the verse] teaches about what was bought with Kesef Ma'aser and it became Tamei, and like R. Yehudah (who says that it cannot be redeemed), or it discusses Bikurim that became Tamei. (We explained this like SHA'AREI TORAS ERETZ YISRAEL.)

Note: It seems that according to R. Yehudah, since we need the verse to teach about Tamei Ma'aser, it does not teach about Bikurim. The question is answered only according to Rabanan.