Talmud su Levitico 22:7

Cahana asked Rebbi Zeïra³²Since Cahana preceded R. Zeïra by at least one generation, the text is impossible. Later (Note 42) the statement is referred to as Rav’s. Since Rav was teacher and colleague of Cahana, one has to read “Rav” instead of “R. Zeïra”.: A layman who ate heave? He said to him, it is a deadly sin. After he had prayed, he said to him (Lev. 22:3): “I am the Eternal” closed the statement³³Lev. 22 deals with the rules of heave. In verse 3, Cohanim are subjected to the penalty of extirpartion for neglecting the rules of impurity. This verse closes with the remark “I am the Eternal”, which usually appears at the conclusion of a commandment. R. Zeïra (Rav) concludes that no penalty has been spelled out for the rules given in verses 4 ff.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A layman who ate heave committed a deadly sin³⁴The prohibition is spelled out Lev. 22:10. For R. Zeïra it is a simple violation; for R. Joḥanan it falls under the punishment stated in verse 3.. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Those who eat heave intentionally³⁵In the Constantinople print: אוכלי תרומה בזרים “lay persons eating heave”., whether pure [person] eating pure [heave], or impure eating impure, or pure eating impure, or impure eating pure, have commited a deadly sin. Cohanim eating heave, pure [person] eating pure [heave] fulfills its commandment; pure eating impure [has violated] a positive commandment; impure eating pure or impure eating impure [has violated] a prohibition. What did you see to say that a pure [person] eating impure [heave has violated] a positive commandment? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, (Lev. 22:7) “Afterwards he shall eat of the hallowed [food]”, of what is pure but not of what is impure. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of a positive commandment³⁶This is generally accepted also in the Babli (e. g., Yebamot 54b,73b; Pesaḥim 71b; Zebaḥim 34a, Ḥulin 81a). The proof is in the next paragraph. The transgression of a positive commandment is not prosecutable by a human court; the violation of a prohibition is.
The distinction between pure and impure food is read into the verse since מן “of” is partitive; there must be a category which is not included..

So far something than one lifts and thereby permits for lay persons. Something one lifts and permits for Heaven⁴⁴Heave is considered Heaven’s property given to the Cohen.? Let us hear from the following: ⁴⁵Sifra Emor Pereq 4(10). There, the reading is לעירובים לפחות ממאה “mixtures in less than 100 parts.” The paragraph deals with sanctified food eaten outside the Temple precinct, the common example of which is heave.(Lev. 22:7) “ ‘After that he shall eat from⁴⁶מן is taken as partitive: some, not all, is permitted the pure Cohen. the holy foods because it is his bread.’ There exists holy food which he does not eat; that excludes mixtures of more than one in 100”⁴⁷If the forbidden (impure) is more than 1/100 of the permitted (pure) heave..

⁴⁸Sifra Emor Pereq 4(11). The explanation follows R. Abraham ben David ad loc.“Not only heave food in heave food⁴⁹Impure heave in pure heave. An impure Cohen who eats pure heave has committed a deadly sin since it is said: (Lev. 22:9) “They will die from it because they desecrated it.” Impure heave is already desecrated; an impure priest eating it commits a sin but not a deadly one. The impure heave cannot become insignificant in pure since the two are of the same kind.; from where heave food in profane food⁵⁰One seah of heave in less than 100 seot of pure (and certainly one seah of pure in less than 100 seot of heave) must all be treated as heave., profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods⁵¹The plural implies all kinds of sanctified food. The singular is used in v. 10.’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir⁵²This explains a possible complication of “sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink”. The person healed from his skin disease has to bring a reparation offering together with a log of oil (Lev. 14). Part of the oil is used on the healed person’s body; the remainder is for the Cohen under the rules of the reparation offering; it must be consumed by priests in the Temple precincts. The nazir who has completed his vow has to bring sacrifices and a cereal offering consisting of unleavened bread made from flour mixed with oil and unleavened bread anointed with oil (Num. 6:13–20). The officiating Cohen receives one of these as gift added to the nazir’s well-being sacrifice; therefore, the loaves may be eaten by the Cohen’s family anywhere in the city of the sanctuary. If there is a mix-up of the oils, the anointed loaves can be eaten only by the Cohen in the Temple precinct.; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition⁵³A mixture of pieces of elevation and purification offerings cannot be brought to the altar since of purification offerings only the fat and some inner organs are burned. They cannot be eaten since elevation sacrifices are forbidden for any use. They cannot become insignificant because (a) they are of the same kind of meat and (b) they are counted as pieces. Therefore, one has to leave the meat for the next day when all will be forbidden and has to be burned..