Tosefta su Esodo 27:1

Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, two disqualified loaves of thanksgiving offering (see Lev. 7:12-14) were placed on top of the Temple portico. As long as they were placed [on top of the portico], everyone could eat unconsecrated food [containing leaven]. When one was removed, everyone (i.e., the Kohanim) could eat Terumah [containing leaven]. When both were taken away, they burned this one and that one (i.e., unconsecrated food and Terumah). They burned uncertain Terumah (i.e., Terumah whose purity status is uncertain), impure [Terumah], and pure [Terumah] all together, the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say, uncertain [Terumah was burned] by itself, and pure by itself, and impure by itself. Said Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree about the pure or about the impure [Terumah], whether we burn this one by itself and that one by itself. About what did they disagree? About uncertain [Terumah] and about impure [Terumah], for Rabbi Eliezer says, this one is burned by itself and that one is burned by itself, and Rabbi Yehoshua says, both [are burned] together. Said Rabbi Yosei, the conclusion does not follow from the proof. [What is the proof?] Meat that was rendered impure by a secondary source of impurity [and then made contact] with meat that was rendered impure by a primary source of impurity, both of them are impure, only that this one is possesses a higher degree of impurity, and that one possesses a lower degree of impurity. And so too with oil that became disqualified [through contact with] a tevul yom^*i.e., one who has immersed himself but remains impure until sunset or [by contact] with a candlestick that was rendered impure through death-impurity -- both of them are impure, only that this one is possesses a higher degree of impurity, and that one possesses a lower degree of impurity. And I say that Terumah that became impure through a secondary source of impurity is burned along with Terumah that became impure through a primary source of impurity, even though we are adding impurity onto impurity. And [with respect to] uncertain [Terumah] and impure [Terumah], I say that if the uncertain is burned along with the impure, its impurity is removed from it. Beit Shammai say, we do not burn pure meat with impure meat, but Beit Hilel permit it.

One who eats consecrated chametz on Passover, it is not Terumah. One who eats consecrated chametz on Passover inadvertently, he pays the principal and a fifth, and [brings] a certain guilt offering and a dependent guilt offering. [If he does so] intentionally, he is exempt [from bringing an offering; rather, he is excommunicated]. To what case does this apply? To consecrated [foods] from which chametz was separated before Passover, it is [indeed] consecrated, but one who consecrates chametz on Passover, it is not consecrated.

One who eats Terumah [containing] chametz on Passover does not pay its monetary value in wood to a Kohen. Said Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, "I said to Rabbi Akiva, for what reason does one who eats Terumah [containing] chametz on Passover not pay its monetary value in wood to a Kohen? What is the difference between this and the other days of the year? For on the other days of the year, one pays the monetary value in wood to a Kohen." He said to me, "No. If you say that on the other days of the year that [a Kohen] is not permitted to eat [impure Terumah] but is permitted to burn it, you must also say the same regarding [eating Terumah with chametz on Passover], for it is neither permitted to be eaten nor burned." How is this similar to the case of Terumah of strawberries and watermelons and cucumbers that became impure? Because these neither are permitted to eat nor permitted to be burned [as they are unfit for firewood]. To what case does this apply? To Terumah as to which one separated chametz before Passover, it is designated as Terumah, but one who separated Terumah [containing] chametz on Passover, it is not Terumah.