Yevamot

and that the man  who eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged,  and that these laws do not apply to terumah, were not stated.  This proves clearly that only some were taught and others were omitted. The Master said,  'And are forbidden to an onan, and R. Simeon permits [the bikkurim to an onan]'.  Whence do they derive their views? — From the Scriptural text, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil or the firstlings of thy herd  etc. nor the offering of thy hand,  and a Master said that 'the offering of thy hand' refers to bikkurim;  and bikkurim were compared to tithe: As tithe is forbidden to the onan so are bikkurim also forbidden to the onan. And R. Simeon?  — The All Merciful called them terumah: As terumah is permitted to the onan  so are bikkurim permitted to the onan. 'They are, furthermore, subject to removal; but R. Simeon permits them'. One Master  compares [bikkurim to tithe]  and the other Master does not. 'They may not be burned when levitically unclean, and the man who eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged'. Whence is this derived? — From what was taught: R. Simeon said, Neither have I burned  thereof, being unclean,  whether I was unclean and it was clean or I was clean and it was unclean. I do not know, however, where one was forbidden to eat it'.  (But, surely, in relation to it, the uncleanness of the body was specifically stated: The soul that touches any such shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things,  unless he bathe his flesh in waters — This is the question: Whence the prohibition [to eat it] where the thing itself is unclean?  It was expressly stated,  Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn  but further on  it was stated. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates; the unclean and the clean may eat it alike as the gazelle, and as the hart,  and at the school of R. Ishmael it was taught that the unclean and the clean may eat together even on the same table, and the same plate, and no precautions need be taken. Thus the All Merciful stated, 'That, concerning which I told you there, Thou shalt eat it within thy gates,  you may not eat here'. 'That these laws do not apply to terumah'. Whence do we derive this? — R. Abbahu replied in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture stated, Neither have I burnt thereof, being unclean,  you may not burn 'thereof', but you may burn the oil of terumah if it has become unclean.  Might it not be suggested: You may not burn any 'thereof'. but you may burn holy  oil that became unclean? — This, surely. may be inferred a minori ad majus: If in respect of the tithe, the sanctity of which is of a minor character, the Torah stated, Neither have I burnt thereof, being unclean,  how much more so in respect of holy food the Sanctity of which is of a major character. If so, terumah also might be inferred a minori ad majus! — Surely 'thereof' was written. And what reason do you see?  It is logical that holy food should not be excluded, since  [the following restrictions also apply to it:] piggul,  nothar,  sacrifice, me'ilah,  kareth,  and it is also forbidden to an onan.  On the contrary; terumah should not be excluded since [to it apply the restrictions of]  death.  a fifth,  it cannot be redeemed  and it is forbidden to non-priests!  — Those  are more in number. And if you prefer I might say: Kareth  is regarded as being of greater importance. 'The man that eats of them while they themselves are levitically unclean is to be flogged, and that these laws do not apply to terumah'. He is apparently  exempt only from flogging, but a prohibition  remains. Whence is this derived? — Scripture stated. Thou shalt eat it within thy gates.  only 'it'  but not any other;  and a negative precept that is derived from a positive one [has only the force of] a positive. R. Ashi said:  From the first clause also  you may infer that the Tanna taught some  and omitted others,  since he did not state