Yevamot

'And they  apply in all  the years of the septennial cycle  and cannot be redeemed', and that 'this does not apply to the [second] tithe'. This proves it. Come and hear: 'If shreds  which render the circumcision invalid remain, he may not eat terumah, nor the paschal lamb, nor holy food, nor tithe'. Does not tithe refer to the tithe of the corn? — No; the tithe of cattle.  But is not the tithe of cattle the same as holy food?  — Even on your view are we not told here of the paschal lamb and yet 'holy food' also is mentioned! — One can well understand why it was necessary to mention both the paschal lamb and holy food; for if the paschal lamb only had been stated it might have been assumed that it only is forbidden, because uncircumcision was written in Scripture in connection with the paschal lamb, but not holy food. And if holy food only had been stated it might have been assumed that what was meant by holy food was the paschal lamb.  What need, however, was there for the mention here of the tithe of cattle!  — [No, say,] rather, tithe refers to the first tithe; and this [teaching] is that of R. Meir who holds that the first tithe is forbidden to non-priests. Come and hear: Since R. Hiyya b. Rab of Difti has learned, 'An uncircumcised is forbidden to eat of both tithes', is not one the tithe of the corn and the other the tithe of the cattle! — Here also the first tithe was meant and the ruling is that of R. Meir. Come and hear: 'An onan is forbidden to eat of tithe but is permitted to eat terumah, and [to engage] in the [preparation of] the red heifer;  a tebul yom  is forbidden to eat terumah, but is permitted [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer, and to eat tithe; and he who was still short of atonement  is forbidden [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer, but is permitted to eat terumah and tithe'. Now, if it were so,  it should have been stated, 'The uncircumcised is forbidden to eat terumah but is permitted [to engage] in [the preparation of] the red heifer  and to eat tithe'!  — This represents the view of a Tanna of the school of R. Akiba, who includes the uncircumcised, like the unclean, in the prohibition.  As it was taught: Any man soever  includes the uncircumcised. Who is the Tanna who differs from R. Akiba?  — It is the Tanna who [is in disagreement with] R. Joseph the Babylonian. For it was taught: The burning  by an onan or by one who is still short of atonement is valid; but R. Joseph the Babylonian said: That of the onan is valid but that of him who is short of atonement is not valid. R. Isaac also is of the opinion that the uncircumcised is forbidden to eat [second] tithe. For R. Isaac stated: Whence is it deduced that the uncircumcised is forbidden to eat [second] tithe? 'Thereof' was stated in respect of [the] tithe,  and 'thereof' was also stated in respect of the paschal lamb;  as the paschal lamb, in respect of which 'thereof' was used, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, so is [the] tithe, in respect of which 'thereof' was used, forbidden to the uncircumcised. Is it  free for deduction? For if it is not free, it could be objected: The Paschal lamb is rightly subject to the restriction  since one may incur in respect of it the penalties for piggul,  nothar'' and levitical uncleanness!  — It is indeed free for the deduction. Which  is free? Raba replied in the name of R. Isaac: 'Thereof' is written three times in connection with the paschal lamb.  One is required for the paschal lamb itself;  one for the analogy;  and as to the third, according to him who maintains that Scripture intended  a positive precept to follow a negative  one,  'thereof' was written [a second time],  because nothar was written [a second time];  and according to him who maintains [that the repetition of until the morning  was intended] to allow a second morning for its burning,  'thereof' was written [a second time],  because until the morning  had to be written [a second time]. Also, in connection with tithe, 'thereof' was written three times. One is required for its own purpose;  one is required for the deduction which R. Abbahu made in the name of R. Johanan;  and the third is required for the exposition made by Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish stated in the name of R. Simya: Whence is it deduced that second tithe which has become levitically unclean may be used for anointing? It is said, Nor have I given thereof for the dead,  only for a dead man have I not given, but I have given for a living man in the same manner as for the dead. Now, what is it that may be equally applied to the living and to the dead? You must say that it is anointing.  Mar Zutra demurred: It  might be suggested to refer to the purchase for the dead of a coffin and shrouds!  — R. Huna son of R. Joshua replied: 'Thereof' means of the tithe itself.  R. Ashi replied: Nor have I given  must be analogous to I have not eaten,  as there  it refers to the tithe itself so here also  it must refer to the tithe itself. But still it  is free, however, in one direction only!  [The analogy is] quite satisfactory according to him who maintains that deduction may be made [even in such a case]. and may not be refuted.  According to him, however, who is of the opinion that deduction may be made but also refuted, what can be said?  — R. Abbahu's deduction  may be inferred from the text cited in the statement which R. Nahman made in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha. For R. Nahman stated in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: What was meant by the Scriptural text, And I, behold, I have given thee  the charge of My heave-offerings?  Scripture speaks of two kinds of terumah. One, clean terumah, and the other, unclean terumah; and concerning these the All Merciful said, 'It shall be thine,  even for burning under your dish.' AND ALL LEVITICALLY UNCLEAN PERSONS etc. Whence is this deduced? — R. Johanan replied in the name of R. Ishmael: Scripture stated, What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath an issue etc.  Now, what is it that is equally