Yevamot

Terumah to the priest and the first tithe to the Levite;  so R. Meir. R. Eleazar b. Azariah permits it to the priest,  'Permits it'!  Does this then imply that some authority forbids it?  Read, therefore, 'He may give it to the priest also'. What is R. Meir's reason? R. Aha son of Rabbah replied on the authority of a traditional statement:  For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as terumah unto the Lord,  as terumah is forbidden to common people so is the first tithe forbidden to common people. May it be assumed that  as in the case of terumah the penalties of death and of a fifth  are incurred, so are the penalties of death and of a fifth incurred in the case of tithe? — Scripture stated, And die therein if they profane it  … then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it;  'therein',  but not in the tithe; 'Into it'  but not unto tithe. And the Rabbis?  — As terumah is a cause of tebel  so is the first tithe a cause of tebel;  and this is in agreement with what was taught: R. Jose said, It might have been presumed that guilt is incurred only for tebel from which nothing whatsoever  had been set apart; whence is it deduced [that guilt is also incurred when] terumah gedolah  had been set apart but not the first tithe,  first tithe but not the second tithe  or even if the poor man's tithe  [only had not been set apart]? Scripture stated, Thou mayest not eat within thy gates  and further on it was stated, That they may eat within thy gates, and be satisfied;  as 'Thy gates' which was stated below  refers to the poor man's tithe,  so 'Thy gates' which was stated here  refers to the poor man's tithe, and [concerning it] the All Merciful has said, Thou mayest not.  And if the deduction had been made from that text  only  it might have been assumed [to imply the penalty] of a negative precept  but not [the penalty of] death; hence we were taught [the earlier text  also]. Another reading: That the first tithe is a cause of tebel  may surely be deduced from the text cited by R. Jose!  — If [deduction had been made] from that text  only  it might have been assumed [to imply the penalty] of a negative precept  but not the penalty of death; hence we were taught [the earlier text  also]. How did you explain it?  In accordance with the view of R. Meir! Explain, then, the final clause: THE DAUGHTER OF A LEVITE WHO WAS BETROTHED TO A PRIEST and THE DAUGHTER OF A PRIEST … TO A LEVITE MAY EAT NEITHER TERUMAH NOR TITHE; what [bearing has the question of] non-priestly stock in this case?  — R. Shesheth replied: The meaning of  the expression,  SHE MAY NOT EAT is that she may not give permission to one to set apart  the tithe.  Does this  then imply that a married woman may give such permission? — Yes; and so it was taught: And ye may eat it in every place, ye and your household  teaches that a married daughter of an Israelite  may give permission for terumah  to be set apart.  You say: Permission for terumah  to be set apart; perhaps it is not so, but to eat it?  It can be replied: If she  may eat terumah which is subject to greater restrictions, how much more may she  eat tithe which is subject to lesser restrictions.  The text  must consequently  have taught that a married daughter of an Israelite may give permission for terumah  to be set apart. Mar the son of Rabana  stated: This  teaches that she is not given a share in the tithe in the threshing- floors.  This is a satisfactory explanation according to him who holds that this  is due to considerations of privacy governing the sexes;  according to him, however, who holds that this  is due to [possible abuse by] a divorced woman,  may not a divorced woman who is the daughter of a Levite  eat tithe?  — And according to your argument, may not a divorced woman who is the daughter of a priest eat terumah!  But [the fact is that the ordinance  is] a preventive measure against [abuse by] a divorced woman who was the daughter of an Israelite.  If so,  what was the point in mentioning BETROTHED? [The same rule should be applied] even to one who was married! — As in the first clause BETROTHED was taught,  BETROTHED was also taught in the final clause. Our Rabbis taught: Terumah gedolah  belongs to the priest, and the first tithe belongs to the Levite; so R. Akiba. R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: