Halakhah for Bikkurim 2:17

That He prohibited all outsiders (non-priests) from eating priestly tithe. And that is His saying, "And no outsider shall eat of the consecrated food (kodesh)" (Leviticus 22:10). And with this, "consecrated food," He meant, the priestly tithe and the firstfruits - as they are also called, the priestly tithe, as I will explain (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 149). And this is what I mean whenever I say, priestly tithe. And if one eats priestly tithe volitionally, he is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And he is only liable for the addition of a fifth [in its repayment] when inadvertent, as it is explained in Terumah in Chapter 7 (Terumot 7:1); and in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a), among the nine that are liable for death at the hands of the Heavens - and an outsider that ate priestly tithe is one of them. And they positioned as a proof for this, "and die because of it for having profaned it" (Leviticus 22:9), and [it being written] after it, "And no outsider shall eat of [the consecrated food]." And in the second [chapter] of Bikkurim, (Bikkurim 2:1), [they] said, "For the priestly tithe and for firstfruits, one is liable for death [at the hands of the Heavens], and a fifth; and they are forbidden to outsiders." But Rav disagrees with these mishnahs, and says that an outsider who eats priestly tithe is [only] lashed. And it is well-known that Rav is [like] a Tanna, and [is therefore allowed to] disagree (Sanhedrin 83b). And we have already explained in our composition in the Commentary on the Mishnah that [regarding] any disagreement that does not involve a disagreement in practice, but just in theory alone - I will not determine the law and say, "The law is like x." Hence, I will not say, "The law is like Rav," and I will not say, "The law is like the unnamed mishnah." For he is lashed according to everyone, as we explained: For whoever is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens for one of the negative commandments is also lashed - as we explained in the introduction to this essay. And likewise, anyone who misappropriated consecrated foods volitionally is lashed, without a doubt. And that is their saying about a discerning one close [to becoming] an adult who consecrates [an item] - they said (Niddah 46b), "[If] he consecrated [an item], and others ate it: Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both say, 'We give lashes.'" (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Heave Offerings 6.)

That He prohibited the priests from eating firstfruits outside [of Jerusalem]. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "You may not, etc. and the tithe of your hand" (Deuteronomy 12:17) - that is the firstfruits. For He did not leave anything that requires being brought to a place in this verse that was not mentioned in the explanation. And among them, He mentioned, "and the tithe (terumah) of your hand" (Deuteronomy 12:17) - without a doubt, that is the firstfruits. Indeed, it is known that the priestly tithe (terumah) does not require bringing to a place - how would one be careful from eating it "in your cities?" And the language of the Sifrei (Sifrei Devarim 72:9) is, "The verse only came about one who eats firstfruits who has not recited the declaration over them, that he transgresses a negative commandment." And it has already been explained at the end of Makkot (Makkot 19a) that we are only liable for them before he has placed them in the [Temple] courtyard. But once he has placed them in the courtyard, one is exempt for them, even though he has not recited [the declaration]. And the condition that there is with the second tithe also exists with firstfruits - meaning to say, that one is not liable for them when he eats them outside until they see the presence of the Temple. But when someone ate them outside after they saw the presence of the Temple before they are placed in the courtyard, he is lashed only if he is a priest. However an Israelite who eats firstfruits - even after the declaration - is liable for death at the hands of the Heavens. And in the second [chapter] of Bikkurim, (Bikkurim 2:1), [they] said, "For the priestly tithe and for firstfruits, one is liable for death, and a fifth; and they are forbidden to outsiders." So if an outsider eats them: If he was volitional, he is liable for death; and if inadvertent, he adds a fifth - exactly like the law of the priestly tithe. For since Scripture called them, "the tithe of your hand," it becomes liable to the laws of the priestly tithe. And it is appropriate for you to understand this properly until you will not get it confused: And that is that when the priest eats firstfruits from when they have seen the presence of the Temple before they have been placed in the courtyard, he is lashed; and its prohibition is from here - "You may not eat in your cities, etc. and the tithe of your hand," as is explained in Makkot (Makkot 17). [This is] like an Israelite concerning the second tithe, about which one is lashed for eating it outside of its place, even though it is his. Nevertheless, when an Israelite eats firstfruits after they have seen the presence of the Temple, he is liable for death anytime he eats them. And its prohibition is from, "And no outsider shall eat of the consecrated food (kodesh)" (Leviticus 22:10), as we explained in Commandment 133 of these (negative) commandments. (See Parashat Re'eh; Mishneh Torah, First Fruits and other Gifts to Priests Outside the Sanctuary 3.)

That He prohibited us from eating second tithe when grieving - even in Jerusalem - until it has been redeemed. And that is His saying, "I did not eat of it when grieving" (Deuteronomy 26:14). And the language of the Mishnah in Bikkurim (Bikkurim 2:2) is, "That the [second] tithe and firstfruits require being brought to [the appointed] place; they require confession; and they are forbidden to one grieving." And likewise anyone grieving is forbidden with regards to all consecrated foods due to this verse, as well as due to it being written in the Torah, "and such things have befallen me" (Leviticus 10:19). And the regulations of this commandment - meaning to say, grieving - have already been explained in the eighth [chapter] of Pesachim and the second [chapter] of Zevachim. And one who eats second tithe or tithes while grieving is lashed. (See Parashat Ki Tavo; Mishneh Torah, Second Tithes and Fourth Year's Fruit 3.)

From the laws of the commandment - that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Beitzah 13a) that a [Levite] who took sheaves as tithes, does not give sheaves to the priest from it, but he is fined to pound and winnow [it] and to give him a tithe of the tithe that is a tithe of grain, and he is not obligated to give a tithe of the straw [byproduct], after he pounded everything and winnowed [it], but if he first tithed the sheaths, and [then] pounded and winnowed [it], he must give [the priest] his portion in everything; that which they said (Mishnah Terumot 11:8) that only priestly tithes from the tithe with [at least] 1/64 of a log must he take to the priest, and so long as the priestly tithe is certain (not in doubt) and pure, [but] if it is less than this, he need not busy himself with taking it to the priest, but he rather throws it into the fire and burns it; that which they said (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:5) that the priestly tithe from the tithe can be separated from that which is not [close], as it is stated (Numbers 18:28-29), "From all the tithes [...] you shall gift," meaning to say even if you have a tithe in one country and [another] in another country, you may take one gift for all [of them], but nonetheless they, may their memory be blessed, said (Gittin 30a) that Torah scholars should only take it from [what is close]; and the rest of its details - are elucidated in Tractate Terumot, Ma'asrot, and in parts of Demai (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Heave Offerings 1).

That the priest not eat the first-fruits (bikkurim) before their placement in the [Temple] yard: That we were prevented (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 149) from eating the first fruits. And about this was it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat, etc. and the contribution of your hand." And the masters of the tradition explained it (Makkot 17a), "'The contribution (terumat) of your hand' - these are the first-fruits." And it is elucidated at the end of Tractate Makkot 17a, that we are only liable before they were placed in the [Temple] yard. But from when they were placed in the yard, a person is exempt [from punishment] for them. And the language of Sifrei Devarim 72:9 is "The verse only comes [...] with regard to one who eats the first-fruit but did not recite [the recital] over them, [to teach] that he is transgressing a negative commandment." And the understanding of, "because he did not recite over them," is because they were not placed in the yard; but if they were placed there, there is no liability for lashes, even if he did not recite over them. And so too (Makkot 17a; Sifrei Devarim 72:9) there is with them the condition that there is for the second tithe with regards to the liability for lashes, that we are not liable until they see the face of the [Temple] first, and afterwards he eats them before their placement in the yard. In this way is there a liability for lashes for the priest that eats from them. And an Israelite is liable for death by the hand of the Heavens any time he eats from them, even after he recited the famous recital over them. And [that recital] is explicit in the Order of Vehaya Ki Tavo. And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishnah Bikkurim 2:1), "The priestly tithe (terumah) and the first-fruits are liable for [the addition of] a fifth when inadvertent, and death when volitional." And this is exactly like the law of the priestly tithe - because the verse called the first-fruits with the [same] name, terumah, they became obligated with the laws of the priestly tithe.

“That the night of Yom Kippur has the same laws as the day” - Containing two paragraphs.
On Yom Kippur, its night is the same as its day in all matters; and what are its forbidden things on it: working, eating, drinking, washing, annointing, wearing sandles (leather), intercourse. But one is not guilty of the karet penalty⁷⁸Karet, כרת, means "extripation" which is a punishment at the hands of heaven mentioned in the Bible. It served as a penalty for numerous sins which were committed deliberately such as idolatry, desecration of the Sabbath, eating leaven on Passover, incest, adultery, and eating some forbidden foods. For such offences, the person need not be given a previous warning as the sin is so basic and severe. The halakhah defines karet as premature death (Sifra, Emor 14:14) and baraita (Mk. 28a; TJ, Bik. 2:1, 64b) state it as "death at the age of fifty". Some amoriam refer to it as death between the ages of fifty and sixty. The Mishna (Ker. 1:1) lists thirty-six transgressions mentioned in the Torah for which karet is punishment. The word karet has also become the standard for many severe violations of the halakhah. Karet has to be for a deliberate act. If the transgression was done inadvertently, only a sin-offering is required. The punishment of karet is divine, therefore God knows if it was deliberate or not and there need not be any witnesses.
There is discussion among the tannaim whether or not the penalty of karet exempts a person from flogging (see footnote 31) which is the penalty for most toraitic law violations where the person is warned. The decision is that one should be flogged and repentence can annul a karet (Mak. 23a-b). Even though a transgressor may be punished by karet, he is still liable for any civil claims that may have arisen from his actions (Ket. 30a).
It was believed that natural death took place after sixty and if one died before that or one's life span was in any way curtailed this was considered "death by the hand of heaven" even though it had no fixed time. There was also discussion regarding the speed of death. Death in one, two, or three days before the age of sixty, or for those committing a transgression after the age of sixty was considered a sign of karet.
The medieval scholars who were very concerned with reward and punishment decided that a death from karet meant the absolute end, the maximal punishment, while ordinary sinners after being punished in Gehinnom, lived again in the world to come, a world not shared by those punished with karet. This was the view of Maimonides while Naḥmanides felt that those who died by karet continued to suffer in the world to come since the soul can never be annihilated and perish. Karet was degradation of the soul and the negation of spiritual pleasures awaiting the souls of the righteous.
Israel Moses Ta-Shma, E. J., v. 10, pp. 788-89. except for working, eating, and drinking.