Makkot 20A

לוקה אחת.

he is flogged with one set of lashes, because he ate it without separating teruma of the tithe from the first tithe and is consequently liable for eating untithed produce. Had he separated teruma of the tithe, it would have been permitted for him to eat the entire fig, as it is permitted for a priest to partake of both teruma gedola and teruma of the tithe.

וזר שאכלה ⁠– לוקה שתים. שאילו בתחלה אכלה ⁠– אינו לוקה אלא אחת.

And a non-priest who eats the fig is flogged with two sets of lashes, for both eating untithed produce and eating the teruma therein, which is forbidden for all non-priests. The baraita notes: As if the non-priest ate the fig initially, before separating teruma and tithes, he is flogged with only one set of lashes, for eating untithed produce. Once he separated the teruma and tithes, he is flogged for eating teruma as well.

טעמא דאיתיה בירושלים, הא בגבולין ⁠– לוקה שלש, דאף על גב דלאו רואה פני חומה! דעיילי[ה] ואפקי[ה].

The Talmud infers from the statement in the baraita: And it is a year when second tithe is separated and he is in Jerusalem, that the reason he is flogged with two sets of lashes is that he is currently in Jerusalem, where it is permitted to partake of second-tithe produce. But if he ate the fig in the outlying areas, outside of Jerusalem, and he designated second tithe in the fig, he is flogged with 3 sets of lashes. It is apparent that even if this second-tithe produce has not entered within the wall of Jerusalem, one is liable to receive lashes for its consumption. This contradicts R' Yoḥanan’s opinion, as he holds that one is liable to receive lashes for eating second-tithe produce only if it entered Jerusalem. The Talmud answers: The case in the baraita is one where they took the fig into Jerusalem and then took it out of Jerusalem. That is why he is liable to receive a third set of lashes.