Pesachim 36A

האוכל נבלה ביום הכפורים ⁠— פטור.

One who unwittingly eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from bringing a sin-offering to atone for this consumption. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not apply to the already prohibited meat of an animal carcass, which means only the prohibition against eating an unslaughtered animal carcass is violated by this act.

רבינא אמר, אפילו תימא רבנן: מי שאיסורו משום ״בל תאכל חמץ״ בלבד. יצא זה שאין איסורו משום ״בל תאכל חמץ״ בלבד, אלא אף משום ״בל תאכל טבל״.

Ravina said: Even if you say that this baraita is in accordance with the Rabbis, who maintain that a prohibition can take effect where another prohibition already exists, it can be explained as follows: One fulfills his obligation to eat matza with food whose prohibition is solely due to the commandment: Do not eat leavened bread, which excludes this grain, which is forbidden not only due to the prohibition: Do not eat leavened bread, but also due to the prohibition: Do not eat untithed produce.

מידי ״בלבד״ כתיב? אלא מחוורתא כדרב ששת.

The Talmud raises a difficulty against this explanation: Is the word: Only, written in the baraita? This word, which is critical for Ravina’s explanation, does not appear in the baraita at all. Rather, it is clear that this must be explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav Sheshet, who maintains that the baraita should be attributed to R' Shimon.

תנו רבנן: יכול יוצא אדם ידי חובתו במעשר שני בירושלים, תלמוד לומר: ״לחם עוני״, מה שנאכל באנינות. יצא זה שאינו נאכל באנינות, אלא בשמחה ⁠— דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי.

A baraita states: I might have thought that a person can fulfill his obligation to eat matza on Passover with matza of second tithe in Jerusalem. Therefore, the verse states: “You should eat no leavened bread with it; 7 days you should eat with it matza, the bread of affliction [leḥem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3), oni with the letter ayin, i.e., poor man’s bread. As this is similar to the phrase: Bread of acute mourning [leḥem oni], oni with an alef, it can be inferred that this mitzva must be fulfilled with matza that can be eaten during a period of acute mourning, on the day one’s close relative has died. This excludes this second tithe, which cannot be eaten during a period of acute mourning but only in a state of joy, as the Torah states: “I have not eaten from it in my acute mourning” (Deuteronomy 26:14). This is the statement of R' Yosei HaGelili.