Sanhedrin 83A

לא משום זרות, ולא משום טומאה, ולא משום מחוסר בגדים, ולא משום רחוץ ידים ורגלים.

neither due to non-priesthood, if a non-priest performs one of those rites in the Temple, he is not liable to receive the death penalty; nor due to the performance of any of these rites in a state of ritual impurity; nor due to the performance of any of these rites as a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments; nor due to the performance of any of these services without the washing of his hands and feet. The reason for the lack of liability is that in all these cases, additional rites must be performed in order to complete the service. One is liable for performing the service outside the Temple, or performing the service as a non-priest, in a state of ritual impurity, etc., only when performing a ritual that completes the service.

הא מקטר ⁠– חייב. מאי לאו, מיתה? לא, באזהרה.

From the baraita, one may infer: But one who burns the offering on the altar in one of these circumstances, including in a state of ritual impurity, is liable. What, is it not teaching that he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, and there is proof from the baraita to resolve Rav Aḥa bar Huna’s dilemma? The Talmud rejects that proof: No, he is liable for violating a prohibition, without the punishment of death.

אלא זר נמי לאזהרה? והכתיב: ״והזר הקרב יומת״! הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא.

The Talmud asks: But according to that understanding, as for the non-priest who is mentioned in the baraita together with the priest who performs the Temple service in a state of impurity, is he too liable for violating a prohibition, and not death, if he burns the offering on the altar? But isn’t it written: “And the non-priest who approaches should be put to death” (Numbers 18:7)? The Talmud answers: Do not extrapolate the liability of a non-priest from the liability of a ritually impure priest, as this case of ritual impurity is as it is, and that case of a non-priest is as it is; each situation is discussed independently.