Yevamot 86B

לכהן. לכהן ולא ללוי? אימא אף לכהן. מאי טעמא דרבי עקיבא ⁠— דכתיב: ״ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אליהם״, בלוים קא משתעי קרא. ואידך כדרבי יהושע בן לוי, דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי: בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים, וזה אחד מהם: ״והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק״.

The first tithe is given to a priest. The Talmud is puzzled: To a priest and not to a Levite? But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Talmud answers: Say he means it can be given also to a priest. The Talmud clarifies: What is the reason for R' Akiva’s opinion? As it is written: “You should speak to the Levites, and you should say to them” (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, the verse speaks of Levites, not priests. And the other tanna, R' Eliezer, maintains in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehoshua ben Levi, as R' Yehoshua ben Levi said: In 24 places in the Bible the priests are called Levites. And this is one of those verses: “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (Ezekiel 44:15).

ורבי עקיבא, הכא לא מצית אמרת, דכתיב: ״ואכלתם אותו בכל מקום״, מי שיכול לאוכלו בכל מקום. יצא כהן, שאין יכול לאוכלו בבית הקברות. ואידך? כל היכא דבעי ⁠— דלא בעי חומה, ואי אכיל ליה בטומאת הגוף ⁠— לא לקי.

And R' Akiva replies: Here you cannot say the verse is referring to priests, as it is written: “And you may eat it in any place” (Numbers 18:31), from which we learn that the tithe is given to one who can eat it in any place. This excludes a priest, who cannot eat it in a cemetery, as he is prohibited from entering such a place. Consequently, the verse cannot be referring to priests. And the other Sage, R' Eliezer, how does he respond to this claim? He explains the verse as follows: He may eat it anywhere that he wishes, that is, in any city, as it does not require the wall of Jerusalem, like the second tithe. And we further learn from here that if he eats it in a state of bodily impurity he is not flogged. Consequently, we can say that tithe may be eaten by priests in any place.