הלכה על מכות 33:4

To not eat an unblemished first-born [animal] outside of Jerusalem: That a priest not eat an unblemished first-born [animal] outside of Jerusalem; and so too that a foreigner [non-priest] not eat from a first-born in any place, as the commandment with it is that the priests - the servants of God - should eat it, from the reason that I wrote in the Order of Bo el Pharoah (Sefer HaChinukh 18). And about all of this is it written (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. and the first-born of your cattle and your flocks." And the language of Sifrei Devarim 72 (see [also] Makkot 17a) is "'And the first-born' - this is the first-born. And the verse only comes for a foreigner that ate the first-born, whether before the sprinkling of the bloods or whether after the sprinkling, [to teach] that he transgresses a negative commandment." And the intent is not that the verse does not teach anything except this matter (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 144), but rather it is saying that this is [also] included in this negative prohibition. And it comes out that included in it are two matters that we mentioned: prevention of the foreigner from eating an unblemished first-born in any place; and so too, prevention of the priest from eating it outside of Jerusalem. And both of the matters are predicated upon [it being] an unblemished first-born. And there in the Order of Bo el Pharaoh, I wrote at what time and in what place the commandment of the first-born is practiced and the disagreement among my teachers - God protect them - about the matter of the first-born at this time. And there is no need to write at length about the reason for its being eaten in Jerusalem, as it is part of the consecrated foods - and as it is written in the Mishnah Zevachim 5:8, "The first-born, the tithe and the Pesach sacrifice offering are low-level consecrated foods (kedoshim kalim), etc." - and I have already lavished my words in several places (Sefer HaChinukh 360) about the reason [for] the eating of consecrated foods in the holy place and their being eaten by the servants of God.

To not eat higher-level consecrated foods (kodshai kodashim) outside of the [Temple] yard: To not eat - and even priests - from the meat of the sin-offering, and the guilt-offering outside of the 'curtains.' And the masters of the tradition explained that this prohibition is included in "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your cattle and your flocks" (Deuteronomy 12:17). As so did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Makkot 17a), "The verse only comes with regard to one who eats a sin-offering or a guilt-offering[...] outside the curtains, [to teach that he is transgressing a negative commandment]." And so too, one who eats lower-level consecrated foods (kodashim kalim) outside of the wall [of Jerusalem] is included in this prohibition, like the Gemara comes to teach. As they said there that anyone who eats something outside the place of its eating is [considered], "You may not eat in your gates." And their intention, may their memory be blessed, in saying, "The verse only comes," is to say that this is also included.

To not eat meat of a burnt-offering: To not eat anything of the meat of a burnt-offering, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. your vows that you vow." And the understanding of the verse is as if it stated, "You may not eat any vows that you vow." And our Rabbis, the masters of the tradition, said (Makkot 17a), "'Your vows' - this is the burnt-offering [...] the verse only comes [to teach you] with regard to one who eats the meat of a burnt-offering [whether it is before the sprinkling of the bloods or] after the sprinkling [of the bloods, whether it is] inside the [courtyard or outside the courtyard], that he is [transgressing a negative commandment]. And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Lo Taase 146) that this negative commandment is a warning for all that misappropriate sanctified foods. I have written in the Order of Vayikach Li Trumah (Sefer HaChinukh 95) that which I know from the angle of the simple understanding about the matter of sacrifices and the benefit that comes out for us in our burning animals in the Great House. And the warning about them that we not eat from them, but rather that all of it be burnt follows from the same reason - it is one connection [that connects them both]. And this warning is specified with the burnt-offering because its commandment is that it be [completely] consumed, but included in this warning is all that misappropriate consecrated foods, as I have written.

To not eat lower-level consecrated foods (kodashim kalim) before the sprinkling of the bloods: To not eat anything from the lower-level consecrated foods before the sprinkling of the bloods. And lower-level consecrated foods are like the thanksgiving offering and the peace-offerings and that which is similar to them, from those that are enumerated in the fifth chapter of Tractate Zevachim 48. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat in your gates, etc. and your promises" - the understanding of which is as if it stated, "You may not eat your promises." And the masters of the tradition, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 17a), "The verse only comes with regard to one who eats a thanksgiving offering or a peace-offering before the sprinkling of the bloods, [to teach] that he is [transgressing a negative commandment]."

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.