Zevachim 45

הלכתא למשיחא אמר ליה אביי אלא מעתה כל שחיטת קדשים לא לתני הלכתא למשיחא הוא אלא דרוש וקבל שכר הכא נמי דרוש וקבל שכר הכי קאמינא לך הלכתא למה לי לישנא אחרינא אמר ליה הלכה קאמינא

Does one issue a halakha for the messianic period, when the Temple will be rebuilt? Abaye said to him: If that is so, that such halakhot are not taught, let the tanna not teach all the halakhot of the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zevaḥim, as it is entirely a halakha for the messianic period. Rather, one studies these halakhot due to the principle of: Study Torah and receive reward, i.e., one is rewarded for the study of Torah regardless of its practical applicability. Here too, study Torah and receive reward. Rava said to him: This is what I am saying to you: Why do I need a practical ruling of halakha? According to another version, which presents the same answer in different terms, Rava said to him: I spoke in reference to the ruling of halakha, as it is puzzling that a halakhic ruling is given in this case.

מתני׳ קדשי גוים אין חייבין עליהם משום פיגול נותר וטמא והשוחטן בחוץ פטור דברי רבי שמעון רבי יוסי מחייב

MISHNA: With regard to offerings consecrated by gentiles for sacrifice to God, one is not liable for eating them, neither due to violation of the prohibition of piggul if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to violation of the prohibition of notar, nor due to violation of the prohibition against eating the meat while ritually impure. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yosei deems him liable.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן קדשי גוים לא נהנין ולא מועלין ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to offerings consecrated by gentiles, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio, but if one derived benefit from them, he is not liable after the fact for misusing consecrated property. And one is not liable for eating them, neither due to violation of the prohibition of piggul if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to violation of the prohibition of notar, nor due to violation of the prohibition against eating the meat while ritually impure.

ואין עושין תמורה ואין מביאין נסכים אבל קרבנן טעון נסכים דברי רבי שמעון

And gentiles cannot render an animal a substitute, i.e., if a gentile stated with regard to an animal that it should be the substitute of a consecrated animal, the substitution does not take effect. And gentiles cannot bring libations that are brought by themselves as a separate offering and do not accompany an animal offering, but their animal offerings require libations. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

אמר רבי יוסי רואה אני בכולן להחמיר שנאמר בהן לה׳ במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח אבל בקדשי בדק הבית מועלין בהן

Rabbi Yosei says: I see the logic of the opinion that in all of these cases it is correct to be stringent about the offerings of gentiles, as it is stated with regard to them: “Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel that will sacrifice his offering…to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:18). This indicates that all offerings, even those of gentiles, are fully consecrated to God; therefore, the halakhot of misuse, piggul, notar, and eating the meat while ritually impure should all apply to the offerings of gentiles. In what case is this statement said? In the case of items consecrated for the altar. But with regard to items that are consecrated by gentiles for Temple maintenance, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misusing them. This concludes the baraita.

לא נהנין ולא מועלין לא נהנין מדרבנן

The Gemara begins to analyze this baraita in detail. The baraita taught that one may not derive benefit from items consecrated by gentiles ab initio, but if one derived benefit from them, he is not liable after the fact for misusing of consecrated property. The Gemara explains: One may not derive benefit from them by rabbinic law, as the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from any item that was consecrated to God.

ולא מועלין דגמר מעילה חט חט מתרומה דבתרומה כתיב בני ישראל ולא גוים

The Gemara’s explanation continues: But if one derived benefit from them, he is not liable after the fact for misusing consecrated property, as the tanna of the baraita derives the halakha of misuse of consecrated property through a verbal analogy between “sin” stated with regard to misuse of consecrated items and the word “sin” stated with regard to teruma. With regard to misuse of consecrated property, the verse states: “If any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). In the case of teruma, the verse states: “Lest they bear sin for it, and die due to it, if they profane it” (Leviticus 22:9). And with regard to teruma, it is written: “And they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:15), which indicates: But not the sacred items of gentiles, i.e., one is not liable for partaking of the teruma of gentiles while he is in a state of ritual impurity.

ואין חייבין עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא מאי טעמא דאתי פיגול עון עון מנותר

The baraita further taught: And one is not liable for eating the offerings of gentiles due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, or notar, or eating the meat while ritually impure. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that the halakha of piggul is derived through a verbal analogy between the word “iniquity” stated with regard to piggul and the word “iniquity” stated with regard to notar. With regard to piggul, the verse states: “It shall be piggul, and the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat the verse states: “Therefore anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:8).

ואתי נותר חילול חילול מטומאה ובטומאה כתיב בני ישראל ולא גוים

And the halakha of notar itself is derived through a verbal analogy between profanation stated with regard to notar and profanation stated with regard to ritual impurity. With regard to notar the verse states: “Because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:8), and with regard to impurity the verse states: “And that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2). And with regard to impurity it is written in that same verse: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel,” which indicates: But not the sacred items of gentiles.

ואין עושין תמורה מאי טעמא דאיתקש תמורה למעשר בהמה ומעשר בהמה איתקש למעשר דגן ובמעשר דגן כתיב בני ישראל ולא גוים

The baraita also teaches: And gentiles cannot render an animal a substitute. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: It is because substitution is juxtaposed in the Torah with animal tithe, as the verse states: “And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock…the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord…neither shall he make a substitute for it” (Leviticus 27:32–33). And animal tithe is juxtaposed with the tithe of grains, as the verse states: “You shall tithe [asser te’asser] all the increase of your seed that the field brings forth year by year. And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place that He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 14:22–23). The doubled verb form, asser te’asser, is understood as an allusion to two tithes, grain tithe and animal tithe. And with regard to the tithe of grains it is written: “When you take of the children of Israel the tithes” (Numbers 18:24), which indicates: But not of gentiles.

וכי דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש מעשר דגן חולין הוא

The Gemara asks: But does a matter derived via a juxtaposition again teach via a juxtaposition? There is a principle that in consecrated matters, a halakha derived via a juxtaposition cannot teach another halakha via a juxtaposition. The Gemara answers: This derivation is not relevant exclusively to consecrated matters, as the tithe of grains is non-sacred food.

הניחא למאן דאמר בתר מלמד אזלינן אלא למאן דאמר בתר למד אזלינן מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara raises a difficulty: This works out well according to the one who says that when implementing this principle we follow the source that teaches the halakha, i.e., if the matter that teaches the first juxtaposition involves non-sacred items, one can employ two juxtapositions even with regard to deriving the halakha for consecrated matters. But according to the one who says that we follow the matter that is taught the halakha, i.e., the case to which we wish to apply the halakha, and if that case involves offerings one cannot employ two juxtapositions, what can be said?

אלא מעשר בהמה חובה שאין קבוע לה זמן הוא וחובה שאין לה זמן קבוע ישראל מייתו גוים לא מייתו

Rather, the reason why gentiles cannot bring an animal tithe offering is that animal tithe is an obligation for which there is no fixed time, and with regard to any obligation for which there is no fixed time, a Jew can bring it but gentiles cannot bring it. And as stated, substitution is juxtaposed with the animal tithe, and therefore gentiles can also not render an animal a substitute.

ואין מביאין נסכים תנו רבנן אזרח אזרח מביא נסכים ואין הגוי מביא נסכים יכול לא תהא עולתו טעונה נסכים תלמוד לומר ככה

§ The baraita teaches: And gentiles cannot bring libations that are brought by themselves as a separate offering and do not accompany an animal offering, but their animal offerings require libations. The Gemara cites the source of these halakhot. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to libations: “All who are homeborn shall do these things after this manner” (Numbers 15:13), which teaches that those who are homeborn, i.e., Jews, can bring libations as a separate offering, but a gentile cannot bring such libations. One might consequently have thought that a gentile’s burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: “So it shall be done for each bull” (Numbers 15:11), which indicates that every offering requires libations.

אמר רבי יוסי רואה אני בכולן להחמיר במה דברים אמורים בקדשי מזבח כו׳ מאי טעמא

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yosei says: I see that in all of these cases it is correct to be stringent. In what case is this statement said? In the case of items consecrated for the altar. But with regard to items that are consecrated by gentiles for Temple maintenance, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misusing them. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei?

קסבר כי גמרה מעילה חט חט מתרומה דומיא דתרומה דקדישא קדושת הגוף אבל קדושת בדק הבית דקדושת דמים לא

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei holds that when the halakha of misuse of consecrated property is derived through a verbal analogy between “sin” stated with regard to misuse of consecrated property and “sin” stated with regard to teruma, this is referring to items that are similar to teruma, which is sacred with inherent sanctity. But with regard to an item consecrated for Temple maintenance, which has no inherent sanctity, but only sanctity that inheres in its value, this exemption of gentiles does not apply.

תנו רבנן דם שנטמא וזרקו בשוגג הורצה

The Gemara continues to analyze the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to blood that became impure and a priest sprinkled it on the altar, if he did so unwittingly, the offering is accepted.

במזיד לא הורצה במה דברים אמורים ביחיד אבל בציבור בין בשוגג בין במזיד הורצה ובגוים בין בשוגג ובין במזיד לא הורצה

But if he sprinkled the blood intentionally, the offering is not accepted. In what case is this statement said? It is with regard to the offering of an individual. But with regard to the offering of the community, whether the priest sprinkled the blood unwittingly or he did so intentionally, the offering is accepted. And in the case of the offerings of gentiles, whether he sprinkled the blood unwittingly or he did so intentionally, the offering is not accepted.

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב פפא כמאן דלא כרבי יוסי דאי רבי יוסי האמר בכולן אני רואה להחמיר

The Sages said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose opinion was this baraita taught? Apparently, it was taught not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as if it reflects the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, there is a difficulty: Doesn’t Rabbi Yosei say: I see the logic of the opinion that in all of these cases it is correct to be stringent about the offerings of gentiles? This indicates that Rabbi Yosei equates the halakhot applying to the offerings of gentiles with those governing the offerings of Jews.

אמר להו רב פפא אפילו תימא רבי יוסי שאני התם דאמר קרא להם להם ולא לגוים

Rav Pappa said to them: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it is different there, as the verse states with regard to the High Priest’s frontplate, which atones for ritual impurity contracted by offerings in the Temple without the knowledge of those offering them: “And it shall be always upon his forehead that it may be accepted for them before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), which indicates that it is accepted for them, i.e., for Jews, but not for gentiles.

אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא אלא מעתה אשר הם מקדישים הכי נמי הם ולא גוים

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so, with regard to the verse discussing ritually impure priests and consecrated items: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me” (Leviticus 22:2), so too, would Rabbi Yosei say that the prohibition against eating consecrated items in a state of ritual impurity applies only to offerings which they, the Jews, consecrate, and not to those of gentiles? This cannot be, as Rabbi Yosei explicitly states in the baraita that in this regard the offerings of gentiles are like those of Jews.

אלא אמר רב אשי אמר קרא לרצון להם וגוים לאו בני הרצאה נינהו

Rather, Rav Ashi says that it is not from the words “for them” that one derives that the offering of a gentile is not accepted when the blood that was sprinkled had become impure. Rather, it is because the atonement achieved by way of the High Priest’s frontplate does not apply to gentiles, as the verse states: “That it may be accepted for them before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), and gentiles are not subject to the acceptance of offerings.

מתני׳ דברים שאין חייבים עליהם משום פיגול חייבין עליהן משום נותר ומשום טמא חוץ מן הדם רבי שמעון מחייב בדבר שדרכן לאכול אבל העצים והלבונה והקטורת אין חייבין עליו משום טומאה

MISHNA: Even with regard to those items enumerated in the previous mishna (42b) for which one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, e.g., the handful, the frankincense, and the incense, one is, nevertheless, liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure, except for the blood. Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for an item whose typical manner is such that one eats it. But with regard to the wood, the frankincense, and the incense, one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition against eating a consecrated item while ritually impure.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן יכול לא יהו חייבין משום טומאה אלא על דבר שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: It might have been thought that one should be liable due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while in a state of ritual impurity only for an item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar.

ודין הוא ומה פיגול שהוא בקביעה ובידיעה אחת ולא הותר מכללו אין חייבין עליו אלא על דבר שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח

The baraita explains: And this may be derived via a logical derivation: Just as with regard to piggul, which renders one who unwittingly eats it liable to bring a fixed sin offering, and this liability is incurred with one change in his awareness, i.e., it suffices for the sinner to become aware after the fact that he had sinned unwittingly, and it has no permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, as there are no circumstances in which one is permitted to eat piggul, and yet one is liable due to violation of the prohibition against eating piggul only for an item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, so too, the same should certainly apply to the more lenient case of ritual impurity.

טומאה שהיא בעולה ויורד ובשתי ידיעות והותרה מכללה אינו דין שאינו חייב אלא על דבר שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח

The Gemara elaborates: Impurity is more lenient than piggul, as it renders the unwitting sinner liable only to bring a sliding-scale offering, which varies according to his financial circumstances: A poor person brings a bird offering or even a meal offering (see Leviticus 5:6–13). And liability is incurred only with two changes in his awareness, i.e., when the sinner was aware of his impurity beforehand, then forgot about it at the time of his sin, and then once again become aware of his impurity. And it has permitted exceptions from its general prohibition with regard to the community, as it is permitted to sacrifice communal offerings in the Temple in a state of impurity. With these leniencies in mind, is it not right that one should be liable due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure only for an item that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar.

תלמוד לומר אשר הם מקדישים לי

Therefore, the verse states, with regard to eating consecrated foods in a state of ritual impurity: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2). This teaches that a ritually impure person is liable for eating any item that has been consecrated.

יכול מיד תלמוד לומר יקרב אמר רבי אלעזר וכי יש נוגע שהוא חייב

One might have thought that one is liable for eating sacred items immediately after they have been consecrated. Therefore, the verse states: “Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations that approaches the sacred items” (Leviticus 22:3), and Rabbi Elazar said, in explanation of this verse: But is there one who merely touches, i.e., approaches, consecrated items, who is liable? Only one who eats consecrated food while in a state of ritual impurity is liable.

אלא מה תלמוד לומר יקרב בהוכשר [בשר] ליקרב הכתוב מדבר הא כיצד יש לו מתירין משיקרבו מתירין אין לו מתירין משיקדש בכלי

Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Approaches [yikrav]”? This term alludes to sacrificing [hakrava], as though the verse has stated: Whoever sacrifices sacred items and eats them. This teaches that the verse is speaking of flesh that has been rendered fit to be sacrificed. How so? With regard to an item that has permitting factors, one is liable from when the permitting factors are sacrificed. In the case of an item that does not have permitting factors, one is liable from when it is sanctified in a service vessel for the purpose of its sacrifice.

אשכחן טומאה נותר מנלן אתי חילול חילול מטומאה

The Gemara asks: We have found proof that the prohibition against eating consecrated food in a state of ritual impurity applies even to an item that does not have a permitting factor. From where do we derive that notar likewise applies to an item that does not have a permitting factor? The Gemara answers: This is derived through a verbal analogy between profanation stated in the context of notar and profanation stated in the context of ritual impurity. With regard to notar the verse states: “Because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord” (Leviticus 19:8), and with regard to impurity the verse states: “And that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2).

ולילף עון עון מפיגול

The Gemara challenges: But let the halakha of notar be derived through a verbal analogy between “iniquity” stated in the context of notar and “iniquity” stated in the context of piggul. With regard to piggul, the verse states: “It shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat the verse states: “Therefore anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 19:8). If so, the halakha of notar should be similar to that of piggul, for which one is liable only for an item that has a permitting factor.

מסתברא מטומאה הוי ליה למילף שכן גזל סימן

The Gemara answers that it is more reasonable to derive notar from ritual impurity, for several reasons, as indicated by the mnemonic: Gimmel, zayin, lamed. Both notar and impurity are disqualifications that apply to the body [guf ] of the offering itself, whereas piggul is caused by intent; unlike piggul, these two disqualifications are not determined by the sprinkling [zerika] of the blood, and in both cases the Torah uses the term profanation [ḥillul ].

אדרבה מפיגול הוה ליה למילף שכן נותר ציץ טהור בזמן קרב והני נפישן

The Gemara responds: On the contrary, it is more reasonable to derive notar from piggul, as like piggul it does not have permitted exceptions from its general prohibition, it has no atonement through the High Priest’s frontplate, both notar and piggul apply to a ritually pure offering, these disqualifications are dependent on time, and both of them are disqualifications of the item being sacrificed, not the priest performing the service. None of these features are true of ritual impurity. And these reasons for comparing notar to piggul are more numerous.

אלא מדתני לוי דתני לוי מנין שאף בפסול זמן הכתוב מדבר תלמוד לומר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל

Rather, the halakha of notar is derived from that which Levi taught with regard to the verse: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2), which is referring to the eating of consecrated food in a state of ritual impurity. As Levi taught: From where is it derived that the verse is speaking even of a disqualification caused by time, and not only ritual impurity? The verse states profanation elsewhere: “And they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:15).