Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 28, 2018 | 讬状讚 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 45

In what ways are sacrifices brought by non-Jews subject to the same rules as sacrifices brought by Jews? Are the criteria for where pigul applies the same for impurity and for notar?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻诇 砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诇转谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗

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 Zeva岣m, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讚砖讬 讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讛砖讜讞讟谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讞讬讬讘

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讚砖讬 讙讜讬诐 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

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.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 讗讘诇 拽专讘谞谉 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讘讻讜诇谉 诇讛讞诪讬专 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 诇讛壮 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讘诇 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

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: 鈥淎ny man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel that will sacrifice his offering鈥to the Lord鈥 (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.

诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉

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.

讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讚讙诪专 诪注讬诇讛 讞讟 讞讟 诪转专讜诪讛 讚讘转专讜诪讛 讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara鈥檚 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 鈥渟in鈥 stated with regard to misuse of consecrated items and the word 鈥渟in鈥 stated with regard to teruma. With regard to misuse of consecrated property, the verse states: 鈥淚f any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:15). In the case of teruma, the verse states: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die due to it, if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9). And with regard to teruma, it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel鈥 (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.

讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讬 驻讬讙讜诇 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专

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 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to piggul and the word 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to notar. With regard to piggul, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul, and the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat the verse states: 鈥淭herefore anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 19:8).

讜讗转讬 谞讜转专 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讟讜诪讗讛 讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淏ecause he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:8), and with regard to impurity the verse states: 鈥淎nd that they do not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2). And with regard to impurity it is written in that same verse: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel,鈥 which indicates: But not the sacred items of gentiles.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转拽砖 转诪讜专讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讗讬转拽砖 诇诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讜讘诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock鈥he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥either shall he make a substitute for it鈥 (Leviticus 27:32鈥33). And animal tithe is juxtaposed with the tithe of grains, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall tithe [asser te鈥檃sser] 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:22鈥23). The doubled verb form, asser te鈥檃sser, is understood as an allusion to two tithes, grain tithe and animal tithe. And with regard to the tithe of grains it is written: 鈥淲hen you take of the children of Israel the tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:24), which indicates: But not of gentiles.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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?

讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讞讜讘讛 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讜讘讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讝诪谉 拽讘讜注 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讬转讜 讙讜讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讬转讜

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.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讝专讞 讗讝专讞 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 注讜诇转讜 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讻讛

搂 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: 鈥淎ll who are homeborn shall do these things after this manner鈥 (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鈥檚 burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o it shall be done for each bull鈥 (Numbers 15:11), which indicates that every offering requires libations.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讘讻讜诇谉 诇讛讞诪讬专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

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?

拽住讘专 讻讬 讙诪专讛 诪注讬诇讛 讞讟 讞讟 诪转专讜诪讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讚拽讚讬砖讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗讘诇 拽讚讜砖转 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei holds that when the halakha of misuse of consecrated property is derived through a verbal analogy between 鈥渟in鈥 stated with regard to misuse of consecrated property and 鈥渟in鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讘爪讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讜讘讙讜讬诐 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 诇讛讞诪讬专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛诐 诇讛诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐

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鈥檚 frontplate, which atones for ritual impurity contracted by offerings in the Temple without the knowledge of those offering them: 鈥淎nd it shall be always upon his forehead that it may be accepted for them before the Lord鈥 (Exodus 28:38), which indicates that it is accepted for them, i.e., for Jews, but not for gentiles.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖专 讛诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛诐 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇专爪讜谉 诇讛诐 讜讙讜讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讛专爪讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Rather, Rav Ashi says that it is not from the words 鈥渇or them鈥 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鈥檚 frontplate does not apply to gentiles, as the verse states: 鈥淭hat it may be accepted for them before the Lord鈥 (Exodus 28:38), and gentiles are not subject to the acceptance of offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讜转专 讜诪砖讜诐 讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讚诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 砖讚专讻谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讘诇 讛注爪讬诐 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞

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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇 砖讛讜讗 讘拽讘讬注讛 讜讘讬讚讬注讛 讗讞转 讜诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞

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.

讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讜讘砖转讬 讬讚讬注讜转 讜讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞

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鈥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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 诇讬

Therefore, the verse states, with regard to eating consecrated foods in a state of ritual impurity: 鈥淭hat 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:2). This teaches that a ritually impure person is liable for eating any item that has been consecrated.

讬讻讜诇 诪讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻讬 讬砖 谞讜讙注 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘

One might have thought that one is liable for eating sacred items immediately after they have been consecrated. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever he is of all your seed among your generations that approaches the sacred items鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讘讛讜讻砖专 [讘砖专] 诇讬拽专讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 诪砖讬拽专讘讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 诪砖讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬

Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎pproaches [yikrav]鈥? 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.

讗砖讻讞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 谞讜转专 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛

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: 鈥淏ecause he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:8), and with regard to impurity the verse states: 鈥淎nd that they do not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2).

讜诇讬诇祝 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara challenges: But let the halakha of notar be derived through a verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated in the context of notar and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated in the context of piggul. With regard to piggul, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat the verse states: 鈥淭herefore anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (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.

诪住转讘专讗 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讙讝诇 住讬诪谉

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 [岣llul ].

讗讚专讘讛 诪驻讬讙讜诇 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 谞讜转专 爪讬抓 讟讛讜专 讘讝诪谉 拽专讘 讜讛谞讬 谞驻讬砖谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 讘驻住讜诇 讝诪谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇讜 讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

Rather, the halakha of notar is derived from that which Levi taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hat 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:15).

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 45

讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讻诇 砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 诇转谞讬 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪砖讬讞讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚专讜砖 讜拽讘诇 砖讻专 讛讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讛诇讻转讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 拽讗诪讬谞讗

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 Zeva岣m, 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.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讚砖讬 讙讜讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讛砖讜讞讟谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讞讬讬讘

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讚砖讬 讙讜讬诐 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

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.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 讗讘诇 拽专讘谞谉 讟注讜谉 谞住讻讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讘讻讜诇谉 诇讛讞诪讬专 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 诇讛壮 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讘诇 讘拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

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: 鈥淎ny man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel that will sacrifice his offering鈥to the Lord鈥 (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.

诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 诪讚专讘谞谉

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.

讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讚讙诪专 诪注讬诇讛 讞讟 讞讟 诪转专讜诪讛 讚讘转专讜诪讛 讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

The Gemara鈥檚 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 鈥渟in鈥 stated with regard to misuse of consecrated items and the word 鈥渟in鈥 stated with regard to teruma. With regard to misuse of consecrated property, the verse states: 鈥淚f any one commits a trespass, and sins through error, in the sacred items of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:15). In the case of teruma, the verse states: 鈥淟est they bear sin for it, and die due to it, if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9). And with regard to teruma, it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel鈥 (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.

讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗转讬 驻讬讙讜诇 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专

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 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to piggul and the word 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to notar. With regard to piggul, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul, and the soul that eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat the verse states: 鈥淭herefore anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 19:8).

讜讗转讬 谞讜转专 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜讘讟讜诪讗讛 讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淏ecause he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:8), and with regard to impurity the verse states: 鈥淎nd that they do not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2). And with regard to impurity it is written in that same verse: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel,鈥 which indicates: But not the sacred items of gentiles.

讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬转拽砖 转诪讜专讛 诇诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讗讬转拽砖 诇诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讜讘诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讻转讬讘 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock鈥he tenth shall be sacred to the Lord鈥either shall he make a substitute for it鈥 (Leviticus 27:32鈥33). And animal tithe is juxtaposed with the tithe of grains, as the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall tithe [asser te鈥檃sser] 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:22鈥23). The doubled verb form, asser te鈥檃sser, is understood as an allusion to two tithes, grain tithe and animal tithe. And with regard to the tithe of grains it is written: 鈥淲hen you take of the children of Israel the tithes鈥 (Numbers 18:24), which indicates: But not of gentiles.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 诪注砖专 讚讙谉 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诪诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘转专 诇诪讚 讗讝诇讬谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

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?

讗诇讗 诪注砖专 讘讛诪讛 讞讜讘讛 砖讗讬谉 拽讘讜注 诇讛 讝诪谉 讛讜讗 讜讞讜讘讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讝诪谉 拽讘讜注 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讬转讜 讙讜讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讬转讜

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.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 谞住讻讬诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讝专讞 讗讝专讞 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讛讙讜讬 诪讘讬讗 谞住讻讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 转讛讗 注讜诇转讜 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讻讛

搂 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: 鈥淎ll who are homeborn shall do these things after this manner鈥 (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鈥檚 burnt offering should not require the standard accompanying libations. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o it shall be done for each bull鈥 (Numbers 15:11), which indicates that every offering requires libations.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讘讻讜诇谉 诇讛讞诪讬专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

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?

拽住讘专 讻讬 讙诪专讛 诪注讬诇讛 讞讟 讞讟 诪转专讜诪讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚转专讜诪讛 讚拽讚讬砖讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讗讘诇 拽讚讜砖转 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei holds that when the halakha of misuse of consecrated property is derived through a verbal analogy between 鈥渟in鈥 stated with regard to misuse of consecrated property and 鈥渟in鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚诐 砖谞讟诪讗 讜讝专拽讜 讘砖讜讙讙 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讬讞讬讚 讗讘诇 讘爪讬讘讜专 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讛讜专爪讛 讜讘讙讜讬诐 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讜讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜专爪讛

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.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讗诪专 讘讻讜诇谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 诇讛讞诪讬专

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛诐 诇讛诐 讜诇讗 诇讙讜讬诐

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鈥檚 frontplate, which atones for ritual impurity contracted by offerings in the Temple without the knowledge of those offering them: 鈥淎nd it shall be always upon his forehead that it may be accepted for them before the Lord鈥 (Exodus 28:38), which indicates that it is accepted for them, i.e., for Jews, but not for gentiles.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗砖专 讛诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛诐 讜诇讗 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇专爪讜谉 诇讛诐 讜讙讜讬诐 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讛专爪讗讛 谞讬谞讛讜

Rather, Rav Ashi says that it is not from the words 鈥渇or them鈥 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鈥檚 frontplate does not apply to gentiles, as the verse states: 鈥淭hat it may be accepted for them before the Lord鈥 (Exodus 28:38), and gentiles are not subject to the acceptance of offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬诐 注诇讬讛诐 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讜转专 讜诪砖讜诐 讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛讚诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讚讘专 砖讚专讻谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讘诇 讛注爪讬诐 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟讜专转 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞

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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇 砖讛讜讗 讘拽讘讬注讛 讜讘讬讚讬注讛 讗讞转 讜诇讗 讛讜转专 诪讻诇诇讜 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞

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.

讟讜诪讗讛 砖讛讬讗 讘注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讜讘砖转讬 讬讚讬注讜转 讜讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞

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鈥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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 诇讬

Therefore, the verse states, with regard to eating consecrated foods in a state of ritual impurity: 鈥淭hat 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鈥 (Leviticus 22:2). This teaches that a ritually impure person is liable for eating any item that has been consecrated.

讬讻讜诇 诪讬讚 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讻讬 讬砖 谞讜讙注 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘

One might have thought that one is liable for eating sacred items immediately after they have been consecrated. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淲hoever he is of all your seed among your generations that approaches the sacred items鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬拽专讘 讘讛讜讻砖专 [讘砖专] 诇讬拽专讘 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 诪砖讬拽专讘讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 诪砖讬拽讚砖 讘讻诇讬

Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎pproaches [yikrav]鈥? 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.

讗砖讻讞谉 讟讜诪讗讛 谞讜转专 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛

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: 鈥淏ecause he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:8), and with regard to impurity the verse states: 鈥淎nd that they do not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2).

讜诇讬诇祝 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara challenges: But let the halakha of notar be derived through a verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated in the context of notar and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated in the context of piggul. With regard to piggul, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to leftover sacrificial meat the verse states: 鈥淭herefore anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (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.

诪住转讘专讗 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 讙讝诇 住讬诪谉

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 [岣llul ].

讗讚专讘讛 诪驻讬讙讜诇 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 谞讜转专 爪讬抓 讟讛讜专 讘讝诪谉 拽专讘 讜讛谞讬 谞驻讬砖谉

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鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 讘驻住讜诇 讝诪谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇讜 讗转 拽讚砖讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

Rather, the halakha of notar is derived from that which Levi taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hat 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:15).

Scroll To Top