Zevachim 45aזבחים מ״ה א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 45a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
45aמ״ה א

הלכתא למשיחא א"ל אביי אלא מעתה כל שחיטת קדשים לא לתני הלכתא למשיחא הוא אלא דרוש וקבל שכר ה"נ דרוש וקבל שכר הכי קאמינא לך הלכתא למה לי לישנא אחרינא א"ל 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 עובדי כוכבים אין חייבין עליהן 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׳ ת"ר קדשי עובדי כוכבים 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' בד"א 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 עובדי כוכבים:

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: מ"ט 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 עובדי כוכבים:

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 עובדי כוכבים

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 למ"ד 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 עובדי כוכבים 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 (במדבר טו, יג) אזרח אזרח מביא נסכים ואין העובד כוכבים מביא נסכים יכול לא תהא עולתו טעונה נסכים ת"ל 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 בד"א בקדשי מזבח כו': מ"ט

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.

ת"ר 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.