Zevachim 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

He said

about this

Rava

remarked incredulously:

Is this a halakha for the messianic era!?

Is he coming to establish here a halakha that will be needed in the days of the Messiah, which we do not currently need and which has no practical relevance for us!?

Abaye said to him:

According to your view, that one should not establish halakha for the days of the Messiah,

then from now on, every

law of

the slaughter of sacrificial animals should not be taught

at all, for

is that not a halakha for the messianic era?

Rather,

why do we teach these laws? Because

one studies and receives reward

for the learning itself, even though it has no practical relevance. If so,

here too,

Rav Naḥman stated his words because of

one studies and receives reward!?

Rava explained his incredulous remark:

This is what I meant to say to you: Why do I need the word “halakha”!?

Certainly, all the laws of the slaughter of sacrificial animals must be taught, since it is Torah, and one studies and receives reward. My incredulity concerned why he established a halakha whose subject is practical instruction, when it has no relevance to us now.

Alternatively: He said to him

Rava:

I was referring to “halakha,”

as explained above; the difference is only in the wording of the version.

Mishna:

The sacrificial animals consecrated by gentiles,

which gentiles consecrated to the Most High,

one who eats them is not liable

for them

due to piggul, notar, or ritual impurity.

And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yosei deems one liable

for all of them.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: The sacrificial animals consecrated by gentiles

may not be used for benefit, but there is no misuse of consecrated property involving them.

And one is not liable for them due to piggul, notar, or ritual impurity.

And they cannot be exchanged for another offering.

And libations are not brought

independently, without an accompanying sacrifice,

but their offering requires libations.

Therefore, if the gentile sends the money for the libations along with his offering, it is accepted from him; and if not, libations are brought from communal funds,

the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yosei said: I see reason to be stringent in all of them,

in all these matters,

to be stringent,

so that gentile offerings should be treated with the same stringency as Jewish offerings, because

it is stated concerning them,

concerning gentile offerings, in the passage of Emor [Leviticus 22]: “Any man of the House of Israel and of the stranger in Israel who brings his offering for any of their vows and for any of their freewill offerings that they bring

to the Lord

as a burnt-offering.” Since it says “any man, any man,” we include gentiles as well: they make vows and freewill offerings like Jews.

And since it says in this verse “to the Lord,” it indicates that gentile offerings are included among “the sacred offerings of the Lord” for all their laws.

The beraita now returns to explain Rabbi Shimon’s statement:

When are these words applicable

—that there is no misuse of consecrated property involving gentile offerings according to Rabbi Shimon?

With regard to offerings consecrated for the altar

that the gentile consecrated as an offering.

But with regard to offerings consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple

that a gentile consecrated, Rabbi Shimon agrees

that there is misuse of consecrated property involving them.

We learned in the Mishna: Gentile offerings

may not be used for benefit, and there is no misuse of consecrated property

involving them.

The Gemara explains:

“May not be used for benefit”—

by rabbinic ordinance.

“And there is no misuse of consecrated property”—

by Torah law.

For we derive

the law of

misuse

with regard to gentile offerings by means of a gezera shava,

“sin, sin,” from teruma.

With regard to misuse it is written, “When a person sins and commits misuse,” while concerning teruma it is written, “They shall keep My charge and shall not bear sin because of it.”

And concerning teruma it is written

later in the passage, “They shall not profane the sacred offerings of

the Children of Israel,”

and the verse limits the matter, indicating that with regard to teruma it refers only to offerings consecrated by Jews

and not

to offerings consecrated by

gentiles.

Just as gentiles were excluded with regard to teruma, so too their offerings were excluded from the law of misuse.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one is not liable for them due to piggul, notar, or ritual impurity.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason? Piggul is derived

by means of the gezera shava of

“iniquity, iniquity,” from notar.

Concerning piggul it is written, “He shall bear his iniquity,” and concerning notar it is written, “He shall bear his iniquity”; thus the Torah equates the law of piggul with the law of notar.

And then notar is derived,

afterward, we return to derive the law of notar by means of the gezera shava of

“profanation, profanation,” from ritual impurity,

since concerning notar it is written, “He has profaned a sacred offering of the Lord,” while concerning ritual impurity it is written, “They shall not profane.”

And concerning ritual impurity it is written “They shall separate themselves from the sacred offerings of

the

the Children of Israel,”

which teaches that the passage concerning eating sacred offerings in a state of ritual impurity was stated only with regard to offerings of the Children of Israel,

and not

with regard to offerings of

gentiles.

That is, we derived notar from ritual impurity, and piggul from notar, for a matter learned through a gezera shava can in turn teach through a gezera shava, as will be explained below, in the chapter “Which Are Their Places.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And they cannot make

gentile offerings

an exchange offering.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason? Exchange is juxtaposed to animal tithe,

as it is written concerning animal tithe: “He shall not inspect whether it is good or bad, nor exchange it; and if he does exchange it, then both it and its exchange shall be sacred.”

And animal tithe is juxtaposed to grain tithe,

as it is written: “You shall tithe all the produce of your seed”; the verse speaks of two tithes, one being animal tithe and the other grain tithe.

And concerning grain tithe it is written:

“For the tithe of

the Children of Israel

that they shall raise,” and we exclude:

and not gentiles.

From here we learn that gentile offerings are likewise excluded with regard to the law of exchange.

We challenge this:

Can a matter learned through a juxtaposition return and teach through a juxtaposition!?

But this is not so; if so, how can the law of exchange be derived through a juxtaposition to animal tithe, when the entire law of animal tithe itself is derived only because it was juxtaposed to grain tithe?

We answer: The principle that a matter learned through a juxtaposition cannot return and teach through a juxtaposition was stated only with regard to sacred offerings. But here the [first] matter that teaches through a juxtaposition is grain tithe,

and grain tithe is non-sacred produce.

Therefore, although the matter learned from it through a juxtaposition is animal tithe, which is a sacred offering, nevertheless it can return and teach through a juxtaposition, even concerning exchange, which is also a matter of sacred offerings.

We challenge this:

This works

if we consider it non-sacred

according to the one who says that we follow the “teaching source,”

meaning that if the teaching source is non-sacred, then even though the matter learned is a sacred offering, it can nevertheless serve as a source for further derivation. Accordingly, here, since the teaching source is grain tithe, which is non-sacred, we can properly derive from the matter learned from it.

But according to the one who says that we follow the “learnt matter,”

meaning that when the matter learned is a sacred offering, it cannot return and teach through a juxtaposition,

what can be said?

Here, in the case of animal tithe, the matter learned is a sacred offering, and with regard to sacred offerings the principle is that a matter learned through a juxtaposition cannot return and teach through a juxtaposition!?

Because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts and says that the law of exchange with regard to gentile offerings is not derived through a juxtaposition to animal tithe because animal tithe was juxtaposed to grain tithe,

but

it is derived from animal tithe itself: It is not sacrificed as a gentile’s offering, because gentiles bring only vows and freewill offerings, and not obligatory offerings—

animal tithe

is an

obligatory offering that has no fixed time

for its bringing.

And

every

obligatory offering that has no fixed time

is brought only by

Jews,

but

gentiles do not bring it,

since they have no connection to obligatory offerings that have no fixed time, such as animal tithe, a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering. [The same applies to an obligatory offering that has a fixed time, such as the pilgrimage offering; however, in that category they have some connection, with regard to an ordinary burnt-offering, whereas with animal tithe, a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering, whose time is not fixed, they have no connection in any respect.]

Therefore, we can derive the law of exchange from animal tithe, excluding gentiles.

We learned in the Mishna:

And libations are not brought.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning libations [Numbers 15], “Every

citizen

shall do thus” [and below we will derive from here that one may voluntarily offer libations independently, even without bringing a sacrifice]. The verse teaches that only a

citizen,

who is a Jew,

brings libations, but a gentile does not bring libations.

And since we excluded a gentile from bringing libations,

one might have thought that his burnt-offering

which he voluntarily offered

would not require libations.

The verse therefore states

in the passage concerning libations:

“Thus”

shall be done for an ox. The Torah attached the obligation of libations to the offering, and there is no difference between a Jewish offering and a gentile offering with regard to the obligation of libations. Therefore, if the gentile sends the money for the libations, they are offered from his funds. If not, they are offered from communal funds, because it is a stipulation of the court that they be offered from communal funds. The exclusion of gentiles from libations applies to libations brought independently, without a sacrifice; a gentile cannot bring those.

We learned in the beraita:

Rabbi Yosei said: I see reason to be stringent in all of them.

The beraita adds, according to Rabbi Shimon:

When are these words applicable? With regard to offerings consecrated for the altar.

The Gemara explains:

What is the reason

for Rabbi Shimon’s distinction between gentile offerings consecrated for the altar, involving which there is no misuse of consecrated property, and gentile offerings consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, involving which there is misuse of consecrated property?

He maintains

Rabbi Shimon

that when he derived

what was learned concerning

misuse

through the gezera shava of

“sin, sin,” from teruma,

to teach that there is no misuse of consecrated property involving a gentile offering, this applies only to offerings consecrated for the altar, which are

analogous to teruma, for

teruma itself

has intrinsic sanctity. But offerings consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple have monetary sanctity,

and

not

and are therefore not derived through a gezera shava from teruma. Consequently, gentile offerings that gentiles consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple are subject to misuse, just like Jewish offerings.

The Sages taught: If blood became ritually impure and he sprinkled it

upon the altar,

if

inadvertently,

it effects acceptance;

the offering is accepted for its owner through the sprinkling of the impure blood upon the altar, the owners attain atonement, and the meat may be eaten, because the tzitz effects acceptance for impurity of the blood.