Zevachim 45a — the Talmud in English

He said

concerning this

Rava,

with astonishment:

Is this a halakha for the days of the Messiah!?

Has he come to establish here a halakha that we will need for the days of the Messiah, which now we do not need and which does not concern us in practice!?

Abaye said to him:

According to your words, that one should not establish a 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 it a halakha for the days of the Messiah?

Rather,

why do we teach them? Because

study and receive reward

for the study itself, even though it does not concern practice; and if so,

here too

Rav Naḥman said his words because of

study and receive reward!?

Rava explained his astonishment:

This is what I was saying to you: Why do I need “a halakha”!?

Certainly all the laws of the slaughter of sacrificial animals must be taught, since it is Torah, and one studies and receives reward; rather, my astonishment is: Why did he establish a halakha whose matter is practical instruction, when this does not concern us now?

Another version: He said to him

Rava:

I was saying “a halakha,”

as was explained, and the difference is only in the form of the reading.

Mishna:

The sacred offerings of gentiles,

which the gentiles consecrated to the Most High, the one

who is liable for them

when he eats them is not liable

because of piggul, notar, or impurity.

And one who slaughters them outside [the Temple courtyard] is exempt; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Yosei holds one liable

for all of them.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: The sacred offerings of gentiles

one may not derive benefit from them, and one does not commit sacrilege with them.

And one is not liable for them because of piggul, notar, or impurity.

And one does not make a substitution [with them].

And one does not bring libations

by themselves, without a sacrifice,

but their sacrifice requires libations.

Therefore, if the gentile sent the money for the libations together with his sacrifice, they accept it from him; and if not, they bring libations from the communal funds,

the words 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 one should treat the sacred offerings of gentiles with the same stringency as the sacred offerings of Israelites, because

it is stated concerning them,

concerning the sacred offerings of gentiles, in the section of Emor [Leviticus 22]: “Any man of the House of Israel and of the stranger in Israel, who brings his offering for all his vows and for all his freewill offerings that they bring

to the Lord

for a burnt offering.” Since it is written “any man, any man,” we include that gentiles too make vows and freewill offerings like Israelites.

And since it is written in this verse “to the Lord,” it implies that the sacred offerings of gentiles are included within “the sacred offerings of the Lord” for all their laws.

And now the beraita returns to explain the words of Rabbi Shimon:

When are these words applicable

that one does not commit sacrilege with the sacred offerings of gentiles, according to Rabbi Shimon?

With sacred offerings of the altar

that the gentile consecrated as a sacrifice.

But with sacred offerings for the maintenance of the Temple

that the gentile consecrated, Rabbi Shimon agrees

that one commits sacrilege with them.

We learned in the Mishna: The sacred offerings of gentiles,

one may not derive benefit from them, and one does not commit sacrilege

with them.

And the Gemara explains:

“One may not derive benefit”—

by rabbinic decree.

“And one does not commit sacrilege”—

from the Torah.

For we derive

the law of

sacrilege

with sacred offerings of gentiles by a gzera shava:

“sin, sin” from teruma.

Concerning sacrilege it is written, “When a person sins and commits sacrilege,” and concerning teruma it is written, “And they shall keep My charge, and they shall not bear sin because of it.”

And concerning teruma it is written

later in the section, “And they shall not profane the sacred offerings

of the Children of Israel,”

and the verse excludes and says that the matter concerning teruma applies only to sacred offerings consecrated by Israelites

and not

to sacred offerings consecrated by

gentiles.

And just as gentiles were excluded concerning teruma, so too their sacrifice was excluded from sacrilege.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one is not liable for them because of piggul, notar, or impurity.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason? Piggul comes

by the gzera shava of

“iniquity, iniquity” from notar.

Concerning piggul it is written, “He shall bear its iniquity,” and concerning notar it is written, “He shall bear his iniquity.” Thus the Torah equated the law of piggul with the law of notar.

And afterward, notar comes,

and afterward we must return and derive the law of notar by the gzera shava of

“profanation, profanation” from impurity,

because concerning notar it is written, “He profaned the sacred offering of the Lord,” and concerning impurity it is written, “And they shall not profane.”

And concerning impurity it is written

“And they shall separate themselves from the sacred offerings

of the Children of Israel,”

teaching that the section concerning eating sacred offerings in a state of impurity was stated only concerning the sacred offerings of the Children of Israel,

and not

concerning the sacred offerings of

gentiles.

That is, we derived from impurity to notar, and from notar to piggul, for a matter learned by a gzera shava returns and teaches by a gzera shava, as will be explained below in the chapter “Which are the places.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And one does not make

the sacred offerings of gentiles

a substitution.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason? For substitution was juxtaposed to the tithe of cattle,

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

And the tithe of cattle was juxtaposed to the tithe of grain,

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

And concerning the tithe of grain it is written:

“For the tithe

of the Children of Israel

that they shall raise,” and we exclude:

and not gentiles.

And from here we learned that concerning the law of substitution too, the sacred offerings of gentiles were excluded.

And we challenge this:

But can a matter learned by an analogy return and teach by an analogy!?

For this is not so; and if so, how can we derive the law of substitution by an analogy to the tithe of cattle, when the entire law of the tithe of cattle itself is only because it was juxtaposed to the tithe of grain?

And we answer: The principle that a matter learned by an analogy does not return and teach by an analogy was stated only concerning sacred offerings. But here the [first] matter that teaches by an analogy is the tithe of grain,

and the tithe of grain is non-sacred.

Therefore, even though the matter learned from it by an analogy is the tithe of cattle, which is sacred, nevertheless it is possible to return and learn from it by an analogy even concerning substitution, which is also sacred.

And we challenge this:

This works

to consider it non-sacred

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

for if the matter that teaches is non-sacred, then even though the matter learned is sacred, nevertheless we learn from it. Accordingly, here, since the matter that teaches is the tithe of grain, which is non-sacred, we properly learn from the matter learned from it.

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

that is, where the matter learned is sacred, it is impossible to return and learn from it by an analogy,

what can be said?

But here, in the tithe of cattle, the matter learned is sacred, and concerning sacred offerings the principle was stated that a matter learned by an analogy does not return and teach by an analogy!?

By force of this difficulty the Gemara retracts, and says that we do not learn the law of substitution concerning the sacred offerings of gentiles by an analogy to the tithe of cattle because the tithe of cattle was juxtaposed to the tithe of grain,

but

we learn this from the tithe of cattle itself, that it is not offered as a sacrifice by a gentile, because gentiles bring only vows and freewill offerings, and not obligatory sacrifices—

the tithe of cattle

is an

obligatory sacrifice that has no fixed time

for its bringing.

And

every

obligatory sacrifice that has no fixed time

only

Israelites bring,

but

gentiles do not bring,

because they have no connection whatsoever with obligatory sacrifices that have no fixed time, such as the tithe of cattle, a sin offering, and a guilt offering. [And likewise, they do not bring an obligatory sacrifice that has a fixed time, such as the pilgrimage appearance burnt offering; rather, in that type of sacrifice they do have some connection, through an ordinary burnt offering, whereas with the tithe, the sin offering, and the guilt offering, whose time is not fixed, they have no connection in any respect.]

Therefore, we can learn substitution from the tithe of cattle to exclude gentiles.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one does not bring libations.

The Sages taught:

It is written in the section of libations [Numbers 15], “Every

citizen

shall do this”; [and below we learn from here that one can voluntarily offer libations by themselves, even without bringing a sacrifice]. The verse teaches that only a

citizen,

who is an Israelite,

brings libations, and a gentile does not bring libations.

And since we excluded the gentile from bringing libations,

could it be that his burnt offering

which he voluntarily offered

does not require libations?

The verse therefore states

in the section of libations,

“Thus”

shall be done for an ox.” The Torah made the obligation of libations dependent upon the sacrifice, and there is no difference between an Israelite’s sacrifice and a gentile’s sacrifice concerning the obligation of libations. Therefore, if the gentile sent the money for the libations, they are offered from his funds. And if not, they are offered from the communal funds, because it is a condition of the court that they be offered from the communal funds. And the exclusion of gentiles from libations was stated concerning libations that come by themselves, not with a sacrifice, which a gentile cannot bring.

We learned in the beraita:

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

And the beraita adds according to Rabbi Shimon:

When are these words applicable? With sacred offerings of the altar.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the reason

for Rabbi Shimon to distinguish between the sacred offerings of the altar of gentiles, with which one does not commit sacrilege, and the sacred offerings for the maintenance of the Temple of gentiles, with which one does commit sacrilege?

He holds

Rabbi Shimon

that when it was derived,

what was derived,

the law of sacrilege

by the gzera shava

“sin, sin” from teruma,

to say that one does not commit sacrilege with the sacred offerings of a gentile, this applies only to sacred offerings of the altar, which are

similar to teruma, for

teruma itself is

sanctified with intrinsic sanctity. But the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple, which is monetary sanctity,

is

not

learned by a gzera shava from teruma. Therefore, with the sacred offerings of gentiles that they consecrated for the maintenance of the Temple, one commits sacrilege, as with the sacred offerings of Israelites.

The Sages taught: Blood that became impure and they sprinkled it

upon the altar,

if

unintentionally,

it effects acceptance;

the sacrifice achieved acceptance for its owners through the sprinkling of the impure blood upon the altar, and the owners achieved atonement, and the flesh may be eaten, because the tzitz effects acceptance for the impurity of the blood.