Zevachim 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

This indicates that

the verse is speaking of two instances of desecration.

One—

the disqualification of notar,

as we find in it the language of desecration, as it is written in the passage concerning notar: “For he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord.”

And one—

the disqualification of impurity.

And concerning both of them the amplification “which they consecrate” is stated, from which all consecrated items are included, even those that have no permitting factor.

We learned in the Mishna:

except for the blood.

And the Gemara asks:

From where are these matters derived

that one is not liable for notar and impurity with regard to blood?

Initially, the Gemara explains the source for excluding blood from me’ila, and later it explains the source for excluding blood from notar and impurity.

Ulla said

with regard to what we learned concerning me’ila, that there is no me’ila with blood:

The verse states

concerning blood [Leviticus 17:11]: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood.

And I have given it to you

upon the altar to atone for your souls.” And we expound:

“To you”—it shall be yours.

Therefore, there is no me’ila with blood.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught,

deriving from here that there is no me’ila with blood:

The verse states, “to atone”—I gave it for atonement

to the blood, so that only with regard to this its status should be like that of consecrated offerings,

but not for me’ila.

For with regard to the laws of me’ila, blood is not like consecrated offerings.

Rabbi Yohanan said: The verse states

[at the end of the aforementioned verse]: “For the blood

it

shall make atonement by means of the life,” and we expound:

“It,”

the blood

before atonement

has a status

like that after atonement. Just as after atonement there is no me’ila

because its mitzva has already been performed and there is no further need for it on High, and it is not called “the sacred things of the Lord,”

so too, before atonement there is no me’ila.

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps

the status of the blood

after atonement should be like that before atonement: Just as before atonement there is me’ila,

since its mitzva has not yet been performed,

so too, after atonement there is me’ila.

And we answer:

There is no item whose mitzva has been performed and with which there is me’ila,

and since after atonement there is certainly no me’ila with blood, the same applies to blood before atonement, with which there is no me’ila. And we challenge this:

Is that so?

Have we not found an item whose mitzva has been performed and with which there is me’ila?

But there is the removal of the ashes,

which was performed every day, when the priest would take a coal-pan full of ashes from upon the altar and place it east of the ramp; and it is written concerning it: “And he shall place it there.” This demonstrates that the ashes of the offerings are prohibited for benefit even after their mitzva of being offered upon the altar has been performed.

And we answer:

Because the removal of the ashes and the priestly garments

of the High Priest [after he used them on Yom Kippur, which are prohibited for benefit, as it is written: “And he shall leave them there,” and we expound that they require interment],

are two verses that come to teach the same matter.

The Torah did not need to write both of them, since we could have derived the law of one from the other: although their mitzva has been performed, they nevertheless remain prohibited for benefit. Since the Torah wrote this both with regard to the removal of the ashes and with regard to the priestly garments, we have the principle that

two verses that come to teach the same matter do not teach beyond their own cases.

That is, the Torah taught that only in the case of the priestly garments and the removal of the ashes, although their mitzva has been performed, they remain prohibited for benefit; but throughout the Torah, every other item whose mitzva has been performed is permitted for benefit.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the Rabbis, who say

with regard to the priestly garments that it is written:

“And he shall leave them there”—this teaches that they require interment,

and therefore they are two verses that come to teach the same matter.

But according to Rabbi Dosa, who says, “They are permitted

—those priestly garments of the High Priest—to be used by

an ordinary priest

throughout the year,

provided that he not use them

—the High Priest—

for another Yom Kippur”; what can be said?

For we do not have two verses that come to teach the same matter.

And we answer: In any event, we do have two verses,

because the removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken

[concerning which it is written: “And they shall break its neck there,” and we expound: “There shall be its burial,” meaning that it is prohibited for benefit even after the mitzva of breaking its neck has been performed]

are two verses that come to teach the same matter, and two verses that come to teach the same matter do not teach beyond their own cases.

And we challenge this:

This works according to the one who says

do not teach beyond their own cases.

But according to the one who says

that two verses that come to teach the same matter

do teach beyond their own cases, what can be said?

From where does Rabbi Yohanan derive that there is no me’ila with blood? It is possible to say that with blood there is me’ila even after atonement.

And we answer:

Two exclusions are written

with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken and the removal of the ashes, to teach that one does not derive a general rule from them.

Here it is written, “the heifer whose neck is broken,”

indicating: the heifer whose neck is broken, but not another item.

And there,

with regard to the removal of the ashes,

it is written, “and he shall place it,”

although it could have said, “and he shall place,” and it instead says, “and he shall place it,” to indicate specifically this item and not another. For another item whose mitzva has been performed is permitted for benefit. Consequently, we have two exclusions from which to derive that an item whose mitzva has been performed is permitted for benefit. Therefore, blood after atonement is certainly permitted for benefit. And we derive that just as blood after atonement is permitted for benefit, so too blood before atonement is permitted for benefit, and there is no me’ila with it.

The Gemara asks: And these

three verses

that we learned above [“to you,” “to atone,” and “it”], which teach that there is no me’ila with blood,

why do I need them?

It would have been sufficient to have one verse from which to learn that there is no me’ila with blood.

And we answer: It was necessary for the Torah to state all three verses concerning blood in order to teach us the following:

One [“to you,” like ordinary non-sacred items],

to exclude

blood

from the

prohibition of

notar.

One [“to atone”—I gave it to you for atonement like consecrated offerings, but not for anything else in the manner of consecrated offerings; rather, the blood is like ordinary non-sacred items]

to exclude

blood

from impurity.

And one [“it”],

to exclude

blood

from me’ila.

But

to exclude blood, to which the law of

piggul does not apply, no verse is needed

for the exclusion, because

we learned

above that only

with regard to anything that has a permitting factor, whether for a person or for the altar, is one liable on account of piggul; and blood itself

is the

permitting factor,

and it is not rendered permitted by another permitting factor. Thus, it is excluded from piggul.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Three instances of karet

that the Torah wrote

with regard to

the eating of

peace-offerings

in a state of bodily impurity [one instance of karet is stated generally with regard to all offerings, and the other two were written only with regard to peace-offerings].

A. “Anyone who draws near from all your offspring to the sacred things that the impurity is upon him, that soul shall be cut off” [Leviticus 22].

B. “And the person who eats from the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings that belong to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off” [Leviticus 7].

C. “And if a person touches any impure thing and eats from the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, that person shall be cut off” [Leviticus 7].

Why

were they written?