Zevachim 46a — the Talmud in English

It follows that

the verse is speaking of two desecrations.

One —

the disqualification of notar,

for we find in it the language of desecration, as it is written in the section of notar: “For he has desecrated the sacred thing of the Lord.”

And one —

the disqualification of impurity.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

except for the blood.

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where are these matters

that one is not liable concerning blood on account of notar and impurity?

At first the Gemara explains the source for excluding blood from me'ila, and afterward it explains the source for excluding blood from notar and impurity.

Ulla said concerning what we learned regarding me'ila, that one does not commit me'ila with blood:

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

The verse says

concerning the blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood.

And I have given it to you

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

To you”—it shall be yours.

Therefore one does not commit me'ila with blood.

The tannaitic school of Rabbi Ishmael taught,

learning from here that there is no me'ila with blood:

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

to the blood, so that only with regard to this shall the blood have the status of consecrated things,

but not for me'ila.

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse says

[at the end of the verse mentioned]: “For the blood,

it

atones by means of the soul,” and we expound: “

It,”

the blood’s

before atonement

status is

like after atonement. Just as after atonement there is no me'ila

because its mitzva has already been performed and there is no further need of the Most High for it, and we do not apply to it “the sacred things of the Lord,”

so too before atonement there is no me'ila.

And we raise an objection to this:

Say

that the blood’s status

after atonement is like before atonement: just as before atonement there is me'ila

for its mitzva has not yet been performed,

so too after atonement there is me'ila.

And we answer:

There is no thing whose mitzva has been performed and with which one commits me'ila,

and since blood after atonement certainly has no me'ila, the same applies to blood before atonement, which has no me'ila. And we refute this:

Is that so?

Have we not found a thing whose mitzva has been performed and with which one commits me'ila?

But there is the removal of the ashes,

for every day the priest would rake from atop the altar a panful of ashes and place it on the east side of the ramp, and it is written concerning it, “And he shall place it there.” This proves that the ashes of the offerings are forbidden for benefit even after their mitzva of offering them 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 became forbidden for benefit, as it is written, “And he shall leave them there,” and we expound that they require concealment],

are two verses that come as one.

For the Torah did not need to write both of them, since we could have learned the law of one from the other: although their mitzva has been performed, nevertheless they are forbidden for benefit. From the fact that the Torah wrote this both concerning the removal of the ashes and concerning the priestly garments, we have the principle that

all two verses that come as one do not teach.

That is, the Torah innovated for us that only with priestly garments and the removal of the ashes, although their mitzva has been performed, are they forbidden for benefit; but throughout the Torah, every other thing whose mitzva has been performed is permitted for benefit.

And we refute this:

This works out according to the Rabbis, who say

with regard to the priestly garments, for it is written,

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

and if so, they are two verses that come as one.

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 entire year,

provided that he does not use them

—the High Priest—

for another Yom Kippur,” what is there to say?

For we do not have two verses that come as one.

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

because the removal of the ashes and the beheaded heifer

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

are two verses that come as one, and all two verses that come as one do not teach.

And we refute this:

This works out according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do not teach.

But according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do teach, what is there to say?

From where does Rabbi Yoḥanan have to learn that one does not commit me'ila with blood? It is possible to say that with blood one commits me'ila even after atonement.

And we answer:

Two exclusions are written

with regard to the beheaded heifer and the removal of the ashes, to say that one does not learn from them.

Here it is written, “the beheaded one,”

to say: the beheaded one, and not another.

And there,

with regard to the removal of the ashes,

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

for it would have been possible to say “and there,” but it wrote “and he shall place it,” to say specifically this one, and not another thing, for another thing whose mitzva has been performed is permitted for benefit. Consequently, we have two exclusions from which to learn that a thing whose mitzva has been performed is permitted for benefit. And if so, blood after atonement is certainly permitted for benefit. And we learn: 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.

And the Gemara discusses: And these

three verses

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

why do I need them?

After all, one verse would suffice to teach from it that there is no me'ila with blood.

And we answer: The verse needed to state all three verses concerning blood in order to teach us:

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

«вам», как обычная, не посвящённая собственность,

to exclude

blood

from

the prohibition of

notar.

One [“to atone”—I gave it to you for atonement, like consecrated things, but not for another matter like consecrated things; rather, the blood is like ordinary non-sacred things],

«для искупления»: «Я дал её вам для искупления, как жертвенные святыни», но не для другого, как жертвенные святыни; напротив, кровь имеет статус обычной собственности,

to exclude

blood

from impurity.

And one [“it”],

«сама»,

to exclude

blood

from me'ila.

But

to exclude blood, with which there is no law of

pigul, no verse is needed

to exclude it, because

we learned

above that specifically

everything that has a permitting factor, whether for a person or for the altar, one is liable concerning it on account of pigul, and blood itself is

is the

a permitting factor,

and it is not permitted by means of another permitting factor; through this it is excluded from pigul.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Three excisions

that the Torah wrote

for

the eating of

peace-offerings

in bodily impurity [one excision is stated generally concerning all offerings, and the two additional ones were written only concerning peace-offerings].

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

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

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

Why

were they written?