## Zevachim Daf 45a

###### Zevachim 45a:1
[Zevachim 45a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:1)

הִלְכְתָא לִמְשִׁיחָא?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כֹּל שְׁחִיטַת קֳדָשִׁים לָא לִתְנֵי – הִלְכְתָא לִמְשִׁיחָא הוּא! אֶלָּא דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר; הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר. הָכִי קָאָמֵינָא לָךְ: הִלְכְתָא לְמָה לִי? לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲלָכָה קָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 45a:2
[Zevachim 45a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** קׇדְשֵׁי גוֹיִם – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְחַיֵּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 45a:3
[Zevachim 45a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי גוֹיִם – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 45a:4
[Zevachim 45a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:4)

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין נְסָכִים, אֲבָל קׇרְבָּנָן טָעוּן נְסָכִים. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 45a:5
[Zevachim 45a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי בְּכוּלָּן לְהַחְמִיר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּהֶן ״לַה׳״. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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*.


###### Zevachim 45a:6
[Zevachim 45a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:6)

לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. לֹא נֶהֱנִין – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 45a:7
[Zevachim 45a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:7)

וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין – דְּגָמַר מְעִילָה ״חֵט״–״חֵט״ מִתְּרוּמָה, דְּבִתְרוּמָה כְּתִיב: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – וְלֹא גוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 45a:8
[Zevachim 45a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:8)

וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָתֵי פִּיגּוּל ״עָוֹן״–״עָוֹן״ מִנּוֹתָר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).


###### Zevachim 45a:9
[Zevachim 45a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:9)

וְאָתֵי נוֹתָר ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִטּוּמְאָה, וּבְטוּמְאָה כְּתִיב: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – וְלֹא גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 45a:10
[Zevachim 45a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:10)

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ תְּמוּרָה לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה, וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה אִיתַּקַּשׁ לְמַעְשַׂר דָּגָן, וּבְמַעְשַׂר דָּגָן כְּתִיב: ״בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – וְלֹא גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 45a:11
[Zevachim 45a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:11)

וְכִי דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?! מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן חוּלִּין הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 45a:12
[Zevachim 45a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:12)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר מְלַמֵּד אָזְלִינַן; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּתַר לָמֵד אָזְלִינַן, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Zevachim 45a:13
[Zevachim 45a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:13)

אֶלָּא מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה חוֹבָה – שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהּ זְמַן הוּא, וְחוֹבָה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ זְמַן קָבוּעַ – יִשְׂרָאֵל מַיְיתוּ, גּוֹיִם לָא מַיְיתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 45a:14
[Zevachim 45a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:14)

וְאֵין מְבִיאִין נְסָכִים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶזְרָח״ – אֶזְרָח מֵבִיא נְסָכִים, וְאֵין הַגּוֹי מֵבִיא נְסָכִים. יָכוֹל לֹא תְּהֵא עוֹלָתוֹ טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כָּכָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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 *halakh*ot. **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.


###### Zevachim 45a:15
[Zevachim 45a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: רוֹאֶה אֲנִי בְּכוּלָּן לְהַחְמִיר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּקׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Zevachim 45a:16
[Zevachim 45a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:16)

קָסָבַר: כִּי גָּמְרָה מְעִילָה ״חֵט״–״חֵט״ מִתְּרוּמָה – דּוּמְיָא דִּתְרוּמָה, דְּקַדִּישָׁא קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף; אֲבָל קְדוּשַּׁת בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, דִּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 45a:17
[Zevachim 45a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/45a:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דָּם שֶׁנִּטְמָא וּזְרָקוֹ, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – הוּרְצָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**