## Zevachim Daf 45b

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

בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּיָחִיד; אֲבָל בְּצִיבּוּר, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד – הוּרְצָה. וּבְגוֹיִם, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג וּבֵין בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא הוּרְצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if he sprinkled the blood **intentionally,** the offering is **not accepted. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **with regard to** the offering of **an individual. But with regard to** the offering of **the community, whether** the priest sprinkled the blood **unwittingly or** he did so **intentionally,** the offering is **accepted. And** in the case of the offerings **of gentiles, whether** he sprinkled the blood **unwittingly or** he did so **intentionally,** the offering is **not accepted.**


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

אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי; דְּאִי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הָאָמַר: בְּכוּלָּן אֲנִי רוֹאֶה לְהַחְמִיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said before Rav Pappa: In accordance with whose** opinion was this *baraita* taught? Apparently, it was taught **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, as if** it reflects the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** there is a difficulty: **Doesn’t** Rabbi Yosei **say: I see** the logic of the opinion that **in all of** these cases it is correct **to be stringent** about the offerings of gentiles? This indicates that Rabbi Yosei equates the *halakhot* applying to the offerings of gentiles with those governing the offerings of Jews.


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

אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לָהֶם״ – לָהֶם וְלֹא לְגוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to them: You** may **even say** that the *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei,** and it **is different there, as the verse states** with regard to the High Priest’s frontplate, which atones for ritual impurity contracted by offerings in the Temple without the knowledge of those offering them: “And it shall be always upon his forehead that it may be accepted **for them** before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), which indicates that it is accepted **for them,** i.e., for Jews, **but not for gentiles.**


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּישִׁים״ – הָכִי נָמֵי, הֵם וְלֹא גּוֹיִם?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so,** with regard to the verse discussing ritually impure priests and consecrated items: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, **which they consecrate to Me”** (Leviticus 22:2), **so too,** would Rabbi Yosei say that the prohibition against eating consecrated items in a state of ritual impurity applies only to offerings which **they,** the Jews, consecrate, **and not** to those of **gentiles?** This cannot be, as Rabbi Yosei explicitly states in the *baraita* that in this regard the offerings of gentiles are like those of Jews.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְרָצוֹן לָהֶם״ – וְגוֹיִם לָאו בְּנֵי הַרְצָאָה נִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi says** that it is not from the words “for them” that one derives that the offering of a gentile is not accepted when the blood that was sprinkled had become impure. Rather, it is because the atonement achieved by way of the High Priest’s frontplate does not apply to gentiles, as **the verse states: “That it may be accepted for them** before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), **and gentiles are not subject to** the **acceptance** of offerings.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּיבִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וּמִשּׁוּם טָמֵא; חוּץ מִן הַדָּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב בְּדָבָר שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לֶאֱכוֹל, אֲבָל הָעֵצִים וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Even with regard to those **items** enumerated in the previous mishna (42b) for **which one is not liable for** eating **them due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*,** e.g., the handful, the frankincense, and the incense, **one is,** nevertheless, **liable for** eating **them due to** violation of the prohibition of ***notar*, and due to** violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while **ritually impure, except for the blood. Rabbi Shimon deems one liable for an item whose** typical **manner** is such that one **eats** it. **But** with regard to **the wood, the frankincense, and the incense, one is not liable for** eating **them due to** violation of the prohibition against eating a consecrated item while **ritually impure.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין – בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לְמִזְבֵּחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It **might** have been thought that **one should be liable due to** violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while in a state of **ritual impurity only for an item that has permitting factors, either for** consumption by **a person or for** burning on **the altar.**


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

וְדִין הוּא; וּמָה פִּיגּוּל, שֶׁהוּא בִּקְבִיעָה וּבִידִיעָה אַחַת וְלֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לְמִזְבֵּחַ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains: **And** this may be derived via **a logical derivation: Just as** with regard to ***piggul*, which** renders one who unwittingly eats it liable to bring **a fixed** sin offering, **and** this liability is incurred **with one** change in his **awareness,** i.e., it suffices for the sinner to become aware after the fact that he had sinned unwittingly, **and** it has **no permitted** exceptions **from its general** prohibition, as there are no circumstances in which one is permitted to eat *piggul*, and yet **one is liable due to** violation of the prohibition against eating *piggul* **only for an item that has permitting factors, either for** consumption by **a person or for** burning on **the altar,** so too, the same should certainly apply to the more lenient case of ritual impurity.


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

טוּמְאָה, שֶׁהִיא בְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד וּבִשְׁתֵּי יְדִיעוֹת וְהוּתְּרָה מִכְּלָלָהּ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לְאָדָם בֵּין לְמִזְבֵּחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Impurity** is more lenient than *piggul*, **as** it renders the unwitting sinner liable only to bring **a sliding-scale offering,** which varies according to his financial circumstances: A poor person brings a bird offering or even a meal offering (see Leviticus 5:6–13). **And** liability is incurred only **with two** changes in his **awareness,** i.e., when the sinner was aware of his impurity beforehand, then forgot about it at the time of his sin, and then once again become aware of his impurity. **And** it has **permitted** exceptions **from its general** prohibition with regard to the community, as it is permitted to sacrifice communal offerings in the Temple in a state of impurity. With these leniencies in mind, **is it not right that one should be liable** due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure **only for an item that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar.**


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּישִׁים לִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states,** with regard to eating consecrated foods in a state of ritual impurity: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, **which they consecrate to Me,** and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2). This teaches that a ritually impure person is liable for eating any item that has been consecrated.


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

יָכוֹל מִיָּד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִקְרַב״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְכִי יֵשׁ נוֹגֵעַ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that one is liable for eating sacred items **immediately** after they have been consecrated. Therefore, **the verse states:** “Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations that **approaches** the sacred items” (Leviticus 22:3), and **Rabbi Elazar said,** in explanation of this verse: **But is there** one who merely **touches,** i.e., approaches, consecrated items, **who is liable?** Only one who eats consecrated food while in a state of ritual impurity is liable.


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

אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִקְרַב״? בְּהוּכְשַׁר [בָּשָׂר] לִיקָּרֵב הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. הָא כֵּיצַד? יֵשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין – מִשֶּׁיִּקְרָבוֹ מַתִּירִין, אֵין לוֹ מַתִּירִין – מִשֶּׁיִּקְדַּשׁ בִּכְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “Approaches [*yikrav*]”?** This term alludes to sacrificing [*hakrava*], as though the verse has stated: Whoever sacrifices sacred items and eats them. This teaches that **the verse is speaking of flesh that has been rendered fit to be sacrificed. How so?** With regard to an item **that has permitting factors,** one is liable **from when** the **permitting factors are sacrificed.** In the case of an item that **does not have permitting factors,** one is liable **from when it is sanctified in** a service **vessel** for the purpose of its sacrifice.


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

אַשְׁכְּחַן טוּמְאָה; נוֹתָר מְנָלַן? אָתֵי ״חִילּוּל״–״חִילּוּל״ מִטּוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We have found** proof that the prohibition against eating consecrated food in a state of **ritual impurity** applies even to an item that does not have a permitting factor. **From where do we** derive that ***notar*** likewise applies to an item that does not have a permitting factor? The Gemara answers: This is **derived** through a verbal analogy between **profanation** stated in the context of *notar* and **profanation** stated in the context of **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).


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

וְלֵילַף ״עָוֹן״–״עָוֹן״ מִפִּיגּוּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But let** the *halakha* of *notar* **be derived** through a verbal analogy between **“iniquity”** stated in the context of *notar* and **“iniquity”** stated in the context of ***piggul*.** With regard to *piggul*, the verse states: “It shall be *piggul*, and the soul that eats of 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). If so, the *halakha* of *notar* should be similar to that of *piggul*, for which one is liable only for an item that has a permitting factor.


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

מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִטּוּמְאָה הָוֵי לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף, שֶׁכֵּן גֶזֶ״ל סִימָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **it is** more **reasonable to derive** *notar* **from ritual impurity, for** several reasons, as indicated by the **mnemonic: *Gimmel*, *zayin*, *lamed*.** Both *notar* and impurity are disqualifications that apply to the body [*guf* ] of the offering itself, whereas *piggul* is caused by intent; unlike *piggul*, these two disqualifications are not determined by the sprinkling [*zerika*] of the blood, and in both cases the Torah uses the term profanation [*ḥillul* ].


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

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִפִּיגּוּל הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵילַף – שֶׁכֵּן הוּתַּר, צִיץ, טָהוֹר, בִּזְמַן, קָרֵב; וְהָנֵי נְפִישָׁן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **On the contrary, it is** more **reasonable to derive** *notar* **from *piggul*, as** like *piggul* it does not have **permitted** exceptions from its general prohibition, it has no atonement through the High Priest’s **frontplate,** both *notar* and *piggul* apply to **a ritually pure** offering, these disqualifications are dependent **on time,** and both of them are disqualifications of the item being **sacrificed,** not the priest performing the service. None of these features are true of ritual impurity. **And these** reasons for comparing *notar* to *piggul* are more **numerous.**


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

אֶלָּא מִדְּתָנֵי לֵוִי. דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף בִּפְסוּל זְמַן הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* of *notar* is derived **from that** which **Levi taught** with regard to the verse: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name” (Leviticus 22:2), which is referring to the eating of consecrated food in a state of ritual impurity. **As Levi taught: From where** is it derived **that the verse is speaking even of a disqualification** caused by **time,** and not only ritual impurity? **The verse states** profanation elsewhere: **“And they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel”** (Leviticus 22:15).