## Zevachim Daf 46a

###### Zevachim 46a:1
[Zevachim 46a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:1)

בִּשְׁנֵי חִילּוּלִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר; אֶחָד פְּסוּל נוֹתָר, וְאֶחָד פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The verse is speaking** here **of two profanations; one** is the **disqualification of *notar* and one** is the **disqualification of ritual impurity.** This teaches that like impurity, *notar* applies even to an item that does not have a permitting factor.


###### Zevachim 46a:2
[Zevachim 46a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:2)

חוּץ מִן הַדָּם כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם״ – שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: Even with regard to the items for which one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of *piggul*, 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.** The Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? Before answering this question, the Gemara cites another discussion as to why the *halakha* of misuse of consecrated property does not apply to blood. **Ulla says: The verse states** with regard to blood: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, **and I have given it to you** upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). “To you” indicates that **it shall be yours;** it is not the property of the Temple, so it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.


###### Zevachim 46a:3
[Zevachim 46a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:3)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ – לְכַפָּרָה נְתַתִּיו, וְלֹא לִמְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Yishmael** similarly **taught: The verse states: “To make atonement,”** teaching that God is saying: **I gave it for atonement, and not for** the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.


###### Zevachim 46a:4
[Zevachim 46a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:4)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ – הוּא לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה כִּלְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה; מָה אַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that this *halakha* is derived from the latter part of **the verse,** which **states:** “For **it is** the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., **it is before atonement as** it is **after atonement.** As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term “it is” teaches that **just as after atonement,** i.e., after the blood has been presented on the altar, it is **not subject to** the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, **so too, before atonement,** i.e., before the blood has been presented on the altar, **it is not subject to** the prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property.


###### Zevachim 46a:5
[Zevachim 46a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:5)

אֵימָא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה כְּלִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – מָה לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה! אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית מִצְוָתוֹ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But if the term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can **say** just the opposite: It is **after atonement as** it is **before atonement. Just as before atonement** the blood **is subject to** the prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property, **so too after atonement it is subject to** the prohibition of **misuse** of consecrated property. The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be the case, as there is a principle: **There is no item whose mitzva has been performed that is** still **subject to** the prohibition of **misusing** consecrated property.


###### Zevachim 46a:6
[Zevachim 46a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:6)

וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is there **no** such case? **But there is** the mitzva of **the removal of the ashes** of offerings burned on the altar. Any benefit derived from them between their removal and their required burial constitutes misuse of consecrated property, despite the fact that their mitzva has already been performed.


###### Zevachim 46a:7
[Zevachim 46a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:7)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case, **because** the matter of **the removal of the ashes and** the matter of the **priestly vestments,** the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, are both subject to the *halakha* that misuse of consecrated property applies to them even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they **are two verses that come as one,** i.e., they share a unique *halakha* not found elsewhere. **And** there is a principle: **Any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common element to apply to other cases. Instead, they are considered exceptional instances that cannot serve as models for other cases.


###### Zevachim 46a:8
[Zevachim 46a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:8)

הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say** that the verse: “And he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary, **and shall leave them there”** (Leviticus 16:23), **teaches that** the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and **they require interment.**


###### Zevachim 46a:9
[Zevachim 46a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:9)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא, דְּאָמַר: מוּתָּרוֹת הֵן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחֵר – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Dosa, who says** that these priestly vestments **are fit for an ordinary priest** and do not require interment, **provided that** a High Priest **does not use them on Yom Kippur** in **a different** year, one does not misuse consecrated property by using them after their mitzva has been performed, and therefore **what is there to say?** In his opinion, the *halakha* of misuse of consecrated property after the performance of a mitzva applies only to the removal of ashes from the altar, not to the priestly vestments, which means it is stated in only a single case. Why, then, does this case not serve as a paradigm for other instances in the Torah?


###### Zevachim 46a:10
[Zevachim 46a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:10)

מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: It is **because** the cases of **the removal of the ashes and** the *halakha* of **the heifer whose neck is broken** are **two verses that come as one,** as it is prohibited to derive benefit from either of them even after their mitzva is completed, **and any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common element to apply to other cases.


###### Zevachim 46a:11
[Zevachim 46a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:11)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this from a different angle: **This works out well according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one **do not teach** their common element to apply to other cases, **but according to the one who says** that two verses that come as one do **teach** their common element to apply to other cases, **what is there to say?**


###### Zevachim 46a:12
[Zevachim 46a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:12)

תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי; הָכָא כְּתִיב: ״הָעֲרוּפָה״, וְהָתָם כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׂמוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Two exclusions are written** in these two cases, which indicate that this *halakha* applies to them alone. **Here,** with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, **it is written: “Whose neck was broken”** (Deuteronomy 21:6), and this superfluous description teaches that this *halakha*, that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva, applies solely to this case and should not be extended to others. **And there,** with regard to the removal of ashes, **it is written: “And he shall put it”** (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that this *halakha* applies to “it,” and nothing else.


###### Zevachim 46a:13
[Zevachim 46a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:13)

וּתְלָתָא קְרָאֵי בְּדָם לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And why do I** need **these three verses** stated **with regard to blood,** from which it is derived that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply to blood? The reference is to the three terms specified earlier, in the expositions of Ulla, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the verse: “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11).


###### Zevachim 46a:14
[Zevachim 46a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:14)

לְמַעוֹטֵי מִמְּעִילָה, מִנּוֹתָר וּמִטּוּמְאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: One of those terms serves **to exclude** the blood **from** the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Another phrase serves to exclude blood **from** the prohibition of ***notar*.** If one consumed leftover blood, he is not liable for consuming *notar*. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibition against consuming blood. **And** the last phrase serves to exclude it **from** the prohibition of **ritual impurity.** If one consumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for consuming blood, but not on account of consuming consecrated food while ritually impure.


###### Zevachim 46a:15
[Zevachim 46a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:15)

אֲבָל פִּיגּוּל לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, דִּתְנַן: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל. וְדָם גּוּפֵיהּ מַתִּיר הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But no verse is required** to exclude this blood from the *halakha* of ***piggul*,** because this is already derived from another source, **as we learned** in the mishna (43a): With regard to **any** item **that has permitting factors, either for** consumption by **a person or for** burning on **the altar, one is liable for** eating **it due to** violation of the prohibition of ***piggul*.** The permitting factor itself is not subject to *piggul*. **And** consequently, *piggul* does not apply to **blood itself,** as **it** renders the offering **permitted** for human consumption or for the altar.


###### Zevachim 46a:16
[Zevachim 46a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/46a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה כָּרֵיתוֹת בִּשְׁלָמִים לָמָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why do I** need **three** mentions of ***karet* with regard to** one who eats **peace offerings** in a state of ritual impurity? The three verses are: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off [*venikhreta*] from his people” (Leviticus 7:20); “And when anyone shall touch any impure item, whether it is the impurity of man, or an impure animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain to the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:21); and: “Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations that approaches the sacred items, which the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:3).