זבחים 45 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[Do we need] a halachah [for the days of] the Messiah? — Abaye answered: If so, we should not study the whole of ‘The slaughtering of sacrifices’? Yet we say, study and receive reward; so in this case too, study and receive reward. [He replied] This is what I mean: Why [state] a halachah? Another version: He replied, I mean, [Why state the] halachah? MISHNAH. THE SACRIFICES OF HEATHENS DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR DEFILEMENT, AND IF [A PRIEST] SLAUGHTERS THEM WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE], HE IS NOT LIABLE: THAT IS R. SIMEON'S VIEW. BUT R. JOSE DECLARES HIM LIABLE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You may neither benefit from the sacrifices of heathens, nor do you commit trespass; and they do not involve liability on account of piggul, nothar or defilement. And they [the heathens] cannot effect substitution; and they cannot bring drink-offerings, but their [animal] sacrifices require drink-offerings [to accompany them]: that is the view of R. Simeon. Said R. Jose: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters, because it is said of them, [Any man . . . that bringeth his offering . . .] unto the Lord. This applies only to sacrifices of the altar; but in the case of objects sacred to the Temple repair, one does commit trespass. ‘You may neither benefit nor do you commit trespass:’ You may not benefit by Rabbinical law. ‘Nor do you commit trespass,’ because in respect of the trespass-offering identity of law is derived from the fact that ‘sin’ is written here and in the case of terumah: while in respect to terumah ‘the children of Israel’ is written, [which intimates,] but not [those of] heathens. ‘And they do not involve liability on account of piggul, nothar or defilement.’ What is the reason? — Because the scope of piggul is derived from nothar, since ‘iniquity’ is written in connection with both, and the scope of nothar is derived from defilement, because ‘profanation’ is written in connection with both; while in respect to defilement ‘the children of Israel’ is written, [which intimates,] but not [those of] heathens. ‘And they cannot effect substitution.’ What is the reason? — Because substitution is assimilated to the tithe of cattle, and cattle tithe is assimilated to corn tithe, while ‘the children of Israel’ is written in connection with corn tithe, [which intimates,] but not that of heathens. Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teach through a hekkesh? — Corn tithe is hullin. That is well on the view that the teacher is the determining factor; but on the view that the taught is the determining factor, what can be said? — Rather, cattle tithe is an obligation for which there is no fixed time, and as it is an obligation for which there is no fixed time, it is brought by Israelites, but not by heathens. ‘And they cannot bring drink-offerings.’ Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture saith,] [All that are] home-born [shall do these things after this manner:] the home-born can bring drink-offerings but a heathen cannot bring drink-offerings. You might think then that his burnt-offering does not require a drink-offering; therefore Scripture teaches, Thus [shall be done for each bullock etc.]. ‘Said R. Jose: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters. This applies only to sacrifices of the altar etc.’ What is the reason? — He holds that when [the scope of] trespass is derived from terumah, because ‘sin’ is written in connection with both, [it applies only to that which is] like terumah, whose holiness is intrinsic; but not to the sanctity of the Temple repair, which is [but] monetary sanctity. Our Rabbis taught: If blood was defiled, and [the priest] sprinkled it unwittingly, it [the sacrifice] is accepted;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:Since the Temple no longer stands there is no practical utility in this ruling, which can become effective only in the days of the Messiah, when the Temple is rebuilt.
^ᵇnote:I.e., the present Tractate.
^ᶜnote:Learning for its own sake is meritorious.
^ᵈnote:While it is right to study the subject, the fixing of a halachah is unnecessary.
^ᵉnote:Why state the accepted practice when sacrifices are obsolete? Apart from the slight verbal variants in the two versions as indicated by the square brackets, in the first version the Aramaic hilketha is used, in the second the Hebrew halachah is used.
^ᶠnote:Their votive offerings to the Temple.
^ᵍnote:Before the blood is sprinkled, just as is the case of all sacrifices.
^ʰnote:V. p. 176, n. 10.
^ⁱnote:V. p. 22, n. 8. If the owner is a heathen, he cannot effect substitution in the sense of making the second animal holy.
^ʲnote:Unless they accompany an animal sacrifice. Whereas Israelites can do so (Men. 104b).
^ᵏnote:Possibly ‘that . . . R. Simeon’ should be deleted.
^ˡnote:The sacrifices of heathens should be treated as stringently as those of Israelites.
^ᵐnote:Lev. XXII, 18. In Hul. 13b this verse is made to include the sacrifices of heathens; thus these too are ‘unto the Lord’ just as those of Israelites, and therefore they must be treated with equal severity.
^ⁿnote:I.e., unblemished animals, which will be sacrificed on the altar.
^ᵒnote:This is the technical designation of anything which is dedicated to the Temple, whether it be a blemished animal which cannot be sacrificed or any other object; it is then used for some Temple purpose.
^ᵖnote:Trespass: If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord (Lev. V, 15); terumah: Lest they bear sin for it (Ibid. XXII, 9).
^ᵠnote:Ibid. 15: And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel.
^ʳnote:Lev. XXII, 2: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves (when unclean) from the holy things of the children of Israel.
^ˢnote:Ibid. XXVII, 32f: And all the tithe of the herd or the flock . . . the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not . . . change it etc. Thus substitution of sacrifices in general, to which the second verse refers, is made part of the law of substitution of tithe.
^ᵗnote:Deut. XIV, 22: Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed. The emphatic ‘thou shalt surely tithe’ is expressed in Heb. as usual by the repetition of the verb; this repetition is Talmudically interpreted as referring to two tithes, cattle-tithe and corn-tithe. Thus they are assimilated to each other by being included in the same text.
^ᵘnote:Num. XVIII, 26: When ye take of the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you.
^ᵛnote:It is only by analogy with corn-tithe that we learn that the law of cattle does not operate in respect of the cattle of heathens. Can that in turn teach that the law of substitution does not operate in respect of heathens’ sacrifices?
^ʷnote:And only in the case of holy things is this exegesis not permitted.
^ˣnote:The ‘teacher’ is corn-tithe, which throws light on ‘cattle-tithe’, which is the ‘taught’. Here the ‘teacher’ is hullin, whereas the ‘taught’ is holy: if the ‘teacher’ is the determining factor, then the ‘teacher’ is indeed hullin and the exegesis is permitted; but if the ‘taught’ is the determining factor, then the ‘taught’ is holy, and so that exegesis is not allowable.
^ʸnote:As they can bring only votive offerings. — They do not bring obligatory offerings for which there is a fixed time either e.g., the festival peace-offerings. Nevertheless this is not mentioned, since they can bring peaceofferings in general; but the law of cattle-tithe does not apply to them at all.
^ᶻnote:Num. XV, 13. ‘These things’ refers to the rites enumerated in the preceding passage, which includes the bringing of drink-offerings.
^ᵃᵃnote:To accompany it, as does the burnt-offering of an Israelite.
^ᵃᵇnote:Ibid. 11. Thus Scripture makes the sacrifice, not the donor, the determining factor.
^ᵃᶜnote:Terumah itself is holy and must be treated as such, similarly the sacrifices of the altar.
^ᵃᵈnote:When an object is dedicated to the Temple repair fund, that object itself is sacred only in so far that it must be redeemed and the redemption money expended on sacred purposes. But when it is redeemed it loses its sanctity.

²if deliberately, it is not accepted. This was said only of a private sacrifice, but a public sacrifice, whether done unwittingly or deliberately, is accepted. But a heathen [‘s sacrifice], whether it is done unwittingly or deliberately, is not accepted. Now, the Rabbis stated the following in R. Papa's presence: With whom does this agree? Not with R. Jose, for if [it agrees with] R. Jose, surely he said: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters? Said R. Papa to them: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Jose: there it is different, because Scripture says, [that it may be accepted] for them [before the Lord]: for them, but not for heathens. Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: If so, [when Scripture says,] [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel] which they hallow unto Me, does that also mean: They, but not heathens? — Rather said R. Ashi: Scripture says, ‘that it may be accepted for them’, whilst heathens are not subject to ‘acceptance’. MISHNAH. THE THINGS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT EXCEPT BLOOD. R. SIMEON DECLARES ONE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF ANYTHING WHICH IS NORMALLY EATEN, BUT THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE AND THE INCENSE DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF DEFILEMENT. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that liability on account of defilement is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar; and that is logical: If liability on account of piggul is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, though it is fixed [invariable], and [is incurred] in one state of awareness, and was never permitted contrary to its general prohibition; then surely it is logical that defilement involves liability only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, seeing that it requires a variable burnt-offering, two states of awareness, and is [sometimes] permitted in opposition to its general prohibition. Therefore Scripture wrote, [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,] which they hallow unto Me. You might think [that liability is involved] immediately; therefore Scripture teaches, [Whoever he be . . .] that approacheth [unto the holy things . . . having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me]. Now R. Eleazar said: Is then one who [merely] touches [the holy things] liable? Why does it say ‘that approacheth’? [To teach that] the Writ speaks of flesh which was made fit to be offered. How so? If it has mattirin, [culpability is incurred] only when the mattirin have been offered; if it has no mattirin, [culpability is incurred] as soon as it is sanctified in a [sacred] vessel. We have thus found [it of] defilement. How do we know [it of] nothar? Identity of law with defilement is learnt from the fact that ‘profanation’ is written in both. Yet let us learn identity of law from piggul, because ‘iniquity’ is written in connection with both? — Reason asserts that we should learn it from uncleanness, because [they are alike in respect of] Gezel, [this being a] mnemonic. On the contrary, one should learn it from piggul, because [it resembles it in the following points:] permissibility, the headplate, cleanness, time, that which is offered; and these are more numerous? — Rather, it [is derived] from Levi's teaching. For Levi taught: How do we know that the Writ speaks of time disqualification too? Because it says, That they profane not [My holy name]:21^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ

^ᵃᵉnote:Lit., ‘made acceptable’. The language is Biblical, cf. Lev. I, 4: and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him — i.e., the sacrifice effects its purpose. By Biblical law it is accepted in both cases, but the Rabbis penalized the priests by not permitting the flesh to be eaten when it was done deliberately.
^ᵃᶠnote:Thus he regards the heathen's sacrifice the same as an Israelite's sacrifice; then here too the same law should apply to both.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ex. XXVIII, 38. The passage refers to the wearing of the headplate by the High Priest, and teaches (according to the Talmudic interpretation) that in virtue of this wearing sacrifices are accepted, i.e., valid, even when the blood is defiled.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. XXII, 2.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., that unclean priests need not separate themselves from the sacrifices of heathens. — Surely R. Jose said that he takes a stringent view in all these matters?
^ᵃʲnote:As enumerated in the Mishnah 42b seq.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. notes on Mishnah 42b.
^ᵃˡnote:The sin-offering for eating piggul is fixed, and is the same for rich and poor alike — a lamb or a she-goat. It is incurred in one state of awareness, i.e., to be liable it is not necessary that one should know at first that it is piggul, then forget and eat it,and then become aware of it again, as it is in the case of defilement (v. note 2, p. 230). If only one ate it unwittingly, not having known at all that it was unclean, and then become aware of it, there is culpability. Again, the prohibition of piggul is never raised, even if all the sacrifices of the whole community had been rendered piggul, whereas in the case of uncleanness, if the whole community was in a state of uncleanness, the Passover-offering is brought and is eaten in that same state too.
^ᵃᵐnote:A wealthy man offers an animal-sacrifice; a poor man two doves; and a very poor man offers the tenth of an ephah of meal.
^ᵃⁿnote:For one to be culpable he must have known at first that it was unclean, then forgotten and eaten it, and then learn of its uncleanness again (Shebu. 4a).
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. XXII, 2. The passage refers to uncleanness, and ‘which they hallow unto Me’ is an extension (being superfluous in itself), and therefore includes all hallowed things.
^ᵃᵖnote:As soon as it is dedicated liability is incurred for eating it in an unclean state.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ibid. 3.
^ᵃʳnote:Surely not, for culpability is incurred only for eating (as in v. 4.)!
^ᵃˢnote:Which implies mere touch.
^ᵃᵗnote:‘Offered’ is the same root as ‘approacheth’;
^ᵃᵘnote:That there is liability even where there are no mattirin.
^ᵃᵛnote:G = Guf (body); Z =Zerikah (sprinkling); and L = hillul. Nothar and defilement are both intrinsic (i.e., bodily) disqualifications in the flesh, whereas piggul is disqualification through intention. Nothar and defilement do not disqualify through the sprinkling of the blood, whereas piggul does. And finally, hillul (profanation) is written in connection with nothar and defilement, but not in connection with piggul.
^ᵃʷnote:(i) Nothar and piggul are never permitted in opposition to the general interdict, whereas defilement is. (ii) The headplate does not propitiate for these, though it does in the case of defilement (v. supra a bottom and note a.l.). (Though we are now discussing the uncleanness of the person, whereas the headplate propitiates only if the blood of the sacrifice is unclean, nevertheless it is true to say that the headplate does propitiate in a case of uncleanness.) (iii) Nothar and piggul are both clean. (iv) Both are disqualified through the time element, nothar because it was left until after the proper time, piggul because of an illegitimate intention in respect of after time. Finally, (v) they are both disqualifications in respect of the sacrifice, which is offered; whereas defilement is a disqualification of the priest, who offers it.
^ᵃˣnote:Such as nothar.
^ᵃʸnote:Lev. XXII, 2.