[Do we need] a halachah [for the days of] the Messiah? (1) — Abaye answered: If so, we should not study the whole of ‘The slaughtering of sacrifices’? (2) Yet we say, study and receive reward; (3) so in this case too, study and receive reward. [He replied] This is what I mean: Why [state] a halachah? (4) Another version: He replied, I mean, [Why state the] halachah? (5) MISHNAH. THE SACRIFICES OF HEATHENS (6) 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, (7) nor do you commit trespass; (8) and they do not involve liability on account of Piggul, nothar or defilement. And they [the heathens] cannot effect substitution; (9) and they cannot bring drink-offerings, (10) but their [animal] sacrifices require drink-offerings [to accompany them]: that is the view of R. Simeon. (11) Said R. Jose: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters, (12) because it is said of them, [Any man... that bringeth his offering...] unto the Lord. (13) This applies only to sacrifices of the altar; (14) but in the case of objects sacred to the Temple repair, (15) 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: (16) while in respect to terumah ‘the children of Israel’ is written, (17) [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, (18) [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, (19) and cattle tithe is assimilated to corn tithe, (20) while ‘the children of Israel’ is written in connection with corn tithe, (21) [which intimates,] but not that of heathens. Can then that which is learnt through a Hekkesh in turn teach through a hekkesh? (22) — Corn tithe is hullin. (23) 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? (24) — 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. (25) ‘And they cannot bring drink-offerings.’ Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture saith,] [All that are] home-born [shall do these things after this manner:] (26) 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 drinkoffering; (27) therefore Scripture teaches, Thus [shall be done for each bullock, etc.]. (28) ‘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; (29) but not to the sanctity of the Temple repair, which is [but] monetary sanctity. (30) Our Rabbis taught: If blood was defiled, and [the priest] sprinkled it unwittingly, it [the sacrifice] is accepted;

---

(1). ↑ 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.
(2). ↑ I.e., the present Tractate.
(3). ↑ Learning for its own sake is meritorious.
(4). ↑ While it is right to study the subject, the fixing of a halachah is unnecessary.
(5). ↑ 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.
(6). ↑ Their votive offerings to the Temple.
(7). ↑ Before the blood is sprinkled, just as is the case of all sacrifices.
(8). ↑ V. p. 176, n. 10.
(9). ↑ V. p. 22, n. 8. If the owner is a heathen, he cannot effect substitution in the sense of making the second animal holy.
(10). ↑ Unless they accompany an animal sacrifice. Whereas Israelites can do so (Men. 104b).
(11). ↑ Possibly ‘that... R. Simeon’ should be deleted.
(12). ↑ The sacrifices of heathens should be treated as stringently as those of Israelites.
(13). ↑ 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.
(14). ↑ I.e., unblemished animals, which will be sacrificed on the altar.
(15). ↑ 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.
(16). ↑ 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).
(17). ↑ Ibid. 15: And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel.
(18). ↑ 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.
(19). ↑ 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.
(20). ↑ 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.
(21). ↑ Num. XVIII, 26: When ye take of the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you.
(22). ↑ 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?
(23). ↑ And only in the case of holy things is this exegesis not permitted.
(24). ↑ 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.
(25). ↑ 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 peaceofferings. Nevertheless this is not mentioned, since they can bring peace-offerings in general; but the law of cattle-tithe does not apply to them at all.
(26). ↑ Num. XV, 13. ‘These things’ refers to the rites enumerated in the preceding passage, which includes the bringing of drink-offerings.
(27). ↑ To accompany it, as does the burnt-offering of an Israelite.
(28). ↑ Ibid. 11. Thus Scripture makes the sacrifice, not the donor, the determining factor.
(29). ↑ Terumah itself is holy and must be treated as such, similarly the sacrifices of the altar.
(30). ↑ 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.