Mishnah
Mishnah

Commento su Zevahim 4:5

קָדְשֵׁי נָכְרִים, אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ, פָּטוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְחַיֵּב. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, חַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר, מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא, חוּץ מִן הַדָּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, בְּדָבָר שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהֵאָכֵל. אֲבָל כְּגוֹן הָעֵצִים וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה:

I sacrifici portati dai gentili non possono essere ritenuti responsabili per Piggul , [o per] Notar [un sacrificio che diventa inadatto a causa del mancato consenso oltre il tempo consentito], o per averlo reso impuro. Chi li massacra fuori [il cortile del Tempio] è esente - [queste sono] le parole del rabbino Meir. Rabbi Yose ritiene responsabile. Le cose che non rendono responsabile per Piggul [possono ancora] rendere responsabile per Notar , [o] per averlo reso impuro, ad eccezione del sangue. Il rabbino Shimon dice: [Questo vale] per un oggetto che di solito viene mangiato, ma [per quanto riguarda gli oggetti] come il legno, l'incenso o il Ketoret , questi non possono rendere uno responsabile per renderli impuri.

Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim

קדשי נכרים – that the heathens make vows of votive offerings and free-will offerings like an Israelites as it is written in the [Torah] portion of Emor (Leviticus 22:18): “When any man of the house of Israel [or of the strangers in Israel] presents a burnt-offering as his offering for any of the votive or any of the freewill offerings [that they offer to the LORD],” and we expound the word איש/a person, what does the inference teach us when it says איש איש/when any man? To include the non-Jews who make vows of votive offerings and free-will-offerings like an Israelite.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim

The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remnant, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable.
The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remnant and defilement except blood.
Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.

Section one: Non-Jews may bring sacrifices to the Temple, and this probably was not altogether an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period. Rabbi Meir says that the laws concerning piggul, remnant, defilement and the prohibition of slaughtering a sacrifice outside of the Temple do not apply to these sacrifices. What this means is that if someone has an improper intent while offering this sacrifice, and then someone eats the meat, the one who ate the meat is not liable for karet, as he would be had the sacrifice been brought by a Jew. The same holds true if the sacrifice is left over, or if someone eats it while impure. While doing so is prohibited, one who does so is not liable for karet, according to Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yose says that the same laws that govern sacrifices brought by Jews also govern sacrifices brought by non-Jews and that one who eats from such a sacrifice would be liable for karet.
Section two: This section refers to the list found in mishnah three above. For all of those things, while the laws of piggul don’t apply, the laws of remnant and defilement do apply. Thus if one eats one of them after the time has elapsed, he is liable for transgressing the laws of remnant, and if one eats one of them while impure, he has violated the prohibition of eating holy things while impure. The one exception is blood one who eats blood has violated the prohibition of eating blood, but he has not violated other prohibitions.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that for anything that is normally eaten, one can violate the prohibitions of eating it while defiled. This would apply to the fistful of the minhah offering, the priests’ minhah offering and other edible things found in the list in mishnah three. However, if one eats or burns inedible things, such as wood or incense, while impure, he is not liable. The sages disagree and hold that he is liable for violating the prohibition of impurity in such cases as well.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim

אין חייבין משום פגול נותר וטמא – for the offering disqualified by improper intention is derived by an analogy from that of a remnant (see Talmud Zevakhim 45a), through [the words] "עון" "עון"/”iniquity,” “iniquity,” (see Leviticus 22:18: “or to incur guilt requiring a penalty payment,” and Numbers 18:1: “You and your sons and the ancestral house under your charge shall bear any guilt connected with the sanctuary; you and your sons alone shall bear any guilt connected with your priesthood.”) and remnant is derived from ritually impure in an analogy of "חלול" "חלול"/desecrated, desecrated, (see Leviticus 22:2: “Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelite people consecrate to Me, lest they profane/יחללו My holy name.” and Leviticus 22:15: “But [the priests] must not allow the Israelites to profane/ולא יחללו the sacred donations that they set aside for the LORD,) but regarding the impure, it is written (Leviticus 22:2): “Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelites consecrate to me,” but not the holy things of the heathens. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim

דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פגול – as for example, the taking of a fistful of the meal-offering and the incense and everything that is taught in our Mishnah (see Chapter 4, Mishnah 3).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim

חייבין משום טומאה – a person who eats them while in bodily impurity is liable for extirpation.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim

חוץ מן הדם – that the Biblical verse excluded it as it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “[for the life of the flesh is in the blood,] and I have assigned it to you [for making expiation for your lives upon the altar; it is the blood, as life, that effects expiation],” yours will be like the rest of unconsecrated meat, and not like Holy Thing. And further it is written (Leviticus 17:11): “for making expiation for your lives upon the altar,” for expiation I have given it, but not for sacrilege. Therefore, he is not liable for it not because of impurity and not because of remnant and not because of improper intention, but rather because of merely consuming blood.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim

בדבר שדרכן להאכל – that it is the manner of human beings to consume them, and even though it is from that which is offered as incense, as for example, the taking of a fistful of meal-offering and the meal-offering of the priests and things similar to it, but the frankincense and the wood and the incense, we are not obligated for them because of ritual impurity. But the Rabbis argued with this and strengthened it for ritual impurity, from Scripture, as it is written (Leviticus 7:19): “Flesh that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; [it shall be consumed in fire,” and the extra word of הבשר/the flesh [in the verse quoted above]: “As for other flesh, only he who is pure may eat such flesh,” includes the wood and the frankincense. But the Halakha is according to the Sages, for the wood and the frankincense also have reason to be ritually impure. But wood does not cause impurity other than the wood of a sacrifice alone, for if something ritually impure touched it, it is prohibited to burn them upon the altar.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Versetto precedenteCapitolo completoVersetto successivo