Study Zevachim folio 45A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הלכתא למשיחא?! אמר ליה אביי: אלא מעתה, כל שחיטת קדשים לא לתני – הלכתא למשיחא הוא! אלא דרוש וקבל שכר; הכא נמי, דרוש וקבל שכר. הכי קאמינא לך: הלכתא למה לי? לישנא אחרינא, אמר ליה: הלכה קאמינא.
Does one issue a halakha for the messianic period, when the Temple will be rebuilt? Abaye said to him: If that is so, that such halakhot are not taught, let the tanna not teach all the halakhot of the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zevaḥim, as it is entirely a halakha for the messianic period. Rather, one studies these halakhot due to the principle of: Study Torah and receive reward, i.e., one is rewarded for the study of Torah regardless of its practical applicability. Here too, study Torah and receive reward. Rava said to him: This is what I am saying to you: Why do I need a practical ruling of halakha? According to another version, which presents the same answer in different terms, Rava said to him: I spoke in reference to the ruling of halakha, as it is puzzling that a halakhic ruling is given in this case.
מתני׳ קדשי גוים – אין חייבין עליהם משום פיגול, נותר וטמא; והשוחטן בחוץ – פטור. דברי רבי שמעון. רבי יוסי מחייב.
Mishnah: With regard to offerings consecrated by non-Jews for sacrifice to God, one is not liable for eating them, neither due to violation of the prohibition of piggul if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to violation of the prohibition of notar, nor due to violation of the prohibition against eating the meat while ritually impure. And one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is exempt; this is the statement of R' Shimon. And R' Yosei deems him liable.
גמ׳ תנו רבנן: קדשי גוים – לא נהנין ולא מועלין, ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול, נותר וטמא,
Talmud: A baraita states: With regard to offerings consecrated by non-Jews, one may not derive benefit from them ab initio, but if one derived benefit from them, he is not liable after the fact for misusing consecrated property. And one is not liable for eating them, neither due to violation of the prohibition of piggul if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to violation of the prohibition of notar, nor due to violation of the prohibition against eating the meat while ritually impure.