Zevachim 45

The sacrificial system was envisioned by the Torah as a form of worship, atonement and celebration for Israelites. The Torah does not describe rituals for non-Jews who wish to bring offerings to the Temple, but it doesn’t explicitly prohibit them either. On a number of occasions, the Talmud discusses the possibility of non-Jews bringing sacrifices and the rules that apply to them. One such discussion appears on today’s daf.

As we have learned, the sacrificial system includes a set of rules about how sacrifices are to be performed and, if their meat is permitted for consumption, when and where it is permissible to do so. Just as deviating from these rituals can render a sacrifice ineffective and prohibit the meat, so can having an improper intention. A mishnah on today’s daf raises this question: Do these same rules apply to a sacrifice brought by a person who is not Jewish?

Offerings consecrated by gentiles, one is not liable for (eating) them for piggul, notar, nor (eating the meat while) ritually impure. And one who slaughters them outside is exempt; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Yosei deems him liable.

Rabbi Shimon rules that if a non-Jew consecrates an animal to be sacrificed, it can be offered, but many of the rules we’ve encountered thus far in Tractate Zevachim do not apply to it. For example, if a non-Jew brings an offering to the Temple and the priest who slaughters it intends to consume its meat after the usual time for doing so, the status of the meat is not piggul and the priest faces no liability if he were to eat it. Likewise for notar, the leftover portion of the sacrifice that also has particular rules about when it can be consumed, and for eating any meat while ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei disagrees. Just as one is liable for violating these rules when the sacrifice is brought by Jews, so too is one liable when the sacrifice is brought by a non-Jew. 

In a beraita Rabbi Yosei explains his position:

Rabbi Yosei says: I see why we should be stringent in all of these cases, as it is stated with regard to them: “Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel that will sacrifice his offering … to the Lord” (Leviticus 22:18). 

Rabbi Yosei draws our attention to a verse from Leviticus which indicates that any sacrifice is an offering to God, whether brought by a Jew or a non-Jew. From this he learns that we should take the same care, and follow the same rules, regardless of who is making the offering. No matter the source, all sacrifices are gifts to God. 
Rabbi Shimon’s position is as follows:

Offerings by gentiles, one may not derive benefit from them. But one is not liable (after the fact) for misusing. And one is not liable for (eating) them, due to piggul, notar, or eating the meat while ritually impure. 

And (gentiles) cannot render a substitute (i.e., if a gentile stated with regard to an animal that it should be the substitute of a consecrated animal, the substitution does not take effect). And they cannot bring libations as a separate offering, but their animal offerings require libations.

There are two key differences between the beraita and the mishnah. First, the beraita includes more items. This indicates that the discussion about the participation of non-Jews in the sacrificial process is not only about the specific details listed in the mishnah, but also others as well.
 
The second difference is the opening statement in which Rabbi Shimon declares that while non-Jews can bring offerings, Jews cannot benefit from them. We know from our study of Avodah Zara that Jews cannot benefit from the idolatrous behaviors of non-Jews. This mishnah expands the prohibition to non-Jews who perform Jewish rituals in the Temple. Unlike acts of idolatry, says Rabbi Shimon, if a Jews discovers after the fact that they have consumed the meat of a non-Jew’s offering after the normal time limit for doing so has expired, they are not held accountable for their actions. That is, while Jews should not benefit from the sacrifices of non-Jews, we are more lenient than if they had inappropriately benefitted from either idol worship or a Jewish person’s sacrifice.

The dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei remains undecided in the Talmud. Maimonides rules in favor of Rabbi Yosei in his commentary on the Mishnah, but curiously (and very much out of character for him) he is inconsistent about this matter in the Mishneh Torah, ruling according to Rabbi Shimon in some places and Rabbi Yosei in others. The rest of the legal commentators are split between them. 

For us, as for all of the rabbis who weigh in on the question, this particular debate has no practical application, as none of us live (or lived) in Temple times. Yet, it remains valuable by showcasing two broadly different approaches to how we should think about a unique case. Do we apply the rules as they have been established generally or do we modify them based upon the particular circumstances? As with today’s dispute, more often than not, a case could be made for either path. The talmudic way is to ensure that we consider both perspectives in our deliberations.

Read all of Zevachim 45 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 29, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.