The reward for studying a not very relevant massekhet TB Zevakhim 45

The laws of pigul take up a lot of real estate so far in massekhet Zevakhim. If the priest during one of the four modes of sacrifices thinks to accomplish one of them outside the time limit or outside the Temple precincts, the priest has committed the transgression of pigul. The sacrifice becomes invalid and if one should eat the meat, the punishment is kareit, death by the hands of Heaven. I remember that there is at least one opinion that a priest who invalidates a sacrifice via pigul receives lashes. I believe later on we shall learn that the priest has to cover the cost of the sacrifice so that the person bringing it would not have bear the loss due to the priests misconduct.

Pigul is so egregious I have a hard time wrapping my head around why a priest would even have these errant thoughts. On top of that, all these discussions are theoretical. By the time of the Mishnah and Gemara, the Temple has been destroyed and sacrifices have been annulled. Consequently, I find these discussions irrelevant. Today’s daf TB Zevakhim 45 shows that I’m not the only one who feels this way.

The sugiya begins on the preceding daf 44b. “According to the first tanna of the mishna, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, the blood of which is presented on the inner altar, are subject to piggul, whereas Rabbi Shimon rules that they are not subject to piggul. It is taught in a baraita that there is a third opinion concerning the matter: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If in his service of the bulls that are burned or the goats that are burned the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.” (Sefaria.org translation)

After much discussion it concludes: “Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says his ruling in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

“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.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although there’s nothing practical in this tractate when comes to sacrifices, I gained a measure of consolation knowing that I receive a reward for studying this esoteric material and Rava also wonders about issuing a pesak halakha for something so theoretical.