Here we’ll talk about the Pigul (improper sacrificial intent) of Korbanot (offerings) belonging to a non-Jew. The Mishnah says that they are not subject to the laws of Pigul, Notar, or Tameh (ritually impure). Generally, a person who has a Korban (offering) is not allowed to eat its meat past the proper time. If he does, he violates Notar. That means it’s left over. Also, a person who is Tameh is not allowed to eat the meat of a Korban even during its normal time. But when we’re talking about Tum’ah (ritual impurity) in connection with a non-Jew, or the Korban of a non-Jew, we learn from the Pesukim (verses) that this prohibition does not apply to the Korbanot of non-Jews. We also learn the laws of Pigul and Notar from Tum’ah. So, if Tum’ah has no application to the Korban of a non-Jew, Pigul and Notar would have no application to it either.
The Mishnah continues: someone who slaughters them outside of the Beit HaMikdash is not liable to Karet (excision) for doing so. This is Divrei Rebbe Meir, the opinion of Rebbe Meir. Generally, if you have a Korban that’s slaughtered outside the Beit HaMikdash, that’s a problem: it has to be in the Beit HaMikdash, and a person would be subject to Karet if he did so. But for the Korbanot of a non-Jew, we say that after the fact a person is Patur (exempt). That’s Rebbe Meir’s position. Rebbe Yosei says that a person is liable for Karet for all of these things, even in the case of the Korban of a non-Jew. There’s no difference between the Korban of a Jew and that of a non-Jew. Rebbe Yosei brings a different way of learning the Pasuk (verse) in order to say that the Korbanot of a Jew and a non-Jew have the same status.
In Mishnah Gimel (third letter), we list the different things that are not subject to the laws of Pigul because they have nothing that permits them. There’s no step that happens. There’s no step that happens beforehand in order to allow their service. Here, the Mishnah continues to discuss whether items that are not subject to Pigul are subject to the laws of Notar and Tameh. The Mishnah says that things that are not subject to Karet because of Pigul are still subject to Karet because of Notar if somebody ate them after the proper time, or because of Tameh. Those laws still apply. Just because Pigul is not involved here doesn’t mean that Notar and Tameh are ruled out.
For example, if the Kometz (handful) of a Mincha (offering) became Pigul, we say that since there was no permitter—it’s the first stage in what gets done—there’s no concept of Pigul when it comes to it. But if somebody ate a Kometz that was Notar, left over past its proper time, when it should have been burned, or if the person was Tameh when he ate that Mincha, then the person is subject to Karet. The only thing we’re saying is that needing a permitter in order to turn it into Pigul only affects the laws of Pigul. When it comes to the laws of Tum’ah and Notar, that wouldn’t apply.
We say that the one exception would be blood. A person is not subject to Pigul when it comes to blood, because blood is the first thing; nothing happens in order to allow the person to throw the blood onto the Mizbe’ach (altar). So we say that the laws of Pigul don’t apply there. But what we’re also saying here is that Notar and Tum’ah are ruled out as well. A person would not be subject to Karet if he ate the blood or if he ate the Notar, if he ate the blood when it was Notar—left over past the proper time—or if he was in a state of Tum'ah when he ate it. He would not be subject to Karet in those two cases either.
We learn this from a Pasuk: a person would not be liable for Karet for any of these—Notar, Pigul, or Tameh. The next Tanna (Mishnaic sage) disagrees. Rabbi Shimon says that a person would be subject to Karet for things that are normally eaten, like the Kometz of the Mincha of a Kohen (priest), which is flour and is normally eaten. We would say that a person would be subject to Tum’ah in that type of scenario, even though, let’s say, it doesn’t apply. But for things that are not normally eaten, like wood that is burned on the Mizbe’ach, Levonah (frankincense), or Ketoret—that’s the spices that are used—all these items are not edible. Therefore, a person would not be subject to Karet if he ate any of them.
We see from here that Notar also kicks in. What Rabbi Shimon is basically saying is that the laws of Tum’ah—if a person eats something while he’s Tameh—or if a person eats something past its proper time, for which a person would be subject to Karet, apply only to things that are normally eaten, like meat and flour. That applies even if the item has nothing to do with Pigul, even if Pigul doesn’t apply. Still, a person who eats flour or meat past the proper time as Notar, or while in a state of Tum’ah, would be subject to Karet.
What we’re implying from here is that Rabbi Shimon is arguing with the previous Tanna. The previous Tanna told us that even though somebody may not be obligated because of Pigul, because there’s no permitter, they would still be obligated with Notar and because of Tameh; we would say that applies to everything. Even though the Torah normally, when it refers to Achilat, eating, is talking about things that are edible, the exception to the rule according to the previous Tanna is that even wood, even Ketoret, even Levonah—everything is included. If a person ate any of them while they were in a state of Tum’ah, or ate them when they were Notar, a person would still be subject to Karet for those items. It’s a minor Machloket (disagreement) between them. What are we talking about? Rabbi Shimon says only things that are normally eaten, while the previous Tanna says a person is Chayav (liable) Karet Mishum (because of) Tum’ah or Mishum Notar, even for things that are not normally eaten.