Study Guide Zevachim 89. Order of precedence by sacrifices is discussed. Which type of sacrifice comes before the other? Reasons are given in the mishna for why one type would precede another but they are later questioned by the gemara. Also the gemara discusses combinations that not mentioned in the mishna.
Zevachim 89
07.11.2018 | כ״ח בתמוז תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 89
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. הַתְּמִידִין קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסָפִין. מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ. מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר אֲשֶׁר לְעֹלַת הַתָּמִיד תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת אֵלֶּה״.
MISHNA: Any offering that is more frequent than another precedes the other offering. Therefore, the daily offerings precede the additional offerings, which are sacrificed only on certain days. When Shabbat and the New Moon coincide, the additional Shabbat offerings precede the additional New Moon offerings. Likewise, the additional New Moon offerings precede the additional New Year offerings. The mishna cites the source for the principle that the frequent precedes the less frequent: As it is stated with regard to the additional offerings of the first day of Passover: “Besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt offering, you shall offer these” (Numbers 28:23). The verse indicates that the daily offering is sacrificed first, and then the additional offerings are sacrificed.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא לַן? מְנָא לַן?! כִּדְקָאָמַר טַעְמָא: ״מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״! דִּילְמָא תְּמִידִין הֵן דְּקָדְמִי לְמוּסָפִין – מִשּׁוּם דִּתְדִירִי; מוּסָפִין לְמוּסָפִין מְנָא לַן?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the principle that the frequent precedes the less frequent? The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this question: From where do we derive this? One must say that the reason is stated in the mishna, which says that it is derived from the verse: “Besides the burnt offering of the morning.” The Gemara explains: If that verse is the only source, it could be claimed that perhaps it is only the daily offerings that precede the additional offerings, because they are far more frequent, as they are sacrificed daily. With regard to the precedence of a relatively frequent additional offering over a relatively less frequent additional offering, the question arises: From where do we derive this?
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כָּאֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיּוֹם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״ – אֵלֶּה כָּאֵלֶּה.
Rabbi Ile’a said that it is derived from the fact that the verse states with regard to the additional offerings of Passover: “Like these you shall offer daily, for seven days” (Numbers 28:24). This verse, which immediately follows the one cited previously, indicates that the principle that governs these additional offerings shall be like the principle governing those daily offerings and additional offerings mentioned previously, i.e., the more frequent precedes the less frequent.
וְהַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן, נִיכְתּוֹב: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיּוֹם״.
The Gemara challenges: But that verse is required to teach its own halakha, that the additional offerings of the first day of Passover recur on each day of Passover. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: These you shall offer daily. Since the Torah writes: “Like these,” both the halakha that these additional offerings are brought on each day of Passover and the principle concerning precedence can be derived from this verse.
אִי כְּתַב ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיּוֹם שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֵלֶּה לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים (אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא)! ״לַיּוֹם״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If the verse had written only: These you shall offer daily for the seven days, I would say that these offerings mentioned in the previous verse are sacrificed in total, over the seven days. Therefore, the Torah writes: “Like these,” to teach that they are all sacrificed each day. The Gemara counters: That interpretation is not possible, as the phrase: “You shall offer daily,” is written in the verse, which indicates that these offerings are sacrificed on each of the seven days.
וְאַכַּתִּי אֵימָא: אֵלֶּה לַיּוֹם, אֲבָל שְׁאָר יוֹמֵי לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה! אָמַר קְרָא ״תַּעֲשׂוּ״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הָעֲשִׂיּוֹת שָׁווֹת.
The Gemara challenges: And still, one can say that these specific offerings are required for the first day; but with regard to the other days, I do not know how many offerings are to be sacrificed. Therefore, the term “like these” is needed to teach this, and cannot be used for the principle that relatively frequent additional offerings precede relatively less frequent additional offerings. The Gemara answers: That interpretation is also not possible, as the verse states: “You shall offer [ta’asu],” indicating that all the sacrificial rites [asiyyot] on all the days of Passover should be equal. Therefore, the term “like these” is in fact superfluous and can be cited as the source of the principle of precedence.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר מִגּוּפַהּ דִּקְרָא: אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״ וְתִישְׁתּוֹק, ״אֲשֶׁר לְעֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״ לְמָה לִי? לְמֵימַר דְּהָךְ דִּתְדִירָא תִּיקְדּוֹם.
Abaye said: The application of the principle of precedence to all frequent offerings can be derived from the verse itself, cited in the mishna. The reason is that if so, that only the daily offering precedes less frequent offerings, let the verse say merely: “Besides the burnt offering of the morning,” and remain silent from the rest of the verse. Why do I need the additional phrase: “Which is for a daily burnt offering”? This serves to say that this offering that is more frequent, i.e., any more frequent offering, should precede any less frequent offering.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. דַּם הַחַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם הָעוֹלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְרַצֶּה. אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כָּלִיל לָאִישִּׁים.
MISHNA: Any offering that is more sacred than another precedes the other offering. The mishna elaborates: If there is blood of a sin offering and blood of a burnt offering to be presented, the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering because it effects acceptance, i.e., atonement, for severe transgressions punishable by karet. Likewise, if there are limbs of a burnt offering and portions of a sin offering to be burned on the altar, the burning of the limbs of the burnt offering precedes the portions of the sin offering, because the burnt offering is entirely burned in the flames on the altar, whereas only part of the sin offering is burned.
חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְאָשָׁם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִיתָּן לְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת עַל הַיְסוֹד. אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם לְתוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר קוֹדְמִים לִשְׁלָמִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וּטְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
Similarly, although both effect atonement, a sin offering precedes a guilt offering due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar and the remnants of its blood are poured on the base of the altar, whereas the blood of the guilt offering is sprinkled on only two corners of the altar. A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order, and the others are offerings of lesser sanctity. A thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram precede a peace offering due to the fact that they are eaten for one day, like offerings of the most sacred order, whereas a peace offering is eaten for two days, and the thanks offering and nazirite’s ram require loaves to be brought with them, four types with the thanks offering and two types with the nazirite’s ram.
הַשְּׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִין לַבְּכוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע [וּסְמִיכָה] וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפוֹת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. הַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם לַמַּעֲשֵׂר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וְנֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
Sacrifice of the peace offering precedes sacrifice of the firstborn offering due to the fact that the peace offering requires placing the blood on the altar, in the form of two placements that are four, and placing hands on the head of the offering, and libations, and the wavings of the breast and the thigh by the priest and the owner; none of which is required for the firstborn offering. The firstborn offering precedes the animal tithe offering because it is sanctified from the womb, i.e., unlike the animal tithe offering it does not require consecration, and it is eaten by the priests, whereas everyone may partake of the animal tithe offering.
הַמַּעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם לָעוֹפוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים – דָּמוּ וְאֵימוּרָיו. הָעוֹפוֹת קוֹדְמִין לַמְּנָחוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִינֵי דָמִים. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָּא עַל חֵטְא. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף קוֹדֶמֶת לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף, וְכֵן בְּהֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ.
The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird’s nape is pinched; and there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood that is presented on the altar and its portions that are burned on the altar, whereas with regard to bird offerings only the blood is presented on the altar. The bird offerings precede meal offerings due to the fact that they are types whose blood is presented, and atonement is effected by the blood. The meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering due to the fact that it comes to atone for a sin. For the same reason the sacrifice of the bird sin offering precedes the sacrifice of the bird burnt offering, and likewise with regard to its consecration, the sin offering takes precedence.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״ –
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the placement of the blood of a sin offering precedes the sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, whereas the burning of the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the burning of the portions of a sin offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: This is as the Sages taught in a baraita discussing a verse about the consecration of the Levites: “Then let them take a young bull, and its meal offering, fine flour mingled with oil; and a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering” (Numbers 8:8).
אִם בָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן שְׁנַיִם, הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל שֶׁיְּהֵא חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״.
The baraita explains: If this verse comes to teach that they are two bulls, this is superfluous, as it is already stated: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering” (Numbers 8:12). Why must the verse state: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering”? As one might have thought that the sin offering should precede all the rites of the burnt offering, therefore the verse states: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering,” which indicates that the sin offering actually comes second to the burnt offering.
אִי ״פַּר שֵׁנִי״, יָכוֹל תְּהֵא עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַטָּאת לְכׇל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְדַם עוֹלָה – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצָּה; אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה כּוּ׳.
The baraita continues: If the verse had stated only that the sin offering is the second bull, one might have thought that the burnt offering precedes the sin offering with regard to all its rites. Therefore, the verse states: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering,” indicating that the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. How can these verses be reconciled? The placement of the blood of the sin offering precedes the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering because it effects acceptance, whereas the burnt offering does not effect atonement. And burning the limbs of the burnt offering on the altar precedes burning the portions of the sin offering, in fulfillment of the phrase: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering.”
וְאַמַּאי? מַתָּנָה קַמַּיְיתָא דִּמְכַפְּרָה – תִּיקְדּוֹם, וְהָנָךְ לָא!
The Gemara asks: But why do all four placements of the blood of the sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering? Let only the first placement of blood, which effects atonement, take precedence, and those other placements should not come before the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הַלְוִיִּם עָסְקִינַן; וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי עוֹלָה דָּמֵי, קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא הִיא תִּיקְדּוֹם. בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי: הוֹאִיל וְהִתְחִיל בְּמַתָּנוֹת, גּוֹמֵר.
Ravina said: In the verse here, we are dealing with the sin offering brought by the Levites for their consecration. And even though it does not effect atonement and is therefore comparable to a burnt offering, the Merciful One states that the sin offering precedes the burnt offering with regard to the presentation of the blood. This indicates that in general, all four placements of the blood of a sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering, despite the fact that only the first placement effects atonement. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say there is another answer: Once the priest commenced with the placements of the blood of the sin offering, he completes all of them before sprinkling the blood of the burnt offering.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם חַטָּאת וְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כָּלִיל לָאִישִּׁים?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a sin offering and limbs of a burnt offering to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the sin offering take precedence, due to the fact that it effects acceptance? Or perhaps the limbs of the burnt offering take precedence, due to the fact that they are entirely burned in the flames of the altar.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. לְדַם עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה לָא קָדֵים.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of a sin offering precedes the blood of a burnt offering. One can infer from this that the blood of the sin offering does not precede all elements of the burnt offering; it is only with regard to the blood of the burnt offering that it takes precedence, whereas it does not take precedence with regard to the limbs of the burnt offering.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת. לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְדַם חַטָּאת לָא קָדֵים! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, the opposite conclusion can be inferred from the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that limbs of a burnt offering precede the portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar. This indicates that it is only with regard to the portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar that the limbs of the burnt offering take precedence, but they do not take precedence with regard to the blood of the sin offering. The Gemara concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna concerning this matter.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת קוֹדְמִין – (דְּקָאָתֵי) [דְּקָאָתוּ] מִכֹּחַ מְכַפֵּר?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a burnt offering to be sprinkled and portions of a sin offering to be burned, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from an offering that is burned in its entirety on the altar? Or perhaps the portions of the sin offering to be burned take precedence because they come from an offering that effects atonement.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. דַּם חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים לְדַם עוֹלָה, אֲבָל אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering. One can infer from this that it is only the blood of the sin offering that precedes the blood of the burnt offering, but the portions of the sin offering to be burned do not take precedence.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת. אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדְמִי לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֲבָל דָּם עוֹלָה לָא! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, the opposite conclusion can be inferred from the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that the limbs of the burnt offering precede the portions of the sin offering to be consumed on the altar. This indicates that it is only the limbs of the burnt offering that precede the portions of the sin offering to be burned, but the blood of the burnt offering does not. The Gemara again concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna concerning this dilemma.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְדַם אָשָׁם, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל; אוֹ דִילְמָא דַּם אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם – (דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ) דִּמְכַפֵּר?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a burnt offering and blood of a guilt offering to be sprinkled on the altar, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from an offering that is burned in its entirety on the altar? Or perhaps the blood of a guilt offering takes precedence, as it effects atonement.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. אֲבָל דַּם אָשָׁם – לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering. One can infer from here: But the blood of a guilt offering does not precede the blood of a burnt offering.
בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לְמִיתְנֵי דַּם אָשָׁם; וְאַיְּידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵי סֵיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת –
The Gemara rejects this proof: By right the mishna should have taught this halakha with regard to blood of a guilt offering. One could then have inferred that the blood of a sin offering, which takes precedence over the blood of a guilt offering, also precedes blood of a burnt offering. But since the mishna wants to teach the latter clause: The burning of the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the portions of a sin offering, it also mentions a sin offering in the former clause.
דְּאִי תְּנָא לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם הוּא דְּקָדְמִי, לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת לָא קָדְמִי – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי תְּנָא חַטָּאת.
The Gemara explains why the latter clause had to mention a sin offering rather than a guilt offering: As, had the mishna taught this principle of the latter clause with regard to the portions of a guilt offering, I would say that it is only the portions of a guilt offering over which the limbs of a burnt offering take precedence, but they do not take precedence over the portions of a sin offering, as a sin offering is of greater sanctity than a guilt offering. Due to this reason the mishna in the former clause also taught this principle with regard to a sin offering, and one cannot infer from this that its halakha does not apply to the guilt offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: חַטָּאת קוֹדֶם לְאָשָׁם – חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדְמָה לֵיהּ לְאָשָׁם, אֲבָל עוֹלָה לָא. מַאי, לָאו דָּם?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna states that a sin offering precedes a guilt offering. One can infer from this that it is only a sin offering that precedes a guilt offering, but a burnt offering does not. What, is the mishna not referring to the sprinkling of the blood, which would indicate that the blood of a burnt offering does not precede the blood of a guilt offering?
לָא; אַאֵימוּרִים. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִיתָּן״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, it is referring to the precedence of the sacrificial portions consumed on the altar. The Gemara adds that the language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches that the sin offering takes precedence due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar, rather than simply teaching: It is placed on the four corners of the altar, as it would have taught had it been speaking of the blood. One can therefore conclude from the statement of the mishna that its subject is the sacrificial portions burned on the altar, not the blood.
חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – אָשָׁם קָדֵים, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ קִיצְּבָה! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, רִיבּוּי דְּמִזְבֵּחַ עֲדִיף.
§ The mishna teaches: A sin offering precedes a guilt offering due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar and the remainder of its blood is poured on the base of the altar. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the guilt offering should precede the sin offering, as it has a fixed minimal value of two shekels, as stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:15), whereas the sin offering has no minimal value. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the sin offering requires more placements of the blood on the altar is of greater importance.
אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם לְתוֹדָה כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים עֲדִיפִי.
The mishna further teaches: A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram should precede the guilt offering, as they require loaves to be brought with them. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the guilt offering is an offering of the most sacred order is of greater importance.
תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – שְׁלָמִים קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִיבּוּר כִּבְיָחִיד! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד עֲדִיפִי.
The mishna teaches: A thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram precede a peace offering due to the fact that they are eaten for only one day. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, peace offerings should precede the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram, as they are offered by the community as well as by the individual. A communal peace offering is sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot, but there is no communal thanks offering or nazirite’s ram. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram are eaten for only one day is of greater importance.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר – אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? תּוֹדָה קָדְמָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם; אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵיל נָזִיר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים? תָּא שְׁמַע: זוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לָזוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי לֶחֶם.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is a thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the thanks offering take precedence, as it requires four types of loaves, whereas the nazirite’s ram requires only two? Or perhaps the nazirite’s ram takes precedence, as there are other offerings whose blood is placed on the altar together with the nazirite’s ram. A nazirite is required to sacrifice a burnt offering and a sin offering, as well as a ram. The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita that explicitly discusses this case: This offering precedes that offering, as this offering, i.e., the thanks offering, requires four types of loaves, and that offering, the nazirite’s ram, requires only two types of loaves.
וְהַשְּׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִין לִבְכוֹר כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – בְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וְנֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת עֲדִיפִי.
The mishna teaches: And the peace offering precedes the firstborn offering due to the fact that the peace offering requires two placements of the blood on the altar that are four, and the placement of hands on the animal’s head, and libations, and the wavings of the breast and thigh. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the sacrifice of the firstborn offering should precede the peace offering, as it is sanctified from the womb and it is eaten only by the priests, whereas the peace offering may be eaten by non-priests. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that additional mitzvot are performed in the case of the peace offering is of greater importance.
הַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן מְקַדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קְדוּשָּׁה מֵרֶחֶם עֲדִיפָא.
The mishna further teaches: The firstborn offering precedes the animal tithe offering because it is sanctified from the womb and is eaten only by the priests. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the animal tithe offering should precede the firstborn offering, as if one mistakenly called the ninth or eleventh animal that emerged from the pen the tenth, those animals that came out before or after the tenth are also sanctified. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the firstborn is sanctified from the womb is of greater importance.
מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם לָעוֹפוֹת כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – עוֹפוֹת קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִין זֶבַח עָדִיף.
The mishna teaches: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird’s nape is pinched; and furthermore, there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood, which is presented on the altar, and its portions that are burned on the altar. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, bird offerings should precede the animal tithe offering, as they are offerings of the most sacred order, whether they are burnt offerings or sin offerings. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the animal tithe is a type of offering that requires slaughtering is of greater importance.
אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – פְּסוּלִין. וּתְנָא תּוּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – דָּמָיו וְאֵימוּרִין.
§ Ravina bar Sheila says with regard to the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood are disqualified. And the tanna of the mishna also taught: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, and there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood and its sacrificial portions consumed on the altar.
בִּשְׁלָמָא אֵימוּרִין – לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּעוֹפוֹת; אֶלָּא דָּם מִיהָא אִיתֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימוּרִין כִּי דָּמוֹ –
The Gemara explains how Ravina bar Sheila interprets the mishna in support of his opinion: Granted, there are no sacrificial portions consumed on the altar from a bird offering, but its blood at least is sprinkled. Why, then, does the mishna mention the blood? Rather, is it not mentioned in order to teach us that the status of the sacrificial portions consumed on the altar from the animal tithe offering and other offerings of lesser sanctity is comparable to the status of its blood?
מָה דָּמוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, אַף אֵימוּרִין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה – וְקָא קָרֵי לְהוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים; וּמָה דָּמוֹ מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא, אַף אֵימוּרִין מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא.
The Gemara explains the implications of this comparison. Just as its blood referred to in the mishna is blood before its sprinkling on the altar, as afterward it no longer has any sanctity, so too, the sacrificial portions mentioned in the mishna are from before the sprinkling of the blood, and the mishna calls them at this stage offerings of the most sacred order. And therefore one can infer from this that just as the animal tithe’s blood is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard, so too, the sacrificial portions to be burned on the altar are disqualified by leaving the courtyard.
נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: בְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פְּסוּל.
The Gemara attempts to prove the opinion of Ravina bar Sheila. Let us say that the following dispute between amora’im supports his statement: With regard to flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is fit and Reish Lakish says that it is disqualified.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כָּשֵׁר – הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּסוּל – עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי – אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּאֵימוּרִין לָא!
The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is fit, since it will ultimately leave the Temple courtyard, as offerings of lesser sanctity may be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. Reish Lakish says that it is unfit, as its time to leave the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived because the flesh cannot be taken out until after the sprinkling of the blood. The Gemara infers that these amora’im disagree only with regard to the flesh of the offering, which will eventually leave the Temple courtyard. But with regard to the sacrificial portions of the offering, which will never leave the courtyard, they do not disagree, as Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that those portions are disqualified.
הוּא הַדִּין דִּבְאֵימוּרִין נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי; וְהָא דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּבָשָׂר – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בָּשָׂר דְּסוֹפָהּ לָצֵאת, אֲמַר: עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת.
The Gemara rejects this proof: The same is true with regard to the sacrificial portions, i.e., these amora’im also disagree in that case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds they are fit. And the reason that they disagree explicitly with regard to the flesh is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as even with regard to the flesh, which will ultimately leave the Temple courtyard, he says that it is disqualified, because its time to leave the courtyard has not yet arrived.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: With regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says that one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property,
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
Zevachim 89
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַתָּדִיר מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. הַתְּמִידִין קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסָפִין. מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ. מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר אֲשֶׁר לְעֹלַת הַתָּמִיד תַּעֲשׂוּ אֶת אֵלֶּה״.
MISHNA: Any offering that is more frequent than another precedes the other offering. Therefore, the daily offerings precede the additional offerings, which are sacrificed only on certain days. When Shabbat and the New Moon coincide, the additional Shabbat offerings precede the additional New Moon offerings. Likewise, the additional New Moon offerings precede the additional New Year offerings. The mishna cites the source for the principle that the frequent precedes the less frequent: As it is stated with regard to the additional offerings of the first day of Passover: “Besides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt offering, you shall offer these” (Numbers 28:23). The verse indicates that the daily offering is sacrificed first, and then the additional offerings are sacrificed.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא לַן? מְנָא לַן?! כִּדְקָאָמַר טַעְמָא: ״מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״! דִּילְמָא תְּמִידִין הֵן דְּקָדְמִי לְמוּסָפִין – מִשּׁוּם דִּתְדִירִי; מוּסָפִין לְמוּסָפִין מְנָא לַן?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the principle that the frequent precedes the less frequent? The Gemara expresses puzzlement at this question: From where do we derive this? One must say that the reason is stated in the mishna, which says that it is derived from the verse: “Besides the burnt offering of the morning.” The Gemara explains: If that verse is the only source, it could be claimed that perhaps it is only the daily offerings that precede the additional offerings, because they are far more frequent, as they are sacrificed daily. With regard to the precedence of a relatively frequent additional offering over a relatively less frequent additional offering, the question arises: From where do we derive this?
אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כָּאֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיּוֹם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״ – אֵלֶּה כָּאֵלֶּה.
Rabbi Ile’a said that it is derived from the fact that the verse states with regard to the additional offerings of Passover: “Like these you shall offer daily, for seven days” (Numbers 28:24). This verse, which immediately follows the one cited previously, indicates that the principle that governs these additional offerings shall be like the principle governing those daily offerings and additional offerings mentioned previously, i.e., the more frequent precedes the less frequent.
וְהַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן, נִיכְתּוֹב: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיּוֹם״.
The Gemara challenges: But that verse is required to teach its own halakha, that the additional offerings of the first day of Passover recur on each day of Passover. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: These you shall offer daily. Since the Torah writes: “Like these,” both the halakha that these additional offerings are brought on each day of Passover and the principle concerning precedence can be derived from this verse.
אִי כְּתַב ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיּוֹם שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֵלֶּה לְשִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים (אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא)! ״לַיּוֹם״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If the verse had written only: These you shall offer daily for the seven days, I would say that these offerings mentioned in the previous verse are sacrificed in total, over the seven days. Therefore, the Torah writes: “Like these,” to teach that they are all sacrificed each day. The Gemara counters: That interpretation is not possible, as the phrase: “You shall offer daily,” is written in the verse, which indicates that these offerings are sacrificed on each of the seven days.
וְאַכַּתִּי אֵימָא: אֵלֶּה לַיּוֹם, אֲבָל שְׁאָר יוֹמֵי לָא יָדַעְנָא כַּמָּה! אָמַר קְרָא ״תַּעֲשׂוּ״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל הָעֲשִׂיּוֹת שָׁווֹת.
The Gemara challenges: And still, one can say that these specific offerings are required for the first day; but with regard to the other days, I do not know how many offerings are to be sacrificed. Therefore, the term “like these” is needed to teach this, and cannot be used for the principle that relatively frequent additional offerings precede relatively less frequent additional offerings. The Gemara answers: That interpretation is also not possible, as the verse states: “You shall offer [ta’asu],” indicating that all the sacrificial rites [asiyyot] on all the days of Passover should be equal. Therefore, the term “like these” is in fact superfluous and can be cited as the source of the principle of precedence.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר מִגּוּפַהּ דִּקְרָא: אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״מִלְּבַד עֹלַת הַבֹּקֶר״ וְתִישְׁתּוֹק, ״אֲשֶׁר לְעֹלַת הַתָּמִיד״ לְמָה לִי? לְמֵימַר דְּהָךְ דִּתְדִירָא תִּיקְדּוֹם.
Abaye said: The application of the principle of precedence to all frequent offerings can be derived from the verse itself, cited in the mishna. The reason is that if so, that only the daily offering precedes less frequent offerings, let the verse say merely: “Besides the burnt offering of the morning,” and remain silent from the rest of the verse. Why do I need the additional phrase: “Which is for a daily burnt offering”? This serves to say that this offering that is more frequent, i.e., any more frequent offering, should precede any less frequent offering.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ. דַּם הַחַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם הָעוֹלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְרַצֶּה. אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כָּלִיל לָאִישִּׁים.
MISHNA: Any offering that is more sacred than another precedes the other offering. The mishna elaborates: If there is blood of a sin offering and blood of a burnt offering to be presented, the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering because it effects acceptance, i.e., atonement, for severe transgressions punishable by karet. Likewise, if there are limbs of a burnt offering and portions of a sin offering to be burned on the altar, the burning of the limbs of the burnt offering precedes the portions of the sin offering, because the burnt offering is entirely burned in the flames on the altar, whereas only part of the sin offering is burned.
חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְאָשָׁם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִיתָּן לְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת עַל הַיְסוֹד. אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם לְתוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר קוֹדְמִים לִשְׁלָמִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד, וּטְעוּנִין לֶחֶם.
Similarly, although both effect atonement, a sin offering precedes a guilt offering due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar and the remnants of its blood are poured on the base of the altar, whereas the blood of the guilt offering is sprinkled on only two corners of the altar. A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order, and the others are offerings of lesser sanctity. A thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram precede a peace offering due to the fact that they are eaten for one day, like offerings of the most sacred order, whereas a peace offering is eaten for two days, and the thanks offering and nazirite’s ram require loaves to be brought with them, four types with the thanks offering and two types with the nazirite’s ram.
הַשְּׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִין לַבְּכוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע [וּסְמִיכָה] וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפוֹת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק. הַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם לַמַּעֲשֵׂר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וְנֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים.
Sacrifice of the peace offering precedes sacrifice of the firstborn offering due to the fact that the peace offering requires placing the blood on the altar, in the form of two placements that are four, and placing hands on the head of the offering, and libations, and the wavings of the breast and the thigh by the priest and the owner; none of which is required for the firstborn offering. The firstborn offering precedes the animal tithe offering because it is sanctified from the womb, i.e., unlike the animal tithe offering it does not require consecration, and it is eaten by the priests, whereas everyone may partake of the animal tithe offering.
הַמַּעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם לָעוֹפוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח, וְיֵשׁ בּוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים – דָּמוּ וְאֵימוּרָיו. הָעוֹפוֹת קוֹדְמִין לַמְּנָחוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מִינֵי דָמִים. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָּא עַל חֵטְא. חַטַּאת הָעוֹף קוֹדֶמֶת לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף, וְכֵן בְּהֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ.
The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird’s nape is pinched; and there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood that is presented on the altar and its portions that are burned on the altar, whereas with regard to bird offerings only the blood is presented on the altar. The bird offerings precede meal offerings due to the fact that they are types whose blood is presented, and atonement is effected by the blood. The meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering due to the fact that it comes to atone for a sin. For the same reason the sacrifice of the bird sin offering precedes the sacrifice of the bird burnt offering, and likewise with regard to its consecration, the sin offering takes precedence.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״ –
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the placement of the blood of a sin offering precedes the sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, whereas the burning of the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the burning of the portions of a sin offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: This is as the Sages taught in a baraita discussing a verse about the consecration of the Levites: “Then let them take a young bull, and its meal offering, fine flour mingled with oil; and a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering” (Numbers 8:8).
אִם בָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן שְׁנַיִם, הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל שֶׁיְּהֵא חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְכׇל מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״.
The baraita explains: If this verse comes to teach that they are two bulls, this is superfluous, as it is already stated: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering” (Numbers 8:12). Why must the verse state: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering”? As one might have thought that the sin offering should precede all the rites of the burnt offering, therefore the verse states: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering,” which indicates that the sin offering actually comes second to the burnt offering.
אִי ״פַּר שֵׁנִי״, יָכוֹל תְּהֵא עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַטָּאת לְכׇל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְדַם עוֹלָה – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצָּה; אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה כּוּ׳.
The baraita continues: If the verse had stated only that the sin offering is the second bull, one might have thought that the burnt offering precedes the sin offering with regard to all its rites. Therefore, the verse states: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering,” indicating that the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. How can these verses be reconciled? The placement of the blood of the sin offering precedes the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering because it effects acceptance, whereas the burnt offering does not effect atonement. And burning the limbs of the burnt offering on the altar precedes burning the portions of the sin offering, in fulfillment of the phrase: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering.”
וְאַמַּאי? מַתָּנָה קַמַּיְיתָא דִּמְכַפְּרָה – תִּיקְדּוֹם, וְהָנָךְ לָא!
The Gemara asks: But why do all four placements of the blood of the sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering? Let only the first placement of blood, which effects atonement, take precedence, and those other placements should not come before the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הַלְוִיִּם עָסְקִינַן; וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי עוֹלָה דָּמֵי, קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא הִיא תִּיקְדּוֹם. בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי: הוֹאִיל וְהִתְחִיל בְּמַתָּנוֹת, גּוֹמֵר.
Ravina said: In the verse here, we are dealing with the sin offering brought by the Levites for their consecration. And even though it does not effect atonement and is therefore comparable to a burnt offering, the Merciful One states that the sin offering precedes the burnt offering with regard to the presentation of the blood. This indicates that in general, all four placements of the blood of a sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering, despite the fact that only the first placement effects atonement. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say there is another answer: Once the priest commenced with the placements of the blood of the sin offering, he completes all of them before sprinkling the blood of the burnt offering.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם חַטָּאת וְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כָּלִיל לָאִישִּׁים?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a sin offering and limbs of a burnt offering to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the sin offering take precedence, due to the fact that it effects acceptance? Or perhaps the limbs of the burnt offering take precedence, due to the fact that they are entirely burned in the flames of the altar.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. לְדַם עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה לָא קָדֵים.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of a sin offering precedes the blood of a burnt offering. One can infer from this that the blood of the sin offering does not precede all elements of the burnt offering; it is only with regard to the blood of the burnt offering that it takes precedence, whereas it does not take precedence with regard to the limbs of the burnt offering.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת. לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְדַם חַטָּאת לָא קָדֵים! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, the opposite conclusion can be inferred from the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that limbs of a burnt offering precede the portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar. This indicates that it is only with regard to the portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar that the limbs of the burnt offering take precedence, but they do not take precedence with regard to the blood of the sin offering. The Gemara concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna concerning this matter.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת קוֹדְמִין – (דְּקָאָתֵי) [דְּקָאָתוּ] מִכֹּחַ מְכַפֵּר?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a burnt offering to be sprinkled and portions of a sin offering to be burned, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from an offering that is burned in its entirety on the altar? Or perhaps the portions of the sin offering to be burned take precedence because they come from an offering that effects atonement.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. דַּם חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים לְדַם עוֹלָה, אֲבָל אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering. One can infer from this that it is only the blood of the sin offering that precedes the blood of the burnt offering, but the portions of the sin offering to be burned do not take precedence.
אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת. אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדְמִי לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֲבָל דָּם עוֹלָה לָא! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, the opposite conclusion can be inferred from the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that the limbs of the burnt offering precede the portions of the sin offering to be consumed on the altar. This indicates that it is only the limbs of the burnt offering that precede the portions of the sin offering to be burned, but the blood of the burnt offering does not. The Gemara again concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna concerning this dilemma.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְדַם אָשָׁם, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל; אוֹ דִילְמָא דַּם אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם – (דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ) דִּמְכַפֵּר?
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a burnt offering and blood of a guilt offering to be sprinkled on the altar, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from an offering that is burned in its entirety on the altar? Or perhaps the blood of a guilt offering takes precedence, as it effects atonement.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה. אֲבָל דַּם אָשָׁם – לָא.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering. One can infer from here: But the blood of a guilt offering does not precede the blood of a burnt offering.
בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לְמִיתְנֵי דַּם אָשָׁם; וְאַיְּידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵי סֵיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת –
The Gemara rejects this proof: By right the mishna should have taught this halakha with regard to blood of a guilt offering. One could then have inferred that the blood of a sin offering, which takes precedence over the blood of a guilt offering, also precedes blood of a burnt offering. But since the mishna wants to teach the latter clause: The burning of the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the portions of a sin offering, it also mentions a sin offering in the former clause.
דְּאִי תְּנָא לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם הוּא דְּקָדְמִי, לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת לָא קָדְמִי – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי תְּנָא חַטָּאת.
The Gemara explains why the latter clause had to mention a sin offering rather than a guilt offering: As, had the mishna taught this principle of the latter clause with regard to the portions of a guilt offering, I would say that it is only the portions of a guilt offering over which the limbs of a burnt offering take precedence, but they do not take precedence over the portions of a sin offering, as a sin offering is of greater sanctity than a guilt offering. Due to this reason the mishna in the former clause also taught this principle with regard to a sin offering, and one cannot infer from this that its halakha does not apply to the guilt offering.
תָּא שְׁמַע: חַטָּאת קוֹדֶם לְאָשָׁם – חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדְמָה לֵיהּ לְאָשָׁם, אֲבָל עוֹלָה לָא. מַאי, לָאו דָּם?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna states that a sin offering precedes a guilt offering. One can infer from this that it is only a sin offering that precedes a guilt offering, but a burnt offering does not. What, is the mishna not referring to the sprinkling of the blood, which would indicate that the blood of a burnt offering does not precede the blood of a guilt offering?
לָא; אַאֵימוּרִים. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִיתָּן״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, it is referring to the precedence of the sacrificial portions consumed on the altar. The Gemara adds that the language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches that the sin offering takes precedence due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar, rather than simply teaching: It is placed on the four corners of the altar, as it would have taught had it been speaking of the blood. One can therefore conclude from the statement of the mishna that its subject is the sacrificial portions burned on the altar, not the blood.
חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – אָשָׁם קָדֵים, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ קִיצְּבָה! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, רִיבּוּי דְּמִזְבֵּחַ עֲדִיף.
§ The mishna teaches: A sin offering precedes a guilt offering due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar and the remainder of its blood is poured on the base of the altar. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the guilt offering should precede the sin offering, as it has a fixed minimal value of two shekels, as stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:15), whereas the sin offering has no minimal value. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the sin offering requires more placements of the blood on the altar is of greater importance.
אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם לְתוֹדָה כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים עֲדִיפִי.
The mishna further teaches: A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram should precede the guilt offering, as they require loaves to be brought with them. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the guilt offering is an offering of the most sacred order is of greater importance.
תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – שְׁלָמִים קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִיבּוּר כִּבְיָחִיד! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד עֲדִיפִי.
The mishna teaches: A thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram precede a peace offering due to the fact that they are eaten for only one day. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, peace offerings should precede the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram, as they are offered by the community as well as by the individual. A communal peace offering is sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot, but there is no communal thanks offering or nazirite’s ram. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram are eaten for only one day is of greater importance.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר – אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? תּוֹדָה קָדְמָה, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם; אוֹ דִילְמָא אֵיל נָזִיר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים? תָּא שְׁמַע: זוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לָזוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי לֶחֶם.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is a thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the thanks offering take precedence, as it requires four types of loaves, whereas the nazirite’s ram requires only two? Or perhaps the nazirite’s ram takes precedence, as there are other offerings whose blood is placed on the altar together with the nazirite’s ram. A nazirite is required to sacrifice a burnt offering and a sin offering, as well as a ram. The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita that explicitly discusses this case: This offering precedes that offering, as this offering, i.e., the thanks offering, requires four types of loaves, and that offering, the nazirite’s ram, requires only two types of loaves.
וְהַשְּׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִין לִבְכוֹר כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – בְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וְנֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת עֲדִיפִי.
The mishna teaches: And the peace offering precedes the firstborn offering due to the fact that the peace offering requires two placements of the blood on the altar that are four, and the placement of hands on the animal’s head, and libations, and the wavings of the breast and thigh. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the sacrifice of the firstborn offering should precede the peace offering, as it is sanctified from the womb and it is eaten only by the priests, whereas the peace offering may be eaten by non-priests. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that additional mitzvot are performed in the case of the peace offering is of greater importance.
הַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן מְקַדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קְדוּשָּׁה מֵרֶחֶם עֲדִיפָא.
The mishna further teaches: The firstborn offering precedes the animal tithe offering because it is sanctified from the womb and is eaten only by the priests. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the animal tithe offering should precede the firstborn offering, as if one mistakenly called the ninth or eleventh animal that emerged from the pen the tenth, those animals that came out before or after the tenth are also sanctified. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the firstborn is sanctified from the womb is of greater importance.
מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם לָעוֹפוֹת כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – עוֹפוֹת קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִין זֶבַח עָדִיף.
The mishna teaches: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird’s nape is pinched; and furthermore, there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood, which is presented on the altar, and its portions that are burned on the altar. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, bird offerings should precede the animal tithe offering, as they are offerings of the most sacred order, whether they are burnt offerings or sin offerings. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the animal tithe is a type of offering that requires slaughtering is of greater importance.
אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – פְּסוּלִין. וּתְנָא תּוּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים – דָּמָיו וְאֵימוּרִין.
§ Ravina bar Sheila says with regard to the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood are disqualified. And the tanna of the mishna also taught: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, and there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood and its sacrificial portions consumed on the altar.
בִּשְׁלָמָא אֵימוּרִין – לֵיתַנְהוּ בְּעוֹפוֹת; אֶלָּא דָּם מִיהָא אִיתֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֵימוּרִין כִּי דָּמוֹ –
The Gemara explains how Ravina bar Sheila interprets the mishna in support of his opinion: Granted, there are no sacrificial portions consumed on the altar from a bird offering, but its blood at least is sprinkled. Why, then, does the mishna mention the blood? Rather, is it not mentioned in order to teach us that the status of the sacrificial portions consumed on the altar from the animal tithe offering and other offerings of lesser sanctity is comparable to the status of its blood?
מָה דָּמוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה, אַף אֵימוּרִין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה – וְקָא קָרֵי לְהוּ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים; וּמָה דָּמוֹ מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא, אַף אֵימוּרִין מִיפְּסֵל בְּיוֹצֵא.
The Gemara explains the implications of this comparison. Just as its blood referred to in the mishna is blood before its sprinkling on the altar, as afterward it no longer has any sanctity, so too, the sacrificial portions mentioned in the mishna are from before the sprinkling of the blood, and the mishna calls them at this stage offerings of the most sacred order. And therefore one can infer from this that just as the animal tithe’s blood is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard, so too, the sacrificial portions to be burned on the altar are disqualified by leaving the courtyard.
נֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: בְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פְּסוּל.
The Gemara attempts to prove the opinion of Ravina bar Sheila. Let us say that the following dispute between amora’im supports his statement: With regard to flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is fit and Reish Lakish says that it is disqualified.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כָּשֵׁר – הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּסוּל – עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי – אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּאֵימוּרִין לָא!
The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is fit, since it will ultimately leave the Temple courtyard, as offerings of lesser sanctity may be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. Reish Lakish says that it is unfit, as its time to leave the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived because the flesh cannot be taken out until after the sprinkling of the blood. The Gemara infers that these amora’im disagree only with regard to the flesh of the offering, which will eventually leave the Temple courtyard. But with regard to the sacrificial portions of the offering, which will never leave the courtyard, they do not disagree, as Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that those portions are disqualified.
הוּא הַדִּין דִּבְאֵימוּרִין נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי; וְהָא דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּבָשָׂר – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בָּשָׂר דְּסוֹפָהּ לָצֵאת, אֲמַר: עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת.
The Gemara rejects this proof: The same is true with regard to the sacrificial portions, i.e., these amora’im also disagree in that case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds they are fit. And the reason that they disagree explicitly with regard to the flesh is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as even with regard to the flesh, which will ultimately leave the Temple courtyard, he says that it is disqualified, because its time to leave the courtyard has not yet arrived.
לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im: With regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says that one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property,
Follow
