Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 11, 2018 | 讻状讞 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 89

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聽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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛转讚讬专 诪讞讘讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讛转诪讬讚讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诪讜住驻讬 砖讘转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讚砖 诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讚砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讗砖专 诇注诇转 讛转诪讬讚 转注砖讜 讗转 讗诇讛

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: 鈥淏esides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt offering, you shall offer these鈥 (Numbers 28:23). The verse indicates that the daily offering is sacrificed first, and then the additional offerings are sacrificed.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 诪谞讗 诇谉 讻讚拽讗诪专 讟注诪讗 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讚讬诇诪讗 转诪讬讚讬谉 讛谉 讚拽讚诪讜 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚转讚讬专讬 诪讜住驻讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诪谞讗 诇谉

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: 鈥淏esides the burnt offering of the morning.鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讬讜诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讗诇讛 讻讗诇讛

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that it is derived from the fact that the verse states with regard to the additional offerings of Passover: 鈥淟ike these you shall offer daily, for seven days鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讬讜诐

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: 鈥淟ike these,鈥 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.

讗讬 讻转讘 讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讬讜诐 砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讛 诇砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 (讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗) 诇讬讜诐 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淟ike these,鈥 to teach that they are all sacrificed each day. The Gemara counters: That interpretation is not possible, as the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall offer daily,鈥 is written in the verse, which indicates that these offerings are sacrificed on each of the seven days.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬诪讗 讗诇讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讘诇 砖讗专 讬讜诪讬 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讻诪讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讜 砖讬讛讜 讻诇 讛注砖讬讜转 砖讜讜转

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 鈥渓ike these鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall offer [ta鈥檃su],鈥 indicating that all the sacrificial rites [asiyyot] on all the days of Passover should be equal. Therefore, the term 鈥渓ike these鈥 is in fact superfluous and can be cited as the source of the principle of precedence.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讙讜驻讛 讚拽专讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讜转讬砖转讜拽 讗砖专 诇注诇转 讛转诪讬讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讚讛讱 讚转讚讬专讗 转讬拽讚讜诐

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: 鈥淏esides the burnt offering of the morning,鈥 and remain silent from the rest of the verse. Why do I need the additional phrase: 鈥淲hich is for a daily burnt offering鈥? This serves to say that this offering that is more frequent, i.e., any more frequent offering, should precede any less frequent offering.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛诪拽讜讚砖 诪讞讘讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讚诐 讛讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 讛注讜诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专爪讛 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬诇 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗砖诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讛 谞讬转谉 诇讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 注诇 讛讬住讜讚 讗砖诐 拽讜讚诐 诇转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讜讚诪讬诐 诇砖诇诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram require loaves to be brought with them, four types with the thanks offering and two types with the nazirite鈥檚 ram.

讛砖诇诪讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪转谉 讗专讘注 [讜住诪讬讻讛] 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻讜转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讛讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪注砖专 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐

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.

讛诪注砖专 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜驻讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讝讘讞 讜讬砖 讘讜 拽讜讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讚诪讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讛注讜驻讜转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪谞讞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 拽讜讚诐 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 拽讜讚诪转 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讻谉 讘讛拽讚讬砖讛

The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻专 砖谞讬 讘谉 讘拽专 转拽讞 诇讞讟讗转

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: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Numbers 8:8).

讗诐 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 砖讛谉 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讛讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讜讗转 讛讗讞讚 注诇讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻专 砖谞讬 讘谉 讘拽专 转拽讞 诇讞讟讗转 砖讬讻讜诇 砖讬讛讗 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻专 砖谞讬 讘谉 讘拽专 转拽讞 诇讞讟讗转

The baraita explains: If this verse comes to teach that they are two bulls, this is superfluous, as it is already stated: 鈥淎nd offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering鈥 (Numbers 8:12). Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering鈥? As one might have thought that the sin offering should precede all the rites of the burnt offering, therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering,鈥 which indicates that the sin offering actually comes second to the burnt offering.

讗讬 驻专 砖谞讬 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇讞讟讗转 诇讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讛讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讜讗转 讛讗讞讚 注诇讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专爪讛 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讻讜壮

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: 鈥淎nd offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering.鈥

讜讗诪讗讬 诪转谞讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚诪讻驻专讛 转讬拽讚讜诐 讜讛谞讱 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讘讞讟讗转 讛诇讜讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讬 注讜诇讛 讚诪讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讗 转讬拽讚讬诐 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛转讞讬诇 讘诪转谞讜转 讙讜诪专

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚诐 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专爪讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讻诇讬诇 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 诇讗 拽讚讬诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诪住讬驻讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讚诐 讞讟讗转 诇讗 拽讚讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚诐 注讜诇讛 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讚诐 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讻诇讬诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 诪讻驻专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讚诐 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诇讗

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诪住讬驻讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讬 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讗讘诇 讚诐 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚诐 注讜诇讛 讜讚诐 讗砖诐 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讚诐 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讻诇讬诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚诐 讗砖诐 拽讜讚诐 (讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞) 讚诪讻驻专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讚诐 讗砖诐 诇讗

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.

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讚诐 讗砖诐 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讗 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转

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.

讚讗讬 转谞讗 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讗砖诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讬 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诇讗 拽讚诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 转谞讗 讞讟讗转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讗砖诐 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讗砖诐 讗讘诇 注讜诇讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诐

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?

诇讗 讗讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讛 谞讬转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 讗砖诐 拽讚讬诐 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 拽讬爪讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 专讬讘讜讬 讚诪讝讘讞 注讚讬祝

搂 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.

讗砖诐 拽讜讚诐 诇转讜讚讛 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 讛转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讚诪讬 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 注讚讬驻讬

The mishna further teaches: A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and the nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚诪讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘爪讬讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚讬驻讬

The mishna teaches: A thanks offering and the nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the thanks offering and the nazirite鈥檚 ram are eaten for only one day is of greater importance.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 转讜讚讛 拽讚诪讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讜讚诐 砖讻谉 讬砖 注诪讜 讚诪讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 转讗 砖诪注 讝讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讝讜 砖讝讜 讟注讜谞讛 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诐 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 讗诇讗 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is a thanks offering and a nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram requires only two? Or perhaps the nazirite鈥檚 ram takes precedence, as there are other offerings whose blood is placed on the altar together with the nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram, requires only two types of loaves.

讜讛砖诇诪讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 注讚讬驻讬

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鈥檚 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.

讛讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 拽讜讚诐 砖讻谉 诪拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讚讜砖讛 诪专讞诐 注讚讬驻讗

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.

诪注砖专 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜驻讜转 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 注讜驻讜转 拽讚诪讬 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬谉 讝讘讞 注讚讬祝

The mishna teaches: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讝讘讞 讜讬砖谞讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬谉

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注讜驻讜转 讗诇讗 讚诐 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻讬 讚诪讜

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?

诪讛 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗祝 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 拽讜讚诐 讝专讬拽讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪讛 讚诪讜 诪讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诪讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗

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鈥檚 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.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻砖专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻住讜诇

The Gemara attempts to prove the opinion of Ravina bar Sheila. Let us say that the following dispute between amora鈥檌m supports his statement: With regard to flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is fit and Reish Lakish says that it is disqualified.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇爪讗转 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讘砖专 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m 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 Yo岣nan concedes that those portions are disqualified.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讘砖专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖专 讚住讜驻讛 诇爪讗转 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara rejects this proof: The same is true with regard to the sacrificial portions, i.e., these amora鈥檌m also disagree in that case, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between amora鈥檌m is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 89

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 89

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛转讚讬专 诪讞讘讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讛转诪讬讚讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诪讜住驻讬 砖讘转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讚砖 诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讚砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讗砖专 诇注诇转 讛转诪讬讚 转注砖讜 讗转 讗诇讛

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: 鈥淏esides the burnt offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt offering, you shall offer these鈥 (Numbers 28:23). The verse indicates that the daily offering is sacrificed first, and then the additional offerings are sacrificed.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 诇谉 诪谞讗 诇谉 讻讚拽讗诪专 讟注诪讗 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讚讬诇诪讗 转诪讬讚讬谉 讛谉 讚拽讚诪讜 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讚转讚讬专讬 诪讜住驻讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 诪谞讗 诇谉

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: 鈥淏esides the burnt offering of the morning.鈥 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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讬诇注讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讬讜诐 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 讗诇讛 讻讗诇讛

Rabbi Ile鈥檃 said that it is derived from the fact that the verse states with regard to the additional offerings of Passover: 鈥淟ike these you shall offer daily, for seven days鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讬讜诐

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: 鈥淟ike these,鈥 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.

讗讬 讻转讘 讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讬讜诐 砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诇讛 诇砖讘注转 讛讬诪讬诐 (讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗) 诇讬讜诐 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淟ike these,鈥 to teach that they are all sacrificed each day. The Gemara counters: That interpretation is not possible, as the phrase: 鈥淵ou shall offer daily,鈥 is written in the verse, which indicates that these offerings are sacrificed on each of the seven days.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讬诪讗 讗诇讛 诇讬讜诐 讗讘诇 砖讗专 讬讜诪讬 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讻诪讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 转注砖讜 砖讬讛讜 讻诇 讛注砖讬讜转 砖讜讜转

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 鈥渓ike these鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall offer [ta鈥檃su],鈥 indicating that all the sacrificial rites [asiyyot] on all the days of Passover should be equal. Therefore, the term 鈥渓ike these鈥 is in fact superfluous and can be cited as the source of the principle of precedence.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诪讙讜驻讛 讚拽专讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 诪诇讘讚 注诇转 讛讘拽专 讜转讬砖转讜拽 讗砖专 诇注诇转 讛转诪讬讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讚讛讱 讚转讚讬专讗 转讬拽讚讜诐

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: 鈥淏esides the burnt offering of the morning,鈥 and remain silent from the rest of the verse. Why do I need the additional phrase: 鈥淲hich is for a daily burnt offering鈥? This serves to say that this offering that is more frequent, i.e., any more frequent offering, should precede any less frequent offering.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛诪拽讜讚砖 诪讞讘讬专讜 拽讜讚诐 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讚诐 讛讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 讛注讜诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪专爪讛 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诇讬诇 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讗砖诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讛 谞讬转谉 诇讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 注诇 讛讬住讜讚 讗砖诐 拽讜讚诐 诇转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讜讚诪讬诐 诇砖诇诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram require loaves to be brought with them, four types with the thanks offering and two types with the nazirite鈥檚 ram.

讛砖诇诪讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪转谉 讗专讘注 [讜住诪讬讻讛] 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻讜转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讛讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 诇诪注砖专 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐

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.

讛诪注砖专 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜驻讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讝讘讞 讜讬砖 讘讜 拽讜讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讚诪讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讛注讜驻讜转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪谞讞讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 拽讜讚诐 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 拽讜讚诪转 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讻谉 讘讛拽讚讬砖讛

The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻专 砖谞讬 讘谉 讘拽专 转拽讞 诇讞讟讗转

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: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Numbers 8:8).

讗诐 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 砖讛谉 砖谞讬诐 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讛讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讜讗转 讛讗讞讚 注诇讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻专 砖谞讬 讘谉 讘拽专 转拽讞 诇讞讟讗转 砖讬讻讜诇 砖讬讛讗 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讻诇 诪注砖讛 注讜诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜驻专 砖谞讬 讘谉 讘拽专 转拽讞 诇讞讟讗转

The baraita explains: If this verse comes to teach that they are two bulls, this is superfluous, as it is already stated: 鈥淎nd offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering鈥 (Numbers 8:12). Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering鈥? As one might have thought that the sin offering should precede all the rites of the burnt offering, therefore the verse states: 鈥淎nd a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering,鈥 which indicates that the sin offering actually comes second to the burnt offering.

讗讬 驻专 砖谞讬 讬讻讜诇 转讛讗 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇讞讟讗转 诇讻诇 诪注砖讬讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛 讗转 讛讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讜讗转 讛讗讞讚 注诇讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专爪讛 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讻讜壮

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: 鈥淎nd offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering.鈥

讜讗诪讗讬 诪转谞讛 拽诪讬讬转讗 讚诪讻驻专讛 转讬拽讚讜诐 讜讛谞讱 诇讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讗 讘讞讟讗转 讛诇讜讬诐 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻讬 注讜诇讛 讚诪讬 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讛讬讗 转讬拽讚讬诐 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛转讞讬诇 讘诪转谞讜转 讙讜诪专

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚诐 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪专爪讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 讻诇讬诇 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 诇讗 拽讚讬诐

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诪住讬驻讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讚诐 讞讟讗转 诇讗 拽讚讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚诐 注讜诇讛 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讚诐 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讻诇讬诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 诪讻驻专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讚诐 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诇讗

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.

讗讚专讘讛 诪住讬驻讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讬 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 讗讘诇 讚诐 注讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讗 诇讬讻讗 诇诪砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讚诐 注讜诇讛 讜讚诐 讗砖诐 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 讚诐 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诐 讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞 讻诇讬诇 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讚诐 讗砖诐 拽讜讚诐 (讚拽讗转讬 诪讻讞) 讚诪讻驻专

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讚诐 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讚诐 讗砖诐 诇讗

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.

讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讚诐 讗砖诐 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讗 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转

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.

讚讗讬 转谞讗 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讗砖诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讗砖诐 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讬 诇讗讬诪讜专讬 讞讟讗转 诇讗 拽讚诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 转谞讗 讞讟讗转

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诐 诇讗砖诐 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讬讛 诇讗砖诐 讗讘诇 注讜诇讛 诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚诐

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?

诇讗 讗讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诪讛 谞讬转谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 讗砖诐 拽讚讬诐 砖讻谉 讬砖 诇讜 拽讬爪讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 专讬讘讜讬 讚诪讝讘讞 注讚讬祝

搂 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.

讗砖诐 拽讜讚诐 诇转讜讚讛 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 讛转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讚诪讬 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讞诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 注讚讬驻讬

The mishna further teaches: A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and the nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 砖诇诪讬诐 拽讚诪讬 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘爪讬讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚讬驻讬

The mishna teaches: A thanks offering and the nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the thanks offering and the nazirite鈥檚 ram are eaten for only one day is of greater importance.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讜讚讛 讜讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 转讜讚讛 拽讚诪讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬诇 谞讝讬专 拽讜讚诐 砖讻谉 讬砖 注诪讜 讚诪讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 转讗 砖诪注 讝讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讝讜 砖讝讜 讟注讜谞讛 讗专讘注讛 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诐 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 讗诇讗 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬 诇讞诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is a thanks offering and a nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram requires only two? Or perhaps the nazirite鈥檚 ram takes precedence, as there are other offerings whose blood is placed on the altar together with the nazirite鈥檚 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鈥檚 ram, requires only two types of loaves.

讜讛砖诇诪讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘讻讜专 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讜谞讗讻诇 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪爪讜转 讬转讬专讜转 注讚讬驻讬

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鈥檚 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.

讛讘讻讜专 拽讜讚诐 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 诪注砖专 拽讜讚诐 砖讻谉 诪拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬讜 讜诇讗讞专讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 拽讚讜砖讛 诪专讞诐 注讚讬驻讗

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.

诪注砖专 拽讜讚诐 诇注讜驻讜转 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 注讜驻讜转 拽讚诪讬 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬谉 讝讘讞 注讚讬祝

The mishna teaches: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜转谞讗 转讜谞讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讝讘讞 讜讬砖谞讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚诪讬讜 讜讗讬诪讜专讬谉

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讬转谞讛讜 讘注讜驻讜转 讗诇讗 讚诐 诪讬讛讗 讗讬转讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻讬 讚诪讜

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?

诪讛 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗祝 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 拽讜讚诐 讝专讬拽讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讛讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪讛 讚诪讜 诪讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗 讗祝 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诪讬驻住诇 讘讬讜爪讗

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鈥檚 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.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻砖专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻住讜诇

The Gemara attempts to prove the opinion of Ravina bar Sheila. Let us say that the following dispute between amora鈥檌m supports his statement: With regard to flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that it is fit and Reish Lakish says that it is disqualified.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻砖专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜住讜驻讜 诇爪讗转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 驻住讜诇 注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇爪讗转 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讘砖专 讗讘诇 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m 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 Yo岣nan concedes that those portions are disqualified.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 谞诪讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讘砖专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖专 讚住讜驻讛 诇爪讗转 讗诪专 注讚讬讬谉 诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇爪讗转

The Gemara rejects this proof: The same is true with regard to the sacrificial portions, i.e., these amora鈥檌m also disagree in that case, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between amora鈥檌m is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: 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,

Scroll To Top