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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 12, 2018 | 讻状讟 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 90

The discussion about order of precedence continues聽and it is stated that the sin offering even of a bird precedes any burnt offering. Several sources are brought to contradict this principle. Answers are provided, some of them explain that there are a few exceptions to this rule.

讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

and one is not liable to receive karet for them due to prohibitions against eating piggul or notar, or for partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure. All these prohibitions apply only if the sacrificial portions are otherwise fit for sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva says that one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and one is liable to receive karet for eating them due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讚讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讬驻住诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪讬驻住诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara explains: What, is it not correct to say that they disagree with regard to a case where after taking the portions to be burned out of the Temple courtyard one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? And, if so, it is with regard to this very point that they disagree: As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the portions are disqualified by leaving the courtyard, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the portions are not disqualified by leaving the courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗

The Gemara rejects this claim: Rav Pappa said that with regard to a case where after taking these portions out of the Temple courtyard one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, everyone agrees they are fit. And here they disagree with regard to a case where these portions are outside the courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar. And they disagree with regard to this following matter: As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the sprinkling of the blood is not effective with regard to those portions that were taken out of the courtyard, i.e., it does not render them fit, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the sprinkling of the blood is effective with regard to those portions that were taken out of the courtyard, i.e., it renders them fit.

讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 诇讙讜讜讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara challenges: But Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement here apparently contradicts his claim concerning the two loaves brought with the two sheep on the festival of Shavuot. The sprinkling of the blood of the sheep renders those two loaves fit for consumption by the priests, and the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva also applies in that case. The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa is the one who said that with regard to a situation where the two loaves are outside the Temple courtyard when the blood of the two sheep is sprinkled on the altar, everyone, even Rabbi Akiva, agrees that the sprinkling does not render the two loaves fit, and therefore if one eats them he is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition against eating piggul. Rather, the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to a case where one returned the loaves to within the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 砖转讬 诇讞诐 讚诇讗讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讚讝讬讘讞讗 讗讘诇 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讚讝讬讘讞讗 讛讜讗 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Pappa applies only to the two loaves, as they are not part of the offering itself. But with regard to the sacrificial portions, which are part of the offering itself, everyone agrees that they are rendered fit if they are within the Temple courtyard at the time the blood is sprinkled on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree only with regard to a case where they are outside the Temple courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar.

注讜驻讜转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讞讜转 拽讜讚诪讜转 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘爪讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 注讚讬驻讬

搂 The mishna teaches: 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 Gemara challenges: On the contrary, meal offerings should precede bird offerings, as they are sacrificed both as communal offerings and as individual offerings, whereas there are no communal bird offerings. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that bird offerings are types whose blood is sprinkled is of greater importance.

诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 拽讜讚诪转 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讛讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚诪讻驻专转

The mishna further teaches: The meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, a voluntary meal offering should precede the meal offering of a sinner, as it requires oil and frankincense. The Gemara explains: Even so, the meal offering of a sinner, which comes due to a sin, is of greater importance, as it effects atonement.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诪转 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 拽讚诪讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 (讗讜) 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 拽讚诪讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 诇讘专专 注讜谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the meal offering of a sota, a woman suspected by her husband of having committed adultery, and a voluntary meal offering being brought by someone at the same time, which of them precedes the other? Does the voluntary meal offering take precedence, as it requires oil and frankincense? Or perhaps the meal offering of a sota takes precedence, as it comes to clarify the woman鈥檚 transgression, as part of the rite performed with a sota.

转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讛讗 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna states that the meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering. One can infer from this that it is only the meal offering of a sinner that precedes a voluntary meal offering, but the meal offering of a sota does not. The Gemara rejects this proof: Is the mishna teaching that the meal offering of a sinner takes precedence due to the fact that it effects atonement? The mishna teaches: Due to the fact that it comes because of a sin, and the meal offering of a sota also comes because of a sin, as she secluded herself with another man.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讝讜 砖讝讜 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜讝讜 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the statement of a baraita: This meal offering precedes that meal offering, as this meal offering comes from wheat, and that meal offering comes from barley. What, does this baraita not refer to the precedence of a voluntary meal offering to the meal offering of a sota? The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, the baraita is referring to the precedence of the meal offering of a sinner over the meal offering of a sota.

转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讛讗 诪讻驻专转 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专转

The Gemara responds: If the baraita is referring to the meal offering of a sinner, why is its precedence to the meal offering of a sota derived from the fact that the meal offering of a sinner comes from wheat, whereas the meal offering of a sota is brought from barley? I could derive the precedence of the meal offering of the sinner due to the fact that the meal offering of a sinner effects atonement and the meal offering of a sota does not effect atonement.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讝讜 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪转专讬 讟注诪讬 [谞拽讬讟]

The Gemara counters: Rather, what is the baraita referring to? Is it referring to the precedence of a voluntary meal offering over the meal offering of a sota? If so, I could derive its precedence from the fact that this voluntary meal offering requires oil and frankincense and that meal offering of a sota does not require oil and frankincense. Rather, one cannot prove anything from the omission of an alternative explanation, as whichever way one interprets the baraita it clearly cited one of two reasons.

讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 拽讜讚诪转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗砖专 诇讞讟讗转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诇诪讚 砖转拽专讘 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬 讬注砖讛 注诇讛

搂 The mishna states: The sacrifice of the bird sin offering precedes the sacrifice of the bird burnt offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: This is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering that a poor sinner sacrifices instead of an animal sin offering. The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall offer that which is for the sin offering first鈥 (Leviticus 5:8). Why must the verse state this? As there is no need for the verse to state this in order to teach that the sin offering is sacrificed first, as it is already stated: 鈥淎nd he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:10).

讗诇讗 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讬拽讚诪讜 诇注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讜转 注诪讛谉 讘讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讘讬谉 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛

Rather, this verse established a paradigm for all sin offerings, teaching that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them; whether in the case of a bird sin offering taking precedence over a bird burnt offering, whether in the case of an animal sin offering taking precedence over an animal burnt offering, and even with regard to a bird sin offering taking precedence over an animal burnt offering.

讛诇讻讱 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪讜讗转 讛砖谞讬 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘

The Gemara summarizes: Therefore, the precedence of a bird sin offering over a bird burnt offering is learned from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering.鈥 The precedence of an animal sin offering over an animal burnt offering is derived from the fact that the Merciful One extends the halakha derived from the sin offering of the Levites (see 89a). Finally, the precedence of a bird sin offering over an animal burnt offering is derived from the principle stated in this baraita, that this verse established a paradigm for all sin offerings, teaching that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转讞诇驻讛 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻讗谉 (讘讬讜诇讚转) 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a further proof from a baraita. The Torah states that a woman who has given birth must bring a sheep as a burnt offering and a bird as a sin offering. If she is poor she may bring two birds: 鈥淥ne for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:8). Rabbi Eliezer says: In every other instance where a bird offering is exchanged for an animal sin offering, the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. For example, in the case of the sliding scale sin offering brought for entering the Temple while ritually impure, where a poor person brings two birds, one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, the sin offering comes first. But here, in the case of a woman who gave birth, the burnt offering takes precedence, as it takes the place of an animal burnt offering, mentioned first in the verse: 鈥淪he shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6).

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻讗谉 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讬诐 讘讗讬诐 转讞转 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻讗谉 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转

Furthermore, in every instance where the sin offering comes because of a sin, the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. But here, in the case of a poor woman who gave birth, where the sin offering effects ritual purity rather than atonement, the burnt offering precedes the sin offering. And in every instance where two birds come instead of an animal for a sin offering, the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. But here, in the case of a poor woman who gave birth, the bird burnt offering replaces the animal burnt offering of a rich woman, whereas the bird sin offering is sacrificed even by a rich woman who gave birth. Therefore, in this particular case of a woman who gave birth, the burnt offering precedes the sin offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪拽专讗讛 讛拽讚讬诪讛 讛讻转讜讘

The straightforward reading of this baraita contradicts the statement of the previous baraita, which teaches that a sin offering always precedes a burnt offering. In order to reconcile the two baraitot, Rava said: The fact that the verse mentions the animal burnt offering first is only with regard to reading it, but in practice the sin offering is sacrificed first.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诇讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻讘砖讬诐 讻讘砖讬诐 诇砖注讬专讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita which apparently contradicts this principle. When there are different animal offerings to be sacrificed, bulls precede rams, and rams precede sheep, and sheep precede male goats.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讞讙 诇讗 诇谞讚讘讛 驻专讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诇讬诐 砖讻谉 谞转专讘讜 讘谞住讻讬诐 讜讻谉 讗讬诇讬诐 诇讻讘砖讬诐 讻讘砖讬诐 诇砖注讬专讬诐 砖讻谉 谞转专讘讜 讘讗诇讬讛

What, is it not referring to the additional offerings of the festival of Sukkot? If so, the baraita is teaching that bulls, rams, and sheep, which are burnt offerings, precede the sin offerings of male goats. The Gemara answers: No, with regard to all these animals the baraita is referring to gift offerings. The Gemara interprets the baraita in accordance with this explanation: Bulls precede rams, as they require a greater quantity of libations; and likewise rams precede sheep for the same reason. Sheep precede male goats, although their libations are identical, as the portions of the sheep consumed on the altar are greater; the sheep鈥檚 tail is burned, whereas the goat鈥檚 tail is not.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 拽讜讚诐 诇驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 拽讜讚诐 诇驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita which seems to contradict the principle that a sin offering always precedes a burnt offering: The bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, which he sacrifices if he issues and then acts upon an erroneous halakhic ruling, precedes the bull for an unwitting communal sin, sacrificed if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and the community then acts upon it. Similarly, the bull for an unwitting communal sin precedes the bull sacrificed as a burnt offering to atone for an unwitting communal sin involving idol worship.

驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讜讚诐 诇砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注讜诇讛 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讟讗转

The baraita continues: The bull sacrificed as atonement for communal idol worship precedes the male goats that atone for idol worship, i.e., the goat sacrificed together with the bull. This is the halakha even though the bull that atones for idol worship is a burnt offering, and the male goats sacrificed as atonement for idol worship are sin offerings. This baraita seems to contradict the statement of the previous baraita that a sin offering always precedes a burnt offering.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪专讬砖讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 拽讜讚诐 诇驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara responds: But you can say that the opposite conclusion is derived from the first clause of that baraita, as at least the first clause supports the principle that sin offerings take precedence: The bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is a sin offering, precedes the bull sacrificed to atone for an unwitting communal sin involving idol worship, which is a burnt offering.

讘讞讚 诪讬谞讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讟讗转 拽讚诪讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗砖讻讞谉 注讜诇讛 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讞讟讗转

The Gemara dismisses this answer: In any event, with regard to offerings that are both of one species of animal, we did not say there is any doubt that a sin offering takes precedence. When we say there is a contradiction between the rulings of the baraitot, it is with regard to offerings of two species. According to the earlier baraita, even a bird sin offering precedes an animal burnt offering, whereas here we find a burnt offering that precedes a sin offering.

讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 诪专讬 讞讟讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞住专 讗壮 诇讞讟转 讻转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诪砖驻讟 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

The Gemara answers: They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rava bar Mari: The sin offering sacrificed to atone for idol worship is written without an alef (see Numbers 15:24). It is written lamed, 岣t, tet, tav. This indicates that it is different from other sin offerings in that it does not precede the burnt offering. Ravina says that the term 鈥渁ccording to the ordinance鈥 is written with regard to the offerings sacrificed to atone for idol-worship, in the verse: 鈥淭he congregation shall offer one young bull鈥ccording to the ordinance, and one goat for a sin offering鈥 (Numbers 15:24). This mention of an ordinance indicates that they must be sacrificed in the precise order stated by the verse.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 驻专讬诐 讚讞讙 谞诪讬 讻诪砖驻讟诐 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the previous baraita can be explained in a similar manner: Even if you say that the baraita is referring to the bulls and other offerings of the festival of Sukkot, there is also no difficulty with regard to the burnt offering sheep taking precedence over the sin offering male goats, as the term 鈥渁ccording to their ordinance鈥 is written concerning these offerings as well (see Numbers 29:33).

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 转讬拽讚讜诐 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬讻讗 诪注砖专 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讛 诇讬拽讚讬诐 诪注砖专 讗讬讻讗 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讬讛 转讬拽讚讜诐 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讛

A dilemma ensuing from the conclusion of the previous discussion was raised before the Sages: If there is a bird sin offering, and an animal burnt offering, and an animal tithe offering to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the others? If you say that the bird sin offering should take precedence, there is the animal tithe offering that generally precedes it, since it requires slaughtering, as stated by the mishna. If you say that the animal tithe offering should take precedence, there is the animal burnt offering that precedes it, as the burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order. If you say that the animal burnt offering should take precedence, there is the bird sin offering that precedes it, as the Gemara previously concluded.

讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 诪讬谉 讝讘讞 注讚讬祝 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 注讬讬诇讗 讘讛 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讙讘讛转讛 诪诪注砖专

The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they explained that the fact that the animal tithe offering is a type of offering that requires slaughtering is of greater importance than the other factors. Therefore, the animal tithe offering is sacrificed first, followed by the bird sin offering, and finally the animal burnt offering. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: The animal burnt offering has an effect on the bird sin offering sacrificed with it and raises its importance above that of the animal tithe offering. Therefore, the bird sin offering is sacrificed first, followed by the animal burnt offering, and finally the animal tithe offering.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讞讟讗讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 拽讜讚诪讜转 诇讗砖诪讜转 讞讜抓 诪讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讛讻砖专

MISHNA: All the sin offerings mandated by the Torah take precedence over the guilt offerings, as explained in the previous mishna (89a), except for the guilt offering of a leper, because it comes to render one fit. One who has been cured of leprosy must undergo a process through which he is rendered ritually pure before coming into contact with consecrated items. Although he must also bring a sin offering, his guilt offering is more central to that process of purification and therefore it takes precedence over the sin offering.

讻诇 讛讗砖诪讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 砖转讬诐 讜讘讗讬谉 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 砖谞转谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐

All the guilt offerings mandated by the Torah come as rams in their second year, and come worth two silver shekels, except for the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, as they come from sheep in their first year, and do not need to come worth two silver shekels, as they have no fixed value.

讻砖诐 砖拽讜讚诪讬谉 讘讛拽专讘谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖诇 讛讬讜诐 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

Just as the more sacred offerings precede other offerings with regard to their sacrifice, as taught in the previous mishna (89a), they also precede the others with regard to their consumption. If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a peace offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the peace offering from today. If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the others; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The sin offering precedes the peace offering, due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order. Likewise, the guilt offering precedes the peace offering, as it is also of the most sacred order.

讜讻讜诇谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 专砖讗讬谉 诇砖谞讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 诇讗讻诇谉 爪诇讜讬谉 讜砖诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪讘讜砖诇讬谉 诇转转 诇转讜讻讜 转讘诇讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜转讘诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 转讘诇讬 转专讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讛转专讜诪讛 诇讬讚讬 驻住讜诇

And with regard to all of the offerings that are eaten, the priests are permitted to alter the manner of their consumption and eat them as they choose. Therefore, the priests are permitted to eat them roasted, or boiled, or cooked, and to place in the cooking pot non-sacred spices or teruma spices. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: One may not place teruma spices in it, so that he will not bring the teruma to a state of disqualification. Consumption of consecrated foods is permitted only for a limited period, after which they are disqualified and burned. Adding teruma spices might cause those spices to be similarly disqualified.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讚讬专 讜诪拽讜讚砖 讗讬讝讛 诪讛诐 拽讜讚诐 转讚讬专 拽讜讚诐 诪砖讜诐 讚转讚讬专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪拽讜讚砖 拽讚讬诐 讚拽讚讬砖 转讗 砖诪注 转诪讬讚讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishnayot (89a) taught that a frequent offering precedes other offerings, and also that an offering of greater sanctity precedes others. If there is a frequent offering and an offering of greater sanctity to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the frequent offering take precedence, due to the fact that it is frequent, or perhaps the offering of greater sanctity takes precedence, as it is of greater sanctity? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the ruling of the first mishna in this chapter, that the daily offerings precede the additional offerings because they are frequent.

  • 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 90

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 90

讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

and one is not liable to receive karet for them due to prohibitions against eating piggul or notar, or for partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure. All these prohibitions apply only if the sacrificial portions are otherwise fit for sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva says that one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and one is liable to receive karet for eating them due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讚讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讬驻住诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪讬驻住诇讬 讘讬讜爪讗

The Gemara explains: What, is it not correct to say that they disagree with regard to a case where after taking the portions to be burned out of the Temple courtyard one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? And, if so, it is with regard to this very point that they disagree: As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the portions are disqualified by leaving the courtyard, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the portions are not disqualified by leaving the courtyard.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讘讚讛讚专 注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇转 诇讬讜爪讗

The Gemara rejects this claim: Rav Pappa said that with regard to a case where after taking these portions out of the Temple courtyard one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, everyone agrees they are fit. And here they disagree with regard to a case where these portions are outside the courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar. And they disagree with regard to this following matter: As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the sprinkling of the blood is not effective with regard to those portions that were taken out of the courtyard, i.e., it does not render them fit, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the sprinkling of the blood is effective with regard to those portions that were taken out of the courtyard, i.e., it renders them fit.

讜讛讗 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讚注讬讬诇讬谞讛讜 诇讙讜讜讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara challenges: But Rav Pappa鈥檚 statement here apparently contradicts his claim concerning the two loaves brought with the two sheep on the festival of Shavuot. The sprinkling of the blood of the sheep renders those two loaves fit for consumption by the priests, and the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva also applies in that case. The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa is the one who said that with regard to a situation where the two loaves are outside the Temple courtyard when the blood of the two sheep is sprinkled on the altar, everyone, even Rabbi Akiva, agrees that the sprinkling does not render the two loaves fit, and therefore if one eats them he is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition against eating piggul. Rather, the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to a case where one returned the loaves to within the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讙讘讬 砖转讬 诇讞诐 讚诇讗讜 讙讜驻讬讛 讚讝讬讘讞讗 讗讘诇 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讚讙讜驻讬讛 讚讝讬讘讞讗 讛讜讗 讘讚讗讬转谞讛讜 讗讘专讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara answers: This statement of Rav Pappa applies only to the two loaves, as they are not part of the offering itself. But with regard to the sacrificial portions, which are part of the offering itself, everyone agrees that they are rendered fit if they are within the Temple courtyard at the time the blood is sprinkled on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree only with regard to a case where they are outside the Temple courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar.

注讜驻讜转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讞讜转 拽讜讚诪讜转 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘爪讘讜专 讻讘讬讞讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪讬谞讬 讚诪讬诐 注讚讬驻讬

搂 The mishna teaches: 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 Gemara challenges: On the contrary, meal offerings should precede bird offerings, as they are sacrificed both as communal offerings and as individual offerings, whereas there are no communal bird offerings. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that bird offerings are types whose blood is sprinkled is of greater importance.

诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讻讜壮 讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 拽讜讚诪转 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讛讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 注讚讬驻讗 讚诪讻驻专转

The mishna further teaches: The meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, a voluntary meal offering should precede the meal offering of a sinner, as it requires oil and frankincense. The Gemara explains: Even so, the meal offering of a sinner, which comes due to a sin, is of greater importance, as it effects atonement.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诪转 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 拽讚诪讛 砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 (讗讜) 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 拽讚诪讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 诇讘专专 注讜谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to the meal offering of a sota, a woman suspected by her husband of having committed adultery, and a voluntary meal offering being brought by someone at the same time, which of them precedes the other? Does the voluntary meal offering take precedence, as it requires oil and frankincense? Or perhaps the meal offering of a sota takes precedence, as it comes to clarify the woman鈥檚 transgression, as part of the rite performed with a sota.

转讗 砖诪注 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 拽讜讚诪转 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讚诪讛 诇诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讛讗 诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 谞诪讬 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna states that the meal offering of a sinner precedes a voluntary meal offering. One can infer from this that it is only the meal offering of a sinner that precedes a voluntary meal offering, but the meal offering of a sota does not. The Gemara rejects this proof: Is the mishna teaching that the meal offering of a sinner takes precedence due to the fact that it effects atonement? The mishna teaches: Due to the fact that it comes because of a sin, and the meal offering of a sota also comes because of a sin, as she secluded herself with another man.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讜 拽讜讚诪转 诇讝讜 砖讝讜 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛讞讬讟讬谉 讜讝讜 讘讗讛 诪谉 讛砖注讜专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 诇讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 诇诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear the statement of a baraita: This meal offering precedes that meal offering, as this meal offering comes from wheat, and that meal offering comes from barley. What, does this baraita not refer to the precedence of a voluntary meal offering to the meal offering of a sota? The Gemara rejects this proof as well: No, the baraita is referring to the precedence of the meal offering of a sinner over the meal offering of a sota.

转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讛讗 诪讻驻专转 讜讛讗 诇讗 诪讻驻专转

The Gemara responds: If the baraita is referring to the meal offering of a sinner, why is its precedence to the meal offering of a sota derived from the fact that the meal offering of a sinner comes from wheat, whereas the meal offering of a sota is brought from barley? I could derive the precedence of the meal offering of the sinner due to the fact that the meal offering of a sinner effects atonement and the meal offering of a sota does not effect atonement.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讝讜 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讝讜 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪转专讬 讟注诪讬 [谞拽讬讟]

The Gemara counters: Rather, what is the baraita referring to? Is it referring to the precedence of a voluntary meal offering over the meal offering of a sota? If so, I could derive its precedence from the fact that this voluntary meal offering requires oil and frankincense and that meal offering of a sota does not require oil and frankincense. Rather, one cannot prove anything from the omission of an alternative explanation, as whichever way one interprets the baraita it clearly cited one of two reasons.

讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 拽讜讚诪转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗砖专 诇讞讟讗转 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇诇诪讚 砖转拽专讘 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗转 讛砖谞讬 讬注砖讛 注诇讛

搂 The mishna states: The sacrifice of the bird sin offering precedes the sacrifice of the bird burnt offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: This is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering that a poor sinner sacrifices instead of an animal sin offering. The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall offer that which is for the sin offering first鈥 (Leviticus 5:8). Why must the verse state this? As there is no need for the verse to state this in order to teach that the sin offering is sacrificed first, as it is already stated: 鈥淎nd he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 5:10).

讗诇讗 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讬拽讚诪讜 诇注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讜转 注诪讛谉 讘讬谉 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讘讬谉 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛

Rather, this verse established a paradigm for all sin offerings, teaching that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them; whether in the case of a bird sin offering taking precedence over a bird burnt offering, whether in the case of an animal sin offering taking precedence over an animal burnt offering, and even with regard to a bird sin offering taking precedence over an animal burnt offering.

讛诇讻讱 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪讜讗转 讛砖谞讬 讞讟讗转 讘讛诪讛 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘

The Gemara summarizes: Therefore, the precedence of a bird sin offering over a bird burnt offering is learned from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering.鈥 The precedence of an animal sin offering over an animal burnt offering is derived from the fact that the Merciful One extends the halakha derived from the sin offering of the Levites (see 89a). Finally, the precedence of a bird sin offering over an animal burnt offering is derived from the principle stated in this baraita, that this verse established a paradigm for all sin offerings, teaching that they should precede the burnt offering that comes with them.

转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞转讞诇驻讛 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻讗谉 (讘讬讜诇讚转) 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a further proof from a baraita. The Torah states that a woman who has given birth must bring a sheep as a burnt offering and a bird as a sin offering. If she is poor she may bring two birds: 鈥淥ne for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:8). Rabbi Eliezer says: In every other instance where a bird offering is exchanged for an animal sin offering, the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. For example, in the case of the sliding scale sin offering brought for entering the Temple while ritually impure, where a poor person brings two birds, one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, the sin offering comes first. But here, in the case of a woman who gave birth, the burnt offering takes precedence, as it takes the place of an animal burnt offering, mentioned first in the verse: 鈥淪he shall bring a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6).

讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻讗谉 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖谞讬诐 讘讗讬诐 转讞转 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 讜讻讗谉 注讜诇讛 拽讜讚诪转

Furthermore, in every instance where the sin offering comes because of a sin, the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. But here, in the case of a poor woman who gave birth, where the sin offering effects ritual purity rather than atonement, the burnt offering precedes the sin offering. And in every instance where two birds come instead of an animal for a sin offering, the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. But here, in the case of a poor woman who gave birth, the bird burnt offering replaces the animal burnt offering of a rich woman, whereas the bird sin offering is sacrificed even by a rich woman who gave birth. Therefore, in this particular case of a woman who gave birth, the burnt offering precedes the sin offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪拽专讗讛 讛拽讚讬诪讛 讛讻转讜讘

The straightforward reading of this baraita contradicts the statement of the previous baraita, which teaches that a sin offering always precedes a burnt offering. In order to reconcile the two baraitot, Rava said: The fact that the verse mentions the animal burnt offering first is only with regard to reading it, but in practice the sin offering is sacrificed first.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诇讬诐 讜讗讬诇讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻讘砖讬诐 讻讘砖讬诐 诇砖注讬专讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another baraita which apparently contradicts this principle. When there are different animal offerings to be sacrificed, bulls precede rams, and rams precede sheep, and sheep precede male goats.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讞讙 诇讗 诇谞讚讘讛 驻专讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讗讬诇讬诐 砖讻谉 谞转专讘讜 讘谞住讻讬诐 讜讻谉 讗讬诇讬诐 诇讻讘砖讬诐 讻讘砖讬诐 诇砖注讬专讬诐 砖讻谉 谞转专讘讜 讘讗诇讬讛

What, is it not referring to the additional offerings of the festival of Sukkot? If so, the baraita is teaching that bulls, rams, and sheep, which are burnt offerings, precede the sin offerings of male goats. The Gemara answers: No, with regard to all these animals the baraita is referring to gift offerings. The Gemara interprets the baraita in accordance with this explanation: Bulls precede rams, as they require a greater quantity of libations; and likewise rams precede sheep for the same reason. Sheep precede male goats, although their libations are identical, as the portions of the sheep consumed on the altar are greater; the sheep鈥檚 tail is burned, whereas the goat鈥檚 tail is not.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 拽讜讚诐 诇驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 拽讜讚诐 诇驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita which seems to contradict the principle that a sin offering always precedes a burnt offering: The bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, which he sacrifices if he issues and then acts upon an erroneous halakhic ruling, precedes the bull for an unwitting communal sin, sacrificed if the Sanhedrin issues an erroneous halakhic ruling and the community then acts upon it. Similarly, the bull for an unwitting communal sin precedes the bull sacrificed as a burnt offering to atone for an unwitting communal sin involving idol worship.

驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 拽讜讚诐 诇砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注讜诇讛 讜砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞讟讗转

The baraita continues: The bull sacrificed as atonement for communal idol worship precedes the male goats that atone for idol worship, i.e., the goat sacrificed together with the bull. This is the halakha even though the bull that atones for idol worship is a burnt offering, and the male goats sacrificed as atonement for idol worship are sin offerings. This baraita seems to contradict the statement of the previous baraita that a sin offering always precedes a burnt offering.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪专讬砖讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 拽讜讚诐 诇驻专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara responds: But you can say that the opposite conclusion is derived from the first clause of that baraita, as at least the first clause supports the principle that sin offerings take precedence: The bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is a sin offering, precedes the bull sacrificed to atone for an unwitting communal sin involving idol worship, which is a burnt offering.

讘讞讚 诪讬谞讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讞讟讗转 拽讚诪讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘转专讬 诪讬谞讬 讗砖讻讞谉 注讜诇讛 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讞讟讗转

The Gemara dismisses this answer: In any event, with regard to offerings that are both of one species of animal, we did not say there is any doubt that a sin offering takes precedence. When we say there is a contradiction between the rulings of the baraitot, it is with regard to offerings of two species. According to the earlier baraita, even a bird sin offering precedes an animal burnt offering, whereas here we find a burnt offering that precedes a sin offering.

讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讘专 诪专讬 讞讟讗转 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讞住专 讗壮 诇讞讟转 讻转讬讘 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻诪砖驻讟 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

The Gemara answers: They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rava bar Mari: The sin offering sacrificed to atone for idol worship is written without an alef (see Numbers 15:24). It is written lamed, 岣t, tet, tav. This indicates that it is different from other sin offerings in that it does not precede the burnt offering. Ravina says that the term 鈥渁ccording to the ordinance鈥 is written with regard to the offerings sacrificed to atone for idol-worship, in the verse: 鈥淭he congregation shall offer one young bull鈥ccording to the ordinance, and one goat for a sin offering鈥 (Numbers 15:24). This mention of an ordinance indicates that they must be sacrificed in the precise order stated by the verse.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 驻专讬诐 讚讞讙 谞诪讬 讻诪砖驻讟诐 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this explanation, the previous baraita can be explained in a similar manner: Even if you say that the baraita is referring to the bulls and other offerings of the festival of Sukkot, there is also no difficulty with regard to the burnt offering sheep taking precedence over the sin offering male goats, as the term 鈥渁ccording to their ordinance鈥 is written concerning these offerings as well (see Numbers 29:33).

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讜诪注砖专 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 拽讜讚诐 转讬拽讚讜诐 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬讻讗 诪注砖专 讚拽讚讬诐 诇讛 诇讬拽讚讬诐 诪注砖专 讗讬讻讗 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讬讛 转讬拽讚讜诐 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚拽讚诪讛 诇讛

A dilemma ensuing from the conclusion of the previous discussion was raised before the Sages: If there is a bird sin offering, and an animal burnt offering, and an animal tithe offering to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the others? If you say that the bird sin offering should take precedence, there is the animal tithe offering that generally precedes it, since it requires slaughtering, as stated by the mishna. If you say that the animal tithe offering should take precedence, there is the animal burnt offering that precedes it, as the burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order. If you say that the animal burnt offering should take precedence, there is the bird sin offering that precedes it, as the Gemara previously concluded.

讛讻讗 转专讙讬诪讜 诪讬谉 讝讘讞 注讚讬祝 讘诪注专讘讗 讗诪专讬 注讬讬诇讗 讘讛 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 讘讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讙讘讛转讛 诪诪注砖专

The Gemara answers: Here, in Babylonia, they explained that the fact that the animal tithe offering is a type of offering that requires slaughtering is of greater importance than the other factors. Therefore, the animal tithe offering is sacrificed first, followed by the bird sin offering, and finally the animal burnt offering. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say: The animal burnt offering has an effect on the bird sin offering sacrificed with it and raises its importance above that of the animal tithe offering. Therefore, the bird sin offering is sacrificed first, followed by the animal burnt offering, and finally the animal tithe offering.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讞讟讗讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 拽讜讚诪讜转 诇讗砖诪讜转 讞讜抓 诪讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讛讻砖专

MISHNA: All the sin offerings mandated by the Torah take precedence over the guilt offerings, as explained in the previous mishna (89a), except for the guilt offering of a leper, because it comes to render one fit. One who has been cured of leprosy must undergo a process through which he is rendered ritually pure before coming into contact with consecrated items. Although he must also bring a sin offering, his guilt offering is more central to that process of purification and therefore it takes precedence over the sin offering.

讻诇 讛讗砖诪讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 砖转讬诐 讜讘讗讬谉 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐 讞讜抓 诪讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 砖讛谉 讘讗讬谉 讘谞讬 砖谞转谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐

All the guilt offerings mandated by the Torah come as rams in their second year, and come worth two silver shekels, except for the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, as they come from sheep in their first year, and do not need to come worth two silver shekels, as they have no fixed value.

讻砖诐 砖拽讜讚诪讬谉 讘讛拽专讘谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖诇 讛讬讜诐 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讟讗转 拽讜讚诪转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

Just as the more sacred offerings precede other offerings with regard to their sacrifice, as taught in the previous mishna (89a), they also precede the others with regard to their consumption. If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a peace offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the peace offering from today. If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the others; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The sin offering precedes the peace offering, due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order. Likewise, the guilt offering precedes the peace offering, as it is also of the most sacred order.

讜讻讜诇谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 专砖讗讬谉 诇砖谞讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 诇讗讻诇谉 爪诇讜讬谉 讜砖诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪讘讜砖诇讬谉 诇转转 诇转讜讻讜 转讘诇讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜转讘诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转谉 诇转讜讻讜 转讘诇讬 转专讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗 讛转专讜诪讛 诇讬讚讬 驻住讜诇

And with regard to all of the offerings that are eaten, the priests are permitted to alter the manner of their consumption and eat them as they choose. Therefore, the priests are permitted to eat them roasted, or boiled, or cooked, and to place in the cooking pot non-sacred spices or teruma spices. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: One may not place teruma spices in it, so that he will not bring the teruma to a state of disqualification. Consumption of consecrated foods is permitted only for a limited period, after which they are disqualified and burned. Adding teruma spices might cause those spices to be similarly disqualified.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讚讬专 讜诪拽讜讚砖 讗讬讝讛 诪讛诐 拽讜讚诐 转讚讬专 拽讜讚诐 诪砖讜诐 讚转讚讬专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪拽讜讚砖 拽讚讬诐 讚拽讚讬砖 转讗 砖诪注 转诪讬讚讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬谉

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: The mishnayot (89a) taught that a frequent offering precedes other offerings, and also that an offering of greater sanctity precedes others. If there is a frequent offering and an offering of greater sanctity to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the frequent offering take precedence, due to the fact that it is frequent, or perhaps the offering of greater sanctity takes precedence, as it is of greater sanctity? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the ruling of the first mishna in this chapter, that the daily offerings precede the additional offerings because they are frequent.

Scroll To Top