Today's Daf Yomi
July 12, 2018 | כ״ט בתמוז תשע״ח
-
This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
Zevachim 90
The discussion about order of precedence continues 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.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"
ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא רבי עקיבא אומר מועלין בהן וחייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא
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.
מאי לאו בדהדר עיילינהו פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר מיפסלי ביוצא ומר סבר לא מיפסלי ביוצא
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.
אמר רב פפא בדהדר עיילינהו כולי עלמא לא פליגי והכא בדאיתנהו אבראי פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ומר סבר זריקה מועלת ליוצא
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.
והא רב פפא הוא דאמר בדאיתנהו אבראי כולי עלמא לא פליגי בדעיילינהו לגוואי פליגי
The Gemara challenges: But Rav Pappa’s 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’im disagree with regard to a case where one returned the loaves to within the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood.
הני מילי גבי שתי לחם דלאו גופיה דזיבחא אבל אימורין דגופיה דזיבחא הוא בדאיתנהו אבראי פליגי
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.
עופות קודמין כו׳ אדרבה מנחות קודמות שכן ישנן בצבור כביחיד אפילו הכי מיני דמים עדיפי
§ 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.
מנחת חוטא כו׳ אדרבה מנחת נדבה קודמת שכן טעונה שמן ולבונה אפילו הכי מנחת חוטא הבאה על חטא עדיפא דמכפרת
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.
איבעיא להו מנחת סוטה ומנחת נדבה איזו מהן קודמת מנחת נדבה קדמה שכן טעונה שמן (או) ולבונה או דלמא מנחת סוטה קדמה שכן באה לברר עון
§ 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’s transgression, as part of the rite performed with a sota.
תא שמע מנחת חוטא קודמת למנחת נדבה מנחת חוטא הוא דקדמה למנחת נדבה הא מנחת סוטה לא מי קתני מפני שהיא מכפרת מפני שהיא באה על חטא קתני והא נמי באה על חטא
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.
תא שמע זו קודמת לזו שזו באה מן החיטין וזו באה מן השעורין מאי לאו מנחת נדבה למנחת סוטה לא מנחת חוטא למנחת סוטה
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.
תיפוק לי דהא מכפרת והא לא מכפרת
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.
ואלא מאי מנחת נדבה תיפוק לי דזו טעונה שמן ולבונה וזו אינה טעונה שמן ולבונה אלא חד מתרי טעמי [נקיט]
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.
חטאת העוף קודמת כו׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה מה תלמוד לומר שאין תלמוד לומר ללמד שתקרב ראשונה הרי כבר נאמר ואת השני יעשה עלה
§ 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: “And he shall offer that which is for the sin offering first” (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: “And he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 5:10).
אלא זה בנה אב לכל חטאות שיקדמו לעולה הבאות עמהן בין חטאת העוף לעולת העוף בין חטאת בהמה לעולת בהמה ואפילו חטאת העוף לעולת בהמה
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.
הלכך חטאת העוף לעולת העוף מואת השני חטאת בהמה לעולת בהמה מדרבי רחמנא חטאת העוף לעולת בהמה מזה בנה אב
The Gemara summarizes: Therefore, the precedence of a bird sin offering over a bird burnt offering is learned from the verse: “And he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering.” 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.
תא שמע רבי אליעזר אומר כל מקום שנתחלפה חטאת חטאת קודמת וכאן (ביולדת) עולה קודמת
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: “One for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (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: “She 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).
כל מקום שבא על חטא חטאת קודמת וכאן עולה קודמת וכל מקום ששנים באים תחת חטאת חטאת קודמת וכאן עולה קודמת
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.
אמר רבא למקראה הקדימה הכתוב
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.
תא שמע פרים קודמין לאילים ואילים קודמין לכבשים כבשים לשעירים
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.
מאי לאו דחג לא לנדבה פרים קודמין לאילים שכן נתרבו בנסכים וכן אילים לכבשים כבשים לשעירים שכן נתרבו באליה
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’s tail is burned, whereas the goat’s tail is not.
תא שמע פר כהן משיח קודם לפר העלם דבר של צבור פר העלם דבר של צבור קודם לפר עבודה זרה
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.
פר עבודה זרה קודם לשעירי עבודה זרה דאף על גב דפר עבודה זרה עולה ושעירי עבודה זרה חטאת
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.
ואימא מרישא פר העלם דבר של צבור קודם לפר עבודה זרה
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.
בחד מינא מיהא לא קאמרינן דחטאת קדמה כי קאמרינן בתרי מיני אשכחן עולה דקדמה לחטאת
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.
אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבא בר מרי חטאת עבודה זרה חסר א׳ לחטת כתיב רבינא אמר כמשפט כתיב בהו
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, ḥet, 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 “according to the ordinance” is written with regard to the offerings sacrificed to atone for idol-worship, in the verse: “The congregation shall offer one young bull…according to the ordinance, and one goat for a sin offering” (Numbers 15:24). This mention of an ordinance indicates that they must be sacrificed in the precise order stated by the verse.
השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא פרים דחג נמי כמשפטם כתיב בהו
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 “according to their ordinance” is written concerning these offerings as well (see Numbers 29:33).
איבעיא להו חטאת העוף ועולת בהמה ומעשר איזו מהן קודם תיקדום חטאת העוף איכא מעשר דקדים לה ליקדים מעשר איכא עולת בהמה דקדמה ליה תיקדום עולת בהמה איכא חטאת העוף דקדמה לה
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.
הכא תרגימו מין זבח עדיף במערבא אמרי עיילא בה עולת בהמה בחטאת העוף ואגבהתה ממעשר
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.
מתני׳ כל החטאות שבתורה קודמות לאשמות חוץ מאשם מצורע מפני שהוא בא על הכשר
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.
כל האשמות שבתורה באין בני שתים ובאין בכסף שקלים חוץ מאשם נזיר ואשם מצורע שהן באין בני שנתן ואין באין בכסף שקלים
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.
כשם שקודמין בהקרבן קודמין באכילתן שלמים של אמש ושלמים של יום של אמש קודמין לשל יום שלמים של אמש חטאת ואשם של היום שלמים של אמש קודמין דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים חטאת קודמת מפני שהיא קדשי קדשים
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.
וכולן הכהנים רשאין לשנות באכילתן לאכלן צלוין ושלוקין ומבושלין לתת לתוכו תבלי חולין ותבלי תרומה דברי רבי שמעון רבי מאיר אומר לא יתן לתוכו תבלי תרומה שלא יביא התרומה לידי פסול
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.
גמ׳ איבעיא להו תדיר ומקודש איזה מהם קודם תדיר קודם משום דתדיר או דלמא מקודש קדים דקדיש תא שמע תמידין קודמין למוספין
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 is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
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
ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא רבי עקיבא אומר מועלין בהן וחייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא
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.
מאי לאו בדהדר עיילינהו פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר מיפסלי ביוצא ומר סבר לא מיפסלי ביוצא
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.
אמר רב פפא בדהדר עיילינהו כולי עלמא לא פליגי והכא בדאיתנהו אבראי פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ומר סבר זריקה מועלת ליוצא
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.
והא רב פפא הוא דאמר בדאיתנהו אבראי כולי עלמא לא פליגי בדעיילינהו לגוואי פליגי
The Gemara challenges: But Rav Pappa’s 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’im disagree with regard to a case where one returned the loaves to within the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood.
הני מילי גבי שתי לחם דלאו גופיה דזיבחא אבל אימורין דגופיה דזיבחא הוא בדאיתנהו אבראי פליגי
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.
עופות קודמין כו׳ אדרבה מנחות קודמות שכן ישנן בצבור כביחיד אפילו הכי מיני דמים עדיפי
§ 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.
מנחת חוטא כו׳ אדרבה מנחת נדבה קודמת שכן טעונה שמן ולבונה אפילו הכי מנחת חוטא הבאה על חטא עדיפא דמכפרת
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.
איבעיא להו מנחת סוטה ומנחת נדבה איזו מהן קודמת מנחת נדבה קדמה שכן טעונה שמן (או) ולבונה או דלמא מנחת סוטה קדמה שכן באה לברר עון
§ 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’s transgression, as part of the rite performed with a sota.
תא שמע מנחת חוטא קודמת למנחת נדבה מנחת חוטא הוא דקדמה למנחת נדבה הא מנחת סוטה לא מי קתני מפני שהיא מכפרת מפני שהיא באה על חטא קתני והא נמי באה על חטא
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.
תא שמע זו קודמת לזו שזו באה מן החיטין וזו באה מן השעורין מאי לאו מנחת נדבה למנחת סוטה לא מנחת חוטא למנחת סוטה
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.
תיפוק לי דהא מכפרת והא לא מכפרת
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.
ואלא מאי מנחת נדבה תיפוק לי דזו טעונה שמן ולבונה וזו אינה טעונה שמן ולבונה אלא חד מתרי טעמי [נקיט]
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.
חטאת העוף קודמת כו׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה מה תלמוד לומר שאין תלמוד לומר ללמד שתקרב ראשונה הרי כבר נאמר ואת השני יעשה עלה
§ 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: “And he shall offer that which is for the sin offering first” (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: “And he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 5:10).
אלא זה בנה אב לכל חטאות שיקדמו לעולה הבאות עמהן בין חטאת העוף לעולת העוף בין חטאת בהמה לעולת בהמה ואפילו חטאת העוף לעולת בהמה
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.
הלכך חטאת העוף לעולת העוף מואת השני חטאת בהמה לעולת בהמה מדרבי רחמנא חטאת העוף לעולת בהמה מזה בנה אב
The Gemara summarizes: Therefore, the precedence of a bird sin offering over a bird burnt offering is learned from the verse: “And he shall prepare the second for a burnt offering.” 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.
תא שמע רבי אליעזר אומר כל מקום שנתחלפה חטאת חטאת קודמת וכאן (ביולדת) עולה קודמת
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: “One for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (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: “She 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).
כל מקום שבא על חטא חטאת קודמת וכאן עולה קודמת וכל מקום ששנים באים תחת חטאת חטאת קודמת וכאן עולה קודמת
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.
אמר רבא למקראה הקדימה הכתוב
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.
תא שמע פרים קודמין לאילים ואילים קודמין לכבשים כבשים לשעירים
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.
מאי לאו דחג לא לנדבה פרים קודמין לאילים שכן נתרבו בנסכים וכן אילים לכבשים כבשים לשעירים שכן נתרבו באליה
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’s tail is burned, whereas the goat’s tail is not.
תא שמע פר כהן משיח קודם לפר העלם דבר של צבור פר העלם דבר של צבור קודם לפר עבודה זרה
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.
פר עבודה זרה קודם לשעירי עבודה זרה דאף על גב דפר עבודה זרה עולה ושעירי עבודה זרה חטאת
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.
ואימא מרישא פר העלם דבר של צבור קודם לפר עבודה זרה
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.
בחד מינא מיהא לא קאמרינן דחטאת קדמה כי קאמרינן בתרי מיני אשכחן עולה דקדמה לחטאת
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.
אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבא בר מרי חטאת עבודה זרה חסר א׳ לחטת כתיב רבינא אמר כמשפט כתיב בהו
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, ḥet, 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 “according to the ordinance” is written with regard to the offerings sacrificed to atone for idol-worship, in the verse: “The congregation shall offer one young bull…according to the ordinance, and one goat for a sin offering” (Numbers 15:24). This mention of an ordinance indicates that they must be sacrificed in the precise order stated by the verse.
השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא פרים דחג נמי כמשפטם כתיב בהו
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 “according to their ordinance” is written concerning these offerings as well (see Numbers 29:33).
איבעיא להו חטאת העוף ועולת בהמה ומעשר איזו מהן קודם תיקדום חטאת העוף איכא מעשר דקדים לה ליקדים מעשר איכא עולת בהמה דקדמה ליה תיקדום עולת בהמה איכא חטאת העוף דקדמה לה
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.
הכא תרגימו מין זבח עדיף במערבא אמרי עיילא בה עולת בהמה בחטאת העוף ואגבהתה ממעשר
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.
מתני׳ כל החטאות שבתורה קודמות לאשמות חוץ מאשם מצורע מפני שהוא בא על הכשר
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.
כל האשמות שבתורה באין בני שתים ובאין בכסף שקלים חוץ מאשם נזיר ואשם מצורע שהן באין בני שנתן ואין באין בכסף שקלים
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.
כשם שקודמין בהקרבן קודמין באכילתן שלמים של אמש ושלמים של יום של אמש קודמין לשל יום שלמים של אמש חטאת ואשם של היום שלמים של אמש קודמין דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים חטאת קודמת מפני שהיא קדשי קדשים
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.
וכולן הכהנים רשאין לשנות באכילתן לאכלן צלוין ושלוקין ומבושלין לתת לתוכו תבלי חולין ותבלי תרומה דברי רבי שמעון רבי מאיר אומר לא יתן לתוכו תבלי תרומה שלא יביא התרומה לידי פסול
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.
גמ׳ איבעיא להו תדיר ומקודש איזה מהם קודם תדיר קודם משום דתדיר או דלמא מקודש קדים דקדיש תא שמע תמידין קודמין למוספין
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.
