זבחים צ

זבחים צ

וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְחַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.

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.

מַאי, לָאו בְּדַהֲדַר עַיְּילִינְהוּ פְּלִיגִי? וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר מִיפַּסְלִי בְּיוֹצֵא, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מִיפַּסְלִי בְּיוֹצֵא.

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.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בְּדַהֲדַר עַיְּילִינְהוּ – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי; וְהָכָא בִּדְאִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי פְּלִיגִי, וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי: דְּמָר סָבַר אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא, וּמָר סָבַר זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא.

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.

וְהָא רַב פָּפָּא הוּא דְּאָמַר: בִּדְאִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, בִּדְעַיְּילִינְהוּ לְגַוַּואי פְּלִיגִי!

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.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי גַּבֵּי שְׁתֵּי לֶחֶם – דְּלָאו גּוּפֵיהּ דְּזִיבְחָא; אֲבָל אֵימוּרִין, דְּגוּפֵיהּ דְּזִיבְחָא הוּא – בִּדְאִיתַנְהוּ אַבָּרַאי פְּלִיגִי.

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.

עוֹפוֹת קוֹדְמִין כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – מְנָחוֹת קוֹדְמוֹת, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִבּוּר כְּבַיָּחִיד! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִינֵי דָמִים עֲדִיפִי.

§ 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.

מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא כּוּ׳. אַדְּרַבָּה – מִנְחַת נְדָבָה קוֹדֶמֶת, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הַבָּאָה עַל חֵטְא עֲדִיפָא, דִּמְכַפֶּרֶת.

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.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִנְחַת סוֹטָה וּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן קוֹדֶמֶת? מִנְחַת נְדָבָה קָדְמָה – שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן (אוֹ) וּלְבוֹנָה, אוֹ דִלְמָא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה קָדְמָה – שֶׁכֵּן בָּאָה לְבָרֵר עָוֹן?

§ 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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הוּא דְּקָדְמָה לְמִנְחַת נְדָבָה, הָא מִנְחַת סוֹטָה – לָא! מִי קָתָנֵי ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת״?! ״מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא״ קָתָנֵי, וְהָא נָמֵי בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: זוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לָזוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ בָּאָה מִן הַחִיטִּין וְזוֹ בָּאָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִין. מַאי, לָאו מִנְחַת נְדָבָה לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה? לָא, מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא לְמִנְחַת סוֹטָה.

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.

תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּהָא מְכַפְּרָא וְהָא לָא מְכַפְּרָא!

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.

וְאֶלָּא מַאי, מִנְחַת נְדָבָה? תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּזוֹ טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן וּלְבוֹנָה! אֶלָּא חַד מִתְּרֵי טַעְמֵי [נָקֵיט].

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.

חַטַּאת הָעוֹף קוֹדֶמֶת כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְרִיב אֶת אֲשֶׁר לַחַטָּאת רִאשׁוֹנָה״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְלַמֵּד שֶׁתִּקְרַב רִאשׁוֹנָה, הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה״.

§ 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).

אֶלָּא זֶה בָּנָה אָב לְכׇל חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁיִּקְדְּמוּ (לְעוֹלָה) [לְעוֹלוֹת] הַבָּאוֹת עִמָּהֶן – בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף, בֵּין חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה.

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.

הִלְכָּךְ, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף – מִ״וְּאֶת הַשֵּׁנִי״, חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה – מִדְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה – מִזֶּה בָּנָה אָב.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּתְחַלְּפָה חַטָּאת – חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת, וְכָאן (בְּיוֹלֶדֶת) – עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת.

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).

כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁבָּא עַל חֵטְא – חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת, וְכָאן עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת; וְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנַיִם בָּאִים תַּחַת חַטָּאת – חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת, וְכָאן עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: לְמִקְרָאָהּ הִקְדִּימָהּ הַכָּתוּב.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים קוֹדְמִין לְאֵילִים, וְאֵילִים קוֹדְמִין לִכְבָשִׁים, כְּבָשִׂים לִשְׂעִירִים.

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.

מַאי, לָאו דְּחַג? לָא, לִנְדָבָה. פָּרִים קוֹדְמִין לְאֵילִים – שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ בִּנְסָכִים. וְכֵן אֵילִים לִכְבָשִׂים. כְּבָשִׂים לִשְׂעִירִים – שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ בְּאַלְיָה.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: פַּר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ קוֹדֵם לְפַר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר, פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר קוֹדֵם לְפַר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה,

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.

פַּר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה קוֹדֵם לִשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּפַר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה עוֹלָה, וּשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה חַטָּאת!

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.

וְאֵימָא מֵרֵישָׁא: פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר קוֹדֵם לְפַר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה!

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.

בְּחַד מִינָא מִיהָא לָא קָאָמְרִינַן, דְּחַטָּאת קָדְמָה. כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן בִּתְרֵי מִינֵי – אַשְׁכְּחַן עוֹלָה דְּקָדְמָה לְחַטָּאת!

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.

אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא בַּר מָרִי: חַטַּאת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה חָסֵר א׳ – ״לְחַטָּת״ כְּתִיב. רָבִינָא אָמַר: ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.

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.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא פָּרִים דְּחַג נָמֵי – ״כְּמִשְׁפָּטָם״ כְּתִיב בְּהוּ.

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).

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וּמַעֲשֵׂר, אֵיזוֹ מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? תִּיקְדּוֹם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – אִיכָּא מַעֲשֵׂר דְּקָדֵים לַהּ. לִיקְדּוֹם מַעֲשֵׂר – אִיכָּא עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה דְּקָדְמָה לֵיהּ. תִּיקְדּוֹם עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה – אִיכָּא חַטַּאת הָעוֹף דְּקָדְמָה לַהּ.

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.

הָכָא תַּרְגִּימוּ: מִין זֶבַח עֲדִיף. בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי: עָיְילָא בַּהּ עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף, וְאַגְבַּהְתַּהּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַחַטָּאוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה קוֹדְמוֹת לָאֲשָׁמוֹת, חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בָּא עַל הֶכְשֵׁר.

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.

כָּל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה בָּאִין בְּנֵי שְׁתַּיִם וּבָאִין בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים, חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע – שֶׁהֵן בָּאִין בְּנֵי שֶׁנָּתָן, וְאֵין בָּאִין בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים.

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.

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקּוֹדְמִין בְּהַקְרָבָתָן, קוֹדְמִין בַּאֲכִילָתָן. שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ וּשְׁלָמִים שֶׁל יוֹם – שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין לְשֶׁל יוֹם. שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם שֶׁל הַיּוֹם – שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.

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.

וְכוּלָּן הַכֹּהֲנִים רַשָּׁאִין לְשַׁנּוֹת בַּאֲכִילָתָן – לְאָכְלָן צְלוּיִן וּשְׁלוּקִין וּמְבוּשָּׁלִין, לָתֵת לְתוֹכוֹ תַּבְלֵי חוּלִּין וְתַבְלֵי תְרוּמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִתֵּן לְתוֹכוֹ תַּבְלֵי תְרוּמָה, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיא הַתְּרוּמָה לִידֵי פְסוּל.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תָּדִיר וּמְקוּדָּשׁ, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם קוֹדֵם? תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם – מִשּׁוּם דִּתְדִיר, אוֹ דִלְמָא מְקוּדָּשׁ קָדֵים – דְּקַדִּישׁ? תָּא שְׁמַע: תְּמִידִין קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסָפִין.

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.