Quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 178:31

לימא כתנאי אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו לפני זריקת דמים ר"א אומר אין מועלין בהן

This proves it. A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES etc. On the contrary, a guilt-offering should precede, because it has a fixed value?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not less than two shekels; v. Lev. V, 15: a ram . . according to thy valuation in silver by shekels . . for a guilt-offering. Shekels implies at least two, whereas a sin-offering may be of any value.');">¹¹</span> - Even so, the greater number of altar [rites] is more important. A GUILT-OFFERING PRECEDES A THANKSOFFERING etc. On the contrary, a thanksoffering and a nazirite's ram should take precedence, since they require loaves? - Even so, sacrifices of higher sanctity are more important. A THANKSOFFERING AND A NAZIRITE'S RAM etc. On the contrary, a peace-offering should take precedence, since it is congregational as well as private?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Congregational (public) peace-offerings were offered on the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 19, whereas these others were private sacrifices only.');">¹²</span> - Even so [the fact that] they are eaten for one day only is more weighty. It was asked: [As to] a thanksoffering and a nazirite's ram, which of these takes precedence? Does a thanksoffering take precedence, because it requires [the accompaniment of] four kinds of loaves;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VII, 12f.');">¹³</span> or perhaps a nazirite's ram takes precedence, because other sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'blood'.');">¹⁴</span> accompany it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a sin-offering and a burnt-offering.');">¹⁵</span> - Come and hear: This one precedes the other,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the thanksoffering precedes the nazirite's ram.');">¹⁶</span> because the former requires four kinds of loaves, whereas the latter requires only two kinds of loaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. VI, 15.');">¹⁷</span> A PEACE-OFFERING PRECEDES A FIRSTLING etc. On the contrary, a firstling should take precedence, since its sanctity is from the womb and it is eaten by priests [only]? - Even so, the greater number of rites [connected with a peace-offering] are more important. A FIRSTLING PRECEDES etc. On the contrary, tithe should take precedence, since it sanctifies what precedes it and what follows it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man counts his cattle in order to tithe them, and declares the ninth and eleventh each as the tenth, in addition to the real tenth, they are all sanctified.');">¹⁸</span> Even so, sanctity from the womb is weightier. TITHE PRECEDES BIRD-OFFERINGS etc. On the contrary, bird-offerings should take precedence, since they are most sacred? - Even so, the species of slaughtering is more important. Rabina B'Shila said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices are taken out<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Temple court.');">¹⁹</span> before the sprinkling of the blood, they are disqualified. Now, our Tanna supports this: BECAUSE IT IS A SLAUGHTERED SACRIFICE, AND PART OF IT IS MOST SACRED, [VIZ. ,] ITS BLOOD AND EMURIM. As for emurim, it is well, [as] these are absent in birds; but blood at all events is present?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence blood should not be mentioned, since in this respect birds are the same.');">²⁰</span> Surely then he informs us this: emurim are like blood: just as blood [is most holy] before sprinkling, so are emurim [most holy only] before sprinkling, and [only then] are they designated most sacred; and as blood is disqualified through being taken out, so are emurim disqualified through going out. Shall we say that the following supports him: If the flesh of lesser sacrifices was taken out before the sprinkling of the blood, R'Johanan says: It is fit; Resh Lakish maintains: It is disqualified. R'Johanan says [that] it is fit, since it must eventually be carried out [in any case].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.');">²¹</span> Resh Lakish maintains [that] it is disqualified: it was not yet time for it to be carried out. Thus, they disagree on in respect of flesh, but not in respect of emurim!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably R. Johanan too agrees that these are disqualified.');">²²</span> - [No:] in fact they disagree in respect of emurim too, but the reason that they disagree [explicitly] about flesh is to inform you how far Resh Lakish maintains his view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to inform you the strength of Resh Lakish'.');">²³</span> that even flesh, which will eventually be carried out, he maintains that it was not yet time for it to carried out. Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim: [With regard to] emurim of lesser sacrifices which were taken out before sprinkling: R'Eliezer maintains: They do not involve trespass,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 405, n. 8. - This is even after sprinkling, because sprinkling is now of no avail to make them subject to trespass.');">²⁴</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 178:31. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.