Reference for Zevachim 182:5
בשלמא סיפא תני משום רישא אלא רישא משום סיפא מי תני אין אמרי במערבא תנא רישא משום סיפא:
As for saying that a second clause it taught on account of a first clause, that is well; but does one teach a first clause on account of a second clause?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is logical that when one clause has already been taught, a second is added for the sake of parallelism. But is it logical that an earlier clause should be added, before there is anything which it can parallel?');"><sup>7</sup></span> - Yes: they said in the West [Palestine]: The first clause is taught on account of the second clause. Come and hear: Wine, in R'Akiba's view, is for the basins; oil, in R'Tarfon's view, is for the fires.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba holds (Men. 104b) that wine can be offered by itself, but not oil. When such wine is offered, it is to be put in basins or beakers, as a drink-offering, but it is not sprinkled on the fires. R. Tarfon agrees in this; R. Akiba's name, however, is mentioned in contrast to the next clause, which is only according to R. Tarfon, since R. Akiba holds that oil alone cannot be donated.');"><sup>8</sup></span>