Zevachim 178

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי דת"ר (במדבר ח, ח) ופר שני בן בקר תקח לחטאת

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>How do we know these things? - Because our Rabbis taught: And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. VIII, 8. This treats of the consecration of the Levites.');">¹</span>

אם בא ללמד שהן שנים הרי כבר נאמר (במדבר ח, יב) ועשה את האחד חטאת ואת האחד עולה מה ת"ל ופר שני בן בקר תקח לחטאת שיכול שיהא חטאת קודמת לכל מעשה עולה ת"ל ופר שני בן בקר תקח לחטאת

Now, if this comes to teach that there are two [sacrifices], surely it has alread been said, And offer thou the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 12. He speaks of it as 'already said' although it comes later.');">²</span>

אי פר שני יכול תהא עולה קודמת לחטאת לכל מעשיה ת"ל ועשה את האחד חטאת ואת האחד עולה הא כיצד דם חטאת קודמת לדם עולה מפני שמרצה איברי עולה כו'

What then is taught by, And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering?

ואמאי מתנה קמייתא דמכפרה תיקדום והנך לא

For one might think that a sin-offering takes precedence over all the rites of a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is implied in v. 13, where sin-offering is mentioned first.');">³</span>

אמר רבינא הכא בחטאת הלוים עסקינן ואע"ג דכי עולה דמי קאמר רחמנא היא תיקדים במערבא אמרי הואיל והתחיל במתנות גומר:

therefore it says.

איבעיא להו דם חטאת ואיברי עולה איזה מהן קודם דם חטאת קודם מפני שמרצה או דילמא איברי עולה קודמין מפני שהן כליל לאישים

And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which intimates that it is second to the burnt-offering in the performance of its rites.');">⁴</span>

ת"ש דם חטאת קודם לדם עולה לדם עולה הוא דקדים לאיברי עולה לא קדים

If [we had only the text] And a second young bullock [to go by], you might think that a burnt-offering precedes a sin-offering in all its rites: therefore it says, And offer thou the one sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.

אדרבה מסיפא איברי עולה קודמין לאימורי חטאת לאימורי חטאת הוא דקדים לדם חטאת לא קדים אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה:

How are these [to be reconciled]?

איבעיא להו דם עולה ואימורי חטאת איזה מהן קודם דם עולה קודם דקאתי מכח כליל או דילמא אימורי חטאת קודמין דקאתי מכח מכפר

The blood of a sin-offering takes precedence over the blood of a burnt-offering [in sprinkling], because it propitiates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst the limbs of the burnt-offering are burnt before the emurim of a sin-offering.');">⁵</span>

ת"ש דם חטאת קודם לדם עולה דם חטאת הוא דקדים לדם עולה אבל אימורי חטאת לא

THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING etc. Yet why so?

אדרבה מסיפא איברי עולה קודמין לאימורי חטאת איברי עולה הוא דקדמי לאימורי חטאת אבל דם עולה לא אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מינה:

say that [only] the first application [of the blood of the sin-offering], which makes atonement, takes precedence, but not the rest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For atonement is made with a single application, supra 38a.');">⁶</span>

איבעיא להו דם עולה ודם אשם איזה מהן קודם דם עולה קודם דקאתי מכח כליל או דילמא דם אשם קודם (דקאתי מכח) דמכפר

- Said Rabina: Here we are treating of the Levites' sin-offering, and though it was like a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was not on account of sin at all.');">⁷</span>

ת"ש דם חטאת קודם לדם עולה אבל דם אשם לא

the Divine Law ordered it to take precedence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence its precedence does not cease when atonement has been made, since here there was no atonement.');">⁸</span>

בדין הוא דאיבעי למיתני דם אשם ואיידי דבעא למיתני סיפא איברי עולה קודמין לאימורי חטאת

In the West [Palestine] they said: Since he commenced the applications [of the sin-offering], he completes [them].

דאי תנא לאימורי אשם ה"א לאימורי אשם הוא דקדמי לאימורי חטאת לא קדמי מש"ה תנא חטאת

It was asked: Regarding the blood of a sin-offering and the limbs of a burnt-offering, which of them takes precedence?

ת"ש חטאת קודם לאשם חטאת הוא דקדמה ליה לאשם אבל עולה לא מאי לאו דם

Does the blood of a sin-offering take precedence, because it propitiates; or perhaps the limbs of a burnt-offering take precedence, because they are entirely [destined] for [altar] fires? - Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; thus only the blood of a burnt-offering does it precede, but it does not precede the limbs of a burnt-offering.

לא אאימורים דיקא נמי דקתני מפני שדמה ניתן ש"מ:

On the contrary, [infer] from the subsequent clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING: thus only the emurim of a sin-offering do they precede, but they do not precede the blood of a sin-offering.

חטאת קודמת כו': אדרבה אשם קדים שכן יש לו קיצבה אפ"ה ריבוי דמזבח עדיף:

Rather, no inference can be made from this.

אשם קודם לתודה כו': אדרבה התודה ואיל נזיר קדמי שכן טעונין לחם אפ"ה קדשי קדשים עדיפי:

It was asked: [As to] the blood of a burnt-offering and the emurim of a sin-offering, which of these takes precedence?

תודה ואיל נזיר כו': אדרבה שלמים קדמי שכן ישנן בציבור כביחיד אפילו הכי נאכלין ליום אחד עדיפי

Does the blood of a burnt-offering take precedence, because it comes in virtue of a sacrifice that is altogether burnt; or perhaps the emurim of a sin-offering take precedence, because they come in virtue of an atoning [sacrifice]? - Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; thus, only the blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering, but the emurim of a sin-offering do not.

איבעיא להו תודה ואיל נזיר איזה מהן קודם תודה קדמה שכן טעונה ד' מיני לחם או דילמא איל נזיר קודם שכן יש עמו דמים אחרים ת"ש זו קודמת לזו שזו טעונה ד' מיני לחם וזו אינה טעונה אלא שני מיני לחם:

On the contrary, [infer] from the subsequent clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING: thus, only the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the emurim of a sin-offering, but the blood of a burnt-offering does not.

השלמים קודמין לבכור כו': אדרבה בכור קודם שכן קדושתו מרחם ונאכל לכהנים אפ"ה מצות יתירות עדיפי:

Rather, no inference can be made from this.

הבכור קודם כו': אדרבה מעשר קודם שכן מקדש לפניו ולאחריו אפ"ה קדושה מרחם עדיפא:

It was asked: [As to] the blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering, which takes precedence?

מעשר קודם לעופות כו': אדרבה עופות קדמי שכן קדשי קדשים אפ"ה מין זבח עדיף

Does the blood of a burnt-offering precede, because it comes in virtue of a sacrifice that is altogether burnt; or perhaps the blood of a guilt-offering precedes, because it makes atonement? - Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; hence the blood of a guilt-offering does not.

אמר רבינא בר שילא אימורי קדשים קלים שיצאו לפני זריקת דמים פסולין ותנא תונא מפני שהוא זבח וישנו קדשי קדשים דמיו ואימורין

[No:] by right he [the Tanna] should have taught the blood of a guilt-offering [too], but because he wishes to teach in a later clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING; for if he taught [that they precede] the emurim of a guilt-offering, I would argue: only the emurim of a guilt-offering do they precede, but they do not precede the emurim of a sin-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a sin-offering is more sacred than a guilt-offering.');">⁹</span>

בשלמא אימורין ליתנהו בעופות אלא דם מיהא איתיה אלא לאו קמ"ל אימורין כי דמו

for that reason he teaches about a sin-offering [only].

מה דמו לפני זריקה אף אימורין קודם זריקה וקא קרי להו קדשי קדשים ומה דמו מיפסל ביוצא אף אימורין מיפסל ביוצא

Come and hear: A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES A GUILT-OFFERING; thus, only a sin-offering precedes a guilt-offering, but a burnt-offering does not.

נימא מסייע ליה בשר קדשים קלים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים רבי יוחנן אמר כשר ר"ל אמר פסול

Surely that refers to the blood? - No: it refers to the emurim.

רבי יוחנן אמר כשר הואיל וסופו לצאת ר"ל אמר פסול עדיין לא הגיע זמנו לצאת ע"כ לא פליגי אלא בבשר אבל באימורין לא

This may be proved too, for he teaches.

הוא הדין דבאימורין נמי פליגי והא דקא מיפלגי בבשר להודיעך כחו דר"ל דאפילו בשר דסופה לצאת אמר עדיין לא הגיע זמנו לצאת

BECAUSE ITS BLOOD IS APPLIED, [and does not teach, Because it is applied].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If by SIN-OFFERING he meant the blood, he should say, because it is applied. Emended text.');">¹⁰</span>

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>