Zevachim 179

ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא ר"ע אומר מועלין בהן וחייבין עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא

and one is not culpable on their account in respect of piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are as though blood had not been sprinkled for them, and so all their mattirin (q.v. Glos. and supra 29b, 43a) had not been presented.');">¹</span> nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because nothar applies only to what may be eaten within the prescribed period; this, however, may not.');">²</span>

מאי לאו בדהדר עיילינהו פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר מיפסלי ביוצא ומר סבר לא מיפסלי ביוצא

or uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,if an unclean person eats them, he is not liable. For only what is permitted to clean persons involves liability on account of personal defilement, but what is not so permitted does not involve liability. Now emurim (which are burnt on the altar, and so not permitted even to clean persons) are nevertheless included, as is deduced by Scriptural exegesis, but only on a similar basis to flesh: as flesh involves culpability only after sprinkling, so the emurim. Sprinkling, however, is ineffective in respect of these emurim, and therefore they do not involve culpability.');">³</span> R'Akiba maintains: They involve trespass, and one is culpable on their account for piggul, nothar, and defilement.

אמר רב פפא בדהדר עיילינהו כ"ע לא פליגי והכא בדאיתנהו אבראי פליגי ובהא פליגי דמר סבר אין זריקה מועלת ליוצא ומר סבר זריקה מועלת ליוצא

Surely they disagree where they were taken in again,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before sprinkling, yet even then R. Eliezer maintains that sprinkling is of no avail, because taking them out had disqualified them.');">⁴</span> and they disagree in this: one master [R'Eliezer] holds that they were disqualified by having been taken out, while another master holds that they were not disqualified by being taken out? - Said R'Papa: If they were taken in again, none disagree;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sprinkling is certainly effective.');">⁵</span>

והא רב פפא הוא דאמר בדאיתנהו אבראי כ"ע לא פליגי בדעיילינהו לגוואי פליגי

but here they disagree where they are still without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time of sprinkling.');">⁶</span> and they disagree in this: one master holds [that] sprinkling is not effective for what is without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for what went out' - and is still outside.');">⁷</span>

ה"מ גבי שתי לחם דלאו גופיה דזיבחא אבל אימורין דגופיה דזיבחא הוא בדאיתנהו אבראי פליגי:

while the other master holds [that] sprinkling is effective for what went out. But surely it was R'Papa who said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the two loaves which were brought on Pentecost, if they were taken out of the Temple court between the slaughtering of the accompanying sacrifice and the sprinkling of its blood.');">⁸</span>

עופות קודמין כו': אדרבה מנחות קודמות שכן ישנן בצבור כביחיד אפ"ה מיני דמים עדיפי:

If they are still without, none disagree;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sprinkling is certainly of no avail.');">⁹</span> they disagree only where they were taken in again? - That is only in connection with the Two Loaves, which are not part of the sacrifice itself; but since emurim are part of the sacrifice itself, they disagree where they are still without.

מנחת חוטא כו': אדרבה מנחת נדבה קודמת שכן טעונה שמן ולבונה אפ"ה מנחת חוטא הבאה על חטא עדיפא דמכפרת

BIRD-OFFERINGS PRECEDE etc. On the contrary, meal-offerings should take precedence, since they are both congregational and private?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the meal-offerings which accompanied the 'omer (sheaf of corn) and the Two Loaves; these were congregational (v. Lev. XXIII, 10-21) . There were no public offerings of birds.');">¹⁰</span> - Even so, the fact that they are blood sacrifices outweighs this.

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 SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING etc. On the contrary, a votive meal-offering should take precedence, since it requires oil and frankincense? - Even so, a sinner's meal-offering, which is brought on account of sin, is more important, since it makes atonement. It was asked: [As to] the meal-offering of a sotah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A wife suspected of adultery, v. Num. V, 12-15.');">¹¹</span>

ת"ש 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

and a votive meal-offering, which of these takes precedence? Does a votive meal-offering take precedence, because it requires oil and frankincense; or perhaps a sotah's meal-offering takes precedence, because it is brought to investigate sin? - Come and hear: A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING PRECEDES A VOTIVE MEAL-OFFERING: thus, only a sinner's meal-offering precedes a votive meal-offering, but a sotah's meal-offering does not! - [No:] does he then teach, because it makes atonement; [surely] he teaches, BECAUSE IT COMES ON ACCOUNT OF SIN, and this one [a sotah's meal-offering] too comes on account of sin.

ת"ש זו קודמת לזו שזו באה מן החיטין וזו באה מן השעורין מאי לאו מנחת נדבה למנחת סוטה לא מנחת חוטא למנחת סוטה

Come and hear: This one precedes that one, because the former is of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'comes from'.');">¹²</span> wheat, while the latter is of barley.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wheat is superior to barley.');">¹³</span>

תיפוק לי דהא מכפרת והא לא מכפרת

Surely that means, a votive meal-offering [precedes] a sotah's meal-offering? - No: [it means that] a sinner's meal-offering [precedes] a sotah's meal-offering. Then infer it from the fact that the former makes atonement while the latter does not make atonement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of because one is of wheat while the other is of barley.');">¹⁴</span>

ואלא מאי מנחת נדבה תיפוק לי דזו טעונה שמן ולבונה וזו אינה טעונה שמן ולבונה אלא חד מתרי טעמי [נקיט]:

- What then: [it refers to] a votive meal-offering? Then infer it from the fact that the one [a votive meal-offering] requires oil and frankincense, while the other does not require oil and frankincense?

חטאת העוף קודמת כו': מנא ה"מ דת"ר (ויקרא ה, ח) והקריב את אשר לחטאת ראשונה מה ת"ל שאין ת"ל ללמד שתקרב ראשונה הרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ה, י) ואת השני יעשה עולה

Rather, he states one of two reasons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This answer must be given whatever you relate it to, and therefore it may well refer to a votive meal-offering and a sinner's meal-offering.');">¹⁵</span> A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PRECEDES etc. Whence do we know it? - For our Rabbis taught: And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 8.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא זה בנה אב לכל חטאות שיקדמו לעולה הבאות עמהן בין חטאת העוף לעולת העוף בין חטאת בהמה לעולת בהמה ואפי' חטאת העוף לעולת בהמה

for what purpose is this stated? If to teach that it comes before the burnt-offering, surely it is already said, And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10.');">¹⁷</span>

הלכך חטאת העוף לעולת העוף מואת השני חטאת בהמה לעולת בהמה מדרבי רחמנא חטאת העוף לעולת בהמה מזה בנה אב

This, however, furnishes a general rule for all sin-offerings, that they take precedence over all burnt-offerings which accompany them, [sc. ] the bird sin-offering [precedes] the bird burnt-offering, the animal sin-offering [precedes] the animal burnt-offering, and even a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. a woman after childbirth, who brings a year-old lamb for a burnt-offering, and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering.');">¹⁸</span> Therefore, [that] a bird sin-offering [precedes] a bird burnt-offering [is inferred from], And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering.

תא שמע ר"א אומר כל מקום שנתחלפה חטאת חטאת קודמת וכאן (ביולדת) עולה קודמת

An animal sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering, because the Divine Law intimated an extension;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the additional text.');">¹⁹</span> a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering, because this is a general rule.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law thus established applies to all sin-offerings and burnt-offerings.');">²⁰</span>

כל מקום שבא על חטא חטאת קודמת וכאן עולה קודמת וכל מקום ששנים באים תחת חטאת חטאת קודמת וכאן עולה קודמת

Come and hear: R'Eliezer said: Wherever a sin-offering is exchanged, the sin-offering [of a bird] takes precedence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where an animal sin-offering is prescribed in the first place, but Scripture permits it, when one is poor, to be exchanged for two birds of which one is for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (e.g. when an unclean person enters the sanctuary, v. Lev. V, 1 seq.) the bird sin-offering takes precedence over the bird burnt-offering.');">²¹</span> but here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a woman after childbirth to whom 'here' refers in the whole passage.');">²²</span>

אמר רבא למקראה הקדימה הכתוב:

the burnt-offering [of a bird] takes precedence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she is liable to an animal burnt-offering, and in poverty she may bring two birds, one for a burnt-offering and another for a sin-offering, v. Lev. XII, 1 seq.');">²³</span> Wherever it comes on account of sin, the sin-offering takes precedence; but here the burnt-offering takes precedence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As even the sin-offering is not on account of sin.');">²⁴</span>

תא שמע פרים קודמין לאילים ואילים קודמין לכבשים כבשים לשעירים

Wherever both [birds] come instead of one sin-offering, the sin-offering takes precedence; but here that they do not both come on account of one sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In poverty she substitutes a bird burnt-offering for an animal burnt-offering, as a bird sin-offering was brought in any case, v. ibid. 6-8.');">²⁵</span> the burnt-offering takes precedence?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts the Mishnah which teaches that a bird sin-offering takes precedence over an animal burnt-offering, whereas here she brings the animal burnt-offering before the bird sin-offering.');">²⁶</span> - Said Raba: Scripture accorded it precedence in respect of designating it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One must first designate (i.e. dedicate) the animal (or bird) for the burnt-offering and then the bird for the sin-offering. But the latter is sacrificed first.');">²⁷</span> Come and hear: Bullocks take precedence over rams, rams take precedence over lambs, lambs over he-goats.