Zevachim 180

מאי לאו דחג לא לנדבה פרים קודמין לאילים שכן נתרבו בנסכים וכן אילים לכבשים כבשים לשעירים שכן נתרבו באליה

Does that not refer to those of the Festival?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Tabernacles; the he-goats were sin-offerings and the lambs were burnt-offerings, yet the lambs take precedence.');">¹</span> - No: [it means those] of a votive offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both are burnt-offerings.');">²</span>

ת"ש פר כהן משיח קודם לפר העלם דבר של צבור פר העלם דבר של צבור קודם לפר עבודת כוכבים

bullocks precede rams, because their drink-offerings are larger;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A bullock requires a drink-offering of three 'esronim (pl. of 'issaron, a tenth part of an ephah) , a ram one of two, and a lamb one 'issaron.');">³</span> and for the same reason rams [precede] lambs; [while] lambs [precede] he-goats because more [is offered] of them, [viz. ,] the fat-tail.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in the case of a lamb is burnt on the altar as emurim, but not in the case of a he-goat; cf. Lev. III, 6-10 with 12-15. Though this passage refers to burnt-offerings, which are entirely burnt on the altar, yet the reason is valid, because it holds good of sacrifices in general.');">⁴</span>

פר עבודת כוכבים קודם לשעירי עבודת כוכבים דאע"ג דפר עבודת כוכבים עולה ושעירי עבודת כוכבים חטאת

Come and hear: The bullock of the anointed priest precedes the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin; the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock for idolatry; the bullock of idolatry precedes the he-goats of idolatry. [And this is so] not withstanding that the bullock of idolatry is a burnt-offering, whereas the he-goats of idolatry are sin-offerings?

ואימא מרישא פר העלם דבר של צבור קודם לפר עבודת כוכבים

But why not deduce from the first clause: the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock of idolatry?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of raising a difficulty from the final clause, cite the first clause to corroborate the MISHNAH:');">⁵</span> - We do not speak [of where both sacrifices are] of one kind: there a sin-offering [certainly] takes precedence.

בחד מינא מיהא לא קאמרינן דחטאת קדמה כי קאמרינן בתרי מיני אשכחן עולה דקדמה לחטאת

We speak of two kinds,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is what the above-stated principle sets out to establish, that a bird sin-offering takes precedence over an animal burnt-offering. ,yjk ,tyjk');">⁶</span> and yet here we find a burnt-offering preceding a sin-offering? - In the West [Palestine] they said in Raba B'Mari's name: The sin-offering of idolatry lacks an alef, as le-hattath is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. instead of Num. XV, 24. This teaches that it is an exception and does not precede the burnt-offering.');">⁷</span>

אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבא בר מרי חטאת עבודת כוכבים חסר א' (במדבר טו, כד) לחטת כתיב רבינא אמר כמשפט כתיב בהו

Rabina said: In their case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the offerings for idolatry.');">⁸</span> 'according to the ordinance' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This implies that they must be offered in the same order as they are prescribed, and the burnt-offering is mentioned there first.');">⁹</span>

השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא פרים דחג נמי כמשפטם כתיב בהו:

Now that you have come to this, you may even say that [the preceding passage refers to] the bullocks of the Festival, [for] 'after their ordinance' is written in connectio with them too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIX, 33. There too the burnt-offerings are mentioned first. But in all other cases the sin-offering, even if it is only a bird, precedes.');">¹⁰</span> It was asked: [With regard to] a bird sin-offering, an animal burnt-offering, and tithe, which of these precede?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When we have the three together.');">¹¹</span>

איבעיא להו חטאת העוף ועולת בהמה ומעשר איזו מהן קודם תיקדום חטאת העוף איכא מעשר דקדים לה ליקדים מעשר איכא עולת בהמה דקדמה ליה תיקדום עולת בהמה איכא חטאת העוף דקדמה לה

Shall the bird sin-offering come first? there is tithe, which must precede it! Shall tithe come fir there is the animal burnt-offering, which must precede it! Shall the animal burnt-offering come first?

הכא תרגימו מין זבח עדיף במערבא אמרי עיילא בה עולת בהמה בחטאת העוף ואגבהתה ממעשר:

there is the bird sin-offering, which must precede it! - Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Babylon.');">¹²</span> they held that a slaughtered sacrifice is more important.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore tithe comes first, then the bird sin-offering and then the animal burnt-offering. The animal burnt-offering cannot come first, since Scripture expressly stated that it follows the sin-offering.');">¹³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל החטאות שבתורה קודמות לאשמות חוץ מאשם מצורע מפני שהוא בא על הכשר

In the West they said: The superiority of an animal burnt-offering [over tithe] serves the bird sin-offering and advances it over that of tithe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the burnt-offering accompanies the sin-offering, the higher importance of the former over tithe, viz., that it is a most sacred sacrifice and is altogether burnt, invests the sin-offering with the same superiority over tithe. Hence the sin-offering must be sacrificed first, then the burnt-offering, and last of all tithe.');">¹⁴</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL SIN-OFFERINGS IN THE TORAH PRECEDE GUILT-OFFERINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a person was liable to both and brought them at the same time.');">¹⁵</span>

כל האשמות שבתורה באין בני שתים ובאין בכסף שקלים חוץ מאשם נזיר ואשם מצורע שהן באין בני שנתן ואין באין בכסף שקלים

EXCEPT A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING, BECAUSE IT COMES TO MAKE [A PERSON] FIT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To enter the Temple and partake of sacrifices. This invests it with greater importance.');">¹⁶</span> ALL GUILT-OFFERINGS OF THE TORAH MUST BE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'come'.');">¹⁷</span>

כשם שקודמין בהקרבתן קודמין באכילתן שלמים של אמש ושלמים של יום של אמש קודמין לשל יום שלמים של אמש חטאת ואשם של היום שלמים של אמש קודמין דברי ר"מ וחכ"א חטאת קודמת מפני שהיא קדשי קדשים

TWO-YEAR OLDS AND [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to thy valuation in silver by shekels (Lev. V, 15) , denoting at least two, is written in connection with the guilt-offering for trespass; other guilt-offerings are inferred from it, v. supra 48a.');">¹⁸</span> EXCEPT A NAZIRITES GUILT-OFFERING AND A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING: THESE MUST BE A YEAR OLD, AND NEED NOT BE [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For both a year-old animal is prescribed (Num. VI, 12; v. Lev. XIV, 10-12) . Again, since Scripture decreed that the two-year old ram for the guilt-offerings must be worth two silver shekels, a year-old lamb would be worth less.');">¹⁹</span>

וכולן הכהנים רשאין לשנות באכילתן לאכלן צלוין ושלוקין ומבושלין לתת לתוכו תבלי חולין ותבלי תרומה דברי ר"ש ר"מ אומר לא יתן לתוכו תבלי תרומה שלא יביא התרומה לידי פסול:

AS THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING OFFERED, SO THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING EATEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to all sacrifices, those enumerated in the preceding Mishnah too.');">²⁰</span> IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A PEACE-OFFERING OF TO-DAY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the former animal was brought yesterday, but has not yet been offered. Or, one sacrificed yesterday and one to-day, but neither has yet been eaten.');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו תדיר ומקודש איזה מהם קודם תדיר קודם משום דתדיר או דלמא מקודש קדים דקדיש תא שמע תמידין קודמין למוספין

THAT OF YESTERDAY TAKES PRECEDENCE. IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING OF TO-DAY, YESTERDAY'S PEACE-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE: THAT IS R'MEIR' S RULING. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THE SIN-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE, BECAUSE IT IS A MOST SACRED SACRIFICE. AND IN ALL OF THESE, THE PRIESTS MAY DEVIATE IN THEIR MODE OF EATING, AND EAT THEM ROAST, STEWED OR BOILED, AND SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF HULLIN OR OF TERUMAH: SO SAID R'SIMEON. R'MEIR SAID: ONE MAY NOT SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF TERUMAH, SO AS NOT TO BRING TERUMAH TO UNFITNESS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For should they become nothar, the condiments too might not be eaten, even if they could be separated from the flesh, because they absorbed the taste of that flesh, which is now forbidden.');">²²</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It was asked: That which is more constant and that which is more sacred,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. if we have the blood of the daily burnt-offering and that of a sin-offering for sprinkling: the daily burnt-offering is more constant, while the sin-offering is more sacred.');">²³</span> which takes precedence? Does that which is more constant take precedence, because it is more constant; or does that which is more sacred take precedence, because it is more sacred? - Come and hear: The continual [burnt-]offerings precede the additional offerings.