Zevachim 181

ואף ע"ג דמוספין קדישי אטו שבת למוספין אהנאי לתמידין לא אהנאי

[Now this is so] notwithstanding that the additional offerings are more sacred!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they are brought on Sabbath and Festivals, whereas continual offerings are brought on week-days too.');">¹</span> - [No:] does then the Sabbath affect the additional offerings and not affect the continual-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as it invests the former with greater sanctity, so it invests the latter too, seeing that we are now treating of the continual offering brought on the Sabbath.');">²</span>

ת"ש מוספי שבת קודמין למוספי ראש חודש אטו ראש חודש למוספין דידיה אהני למוספי שבת לא אהני

Come and hear: The additional-offerings of the Sabbath precede the additional-offerings of New Moon! - Does then New Moon affect its own additional offerings and not affect the additional offerings of the Sabbath? Come and hear: The additional offerings of New Moon precede the additional offerings of New Year, although New Year is holier! - Does then New Year affect its own additional offerings and not affect the additional offerings of New Moon?

תא שמע מוספי ראש חודש קודמין למוספי ראש השנה אע"ג דראש השנה קדשה אטו ראש השנה למוספי דידיה אהני למוספי ראש חודש לא אהני

Come and hear: Another reason: the blessing for wine is constant, while the blessing for the day is not constant, and of that which is constant and that which is not constant, that which is constant comes first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This explains why in Kiddush (Sanctification Benediction, recited at the beginning of every festival) the blessing over wine precedes that over the festival! - Whenever wine is drunk a blessing over it is required, whereas the blessing of sanctification is confined to festivals.');">³</span> [Now this is so] notwithstanding that the blessing for the day is holier!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the other is recited on week-days too.');">⁴</span>

ת"ש ד"א ברכת היין תדירה וברכת היום אינה תדירה ותדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם אע"ג דברכת היום קדישה אטו שבת לברכת היום אהנאי לברכת היין לא אהנאי

- Does then the Sabbath affect the blessing for the day and not affect the blessing for the wine?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sanctity of the latter too is enhanced when it is recited on the Sabbath or festival.');">⁵</span> Come and hear, for R'Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 12a.');">⁶</span>

תא שמע דאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה מתפלל אדם של מנחה ואח"כ של מוספין אטו שבת לתפלת מוספין אהנאי לתפלת מנחה לא אהנאי

[Although the additional service is more sacred]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bracketed passage added by Sh.M.');">⁷</span> - Does then the Sabbath affect the additional service and not affect the minhah service?

ת"ש שלמים של אמש חטאת ואשם של יום שלמים של אמש קודמין הא אידי ואידי דיום חטאת ואשם קדמי ואע"ג דשלמים תדירי

Come and hear: 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. Hence, if both are of to-day, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering take precedence, although a peace-offering is more constant!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are more common, since they can be brought at any time, whereas a sin-offering and a guilt-offering can be brought only when one is liable to them.');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא מצוי קאמרת תדיר קמיבעיא לן מצוי לא קמיבעיא לן

- Said Raba: You speak of what is common: we ask about what is constant, not about what is more common.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A peace-offering is not legally more constant than a sin-offering, since one is not obliged to vow a peace-offering.');">⁹</span> Said R'Huna B'Judah to Raba: Is then what is common not [the same as what is] constant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is not a thing regarded as more constant when it is more common?');">¹⁰</span>

אמר ליה רב הונא בר יהודה לרבא אטו מצוי לאו תדיר והתניא אוציא את הפסח שאינו תדיר ולא אוציא את המילה שהיא תדירה

Surely it was taught: I would exclude the Passover-offering, which is not constant, but I would not exclude circumcision, which is constant!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general rule that one incurs a sin-offering for an inadvertent transgression which if committed deliberately would involve kareth. This however refers to negative injunctions (hence, sins of commission) , not to positive commands; therefore, though deliberate neglect of the Passover-offering or circumcision involves kareth, unintentional neglect does not involve a sin-offering. In the present passage, however, it is sought to draw a distinction between the Passover-offering and circumcision, on the grounds that the latter is constant. Now actually it is no more constant than the former, since both are obligatory, and it is only more common (since circumcision takes place at any time, while the Passover-offering is sacrificed only for Passover) , and yet it is called constant, which shews that the two are identical.');">¹¹</span> - What does 'constant' mean?

מאי תדירה תדירה במצות ואיבעית אימא מילה לגבי פסח כי תדיר דמיא

It is more constant in precepts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is more emphasized in Scripture, the word 'covenant' occurring thirteen times in connection with it.');">¹²</span> Alternatively, circumcision is constant in comparison with the Passover-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason stated in n. 6. But a peace-offering is not so much more common than a sin- or a guilt-offering to rank as constant in comparison with it.');">¹³</span>

איבעיא להו תדיר ושאינו תדיר וקדים ושחט לשאינו תדיר מאי מי אמרינן כיון דשחטיה מקריב ליה או דלמא יהיב לאחר דממרס בדמו עד דמקריב ליה לתדיר והדר מקריב לשאינו תדיר

It was asked: [If one thing is] constant and [another] non-constant, and [the priest] slaughtered the non-constant first, what is the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose blood must be sprinkled first?');">¹⁴</span> Do we say, since he slaughtered it, he must offer [i.e., sprinkle] it [fir or perhaps he must give it to another to stir the blood until he offers the constant, and then offer the non-constant?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood would have to be stirred to keep it from congealing.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב הונא מסורא ת"ש שלמים של אמש חטאת ואשם של יום של אמש קודם לשל יום הא דיום דומיא דאמש

- Said R'Huna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. reads: R. Hanina.');">¹⁶</span> of Sura,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The great academy town on the river Sura, a branch of the Euphrates; v. Obermeyer Landschaft, pp. 283-287.');">¹⁷</span>

וה"ד דקדים שחטיה לשלמים חטאת ואשם קדמי

Come and hear: 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. Hence if it were [a peace-offering] of to-day analogous to that of yesterday - and how could that be?

דלמא שלמים דאמש וחטאת ואשם דיום היכי משכחת לה דשחטינהו לתרוייהו אבל לא שחטינהו לתרוייהו תיבעי לך

if he slaughtered the peace-offering first - [the sprinkling of] the sin-offering and the guilt-offering would take precedence!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Huna understands the Mishnah thus: If a peace-offering was brought yesterday but only killed to-day, while a sin-offering or a guilt-offering brought to-day is still waiting to be slaughtered, the blood of the peace-offering must be sprinkled before the other is slaughtered. For he holds that if the peace-offering too has yet to be slaughtered, the Mishnah would not rule that it takes precedence. Hence by inference, if both were brought to-day and the peace-offering was wrongly slaughtered first, the slaughtering of the sin-offering etc. must precede the sprinkling of the peace-offering. This proves that where one sacrifice is more sacred than another, and the latter was slaughtered first, the former must nevertheless be slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled, before that of the less sacred is sprinkled, and presumably the same applies where one sacrifice is more constant than the other.');">¹⁸</span> - [No:] perhaps how [is the case of] a peace-offering of yesterday and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering of to-day meant?

ת"ש ד"א ברכת היין תדירה וברכת היום אינה תדירה ותדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם

Where he slaughtered both.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though he wrongly slaughtered the peace-offering first, yet since it is yesterday's, he must sprinkle its blood first too. From this you could infer that if both were of to-day, he must sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering first.');">¹⁹</span> Where, however, he did not slaughter both, there you have the question.

ה"נ דכיון דאתיין כמאן דשחיטי תרוייהו דמי

Come and hear: Another reason: the blessing for the wine is constant, whereas the blessing for the day is not constant, and of that which is constant and that which is not constant, that which is constant comes first!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the non-constant actually preceded the other, since the sanctity of the day automatically commenced at nightfall. This is analogous to slaughtering the non-constant first; and as here the blessing for the wine must be recited first, by analogy the blood of the constant must be sprinkled first.');">²⁰</span> - Here too, since it [the wine] has arrived,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We have the wine actually before us.');">²¹</span>

ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן הלכה מתפלל אדם של מנחה ואח"כ של מוספין ה"נ כיון דמטי זמן תפלת מנחה כמאן דשחיטי תרוייהו דמי

it is analogous to both having been slaughtered. Come and hear, for R'Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the time for the additional service came first; v. p. 435, n. 6: the argument here is similar.');">²²</span>

אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא שחטו קודם חצות פסול מפני שנאמר בו (שמות יב, ו) בין הערבים קודם לתמיד כשר ויהא ממרס בדמו עד שיזרוק הדם

- Here too, since the time for the minhah service has come, it is as though they were both slaughtered. R'Aha the son of R'Ashi said to Rabina: Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) .');">²³</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דקדים שחטיה לתמיד ברישא אמר ליה רב אחא סבא לרב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני עד שיזרק הדם (תמיד) ולא קתני עד שישחוט ויזרק דם ש"מ:

If he killed it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Passover-offering.');">²⁴</span> before midday, it is disqualified, because 'at dusk' is said in connection with it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 6: And the whole assembly . . shall kill it at dusk; lit., 'between the evenings'.');">²⁵</span>

ובכולן כהנים רשאין כו': מאי טעמא אמר קרא (במדבר יח, ח) למשחה לגדולה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלין:

[If he killed it] before the [evening] tamid, it fit, and one must stir its blood until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that when one sacrifice is sacrificed earlier than it should be, the sprinkling must nevertheless wait.');">²⁶</span> - The case we discuss here is where e.g.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמר רבי שמעון אם ראית שמן שהוא מתחלק בעזרה אין צריך לשאול מהו אלא מותר רקיקי מנחות ישראל ולוג שמן של מצורע

he first slaughtered the tamid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before sprinkling the blood of the Passover-offering.');">²⁷</span> Said R'Aha the elder to R'Ashi: The Mishnah too proves that, because it teaches, 'until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid,' but it does not teach, until he slaughters [the tamid] and sprinkles its blood.

אם ראית שמן שהוא ניתן על גבי האישים אין צריך לשאול מהו אלא מותר רקיקי מנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח שאין מתנדבין שמן רבי טרפון אומר מתנדבין שמן:

This proves it. AND IN ALL OF THESE, THE PRIESTS MAY DEVIATE etc. What is the reason? - Scripture says, [Even all the hallowed things. unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 8.');">²⁸</span> which means, as [a symbol of] greatness [so that they can be eaten] just as kings eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they can eat it as they like. Cf. supra 28a.');">²⁹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>R'SIMEON SAID: IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the priests, for food.');">³⁰</span> YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS [REKIKIM] OF THE ISRAELITE'S MEAL-OFFERINGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. II, 4. The oil was used in smearing the wafers.');">³¹</span> , OR OF THE LEPER'S LOG OF OIL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid., XIV, 12 seq.');">³²</span> IF YOU SEE OIL BEING POURED ON TO THE FIRES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., being burnt on the altar. The 'fires' (Heb. ishim, pl. of isheh, generally rendered, 'an offering made by fire') are those of sacrifices or portions thereof (sc. the emurim) as they are burnt on the altar.');">³³</span> YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE OIL OF THE WAFERS OF PRIESTS' MEAL-OFFERINGS, OR OF THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING; FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence this oil must be the residue of oil used in a meal-offering.');">³⁴</span> R'TARFON SAID: OIL CAN BE DONATED [BY ITSELF].