Zevachim 89b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words

that the blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering, and that the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering?

For the Sages taught: Rabbi says,

It is stated in the section concerning the initiation of the Levites, in the passage “When you raise up”:

“And the second bull you shall take as a sin-offering.” What does

“second”

teach?

Concerning the sin-offering

that they are two

for sacrifice, after the sacrifice of the burnt-offering,

it has already been stated

in that same passage:

“And he shall make the one a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering,”

which implies that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering. And if so,

what does “And the second bull you shall take as a sin-offering” teach?

One might have thought that the sin-offering should precede every act of the burnt-offering,

as is implied by the verse, “And he shall make

the verse teaches: ‘And the second bull you shall take as a sin-offering.’

That is, the burnt-offering precedes the sin-offering.

If from the verse

“the second bull,”

one might have thought that the burnt-offering precedes the sin-offering in all its rites? The verse teaches: “And he shall make the one a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering.”

That is, the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering.

How, then

are these two verses to be fulfilled?

The blood of the sin-offering precedes the blood of the burnt-offering because it effects atonement,

and this is what the verse “And he shall make” speaks of.

The limbs of a burnt-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering because they are entirely for the fires.

And this is what the verse “the second bull” speaks of.

And the Gemara continues to discuss this rule, that the blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering:

And say

that specifically

the first placement

of the blood of the sin-offering,

which effects atonement,

since it is the placement that effects atonement, only it

should precede

the placing of the blood of the burnt-offering,

but these,

the other three placements of the sin-offering, whose placement upon the horns of the altar is only a mitzva, but which do not prevent atonement [for once one placement has been made, the atonement is complete],

should not precede

the blood of the burnt-offering?

And we answer:

Ravina said: Here,

in this verse from which we learn the precedence of the blood of a sin-offering to the blood of a burnt-offering,

we are dealing

with a sin-offering brought for the initiation of

the Levites. And although it is comparable to a burnt-offering,

since this sin-offering did not come to atone for a sin but for the initiation of the Levites, nevertheless

the Merciful One says: It should precede

the burnt-offering, since it bears the designation “sin-offering,” which generally effects atonement. The same applies to the three placements of the sin-offering: they precede the blood of the burnt-offering, even though they do not prevent atonement.

In the West they say:

The reason that the three placements of the sin-offering precede the blood of the burnt-offering is

because he began with the placements

of the sin-offering. For the first placement of the blood of the sin-offering effects atonement, and it is logical that it should precede the burnt-offering; therefore he also

completes

all the other placements of the sin-offering before the burnt-offering.

They raised a dilemma:

If the following were standing before the priest:

the blood of a sin-offering and the limbs of a burnt-offering—

which of them precedes?

Shall we say:

The blood of the sin-offering precedes because it effects atonement. Or perhaps the limbs of the burnt-offering precede

the blood of the sin-offering

because they are entirely for the fires?

And the Gemara resolves the dilemma:

Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

The blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering.

And the Gemara infers: Only

the blood of a burnt-offering does it precede

the blood of the sin-offering. But

the limbs of a burnt-offering it does not precede

the blood of the sin-offering; rather, the limbs of a burnt-offering are those that precede the blood of a sin-offering!

And we reject this:

On the contrary, from the latter clause

of the Mishna, which states that

the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering,

one should infer the opposite: specifically

the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering does it precede,

but

the blood of a sin-offering it does not precede

the limbs of a burnt-offering; rather, the blood of a sin-offering precedes the limbs of a burnt-offering.

And we conclude:

Rather, from this

Mishna

nothing can be inferred from it!

They raised a dilemma: The blood of a burnt-offering and the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering—

which of them precedes?

Does

the blood of a burnt-offering precede,

because although the blood is not entirely for the fires, nevertheless, since

it comes by virtue of

a sacrifice that is

entirely

for the fires, it is more sacred?

Or perhaps, the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering precede

although the sacrificial portions do not effect atonement, only the blood does, because

the sacrificial portions come

by virtue

of

a sin-offering that

effects atonement?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

The blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering.

And we infer:

It is the blood of a sin-offering that precedes the blood of a burnt-offering. But the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering do not

precede the blood of a burnt-offering; rather, the blood of a burnt-offering precedes the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering.

And we reject this:

On the contrary, from the latter clause,

which states

the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering,

one should infer the opposite: specifically

the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering. But the blood of a burnt-offering does not

precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering; rather, the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering precede the blood of a burnt-offering.

And we conclude:

Rather, from this

Mishna,

nothing can be inferred from it.

They raised a dilemma: The blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering—

which of them precedes?

Does

the blood of a burnt-offering precede

because

it comes by virtue of that which is entirely for the fires,

as all of it is sacrificed upon the altar?

Or perhaps, the blood of a guilt-offering precedes, since it effects atonement

for a sin [and its atonement is greater than that of a burnt-offering, which comes to atone only for the violation of a positive commandment]?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear:

We learned in the Mishna:

The blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering.

And we infer:

But the blood of a guilt-offering does not

precede the blood of a burnt-offering.

And we reject this: There is no proof from here, because

it would have been fitting

for the

tanna

of the Mishna

to teach “the blood of a guilt-offering,”

since it too precedes the blood of a burnt-offering.

And since

he wished

to teach in the latter clause “the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering,” for if he had taught

“precede

the sacrificial portions of a guilt-offering,” we would have thought

that the limbs of a burnt-offering specifically

precede the sacrificial portions of a guilt-offering,

but

do not precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering,

for a sin-offering is more stringent than a guilt-offering, as explained in the Mishna,

therefore he taught

in the first clause as well, concerning the precedence of the blood, the sacrifice of a

sin-offering.

But in truth, the same law applies also to a guilt-offering: its blood precedes the blood of a burnt-offering.

The Gemara proves it from another place:

Come and hear:

We learned in the Mishna:

A sin-offering precedes a guilt-offering!

And we infer:

It is a sin-offering that precedes a guilt-offering. But a burnt-offering

whose blood is not as sacred as the blood of a sin-offering

does not

precede a guilt-offering.

What, is it not

that the Mishna is discussing

blood,

and it follows that the blood of a burnt-offering does not precede the blood of a guilt-offering?

And we reject this:

No.

The Mishna

is speaking of sacrificial portions,

that the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a guilt-offering [and it mentions a sin-offering to teach a novelty; and all the more so, the sacrificial portions of a burnt-offering, which are more sacred than the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering, precede the sacrificial portions of a guilt-offering]. It is not speaking of blood at all. And there is no proof from here for our question.

It is also precise

that the Mishna is speaking of sacrificial portions and not of blood, from this:

it teaches, “because its blood is placed

on the four horns,”

and it does not teach, “because it is placed,”

whose meaning would concern the blood.

Learn from it!

We learned in the Mishna:

A sin-offering precedes

a guilt-offering.

And the Gemara discusses:

On the contrary, a guilt-offering precedes

a sin-offering,

since it has a fixed measure

for its value: it must be worth at least two sela, and by this the sacred status of a guilt-offering is superior to that of a sin-offering, whose value has no prescribed measure.

And we answer:

Even so, the greater altar-presence

that there is in a sin-offering, whose blood is placed on the four horns,

is preferable.

We learned in the Mishna:

A guilt-offering precedes a thanksgiving-offering

and the ram of a nazirite.

And we raised a difficulty:

On the contrary, the thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite precede

a guilt-offering,

since they require bread?

And we answer:

Even so,

the advantage of the guilt-offering, that it is

“most sacred offerings,” is preferable.

We learned in the Mishna:

A thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite

precede peace-offerings.

And the Gemara discusses:

On the contrary, peace-offerings precede

a thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite,

since

peace-offerings

are found in the communal offering,

as the sheep of Shavuot are sacrificed, which are peace-offerings on the festival of Shavuot, and they are communal peace-offerings,

as in an individual offering.

This is not so with a thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite, which the community never sacrifices.

And we answer:

Even so,

this advantage, that they are

“eaten for one day,”

which exists in a thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite but not in peace-offerings,

is preferable.

They raised a dilemma: A thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite

that are both standing before the priest,

which of them

shall he sacrifice

first?

Does

the thanksgiving-offering precede, since it requires four kinds of bread,

and by this it is superior to the ram of a nazirite, which requires only two kinds of bread?

Or perhaps, the ram of a nazirite precedes, since other bloods are with it.

For the nazirite brings, besides the ram as a peace-offering, two additional sacrifices, a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, and therefore the sacred status of the ram is greater?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear

from that which is explicitly taught in a beraita:

This one,

the thanksgiving-offering,

precedes that one,

the ram of a nazirite, because

this one requires four kinds of bread, whereas that one requires only

two

kinds of bread.

We learned in the Mishna:

Peace-offerings precede a firstborn.

And we raised a difficulty:

On the contrary, a firstborn precedes, since its sacred status is from the womb and it is eaten by priests,

whereas peace-offerings are eaten by their owners.

And we answer:

Even so, the additional mitzvot

listed in the Mishna that exist in peace-offerings

are preferable!

We learned in the Mishna:

A firstborn precedes

the tithe.

And the Gemara discusses:

On the contrary, the tithe precedes,

for its sacred status is greater than that of a firstborn,

since it sanctifies before it and after it.

For if, when the sheep passed under the staff, he mistakenly called the ninth “tenth,” or called the eleventh by the name “tenth,” they too become sacred in addition to the tenth.

And we answer:

Even so, the sanctity from the womb

that a firstborn possesses

is preferable.

We learned in the Mishna:

A tithe precedes birds.

And the Gemara discusses:

On the contrary, birds precede, since they are most sacred offerings,

whereas the tithe is lesser sacred offerings?

And we answer:

Even so,

the advantage of the tithe, that it is

a type of sacrifice, is preferable.

Ravina bar Sheila said: The sacrificial portions of lesser sacred offerings that went out

from the Temple courtyard

before the sprinkling of the blood are disqualified

by the law of an item that went out, since even now, before the sprinkling, the sacrificial portions possess the sanctity of “most sacred offerings,” which are disqualified by leaving the courtyard [although concerning misuse of sacred property they are still not “most sacred offerings” until after the sprinkling, when they are fit to be sacrificed upon the altar].

And the tanna also teaches it,

support for this law exists in the words of the tanna in our Mishna, for he teaches: “The tithe precedes birds, because

it is a sacrifice, and its blood and sacrificial portions are most sacred offerings.”

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, the sacrificial portions are not found in birds. But blood, at least, is found

also in birds, for their blood is sprinkled upon the altar, and the tithe has no advantage.

The tanna should have taught only: “And the sacrificial portions of most sacred offerings, which is not so with birds”?

Rather, is it not

for this reason that he teaches “its blood,” because

this teaches us

that the

sacrificial portions are like

the same as

its blood.

For both of them are equal in their sacred status:

just as its blood, before sprinkling, so too the sacrificial portions

of the Mishna,

before sprinkling. And he calls them

the tanna of the Mishna

“most sacred offerings.”

Thus, even before sprinkling, the sacrificial portions have the status of “most sacred offerings,” and the practical consequence is:

just as its blood is disqualified by leaving, so too the sacrificial portions are disqualified by leaving.

Shall we say that this supports him,

Ravina bar Sheila, from what we learned:

The flesh of lesser sacred offerings that went out

from the Temple courtyard

before the sprinkling of the blood—

Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is valid. Reish Lakish says it is disqualified.

And the Gemara explains their reasoning:

Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is valid, since its end

—the end of this flesh—

is to go out

from the courtyard after the blood is sprinkled and it becomes permitted for eating, since lesser sacred offerings are eaten throughout Jerusalem.

Resh Lakish said: invalid,

because

its time has not yet arrived

for the meat

to leave in order to eat it in Jerusalem, until after the sprinkling, which permits it for eating.

so that it may be eaten in Jerusalem, which is permitted only after the blood has been sprinkled.

And the Gemara concludes bringing the proof for Ravina:

Until here they disagree

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish

only concerning meat,

for only in its case does Rabbi Yohanan deem it valid, since its end is to leave, as we said.

But concerning the sacrificial portions,

whose end is not to leave,

no.

Rather, even Rabbi Yohanan concedes that they are invalid if they left before the sprinkling, in accordance with Ravina bar Sheila.

And we reject this: Actually,

the same law applies that they disagree also concerning the sacrificial portions,

and Rabbi Yohanan, who deems the meat valid, deems valid also the sacrificial portions that left before the sprinkling. And the reason is not because their end is to leave, but because only through the sprinkling does it become “most holy offerings.”

And that they disagree concerning meat —

is to inform you of the strength of Resh Lakish, that even with meat, whose end is to leave, we say

that it is invalid if it left before the sprinkling, because

its time had still not arrived to leave.

Let us say

this law of Ravina

is like the Tannaim,

it is a dispute of Tannaim!

For it was taught:

With regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says: there is no meila with them,

Rather,

the verse “and he shall offer” comes to inform us that the reason for the precedence of the sin-offering is “for the sin-offering first,” because of the designation “sin-offering” that it bears, and to teach from here that

this is a foundational principle for all sin-offerings, that they precede the burnt-offerings that come with them! Whether a bird sin-offering precedes a bird burnt-offering, whether an animal sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering, and even a bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering 17 .

And the Gemara concludes:

Therefore, the bird sin-offering

which precedes

the bird burnt-offering

we learned

from “and the second one”

“he shall make a burnt-offering.”

An animal sin-offering

which precedes

an animal burnt-offering

we learned

from the fact that the Merciful One added

in “and he shall make the one a sin-offering,” as explained in the beraita above [the beginning of page 89b].

A bird sin-offering

which precedes

an animal burnt-offering

we learned

from this foundational principle

as explained in the beraita.

And we refute this:

Come and hear: Rabbi Eliezer says:

The order of offering the offerings of a woman after childbirth differs from that of the other people liable for offerings. For whereas

everywhere

the wealthy person brings an animal for a sin-offering, in the case of the poor person

the sin-offering has been replaced,

who brings in place of an animal for a sin-offering two birds, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering [such as in the case of one who rendered the Temple impure, and all the other cases written there in the passage of Leviticus], and the rule then is that

the sin-offering precedes

because the principal offering is the sin-offering, since the wealthy person offered only a sin-offering.

But here,

in the case of a woman after childbirth, if she is wealthy she brings an animal for a burnt-offering and a turtledove or young pigeon for a sin-offering; in the case of the poor woman,

the burnt-offering has been replaced,

the

burnt-offering

who brings in place of an animal for a burnt-offering a bird for a burnt-offering, and the rule then is that

the burnt-offering precedes,

for it is the principal offering, since the wealthy woman brings an animal for a burnt-offering.

[Another reason for the change in the case of a woman after childbirth:

everywhere that it comes

to effect atonement

for a sin,

such as those written in the passage concerning one who renders the Temple impure,

the sin-offering precedes

since it is the principal offering that effects atonement;

but here,

in the case of a woman after childbirth, who does not come for a sin but for purification,

the burnt-offering precedes].

And another reason:

everywhere that two

that is, the two offerings brought by the poor woman

come in place of

the offering

one

that the wealthy person brings: in the case of one who renders the Temple impure and the like, the wealthy person brings only one sin-offering, and in place of that one offering the poor person brings two, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering. Therefore, the

sin-offering precedes

the burnt-offering, for they come in place of the sin-offering;

but here,

in the case of a woman after childbirth,

there are not two

of the poor woman

coming in place of one sin-offering,

but in place of the two offerings of the wealthy woman, for she too brings an animal for a burnt-offering and a bird for a sin-offering. Therefore,

the burnt-offering precedes

in the case of the poor woman, since it comes in place of the animal, which is the burnt-offering and is more important than the sin-offering that comes from a bird.

We have thus found in the case of a woman after childbirth that her burnt-offering precedes her sin-offering, and this is difficult from our Mishna, which states that everywhere the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering!? And we answer:

Rava said: Only for its reading

alone

did the verse place it first,

for one who reads the passage reads the burnt-offering first [another explanation: one must consecrate the burnt-offering first—Tosafot], but in the offering, the sin-offering precedes.

And we refute this:

Come and hear: Bulls precede

in offering

rams, and rams precede sheep; sheep

precede

goats.