Zevachim 89b (פט:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses it:

From where are these matters

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?

As the Sages taught: Rabbi says:

It is stated in the section concerning the initiation of the Levites, in the passage of “When you raise up”: “And for the second, a young bull you shall take as a sin-offering.”

What does the word “second” come to teach?

“Second”

if it comes to teach

concerning the sin-offering

that they are second

in the order of sacrifice, after the burnt-offering,

it has already been stated

in that same passage: “And he shall prepare the one as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering,”

which indicates that the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering;

and if so,

what does the verse “And for the second, a young bull you shall take as a sin-offering” come to teach?

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

as is implied by the verse “And he shall prepare the one.”

The verse therefore states: “And for the second, a young bull you shall take as a sin-offering.”

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

If

from the verse

“for the second,” one might have thought that the burnt-offering precedes the sin-offering with regard to all its rites, the verse therefore states: “And he shall prepare the one as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering.”

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

How

are these two verses to be reconciled?

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 prepare the one” is discussing.

The limbs of a burnt-offering precede the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering because they are entirely burned upon the altar.

And this is what the verse “for the second” is discussing.

The Gemara continues to discuss the law that the blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering:

And perhaps

only

the first placement

of the blood of the sin-offering,

which effects atonement,

as it is the placement that effects atonement, only it

should precede

the placement of the blood of the burnt-offering, whereas

the remaining ones,

the other three placements of the sin-offering, whose placement on the altar’s horns is a mitzva but which do not invalidate the atonement, since 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 that the blood of a sin-offering precedes 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 was not brought to atone for a sin but for the initiation of the Levites, nevertheless

the Merciful One says that it should precede

the burnt-offering, because 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 invalidate the atonement.

In the West they say:

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

since he began with the placements

of the sin-offering. Since the first placement of the blood of the sin-offering effects atonement, it is proper that it precede the burnt-offering; therefore he also

completes

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

They raised a dilemma:

If the following were standing before the kohen:

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

which of them takes precedence?

Should we say:

The blood of the sin-offering takes precedence because it effects atonement. Or perhaps the limbs of the burnt-offering take precedence

over the blood of the sin-offering

because they are entirely burned upon the altar?

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.

The Gemara infers: Only

the blood of a sin-offering takes precedence over the blood of a burnt-offering.

But

it does not take precedence over the limbs of a burnt-offering;

rather, the limbs of the burnt-offering precede the blood of the 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: only

the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering are preceded,

but

the limbs of a burnt-offering do not precede the blood of a sin-offering;

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

And we conclude:

Rather, from this

Mishna

nothing can be inferred!

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

which of them takes precedence?

Does

the blood of the burnt-offering take precedence,

because although the blood is not entirely burned upon the altar, since

it comes by virtue of

a sacrifice that is

entirely burned

upon the altar, it is more sacred?

Or perhaps the sacrificial portions of the sin-offering take precedence,

even though it is not the sacrificial portions but the blood that effects atonement, 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 the burnt-offering precedes the sacrificial portions of the sin-offering.

And we reject this:

On the contrary, from the latter clause,

which states

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

one should infer the opposite: specifically,

it is the limbs of a burnt-offering that 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 the sin-offering precede the blood of the burnt-offering.

And we conclude:

Rather, from this

Mishna,

nothing can be inferred.

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

which of them takes precedence?

Does

the blood of the burnt-offering take precedence

because

it comes by virtue of that which is entirely burned upon the altar,

as the entire offering is brought upon the altar?

Or perhaps the blood of the guilt-offering takes precedence, because it effects atonement

for a sin [and its atonement is greater than that of a burnt-offering, which comes only to atone for failure to fulfill 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 be fitting

for

the tanna

of the Mishna

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

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

But since

he wanted

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

“they 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,

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

For this reason the tanna taught

in the Mishna also in the first clause, concerning the precedence of the blood, with regard to a

sin-offering.

In truth, however, the same law applies to a guilt-offering: its blood precedes the blood of a burnt-offering.

The Gemara proves this from another source:

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

the case 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,

as the sacrificial portions of a sin-offering precede those of a guilt-offering. It mentions a sin-offering to teach a greater novelty: all the more so, the sacrificial portions of a burnt-offering, which are more sacred than those of a sin-offering, precede those of a guilt-offering. It is not speaking of blood at all, and there is no proof from here for our question.

This is also precise

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

that it teaches, “because its blood is placed

on the four corners,”

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

which would refer to the blood.

Conclude from this!

We learned in the Mishna:

A sin-offering precedes

a guilt-offering.

The Gemara discusses this:

On the contrary, a guilt-offering should precede

a sin-offering,

since it has a fixed value

for its price: it must be worth at least two shekels. In this respect, the sanctity of a guilt-offering is superior to that of a sin-offering, whose value has no minimum requirement.

And we answer:

Even so, the greater altar-service

of the sin-offering, whose blood is placed on the four corners,

is preferable.

We learned in the Mishna:

A guilt-offering precedes a thanksgiving-offering

and the ram of a nazirite.

And we raised a question about this:

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

a guilt-offering,

since they require bread?

And we answer:

Even so,

the superior status of a guilt-offering, which is

“most sacred,” is preferable.

We learned in the Mishna:

A thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite

precede a peace-offering.

The Gemara discusses this:

On the contrary, a peace-offering should precede

a thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite,

since

peace-offerings

are brought by the community

—for the community offers the festival lambs, which are peace-offerings, on Shavuot, and they are communal peace-offerings—

as well as by an individual.

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

And we answer:

Even so,

the advantage of being

“eaten for one day,”

which applies to a thanksgiving-offering and the ram of a nazirite but not to peace-offerings,

is preferable.

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

that are both standing before the kohen,

which of them

should he offer

first?

Should

the thanksgiving-offering take precedence, since it requires four types of bread,

and is thereby superior to the ram of a nazirite, which requires only two types of bread?

Or perhaps the ram of a nazirite takes precedence, since other blood-offerings accompany it.

For in addition to the ram for a peace-offering, the nazirite brings two other sacrifices, a sin-offering and a burnt-offering; therefore, the ram’s sanctity is greater?

And we resolve it:

Come and hear

from what is explicitly taught in a beraita:

This one,

the thanksgiving-offering,

takes precedence over that one,

the ram of a nazirite, because

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

two

types of bread.

We learned in the Mishna:

Peace-offerings precede a firstborn offering.

And we raised a question about this:

On the contrary, a firstborn offering should precede, since its sanctity begins in the womb and it is eaten by kohanim,

unlike peace-offerings, which are eaten by their owners.

And we answer:

Even so, the additional mitzvot

listed in the Mishna that apply to peace-offerings

are preferable!

We learned in the Mishna:

A firstborn offering takes precedence

over a tithe offering.

The Gemara discusses this:

On the contrary, a tithe offering should precede,

as its sanctity is greater than that of a firstborn offering,

since it sanctifies those before it and those after it.

When the animals passed under the staff, if he mistakenly called the ninth “tenth,” or called the eleventh “tenth,” those animals too become sacred in addition to the tenth.

And we answer:

Even so, the sanctity that begins in the womb

possessed by a firstborn offering

is preferable.

We learned in the Mishna:

A tithe offering precedes fowl offerings.

The Gemara discusses this:

On the contrary, fowl offerings should precede, since they are most sacred offerings,

whereas a tithe offering is of the lesser sanctity?

And we answer:

Even so,

the advantage of a tithe offering, that it is

a type of sacrifice, is preferable.

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

from the Temple courtyard

before the sprinkling of the blood are rendered unfit by leaving,

since even before the sprinkling the sacrificial portions possess the sanctity of “most sacred offerings,” which are disqualified if they leave the Temple courtyard [although with regard to the prohibition of deriving benefit from sacred property, they are not yet considered “most sacred offerings” until after the sprinkling, at which point they are fit to be offered on the altar].

And the tanna teaches this as well:

A support for this law is found in the words of the tanna in our Mishna, for he teaches: “A tithe offering precedes fowl offerings because

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

The Gemara discusses this:

Granted, sacrificial portions are not found in fowl offerings. But blood, at least, is found

also in fowl offerings, as their blood is sprinkled on the altar, so there is no advantage to the tithe offering.

The tanna should have taught only: “And the sacrificial portions of most sacred offerings, unlike fowl offerings.”

Rather, is it not

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

this teaches us

that the sacrificial portions should be

like

the

blood.

The two have equal sanctity:

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

mentioned in the Mishna,

before the sprinkling. And the tanna calls them

“

most sacred offerings.”

Thus, even before the 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 offerings of lesser sanctity 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.

The Gemara explains their reasoning:

Rabbi Yoḥanan says it is valid, since ultimately

this flesh

will leave

the Temple courtyard after the blood is sprinkled and it becomes permitted for consumption, since offerings of lesser sanctity may be eaten throughout Jerusalem.

Reish Lakish said: It is invalid,

because

the time has not yet arrived

for the flesh

to leave

in order to eat it in Jerusalem; that time arrives only after the sprinkling, which permits it to be eaten.

And the Gemara concludes presenting the proof for Ravina:

Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish disagree

only with regard to the flesh,

but with regard to the sacrificial portions,

which alone Rabbi Yohanan deems fit, since they are ultimately destined to leave, as we said.

But with regard to the sacrificial portions,

which are not ultimately destined to leave,

no.

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

And we reject this: In fact,

they also disagree with regard to the sacrificial portions,

and Rabbi Yohanan, who deems the flesh fit, also deems fit the sacrificial portions that left before the sprinkling. The reason is not that they are ultimately destined to leave, but rather that only through the sprinkling does it become “holy of holies.”

And the fact that they disagree with regard to the flesh —

is to convey the force of Reish Lakish’s position: Even with regard to flesh, which is ultimately destined to leave, we say

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

the time has not yet arrived for it to leave.

Shall we say

that this ruling of Ravina

is subject to a dispute between tanna'im,

meaning that it is a dispute between tanna'im?

As it was taught in a beraita:

With regard to the sacrificial portions of kodashim kalim that left before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says: There is no me'ila with regard to them,

Rather,

the verse “and he shall offer” teaches us that the reason the sin-offering precedes is “for the sin-offering first”—because of its designation as a sin-offering. And we learn from here that

this establishes a fundamental principle for all sin-offerings: They precede the burnt-offerings brought with them—whether a bird sin-offering precedes a bird burnt-offering, whether an animal sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering, and even whether a bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering 17 .

And the Gemara says:

Therefore, a bird sin-offering

that precedes

a bird burnt-offering

we learn

from “and the second one”

“he shall make a burnt-offering.”

An animal sin-offering

that precedes

an animal burnt-offering

we learn

from the additional wording used by the Merciful One

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

A bird sin-offering

that precedes

an animal burnt-offering

we learn

from this fundamental principle

as explained in the beraita.

However, the Keren Ora and the Hazon Ish proved that the view of Tosafot in our passage is not so. Rather, according to Tosafot, every bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering, even when they are not brought together. Tosafot in our passage raised a difficulty concerning the Gemara’s statement on the following folio that a bird sin-offering should precede an animal tithe-offering, just as we find that it precedes an animal burnt-offering. If we say that the bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering only when they are brought together, such as in the case of a woman who has given birth, how can it be said that it should even precede an animal tithe-offering, which is not brought together with it? It is evident from Tosafot’s words that the law that a bird sin-offering precedes an animal tithe-offering applies to all offerings, and not only when they are brought together. The Hazon Ish expressed astonishment at this: How can it be said that a bird sin-offering precedes every animal burnt-offering? An animal burnt-offering is a type of offering, and is more sacred. And Tosafot of Rabbi Asher wrote explicitly in tractate Horayot [13a] that the law that a bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering applies to every bird sin-offering, which is superior to an animal burnt-offering; and this requires examination. And we refute this:

Come and hear: Rabbi Eliezer says:

The order of offering the sacrifices of a woman who has given birth differs from that of other people obligated to bring offerings. For

everywhere

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

the sin-offering has been replaced

who brings, in place of an animal sin-offering, two birds, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering [for example, in the case of one who renders the Temple impure, and all the other cases listed there in the passage in Leviticus]. In that case, the law is that

the sin-offering precedes

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

But here,

in the case of a woman who has given birth, where, if she is wealthy, she brings an animal as a burnt-offering and a turtledove or young pigeon as a sin-offering, in the case of a poor woman

the

and

burnt-offering

has been replaced, as she brings, in place of an animal burnt-offering, a bird as a burnt-offering. In that case, the law is that

the burnt-offering precedes,

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

[There is an additional reason for the difference in the case of a woman who has given birth:

Everywhere that one comes

to effect atonement

for a sin,

such as in the cases listed in the passage concerning one who renders the Temple impure,

the sin-offering precedes

because it is the principal offering that effects atonement;

but here,

in the case of a woman who has given birth, who does not come on account of a sin but for purification,

the burnt-offering precedes].

There is an additional reason:

Everywhere that two

that is, the two offerings brought by the poor person

come in place of

the offering

one

that the wealthy person brings—in the case of one who renders the Temple impure and similar cases, the wealthy person brings only one sin-offering, and in place of that one offering the poor person brings two, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering—therefore, the

sin-offering precedes

the burnt-offering, since they come in place of the sin-offering.

But here,

in the case of a woman who has given birth,

where the two

of the poor woman

do not come in place of one sin-offering

but in place of the two offerings of the wealthy woman, who likewise brings an animal as a burnt-offering and a bird as 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 brought from a bird.

Thus, we find in the case of a woman who has given birth that her burnt-offering precedes her sin-offering. This is difficult for our Mishna, which states that everywhere the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering!? And we answer:

Rava said: It is only for the reading

alone that

the verse gives precedence

to the burnt-offering—that one who reads the passage reads of the burnt-offering first [alternatively: one must designate the burnt-offering first—Tosafot]; but with regard to the offering itself, the sin-offering precedes.

And the Lechem Mishneh wrote that Maimonides follows Rashi’s explanation of the Gemara’s statement that the verse gives precedence for the reading: the meaning is that it is listed first in the verse. Therefore, Maimonides did not distinguish by stating that, in the case of a woman who has given birth, one designates the sin-offering first and afterward the burnt-offering. But this requires examination, as Tosafot asked: For what reason did the verse list it first? And in the Avi Ezri he explained Rashi’s and Maimonides’ words as follows: The fact that the verse lists the burnt-offering before the sin-offering is not merely precedence in the verse; it also has a practical legal consequence. Although, in its designation and offering, the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering, if one designated the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, its consecration takes effect, and likewise it is possible to offer it first. Although the law is that the burnt-offering is brought only after the sin-offering, and it might therefore have been thought that it is entirely impossible to designate or offer the burnt-offering before offering the sin-offering, since one is not yet obligated in it, the verse comes and lists it first to teach that it is called “first.” That is, although in designation and offering the sin-offering precedes, one is already obligated in the burnt-offering; consequently, if one designated and offered the burnt-offering before the sin-offering, its consecration is valid [and below it will be explained that this is a dispute among the early authorities as to whether this is indispensable]. And in the Shita Mekubetzet he explained the statement that the verse gives precedence for the reading as teaching that if one has only a single bird, he may offer it as a burnt-offering before the sin-offering. The Avi Ezri explained the matter as deriving from the same reason: through the law that the verse gives precedence for the reading, it is newly established that offering the sin-offering does not determine the offering of the burnt-offering. Rather, even before offering the sin-offering, it is possible to offer the burnt-offering. Therefore, if he has only one bird, he may offer it as a burnt-offering, since he is already subject to the obligation of the burnt-offering. And we refute this:

Come and hear: Bulls precede

in offering

rams, and rams precede lambs; lambs

precede

goats.