Zevachim 90a — the Talmud in English

And one is not liable for them

for karet, not

for pigul, notar, and impurity,

for in all these, and likewise in me'ila, the liability applies only after the sprinkling of the blood, whereas these sacrificial portions, which went out before the sprinkling, were not benefited by the sprinkling of the blood that was performed afterward, and it is as though they were before the sprinkling.

Rabbi Akiva says: One is liable for me'ila with them, and one is liable for them

for

pigul, notar, and impurity. Is it not referring to a case where he brought them back in,

that is, it is speaking of a situation in which he brought these sacrificial portions back into the Temple courtyard, so that at the time of the sprinkling they were already inside, and in such a case

they disagree,

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva.

And this is what they disagree about: One master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that they become invalid

the sacrificial portions

through having gone out

from the Temple courtyard, and therefore the sprinkling did not benefit them, and there is no liability for me'ila and pigul with regard to them.

And one master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds that they do not become invalid through having gone out,

and the sprinkling benefited them, and therefore one is liable for them for me'ila and so on.

It follows that the ruling stated by Ravina bar Sheila, that the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity that went out before the sprinkling of the blood become invalid through having gone out, is subject to a dispute among tannaim.

And we reject this:

Rav Pappa said: If he brought them back in, everyone agrees

that they do not become invalid through having gone out, and this is not in accordance with Ravina.

And here, when they are found

the sacrificial portions at the time of the sprinkling

outside

outside,

they disagree. And this is what they disagree about—

one master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that the sprinkling does not benefit

what was at the time of the sprinkling

something that went out

from the Temple courtyard, since it becomes invalid through its going out.

And one master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds that the sprinkling benefits

even

something that went out!

And we raise an objection:

But it was Rav Pappa who said [

in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, who also disagreed in tractate Menahot concerning the two loaves that went out between the slaughtering of the rams of Shavuot and the sprinkling]:

When they are outside, everyone agrees that they do not disagree.

Rather,

when he brought them inside, they disagree.

The Gemara now understood that there is no difference between the two loaves and the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity. And it is difficult, for here Rav Pappa said the opposite, that they disagree when they are outside?

And we answer: That which Rav Pappa said, that everyone agrees that when they are outside the sprinkling does not benefit them,

applies specifically with regard to the two loaves, for they are not the body of the sacrifice,

since they are not part of the body of the sacrifice, therefore the sprinkling of the blood of the offering does not benefit them when they are outside.

But with regard to the sacrificial portions, which are the body of the sacrifice, they disagree when they are outside.

For it may be said that even when they are outside the sprinkling benefits them, since they are part of the body of the offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

Bird-offerings precede

meal-offerings.

And the Gemara discusses this:

On the contrary, meal-offerings should precede, since they are found

meal-offerings that are brought

by the community

such as the omer-offering and the two loaves,

as by an individual,

whereas the community never offers bird-offerings!?

And we answer:

Even so, types of blood

which is the superiority of bird-offerings

are preferable!

We learned in the Mishna:

The sin-offering of a poor person

precedes a freewill meal-offering.

And the Gemara discusses this:

On the contrary, the freewill meal-offering should precede, since it requires oil and frankincense?

Unlike the sin-offering of a poor person, which does not contain oil and frankincense.

And we answer:

Even so, that which comes for a sin

which is present in the sin-offering of a poor person

is preferable, for it effects atonement!

They raised a question before them: The meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery

which the woman brings to the Temple at the time of the testing by the waters, and it does not come to effect atonement for a sin,

and a freewill meal-offering—which of them precedes?

That is,

does the freewill meal-offering precede, since it requires oil and frankincense, or perhaps the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery precedes, since it comes to clarify iniquity

of the woman suspected of adultery, if she committed adultery while married to her husband.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear:

we learned in the Mishna:

The sin-offering of a poor person precedes a freewill meal-offering.

And the Gemara infers:

It is the sin-offering of a poor person that precedes a freewill meal-offering

because it effects atonement;

but the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery

which does not effect atonement,

does not

precede a freewill meal-offering.

And we reject this:

Does it teach

in the Mishna that the sin-offering of a poor person precedes

“because it effects atonement”?

But it teaches

“because it comes for a sin,”

and not specifically to effect atonement; and included in this is also the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery, which, although it does not effect atonement,

this too comes for a sin,

namely, to clarify the iniquity. [Namely, the sin of adultery with a married woman].

We further resolve it:

Come and hear,

as it is taught:

This one precedes that one, because this one comes from wheat and that one comes from barley.

What, is it not

that the beraita is speaking of

a freewill meal-offering

which comes from wheat and precedes

the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery

which comes from barley?

And we reject this: The beraita

does not

speak of a freewill meal-offering, but of

the sin-offering of a poor person

which also comes from wheat and precedes

the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against the rejection: If it is speaking of a sin-offering of a poor person, why do I need the reason that it comes from wheat?

Let it emerge for me

that it precedes the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery because

after all,

the sin-offering of a poor person

effects atonement, whereas

the meal-offering of the woman suspected of adultery

does not effect atonement?

And we answer:

But rather, what

would you say, that the beraita is speaking of

a freewill meal-offering

—it is still difficult:

let it emerge for me

that a freewill meal-offering precedes the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery

because this one requires oil and frankincense and that one does not require oil and frankincense.

Why, then, do I need the reason that it comes from wheat?

Rather,

you are compelled to explain:

the tanna took one of two reasons,

the tanna of the beraita. And if so, even if we establish the beraita as referring to the sin-offering of a poor person, it is possible to say that it stated one of the two reasons. Therefore, the beraita did not state as the reason for precedence that it effects atonement, and we cannot resolve from this beraita the question concerning a freewill meal-offering and the meal-offering of a woman suspected of adultery—which of them precedes.

We learned in the Mishna:

The bird sin-offering precedes

the bird burnt-offering.

And the Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a poor sinner who brings two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering:

“And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first”—

what does this teach?

For what purpose was this verse written?

If it is to teach that the sin-offering is to be offered first, it has already been stated

in that same passage:

“And he shall make the second one a burnt-offering,”

and automatically we know that the sin-offering comes first?