Zevachim 90b (צ:) — the Talmud in English

What, is it not

speaking of the additional offerings

of Sukkot,

where the goats mentioned there are sin-offerings, whereas the sheep are burnt-offerings, and it was stated that the sheep come first? If so, we have found a case where a burnt-offering precedes a sin-offering, which is difficult for our Mishna, where it is explained that everywhere a sin-offering precedes a burnt-offering.

And we answer:

No,

the beraita is speaking of offerings that all come

as freewill offerings,

and the goats, too, are burnt-offerings.

The Gemara explains the reason for their order of precedence:

Bulls precede rams, since they are more extensively provided

with bulls

with regard to libations,

as with a bull one brings three tenths of an ephah of fine flour, while with a ram one brings two tenths.

And likewise, rams

precede

sheep

for this reason: with rams one brings two tenths, whereas with sheep one brings only one tenth.

Sheep

precede

goats, since they are more extensively provided

with sheep

with regard to the fat tail,

which is offered upon the altar [among those offerings from which only the sacrificial fats are offered], in the case of sheep but not in the case of goats.

We raise another objection:

Come and hear: A bull of a anointed priest precedes the bull for an unwitting communal transgression

[although both are sin-offerings, as is learned from a verse].

The bull for an unwitting transgression

of the

community precedes the bull for idolatry,

since one is a sin-offering and the other is a burnt-offering, and a sin-offering precedes a burnt-offering.

The bull for idolatry precedes the goats for idolatry.

And we ask:

And although the bull for idolatry is a burnt-offering

and

the goats for idolatry are sin-offerings,

nevertheless the bull for idolatry comes first? If so, we have found a case where a burnt-offering precedes a sin-offering.

And we respond to the one who raised the objection: Rather than raise your objection from the latter clause of the beraita,

let us say

that you should prove that a sin-offering indeed precedes a burnt-offering

from the first clause,

as it teaches: “

The bull for an unwitting communal transgression precedes the bull for idolatry

because a sin-offering precedes a burnt-offering”?!

The one who raised the objection answers: When the sin-offering and the burnt-offering are both

of the same type,

so that neither is greater than the other,

at least, we do not say that the sin-offering comes first,

as is demonstrated by the first clause, where the bull for an unwitting communal transgression comes first even though both are bulls.

When do we say this? When they are of two different types, for in the case of two different types we have nevertheless found that a burnt-offering precedes a sin-offering,

and it was for this reason that the latter clause stated that the bull for idolatry precedes the goat for idolatry, since the bull is greater than the goat. This is difficult in light of what we stated above in the beraita: that the matter does not depend at all on their relative size, and that even a bird sin-offering precedes an animal burnt-offering.

And we answer:

The Sages of the West said in the name of Rava bar Mari: In the case of the sin-offering for idolatry,

the word is written

defectively,

with the letter alef omitted, as

“leḥatat” is written,

and therefore it is written defectively to indicate that it is not like the other sin-offerings, which precede a burnt-offering. Rather, here the burnt-offering precedes the sin-offering.

Ravina said:

For this reason the order of offering the bull and goat for idolatry differs from that of the other sin-offerings in the Torah, where the sin-offering precedes the burnt-offering, because

“according to the law” is written concerning them,

the bull and goat for idolatry, teaching that their order of offering follows the order of the verses. The bull is mentioned first in the passage, before the goat, and therefore it is offered first.

And we conclude:

Now that you have arrived at this

conclusion, you may even say

that the bulls of Sukkot

are meant by the earlier beraita that “bulls precede rams,” and there will be no difficulty as to why sheep, which are burnt-offerings, precede goats, which are sin-offerings. For here

too,

in the passage concerning the additional offerings of the festival,

“according to their law” is written concerning them,

to teach that they are to be offered in the order stated in the passage, and sheep are mentioned before goats.

They raised a dilemma: A bird sin-offering, an animal burnt-offering, and a tithe

of animals, all three of which are standing before the priest,

which of them

should he offer

first?

If you say that

the bird sin-offering should come first,

this cannot be said. For although it precedes an animal burnt-offering, nevertheless

there is a tithe that precedes it,

the bird offering.

And if you say that

the tithe should come first,

this cannot be, since

there is an animal burnt-offering that precedes it,

the tithe. And if you say that

the animal burnt-offering should come first,

this also cannot be, since

there is a bird sin-offering that precedes it,

the animal burnt-offering.

And we resolve the dilemma:

Here,

in Babylonia,

they interpreted: The type of offering is preferable!

Therefore, the tithe, which is a type of animal offering, should precede the bird sin-offering, which is not a type of animal offering; and after that comes the bird sin-offering, followed by the animal burnt-offering. Although the latter is also a type of animal offering, the bird sin-offering precedes it by a Scriptural decree [and although we now place the tithe before the burnt-offering, the tithe’s virtue of preceding the bird sin-offering is greater than the burnt-offering’s virtue of preceding the tithe].

In the West they said: It brings into the animal burnt-offering

the importance that belongs to an

animal burnt-offering,

which is more important than the tithe because the burnt-offering is most holy and is offered entirely upon the altar; and it brings this importance

into the bird sin-offering

that comes together with the burnt-offering,

and raises it above the tithe,

so that it too becomes more important than the tithe, although it is not a type of animal offering, just as the bird sin-offering is important and precedes an animal burnt-offering although the latter is also a type of animal offering. Therefore, the bird sin-offering is offered first, followed by the burnt-offering and the tithe.

Mishna:

All the sin-offerings in the Torah precede guilt-offerings,

as we learned in the previous Mishna,

except for the guilt-offering of a leper,

which precedes the sin-offering

, because it comes to render him fit

to eat sacrificial food and to enter the Temple, through placing some of its blood on the leper’s ear and thumbs and big toe. Since the leper’s purification depends upon it, it is considered important.

All the guilt-offerings in the Torah come

when they are

two years old,

as they are called an “ram,” which is two years old.

And they come with a value of two shekels,

meaning that the guilt-offering must be worth at least two shekels,

except for the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of a leper, which come

when they are

one year old,

since they are called a “lamb,” which is one year old,

and they do not come with a value of two shekels,

but there is no minimum value that they must have.

With regard to all those offerings that precede other offerings, according to the order taught in the previous Mishna,

just as

they

precede in their offering, so

they

precede in their consumption.

The consumption of a sin-offering precedes the consumption of a guilt-offering, and a guilt-offering precedes a thanks-offering, and so on.

Offerings of well-being from yesterday,

which were brought to the Temple courtyard yesterday,

and offerings of well-being from today,

which arrived in the courtyard only today and both of which are ready to be offered—

those of yesterday come first.

Since they arrived yesterday, one should not demean them by delaying their offering any further.

And even if there were standing before them

offerings of well-being from yesterday and a sin-offering and guilt-offering from today,

still

the offerings of well-being from yesterday come first

for the reason stated above,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: The sin-offering

of today [and the same applies to the guilt-offering]

comes first

over the offerings of well-being from yesterday, because

it is most sacred,

and anything more sacred than another offering precedes it, even though doing so entails demeaning the offerings of well-being from yesterday.

And in all of them,

in all the offerings that are eaten,

the priests are permitted to vary the manner of their consumption, to eat them

in any manner, namely,

roasted, boiled

[cooked thoroughly],

and cooked, and to add ordinary unconsecrated spices and teruma spices to them, the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Meir says: He may not add teruma spices to them

so

as not to bring the teruma to a state of disqualification,

because if the sacrificial food becomes notar, the teruma too will become disqualified, since the taste of the sacrificial food has been absorbed into it. One may not cause teruma to become disqualified.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma:

An offering that is

more frequent and

an offering that is

more sacred,

both of which are standing ready to be offered—for example, the blood of the daily burnt-offering, which is more frequent, and the blood of an individual’s sin-offering, which is more sacred than a burnt-offering, since the blood of a sin-offering effects atonement—

which of them comes first?

Should the

more frequent offering come first because it is more frequent, or perhaps the more sacred offering comes first

because

it is more sacred?

And we resolve the dilemma:

Come and hear,

as we learned at the beginning of our chapter:

The daily offerings precede the additional offerings.