Zevachim 91a (צא.) — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara analyzes this:

And even though the additional offerings are more sacred

than the daily offerings, since they are brought as an obligation of the day of Shabbat, whereas the daily offerings are brought even on weekdays, nevertheless the daily offerings precede them because they are more frequent. This demonstrates that the frequent precedes the more sacred.

And we reject this: The daily offerings of Shabbat are different from the daily offerings brought every day, for they too are considered offerings of Shabbat and are as sacred as the additional offerings. For

is it so

that one can say that the sanctity of

Shabbat

serves

only for the additional offerings

to render them more sacred, whereas

it does not serve for the daily offerings!?

Therefore, since both are sacred, the daily offerings are brought first, because they are more frequent.

Ta shma

from that which we learned in that Mishna:

The additional offerings of Shabbat precede the additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh.

This is so even though the additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh are more sacred, since Rosh Chodesh is called a “festival,” and it also includes a goat sin-offering [which atones for impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings]. Nevertheless, the additional offerings of Shabbat precede them because they are more frequent. This demonstrates that the frequent is preferable to the more sacred.

And we reject this: The additional offerings of Shabbat on which Rosh Chodesh falls are also sacred, just like the additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh. For

is it so that Rosh Chodesh

serves

only for its own additional offerings

to render them sacred, whereas

it does not serve for the additional offerings of Shabbat!?

Therefore, since both are equally sacred, the more frequent is brought first.

Ta shma

from that which we learned in that same Mishna:

The additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hashana.

This is so

even though Rosh Hashana is more sacred

than Rosh Chodesh. This demonstrates that the frequent is preferable to the more sacred.

And we reject this:

Is it so that Rosh Hashana

serves

only for its own additional offerings

to sanctify them, whereas

it does not serve for the additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh!?

Ta shma

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Alternatively,

there is an additional reason for what Beit Hillel said concerning the order of the blessings in kiddush on Shabbat and Festivals: One recites the blessing over wine first and then recites kiddush [the blessing of the day], because

the blessing over wine is frequent, whereas the blessing of the day is not frequent; and when one thing is frequent and another is not frequent, the frequent precedes.

This is so

even though the blessing of the day is more sacred

than the blessing over wine, since it is recited as an obligation of the day of Shabbat. This proves that the frequent is preferable to the more sacred.

And we reject this: The blessing over wine on Shabbat is itself sacred. For

is it so that Shabbat

serves

only for the blessing of the day, and it does not serve for the blessing over wine!?

Therefore, since both are sacred, the more frequent is brought first.

Ta shma: For Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

If two prayers were before a person on Shabbat that he had to recite, Musaf and Minḥa,

the halakha is that a person recites the Minḥa prayer

first,

and afterward the Musaf prayer,

because the Minḥa prayer is more frequent.

And even though the Musaf prayer is more sacred,

since it is recited only on Shabbat and Festivals.

And we reject this:

Is it so that Shabbat

serves

only for the Musaf prayer, and it does not serve for the Minḥa prayer!?

Therefore, since both are sacred, the more frequent is brought first.

Ta shma:

For we learned in our Mishna:

Yesterday’s peace-offerings, and today’s sin-offering and guilt-offering—

yesterday’s peace-offerings precede them.

And we analyze this:

This

implies that if

both were of today,

meaning that the peace-offerings too were brought today to the Temple courtyard, we would say that

the sin-offering and guilt-offering precede,

because they are more sacred,

and even though the peace-offerings are frequent,

since they are brought as vowed or voluntary offerings, and are therefore found constantly, nevertheless the sin-offering and guilt-offering are brought first. This proves that the more sacred is preferable to the frequent.

And we reject this:

Rava said: Are you speaking of something that is found often?

What you cited from peace-offerings is no proof, because peace-offerings are not in the category of “frequent,” which means that their frequency is obligatory. Rather, they are merely “often found,” meaning that they occur more often than another offering. But as for us,

we are asking only about the frequent:

whether it precedes the more sacred or whether the more sacred precedes it; but

we are not asking about something that is found often.

Since its frequency is not obligatory, it does not possess the quality of being frequent. With regard to it, it is certainly the case that the “more sacred” is preferable and precedes it.

And Rabbi Akiva Eiger cited in his responsa the words of the Jerusalem Talmud in tractate Megilla concerning one who has the opportunity to purchase either a mezuzah or tefillin: Which takes precedence? It is explained there that according to one opinion, the mezuzah takes precedence because one is obligated in it even on Shabbat and Festivals. But another opinion disagrees and maintains that the tefillin take precedence, because when a person is traveling he is exempt from mezuzah but obligated in tefillin, and therefore the tefillin take precedence. Rabbi Akiva Eiger explained that the Jerusalem Talmud does not mean that tefillin take precedence because one is obligated in them while traveling. Rather, it means that since a person is obligated in a mezuzah only when he lives in a house, this is not an obligation in itself. Consequently, it does not possess the quality of frequency, for anything that is obligatory only because a person places himself under the obligation does not possess the quality of frequency; therefore, tefillin take precedence. Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Is something “found often” not

in the category of

“frequent”

?

But wasn’t it taught:

It might be thought that

I should exclude the Paschal offering,

for one is not liable to bring a sin-offering for it if, through inadvertence, he transgressed and failed to offer it, even though intentionally failing to offer it incurs karet [which is the general rule concerning liability for a sin-offering: For every transgression whose intentional violation incurs karet, its unintentional violation incurs a sin-offering], because

it is not frequent, while I should not exclude circumcision

[for intentionally failing to circumcise oneself incurs karet],

because it is frequent,

as its mitzva applies at every moment when he is obligated to circumcise himself and not remain uncircumcised, and one should therefore be liable to bring a sin-offering for neglecting it unintentionally.

Thus circumcision, which is merely “found often,” is called “frequent”?

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “frequent”

that the beraita uses with regard to circumcision?

Frequent in mitzvot,

as thirteen covenants and commandments were made concerning it; it does not have the same meaning as “frequent” in our sugya.

Alternatively: With regard to circumcision relative to the Paschal offering,

since it is found much more often than the Paschal offering—for its mitzva applies at every moment, to circumcise oneself throughout the time that one is uncircumcised, whereas the Paschal offering occurs only once a year—

it resembles something frequent.

But the “often found” nature of peace-offerings relative to a sin-offering and guilt-offering is not considered frequency.

They raised a dilemma: When a frequent offering and a non-frequent offering

were both standing ready to be offered,

and he preceded and slaughtered the non-frequent one, what is the law?

Do we say that, since he slaughtered it,

the non-frequent offering, he must now

offer it,

complete its service and sprinkle its blood even before slaughtering the frequent offering, because once he has begun, he completes the service?

Or perhaps he should place

the blood of the non-frequent offering

aside, continually stirring it,

meaning that he should mix it

in its blood

so that it does not coagulate in the meantime,

until he offers it

—slaughters and sprinkles the blood of—

the frequent offering. And afterward,

that is, afterward, he

offers

—sprinkles the blood of—

the non-frequent offering.

Rav Huna of Sura said: Ta shma:

For we learned in our Mishna:

Yesterday’s peace-offerings and today’s sin-offering and guilt-offering—

yesterday’s peace-offerings precede.

The Gemara now assumed that the case concerns yesterday’s peace-offerings standing before us today already slaughtered, while the sin-offering and guilt-offering have not yet been slaughtered [for if the peace-offerings had not yet been slaughtered, it would not be said that they precede the sin-offering]. Nevertheless, it is clear that the reason the peace-offerings precede is specifically that they arrived yesterday. The Gemara infers from this:

If they were of today,

if the peace-offerings too had arrived at the Temple courtyard today, even in a case

similar to yesterday’s, and what would that be?

For example,

he preceded and slaughtered the peace-offerings,

while the sin-offering and guilt-offering had not yet been slaughtered, we would say that

the sin-offering and guilt-offering precede

the sprinkling of the peace-offering’s blood, because they are more sacred than the peace-offerings, even though by doing so he defers the peace-offerings.

From here the Gemara infers that just as the more sacred offering is brought first even when the less sacred offering has already been slaughtered, the same applies to a frequent offering and a non-frequent offering.

And we reject this:

Perhaps “yesterday’s peace-offerings and today’s sin-offering and guilt-offering,”

which is stated in the Mishna,

how can you find it?

It is found in a case

where he slaughtered both of them,

where the sin-offering and the peace-offering were both slaughtered and stood ready for their blood to be sprinkled. Since the peace-offerings arrived yesterday, their blood is sprinkled first.

And

as for what we inferred, “If they were

of today, similar to yesterday’s,

the sin-offering precedes,” this

also

concerns a case

where he slaughtered both of them,

and he came to ask which blood should be sprinkled first. We tell him to sprinkle the sin-offering’s blood first [since, in any event, he must keep one of the offerings’ blood stirred, the more sacred offering is brought first].

However,

if

he did not slaughter both of them, you should raise the dilemma

whether he should bring first the more sacred offering that has not been slaughtered, or the more sacred offering that has already been slaughtered. The same applies to a frequent offering and a non-frequent offering.

Ta shma

from that which was taught concerning kiddush on Shabbat:

Alternatively, the blessing over wine is frequent, whereas the blessing of the day is not frequent; and when one thing is frequent and another is not frequent, the frequent precedes.

But here the non-frequent item became available before the frequent item: At the beginning of the day of Shabbat, the time for the blessing of the day arrived, while wine was not yet before him and the time for the blessing over wine had not arrived. This resembles a case in which he preceded and slaughtered the non-frequent offering. Nevertheless, he should recite the frequent blessing first. Let us resolve the Gemara’s dilemma from here.

And we reject this:

Here too, since it came

later—the wine—and is ready for him to recite the blessing over it,

it is considered as though both had been slaughtered.

For he is now obligated with regard to the wine. The dilemma cannot be resolved from here.

Ta shma: For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is that a person recites the Minḥa prayer

on Shabbat,

and afterward the Musaf prayer.

Even though the time for Musaf arrived before the time for Minḥa. This resembles a case in which he preceded and slaughtered the non-frequent offering.

And we reject this:

Here too, since the time for the Minḥa prayer has arrived,

and both prayers are now before him,

it is considered as though both had been slaughtered.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Ta shma

from that which we learned:

If he slaughtered

the Paschal offering

before midday

on the fourteenth day,

it is invalid, because it is stated concerning it: “between the evenings.”

However, if he slaughtered it after midday, but

before the daily offering

of the afternoon,

it is valid, and he shall keep its blood stirred

—the blood of the Paschal offering—

until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled.

For ideally, the mitzva is to bring the daily offering before the Paschal offering.

Thus, if he preceded and slaughtered the later offering, he delays its sprinkling until he slaughters and sprinkles the offering that ought to precede it. Our dilemma is resolved.

And we reject this:

What are we dealing with here? With a case in which he preceded and slaughtered the daily offering first,

after he had slaughtered the Paschal offering, so that both offerings are now slaughtered and their blood is ready to be sprinkled. Therefore, he sprinkles the blood of the daily offering first [since, in any event, he must delay the sprinkling of one of them and keep its blood stirred]. But if he has not yet slaughtered the daily offering, one can say that he should first sprinkle the Paschal offering, even though it is supposed to be brought later; and the same applies to a frequent offering and a non-frequent offering.

Rav Aḥa the Elder said to Rav Ashi: Our Mishna also indicates

that the case is one in which he had already slaughtered the daily offering.

For it teaches: “Until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled,” and it does not teach: “Until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood

of the daily offering,” which would imply that he still needs to slaughter it. Rather, it indicates that it has already been slaughtered, and therefore the daily offering is brought first.

And we conclude: Indeed,

conclude from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And in all of them, the priests are permitted

to alter the manner of eating them—to eat them roasted, boiled, or cooked.

And the Gemara discusses this:

What is the reason?

And we answer:

The verse states

with regard to the priestly gifts: “I have given them to you

for greatness,”

and the translation of “for greatness” is “to magnify,” that is,

for honor,

so that they will eat them

in the manner in which kings

who are anointed

eat.

Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: If you see oil being distributed in the Temple courtyard to the priests—

What is the reason?

you need not ask

what that oil is; rather, it is certainly one of two types of oil:

Either it is

the remainder

of the oil used for

the wafers of the meal-offering of an Israelite.

That is, the meal-offering that is brought in the form of wafers is anointed with oil after it is baked, and the oil remaining from that oil is distributed to the priests.

And

it is likewise possible that it is the remainder of

the log of oil of a leper,

which remains after the seven sprinklings and the application of oil to the leper’s ear cartilage and thumbs and big toes; this oil, too, is distributed to the priests.

And

if you see oil being placed upon the fires—

if you saw oil being placed upon the altar fires —

you need not ask what it is; rather, it is certainly the remainder of the wafers of the meal-offering of a priest.

For any meal-offering brought by a priest must be entirely burned upon the altar, and the oil remaining from the wafers of a priest is also burned upon the altar.

And

it is likewise possible that it is the remainder of

the meal-offering of the anointed priest.

That is, the remainder of the oil of the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest brings every day, which contains a large quantity of oil, since he brings three logs of oil for one tenth of an ephah of fine flour. The oil remaining from it is burned upon the altar.

Other than these oils, it is not possible for there to be another oil that is distributed to the priests or burned upon the altar, because

one does not volunteer oil

alone, without fine flour, as an independent meal-offering.

Rabbi Tarfon says: One may volunteer oil

alone. According to him, it is possible that the oil distributed to the priests or burned upon the altar is donated oil, as the Gemara explains.