Zevachim 91a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara infers:

And even though the additional offerings are more sacred

than the regular offerings, for they come as an obligation of the day of Shabbat, whereas the regular offerings come even on weekdays, nevertheless the regular offerings precede them because they are tadir. Thus, tadir precedes the more sacred.

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

is it so

that it is possible to say that the sanctity of

Shabbat

only

benefited the additional offerings

to consider them sacred, whereas

it did not benefit the regular offerings!?

Therefore, since both are sacred, the regular offerings are advanced before the additional offerings, since they are tadir.

Come and hear

from that which we learned in that Mishna:

The additional offerings of Shabbat precede the additional offerings of the New Moon.

And this is so even though the additional offerings of the New Moon are more sacred, since the New Moon is called a “festival,” and there is also a sin-offering goat in it [which atones for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings]; nevertheless, the additional offerings of Shabbat precede, since they are more tadir. Thus, tadir is preferable to the more sacred.

And we reject this: The additional offerings of Shabbat on which the New Moon falls are also sacred like the additional offerings of the New Moon. For

is it so that the New Moon

only

benefited its own additional offerings

to make them sacred, whereas

it did not benefit the additional offerings of Shabbat!?

Therefore, since both are equally sacred, the more tadir is advanced.

Come and hear

from that which we learned in that same Mishna:

The additional offerings of the New Moon precede the additional offerings of Rosh HaShanah.

And this is so

even though Rosh HaShanah is more sacred

than the New Moon. Thus, tadir is preferable to the more sacred.

And we reject this:

Is it so that Rosh HaShanah

only

benefited its own additional offerings

to sanctify them, whereas

it did not benefit the additional offerings of the New Moon!?

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Alternatively,

another reason for what Beit Hillel said concerning the order of the blessings of kiddush on Shabbat and Festivals: that one first recites the blessing over wine and afterwards says kiddush [the blessing of the day], because

the blessing over wine is tadir, and the blessing of the day is not tadir, and when one is tadir and the other is not tadir, the tadir precedes.

And this is so

even though the blessing of the day is more sacred

than the blessing over wine, for it comes as an obligation of the day of Shabbat. And it is demonstrated that tadir 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

only

benefited the blessing of the day, but did not benefit the blessing over wine!?

Therefore, since both are sacred, the more tadir is advanced.

Come and hear: For Rabbi Yohanan said:

If two prayers stood before a person on Shabbat for him to pray, Musaf and Minhah,

the halakha is that a person prays the Minhah prayer

first,

and afterwards that of Musaf,

because the Minhah prayer is more tadir.

And even though the Musaf prayer is more sacred,

for it is only on Shabbat and Festivals.

And we reject this:

Is it so that Shabbat

only

benefited the Musaf prayer, but did not benefit the Minhah prayer!?

Therefore, since both are sacred, the more tadir is advanced.

Come and hear:

For we learned in the Mishna:

Yesterday’s shelamim, today’s sin-offering and guilt-offering—

yesterday’s shelamim precede.

And we infer:

This

means, if

both one and the other were on the same day,

that the shelamim too were brought today to the Temple courtyard, we would say

the sin-offering and the guilt-offering precede,

since they are more sacred,

and even though the shelamim are tadir,

for since they are brought as vows and freewill offerings, they are always found; nevertheless, the offering of the sin-offering and guilt-offering is advanced. It is thus proven that the more sacred is preferable to the tadir.

And we reject this:

Said Rava: Are you saying “found frequently”?

What you brought from shelamim is not proof, for shelamim are not in the category of tadir, whose meaning is that its frequency is obligatory; rather, they are “found frequently,” always more than their counterpart. But we, only

the question before us is concerning tadir

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

“found frequently” is not the question before us.

Since its frequency is not obligatory, it has no quality of tadir, and with regard to it, certainly the “more sacred” is preferable to it and precedes it.

Rab Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Is “found frequently” not

in the category of

“tadir”

?

But it was taught:

One might

exclude the Paschal offering,

for one is not liable for a sin-offering on its account if, inadvertently, he transgressed and did not offer it, even though intentionally he is liable to karet [for this is the rule for liability to a sin-offering: for every transgression whose intentional violation incurs karet, liability for its inadvertent violation incurs a sin-offering], because

it is not tadir, while I would not exclude circumcision

[for one is liable to karet for it if he intentionally transgressed and did not circumcise himself],

for it is tadir,

since its mitzva is at every moment when he is obligated to circumcise himself and not remain uncircumcised, and there would be liability for its neglect in error to bring a sin-offering.

It follows that circumcision, which is merely “found frequently,” is called “tadir”?

And we answer:

What is “tadir

that the beraita stated with regard to circumcision?

“Tadir in mitzvot,”

for thirteen covenants and commands were made concerning it, and it does not have the meaning of “tadir” stated in this discussion.

And if you wish, say: Circumcision in relation to the Paschal offering,

since it is found much more frequently than the Paschal offering, for its mitzva is at every single moment to circumcise himself as long as he is uncircumcised, whereas the Paschal offering is only once a year,

resembles tadir.

But “found frequently” with regard to shelamim in relation to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering is not considered tadir.

They raised a question: Tadir and not-tadir

that were both standing to be offered,

and he advanced and slaughtered the not-tadir, what is the law?

Do we say: Since he slaughtered it

the not-tadir, now

he offers it,

he completes its service and sprinkles its blood even before slaughtering the tadir, for once he has begun, he completes?

Or perhaps, he places

the blood of the not-tadir

afterwards, mixing it,

that is, he mixes it

with its blood

so that it will not coagulate in the meantime,

until he offers it

by slaughtering and sprinkling

the tadir. And afterwards,

after that,

he offers

—he sprinkles the blood

of the not-tadir.

Rav Huna of Sura said: Come and hear:

For we learned in the Mishna:

Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s sin-offering and guilt-offering—

yesterday’s shelamim precede.

And the Gemara now reasoned that the case is one in which yesterday’s shelamim are before us today already slaughtered, while the sin-offering and guilt-offering have not yet been slaughtered [for if the shelamim had not yet been slaughtered, it would not be said that they precede the sin-offering]. Nevertheless, it is explained that the reason for advancing the shelamim is specifically because they arrived yesterday. And the Gemara infers from this:

That of today,

if the shelamim too had arrived today at the Temple courtyard, even in a manner

analogous to yesterday’s, and what is the case?

For example,

he advanced and slaughtered the shelamim,

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

the sin-offering and guilt-offering precede

the sprinkling of the blood of the shelamim, since they are more sacred than the shelamim. And even though by doing so he defers the shelamim.

And from here the Gemara infers that just as the more sacred is advanced even when the less sacred has already been slaughtered, so too with tadir and not-tadir.

And we reject this:

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

which is stated in the Mishna,

how can you find it?

In a case

where he slaughtered both of them,

where the sin-offering and the shelamim are both slaughtered and stand ready for sprinkling, and since the shelamim arrived yesterday, he advances them in sprinkling.

And

what we inferred, “That

of today, analogous to yesterday’s,

the sin-offering precedes,”

also

refers to a case

where he slaughtered both of them,

and he came to consult which blood he should sprinkle first, and they tell him to sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering first [since, in the end, he must keep the blood of one of the offerings in motion, the more sacred is advanced].

But,

if

he did not slaughter both of them, the question remains for you

whether he should advance the more sacred one that has not been slaughtered before the more sacred one that has been slaughtered. And the same applies to tadir and not-tadir.

Come and hear

from that which was taught with regard to kiddush on Shabbat:

Alternatively, the blessing over wine is tadir and the blessing of the day is not tadir, and when one is tadir and the other is not tadir, the tadir precedes.

But here the not-tadir came first, before the tadir: at the beginning of the day of Shabbat, the time for the blessing of the day arrived, while the wine was not yet before him and the time for the blessing over wine had not arrived. And this is analogous to advancing and slaughtering the not-tadir. Nevertheless, he should advance the tadir. Let us resolve the Gemara’s doubt from here.

And we reject this:

Here too, since it came

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

it is considered as though both of them had been slaughtered.

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

Come and hear: For Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is that a person prays the Minhah prayer

on Shabbat,

and afterwards that of Musaf.

Even though the time of Musaf arrived before the time of Minhah. And this is analogous to advancing and slaughtering the not-tadir.

And we reject this:

Here too, since the time of the Minhah prayer has arrived,

and now both prayers are before him,

it is considered as though both of them had been slaughtered.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Come and hear

from that which we learned:

If they slaughtered it

the Paschal offering

before midday

of the fourteenth day,

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

However, if they slaughtered it after midday, but

before the regular offering

of the twilight period,

it is valid, and he shall keep its blood in motion

of the Paschal offering

until he sprinkles the blood of the regular offering.

Since, as an initial matter, it is a mitzva to advance the regular offering before the Paschal offering.

It follows that if he advanced and slaughtered the later one, its sprinkling is delayed until he slaughters and sprinkles the one that ought to precede. And our question is resolved.

And we reject this:

With what are we dealing here? With a case where he advanced and slaughtered the regular offering first,

after he slaughtered the Paschal offering, and now both have been slaughtered and their blood stands ready to be sprinkled. Therefore, he advances the sprinkling of the blood of the regular offering [since, in the end, he must delay the sprinkling of one of them and keep its blood in motion]. But if he had not yet slaughtered the regular offering, it may be said that he should sprinkle the Paschal offering first, even though its law is that it should be later; and the same applies to tadir and not-tadir.

Rav Aha the Elder said to Rav Ashi: Our Mishna too is precise

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

For it teaches, “until he sprinkles the blood of the regular offering,” and it does not teach, “until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood of

the regular offering,” which would imply that he must slaughter it. Rather, it implies that it has already been slaughtered, and therefore he advances the regular offering.

And we conclude: Indeed,

learn from it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And in all of them, the priests are permitted

to alter them in their eating, to eat them roasted, boiled, and cooked.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason?

And we answer:

The verse says

regarding the priestly gifts, “To you I have given them

for greatness,”

and the translation of “for greatness” is “for abundance,” that is,

for greatness,

so that they should eat them

in the manner in which kings

who are anointed

eat.

Mishna:

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

What is the reason?

you do not need to ask

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

Either it is

the remainder

of the oil that remained from the oil of

the wafers of the Israelite’s meal-offering.

That is, the meal-offering that comes in the form of wafers, which is anointed with oil after its baking; and the remainder of that oil is distributed to the priests.

And

it is likewise possible that it is the remainder of

the log of oil of a metzora,

which remained after the seven sprinklings and the placing on the metzora’s ear cartilage and on his thumbs and big toes; for this oil too is distributed to the priests.

And

if you saw oil being placed upon the fires —

if you saw oil being placed upon the altar fires —

you do not need to ask what it is; rather, it is certainly the remainder of the wafers of the priests’ meal-offering.

For every meal-offering whose bringer is a priest has the status of being entirely burned upon the altar, and the remainder of the oil of the priest’s wafers is also burned upon the altar.

And

it is likewise possible that it is the remainder of

the meal-offering of an anointed priest.

That is, the remainder of the oil of the chavitin meal-offering, which the High Priest offers every day and which contains an abundance of oil, since he brings three log of oil for one isaron of fine flour. And the remainder of the oil is burned upon the altar.

Aside from these oils, it is not possible that there is any other oil that is distributed to the priests or burned upon the altar, because

one does not donate oil

alone, without fine flour, as a meal-offering sacrifice in its own right.

Rabbi Tarfon says: One does donate oil

alone. And according to his view, it is possible that the oil distributed to the priests or burned upon the altar is donated oil, as the Gemara explains.