Parallel
זבחים 90
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and one is not culpable on their account in respect of piggul, nothar, or uncleanness. R. Akiba maintains: They involve trespass, and one is culpable on their account for piggul, nothar, and defilement. Surely they disagree where they were taken in again, and they disagree in this: one master [R. Eliezer] holds that they were disqualified by having been taken out, while another master holds that they were not disqualified by being taken out? — Said R. Papa: If they were taken in again, none disagree; but here they disagree where they are still without, and they disagree in this: one master holds [that] sprinkling is not effective for what is without, while the other master holds [that] sprinkling is effective for what went out. But surely it was R. Papa who said: If they are still without, none disagree; they disagree only where they were taken in again? — That is only in connection with the Two Loaves, which are not part of the sacrifice itself; but since emurim are part of the sacrifice itself, they disagree where they are still without. BIRD-OFFERINGS PRECEDE etc. On the contrary, meal-offerings should take precedence, since they are both congregational and private? — Even so, the fact that they are blood sacrifices outweighs this. A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING etc. On the contrary, a votive meal-offering should take precedence, since it requires oil and frankincense? — Even so, a sinner's meal-offering, which is brought on account of sin, is more important, since it makes atonement. It was asked: [As to] the meal-offering of a sotah and a votive meal-offering, which of these takes precedence? Does a votive meal-offering take precedence, because it requires oil and frankincense; or perhaps a sotah's meal-offering takes precedence, because it is brought to investigate sin? — Come and hear: A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING PRECEDES A VOTIVE MEAL-OFFERING: thus, only a sinner's meal-offering precedes a votive meal-offering, but a sotah's meal-offering does not! — [No:] does he then teach, because it makes atonement; [surely] he teaches, BECAUSE IT COMES ON ACCOUNT OF SIN, and this one [a sotah's meal-offering] too comes on account of sin. Come and hear: This one precedes that one, because the former is of wheat, while the latter is of barley. Surely that means, a votive meal-offering [precedes] a sotah's meal-offering? — No: [it means that] a sinner's meal-offering [precedes] a sotah's meal-offering. Then infer it from the fact that the former makes atonement while the latter does not make atonement? — What then: [it refers to] a votive meal-offering? Then infer it from the fact that the one [a votive meal-offering] requires oil and frankincense, while the other does not require oil and frankincense? Rather, he states one of two reasons. A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PRECEDES etc. Whence do we know it? — For our Rabbis taught: And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first: for what purpose is this stated? If to teach that it comes before the burnt-offering, surely it is already said, And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering? This, however, furnishes a general rule for all sin-offerings, that they take precedence over all burnt-offerings which accompany them, [sc.] the bird sin-offering [precedes] the bird burnt-offering, the animal sin-offering [precedes] the animal burnt-offering, and even a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering. Therefore, [that] a bird sin-offering [precedes] a bird burnt-offering [is inferred from], And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering. An animal sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering, because the Divine Law intimated an extension; a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering, because this is a general rule. Come and hear: R. Eliezer said: Wherever a sin-offering is exchanged, the sin-offering [of a bird] takes precedence, but here the burnt-offering [of a bird] takes precedence. Wherever it comes on account of sin, the sin-offering takes precedence; but here the burnt-offering takes precedence. Wherever both [birds] come instead of one sin-offering, the sin-offering takes precedence; but here that they do not both come on account of one sin-offering, the burnt-offering takes precedence? — Said Raba: Scripture accorded it precedence in respect of designating it. Come and hear: Bullocks take precedence over rams, rams take precedence over lambs, lambs over he-goats.
—
Does that not refer to those of the Festival? — No: [it means those] of a votive offering: bullocks precede rams, because their drink-offerings are larger; and for the same reason rams [precede] lambs; [while] lambs [precede] he-goats because more [is offered] of them, [viz.,] the fat-tail. Come and hear: The bullock of the anointed priest precedes the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin; the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock for idolatry; the bullock of idolatry precedes the he-goats of idolatry. [And this is so] not withstanding that the bullock of idolatry is a burnt-offering, whereas the he-goats of idolatry are sin-offerings? But why not deduce from the first clause: the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock of idolatry? — We do not speak [of where both sacrifices are] of one kind: there a sin-offering [certainly] takes precedence. We speak of two kinds, and yet here we find a burnt-offering preceding a sin-offering? — In the West [Palestine] they said in Raba b. Mari's name: The sin-offering of idolatry lacks an alef, as le-hattath is written. Rabina said: In their case ‘according to the ordinance’ is written. Now that you have come to this, you may even say that [the preceding passage refers to] the bullocks of the Festival, [for] ‘after their ordinance’ is written in connection with them too. It was asked: [With regard to] a bird sin-offering, an animal burnt-offering, and tithe, which of these precede? Shall the bird sin-offering come first? there is tithe, which must precede it! Shall tithe come first? there is the animal burnt-offering, which must precede it! Shall the animal burnt-offering come first? there is the bird sin-offering, which must precede it! — Here they held that a slaughtered sacrifice is more important. In the West they said: The superiority of an animal burnt-offering [over tithe] serves the bird sin-offering and advances it over that of tithe. MISHNAH. ALL SIN-OFFERINGS IN THE TORAH PRECEDE GUILT-OFFERINGS, EXCEPT A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING, BECAUSE IT COMES TO MAKE [A PERSON] FIT. ALL GUILT-OFFERINGS OF THE TORAH MUST BE TWO-YEAR OLDS AND [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE, EXCEPT A NAZIRITES GUILT-OFFERING AND A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING: THESE MUST BE A YEAR OLD, AND NEED NOT BE [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE. AS THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING OFFERED, SO THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING EATEN. IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A PEACE-OFFERING OF TO-DAY, THAT OF YESTERDAY TAKES PRECEDENCE. IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING OF TO-DAY, YESTERDAY'S PEACE-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE: THAT IS R. MEIR’ S RULING. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THE SIN-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE, BECAUSE IT IS A MOST SACRED SACRIFICE. AND IN ALL OF THESE, THE PRIESTS MAY DEVIATE IN THEIR MODE OF EATING, AND EAT THEM ROAST, STEWED OR BOILED, AND SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF HULLIN OR OF TERUMAH: SO SAID R. SIMEON. R. MEIR SAID: ONE MAY NOT SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF TERUMAH, SO AS NOT TO BRING TERUMAH TO UNFITNESS. GEMARA. It was asked: That which is more constant and that which is more sacred, which takes precedence? Does that which is more constant take precedence, because it is more constant; or does that which is more sacred take precedence, because it is more sacred? — Come and hear: The continual [burnt-]offerings precede the additional offerings.
—