Parallel
זבחים 91
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[Now this is so] notwithstanding that the additional offerings are more sacred! — [No:] does then the Sabbath affect the additional offerings and not affect the continual-offerings? Come and hear: The additional-offerings of the Sabbath precede the additional-offerings of New Moon! — Does then New Moon affect its own additional offerings and not affect the additional offerings of the Sabbath? Come and hear: The additional offerings of New Moon precede the additional offerings of New Year, although New Year is holier! — Does then New Year affect its own additional offerings and not affect the additional offerings of New Moon? Come and hear: Another reason: the blessing for wine is constant, while the blessing for the day is not constant, and of that which is constant and that which is not constant, that which is constant comes first. [Now this is so] notwithstanding that the blessing for the day is holier! — Does then the Sabbath affect the blessing for the day and not affect the blessing for the wine? Come and hear, for R. Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service. [Although the additional service is more sacred]! — Does then the Sabbath affect the additional service and not affect the minhah service? Come and hear: 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. Hence, if both are of to-day, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering take precedence, although a peace-offering is more constant! — Said Raba: You speak of what is common: we ask about what is constant, not about what is more common. Said R. Huna b. Judah to Raba: Is then what is common not [the same as what is] constant? Surely it was taught: I would exclude the Passover-offering, which is not constant, but I would not exclude circumcision, which is constant! — What does ‘constant’ mean? It is more constant in precepts. Alternatively, circumcision is constant in comparison with the Passover-offering. It was asked: [If one thing is] constant and [another] non-constant, and [the priest] slaughtered the non-constant first, what is the law? Do we say, since he slaughtered it, he must offer [i.e., sprinkle] it [first]; or perhaps he must give it to another to stir the blood until he offers the constant, and then offer the non-constant? — Said R. Huna of Sura, Come and hear: 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. Hence if it were [a peace-offering] of to-day analogous to that of yesterday — and how could that be? if he slaughtered the peace-offering first — [the sprinkling of] the sin-offering and the guilt-offering would take precedence! — [No:] perhaps how [is the case of] a peace-offering of yesterday and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering of to-day meant? Where he slaughtered both. Where, however, he did not slaughter both, there you have the question. Come and hear: Another reason: the blessing for the wine is constant, whereas the blessing for the day is not constant, and of that which is constant and that which is not constant, that which is constant comes first! — Here too, since it [the wine] has arrived, it is analogous to both having been slaughtered. Come and hear, for R. Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service! — Here too, since the time for the minhah service has come, it is as though they were both slaughtered. R. Aha the son of R. Ashi said to Rabina: Come and hear: If he killed it before midday, it is disqualified, because ‘at dusk’ is said in connection with it. [If he killed it] before the [evening] tamid, it is fit, and one must stir its blood until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid! — The case we discuss here is where e.g. he first slaughtered the tamid. Said R. Aha the elder to R. Ashi: The Mishnah too proves that, because it teaches, ‘until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid,’ but it does not teach, until he slaughters [the tamid] and sprinkles its blood. This proves it. AND IN ALL OF THESE, THE PRIESTS MAY DEVIATE etc. What is the reason? — Scripture says, [Even all the hallowed things . . . unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion, which means, as [a symbol of] greatness [so that they can be eaten] just as kings eat. MISHNAH. R. SIMEON SAID: IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS [REKIKIM] OF THE ISRAELITE'S MEAL-OFFERINGS , OR OF THE LEPER'S LOG OF OIL. IF YOU SEE OIL BEING POURED ON TO THE FIRES, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE OIL OF THE WAFERS OF PRIESTS’ MEAL-OFFERINGS, OR OF THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING; FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE]. R. TARFON SAID: OIL CAN BE DONATED [BY ITSELF].
—
GEMARA. Samuel said: According to R. Tarfon, when a man donates oil [by itself], he removes a fistful, burns it [on the altar], and its residue is eaten. What is the reason? — Scripture saith, [And when any one bringeth] a meal-offering: this teaches that one can donate oil [by itself], and that it [an offering of oil] is like a meal-offering: as a fistful is taken of a meal-offering and the rest is eaten, so the oil: one takes a fistful off and the rest of it is eaten. R. Zera observed, We too have learnt thus: R. SIMEON SAID: IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS [REKIKIM] OF THE ISRAELITES’ MEAL-OFFERINGS OR OF THE LEPER'S LOG OF OIL . . . FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE]: hence it follows that on the view that it can be offered, it can be shared out! — Said Abaye to him: Then consider the next clause: IF YOU SEE OIL POURED ON THE FIRES, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS OF PRIESTS’ MEAL-OFFERINGS OR OF THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE]: hence it follows that on the view that it can be offered, the whole of it is a fire offering. Thus the first clause presents a difficulty on Abaye's view, while the last clause presents a difficulty on R. Zera's view. As for R. Zera, it is well: the first clause refers to the residue, while the last clause refers to the fistful. But on Abaye's view there is a difficulty? — The first clause is taught on account of the last clause. As for saying that a second clause it taught on account of a first clause, that is well; but does one teach a first clause on account of a second clause? — Yes: they said in the West [Palestine]: The first clause is taught on account of the second clause. Come and hear: Wine, in R. Akiba's view, is for the basins; oil, in R. Tarfon's view, is for the fires. Now surely, since the whole of the wine is for basins, the whole of the oil is for burning? — Why choose to say thus: each is conditioned by its own law. R. Papa said: This is dependent on Tannaim: [When one donates] oil, he must bring not less than a log; Rabbi said: Three logs. Wherein do they differ? — The scholars stated before R. Papa: They differ as to whether [we say]: Judge from it and [all] from it; or, judge from it and place the deduction on its own basis. The Rabbis hold: ‘Judge from it and [all] from it’: as a meal-offering can be donated, so can oil be donated; ‘and [all] from it’: as a meal-offering [requires] a log of oil, so here too a log of oil [is required]; and as a meal-offering, a fistful thereof is removed, and the rest is eaten, so the oil [alone], a fistful thereof is removed and the rest is eaten. And the other [learns] from a meal-offering: as a meal-offering is donated, so is oil donated; ‘but place it on its own basis’, viz., it is like a drink-offering [of wine]: as a drink-offering consists of three logs, so oil consists of three logs; and as the whole of a drink-offering is for basins, so the oil is altogether for the fires. R. Papa observed to Abaye: If Rabbi inferred it from a meal-offering, then all would agree that you judge from it and [all] from it. Rabbi, however, deduces it from ‘home-born’. Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: Can you say thus? Surely it was taught: ‘A meal-offering’: this teaches that oil [alone] can be donated? And how much? Three logs. Now, whom do you know to maintain [that it must be] three logs? Rabbi; yet he deduces it from a meal-offering! — If it was taught, it was taught, he replied. Samuel said: When one donates wine, he brings it and sprinkles it on the fires. What is the reason? Scripture saith, And thou shalt present for the drink-offering half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. But he extinguishes [the fires]? — Partial extinguishing is not called extinguishing. But that is not so, for surely R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: If one removes a coal from the altar and extinguishes it, he is culpable? — That is when there is none but that [coal]. Alternatively, extinguishing as [part of] a religious rite is different. Come and hear, for R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: Since Scripture authorized the taking up [of the ashes], you might think that one can extinguish [the embers] and take [them] up; but you must say that one may not extinguish! — There it is different, for one can sit and wait. Come and hear: Wine, in R. Akiba's view, is for the bowls; oil, in R. Tarfon's view, is for the fires. Moreover, it was taught: The wine of a drink-offering is for the bowls. Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather for the fires? Say, he must not extinguish! — There is no difficulty: One agrees with R. Judah; the other with R. Simeon. Are we to say that Samuel agrees with R. Simeon? Surely Samuel said: One may extinguish a lump of fiery metal in the street, that it should not harm the public,
—