Zevachim

[Now this is so] notwithstanding that the additional offerings are more sacred!1 — [No:] does then the Sabbath affect the additional offerings and not affect the continual-offerings? 2 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.3 [Now this is so] notwithstanding that the blessing for the day is holier!4 — Does then the Sabbath affect the blessing for the day and not affect the blessing for the wine? 5 Come and hear, for R. Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service.6 [Although the additional service is more sacred]!7 — 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!8 — Said Raba: You speak of what is common: we ask about what is constant, not about what is more common.9 Said R. Huna b. Judah to Raba: Is then what is common not [the same as what is] constant?10 Surely it was taught: I would exclude the Passover-offering, which is not constant, but I would not exclude circumcision, which is constant!11 — What does ‘constant’ mean? It is more constant in precepts.12 Alternatively, circumcision is constant in comparison with the Passover-offering.13 It was asked: [If one thing is] constant and [another] non-constant, and [the priest] slaughtered the non-constant first, what is the law?14 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?15 — Said R. Huna16 of Sura,17 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!18 — [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.19 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!20 — Here too, since it [the wine] has arrived,21 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!22 — 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:23 If he killed it24 before midday, it is disqualified, because ‘at dusk’ is said in connection with it.25 [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!26 — The case we discuss here is where e.g. he first slaughtered the tamid.27 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,28 which means, as [a symbol of] greatness [so that they can be eaten] just as kings eat.29 MISHNAH. R. SIMEON SAID: IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT,30 YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS [REKIKIM] OF THE ISRAELITE'S MEAL-OFFERINGS31 , OR OF THE LEPER'S LOG OF OIL.32 IF YOU SEE OIL BEING POURED ON TO THE FIRES,33 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].34 R. TARFON SAID: OIL CAN BE DONATED [BY ITSELF]. continual offering brought on the Sabbath. over wine precedes that over the festival! — Whenever wine is drunk a blessing over it is required, whereas the blessing of sanctification is confined to festivals. brought only when one is liable to them. would involve kareth. This however refers to negative injunctions (hence, sins of commission), not to positive commands; therefore, though deliberate neglect of the Passover-offering or circumcision involves kareth, unintentional neglect does not involve a sin-offering. In the present passage, however, it is sought to draw a distinction between the Passover-offering and circumcision, on the grounds that the latter is constant. Now actually it is no more constant than the former, since both are obligatory, and it is only more common (since circumcision takes place at any time, while the Passover-offering is sacrificed only for Passover), and yet it is called constant, which shews that the two are identical. rank as constant in comparison with it. sin-offering or a guilt-offering brought to-day is still waiting to be slaughtered, the blood of the peace-offering must be sprinkled before the other is slaughtered. For he holds that if the peace-offering too has yet to be slaughtered, the Mishnah would not rule that it takes precedence. Hence by inference, if both were brought to-day and the peace-offering was wrongly slaughtered first, the slaughtering of the sin-offering etc. must precede the sprinkling of the peace-offering. This proves that where one sacrifice is more sacred than another, and the latter was slaughtered first, the former must nevertheless be slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled, before that of the less sacred is sprinkled, and presumably the same applies where one sacrifice is more constant than the other. too. From this you could infer that if both were of to-day, he must sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering first. nightfall. This is analogous to slaughtering the non-constant first; and as here the blessing for the wine must be recited first, by analogy the blood of the constant must be sprinkled first. those of sacrifices or portions thereof (sc. the emurim) as they are burnt on the altar.