גמ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״,

The mishna teaches that the placement of the blood of a sin offering precedes the sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, whereas the burning of the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the burning of the portions of a sin offering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? as the Sages taught in a baraita discussing a verse about the consecration of the Levites: “Then let them take a young bull, and its meal offering, fine flour mingled with oil; and a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering” (Numbers 8:8).

אִם בָּא לְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן שְׁנַיִם – הֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל שֶׁיְּהֵא חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְכָל מַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּפַר שֵׁנִי בֶן בָּקָר תִּקַּח לְחַטָּאת״.

The baraita explains: If this verse comes to teach that they are two bulls, this is superfluous, as it is already stated: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering” (Numbers 8:12). Why must the verse state: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering”? As one might have thought that the sin offering should precede all the rites of the burnt offering, therefore the verse states: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering,” which indicates that the sin offering actually comes second to the burnt offering.

אִי ״פַּר שֵׁנִי״, יָכוֹל תְּהֵא עוֹלָה קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַטָּאת לְכָל מַעֲשֶׂיהָ – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת הָאֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶת הָאֶחָד עֹלָה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת לְדַם עוֹלָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה, אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה כו׳.

The baraita continues: If the verse had stated only that the sin offering is the second bull, one might have thought that the burnt offering precedes the sin offering with regard to all its rites. Therefore, the verse states: “And offer the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering,” indicating that the sin offering precedes the burnt offering. How can these verses be reconciled? The placement of the blood of the sin offering precedes the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering because it effects acceptance, whereas the burnt offering does not effect atonement. And burning the limbs of the burnt offering on the altar precedes burning the portions of the sin offering, in fulfillment of the phrase: “And a second young bull you shall take for a sin offering.”

וְאַמַּאי? מַתָּנָה קַמַּיְיתָא דִּמְכַפְּרָה – תִּיקְדּוֹם, וְהָנָךְ לָא!

The Gemara asks: But why do all four placements of the blood of the sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering? Let only the first placement of blood, which effects atonement, take precedence, and those other placements should not come before the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering.

אֲמַר רָבִינָא: הָכָא בְּחַטַּאת הַלְוִיִּם עָסְקִינַן, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי עוֹלָה דָּמֵי, קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא הִיא תִּיקְדִּים. בְּמַעֲרָבָא אָמְרִי: הוֹאִיל וְהִתְחִיל בַּמַּתָּנוֹת – גּוֹמֵר.

Ravina said: In the verse here, we are dealing with the sin offering brought by the Levites for their consecration. And even though it does not effect atonement and is therefore comparable to a burnt offering, the Merciful One states that the sin offering precedes the burnt offering with regard to the presentation of the blood. This indicates that in general, all four placements of the blood of a sin offering precede the sprinkling of the blood of the burnt offering, despite the fact that only the first placement effects atonement. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they say there is another answer: Once the priest commenced with the placements of the blood of the sin offering, he completes all of them before sprinkling the blood of the burnt offering.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: דַּם חַטָּאת וְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּרַצֶּה, אוֹ דִּילְמָא אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין – מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן כָּלִיל לָאִישִּׁים?

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a sin offering and limbs of a burnt offering to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the sin offering take precedence, due to the fact that it effects acceptance? Or perhaps the limbs of the burnt offering take precedence, due to the fact that they are entirely burned in the flames of the altar.

תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה; לְדַם עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה לָא קָדֵים.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of a sin offering precedes the blood of a burnt offering. One can infer from this that the blood of the sin offering does not precede all elements of the burnt offering; it is only with regard to the blood of the burnt offering that it takes precedence, whereas it does not take precedence with regard to the limbs of the burnt offering.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת; לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים, לְדַם חַטָּאת – לָא קָדֵים! אֶלָּא, מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, the opposite conclusion can be inferred from the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that limbs of a burnt offering precede the portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar. This indicates that it is only with regard to the portions of the sin offering consumed on the altar that the limbs of the burnt offering take precedence, but they do not take precedence with regard to the blood of the sin offering. The Gemara concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna concerning this matter.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל, אוֹ דִּילְמָא אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת קוֹדְמִין – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ מְכַפֵּר?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a burnt offering to be sprinkled and portions of a sin offering to be burned, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from an offering that is burned in its entirety on the altar? Or perhaps the portions of the sin offering to be burned take precedence because they come from an offering that effects atonement.

תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה; דַּם חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדֵים לְדַם עוֹלָה, אֲבָל אֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת – לָא.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering. One can infer from this that it is only the blood of the sin offering that precedes the blood of the burnt offering, but the portions of the sin offering to be burned do not take precedence.

אַדְּרַבָּה, מִסֵּיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת; אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה הוּא דְּקָדְמִי לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, אֲבָל דַּם עוֹלָה – לָא! אֶלָּא מֵהָא לֵיכָּא לְמִשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara rejects this proof: On the contrary, the opposite conclusion can be inferred from the latter clause of the mishna, which teaches that the limbs of the burnt offering precede the portions of the sin offering to be consumed on the altar. This indicates that it is only the limbs of the burnt offering that precede the portions of the sin offering to be burned, but the blood of the burnt offering does not. The Gemara again concludes: Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna concerning this dilemma.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: דַּם עוֹלָה וְדַם אָשָׁם, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? דַּם עוֹלָה קוֹדֵם – דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ כָּלִיל, אוֹ דִּילְמָא דַּם אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם – (דְּקָאָתֵי מִכֹּחַ) דִּמְכַפֵּר?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is blood of a burnt offering and blood of a guilt offering to be sprinkled on the altar, which of them precedes the other? Does the blood of the burnt offering take precedence, as it comes from an offering that is burned in its entirety on the altar? Or perhaps the blood of a guilt offering takes precedence, as it effects atonement.

תָּא שְׁמַע: דַּם חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְדַם עוֹלָה; אֲבָל דַּם אָשָׁם – לָא.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna teaches that the blood of the sin offering precedes the blood of the burnt offering. One can infer from here: But the blood of a guilt offering does not precede the blood of a burnt offering.

בְּדִין הוּא דְּאִיבָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי דַּם אָשָׁם, וְאַיְידֵי דִּבְעָא לְמִיתְנֵי סֵיפָא: אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה קוֹדְמִין לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת,

The Gemara rejects this proof: By right the mishna should have taught this halakha with regard to blood of a guilt offering. One could then have inferred that the blood of a sin offering, which takes precedence over the blood of a guilt offering, also precedes blood of a burnt offering. But since the mishna wants to teach the latter clause: The burning of the limbs of a burnt offering precedes the portions of a sin offering, it also mentions a sin offering in the former clause.

דְּאִי תְּנָא לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם – הֲוָה אָמִינָא: לְאֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם הוּא דְּקָדְמִי, לְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת לָא קָדְמִי – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי תְּנָא חַטָּאת.

The Gemara explains why the latter clause had to mention a sin offering rather than a guilt offering: As, had the mishna taught this principle of the latter clause with regard to the portions of a guilt offering, I would say that it is only the portions of a guilt offering over which the limbs of a burnt offering take precedence, but they do not take precedence over the portions of a sin offering, as a sin offering is of greater sanctity than a guilt offering. Due to this reason the mishna in the former clause also taught this principle with regard to a sin offering, and one cannot infer from this that its halakha does not apply to the guilt offering.

תָּא שְׁמַע: חַטָּאת קוֹדֵם לְאָשָׁם; חַטָּאת הוּא דְּקָדְמָה לֵיהּ לְאָשָׁם, אֲבָל עוֹלָה – לָא. מַאי לָאו דָּם?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as the mishna states that a sin offering precedes a guilt offering. One can infer from this that it is only a sin offering that precedes a guilt offering, but a burnt offering does not. What, is the mishna not referring to the sprinkling of the blood, which would indicate that the blood of a burnt offering does not precede the blood of a guilt offering?

לָא – אַאֵימוּרִים. דַּיְקָא נַמִי, דְּקָתָנֵי: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדָּמָהּ נִיתָּן, שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ.

The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, it is referring to the precedence of the sacrificial portions consumed on the altar. The Gemara adds that the language of the mishna is also precise in this regard, as it teaches that the sin offering takes precedence due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar, rather than simply teaching: It is placed on the four corners of the altar, as it would have taught had it been speaking of the blood. One can therefore conclude from the statement of the mishna that its subject is the sacrificial portions burned on the altar, not the blood.

״חַטָּאת קוֹדֶמֶת״ כו׳. אַדְּרַבָּה, אָשָׁם קָדֵים, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ קִיצְבָּה! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, רִיבּוּי דְּמִזְבֵּחַ עָדִיף.

§ The mishna teaches: A sin offering precedes a guilt offering due to the fact that its blood is placed on the four corners of the altar and the remainder of its blood is poured on the base of the altar. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the guilt offering should precede the sin offering, as it has a fixed minimal value of two shekels, as stated in the Torah (see Leviticus 5:15), whereas the sin offering has no minimal value. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the sin offering requires more placements of the blood on the altar is of greater importance.

״אָשָׁם קוֹדֵם לַתּוֹדָה״ כו׳. אַדְּרַבָּה, הַתּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין לֶחֶם! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים עֲדִיפִי.

The mishna further teaches: A guilt offering precedes a thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram due to the fact that it is an offering of the most sacred order. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram should precede the guilt offering, as they require loaves to be brought with them. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the guilt offering is an offering of the most sacred order is of greater importance.

״תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר״ כו׳. אַדְּרַבָּה, שְׁלָמִים קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִיבּוּר כִּבְיָחִיד! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד עֲדִיפִי.

The mishna teaches: A thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram precede a peace offering due to the fact that they are eaten for only one day. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, peace offerings should precede the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram, as they are offered by the community as well as by the individual. A communal peace offering is sacrificed on the festival of Shavuot , but there is no communal thanks offering or nazirite’s ram. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the thanks offering and the nazirite’s ram are eaten for only one day is of greater importance.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: תּוֹדָה וְאֵיל נָזִיר, אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן קוֹדֵם? תּוֹדָה קָדְמָה – שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם, אוֹ דִּילְמָא אֵיל נָזִיר קוֹדֵם – שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים? תָּא שְׁמַע: זוֹ קוֹדֶמֶת לְזוֹ, שֶׁזּוֹ טְעוּנָה אַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי לֶחֶם, וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי מִינֵי לֶחֶם.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is a thanks offering and a nazirite’s ram to be sacrificed, which of them precedes the other? Does the thanks offering take precedence, as it requires four types of loaves, whereas the nazirite’s ram requires only two? Or perhaps the nazirite’s ram takes precedence, as there are other offerings whose blood is placed on the altar together with the nazirite’s ram. A nazirite is required to sacrifice a burnt offering and a sin offering, as well as a ram. The Gemara answers: Come and hear a baraita that explicitly discusses this case: This offering precedes that offering, as this offering, i.e., the thanks offering, requires four types of loaves, and that offering, the nazirite’s ram, requires only two types of loaves.

״וְהַשְּׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִין לַבְּכוֹר״ כו׳. אַדְּרַבָּה, בְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם, שֶׁכֵּן קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וְנֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִצְו‍ֹת יְתֵירוֹת עֲדִיפִי.

The mishna teaches: And the peace offering precedes the firstborn offering due to the fact that the peace offering requires two placements of the blood on the altar that are four, and the placement of hands on the animal’s head, and libations, and the wavings of the breast and thigh. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the sacrifice of the firstborn offering should precede the peace offering, as it is sanctified from the womb and it is eaten only by the priests, whereas the peace offering may be eaten by non-priests. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that additional mitzvot are performed in the case of the peace offering is of greater importance.

״הַבְּכוֹר קוֹדֵם״ כו׳. אַדְּרַבָּה, מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם שֶׁכֵּן מְקַדֵּשׁ לְפָנָיו וּלְאַחֲרָיו! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, קְדוּשָּׁה מֵרֶחֶם עֲדִיפָא.

The mishna further teaches: The firstborn offering precedes the animal tithe offering because it is sanctified from the womb and is eaten only by the priests. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, the animal tithe offering should precede the firstborn offering, as if one mistakenly called the ninth or eleventh animal that emerged from the pen the tenth, those animals that came out before or after the tenth are also sanctified. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the firstborn is sanctified from the womb is of greater importance.

״מַעֲשֵׂר קוֹדֵם לָעוֹפוֹת״ כו׳. אַדְּרַבָּה, עוֹפוֹת קָדְמִי, שֶׁכֵּן קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, מִין זֶבַח עֲדִיף.

The mishna teaches: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, whereas the bird’s nape is pinched; and furthermore, there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood, which is presented on the altar, and its portions that are burned on the altar. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, bird offerings should precede the animal tithe offering, as they are offerings of the most sacred order, whether they are burnt offerings or sin offerings. The Gemara explains: Even so, the fact that the animal tithe is a type of offering that requires slaughtering is of greater importance.

אָמַר רָבִינָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: אֵימוּרֵי קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – פְּסוּלִין. וְתָנָא תּוּנָא: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא זֶבַח, וְיֶשְׁנוֹ קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים, דָּמָיו וְאֵימוּרִין.

§ Ravina bar Sheila says with regard to the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood are disqualified. And the tanna of the mishna also taught: The animal tithe offering precedes bird offerings due to the fact that it requires slaughtering, and there are two elements of the animal tithe offering that have the status of offerings of the most sacred order: Its blood and its sacrificial portions consumed on the altar.

בִּשְׁלָמָא אֵימוּרִין לֵיתְנְהוּ בְּעוֹפוֹת, אֶלָּא דָּם מִיהָא אִיתֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן: אֵימוּרִין כִּי דָּמוֹ,

The Gemara explains how Ravina bar Sheila interprets the mishna in support of his opinion: Granted, there are no sacrificial portions consumed on the altar from a bird offering, but its blood at least is sprinkled. Why, then, does the mishna mention the blood? Rather, is it not mentioned in order to teach us that the status of the sacrificial portions consumed on the altar from the animal tithe offering and other offerings of lesser sanctity is comparable to the status of its blood?

מַה דָּמוֹ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – אַף אֵימוּרִין קוֹדֵם זְרִיקָה. וְקָא קָרֵי לְהוּ ״קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים״: וּמַה דָּמוֹ מִיפְסַל בְּיוֹצֵא – אַף אֵימוּרִין מִיפְסַל בְּיוֹצֵא.

The Gemara explains the implications of this comparison. Just as its blood referred to in the mishna is blood before its sprinkling on the altar, as afterward it no longer has any sanctity, so too, the sacrificial portions mentioned in the mishna are from before the sprinkling of the blood, and the mishna calls them at this stage offerings of the most sacred order. And therefore one can infer from this that just as the animal tithe’s blood is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard, so too, the sacrificial portions to be burned on the altar are disqualified by leaving the courtyard.

נֵימָא מְסַיֵּיעַ לֵיהּ: בְּשַׂר קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כָּשֵׁר, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּסוּל.

The Gemara attempts to prove the opinion of Ravina bar Sheila. Let us say that the following dispute between amora’im supports his statement: With regard to flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is fit and Reish Lakish says that it is disqualified.

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כָּשֵׁר – הוֹאִיל וְסוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּסוּל – עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת. עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּאֵימוּרִין – לָא!

The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Rabbi Yoḥanan says that it is fit, since it will ultimately leave the Temple courtyard, as offerings of lesser sanctity may be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. Reish Lakish says that it is unfit, as its time to leave the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived because the flesh cannot be taken out until after the sprinkling of the blood. The Gemara infers that these amora’im disagree only with regard to the flesh of the offering, which will eventually leave the Temple courtyard. But with regard to the sacrificial portions of the offering, which will never leave the courtyard, they do not disagree, as Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that those portions are disqualified.

הוּא הַדִּין דִּבְאֵימוּרִין נַמִי פְּלִיגִי, וְהָא דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בְּבָשָׂר – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דַּאֲפִילּוּ בָּשָׂר דְּסוֹפָהּ לָצֵאת, אָמַר: עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת.

The Gemara rejects this proof: The same is true with regard to the sacrificial portions, i.e., these amora’im also disagree in that case, as Rabbi Yoḥanan holds they are fit. And the reason that they disagree explicitly with regard to the flesh is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Reish Lakish, as even with regard to the flesh, which will ultimately leave the Temple courtyard, he says that it is disqualified, because its time to leave the courtyard has not yet arrived.

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֵימוּרֵי קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁיָּצְאוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute between amora’im is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im : With regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says that one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property,