Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 89

1) THE SOURCE FOR OFFERING THE "KORBAN TAMID" BEFORE THE "KORBAN MUSAF"

QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that the source for the Halachah that the Korban Tamid is brought before a Korban Musaf is the verse, "Milvad Olas ha'Boker Asher l'Olas ha'Tamid" -- "Besides the burnt offering in the morning that is for the continual burnt offering, you shall offer these" (Bamidbar 28:23).

TOSFOS (DH Kol ha'Tadir) asks that we find that the Gemara in Pesachim (58b) derives this Halachah from a Beraisa which gives a different source. The verse states, "ha'Olah" -- "*the* Olah" (Vayikra 6:2), implying that this Korban (the Olas Tamid) must be the first Korban brought every day, and nothing should be brought before the Olah. Why does the Gemara in Pesachim not cite the teaching of the Mishnah here?

ANSWERS:

(a) TOSFOS answers that these two verses are talking about two different things. The verse cited by the Mishnah here is discussing which Korban should be slaughtered first. It teaches that the Korban Tamid should be slaughtered first. The verse cited by the Beraisa in Pesachim is discussing the burning of the Korban. We learn from that verse only that the Korban Tamid must be burned first, but not that it must be slaughtered first.

(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that the Gemara in Pesachim is looking for a stronger source which states explicitly that no Korban should be brought before the Korban Tamid. It therefore prefers the teaching of the Beraisa, which states explicitly that nothing may be offered before the Korban Tamid, over the teaching the Mishnah here, which says merely that the Korban Tamid is brought before the Korban Musaf.

(c) Tosfos quotes RABEINU CHAYIM who says that the verse of "ha'Olah" teaches us more than the verse quoted by our Mishnah. Our Mishnah excludes a Korban Musaf which is not offered every day (and, by extension, other similar Korbanos which are not offered every day). How, though, do we know that the Minchas Chavitin of the Kohen Gadol -- which is also brought every day -- is not brought before the Korban Tamid? For this we need the verse of "ha'Olah," which teaches us that the Tamid is absolutely the first Korban brought every day (see also Tosfos in Bava Kama 111a, DH Talmud Lomar).

(d) The KEREN ORAH gives another explanation. The verse in our Mishnah teaches us that the Korban Tamid is always brought before the Korban Musaf. However, we might have thought that this rule applies only to the Korban Musaf. If other Korbanos are present and ready to be offered before the Korban Tamid is ready to be slaughtered, then perhaps they should be offered first. This would be similar to the rule taught in the next Mishnah that if one has two Korbanos in front of him to offer, he should offer the one that is most Kadosh first. The verse of "ha'Olah" cited by the Gemara in Pesachim teaches us that the Tamid must be the first Korban of the day, even if it is not ready to be brought yet and other Korbanos are waiting.

It seems that according to this explanation, the Korban Tamid must always be brought first, and it will even cause us to delay bringing other Korbanos in the event that a sheep cannot be found to be brought as the Korban Tamid. However, the SEFAS EMES, who also suggests the answer of the Keren Orah, says that if we will not be able to find a sheep the entire day, then it is possible that the verse of "ha'Olah," which teaches that the Tamid must be first, does not apply, and other Korbanos may be offered. The logic for this seems to be that we may understand the verse as saying only that if it *will* be brought, then it must be brought first, and not that it must always be the first Korban brought every day.

There is an explicit Gemara which supports the suggestion of the Sefas Emes. The Gemara in Erchin (11b) states that on the day that the first Beis ha'Mikdash was destroyed, the Kohanim were saying Shirah. The Gemara asks, for what Korban were they saying Shirah? They could not have been saying Shirah on the Korban Tamid, since, from the seventeenth of Tamuz of that year, no sheep were allowed into the Beis ha'Mikdash to be offered as the Korban Tamid! The Gemara concludes that it must have been a different animal that was brought as an Olas Nedavah (and not a sheep, which is required for the Tamid). This shows that the Kohanim brought other Korbanos even though they did not bring the Korban Tamid, supporting the suggestion of the Sefas Emes.

The Gemara there poses a strong question on the view of the OR HA'CHAYIM (Vayikra 6:2), who says that it is impossible to bring Korbanos when the Beis ha'Mikdash is surrounded by enemies, without first bringing the Korban Tamid. (Regarding offering animals that were slaughtered before the Tamid was brought, see Tosfos here who says that it does not disqualify the Korban, and see Tosfos in Menachos (49b, DH Talmud) who says that the Korban is Pasul mid'Rabanan.) (Y. Montrose)

89b

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the levels of precedence with regard to performing identical Avodos of difference Korbanos that are brought at the same time. One of the questions the Gemara addresses is whether sprinkling the blood of an Olah takes precedence over sprinkling the blood of an Asham. The Gemara says that perhaps the blood of an Olah is more Kadosh and should be sprinkled first, since it comes from a Korban which is totally burned on the Mizbe'ach. On the other hand, perhaps the blood of an Asham should take precedence, because its Zerikah provides atonement for the owner of the Korban. The Gemara leaves this question unanswered.

The MAHARI KURKAS (Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 9:5) has difficulty with the Gemara. The Gemara earlier says that the blood of a Chatas is sprinkled before the blood of an Olah, since the Zerikah of the blood of a Chatas provides atonement for the owner of the Korban. Why does the Gemara consider this a sufficient reason to sprinkle the blood of a Chatas before the blood of an Olah, but it is not a sufficient reason to sprinkle the blood of an Asham before the blood of an Olah?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARI KURKAS answers that the Mishnah says that a Chatas comes before an Olah, because a Chatas requires four Zerikos on the corners of the Mizbe'ach, while an Asham requires only two. When the Gemara says that a Chatas precedes an Olah because it provides atonement, this reason includes the fact that the Zerikah of a Chatas involves four sprinklings. It is unclear, though, whether the atonement provided by an Asham, which is accomplish with two sprinklings, is a more Kadosh event that the sprinkling of the blood of an Olah, which is totally burned.

(b) The RADVAZ answers that an Asham does not provide the same level of atonement as a Chatas. A Chatas atones for accidental sins which are punishable with Kares when committed willfully. Thus, the Zerikah of an Asham is not as Kadosh as that of the Chatas, and therefore the Gemara remains with a question whether it is more Kadosh than the Zerikah of an Olah.

(c) Perhaps we may suggest a third explanation. We know that the bringing of an Olah also atones for transgressing a Mitzvas Aseh, even though that does not need to be reason for bringing the Olah. An Asham is brought as an obligatory Korban which provides a required atonement to its owner. However, because the Olah's blood comes from a Korban which is totally burned on the Mizbe'ach *and* it achieves a slight degree of atonement as well, we cannot clearly say that the atonement provided by an Asham, which is not the highest form of atonement, is better than both of the holy attributes of an Olah. (Y. Montrose)