Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah gives precedence to the Korban Tamid over the Korban Musaf - because it is 'Tadir' (it occurs more frequently).

(b) We learn this from - the Pasuk in Pinchas "Mil'vad Olas ha'Boker Asher le'Olas ha'Tamid" (implying that the Musaf follows the Tamid).

(c) The Tana also gives precedence to the Musaf of Shabbos over that of Rosh Chodesh, and that of Rosh Chodesh over that of Rosh Hashanah - which is not initially evident from the same Pasuk, since the Tamid is unique in that it is brought daily (which may well be the reason why it takes precedence over the Musaf).

(a) Rebbi Ila'a derives the precedence of one Musaf over the other from (written in connection with the Musaf on Pesach) "ka'Eileh Ta'asu la'Yom Shiv'as Yamim" - which teaches us that the Din of 'Tadir' extends to one Musaf over the other, just as it applies to the Tamid over the Musaf.

(b) When we ask that this Pasuk is needed for itself, we mean - that the Pasuk is needed to teach us that the Musaf brought on the first day extends to the other days of Pesach.

(c) We reject the answer that it would have sufficed for the Torah to write ''Eileh Ta'asu la'Yom Shiv'as Yamim" - on the grounds that we would then have thought that the seven lambs mentioned on the first day must be distributed over the seven days (though it is impossible to explain the bulls and the ram in this way).

(d) We answer that "la'Yom" already dispenses with that problem. Perhaps, we ask further, if not for "ka'Eileh" - the listed Korbanos would be confined to the first day, and we would be uncertain as to how many Korbanos to bring on the other days?

(a) We counter the query from the word "Ta'asu" - which indicates that all the 'Asiyos' are equal (i.e. the same number of Korbanos are brought each day).

(b) Abaye learns from "Asher le'Olas ha'Tamid" (in the same Pasuk) - that not only must the Tamid precede the Musaf, but that it is because it is 'Tadir', and that 'Tadir' therefore has priority in all cases.

(a) Our Mishnah gives precedence to ...

1. ... the blood of the Chatas over that of the Olah - (meaning that if both Korbanos have been Shechted and are waiting to have their blood sprinkled, the Kohen must sprinkle the blood of the Chatas first) because it comes to atone (for a Chiyuv Kareis, whereas the Olah only atones for an Asei).
2. ... the Eivarim of the Olah over the Eimurim of the Chatas - because the former is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach (whereas the latter is mainly eaten by Kohanim).

(b) The principle that governs the current rulings is - 'Kol ha'Mekudash me'Chavero, Kodem es Chavero'.

(c) Precedence is given to ...

1. ... the Chatas over the Asham - because its blood is sprinkled on the four Keranos and the Shirayim poured on to the Yesod (which the blood of the latter is not).
2. ... the Asham over the Todah and the Eil Nazir - because it is Kodshei Kodshim.
3. ... the Todah and the Eil Nazir over the Shelamim - because they may only eaten for one day (whereas the latter can be eaten for two).
4. ... the Shelamim over the Bechor - because (unlike the latter) it requires a. four Matanos, and b. Semichah and Tenufas Chazeh ve'Shok.

(d) And finally, the precedence of ...

1. ... a Bechor over Ma'aser Beheimah is due to the fact - that (unlike the latter) it is both Kadosh from the moment it is born, and may be eaten only by Kohanim.
2. ... Ma'aser Beheimah over Chatas ha'Of is due to the fact - that a. it is Shechted in the conventional manner (whereas the latter is killed by Melikah) which is more common, and b. part of its body (the Eimurim [as well as well its blood]) is Kodesh Kodshim.
3. ... birds over Menachos is due to the fact - that their blood is sprinkled (and blood is a major source of Kaparah).
4. ... a Minchas Chotei over a Minchas Nedavah is due to the fact - that it atones for a sin (for the same reason that a Chatas Beheimah takes precedence over an Olas Beheimah).
5. ... a Chatas ha'Of over an Olas ha'Of - is based on a Pasuk, as we shall see later in the Sugya.

(a) Seeing as Ma'aser Beheimah takes precedence over Chatas ha'Of - 'Kal va'Chomer does it take precedence over Olas ha'Of (seeing as Chatas ha'Of comes before Olas ha'Of).

(b) If someone is obligated to bring both a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas ha'Of - he first declares the Chatas ha'Of Hekdesh (just as he brings it first).

6)

(a) The Pasuk in Beha'aloscha discusses the inauguration of the Levi'im. We know that one of the bulls that Moshe initially took was for a Chatas and the other, an Olah - because the Torah specifically writes "Va'asei es ha'Echad Chatas ve'es ha'Echad Olah".

(b) This Pasuk, which implies that the Chatas precedes the Olah, appears to contradict the Pasuk "u'Par Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas" - which implies that the Olah precedes the Chatas.

(c) We therefore reconcile them - by confining ...

1. ... "u'Par Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas" to the burning of the limbs, where the Olah takes precedence, as we explained in our Mishnah.
2. ... "va'Asei es ha'Echad Chatas ve'es ha'Echad Olah" - to the sprinkling of the blood, as we explained there too.

(a) We suggest that only the first Matanah of the Chatas ought to precede the Matanos of the Olah - because it is the only which is crucial to the Avodah (as we learned in Perek Beis Shamai).

(b) In Eretz Yisrael, they replied that having begun with the Matanos of the Chatas, it stands to reason that one completes them, before starting those of the Olah. Ravina answered - that the Pasuk is speaking about the Chatas of the Levi'im, which did not come to atone, yet the Torah gives the Chatas precedence. In that case, there is no reason to differentiate between the first Matanah and the subsequent ones.

(a) We ask which takes precedence, the Eivarim of an Olah or the blood of a Chatas, and we try to resolve the She'eilah by citing our Mishnah 'Dam Chatas Kodem le'Dam Olah' - by inferring 'Ha le'Evrei Olah Lo Kadim'.

(b) We refute this proof however - by making the same inference from the Seifa 'Evrei Olah Kodmin le'Eimurei Chatas', 'Ha le'Dam Chatas Lo Kodim' (thereby clashing the first inference).

(c) And we refute a similar proof that Eimurei Chatas take precedence over Dam Olah via the inference from the same piece of Mishnah '*Dam Chatas* Kodem le'Dam Olah', 'Ha Eimurei Chatas Lo Kadmi' - by making the opposite inference from the Seifa '*Evrei Olah* Kodmin le'Eimurei Chatas', 'Ha Dam Olah Lo Kadim'.

(d) So the outcome of the two She'eilos is 'Teiku'.

(a) We then ask which will take precedence, the blood of an Olah - which is part of a Korban that is 'Kalil', or that of an Asham - which is Mechaper.

(b) We try to resolve this She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Dam Chatas Kodem le'Dam Olah' - implying 'Dam Chatas' (which has priority over Dam Asham), but not 'Dam Asham'.

(c) We answer that the Tana needs to mention specifically Dam Chatas because of the Seifa 'Evrei Olah Kodmin le'Eimurei Chatas'. The Tana could not have taught the same thing with regard to Eimurei Asham - because then we would have extrapolated ' ... but not Eimurei Chatas (which take priority over Wimurei Asham).

(d) We ...

1. ... refute the proof that Dam Chatas takes precedence over Dam Asham from the Mishnah 'Chatas Kodem le'Asham' - by establishing it by Eimurim.
2. ... prove that, in fact, the Tana must be talking about Eimurim (and not Dam) - from the Lashon 'Mipnei she'Damah Nitein (and not 'Mipnei she'Nitnis ... ) al Arba Keranos'.

(a) We suggest that an Asham ought perhaps to take precedence over a Chatas 'she'Kein Yesh Lo Kitzvah' - meaning that it has a minimum price-tag (of two [olden-day] Shekalim [whereas a Chatas does not]).

(b) And we counter this suggestion - with a statement that 'Ribuy de'Mizbe'ach (as explained in the Mishnah) overrides that Chumra.

(c) The Tana gives an Asham precedence over a Todah because it is Kodshei Kodshim, and a Todah precedence over a Shelamim because it can be eaten for only one day. We suggest that perhaps ...

1. ... a Todah and an Eil Nazir ought to take precedence over an Asham - because they both require loaves.
2. ... a Shelamim ought to take precedence over a Todah, because it has the 'advantage' that on one occasion (on Shavu'os), it is brought as a Korban Tzibur.

(a) We ask which takes precedence, Todah or Eil Nazir. The criterion that makes each one a candidate is - that whereas the former requires four kinds of loaves (as against the other's two), the latter is brought together with other Korbanos.

(b) The answer lies in a Beraisa - which gives the Todah precedence, because it requires four kinds of loaves (as opposed to the other's two).

(c) Our Mishnah has already given a Shelamim priority over a Bechor. Nevertheless, we suggest that perhaps the reverse ought to be the case - because the latter is holy from birth and can be eaten only by Kohanim.

(d) However, these two Chumros do override the advantage that Ma'aser has over Bechor - that it has the power to sanctify the animal before and after it (i.e. the ninth and the eleventh animal in the pen, should the counter confuse the three animals whilst counting them).

(a) The Tana gives precedence to Ma'aser over Ofos, for the two reasons specified in the Mishnah. We might however, have said otherwise - because Ofos are Kodshei Kodshim (whilst Ma'aser is basically Kodshim Kalim).

(b) Ravina bar Shilo rules that Eimurei Kodshim Kalim that are taken out of the Azarah before the Zerikas Dam - are Pasul.

(c) We might have thought otherwise - because they are not subject to Me'ilah until after the Zerikah.

(d) In support of Ravina bar Shilo, we cite our Mishnah (with regard to Ma'aser's precedence over Ofos) 'Mipnei she'Hu Zevach, ve'Yeshno Kodshei Kodshim Damav ve'Eimurav'. The problem with the Tana's insertion of 'Damav' is - that the blood of Ofos is Kodshei Kodshim, too.

(a) We answer that the Tana inserts 'Damav' in order to compare 'Eimurav' to 'Damav' - in that it too, is Kodshei Kodshim ...

(b) ... in which case it is subject to the P'sul of Yotzei like it (a proof for Ravina bar Shiloh).

(a) If Basar is taken out of the Azarah before the Zerikah ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan rules that it is Kasher - because it is due to be taken outside the Azarah anyway.
2. ... Resh Lakish rules that it is Pasul - because the time for that is not yet due.

(b) We try to extrapolate from here - that when it comes to 'Eimurin she'Yatz'u ... ', which are not due to be taken out, even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that they are Pasul.

(c) We reject this proof however, on the grounds that they argue by Eimurin she'Yatz'u as well (in which case Rebbi Yochanan will disagree with Ravina bar Shiloh). And the reason that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish choose to argue by Basar - is to teach us the extent of Resh Lakish's ruling (that they are Pasul in spite of the fact that they are due to be taken out anyway).

(d) And it is not Rebbi Yochanan who gives the reason as 'Ho'il ve'Sofo Latzeis' - but those who quoted the Machlokes (in its context, though it is not really Rebbi Yochanan's reason at all).