Previous daf

1)

(a) The Mishnah in Me'ilah discusses Kodshim Kalim which are taken out of the Azarah before the Zerikah. Rebbi Eliezer rules 'Ein Mo'alin Bahen, ve'Ein Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'; Rebbi Akiva rules 'Mo'alin Bahen, ve'Chayavin Aleihen Mishum Pigul, Nosar ve'Tamei'.

(b) Initially, we establish Ravina bar Shilo (who rules 'Pasul') - like Rebbi Akiva ('Mifseli be'Yotzei').

(c) Rav Papa rejects this explanation - by establishing the Beraisa when the Kodshim are still outside whilst the Zerikah is being performed.

(d) According to Rav Papa ...

1. ... the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im is - whether 'Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotze' (Rebbi Akiva ) or not (Rebbi Eliezer).
2. ... Ravina bar Shilo will hold - like neither Tana (since both hold that if the Korban is returned, it is Kasher).

(a) With regard to the same Machlokes regarding the Sh'tei ha'Lechem that were taken out of the Azarah, Rav Papa - established the Machlokes when they were returned to the Azarah.

(b) Even Rebbi Akiva will agree that 'Ein Zerikah Mo'eles le'Yotze' in a case where the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are still outside whilst the Zerikah is being performed ...

(c) ... because unlike the Eimurin, which are an intrinsic part of the Korban, the Sh'tei ha'Lechem are not.

(d) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Ofos Kodmos li'Menachos' because they are Miynei Damim, and that 'Minchas Chotei Kodem le'Minchas Nedavah' because it atones for a sin. We might have thought that ...

1. ... Menachos should take precedence over Ofos - because we find Minchos Tzibur (the Omer and the Sh'tei ha'Lechem), but not Korbenos Of shel Tzibur.
2. ... a Minchas Nedavah should take precedence over a Minchas Chotei - because (unlike a Minchas Chotei) it requires oil and Levonah.

(a) We ask which takes precedence, a Minchas Sotah - because it comes to clarify sin, or a Minchas Nedavah - because it requires oil and frankincense (which a Minchas Sotah does not).

(b) We ...

1. ... initially extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Minchas Chotei Kodemes le'Minchas Nedavah', 'Ha Minchas Sotah, Lo' - because a Minchas Chotei atones, which a Minchas Sotah does not
2. ... refute that - because the Tana gives the reason for the precedence of the Minchas Chotei in that it comes (not, to atone, but) for a sin, which a Minchas Sotah does, too.

(c) We attempt to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Zu Kodemes le'Zu, she'Zu Ba'ah min ha'Chitin, ve'Zu Ba'ah min ha'Se'orin' - assuming that the Tana is referring to our case (a Minchas Nedavah and a Minchas Sotah respectively).

(a) Initially, we object to the suggestion that the Tana is referring to the precedence of a Minchas Chotei over a Minchas Sotah - because then, the reason the Tana ought to have given is that the former atones, whereas the latter does not

(b) We counter with the argument - that in that case, even if the Tana refers to a Minchas Nedavah and a Minchas Sotah - he ought to have stated the reason as the fact that the former requires oil and Levonah, whereas the latter does not.

(c) We resolve both problems with one stroke - by applying the principle 'Chad mi'T'rei Ta'ami Nakat' (the Tana mentions one of two possibilities).

(a) The Torah writes (in connection with the Korban for 'Shemi'as Kol') "Ve'hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah". The problem with this Pasuk is - that having already written "ve'es ha'Sheini Ya'aseh Olah", why is it necessary to repeat the fact that the Chatas comes first?

(b) The Torah in fact, writes "Rishonah" - to teach us a 'Binyan-Av' (that a Chatas always comes before an Olah, as we shall now see).

(c) This will apply even to ...

1. ... a Chatas and an Olas Beheimah, and to ...
2. ... a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas Beheimah?

(d) This latter case applies - to a wealthy Yoledes, who brings both.

(a) We now learn from ...

1. ... "ve'es ha'Sheini Ya'aseh Olah" - that a Chatas ha'Of takes precedence over an Olas ha'Of.
2. ... "u'Par Sheini ben Bakar Tikach le'Chatas" (see beginning of previous Amud) - that a Chatas Beheimah takes precedence over an Olas Beheimah.
3. ... "Ve'hikriv es Asher la'Chatas Rishonah" - that a Chatas ha'Of even takes precedence over an Olas Beheimah.

(b) When Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa says ...

1. ... (with regard to the Korban Oleh ve'Yoreid of Tum'as Mikdash) 'Kol Makom she'Nischalfah Chatas, Chatas Kodemes', he means - that wherever a Chatas ha'Of replaces a Chatas Beheimah (such as a Chatas ha'Of of Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadachav, who cannot afford a Beheimah), the Chatas comes first.
2. ... 've'Ka'an she'Nischalfah Olah, Olah Kodemes' - he is referring to a poor Yoledes, where the birds replace an Olah, and where the Olah bird therefore takes precedence over the Chatas.
3. ... 'Chol Makom she'Shenayim Ba'in Tachas Echad, Chatas Kodemes', he is referring to a Tamei Mikdash ve'Kodashav, who cannot afford a Korban Beheimah, and who brings instead an Olas ha'Of and a Chatas ha'Of.

(c) The problem this creates with what we just learned - is from the middle case, where, according to Rebbi Eliezer, he first brings the Olah, whereas according to what we just learned, he ought to bring the Chatas first.

(d) Rava reconciles the two - by restricting Rebbi Eliezer to the Pasuk, which places the Olah before the Chatas so that we should read it first (see Tosfos DH 'le'Mikra'ah'), wheras in fact, the Chatas takes precedence.

7)

(a) The Beraisa lists the order of precedence of goats, lambs, rams and bulls is - in the reverse 'bulls, rams lambs and goats'.

(b) We initially establish this Beraisa - by the Musaf of Succos, posing a Kashya on the Beraisa which always gives priority to a Chatas, seeing as the first three are Olos, and the goats, Chata'os.

(c) So, to answer the Kashya, we establish it by a Korban Nedavah, where they are all Olos.

(d) The reason for this sequence ...

1. ... Parim precede Eilim and Eilim, Kevasim - because of the larger Nesech (i.e. larger quantities of wine, flour and oil) involved.
2. ... Kevasim precede Izim (despite the fact that both are Olos) - because with regard to Shelamim and Chatas, its fat-tail is included in the Eimurim.

(a) A Beraisa gives the Par Kohen Mashi'ach precedence over the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, and the Par He'elam Davar over the Sa'ir of the Nasi. Between the Par Avodas-Kochavim and the Sa'ir Avodas-Kochavim - the Tana gives precedence to the former ...

(b) ... even though it is an Olah, and the latter a Chatas.

(c) We partially parry this Kashya from the Reisha of the Beraisa (the precedence of the Par Kohen Mashi'ach over the Par He'elam Davar shel Tzibur, because a Chatas precedes an Olah) - by conceding that the principle remains intact when both animals are from the same species (e.g. both bulls) ...

(d) What still remains difficult is - when the animals are different (where it seems that the Torah gives priority to the larger species, even if it is an Olah against a Chatas).

(a) In Eretz Yisrael, they cited Rava bar Mari, who points to a missing 'Alef' in 'Chatas Avodas-Kochavim' - a hint that in this case, it does not take precedence over the Chatas.

(b) Ravina answers with the word "ka'Mishpat" - a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' that the animals must be brought in the order that they are mentioned (i.e. the Olah first).

(c) This enable us to adjust the answer that we gave in the previous Beraisa (regarding the Parei ha'Chag) - where the Torah also writes "ke'Mishpatam", to hint that there too, the Olos precede the Se'ir Chatas.

(a) In a case where a Chatas ha'Of, an Olas Beheimah and a Ma'aser Beheimah are waiting to be brought, the problem with starting with the ...

1. ... Chatas ha'Of is - that it cannot precede the Ma'aser (see Tosfos DH 'Tikdam').
2. ... Ma'aser is - that it cannot precede the Olas Beheimah.
3. ... Olas Beheimah is - that it cannot precede the Chatas ha'Of.

(b) We conclude 'Hacha Targimu Miyn Zevach Adif'. By ...

1. ... 'Hacha', we mean - in Bavel.
2. ... 'Miyn Zevach Adif', we mean - that the Ma'aser Beheimah is brought first.

(c) We give it priority over Olas Beheimah - due to the fact that, under no circumstances, can the Olas Beheimah precede the Chatas ha'Of (because it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', which is more powerful than a S'vara).

(d) In Eretz Yisrael, they answered - that Chatas ha'Of comes first, because a. it overrides Olas Beheimah (despite the fact that the latter is 'Miyn Zevach') b. Olas ha'Of overrides Ma'aser. And since Chatas ha'Of overrides Olas Beheimah, as we just explained, it also overrides Ma'aser, by the same token.

(a) We already learned that a Chatas generally precedes an Asham. The one exception is an Asham Metzora - which takes precedence over the accompanying Chatas, because it comes to permit the Metzora to eat Kodshim and to enter the Beis-Hamikdash.

(b) All Ashamos must be in their second year, except for two - an Asham Nazir and Metzora.

(c) The other distinction that marks these two is - that they do not carry the minimum price-tag of two Shekalim that other Ashamos do.

(d) When our Mishnah states that just as they are brought first, so too, are they eaten first - it is referring to all Korbanos that are eaten (Chatas, Asham, Todah and Shelamim).

(a) If yesterday's Shelamim on the one hand, and today's Shelamim or today's Chatas and Asham (according to Rebbi Meir) on the other, are waiting to be brought on the Mizbe'ach - yesterday's Shelamim come first (because it is degrading for Korbanos to lie around without being sacrificed).

(b) According to the Chachamim - today's Chatas and Asham take precedence over yesterday's Shelamim (because the fact that they are Kodshei Kodshim overrides even that consideration).

(c) The Tana - permits the Kohen to eat Kodshei Kodshim in any manner that he pleases (roasted, well-cooked or just plain cooked, as we have already learned before from "le'Mashchah" [Korach], which means for greatness [implying however they please, like a king]).

(d) He is permitted to add spices of Chulin, and according to Rebbi Shimon, even spices of Terumah. Based on the fact that if the Kodshim become Nosar, the Terumah spices will be burned together with the Korban, Rebbi Meir disputes this - on the basis of the principle 'Ein Mevi'in Kodshim le'Beis ha'Pesul' (which Rebbi does not hold of, as we have already learned).

(a) We ask - which takes precedence, Tadir or Mekudash?

(b) We try to resolve this She'eilah from the Mishnah 'Temidin Kodmin le'Musafin' - on the assumption that the Musaf, which is unique to Shabbos, has more Kedushah than the Tamid, we try to prove that Tadir takes precedence over Mekudash.

(c) We refute this however - by pointing out that the Tamid is sanctified by Shabbos no less than the Musaf.

(d) Similarly, we try to prove from the Mishnah 'Musfei Shabbos Kodmin le'Musfei Rosh Chodesh', and then from 'Musfei Rosh Chodesh Kodmin le'Musfei Rosh Hashanah' that Tadir takes precedence over Mekudash. And we refute these proofs - in the same way as we did the previous one, by pointing out that Rosh Chodesh even adds Kedushah of the Musfei Shabbos, and so does Rosh Hashanah to the Kedushah of the Musaf Rosh Chodesh.