Commentaire sur Zevahim 10:13

כל התדיר מחבירו קודם את חבירו – as it is written (Numbers 28:23): “[You shall present these] in addition to the morning portion of the regular burnt-offering.” Since it is written, “in addition to the morning portion,” it implies that it was already done, from it we hear/learn that the daily offerings precede the additional/Musaf offerings; “of the regular burnt offering,” why do I need this? It is obvious that the burnt offering of the morning is the regular daily burnt offering, but rather, that it suspended for you the reason of its preceding [the Musaf offering] through its frequency in order that you will learn the rest of the frequent things that should precede. For since this is its essence, it was not necessary to explain it.

Whatever is more frequent than another, takes precedence over the other.
The daily offerings precede the additional offerings;
The additional offerings of Shabbat precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh;
The additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hashanah.
As it is said, “You shall present these in addition to the morning portion of the regular burnt offering” (Numbers 28:23).
The first five mishnayot of this chapter deal with the order in which different sacrifices are offered. There are two general rules, one which we will see in this mishnah and one in the next mishnah.
Section one: This is a general principle that is today often invoked when determining which prayer, or which blessing is recited first (for instance over the matzah on Pesah). As is frequently the case, a principle that plays a large role in later halakhah, has its origins in sacrificial law.
Sections two-four: Here, the principle is invoked in connection to the daily offerings and the additional offerings (musaf). A more frequent sacrifice is offered first.
Section five: This is the proof text that the daily tamid, the morning offering, is offered before the other additional offerings for holidays. The verse implies that the morning offering has already been offered before the other sacrifices are offered. Hence, whatever is more frequent comes first.

דם חטאת קודם לדם עולה – if both are slaughtered and are ready to be sprinkled.

Introduction The principle that whatever is more frequent takes precedence is determinative only when there is a set frequency to a given sacrifice. Most sacrifices are offered whenever a person needs to bring one without a determined frequency. Therefore, there is a different principle as to which takes precedence.

שהוא מרצה – it atones for those liable for [sins punishable by] extirpation that require great winning favor.

Whatever is more sacred than another precedes the other. The principle invoked here is that whatever is more sacred is offered first. As we shall see below, there are different ways of determining what is more sacred.

אברי עולה קודמין – in their burning on the altar/rising up in smoke.

The blood of a hatat precedes the blood of a olah, because it propitiates. If a priest has to sprinkle blood from a hatat and blood from an olah, he first sprinkles the blood from the hatat because the hatat propitiates (atones) for sin, whereas an olah does not have that function. Here we see that sanctity is determined by what a sacrifice does the greater effect it has, the greater its sanctity.

לאימורי חטאת – if the blood of both were sprinkled.

The limbs of a olah precede the innards of a hatat, because it [the former] is entirely for the fires [of the altar]. An olah is completely burned, whereas parts of the hatat are eaten. This means, to the mishnah, that an olah is more sacred. Therefore, the parts of the olah that are burned take precedence over the parts of the hatat that have to be burned.

מפני שהן כליל – and there is a side of an extension of scope of this for the Altar.

A hatat precedes an asham, because its blood is sprinkled on the four horns and on the base. A hatat is holier than an asham because it requires four full blood applications, whereas the asham requires only two that are four (they are applied on the corners. See above 5:3 and 5:5.

על ארבע קרנות – and the guilt-offering is two gifts which are four, but not on the horns [of the Altar].

An asham precedes a today and a nazirite’s ram, because it is a most holy sacrifice. An asham is a most holy sacrifice and therefore it is offered before sacrifices of lesser sanctity such as the todah and the nazirite’s ram, brought at the end of the term of his naziriteship.

ועל היסוד – the pouring of he remainders . And with the guilt-offering, we did not find that it is stated regarding it.

A todah and a nazirite's ram precede a shelamim, because they are eaten one day [only] and require [the accompaniment of] loaves. The shelamim is also a sacrifice of lesser sanctity. But the todah and nazirite’s ram can only be eaten for one day and night, whereas the shelamim can be eaten the next day and night. And when a todah or nazirite’s ram are brought, loaves accompany them. Here we see that more restrictions and more mitzvoth (loaves) implies greater sanctity.

מתן ארבע – two gifts which are four, but the first-born does not require other than one gift, and it does not require laying of the hands or libations and nor either the waving of the breast and foreleg/shoulder.

A shelamim precedes a firstling, because it requires four [blood] applications and laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh. The first-born animal is also considered a lesser sacrifice. The shelamim is offered before it because the shelamim requires four blood applications. It requires the bringer to lay his hands on the animal. It is accompanied by wine libations and when it is offered, the breast and thigh are waved. The only one of these elements found in a firstling is laying of the hands.

ונאכל לכהנים – but the tithe [of cattle], the Kohanim have no part in, but all of it is consumed by its owners.

A first-born precedes tithe, because its sanctity is from the womb, and it is eaten by priests. If a priest has a first-born and a tithe to sacrifice, he first sacrifices the first-born because it has greater sanctity than the tithe for two reasons: 1) it is sacred as soon as it is conceived, whereas the tithe has to wait until it is counted as a tenth animal to become sacred; 2) The first-born is eaten only by priests, whereas the tithe can be eaten by anyone.

מפני שהוא מין זבח – slaughtering by a knife. But birds are through pinching a bird’s head, But slaughtering are [more] important.

Tithe precedes bird [-offerings] because it is a slaughtered sacrifice, and part of it is most sacred: its blood and innards. Tithe is sacrificed before either of the bird-offerings (olah and hatat) for two reasons: 1) It is a slaughtered whereas bird-offerings are nipped. Also, there are various sacrifices for which there is a sliding-scale: a rich person brings a bullock, a person of medium wealth brings a sheep or goat and a poor person brings a bird. Hence, a bird is a lesser sacrifice. 2) Part of the tithe is burned on the altar namely its blood and innards (emurim), the same way that parts of a most holy sacrifice are burned on the altar. In contrast, although the bird hatat and olah are most holy sacrifices, only the innards of the bird hatat are put on the altar. The entire bird olah is burned on the altar, and therefore one would think that the bird olah should take precedence over the tithe. But because the bird olah takes precedence over the bird hatat (as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah) the tithe, which definitely precedes the bird hatat, must also precede the bird olah.

ויש בו קדשי קדשים – and even though the sacrifice of a bird is all Holy of Holies, or a sin-offering or a burnt offering, sacrifices [of the tithe of cattle] have to divide for the Most High (i.e., God) two things, its blood and those portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar, which is not the case for the sin-offering of a bird, for the altar only has its blood, and since it (i.e., the tithing of cattle) comes before the sin-offering of birds, all the more so to the burnt offering of a bird, for the sin-offering of a bird precedes that of a burnt-offering of a bird, as will be explained further on (i.e., in the next Mishnah).

שהן מיני דמים (they produce blood for atonement) – and [different] kinds of blood their atonement is great.

Birds precede meal-offerings (, because they are blood sacrifices. Meal-offerings are offered by the very, very poor, those who can’t even offer a bird (see Leviticus 5:11). Hence, a bird-offering precedes them. Also, the blood of a bird-offering is sprinkled on the altar, and there is obviously no blood to the meal-offering.

חטאת העוף קודמת לעולת העוף – as it is written (Leviticus 5:8): “[He shall bring them to the priest,] who shall offer first the one for the purification offering (i.e., sin-offering), [pinching its head at the nape without severing it],” he built an analogy based upon induction/בנין אב for all sin-offerings that precedes a burnt offering whether for cattle or for birds (see Tractate Zevakhim 90a).

A sinner’s meal-offering precedes a voluntary meal-offering, because it comes on account of sin. The sinner’s meal offering (Leviticus 5:11) is brought to atone for certain sins, either various false oaths or bringing defilement into the Temple. It precedes the voluntary meal-offering because it atones, whereas the voluntary meal-offering does not atone for any sin.

וכן להקדשה – when he dedicates its nest, which is two doves or two pigeons, he calls first for the sin-offering.

A hatat of a bird precedes an olah of a bird. The rabbis derive from Leviticus 5:8 that the hatat takes precedence over the olah. Note that in 10:2 the mishnah stated that parts of the olah take place to parts of the hatat. That was in reference to parts of animal sacrifices. When it comes to the whole sacrifice, the hatat takes precedence.

And it is likewise when he dedicates them. When a person brings a bird offering as a hatat, he also brings one bird as on olah (Leviticus 5:7). When he separates them and declares which is the hatat and which is the olah, he must first designate the hatat and then the olah.

קודמות לאשמות – if he was liable for a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and brings them the sin-offering precedes, as it is taught in the Mishnah (Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 2): “that its blood is placed on the four on the four corners [of an altar] and on the foundation.”

All hatats in the Torah precede ashams, except the asham of a metzora (one with a skin, because it comes to make [a person] fit. As we learned in mishnah two of this chapter, the hatat takes precedence over the asham because its blood is sprinkled on all four corners of the altar, whereas the blood of the asham is sprinkled on only two corners. There is one exception to this rule and that is the asham of the metzora (Leviticus 14:14). The blood of this asham is placed on the ear, thumb and large toe of the metzora and it purifies him from his skin affliction. This makes him fit to participate in rituals which require purity. The metzora also brings a hatat and this sacrifice is also required in order for him to be purified from his affliction. However, since it is the blood from the asham and not the blood of the hatat that is placed on his body, it takes precedence.

מפני שהוא בא להכשיר – [because it renders fit] the leper to Holy Things and to enter into the Sanctuary, therefore, it is of importance/value regarding him, that his spiritual purity is dependent upon it.

All ashams of the Torah must be two-year olds and [two] silver shekels in value, except a nazirite’s asham and the asham of a metzorah, for they are a year old, and need not be [two] silver shekels in value. The mishnah now begins to discuss some general principles with regard to the asham. The Torah describes most ashams as being “rams.” In order to be a ram the animal must be at least two years old. The asham must also be worth at least two silver shekels. In describing the asham brought for illegal trespass of Temple property Leviticus 5:15 states that it must be worth “shekalim” which is the plural of “shekel.” The minimum number of a plural is two, and therefore the asham ram must be worth at least two shekels. There are two exceptions to this rule: the asham brought by the nazirite and the asham brought by the metzora. When it comes to the nazirite’s asham, Numbers 6:12 says that he must “bring a lamb (keves) in its first year as an asham.” The same word “keves” is used in Leviticus 14:12 with regard to the metzora’s asham, and hence we can learn that it too is one year old, and not two. If a two-year old ram is worth two shekels, then a one year old lamb is not worth two shekels (at least not usually). Therefore, the rabbis waive the requirement that these ashams, which are lambs and not rams, must be worth two silver shekels.

ובאים בכסף שקלים – as it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any of the LORD’s sacred tings, he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram without blemish from the flock;] convertible into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight, [as a reparation/guilt offering],” as a guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated articles (i.e., restoring its value to the Temple, pay an additional fifth, and bringing this offering) and it brings an uncertain guilt-offering (i.e., brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that required a sin-offering).and a guilt-offering for robbery (i.e., when he denies that he owes someone money, takes a false oath to support his claim, and later admits his guilt. To atone for his misdeed, he returns the money, pays the wronged party an additional fifth of the sum, and sacrifices this offering) as an analogy [with the words]"ערכך" "ערכך" (see Leviticus 5:15: “convertible/כערכך into payment in silver by the sanctuary weight” and Leviticus 5:18): “”He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock, or the equivalent/בערכך, as a reparation – i.e., guilt – offering.”) and the guilt-offering for a handmaiden designated to become the wife of one selected by her master/שפחה חרופה we derive [in an analogy] by "איל" "איל" (i.e., the ram of reparation offering – as in Leviticus 19:21: “But he must bring to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, as his reparation offering to the LORD a ram/איל of reparation offering” and Leviticus 5:15: “he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram/איל without blemish from the flock.”).

חוץ מאשם נזיר ואשם מצורע – as it is written concerning them (Numbers 7:14): “[As his offering to the LORD he shall present:] one male lamb in its first year, without blemish, for a burnt offering; one ewe lamb in its first year, without blemish, for a purification offering; one ram without blemish for an offering of well-being.” For since a ram of two years of age is for two Sela, a lamb one year old is not for two Sela.

כך הם קודמים לאכילה – it refers to all of them as they are consumed, such as the sin-offering is consumed prior to the guilt-offering and the thanksgiving offering [is consumed] prior to the peace offering.

Introduction Our mishnah returns to the discussion of what sacrifices take precedence over other sacrifices.

שלמים – of the sacrifice of last night.

Just as they take precedence in being offered, so they take precedence in being eaten. Until now our chapter of mishnah has been discussing precedence with regard to sacrificing an animal (or meal-offering). Now the mishnah adds that if someone has two or more sacrifices to eat, the rules of precedence continue to apply. The hatat precedes the asham, the asham precedes the todah, etc.

וחכמים אומרים כו' – And the Halakha is according to the Sages. And that which is more frequent and that which is holier, such as the blood of the burnt-offering of the daily offering and the blood of a sin-offering which endure, this is more frequent and this is more holy than it, for we state that the blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt offering because it is procures pardon. But a thing that is raised [as a question] in the Gemara (Tractate Zevakhim 90b-91a) but is not deduced (i.e., in a “conflict” between that which is more frequent/תדיר and that which is more sacred/מקודש, which takes precedence?). And it appears that what is more “frequent” takes precedence.

Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s shelamim, yesterday’s takes precedence. A shelamim can be eaten the day it is sacrificed, the following night and the following day. Since yesterday’s shelamim must be eaten before the day is over, it takes precedence over today’s shelamim, which has longer in which to be eaten.

Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s hatat and asham, yesterday's shelamim takes precedence, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the hatat takes precedence, because it is a most sacred sacrifice. Yesterday’s shelamim must be eaten by the end of the day, whereas the hatat and the asham that were offered today can be eaten today and tonight. To Rabbi Meir, the fact that the shelamim must be eaten earlier than the hatat or asham means that it takes precedence, despite the general rule that the asham and hatat take precedence over the shelamim. The sages rule that today’s hatat takes precedence over yesterday’s shelamim, and the same would hold true for today’s asham. Since they are most holy sacrifices their innate holiness overrides any consideration of how much longer the sacrifice can be eaten.

ובכולן – with all that is consumed.

Introduction This mishnah discusses how the sacrifices that priests eat are to be prepared. It is brought here because the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is tangentially related to the debate between the sages and Rabbi Shimon in yesterday’s mishnah.

רשאין הכנים לשנות באכילתן – such as to eat them roasted, cooked or seethed, for regarding the gifts of the priesthood it is written (Numbers 18:8): “[the LORD spoke further to Aaron: I hereby give you charge of My gifts, all the sacred donations of the Israelites;] I grant them to you and to your sons as a perquisite, a due for all time,” for greatness, in the manner that the kings/royalty eat roasted, seethed and/or cooked and with refreshments and spices.

And in all of these, the priests may deviate in how they eat, and eat them roasted, stewed or boiled. The priest(s) eating the sacrifice may choose to prepare the meat in any way they wish. There are no restrictions as to how the meat can be eaten.

And one may season them with hullin spices or terumah spices, the words of Rabbi Shimon. According to Rabbi Shimon, the priest may spice his sacrificial meat with either sacred (terumah) or non-sacred (hullin) spices.

שלא יביא את התרומה לידי פסול – since the spices that absorbed the flavor of the Holy Things, if they would become remnants/left-overs (i.e., past the time when they should be consumed, they would be an explicit prohibition because of the flavor of the Holy Things that were absorbed in them.

Rabbi Meir says: one should not season them with terumah spices, so as not to bring terumah to unfitness. Rabbi Meir points out that by spicing his sacrificial meat with terumah spices, the priest might cause the terumah to become unfit for eating. This is because there is a time limit as to how long any sacrifice can be eaten, be it the day it is slaughtered and the following night, or the following night and day. If he spices the meat with terumah, then the spices will absorb some of the taste of the meat. Since they have the taste of the meat, they will be restricted with regard to how long they can be eaten, just as the meat was restricted. Once past this time, they will need to be burned, the same rule that applies to the meat. Thus, by spicing his sacrifice with terumah he may cause terumah to have to be burned, and this is prohibited. Rabbi Meir rules, therefore, that the priest should not use terumah to season his sacrificial meal.

שהוא מתחלק – [distributed] for the consumption by the Kohanim.

Introduction In this mishnah Rabbi Shimon points out how one could identify what type of oil is being divided up by the priests in the Temple courtyard and what type of oil is being burned in order to remove it.

מותר רקיקי מנחת ישראל – the meal-offering of something baked from which comes loaves and wafers. Loaves that are kneaded with oil and wafers that are rubbed with oil, and Rabbi Shimon said in Tractate Menahot [75a] like the [Greek] letter KI (the Greek KAF – which is an “X”), and the rest of the oil is consumed by the Kohanim.

Rabbi Shimon said: if you see oil being divided in the Temple courtyard, you don’t need to ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of oil of the wafers of the Israelite’s meal-offerings, or of the metzora’s log of oil. The extra oil used to anoint the meal offering brought by an Israelite goes to the priests. The “wafers of the Israelite’s meal-offerings” refers to a type of meal offering that is either brought as loaves soaked with oil or as wafers that have been dabbed with oil (see Leviticus 2:4: we will learn a lot more about the meal-offering, the minhah, in tractate Menahot). The remnant of the oil brought by the metzora (a person afflicted with scale disease, see Leviticus 14:15) also belongs to the priest. This oil is brought in a vessel and used among other things to anoint the metzora. What is leftover, the priest gets to keep.

מותר רקיקי מנחת כהנים – for the meal offering of the Kohanim is completely burned, the oil that floats on top of it and the remnant that is not absorbed in it, they burn it separately.

If you see oil being poured on to the fires, you don’t need not ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of the oil of the wafers of priests’ meal-offerings, or of the anointed priest's meal-offering; for one cannot voluntarily offer offer oil [alone]. Rabbi Shimon now explains what oil doesn’t go to the priest and instead is poured out onto the altar. If the priest is bringing the minhah (meal) offering, then neither he nor any other priest gets to keep the oil. All of this meal offering, and all of the oil, is burned. The high priest (the anointed priest) offers a minhah offering every day. The remnant of this oil does not go to the priests, but rather is burned.. A person cannot voluntarily offer just oil. Therefore, any oil that one sees in the Temple being either divided up among the priests or burned on the altar cannot come from a voluntary offering. This line comes to explain how one knows that the oil being divided up among the priests or burned on the altar is not from a voluntary offering oil simply cannot be brought alone as a voluntary offering.

ומותר מנחת כהן המשיח – for its oil is greater, three LOG for a tenth of an Ephah, and since it is baked first, its oil is not absorbed in its broken pieces and the remnant/remainder needs to be offered up separately.

Rabbi Tarfon say: oil can be voluntarily offered [alone]. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees and holds that oil can be brought as an individual offering. Therefore, if one sees oil being divided or burned it might also come from such an offering.

שאין מתנדבים שמן – therefore, it should not occur to you that the oil is distributed or that which is offered up as incense is a free-will offering.

ר' טרפון אומר מתנדבים שמן – separately. And not less than a LOG, and it is burned separately. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Tarfon. And similarly, the Halakah is that they offer wine as a free-will offering separately, and they do not offer less than three LOG, and they toss/sprinkle it on top of the altar fires and it is burned there. But even though he puts out the fire of the pile of wood on the altar of the Temple, and the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 6:6): “[A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar,] not to go out,” since he does not intend to put it out, it is permitted, for we hold like Rabbi Shimon that a thig that is not intended is permitted, and it is not an inevitable consequence. For it is possible that the fire will be large and strong and will prevail over the wine and not be put out.