Talmud do Zewachim 10:14

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said: “The ram he shall offer, etc.²⁰⁶Num. 6:17.” Why does the verse say, “he shall offer”? Start the procedure with it²⁰⁷In Sifry zuṭa 17, this argument is tannaïtic and attributed to R. Jehudah. It seems that he contrasts the imperfect used for sacrificing the well-being offering with the perfect used for the other offerings, to indicate beginning of an action. In the Babli and Sifry Num. 35, the preferred treatment of the well-being offering is deduced from v. 18.. Rebbi Ḥinena objected before Rebbi Mana²⁰⁸The R. Mana quoted in this Halakhah is neither R. Mana I, of the first, nor R. Mana II, of the fifth generation. Either there exists a third, otherwise unkown, Amora of this name or “Mana” is erroneous for “Yasa”, or “Ze‘ira” is erroneous for “Ezra”.: But is it not written: “He shall offer his flour offering and his libation²⁰⁶Num. 6:17.”? Should he not start with them? How is that? Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: If he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation²⁰⁹Flour offerings and libations are mentioned last in v. 17. They accompany both the well-being offering (v. 17) and the elevation offering, mentioned in v. 16 together with the purification offering which needs neither flour nor wine. It is inferred that the order of the sacrifices is irrelevant.. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: Who is the Tanna of: “All purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings”? Rebbi Eleazar said, it is everybody’s opinion, “all purification offerings in the Torah precede the reparation offerings.²¹⁰Mishnah Zebaḥim 10:5. No reparation offering is due from the pure nazir.”

HALAKHAH: There¹⁰¹Mishnah Zebaḥim 10:7, speaking of the way Cohanim ate sacrificial meat in the Temple., we have stated: “The Cohanim are permitted in all cases to change the preparation of the food, to eat it broiled, cooked a long time,¹⁰²Since sacrifices had to be eaten in one or at most two days, one could have thought that a way of cooking usually reserved for vegetable preserves was forbidden. or plain; to add profane and heave spices, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meïr says, he should not add [heave spices], to cause heave to become unusable¹⁰³Since the Cohanim might not be able to consume all sacrificial meat in time, the remainder would have to be burned, including the spices from heave..” It turns out that the anonymous statement here becomes the minority opinion there. Is the anonymous statement here the minority opinion there¹⁰⁴The first clause of Mishnah Zebaḥim, speaking of the different kinds of preparation of meat, is in fact anonymous. But the part about spices, which we are interested in, is R. Simeon’s.? But the anonymous statement here is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr there and between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Simeon¹⁰⁵Therefore, R. Simeon’s opinion should count as an anonymous one. This is a decision of R. Joḥanan (Terumot 3:1, fol. 42a). In the Babli (Erubin 46b), the question of precedence between Rebbis Simeon and Meïr is declared to be undecidable. {Cf. also Demay, Chapter 5, Note 120, Terumot Chapter 3, Note 25.}. Rebbi Assi said, I asked those of the House of Rebbi Yannai and they said, we used to cook small portions and eat¹⁰⁶R. Meïr might agree with the practice to use heave spices in small dishes that will be eaten immediately since then the danger to the heave is minimized. The precaution to cook only small portions would be unnecessary for R. Simeon. This proves that R. Yannai did not follow R. Simeon and his practical decision should be followed.. How is that¹⁰⁷How could this be justified?? Practice follows Rebbi Meïr there for his is the anonymous opinion here.