6) click for question
(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.
7) click for question
(a) The basis of the Kashya that only the first Matanah of the Chatas ought to precede the Matanos of the Olah is - the fact that it is the only one that is crucial to the Avodah (as we learned in the fourth Perek).
(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.
8) click for question
(a) We ask which takes precedence, the Evarim 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 from the Seifa 'Evrei Olah Kodmin le'Emurei Chatas', however - by making the same inference, 'Ha le'Dam Chatas Lo Kodim' (thereby negating the first inference).
(c) And we refute a similar proof that Emurei Chatas take precedence over Dam Olah via the inference from the same piece of Mishnah 'Dam Chatas* Kodem le'Dam Olah', 'Ha Emurei 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'.
9) click for question
(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 Emurei Asham - because then we would have extrapolated ' ... but not Emurei Chatas (which take priority over Emurei 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 Emurim.
2. ... prove that, in fact, the Tana must be talking about Emurim (and not Dam) - from the Lashon 'Mipnei she'Damah Nitein (and not 'Mipnei she'Nitnis ... ) al Arba K'ranos'.
10) click for question
(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 Shekalim [of that time] 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 require loaves of bread.
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.
11) click for question
(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.
(c) Our Mishnah has already given a Shelamim priority over a B'chor. 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) The fact that a B'chor is Kadosh me'Rechem however, does override the advantage that Ma'aser has over B'chor - (i.e. 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).
12) click for question
(a) The Tana gives precedence to Ma'aser Beheimah over Kodshim birds for the two reasons specified in the Mishnah. We might however, have said otherwise - because Kodshim birds are Kodshei Kodshim (whilst Ma'aser is basically Kodshim Kalim).
(b) Ravina bar Shilo rules that Emurei 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.
13) click for question
(a) We answer that the Tana inserts 'Damav' in order to compare 'Emurav' 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).
14) click for question
(a) If Basar Kodshim 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 'Emurin she'Yatz'u ... ', which are not due to be taken out anyway, even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that they are Pasul.
(c) We reject this proof however, inasmuch as they argue by Emurin 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 chose 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).
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Maseches Zevachim
Homepage for Maseches Zevachim