GEMARA. How do we know these things? — Because our Rabbis taught: And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sinoffering: (1) Now, if this comes to teach that there are two [sacrifices], surely it has already been said, And offer thou the one for a sinoffering, and the other for a burnt-offering. (2) What then is taught by, And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering? For one might think that a sinoffering takes precedence over all the rites of a burnt-offering, (3) therefore it says. And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering. (4) If [we had only the text] And a second young bullock [to go by], you might think that a burnt-offering precedes a sinoffering in all its rites: therefore it says, And offer thou the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering. How are these [to be reconciled]? The blood of a sin-offering takes precedence over the blood of a burntoffering [in sprinkling], because it propitiates. (5) THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING, etc. Yet why so? say that [only] the first application [of the blood of the sin-offering], which makes atonement, takes precedence, but not the rest? (6) — Said Rabina: Here we are treating of the Levites’ sin-offering, and though it was like a burnt-offering, (7) the Divine Law ordered it to take precedence. (8) In the West [Palestine] they said: Since he commenced the applications [of the sinoffering], he completes [them]. It was asked: Regarding the blood of a sin-offering and the limbs of a burnt-offering, which of them takes precedence? Does the blood of a sin-offering take precedence, because it propitiates; or perhaps the limbs of a burnt-offering take precedence, because they are entirely [destined] for [altar] fires? — Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SINOFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; thus only the blood of a burnt-offering does it precede, but it does not precede the limbs of a burnt-offering. On the contrary, [infer] from the subsequent clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SINOFFERING: thus only the emurim of a sinoffering do they precede, but they do not precede the blood of a sin-offering. Rather, no inference can be made from this. It was asked: [As to] the blood of a burnt-offering and the emurim of a sin-offering, which of these takes precedence? Does the blood of a burnt-offering take precedence, because it comes in virtue of a sacrifice that is altogether burnt; or perhaps the emurim of a sinoffering take precedence, because they come in virtue of an atoning [sacrifice]?— Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SINOFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; thus, only the blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burntoffering, but the emurim of a sin-offering do not. On the contrary, [infer] from the subsequent clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING: thus, only the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the emurim of a sin-offering, but the blood of a burnt-offering does not. Rather, no inference can be made from this. It was asked: [As to] the blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering, which takes precedence? Does the blood of a burnt-offering precede, because it comes in virtue of a sacrifice that is altogether burnt; or perhaps the blood of a guilt-offering precedes, because it makes atonement? — Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SINOFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; hence the blood of a guilt-offering does not. [No:] by right he [the Tanna] should have taught the blood of a guilt-offering [too], but because he wishes to teach in a later clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING; for if he taught [that they precede] the emurim of a guilt-offering, I would argue: only the emurim of a guilt-offering do they precede, but they do not precede the emurim of a sinoffering; (9) for that reason he teaches about a sin-offering [only]. Come and hear: A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES A GUILT-OFFERING; thus, only a sin-offering precedes a guilt-offering, but a burnt-offering does not. Surely that refers to the blood? — No: it refers to the emurim. This may be proved too, for he teaches BECAUSE ITS BLOOD IS APPLIED, [and does not teach, Because it is applied]. (10) This proves it. A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES, etc. On the contrary, a guilt-offering should precede, because it has a fixed value? (11) — Even so, the greater number of altar [rites] is more important. A GUILT-OFFERING PRECEDES A THANKSOFFERING, etc. On the contrary, a thanks-offering and a Nazirite’s ram should take precedence, since they require loaves? — Even so, sacrifices of higher sanctity are more important. A THANKSOFFERING AND A NAZIRITE'S RAM, etc. On the contrary, a peace-offering should take precedence, since it is congregational as well as private? (12) — Even so [the fact that] they are eaten for one day only is more weighty. It was asked: [As to] a thanks-offering and a Nazirite’s ram, which of these takes precedence? Does a thanks-offering take precedence, because it requires [the accompaniment of] four kinds of loaves; (13) or perhaps a Nazirite’s ram takes precedence, because other sacrifices (14) accompany it? (15) — Come and hear: This one precedes the other, (16) because the former requires four kinds of loaves, whereas the latter requires only two kinds of loaves. (17) A PEACE-OFFERING PRECEDES A FIRSTLING, etc. On the contrary, a firstling should take precedence, since its sanctity is from the womb and it is eaten by priests [only]? — Even so, the greater number of rites [connected with a peace-offering] are more important. A FIRSTLING PRECEDES, etc. On the contrary, tithe should take precedence, since it sanctifies what precedes it and what follows it? (18) Even so, sanctity from the womb is weightier. TITHE PRECEDES BIRD-OFFERINGS, etc. On the contrary, bird-offerings should take precedence, since they are most sacred? — Even so, the species of slaughtering is more important. Rabina b. Shila said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices are taken out (19) before the sprinkling of the blood, they are disqualified. Now, our Tanna supports this: BECAUSE IT IS A SLAUGHTERED SACRIFICE, AND PART OF IT IS MOST SACRED, [VIZ.,] ITS BLOOD AND EMURIM. As for emurim, it is well, [as] these are absent in birds; but blood at all events is present? (20) Surely then he informs us this: emurim are like blood: just as blood [is most holy] before sprinkling, so are emurim [most holy only] before sprinkling, and [only then] are they designated most sacred; and as blood is disqualified through being taken out, so are emurim disqualified through going out. Shall we say that the following supports him: If the flesh of lesser sacrifices was taken out before the sprinkling of the blood, R. Johanan says: It is fit; Resh Lakish maintains: It is disqualified. R. Johanan says [that] it is fit, since it must eventually be carried out [in any case]. (21) Resh Lakish maintains [that] it is disqualified: it was not yet time for it to be carried out. Thus, they disagree only in respect of flesh, but not in respect of emurim! (22) — [No:] in fact they disagree in respect of emurim too, but the reason that they disagree [explicitly] about flesh is to inform you how far Resh Lakish maintains his view, (23) that even flesh, which will eventually be carried out, he maintains that it was not yet time for it to be carried out. Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim: [With regard to] emurim of lesser sacrifices which were taken out before sprinkling: R. Eliezer maintains: They do not involve trespass, (24)

---

(1). ↑ Num. VIII, 8. This treats of the consecration of the Levites.
(2). ↑ Ibid. 12. He speaks of it as ‘already said’ although it comes later.
(3). ↑ As is implied in v. 13, where sin-offering is mentioned first.
(4). ↑ Which intimates that it is second to the burntoffering in the performance of its rites.
(5). ↑ Whilst the limbs of the burnt-offering are burnt before the emurim of a sin-offering.
(6). ↑ For atonement is made with a single application, supra 38a.
(7). ↑ Since it was not on account of sin at all.
(8). ↑ Hence its precedence does not cease when atonement has been made, since here there was no atonement.
(9). ↑ Since a sin-offering is more sacred than a guiltoffering.
(10). ↑ If by SIN-OFFERING he meant the blood, he should say, because it is applied. Emended text.
(11). ↑ Not less than two shekels; v. Lev. V, 15: a ram... according to thy valuation in silver by shekels... for a guilt-offering. Shekels implies at least two, whereas a sin-offering may be of any value.
(12). ↑ Congregational (public) peace-offerings were offered on the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 19, whereas these others were private sacrifices only.
(13). ↑ V. Lev. VII, 12f.
(14). ↑ Lit., ‘blood’.
(15). ↑ Sc. a sin-offering and a burnt-offering.
(16). ↑ Sc. the thanks-offering precedes the Nazirite’s ram.
(17). ↑ V. Num. VI, 15.
(18). ↑ If a man counts his cattle in order to tithe them, and declares the ninth and eleventh each as the tenth, in addition to the real tenth, they are all sanctified.
(19). ↑ Of the Temple court.
(20). ↑ Hence blood should not be mentioned, since in this respect birds are the same.
(21). ↑ As it is eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
(22). ↑ Presumably R. Johanan too agrees that these are disqualified.
(23). ↑ Lit., ‘to inform you the strength of Resh Lakish’.
(24). ↑ V. p. 405, n. 8. — This is even after sprinkling, because sprinkling is now of no avail to make them subject to trespass.