Does that not refer to those of the Festival? (1) — No: [it means those] of a votive offering: (2) bullocks precede rams, because their drinkofferings are larger; (3) and for the same reason rams [precede] lambs; [while] lambs [precede] he-goats because more [is offered] of them, [viz.,] the fat-tail. (4) Come and hear: The bullock of the anointed priest precedes the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin; the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock for idolatry; the bullock of idolatry precedes the he-goats of idolatry. [And this is so] not withstanding that the bullock of idolatry is a burnt-offering, whereas the he-goats of idolatry are sin-offerings? But why not deduce from the first clause: the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock of idolatry? (5) — We do not speak [of where both sacrifices are] of one kind: there a sin-offering [certainly] takes precedence. We speak of two kinds, (6) and yet here we find a burnt-offering preceding a sinoffering? — In the West [Palestine] they said in Raba b. Mari's name: The sin-offering of idolatry lacks an alef, as le-hattath is written. (7) Rabina said: In their case (8) ‘according to the ordinance’ is written. (9) Now that you have come to this, you may even say that [the preceding passage refers to] the bullocks of the Festival, [for] ‘after their ordinance’ is written in connection with them too. (10) It was asked: [With regard to] a bird sinoffering, an animal burnt-offering, and tithe, which of these precede? (11) Shall the bird sinoffering come first? there is tithe, which must precede it! Shall tithe come first? there is the animal burnt-offering, which must precede it! Shall the animal burnt-offering come first? there is the bird sin-offering, which must precede it! — Here (12) they held that a slaughtered sacrifice is more important. (13) In the West they said: The superiority of an animal burnt-offering [over tithe] serves the bird sin-offering and advances it over that of tithe. (14) MISHNAH. ALL SIN-OFFERINGS IN THE TORAH PRECEDE GUILT-OFFERINGS, (15) EXCEPT A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING, BECAUSE IT COMES TO MAKE [A PERSON] FIT. (16) ALL GUILT-OFFERINGS OF THE TORAH MUST BE (17) TWO-YEAR OLDS AND [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE, (18) EXCEPT A NAZIRITES GUILT-OFFERING AND A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING: THESE MUST BE A YEAR OLD, AND NEED NOT BE [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE. (19) AS THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING OFFERED, SO THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING EATEN. (20) IN THE CASE OF A PEACEOFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A PEACEOFFERING OF TO-DAY, (21) THAT OF YESTERDAY TAKES PRECEDENCE. IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING OF TO-DAY, YESTERDAY'S PEACE-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE: THAT IS R. MEIR’ S RULING. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THE SINOFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE, BECAUSE IT IS A MOST SACRED SACRIFICE. AND IN ALL OF THESE, THE PRIESTS MAY DEVIATE IN THEIR MODE OF EATING, AND EAT THEM ROAST, STEWED OR BOILED, AND SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF HULLIN OR OF TERUMAH: SO SAID R. SIMEON. R. MEIR SAID: ONE MAY NOT SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF TERUMAH, SO AS NOT TO BRING TERUMAH TO UNFITNESS. (22) GEMARA. It was asked: That which is more constant and that which is more sacred, (23) which takes precedence? Does that which is more constant take precedence, because it is more constant; or does that which is more sacred take precedence, because it is more sacred? — Come and hear: The continual [burnt- ]offerings precede the additional offerings.

---

(1). ↑ Sc. Tabernacles; the he-goats were sin-offerings and the lambs were burnt-offerings, yet the lambs take precedence.
(2). ↑ And both are burnt-offerings.
(3). ↑ A bullock requires a drink-offering of three ‘esronim (pl. of ‘issaron, a tenth part of an ephah), a ram one of two, and a lamb one ‘issaron.
(4). ↑ Which in the case of a lamb is burnt on the altar as emurim, but not in the case of a he-goat; cf. Lev. III, 6- (10) with 12-15. Though this passage refers to burnt-offerings, which are entirely burnt on the altar, yet the reason is valid, because it holds good of sacrifices in general.
(5). ↑ Instead of raising a difficulty from the final clause, cite the first clause to corroborate the Mishnah.
(6). ↑ Which is what the above-stated principle sets out to establish, that a bird sin-offering takes precedence over an animal burnt-offering.
(7). ↑ Heb. לחטת instead of לחטאת Num. XV, 24. This teaches that it is an exception and does not precede the burnt-offering.
(8). ↑ Sc. the offerings for idolatry.
(9). ↑ Ibid. This implies that they must be offered in the same order as they are prescribed, and the burnt-offering is mentioned there first.
(10). ↑ Ibid. XXIX, 33. There too the burnt-offerings are mentioned first. But in all other cases the sinoffering, even if it is only a bird, precedes.
(11). ↑ When we have the three together.
(12). ↑ In Babylon.
(13). ↑ Therefore tithe comes first, then the bird sinoffering and then the animal burnt-offering. The animal burnt-offering cannot come first, since Scripture expressly stated that it follows the sinoffering.
(14). ↑ Since the burnt-offering accompanies the sinoffering, the higher importance of the former over tithe, viz., that it is a most sacred sacrifice and is altogether burnt, invests the sin-offering with the same superiority over tithe. Hence the sin-offering must be sacrificed first, then the burnt-offering, and last of all tithe.
(15). ↑ Where a person was liable to both and brought them at the same time.
(16). ↑ To enter the Temple and partake of sacrifices. This invests it with greater importance.
(17). ↑ Lit., ‘come’.
(18). ↑ According to thy valuation in silver by shekels (Lev. V, 15), denoting at least two, is written in connection with the guilt-offering for trespass; other guilt-offerings are inferred from it, v. supra 48a.
(19). ↑ For both a year-old animal is prescribed (Num. VI, 12; v. Lev. XIV, 10-12). Again, since Scripture decreed that the two-year old ram for the guilt-offerings must be worth two silver shekels, a year-old lamb would be worth less.
(20). ↑ This refers to all sacrifices, those enumerated in the preceding Mishnah too.
(21). ↑ I.e., the former animal was brought yesterday, but has not yet been offered. Or, one sacrificed yesterday and one to-day, but neither has yet been eaten.
(22). ↑ For should they become nothar, the condiments too might not be eaten, even if they could be separated from the flesh, because they absorbed the taste of that flesh, which is now forbidden.
(23). ↑ E.g. if we have the blood of the daily burntoffering and that of a sin-offering for sprinkling: the daily burnt-offering is more constant, while the sin-offering is more sacred.